These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A Permanent fix to a long standing problem: Node crashing

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#161 - 2013-12-17 03:04:02 UTC
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
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 ?
It would stop them from trying to contend for sov, yes, since it would no longer be possible. The defender would just auto-win any engagement and you'd never have any chance of actually killing anything.

Quote:
Would it allow more people to be able to contend for SOV ?
No, because it would be impossible to do so since you've just introduced a mechanism that allows the defender to irrevocably deny the attacker access to their target.

Quote:
Has any one fight in all of EVE been the deciding factor to any Null Sov ? No
That's because sov is always determined by at least two fights through the way it functions. It is therefore an irrelevant observation for the topic at hand unless you intend to completely revamp sov (which you're not). However, those two fights have often been the kinds of full blobs you want to eliminate, but which your suggestion ensures can't happen.

Quote:
not the tidi fights where we can all bring our ratting Carriers out and have some fun.
This is completely false and proves that you are not only clueless about the actual sov mechanics, but also about warfare in general.

Quote:
Would limiting the number of players to a system ( which we already have btw ) break the game ?
Of course it would, since it would introduce a mechanism that doesn't currently exist in the game for the simple reason that it would break everything — most notably by making it impossible to take systems.

So, again:
• 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?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#162 - 2013-12-17 03:07:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
The math is right here already :
The game can only handle so many people in one system at a time
What do you have to support this claim? Can you provide the maths?

Quote:
Should CCP micro manage what the players are doing in each system ? No
So why are you asking them to?

Quote:
Would having a limit on the players in system would break up the tidi fights / game crashing. YES
…at the price of making nullsec completely static, which is not worth the trade.

Quote:
No one / Not one person enjoys the game crashing/Tidi fights.
So how do you propose to solve the problem? (No, giving single parties an unassailable hold on what they own and making the game completely static is not a viable solution.)

Moreover, perhaps you could clear up some other things:
• 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)?
• Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes?
• Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to “support” your claims about anything?
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#163 - 2013-12-17 03:12:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
Limit the number of people to one system is already in place.


Outside of a few forum fall worriers ( trolls ) ( people who make personal attacks ) ( Treats ) , which is one of the many reason to love EVE :) People would love it

I bet if given the chance that 99% of the people in EVE would rather have fights with out the tidi / game crashing ( because of too many people ) There is a Fix Limit the number of players to any one system.


Make the large Null bears camp there moon / ratting / plexing systems. 24/7

It would give the much smaller corps / alliances a chance at having some Null Sov.

It would produce many more smaller scale ( no game crashing ) fights

Any alliance as the game is now can crash the system/node pretty easy . It would give control of the game back to CCP.


Its really a win win
Rainbow Dash
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#164 - 2013-12-17 03:12:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Rainbow Dash
I'm beginning to see his point. Just hear me out. If you stop more than a thousand people from being in a system at a time, you'll kill any big fights that would happen in eve. Due to this absolutely boneheaded move, a large portion of nullsec players leave the game. Because you've cut the playerbase down by a large chunk, smaller fights happen, because eve doesn't have enough players to actually fill multiple fleets (also, not enough subscribers to keep running). People like OP can then own their own little chunk of null until the game shuts down because no one plays it anymore.

It's brilliant.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#165 - 2013-12-17 03:16:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
Limit the number of people to one system is already in place.
Can you provide any kind of evidence to support this claim? For instance, what is the actual limit you think exists at the moment?

Quote:
Outside of a few forum fall worriers People would love it
What makes you think people will love a mechanic that makes it impossible to take space?

Quote:
There is a Fix: Limit the number of players to any one system.
What makes you feel that it is worth sacrificing a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash to gain a completely static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes?

Quote:
It would give the much smaller corps / alliances a chance at having some Null Sov.
How would they have a chance to take a system they can't enter?

Quote:
It would produce many more smaller scale ( no game crashing ) fights
Why would the number of small fights increase? What would they be fighting over?

Oh, and a few other things you failed to answer:
• In what way is nullsec broken?
• In what way are larger-than-life battles 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)?
• Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes?
• Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to “support” your claims about anything?
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#166 - 2013-12-17 03:17:06 UTC
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
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

Your Facts have a habit of being ass backwards.

- Null bears have claws and this is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread
- "More people" can not contend for a system when you CUT DOWN the system from thousands of players to one thousand players. More GROUPS of people is perhaps what you meant. Please elaborate on how your system cap allows a new (read: small and inexperienced) group to take a foothold in null - and keep it.
- Please elaborate how logging in and going back to sleep is harder on vets than logging in for a 4 hour engagement that needs to be played out. Also note that you are halving the number of players required for Op Success.

- See previous post
- I don't know what you mean by more small scale fights, perhaps you are referring to the multiple reinforce timers dictated by game mechanics, each of which sees these zergs. So yes, it's not decided by a single zerg, except for that final timer zerg where it is. I'll let you do the math on how many timers there are in an upgraded station system, surely we don't have to do THAT research for you.
- Please tell us more about these ratting Trimark rigged Archons.
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#167 - 2013-12-17 03:24:55 UTC
The Null Bears would like to tell you the horrors of living in Null and how game breaking it would be to limit the number of players to a system. ( That limit is already in the game )

The only reason to keep the game in its current state is to give you the impression that every fight has a chance at huge explosion of Capital fights ( which can't happen w/o game crashing ) and to keep the income of the Null Bears going.


No one likes tidi fights
Why do people show up for tidi fights ?
Why on any given day of the week there more ships blown up in HighSec/ Low Sec than all of Null ?

Who by having a limit ( which is already in place ) on the number of players in a system benefits from this ?

Limiting the number of players to a system would increase the quality of PVP/game play.

Would open up Null to a lot more smaller alliances/corps.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#168 - 2013-12-17 03:27:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
The Null Bears would like to tell you the horrors of living in Null and how game breaking it would be to limit the number of players to a system. ( That limit is already in the game )
Do you have any support for either of those claims or are you just making things up and hoping that no-one will question it?

Quote:
No one likes tidi fights
Why do people show up for tidi fights ?
Because they are often critical in determining sov ownerhsip.

Quote:
Why on any given day of the week there more ships blown up in HighSec/ Low Sec than all of Null ?
Do you have anything to support this claim? And even if you do and it actually true, how is it in any way relevant?

Quote:
Who by having a limit ( which is already in place ) on the number of players in a system benefits from this ?
What makes you think that anyone benefits? And what limit is it you think exists?

Quote:
Limiting the number of players to a system would increase the quality of PVP/game play.
How would it do that?

Also, a few more questions for you:
• In what way is nullsec broken?
• In what way are larger-than-life battles 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)?
• Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes?
• Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to “support” your claims about anything?
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#169 - 2013-12-17 03:34:21 UTC
There is a limit on how many people can be in one system before the game breaks ( jita ) Node reinforcement needed before a large scale fleet fight. ?

For every post that is put up on the forums about how to fix tidi/ game crashing/ Sov / Null.

They all end with trolls ( derailment )


Limiting the number of people in any one system will stop the game from crashing.

Limiting the number of people would increase the quality of game play.

Limiting the number of people to one system would allow for smaller corps/alliances to have a chance at having some SoV
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#170 - 2013-12-17 03:39:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
There is a limit on how many people can be in one system before the game breaks
What do you base that assertion on, and what is this supposed limit?

Quote:
For every post that is put up on the forums about how to fix tidi/ game crashing/ Sov / Null. They all end with trolls ( derailment )
Not really, no. Only the ones that were trolls from the very beginning by proposing completely unworkable and idiotic “solutions” to problems that are never actually defined.

Quote:
Limiting the number of people in any one system will stop the game from crashing.
…at the cost of making the game entirely static, which is too high a price for such a small convenience.

Quote:
Limiting the number of people would increase the quality of game play.
In what way, and how would it do that?

Quote:
Limiting the number of people to one system would allow for smaller corps/alliances to have a chance at having some SoV
How does making it impossible to take a system allow smaller corps and alliances to have some sov? Especially when taking and holding sov becomes all about poplocking the system?

While you figure out answers to those questions, could you answer the following ones that you've accumulated as well:
• In what way is nullsec broken?
• In what way are larger-than-life battles 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)?
• What evidence can you offer to support your assertions that players can crash the server on command?
• Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes?
• Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to “support” your claims about anything?
Jennai
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#171 - 2013-12-17 03:41:29 UTC
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
No one likes tidi fights


no one likes tidi fights because they take forever and are mostly boring, but I bet you can't find a single person who was around pre-tidi and would rather go back to the old system where you'd warp to the fight, see nothing for half an hour while you wait for the grid to load, and then either get disconnected or instantly explode when the grid finally loads because the hostiles that were already on grid saw you warp in 25 minutes ago and had plenty of time to lock and kill your cruiser with dread guns while you were completely unable to see or do anything.
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#172 - 2013-12-17 03:45:35 UTC
What would Eve be like with out Tidi ? With out game crashing ( that players can control btw ) just log more ships into a system.
What would Null Sov look like today if there were a limit on the number of players in any one system ?


Limit the number of players would fix so many issues that the game has. ( There is already a limit the number before the game crashes)


Limiting the number of players to any one system would do nothing but help.

No more game crashing fights/ Can you name anyone that enjoys tidi fights ?

Who benefits from these tidi fights ?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#173 - 2013-12-17 03:51:06 UTC
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
What would Eve be like with out Tidi ?
Often unplayable, like in the olden days. It's not really something anyone wants to go back to.

Quote:
What would Null Sov look like today if there were a limit on the number of players in any one system ?
Completely static, which is why such a solution has never been contemplated: because it breaks far more than it ever could hope to fix.

Quote:
Limit the number of players would fix so many issues that the game has.
Such as?

Quote:
Limiting the number of players to any one system would do nothing but help.
How would it help? And how does making large sov-holding coalitions unassailable count as “helping” (since that would be the outcome)?

Quote:
Who benefits from these tidi fights ?
Oh… pretty much everyone involved and a large number of other people connected to the whole war economy thing that EVE revolves around.

By the way, you seem to have missed out on a point or two that could use some further clarification:
• In what way is nullsec broken?
• In what way are larger-than-life battles 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)?
• What evidence can you offer to support your assertions that players can crash the server on command?
• Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes?
• Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to “support” your claims about anything?
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#174 - 2013-12-17 03:54:07 UTC
Limit the number of players to a system would stop tidi / no more game crashes.

There is already a limit to the number of players to any one system ( jita ) ( before the game will crash is a limit )

Limit the number of players to any one system would solve all this.

Open up Null more to newer alliances/corps
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#175 - 2013-12-17 03:56:34 UTC
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
Limit the number of players to a system would stop tidi / no more game crashes.

There is already a limit to the number of players to any one system ( jita ) ( before the game will crash is a limit )

Limit the number of players to any one system would solve all this.

Open up Null more to newer alliances/corps

But they won't fit with the population caps Sad
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#176 - 2013-12-17 03:57:37 UTC
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
Limit the number of players to a system would stop tidi / no more game crashes.
…and make nullsec completely static. What makes you think that this would be a worth-while trade?

Quote:
There is already a limit to the number of players to any one system ( jita )
…and that is relevant to fleet fights, how, exactly?

Quote:
Limit the number of players to any one system would solve all this.
Solve what?

Quote:
Open up Null more to newer alliances/corps
How do you propose to do that? (No, making null impossible to attack is not a viable solution).

While answering those, please ponder the following as well:
• In what way is nullsec broken?
• In what way are larger-than-life battles 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)?
• What evidence can you offer to support your assertions that players can crash the server on command?
• Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes?
• What issues do you believe will be fixed by making the game static?
• Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to “support” your claims about anything?
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#177 - 2013-12-17 04:00:49 UTC
There is only a hand full of people that benefit from game crashing / tidi fights in Null. ( rental income ) holding alliances.


No one likes Tidi fights/ game crashing fights.

The limit of players to each system is already in place ( Jita ) ( Before the node crashes )



Put that limit in place with fixed numbers would give us all a much better game play.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#178 - 2013-12-17 04:03:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
There is only a hand full of people that benefit from game crashing / tidi fights in Null.
What makes you think that anyone benefits?

Quote:
The limit of players to each system is already in place ( Jita )
…which is not a fleet fight, so how is it in any way relevant to the topic at hand?

Quote:
Put that limit in place with fixed numbers would give us all a much better game play.
How would it do that?

Also,
• In what way is nullsec broken?
• In what way are larger-than-life battles 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 are small alliances supposed to benefit from not being able to take sov?
• How is gameplay improved by making it possible to completely lock out the competition from participating in a “fight”?
• 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 evidence can you offer to support your assertions that players can crash the server on command?
• Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes?
• What issues do you believe will be fixed by making the game static?
• Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to “support” your claims about anything?
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#179 - 2013-12-17 04:08:09 UTC
The only people that benefit from the current state of the game ( tidi fights ) ( game crashing ) fights are who ?


Who benefits from these fights really? More ships are blown up in high sec / low each day than all of null.


Put a limit on the number of players ( which there is already ) ( jita ) ( game crashing because of too many players)



CCP regain control of our game please!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#180 - 2013-12-17 04:11:06 UTC
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
The only people that benefit from the current state of the game ( tidi fights ) ( game crashing ) fights are who ?
What makes you think that anyone benefits from the game crashing?

Quote:
Who benefits from these fights really?
If you mean large-scale fights, all of EVE.

Quote:
Put a limit on the number of players
Why?

Quote:
CCP regain control of our game please!
In what way are they not in control?

Oh, and…
• In what way is nullsec broken?
• In what way are larger-than-life battles 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 are small alliances supposed to benefit from not being able to take sov?
• How is gameplay improved by making it possible to completely lock out the competition from participating in a “fight”?
• 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 understand how the war-based economy of EVE works?
• What evidence can you offer to support your assertions that players can crash the server on command?
• Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes?
• What issues do you believe will be fixed by making the game static?
• Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to “support” your claims about anything?