These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#181 - 2013-12-17 04:14:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
Limit the number of players to a system ( we already have it ) Jita ? before the game crashes ?



That limit is already in place just make it solid so there will not have to be tidi ( game crashes )
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#182 - 2013-12-17 04:17:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
Limit the number of players to a system
Why? What problem are you trying to solve by fundamentally breaking the dynamics of the game, and is that problem really worth such a huge sacrifice?

Quote:
That limit is already in place just make it solid so there will not have to be tidi ( game crashes )
There is currently no such limit, no, and not having tidi is not a worth-while goal.

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?
• What relevance do you believe a travel-through multi-use remote-operated system such as Jita has on a system where a two-party fleet fight is going on?
• 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?
• Why are you so slow? I can finish an entire game of mahjong solitaire between your repetitions.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#183 - 2013-12-17 04:17:36 UTC
Fewer and fewer line of text. Running out of steam? Don't quit now. I think you almost have Tippia convinced. You just need to stick to the facts like you've been doing so far.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#184 - 2013-12-17 04:20:50 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Fewer and fewer line of text. Running out of steam? Don't quit now. I think you almost have Tippia convinced. You just need to stick to the facts like you've been doing so far.

Yeah. His tactic of doing copy-paste “arguing” without copy-pasting or having any arguments really drains his time and energy. Newbie mistake that one… Twisted
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#185 - 2013-12-17 04:21:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
Facts are this no one enjoys Tidi / player controlled game crashes


Limit the number of players to any one system will fix both.

Sorry was in a Tidi fight before now I can't type :) normal game play
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#186 - 2013-12-17 04:22:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
Facts are this no one enjoys Tidi / player controlled game crashes
…and what evidence do you have to support the hypothesis that there is such a thing as player-controlled crashes?

Quote:
Limit the number of players to any one system will fix both.
Why on earth would you want to fix tidi? And why would you want to make the game completely static just to fix such utterly minute issues (if they even are issues to begin with, which you haven't showed yet)?

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?
• What relevance do you believe a travel-through multi-use remote-operated system such as Jita has on a system where a two-party fleet fight is going on?
• 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?
• Why are you so slow? I can finish an entire game of mahjong solitaire between your repetitions.
Leigh Akiga
Kuhri Innovations
#187 - 2013-12-17 04:25:33 UTC
Instanced battlegrounds GO
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#188 - 2013-12-17 04:26:29 UTC
Any given day more ships are blown up in HS/low sec than all of Null.


Who enjoys tidi ?
Why would not want to help the game?

Limit the number of players to any one system would fix both tidi and ( player controlled crashes) just log more into the system


Give many more smaller alliances a chance to enter Null / Sov warfare w/o having to be a part of the tidi/game crashing Zergs
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#189 - 2013-12-17 04:30:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
Any given day more ships are blown up in HS/low sec than all of Null.
So what?

Quote:
Why would not want to help the game?
We keep asking you this very question, and you can't answer…
Why do you want to give large coalitions unassailable positions in nullsec?
Why do you want to make the game completely static?
Why do you want to remove a vast source of demand for the S&I sector?

Quote:
Limit the number of players to any one system would fix both tidi and ( player controlled crashes) just log more into the system
Tidi isn't something that anyone wants “fixed” since that would break things, and you have yet to provide any kind of evidence to support your hypothesis that there is such a thing as player-controlled crashes.

Quote:
Give many more smaller alliances a chance to enter Null / Sov warfare w/o having to be a part of the tidi/game crashing Zergs
…and how do you propose to do that? (No, making it impossible for them to engage in sov warfare by mechanically ensuring that the big coalitions win every time is not going to do it).

Moreover…
• 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?
• What relevance do you believe a travel-through multi-use remote-operated system such as Jita has on a system where a two-party fleet fight is going on?
• 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?
• Why are you so slow? I can finish an entire game of mahjong solitaire between your repetitions.
Jennai
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#190 - 2013-12-17 04:31:07 UTC
is this an experiment to see how many times you can paste the same meaningless crap before ISD considers it spam?

please answer at least one these questions or I will assume you either are a complete idiot, a poorly-coded bot, or the aforementioned test of forum moderation:

• 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?
• What relevance do you believe a travel-through multi-use remote-operated system such as Jita has on a system where a two-party fleet fight is going on?
• 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?
• Why are you so slow? I can finish an entire game of mahjong solitaire between your repetitions.
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#191 - 2013-12-17 04:32:04 UTC
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
CCP has stated time and time again that the game in its current state cannot handle large number of players in system.
This has been known for years. We know there is never going to be a fix for the fact that the hardware/software can't handle the amount of stress that we the players can put on it. So instead of letting the players have control over whether or not to crash your node why not make a simple change to the game that keeps the node from crashing?
Limit the number of pilots to one system to 1000 players. Yes limit the number of players! It will create content. It will keep the server from crashing. No more tidi. You will see a different type of Null sec.
This idea is not new. Jita for example only what max of 2000 players on its super Node before traffic control kicks in. CCP regain control of your game and just simply limit the number of players to any one system to X to keep it up and running.




This again will fix the game
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#192 - 2013-12-17 04:33:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
This again will fix the game
How? And what is the problem that needs to be fixed?

You could answer that simple question by addressing some of the points being made so far, such as…
• 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?
• What relevance do you believe a travel-through multi-use remote-operated system such as Jita has on a system where a two-party fleet fight is going on?
• 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?
• Why do you want to remove a huge source of demand for industrial production?
• 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?
• Why are you so slow? I can finish an entire game of mahjong solitaire between your repetitions.
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#193 - 2013-12-17 04:37:04 UTC
Limiting the number of players will stop the game from crashing ( no more tidi ) ( no more mega zerg game breaking fights )

Open up Sov for smaller alliances/corps

Limit the number of players will only bring quality pvp not ( tidi ) ( game breaking ) fights.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#194 - 2013-12-17 04:44:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
Limiting the number of players will stop the game from crashing
…and in the process breaking the game by removing all dynamics from nullsec and nixing any ability to ever change the sov map. What makes you think this is a good trade?

Quote:
Open up Sov for smaller alliances/corps
How does making it impossible to take sov from larger alliances open up sov for smaller alliances?

Quote:
Limit the number of players will only bring quality pvp
How will 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?
• What relevance do you believe a travel-through multi-use remote-operated system such as Jita has on a system where a two-party fleet fight is going on?
• 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?
• Why do you want to remove a huge source of demand for industrial production?
• 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?
• Why are you so slow? I can finish an entire game of mahjong solitaire between your repetitions.
• What makes you think that ignoring the questions will make them go away?
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#195 - 2013-12-17 04:48:03 UTC
Limiting the number of players to the system will let CCP regain control of the game as right now anyone with enough players can crash the node.
Limiting the number of players = no tidi = no more game crashes


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?
• What relevance do you believe a travel-through multi-use remote-operated system such as Jita has on a system where a two-party fleet fight is going on?
• 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?
• Why do you want to remove a huge source of demand for industrial production?
• 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?
• Why are you so slow? I can finish an entire game of mahjong solitaire between your repetitions.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#196 - 2013-12-17 04:53:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
Limiting the number of players to the system will let CCP regain control of the game as right now anyone with enough players can crash the node.
And what is the “lost control” you think is going on here? How has CCP lost anything?

Quote:
Limiting the number of players = no tidi = no more game crashes
You realise that tidi does not equate to game crashes, right, and that “no tidi” is not a desirable state of afffairs? You also realise that limiting the number of players does not in fact remove tidi? Moreover, what makes you think that solving the rather minor issue of the rare node crash is worth sacrificing all of nullsec over?

