Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pteranodon
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 14:35:00 -
[1]
So CCP want less people in Jita (idealy)
Change the security status to 0.4....that would be fun!
There would be a gank feast lasting for a few day. There would be winners & loosers & after a short time there would not be as many players in Jita.
Simplistic but perhaps effective?
Debate.
|
Jana Clant
New Dawn Corp New Eden Research
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 14:36:00 -
[2]
The trade hub would move somewhere else?
Do people even think their proposals through before starting new threads these days?
Join New Eden Research today and never worry about queues again!
|
CrayC
Gallente CrayC Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 14:36:00 -
[3]
Making Jita, or any other hub, a lowsec system, would only move the problem from one system to another. It would remove Jita as a problem, but it would not remove the problem itself.
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 14:38:00 -
[4]
Obviously the only solution is to make any system which has or in the future gains any appearance of a trade hub into lowsec forever. -
DesuSigs |
Pteranodon
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 14:38:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Pteranodon on 25/09/2008 14:39:36
Originally by: Jana Clant The trade hub would move somewhere else?
Do people even think their proposals through before starting new threads these days?
I did think about it. It takes time for trade hubs to be established. It does not happen overnight & Jita is uniquely situated as a corridor in Eve so I think it would help to ease the problem.
We would get Jitas' load spread over many systems & it might bring a bit more cohesion to the trade hubs.
|
RaTTuS
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 14:45:00 -
[6]
no it wouldn't it happed with yulai when they nurfed it... then jita was formed.
-- BIG Lottery, BIG Deal, InEve
|
Pteranodon
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 14:47:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Pteranodon on 25/09/2008 14:48:35
Originally by: RaTTuS no it wouldn't it happed with yulai when they nurfed it... then jita was formed.
Players now have a more indepth understanding of the game mechanics so I don't think a new "Jita" would be as bad as Jita now.
It is only poor CCP management that has allowed the situation in Jita to continue uncontrolled. I say neff Jita then put in place mechanics so the situation can never happen again with new developing hubs
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 14:48:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Pteranodon Players now have a more indepth understanding of the game mechanics so I don't think a new "Jita" would be as bad as Jita now.
Elaborate please. -
DesuSigs |
Pteranodon
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 14:51:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Pteranodon Players now have a more indepth understanding of the game mechanics so I don't think a new "Jita" would be as bad as Jita now.
Elaborate please.
I expanded my original post a little with more info. CCP are aware of the issues concerning Jita. I say kill it now. Allow new trade hubs to develope but then control what happens in the new hubs with player limit caps. This will prevent a new Jita from forming.
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 14:52:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Pteranodon player limit caps
Artificial limits = bad -
DesuSigs |
|
Pteranodon
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 14:55:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Pteranodon player limit caps
Artificial limits = bad
CCP do not agree with you. That is why Jita is now capped at 1024. The situation cannot continue indefinetly-you can keep throwing more & more resources at a problem which will not go away.
The only solution which I see is systems designated as trade hubs with a material finite cap & I suspect this will happen as the current Jita model is unsustainable.
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 15:04:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Pteranodon
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Pteranodon player limit caps
Artificial limits = bad
CCP do not agree with you. That is why Jita is now capped at 1024.
Originally by: CCP Explorer We recently deployed new server-side infrastructure, which allowed Jita to reach 1,400 pilots last Saturday, up from the approx. 900-1000 it supported at maximum before (40-55% improvement). We are working on further improvements this week. We will be raising the cap as we fine-tune the server, increase hardware capacity and add those improvements. The goal of course is to not have a cap at all.
-
DesuSigs |
Pteranodon
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 15:06:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Pteranodon
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Pteranodon player limit caps
Artificial limits = bad
CCP do not agree with you. That is why Jita is now capped at 1024.
Originally by: CCP Explorer We recently deployed new server-side infrastructure, which allowed Jita to reach 1,400 pilots last Saturday, up from the approx. 900-1000 it supported at maximum before (40-55% improvement). We are working on further improvements this week. We will be raising the cap as we fine-tune the server, increase hardware capacity and add those improvements. The goal of course is to not have a cap at all.
.....until the next time Jita falls over & we can't play the game. I said before & I will say it again. The current Jita model is not sustainable as a permanent solution.
|
Seeing EyeDog
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 15:09:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Pteranodon So CCP want less people in Jita (idealy)
Change the security status to 0.4....that would be fun!
There would be a gank feast lasting for a few day. There would be winners & loosers & after a short time there would not be as many players in Jita.
Simplistic but perhaps effective?
Debate.
this would accomplish nothing, except for turning perimeter or new cal into a new jita. You cant fix the situation by changing the sec status, jackass _____________________
Originally by: Locus Bey Intelligence isn't a prequisite for being a Goon, in fact its a deficit.
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 15:09:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Pteranodon .....until the next time Jita falls over & we can't play the game. I said before & I will say it again. The current Jita model is not sustainable as a permanent solution.
Which is why they are working on it by altering the game mechanics which caused it. But artificial caps aren't the answer. -
DesuSigs |
Faife
Minmatar Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 15:11:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: CCP Explorer We recently deployed new server-side infrastructure, which allowed Jita to reach 1,400 pilots last Saturday, up from the approx. 900-1000 it supported at maximum before (40-55% improvement). We are working on further improvements this week. We will be raising the cap as we fine-tune the server, increase hardware capacity and add those improvements. The goal of course is to not have a cap at all.
yhbt, yhl. hand.
and to the OP (yeah yeah, ihbt etc) jita isn't the first "omg, it's game breaking huge" trade hub for eve, the old one got nerfed and this one grew. do some research.
same thing will happen, probably in some other over-used mission center. players love lag. - - - i am a humble and inefficent ammo to dps converter |
Pteranodon
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 15:12:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Seeing EyeDog
Originally by: Pteranodon So CCP want less people in Jita (idealy)
Change the security status to 0.4....that would be fun!
There would be a gank feast lasting for a few day. There would be winners & loosers & after a short time there would not be as many players in Jita.
Simplistic but perhaps effective?
Debate.
this would accomplish nothing, except for turning perimeter or new cal into a new jita. You cant fix the situation by changing the sec status, jackass
You ruined a balanced arguement by trading insults. Well done!
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 16:02:00 -
[18]
You are assuming that CCP want fewer people in Jita, which I say is wrong.
Looking at their actions, they want to optimize Jita to hold more people and they want people that don't want to deal with Jita to have a way around it. I think Jita is a great opportunity to monitor high load behavior of their code. This information is then used to further optimize the client and server to handle that. If they manage to run Jita more or less smoothly, they will be able to increase performance in other high load situations, like fleet fights and performance in mission hubs.
I'd say, CCP has no interest in eliminating Jita.
-------- Ideas for: Mining
|
Festina Lente
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 16:06:00 -
[19]
Best way: diversification. Make kind of joint markets and NPC courier service between the major trade hubs.
|
Cogswin Iannyen
Caldari Minmatar Mafia
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 16:11:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Pteranodon
Originally by: Seeing EyeDog
Originally by: Pteranodon So CCP want less people in Jita (idealy)
Change the security status to 0.4....that would be fun!
There would be a gank feast lasting for a few day. There would be winners & loosers & after a short time there would not be as many players in Jita.
Simplistic but perhaps effective?
Debate.
this would accomplish nothing, except for turning perimeter or new cal into a new jita. You cant fix the situation by changing the sec status, jackass
You ruined a balanced arguement by trading insults. Well done!
Nah, their argument was sound. The insult was mereley decorative. Trade hubs are formed by human nature. Thus, modern day cities, rather than humanity being evenly distributed across the globe. Just think of it like wal-mart in space. Don't like going there? Fine, pay higher prices where its more convenient. Go through something frequently? Build it yourself where its convenient, or contract someone to deliver that IS willing to go to Jita.
Stop posting please. You're embarassing the human race.
|
|
Demitria Fernir
Caldari Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 16:15:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Pteranodon HURRRR DURRRR I'M POSTING ABOUT JITA ON THE FORUMS HURRRR DURRRR
HURRRR DURRRR no
10100110010100101010011010100101001100101110101001 I will Conquer My Signature Somewhere in the future 10100110010100101010011010100101001100101110101001 |
Alora Venoda
GalTech Giant Space Amoeba
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 16:19:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Festina Lente Best way: diversification. Make kind of joint markets and NPC courier service between the major trade hubs.
this...
most regional markets in EVE are not saturated as Jita is. so it only makes sense that many traders wants to trade in Jita instead of their less-saturated local markets. in Jita, there are actually profitable buy orders and competitive sell orders.
if we want to "split up" the central market for all of EVE, we need to find a way to make the lesser trade hubs a viable option for serious traders. somehow "linking" all the hubs would certainly work... but would not make sense with the current game mechanics. another option ofc would be to penalize Jita for being so busy, like with higher broker fees, sales tax, etc. ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ Take away the risk and it would make flying around in space utterly pointless.
Take away the flying around part and you make EVE into a space themed spreadsheet application. |
LFC Sales
Gallente L F C
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 16:23:00 -
[23]
I think limiting the ammount of buy and sell orders per system would be the best way to go. There will always be one system that everyone will favor going to and as the population of EVE increases the load on that system will become unmanagable as we are seeing now.
Limit the buy and sell orders will force people to spread out a little more L F C Sales |
Atharax
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 16:34:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Atharax on 25/09/2008 16:36:30 Hehe, I liked your suggestion Pteranodon, for the simple reason that some of the scammers then would have to relocate - and get podded bigtime. No I never fallen for any scam, but I do hate their relentless spamming, not to mention that any scam contract is a trigger for a long list of follow up messages.
Now the idea put forward by Festina Lente do have merit. But it wont solve the underlying problem that most players behave like sheep.
But changing the security rating would create such a storm of whining that it is not a realistic solution. So I would rather suggest the carrot than the stick, we have market mechanisms in this game, and by manipulating those - like the annoucement of a zero tax, contract and agent fee tradecenter in another system we could have the smalltraders going there in a short time.
When I had to edit a small typo I got to read the post by LFC Sales, and that is a variety of my idea and a good suggestion as well.
|
Festina Lente
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 17:09:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Alora Venoda
Originally by: Festina Lente Best way: diversification. Make kind of joint markets and NPC courier service between the major trade hubs.
this...
most regional markets in EVE are not saturated as Jita is. so it only makes sense that many traders wants to trade in Jita instead of their less-saturated local markets. in Jita, there are actually profitable buy orders and competitive sell orders.
if we want to "split up" the central market for all of EVE, we need to find a way to make the lesser trade hubs a viable option for serious traders. somehow "linking" all the hubs would certainly work... but would not make sense with the current game mechanics. another option ofc would be to penalize Jita for being so busy, like with higher broker fees, sales tax, etc.
What I suggested is service. Means not free of charge. Traders who like to fly or wanna take larger share of risk and reward - go and deliver yourself. NPC agent delivery may cost transport charge and reasonable delay. It may open more options as ExWorks or CIF. NPC can handle it to other player as a mission. On the other hand higher fees cause inflation.
|
Romulus Lucati
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 17:49:00 -
[26]
0.4?? Make it 0.0 It would be like watching the germanic tribes coming down on Rome!
Whoever controls Jita, controls the world.
|
Zaknussem
Caldari The Ironbreakers
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 17:54:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Pteranodon You ruined a balanced arguement by trading insults. Well done!
This was never a balanced argument to begin with. Your idea is foolish and short-sighted.
CCP's actions of putting a cap on Jita is a foolish action, but a necessary one given the circumstances. Either provide a limited service to everyone, or no service to everyone, take your pick.
This isn't about Jita per se, as it is more about Trade Hubs in general. They will form regardless of what actions are taken. If any actions are taken specifically against the Trade Hubs, they will disband temporarily and then reform elsewhere, and all the troubles would start over again. Your idea would do exactly nothing to counter the Trade Hub problem.
If you want to solve the Jita problem, find a way to reprogram humans to stop gathering in the same spot in large numbers. |
Dirk Magnum
Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 19:34:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 25/09/2008 19:34:11 If you built in a massive island of Low Sec space at the heart of Empire that had to be either navigated through, or navigated around, then you'd end up with multiple smaller regional trade hubs (sort of like Amarr, Motsu, Dodixie, Rens, and Oursulaert are, more or less) because there would no longer be anything in High Sec as centralized as Jita.
I'm not necessarily for this idea, but I think if breaking up the uber trade hub is the goal, this might be a way to do it.
|
Banana Torres
Look Ma I did a Test
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 19:39:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Jana Clant The trade hub would move somewhere else?
Correct.
Originally by: Jana Clant Do people even think their proposals through before starting new threads these days?
No, it is what they did on the WoW forums, so they do it on the Eve forums too. I suppose they will do it on the WoW forums when they go back there.
|
Keflin Geard
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 19:56:00 -
[30]
Financial incentive is the easy way to fix jita -
There are all kinds of ways you could do it - here is one that took me 20 seconds to come up with - put a 10% tax on all sell orders for non caldari players in Jita. Give all other races an embassy station (or stations) in caldari space where players of that race would not face this tax - but caldari players would (to stop them buying everything up and carting it back to jita) Repeat for all the 4 races trade hubs. Artificial impediments to a market system always cause some problems - but without some sort of financial incentive for players to trade across eves empires - you will always come back to the same problem of central trade hub like Jita.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |