| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |

David Grogan
The Motley Crew Reborn Warped Aggression
24
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 15:03:00 -
[31] - Quote
if u want us to suggest a limit.
1000 fittings for corp/alliance to cater for all fleet doctrines for a) low sp pilots, b) mid sp pilots c) fully skilled fits
200 fittings for personal
|

Vicar2008
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Warped Aggression
16
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 15:12:00 -
[32] - Quote
As an example of why 50 fits are sometimes not enough.. let me toss out a few fits currently sitting in my list (not the full fit, just the role/name)
Arty Maelstrom AC maelstrom Arty tempest Tanky Typhoon Mission Raven Mission CNR Ewar Scorp Mission Drake PvP Drake #1 PvP Drake #2 Arty 'cane AC 'cane (nano) AC 'cane (armor) PvP Ferox PvP Vaga PvP Cynabal PvP Ruppy PvP Stabber PvP Caracal #1 PvP Caracal #2 (trying a variation of #1) Wolf #1 Wolf #2 Jaguar #1 Jaguar #2 (experiment) Hound nullsec Hound hisec Manticore experiment
Thats just off the top of my head. I have several variations of some of these fittings, and also a few fittings others have sent me that I'm using as goals/reference for future planning.
50 seems like a lot, but really isn't that hard to fill up if you use it.[/quote]
All Gallente do is win win win, oh wait....  |

Soi Mala
Whacky Waving Inflatable Flailing Arm Tubemen
20
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 15:20:00 -
[33] - Quote
50 isn't quite enough, but not by far. I fly all races, pretty much anything sub capital, and do all manner of pvp/pve, so i will be one of the worst case scenarios. I have just about got enough space for MY fittings for the ships i use (I am one of the apparent few who have 50, i sometimes have to delete older fits to make room etc), but it would be nice to have a few extra slots for fits that other people have linked and i might wanna try some day, or fittings that i wouldn't necessarily use, but are useful linkable information for alliance mates etc.
100 would be a good number. |

Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
32
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 15:29:00 -
[34] - Quote
We can look at what might be a reasonable upper limit.
If you got 30 ships you regularly fly and want 5 different fits for each, that's 150. So 200 personal fittings would cover it.
For corps, given there are so many different roles a player can fill, we need many more. 1000 should cover it.
With 200 and 1000, I doubt you will get many complaints. CCP employees should never proclaim a feature to be awesome. Only subscribers should. |

Nyio
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
45
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 15:35:00 -
[35] - Quote
About the fittings, I had to delete all i had saved when (before) the change was implemented. I then had about 130 I think, though most were really not important to keep.
Now I find myself being overly cautious and not saving any fittings.
CCP Prism X wrote:However, if you really want to remove personal fittings from the DB and back to the client then you're back in ClientLand. I don't really do ClientLand so I cannot speak to the complexity of that.
What about moving the location bookmark folders to the server? As it is now the bookmarks are serverside, but not the folders we create to sort them.
Also it is currently a pain to sort them.. I would be very happy if the location bookmarking got some dev love.  Needs a banner here.. |

Denidil
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
79
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 15:38:00 -
[36] - Quote
Gorki Andropov wrote:Sir Substance wrote:Gorki Andropov wrote:CCP Prism X wrote:Out of interest, what cap would be acceptable. There has to be a cap or people will never bother with cleaning up the fittings they never use and nobody likes having useless data in our DB if we can avoid it.
Pardon us, Mother, for perhaps wanting not to be bothered about any messiness we might have, in the game that we pay for Dude, you are an idiot. Database clutter affects every player in the game. If you double the size of a database, the retrieval time goes up by between two and four times depending on the circumstances. Pick your **** up you disgusting slob, is what I'm saying. First of all, I am not your dude. Secondly, if I want to have 5 dozen Celestis fittings, I should really be able to have that. Why can't I? The amount of DB space required for fittings is probably small in the grand scheme of things. I would just love to be able to have the old system back.
probably small * 300k people != small.
i do have an idea Prism X. you should be able to save fittings locally, or to server. that would deal with the cap on both ends, but also upping it to 100 on the server would not be unreasonable givin the stats for who uses it.
WiS is kinda cool and all, but FiS is more important.-á More FIS WORK! Nerf Supers, get the new backgrounds, buff assault ships, do the 0.0 balance, buff lowsec. and make a space pony! DUST SHOULD BE ON THE PC (a real platform!) GDI! I WILL NOT BUY A FQNG PS3 |