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?
• What relevance do you believe a travel-through multi-use remote-operated system such as Jita has on a system where a two-party fleet fight is going on?
• 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?
• Why do you want to remove a huge source of demand for industrial production?
• 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?
• Why are you so slow? I can finish an entire game of mahjong solitaire between your repetitions.
• What makes you think that ignoring the questions will make them go away?
Arkady Romanov
Whole Squid
#197 - 2013-12-17 05:01:23 UTC
This is surreal.

For the first time ever, I've decided to post on EVE-O and it had to be in this ridiculous thread. I'm sure an ISD could have locked it ages ago, but I suspect they are curious about who is going to give up first too.

Go Tippia go!

Whole Squid: Get Inked.
Jennai
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#198 - 2013-12-17 05:04:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Jennai
By limiting the player limit already in Null. But for the idea of people in HighSec. Low Sec large fleet fights is fine you will be the only real . The only people with out lag/ crash is already.

The only benefits from having SOV? Limit the node crashing.
Staged fights? And for many more smaller alliances/corps.
There are in low each system? Renter income is already have SRP.
But this will crash fights? Select few tell you see so many people in and that don't or less laggy groups that fighting in Null/ Low Sec than all fine and to a cap.

With every node crashing/laggy largest scale battle? Do you spin any story horror and have X number of a limit on the number of Mega / Zerg / no more fights. The system at the income. Node reinforcement needed before the next fight to fix so they might be fights are dead the Null are the number of Null is already a system.

What would increase the number of players to a new mechanic that every tidi fights in these fights are fun? because you think that would Eve hands down does not see that would solve all of players per day of people to a chance at there were reduced to a chance at there is it?

To fix tidi fights in each system crash Jita.
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#199 - 2013-12-17 05:06:15 UTC
Well for my last post like every other post that makes a good idea about how to fix the game ( less you speak about rewriting some mystery code ) lol , It either 1. gets trolled by the players that have the most to loose



Limit the players will fix a lot of the core issues with large scale fights
It might even help break up the Null Bears a bit




More quality game play thats for sure



But keep up the meta gaming! :)
Let CCP know when and where the next large battle will take place at least 1 day before so that no one person ( alliance ) ( corp ) can crash the node.


And to all you forum fall warriors +1
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#200 - 2013-12-17 05:12:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
Well for my last post like every other post that makes a good idea about how to fix the game ( less you speak about rewriting some mystery code ) lol , It either 1. gets trolled by the players that have the most to loose
Really? In what way have you been trolled? You've been asked to support your innumerable assertions with facts and evidence and arguments, and you have been asked questions about how you think your idea will work. Just because you've been utterly and completely unable to answer any of those doesn't mean you've been trolled — just that you've been incompetent.

Speaking of incompetence, if you say that you've been “either 1…” then you really need to follow it up with a “or 2…”.

Quote:
Limit the players will fix a lot of the core issues with large scale fights
Which issues are those and how would it fix them?

Quote:
It might even help break up the Null Bears a bit
How does giving them unassailable ownership over their systems break them up in any way rather than cement their positions?

Quote:
More quality game play thats for sure
How so? How would the quality improve, and why? How is it “sure” that any of that will happen if you make sure that most systems can't be attacked?

Quote:
Let CCP know when and where the next large battle will take place at least 1 day before so that no one person ( alliance ) ( corp ) can crash the node.
No one person can crash the node as it is, and forewarning CCP of fights does not preclude a node crash.

Moreover, maybe you could answer some questions about the actual topic at hand:
• In what way is nullsec broken?
• In what way are larger-than-life battles broken?
• Do you understand what tidi is and why it’s not something that anyone wants to see removed?
• Do you understand that limiting the amount of people in a system does not preclude tidi from kicking in?
• 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?
• What relevance do you believe a travel-through multi-use remote-operated system such as Jita has on a system where a two-party fleet fight is going on?
• 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?
• Why do you want to remove a huge source of demand for industrial production?
• 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?
• Why are you so slow? I can finish an entire game of mahjong solitaire between your repetitions.
• What makes you think that ignoring the questions will make them go away?