These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Jita locked out again.... this is getting worst.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aivo Dresden
State War Academy
Caldari State
#161 - 2014-02-22 17:27:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Aivo Dresden
Dave Stark wrote:
considering most of the "spam" in jita, doesn't violate the rule you quoted last i opened jita chat, i think ccp are being aggressive enough.

You do realise that local in Jita is completely useless right. There's the same people spamming the same message every 5 seconds just to make sure their message is the most visible, completely blocking out all other communication in the channel. That is the definition of spamming.

Not to mention (like I said) that a very large amount of these spammers are just automated bots. There is no human input there. It's a tool just spamming the chat channels, all day every day.
Your Dad Naked
Doomheim
#162 - 2014-02-22 17:30:13 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Aivo Dresden wrote:
I literally quoted his words.
…but you didn't understand what he was saying.

Quote:
The spammers don't cause that much load but the system is still capped at 2175 pilots. If there's 1000 spammers and the system is capped at 2175 then there's only room for 1175 players. So yes, the spammers do prevent actual players from logging or jumping in to Jita.
…except that if the spammers weren't there, the system cap would be 1175 players. So you would still not get in. They're not preventing anyone from logging or jumping in.
...if that were true should not Jita then allow for, say, 10,000 players if they were simply docked and spamming? Surely that cannot be the case.

The amount of spammers is not 1000 however, not even close, therefore I do agree they are not a real impact.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#163 - 2014-02-22 17:35:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Aivo Dresden wrote:
That makes no sense at all. The current cap is 2175 and if spammers are taking up 1000 of those (or whatever arbitrary number) then that directly cuts in to the 2175 total pilots allowed.
…a cap that is set to accommodate the 1175 non-spammers and the 1000 spammers. If you were to remove the spammers, somehow, the cap would be set to 1175 instead since that's how much load the system can take (after all, the spammers don't contribute to that load). The cap is set based on the load generated by the players logging or jumping into the system. Removing the people that add nothing to that load would just reveal that the actual cap is 1175, so you'd still have just as many slots available for the non-spammers and you'd still not get in.

Quote:
Your reasoning goes out from the assumption that for every spammer removed, the cap would the lowered as well and the total amount of 'legitimate' players would stay the same, so 1175 in our example.
…which is based on the fact that the spammers don't add any load to the system and the load is what determines the cap. You know, like the man just said.

Quote:
You do realise that local in Jita is completely useless right. There's the same people spamming the same message every 5 seconds just to make sure their message is the most visible, completely blocking out all other communication in the channel. That is the definition of spamming.
It is a definition. It's not the one you quoted from the RoC, though.

Your Dad Naked wrote:
...if that were true should not Jita then allow for, say, 10,000 players if they were simply docked and spamming? Surely that cannot be the case.
If the data showed that they could set a 10k player cap and the spammer + non-spammer load was at a satisfactory level, then they'd go for it. Of course, the spammer-to-non-spammer ratio isn't nearly that high so the cap ends up a lot lower.

In theory, it could certainly go that high. In practice, there aren't enough spammers. Lol
Dave Stark
#164 - 2014-02-22 17:41:22 UTC
Aivo Dresden wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
considering most of the "spam" in jita, doesn't violate the rule you quoted last i opened jita chat, i think ccp are being aggressive enough.

You do realise that local in Jita is completely useless right. There's the same people spamming the same message every 5 seconds just to make sure their message is the most visible, completely blocking out all other communication in the channel. That is the definition of spamming.

Not to mention (like I said) that a very large amount of these spammers are just automated bots. There is no human input there. It's a tool just spamming the chat channels, all day every day.


of course i realise it's completely useless, but that's subjective because i have no interest in anything that's ever posted in local. i have no interest in isk doubling, or contract sales.

i'd like to see your proof of them being automated bots.
Aivo Dresden
State War Academy
Caldari State
#165 - 2014-02-22 17:44:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Aivo Dresden
Tippia wrote:
See above

Your assumption isn't based on any facts. You just think that's how it works. Unless Explorer comes in here to confirm that the cap is there with the fact that x % of it will be spammers; you're talking rubbish. It makes just as much sense to say that spammers removed from the system free up space for legitimate players.