Crunchmeister
THORN Syndicate BricK sQuAD.
34
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 15:56:00 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Prism X wrote:I was just looking at the stats from TQ after reading this and: Out of ~310k characters only ~102k have more than 10 fittings saved or a little less than a third of all people using fittings. Looking at the rest of the gap there are ~58k characters with twenty or more fittings saved, 37k with thirty or more, ~23k with forty and a little less than 8k pilots are already on the limit of fifty.
Out of curiosity, how many of these are actively used accounts with regular activity? How many of these are cyno alts / mining alts / industrial alts that only fly a very limited number of ships and store very few fittings? While your looking into the stats is nice, I think your overview of it is far too macroscopic.
Now look at high SP pilots who can actually fly multiple races of ships and do so on a regular basis. I can bet those are the ones that have near their upper limit. Personally, I have to store my most used fittings on the server, but have to store my other fits in EveHQ. I leave some free slots so that I can import my EveHQ fits into the game when I need them. Really, 50 slots is just ridiculously low for higher skilled pilots.
|

baltec1
25
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 15:56:00 -
[38] - Quote
bumping it up to 100 sounds cool. |

Nin Kimrov
Kenzi Arms and Munitions
20
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 16:12:00 -
[39] - Quote
They will never bump it higher than it is currently. The number was chosen because it was a marketing move for a future strategy, Less than 50 there would have been lots more of complains about missing slots. More, you wouldn't be able to sell them through the Nex shop. 50 is the magic number. |

Jake Rivers
Rule of Five Vera Cruz Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 16:40:00 -
[40] - Quote
Lens Thirring wrote:CCP Prism X wrote: I was just looking at the stats from TQ after reading this and: Out of ~310k characters etc.
This is an interesting number.
Not really, out of my 5 accounts and 12 characters spread out over them, only 2 characters have fittings saved, one with 3 or 4 logi type fits and my main with 15 or so, mostly PVE.
I use the killboard to store my PVP fits.  |

Katowen
14
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 16:42:00 -
[41] - Quote
KaarBaak wrote:Tippia wrote:Grey Stormshadow wrote:If the fittings would be local, the dB usage would be pretty much 0 bytes / 1000 fittings. Optimally, you'd be able to store in both locations GÇö things you want to make sure you have everywhere (and, obviously, corp fittings) go into the cloud; fittings you're just toying around with and/or you will only ever use one computer goes local. So the question is: how hard would that be GÇö to read and write fittings to two different locations? This makes the most sense. If there were a third option...ie " Personal (max 50)" " Corp (max 100)" " Local (max unlimited)" See how the usage changes with that, then look into adding additonal slots. I'm a multi-computer user, so I prefer using the server-side storage. But as the quoted post above says, sometimes I'm just looking at fits temporarily or something and would use whatever machine I'm currently on for that. KB
For me, this seems like the most flexible solution.
Katowen |

Ammzi
Imperial Guardians Blazing Angels Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 17:03:00 -
[42] - Quote
I am an incursion runner and I have 50 fittings already filling up. 100 please! |

Denidil
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
79
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 17:11:00 -
[43] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:I am an incursion runner and I have 50 fittings already filling up.  100 please!
wtf,, you don't need that many fits for incursions, no matter how you roll.
let's say you fly with both shield and armor fleets and can do all rolls
2-4 logi fits 2-4 battleship fits 2-4 command ship fits
what the hell else do you need?
i only fly armor DPS in incursions so i have 1 commandship fit... WiS is kinda cool and all, but FiS is more important.-á More FIS WORK! Nerf Supers, get the new backgrounds, buff assault ships, do the 0.0 balance, buff lowsec. and make a space pony! DUST SHOULD BE ON THE PC (a real platform!) GDI! I WILL NOT BUY A FQNG PS3 |

Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
22
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 17:12:00 -
[44] - Quote
CCP Prism X wrote:Lens Thirring wrote:This is an interesting number. Yeah I'd have thought more people would use the "Save Fitting" feature. 
The 8000 people who have max fitting, and I am one of them, are the few that actually probably use it the least. Think about it... If it's full, you can't import, you can't save, you can't do anything with the tool. It totally blocks you out from ACTIVELY using it. They probably logged in the day of the update, ran the updater and haven't touched it since because they are frustrated and can't deal with having to deal with importing and exporting. I love the fitting manager, but I hate the current implementation from a user stand point.
Anyone who ACTIVELY uses the fitting tool is going to leave some space to "work" in there to save and modify their fittings saved. So, looking and saying "well, only 8000 people have maxed fittings" is the 8000 people who gave up on it. You're looking at the people in the 30-45 mark that are actively using it and are probably "cleaning it up" regularly to use it with space. But all you're doing is giving these same people a headache in user interface.
My issue is that there's no reason to have a cap if you allow both server side AND client side saved fittings. Then I can work and play with my fittings on my client, and then those same fittings can be saved on the client when I want them there. Same way that you can save corporation fittings, etc.
I don't think you need more than 50 fittings, you just need to permit us to save them on our client for "Workspace" for fittings. Saving friends fittings, work fittings, corp fittings, and then when we really want to save them on the server, we get the space for it.
I train a lot of PVP pilots and I tend to save a lot of different fittings from races and ships I don't even fly to help them out and throw them a fit that they can use in a jiffy. Although many people will have and save "junk" fittings - I bet you most of the people that have more than 35-40 fittings are actually serious PVP pilots that keep up to date and on top of the newest combat styles. They probably clean up the old trash fittings on their own just to not clutter THEIR space.
I don't want to clog your servers with tons of junk fittings - I DON'T want to have to keep shuffling fittings around with a poor fitting manager.
User Interface Test
GO fill your fittings full of 50 fittings (I have 45 unique ships sitting in just one of my main bases, and yes, I use them all in different PVP scenarios).
Now, imagine someone gives you a fitting, and you're maxed out, what do you have to do? You have to export one of your 50 fittings. Uncheck all the ones you SPECIFICALLY want. Then delete the fitting. Then save the new fitting. Then go back and max out the current fitting limit you have. Then when you want to import an old fitting, you have to uncheck everything, check the ones you want, and blah blah.
It's poor interface design. IF you allowed us an intermediary client "storage", then we'd gladly use it to store our "junk" fittings, and then be selective and happy with the server side fittings being saved for whenever we need it.
Contradiction in Philosophy and Reality
You state that you're worried about people storing tons of junk fitting on your server with the limitation - and then you state that 1/3 of the people hardly are near the max, the other majority are in the mid-range, and then a small percentage are in the top bracket.
If the reality is most of those people aren't even using their max fitting storage, then you're really telling me that the 50,000 who use it near max storage really have another 100,000+ peoples worth of 50+ fitting that they really should have available to them.
And, are those by account or by character? For 310K Characters, 100,000 could easily be ALTS. So, really you're looking at the majority of the player base using 20+ fittings (Which is probably realistic for the average players number of fittings). Long time veterans, PVP pilots, etc require more fittings to deal with more scenarios.
EDIT To Add thought from below ::
Also, you permit us UNLIMITED storage in the WHOLE GALAXY. You permit us a gregarious amount of E-Mail Storage. You permit us UNLIMITED Bookmarks stored. You permit us pretty much UNLIMITED usage of data storage for the rest of our EVE Junk. Yet, the Ship DNA code, which is essentially 1 very predictable line of fitting information, you're worried about data storage on?
Ship DNA:
Quote:Example: 597:25861;1:6673;3:439;1:4025;1:1183;1:1998;1:1236;1:11269;1::
____________________________________________________________________
Also, can you give us a number of how many of those numbers represent High Sec, Low Sec and 0.0? I bet you most of the people who have near-max fittings are between low sec and 0.0 dwellers.
Thanks for responding on this thread.... NOSTRO AURUM NON EST AURUM VULGI |

BLACK-STAR
57
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 17:16:00 -
[45] - Quote
I seriously don't understand how it's a problem to store fittings. The server stores evemail data, notes, the fittings are smaller than the data in your inbox and your useless undeleted bookmarks.
People utilize the fittings menu for plenty of different tanks, any and all different purposes. Now you put it a limit of 50, which is hardly anything.
CCP can put a corp/alliance fitting limit that will just make it less great of a feature and mostly useless. Then you can make it highly more useless by putting personal/local limits. Or how about, just let us do whatever we want with the tool, because it seriously has no affect on anyone what so ever.
Unlimited fittings, local or serverside (I dont care), please and thanks.
Edit:
Denidil wrote:DBAs never want to store data unless they see a real reason for it to be there. more data in the DB = slower db. I just gave a good reason, a full functional feature. and it won't slow the db down, if the db is phased loading kilobyte files then that is a epic fail. [img]http://www.imgbox.de/users/S7AR/star.png[/img] |

Denidil
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
79
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 17:20:00 -
[46] - Quote
BLACK-STAR wrote:I seriously don't understand how it's a problem to store fittings. The server stores evemail data, notes, the fittings are smaller than the data in your inbox and your useless undeleted bookmarks.
People utilize the fittings menu for plenty of different tanks, any and all different purposes. Now you put it a limit of 50, which is hardly anything.
CCP can put a corp/alliance fitting limit that will just make it less great of a feature and mostly useless. Then you can make it highly more useless by putting personal/local limits. Or how about, just let us do whatever we want with the tool, because it seriously has no affect on anyone what so ever.
Unlimited fittings, local or serverside (I dont care), please and thanks.
DBAs never want to store data unless they see a real reason for it to be there. more data in the DB = slower db.
WiS is kinda cool and all, but FiS is more important.-á More FIS WORK! Nerf Supers, get the new backgrounds, buff assault ships, do the 0.0 balance, buff lowsec. and make a space pony! DUST SHOULD BE ON THE PC (a real platform!) GDI! I WILL NOT BUY A FQNG PS3 |

Crunchmeister
THORN Syndicate BricK sQuAD.
34
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 17:24:00 -
[47] - Quote
Nin Kimrov wrote:They will never bump it higher than it is currently. The number was chosen because it was a marketing move for a future strategy, Less than 50 there would have been lots more of complains about missing slots. More, you wouldn't be able to sell them through the Nex shop. 50 is the magic number.
Agreed with this. It was one of the suggestions in the now infamous Greed Is Good document. I believe it's planned this way and will be implemented in the future at an AUR cost.
As for the argument of database clutter affecting all players - it is true. More data slows down the database for everyone. But one thing you didn't take into consideration - how is it any different of simply giving people 100 slots (most of which will never be used), or selling those to the same people that need them? The only difference is CCP will make money for the extra slots selling them, where giving them won't make them any money. People who need more than 50 will buy them, where people who don't need them wouldn't use them even if they were there. That argument is moot.
|

Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 17:30:00 -
[48] - Quote
CCP Prism X wrote: I was just looking at the stats from TQ after reading this and: Out of ~310k characters only ~102k have more than 10 fittings saved or a little less than a third of all people using fittings. Looking at the rest of the gap there are ~58k characters with twenty or more fittings saved, 37k with thirty or more, ~23k with forty and a little less than 8k pilots are already on the limit of fifty.
*sigh* More misleading data from CCP. Its misleading because you look at the numbers and you give absolutely no context. Honestly, before the fitting nerf I never saved my fittings to Eve. The reason was I just didn't use a lot. But, now, i'm into PVP. I'm training for different ships, different capabilities. Often times I will research a ship fitting before I have the ability to fit it and then save that fitting for future reference when I get around to being able to use it.
Since the nerf, I don't even bother saving my fittings in Eve. Why? Well, maybe because I don't want you guys deleting my saved fits? Maybe I don't like the idea that 50 might become 25. I do believe some people had fits go missing when the limit was put in place. So, I save all my stuff in EFT so I can keep it "safe" from CCP. I have several dozen fits, not just for myself, but for up and coming noobs I accept into my corp since I can't be arsed to remember tens of thousands of possible permutation of ship fits. Sorry.
Regardless, there are those players who have amassed a "resource" of good ship fits for all purposes. These people are resources and the go to guy for people in the know.
Also, the "there has to be a limit" argument is rather weak. You want to sell back a function we previously had. Interesting that it wasn't a problem until you could affix a dollar sign to the paltry limit of 50. Obviously whatever limit there was did not put undue stress on your hardware. And if so few people are saving large numbers of fits, then a higher limit shouldn't be a problem. But, I suppose, you could blame null lag on ship fittings if you want.
Edit: I don't even know why I bother replying to a dev with his head that far up his wormhole. We want breast augmentations and sluttier clothing in the NeX! |

