EVE General Discussion

Destroy all ships in system if the node crashes = problem solved.

These turdlords will quit clogging up grids with 300 carriers that poop out infinite drones

Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows
Everything who's blue to me is who I call
When we're together.
Faster than a crashing node.
When you're here the ships all disappear
Dear and I feel so fine.
Just to know that node is fine.
My life is sunshine, lollipops and rainbows
That's how this capfight goes.
So come on Join In. Everybody.

When you come up with an idiotic idea like "let's add a fixed population cap to every system", at least have the guts to admit that people oppose your idea because it's ******* stupid, not because they're afraid of change.

FFS. Read This and try again.

8 goddamn pages...

What a senseless waste of human life.

It is not up to me to prove or disprove anything. Go look it up for yourself.

But this is a fact: There is a limit on the number of people you can put into a fight before the system will crash.

That limit is already in the game.


Fact 2 : Null Sec large Zerg fights don't benefit anyone

Fact 3 : No null Sec Sov has ever been lost or gained due to a single Zerg/ fight.

There is a limit already in place on the number of people in a system before it will crash.

You're the one making the claim. It's your job to provide the evidence to support it.



And that limit is different in every situation (there have been fights with over 4000 people in a system). If you introduce a hard cap, it would be much lower than current limits (or what's the point) and would provide an absolute chilling effect on all sov fights. As in, there would no longer be any sov fights. Either the defender gets logged in first at DT, or the attacker does, and then it's just wait X hours until the timer of the day lets you rep or shoot the structure in perfect safety.



Fact 2 is false, and Fact 3 is absurdly so (unless you're putting undue weight on the word "single," in which case, the fact that a Sov takeover takes more than one fight is built into the mechanics, rendering the "fact" irrelevant to your argument).

Now, how about you answer some of the questions you've been trying to dodge all thread:
• How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null?
• How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight?
• How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players?
• Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null?
• What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)?

What support do you have for the claim that there is such a thing as player-controlled system crashes?

Jita is not a fleet fight, so it has no bearing or relevance on the topic at hand.

What support do you have for the claim that anyone benefits? And why do you want to change it so that only one party benefits?

Also, while we're at it:
• In what way is nullsec broken?
• How is it relevant where ships die?
• Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die?
• What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights?
• What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit?
• How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null?
• How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight?
• How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players?
• Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null?
• What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)?
• Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to “support” your claims about anything?

If CCP were to come out tomorrow and say ok guys the player limit in any system from now on is X.

Would that stop null bears from pvp'ing ? Not at all
Would it allow more people to be able to contend for SOV ? Yes
Would the older Vets have to work a bit harder to keep what they have ? Yes


Has any one fight in all of EVE been the deciding factor to any Null Sov ? No
More smaller scale fights have. not the game breaking on command type we have now
not the tidi fights where we can all bring our ratting Carriers out and have some fun.


Would limiting the number of players to a system ( which we already have btw ) break the game ? No

Is Null Sec Sov broken atm ? Yes
Are larger than life battles broken ? Yes

you fundamentally don't understand how the server works.

When you have 2000 pilots in a system, and they each have drones, the server has to do individual skill checks for each drone launched. So if each has at least 5, the server sees about 10,000 players worth of skill checks. A lot of these node crashes involve drone heavy combat.

How is logging on and shooting/repping a structure in perfect safety harder than doing so with the chance of being interrupted by an attack?




Uh... every final timer fight has been the deciding factor in determining ownership of every hostilely taken sov system


Would automagically providing victory in every significant timer fight to whoever can get logged into the system right after dt break the game? Of course.



How are they broken?