And yes, that is the same definition.

...
10:00:05 WTS - CONTRACT
10:00:10 WTS - CONTRACT
10:00:15 WTS - CONTRACT
10:00:20 WTS - CONTRACT
10:00:25 WTS - CONTRACT
10:00:30 WTS - CONTRACT
10:00:35 WTS - CONTRACT
10:00:40 WTS - CONTRACT
10:00:45 WTS - CONTRACT
10:00:55 WTS - CONTRACT
...

Should I go on? That there above is the definition of spamming, which is what the ROC describe. Aggravating literally means to annoy, irritate, oppress. It oppresses any kind of normal communication and annoys and irritates anyone actually trying to make use of the local channel. And if that isn't a repetitive display of text, then I don't know what is. If you want to spam your contracts, go to the trade channel. Or better, just don't.

Dave Stark wrote:
of course i realise it's completely useless, but that's subjective because i have no interest in anything that's ever posted in local. i have no interest in isk doubling, or contract sales.

Just because YOU don't have any interested in Jita Local, doesn't mean the rest of EVE doesn't either. Way to speak for all of us.

Dave Stark wrote:
i'd like to see your proof of them being automated bots.

http://themittani.com/features/chribbas-jita-spam-bot-research
Dave Stark
#166 - 2014-02-22 17:49:07 UTC
Aivo Dresden wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
of course i realise it's completely useless, but that's subjective because i have no interest in anything that's ever posted in local. i have no interest in isk doubling, or contract sales.

Just because YOU don't have any interested in Jita Local, doesn't mean the rest of EVE doesn't either. Way to speak for all of us.


are you completely dumb? i didn't speak for anyone. could you please read before you post. i didn't speak for anyone but my goddamn self.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#167 - 2014-02-22 17:49:37 UTC
Aivo Dresden wrote:
Your assumption isn't based on any facts.
…other than the dev's own statements about how they've determined the system cap. I think it works like that because I've been told it works like that.

Quote:
Unless Explorer comes in here to confirm that the cap is there with the fact that x % of it will be spammers
…which, of course, no-one has claimed. All we're doing is using your made-up numbers as illustration.

Quote:
And yes, that is the same definition.
…aside from the whole “a repetitive display of the same text again and again in an effort to aggravate other channel patrons”. All you're showing is repetition. So yes, you have to go on to show that they're actually causing any kind of aggravation.
Dave Stark
#168 - 2014-02-22 17:52:23 UTC
Tippia wrote:
So yes, you have to go on to show that they're actually causing any kind of aggravation.

his jimmies seem very rustled, does that count?
Aivo Dresden
State War Academy
Caldari State
#169 - 2014-02-22 17:53:03 UTC
I must have missed that, where was it written how the cap was determined? And yea, repetitive spam that makes any kind of other communication impossible is aggravating.
Dave Stark
#170 - 2014-02-22 17:54:56 UTC
Aivo Dresden wrote:
I must have missed that, where was it written how the cap was determined? And yea, repetitive spam that makes any kind of other communication impossible is aggravating.

it's also an inevitable result of jamming thousands of people in to one chat channel, even regular conversation would scroll too fast to be readable if everyone were participating.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#171 - 2014-02-22 18:05:31 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
FFS just add NPC couriers that will take stuff to and from New Caldari, Perimeter etc for a fee... and small delay.


Typical IZ post - "give it, CCP, I wants it, my preciousssss!", rather than "I already have the tools to deal with this so why don't I get on with it and stop complaining?".

Nope it's typical CCP inability to address an issue properly. They always address issues not by solving the problem but by implementing a bandaid.

The problem is there are too many people jumping, docking, undocking while surrounding systems remain untaxed. The solution in this situation is obvious, get people out of Jita and using surrounding systems as well. Not put a queue on the gate.

Creating a trading district out of surrounding systems is an obvious solution, a small fee and small wait both remove the reason for a queue, create an isk sink and instead of waiting at a gate clicking jump you wait in station.



it's not up to ccp to create a "trading district" around jita. besides; nobody wants it. everything is conveniently located in jita 4-4 for trading purposes. i don't want to have to jump around 6 different systems to buy/sell stuff. that's the whole point of me going to jita.

jita practically exists because people do not want what you're suggesting.

So who is it up to God? After 8 years the players are definitely not going to do it.

It's up to CCP as developers to adjust the game if it needs adjusting. Part of being a developer is to listen to user feedback and redesign in areas where players are unnecessarily frustrated by mechanics.

The idea was a trade district, not separate areas. So if you were in perimeter, new caldari etc you could purchase and sell as though you were in Jita. It would just cost you a fee to get it transferred.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Dave Stark
#172 - 2014-02-22 18:21:25 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
So who is it up to God? After 8 years the players are definitely not going to do it.

It's up to CCP as developers to adjust the game if it needs adjusting. Part of being a developer is to listen to user feedback and redesign in areas where players are unnecessarily frustrated by mechanics.

The idea was a trade district, not separate areas. So if you were in perimeter, new caldari etc you could purchase and sell as though you were in Jita. It would just cost you a fee to get it transferred.


yeah that exists, it's called a courier contract.
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#173 - 2014-02-22 18:22:40 UTC
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#174 - 2014-02-22 18:23:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Aivo Dresden wrote:
I must have missed that, where was it written how the cap was determined? And yea, repetitive spam that makes any kind of other communication impossible is aggravating.

Digging out the posts require more google-fu than I am capable of, but it has been explained on multiple occasions.

Jita has a target load and TiDi that it should be able to maintain at all times and is being monitored for average levels. If the average load becomes too high, the cap is lowered; if the load consistently is lower than expected, the cap goes up. Stuff that doesn't add to the load… well… just don't add to the load, and can therefore add up without really affecting the cap.

At the moment, it has been determined that just over 2000 people can be in the system without it going bonkers from all the activity. Exactly what those people do is not even particularly relevant. But let's use your numbers to show the process.

Let's say that 1000 spammers (and their off-hours replacements) were kicked out permanently from Jita with a completely naïve approach to the results, letting 1000 active players in and doubling the size of that group. This would double the load (active players, remember, as opposed to the spammers that add no load), and TiDi would kick in at 40:ish% — about half of the target. This is way below target and the cap would have to be adjusted. Let's say they tried 1500 first, which is still 50% more active players than before, and thus 50% more load. This would leave TiDI at ~55% — still far too low. Since we kicked people out naïvely and had no idea who did what, we have no idea what kind of cap we should be aiming for so we have to keep searching. Let's say they reduced it to 1250 as a next step — ~25% more load than originally and 20% lower TiDi… still not good enough, but we're seeing a convergence point now. Final try: set the cap to 1000 et voilà, the load and TiDi falls within the acceptable range.

All we've really done is figure out how many players were creating load to being with — the ones we kicked out never added any. If they were to come back and take up the reduced slots, what would happen is that the average load would go down, demonstrating that there was room to increase the cap. However, that increase would only really cover the non-loaders, and the amount of active players would stay pretty much constant. And on it goes: “feeling” for what the right level is, irrespective of what people actually do in the system.


Infinity Ziona wrote:
So who is it up to God? After 8 years the players are definitely not going to do it.
Then it's obviously not a particularly big problem, or people would have long since started using the many tools at our disposal to remove it.
Angelica Dreamstar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#175 - 2014-02-22 18:33:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Angelica Dreamstar
You know what's kind of irritating?

Jita is capped at 2175 only.

All market transactions are done on a different node.
All chatting is done on a different node.

This actually removes two of the most engaged things happening in Jita 4-4, right?

... and that's kind of irritating. I'd bet that most people believe that trading and chatting are the things
actually slowing the node down the most.


So ... what's actually slowing down the node so much?


The session changes ?? Jita does have quite a few gates and there are always several people
at the New Caldari and Perimeter gates. Then we have several stations too.

Is it true?


Why did I write 'only' in my second line? Because 2175 isn't that much, if you put it into context.

If you look at the bloodbath of B-R5RB and think of all the things that are going on, including amount of ships, drones, session changes due to explosions/jump-ins, people clicking modules, PHYSICS!, etc etc ...

Yes, there's TiDi at 10% ... but the node wasn't even reinforced !

TL;DR:
There was SO much more going on in B-R5RB which ran on a non-reinforced node with population count comparable to the one of Jita for quite a while. Jita runs on a reinforced node AND has two of the most happening things in system outsourced onto a different node!


What's actually going on that you need to have a cap as low as 2175?

bingo, his pig not being a goat doesn't make the pig wrong, just him an idiot for shouting at his pig "WHY ARENT YOU A GOAT!" (Source)

-- Ralph King-Griffin, about deranged people playing EVE ONLINE
Aivo Dresden
State War Academy
Caldari State
#176 - 2014-02-22 18:37:20 UTC
Tippia wrote:
See above.

That makes sense, I must have missed that. Thanks for lining it out again.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#177 - 2014-02-22 18:44:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
What's actually going on that you need to have a cap as low as 2175?
Lots of people logging in, jumping in, and undocking, which requires large amounts of calculations to set up their in-space object. Unfortunately, it's also not something that TiDi is a very good countermeasure for, which is why everyone is (or was) hoping for some progress on the brain-in-a-box project that would sideload all those calculations onto a separate server.

Fleets generate a completely different kind of load. Sure, when it jumps in, all those calculations have to be run, which creates a momentary spike, but once that's done, everything else is just the standard ongoing simulation running at whatever speed it needs to run at. That load is generally much smaller per ship than the complex task of fetching all character, ship, module, etc. data, mashing it together and producing a single object for the simulation to handle.

Aivo Dresden wrote:
That makes sense, I must have missed that. Thanks for lining it out again.

Well, like I said it's on the forums somewhere and if you're spectacularly bored one day, you could try to search for it. It wasn't described in detail in any of the dev posts in this thread, though, so it was more implied and recalled from previous threadnoughts than something you properly missed.
Angelica Dreamstar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#178 - 2014-02-22 18:45:49 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
What's actually going on that you need to have a cap as low as 2175?
Lots of people logging in, jumping in, and undocking, which requires large amounts of calculations to set up their in-space object. Unfortunately, it's also not something that TiDi is a very good countermeasure for, which is why everyone is (or was) hoping for some progress on the brain-in-a-box project that would sideload all those calculations onto a separate server.

Fleets generate a completely different kind of load. Sure, when it jumps in, all those calculations have to be run, which creates a momentary spike, but once that's done, everything else is just the standard ongoing simulation running at whatever speed it needs to run at. That load is generally much smaller per ship than the complex task of fetching all character, ship, module, etc. data, mashing it together and producing a single object for the simulation to handle.
You could have just quoted "The session changes???" and responded with "Yes" and it would have been the same response in a one-liner.

bingo, his pig not being a goat doesn't make the pig wrong, just him an idiot for shouting at his pig "WHY ARENT YOU A GOAT!" (Source)

-- Ralph King-Griffin, about deranged people playing EVE ONLINE
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#179 - 2014-02-22 18:46:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
You could have just quoted "The session changes???" and responded with "Yes" and it would have been the same response in a one-liner.

Yes, but it's worth pointing out the difference they make compared to regular fleet action to explain the difference in numbers. It's also worth pointing out that TiDi isn't fully up to the task of handing this particular load.
Angelica Dreamstar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#180 - 2014-02-22 18:55:08 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
You could have just quoted "The session changes???" and responded with "Yes" and it would have been the same response in a one-liner.

Yes, but it's worth pointing out the difference they make compared to regular fleet action to explain the difference in numbers. It's also worth pointing out that TiDi isn't fully up to the task of handing this particular load.
I can't wait to see how much of an improvement BIAB will bring ... and if they'll use it as an expansion feature................

bingo, his pig not being a goat doesn't make the pig wrong, just him an idiot for shouting at his pig "WHY ARENT YOU A GOAT!" (Source)

-- Ralph King-Griffin, about deranged people playing EVE ONLINE