Puppet Mas'ter
Umbra Exitium Order Of The Unforgiving
19
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 17:36:00 -
[49] - Quote
Hey Prism, wanna comment on wether or not youre selling the functionality back to us? CCP: Madness!!! This is FiS Us: Fis? *chuckle* (Gò»-¦Gûí-¦n+ëGò»n+¦ Gö+GöüGö+ Us: THIS IS EVE |

Esan Vartesa
Khanid Trade Syndicate
28
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 17:38:00 -
[50] - Quote
CCP Prism X wrote:Out of interest, what cap would be acceptable. There has to be a cap or people will never bother with cleaning up the fittings they never use and nobody likes having useless data in our DB if we can avoid it.
-------snip-------
and a little less than 8k pilots are already on the limit of fifty.
That's a very, very minuscule amount of data storage that you're saving with this cap. That argument is weak.
What was the technical argument in favor of removing the local storage when you implemented the server-side storage?
I don't mean to be confrontational. We know that the change was with an eye toward charging Aurum for the service. You know what? That's fine. But what should have been done is left the local storage option as-is, and rolled out the server-side storage option as an Aurum enhancement from the get go. That way, you would have avoided the (correct) impression that you eliminated an existing option only to sell it back to us.
There is value in server-side storage options. It's OK to sell us value-add services that don't impact competitive gameplay. Just don't take away the inferior alternative in the process.
That just pisses people off. |

E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
78
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 17:38:00 -
[51] - Quote
CCP Prism X wrote:Out of interest, what cap would be acceptable. There has to be a cap or people will never bother with cleaning up the fittings they never use and nobody likes having useless data in our DB if we can avoid it. I was just looking at the stats from TQ after reading this and: Out of ~310k characters only ~102k have more than 10 fittings saved or a little less than a third of all people using fittings. Looking at the rest of the gap there are ~58k characters with twenty or more fittings saved, 37k with thirty or more, ~23k with forty and a little less than 8k pilots are already on the limit of fifty. On the corporation side (Max of 100 fittings) we have a total of ~35k corporations saving their fittings. ~11k of those have more than ten fittings, ~6k with more than twenty, ~4k with more than thirty, ~3K with more than forty and moving to ~1.5K, then ~500, ~250, ~150, ~100 and then finally ~35 with all 100 slots filled. So seeing as corporations must have fittings for all the different operations they are in as well as probably some baseline skill requirements per operational type and only 35 of those find themselves limited by the current 100 maximum: Would you be happy with that max on characters as well? Without even hinting at a promise of doing anything I can tell you that this change is essentially trivial. However, if you really want to remove personal fittings from the DB and back to the client then you're back in ClientLand. I don't really do ClientLand so I cannot speak to the complexity of that. But I sure don't mind removing your data from the database. I love removing data! At any rate, just thought I'd pipe in on the discussion as that's what I'm doing these days. 
Well i have 6 characters on 2 accounts and only one really uses ship fittings. Not at the 50 cap but could get there.
My market alts and manufacturing alts have no use for ship fittings. So ya 1/3 of people have over 10 fittings....the other 2/3 are largely made up of alts.
Added to this multiple acount and yes, there are not many saved fittings per acount but those that use them use a lot... |

E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
78
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 17:42:00 -
[52] - Quote
additionaly fittings help new players.
If a corp member asks for a decent hirican fit I may have one and can help out or use it as an example of what to aim for in his fit...with limited fittings that is no longer possible. |

panterus29
Blame The Bunny The Dark Nation
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 17:47:00 -
[53] - Quote
CCP Prism X wrote:Out of interest, what cap would be acceptable. There has to be a cap or people will never bother with cleaning up the fittings they never use and nobody likes having useless data in our DB if we can avoid it. I was just looking at the stats from TQ after reading this and: Out of ~310k characters only ~102k have more than 10 fittings saved or a little less than a third of all people using fittings. Looking at the rest of the gap there are ~58k characters with twenty or more fittings saved, 37k with thirty or more, ~23k with forty and a little less than 8k pilots are already on the limit of fifty. On the corporation side (Max of 100 fittings) we have a total of ~35k corporations saving their fittings. ~11k of those have more than ten fittings, ~6k with more than twenty, ~4k with more than thirty, ~3K with more than forty and moving to ~1.5K, then ~500, ~250, ~150, ~100 and then finally ~35 with all 100 slots filled. So seeing as corporations must have fittings for all the different operations they are in as well as probably some baseline skill requirements per operational type and only 35 of those find themselves limited by the current 100 maximum: Would you be happy with that max on characters as well? Without even hinting at a promise of doing anything I can tell you that this change is essentially trivial. However, if you really want to remove personal fittings from the DB and back to the client then you're back in ClientLand. I don't really do ClientLand so I cannot speak to the complexity of that. But I sure don't mind removing your data from the database. I love removing data! At any rate, just thought I'd pipe in on the discussion as that's what I'm doing these days. 
I'd just like to say that i have hit the limit a couple times already and have to sift my fitting down to only the more priority fittings and now i have to be exceedingly careful on what fittings i save. I deal with a lot of people who ask for help with fittings for all different ship types not to mention different skill levels and it would be very useful if i didn't have to minimize my client all the time to get eft up and running and then to reenter game and make a mail to them of the fit instead of just posting in a chat or in the odd case just mail a made fit using a fitting link in it. I'd say about 150 fittings is a good enough number to cover corp heads and directors who need such advantage to save time while doing needed adjustment to corp style fittings for their fleets. i also would think having an option to save extra fits to the current computer would be a good idea still just in case and an easy import tool in it so it can be emailed to ones self and imported from there to any current computer and then quickly imported to eve given that it is the same recognizable folder that was saved from the client. Would likely just require a separate listing area so you know how many are still saved on the server and likely for other reasons as well. |

Sable Blitzmann
Massively Dynamic Reverberation Project
11
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 18:09:00 -
[54] - Quote
I agree that having the ability to store them both server-side and client side would be best. When saving a fitting, add the option to store it remotely or locally |

Crunchmeister
THORN Syndicate BricK sQuAD.
34
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 18:27:00 -
[55] - Quote
Well, it seems that this thread has now gone silent from the CCP side now that it's been injected with a bit of common sense from the community. Can't say I'm surprised. It's the status quo. |

Lin Fatale
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 19:06:00 -
[56] - Quote
8k unhappy people, because ccp dont like to spend 20 MB in a Database.
|

Tuggboat
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 19:47:00 -
[57] - Quote
I only put in what I can afford to lose and or what I think I might need to refit or share. Wiping out the old oes taught me a lesson. Really anytime a expansion comes out thats going to wipe our work from our persistent universe we ought to be given a chance to backit up instead of it being sprung on us.
In addition to the many good point brought up already. The number of ship fittings need also goes up with spaceship command skill points and/or # of ship classes trained. its not linear though. If your crosstrained in several races and you add something like Battlecruiser or HIC, you suddenly can fly another halfdozen ships that you need a couple fittings for.
I like a plain vanilla fitting for rapid refits in space without a lot of stuff for sale and another maxed to current skills and then I like to save others pimped fits for goals sometimes . But once again, the reason I don't do this as much as I want is cause CCP wiped years of work once and not anxious to do it again. |

Ugleb
Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
4
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 20:08:00 -
[58] - Quote
100-150 fits please. Seems reasonable if there needs to be a balance between storage and utility. [IMG]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e72/Ugleb/Ugsiggy4.jpg[/IMG] |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
121
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 20:24:00 -
[59] - Quote
GǪbut the thing is (and this is what those numbers actually mean) that no matter what you pick as a limit, it will be wrong.
Some people will need much more; some will need much less, or even none.
So I'm still wondering: why is a per-pilot limit needed? Won't the low-end users balance out the storage needs of the high-end users? What's the worst-case scenario of letting the high-end users run amuck until the DB gets unwieldy?
Put another way, if you give everyone 100 slots, how many will actually be used across the entire population? 3 million? How much will actually be used if everyone gets "unlimited" slots? 4 million? 6? 10? I have a sneaking suspicion (but that is all it is) that 300k user +ù GêP slots will be less than projecting for 300k users +ù 100 slots. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
130
|
Posted - 2011.09.07 21:05:00 -
[60] - Quote
CCP Prism X wrote:Lens Thirring wrote:This is an interesting number. Yeah I'd have thought more people would use the "Save Fitting" feature. 
If you have to use EFT for most of your fits, you might as well use it for all of them.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal made on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |