These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Getting ganked on a closed Jita gate

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dave Stark
#101 - 2014-02-23 20:21:04 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


i'm not suggesting they do anything. i'm suggesting knowing if a gate is open or not, is a better system than "warp to the gate and flip a coin" at current.


You're wrong, because any feasible way for such a thing to exist, would cause more problems than it solves.

And since it would be trying to solve something that isn't actually a problem (autopiloting afk morons getting ganked on a locked gate), then it's not even worth consideration.

I honestly consider it insulting that Jita is wasting one of the cores that could be used for fleet fights. One of those is a big new player and recruitment draw. One of them is utterly boring.

So here's my solution to your "problem". Take Jita off the supernode entirely, FORCE people to shop elsewhere, and spread things around highsec.

Best part is, it's more technologically feasible than anything you're saying in this thread.


*shrug* might not be feasable, won't argue that.

however the system we have now is still terrible and could be improved.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#102 - 2014-02-23 20:21:32 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
Ai Shun wrote:
EVE Online is not a twitch based game. It's slower, more thoughtful and requires players to plan ahead. You need knowledge based intelligence to survive and prosper in this game. This means scouting via the starmap, checking intel channels and knowing what your choke points are when hauling.

Why is "Knowing that Jita is a heavily travelled, reinforced node with problems during US peak times over the 4 day weekend period" any different to using the starmap, checking intel channels and generally knowing what is going on in the game?


That doesn't justify dying on gates due to lag.

Even if you know it's there, traders, haulers and manufacturers in particular NEED to get in and out.

Bearing in mind GMs treat empire lag losses that are server based differently to combat losses, I'm pretty sure people are petitioning and probably getting a few reimbursed. It's not an invalid argument.


I'd support your assertion if there were no alternatives.

But there are alternatives - over 7,000 of them.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Dave Stark
#103 - 2014-02-23 20:22:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
no, i've just suggested that you should be able to tell if the gate you're trying to go through is closed or not.


This mechanic already exists. If you warp to the Jita gate in Perimeter and the Jita system is full, you get a popup that says, "Jump Prohibited" because the system is full.

Working as intended. I'm so glad we got that sorted.


considering your fix of the problem, is the problem, i see you've read and understood the thread.


My fix for the problem is going somewhere else. The people in Jita are the problem, not the gates. We've been over this.


actually the hardware running the game isn't sufficient for the amount of players the game has is the problem.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#104 - 2014-02-23 20:22:38 UTC
Oh, and as for the claim that if you die on a locked gate, you get reimbursed.

I would like to point that, while many people have told me they will petition a loss to such a situation, no one has ever bragged about how it worked.

Locked gates are laissez faire, folks.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#105 - 2014-02-23 20:23:36 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
however the system we have now is still terrible and could be improved.
How is it terrible that we have all the information we need at our fingertip; that it's trivially easy to get in even during congested times; that we have plenty of functionality that entirely removes the need to get in and out?
Dave Stark
#106 - 2014-02-23 20:24:58 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
however the system we have now is still terrible and could be improved.
How is it terrible that we have all the information we need at our fingertip; that it's trivially easy to get in even during congested times; that we have plenty of functionality that entirely removes the need to get in and out?


read the original post.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#107 - 2014-02-23 20:25:57 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
however the system we have now is still terrible and could be improved.
How is it terrible that we have all the information we need at our fingertip; that it's trivially easy to get in even during congested times; that we have plenty of functionality that entirely removes the need to get in and out?


read the original post.


Nothing in the original post has merit.

Literally nothing.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#108 - 2014-02-23 20:26:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Dave Stark wrote:
read the original post.
So it's not actually terrible at all then: the “problem” is that people die because they're sloppy, which is as it should be. Well, that's sorted, I suppose.
Dave Stark
#109 - 2014-02-23 20:26:56 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
however the system we have now is still terrible and could be improved.
How is it terrible that we have all the information we need at our fingertip; that it's trivially easy to get in even during congested times; that we have plenty of functionality that entirely removes the need to get in and out?


read the original post.


Nothing in the original post has merit.

Literally nothing.


wrong; it had enough about it to get you to repeatedly post.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#110 - 2014-02-23 20:27:05 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
no, i've just suggested that you should be able to tell if the gate you're trying to go through is closed or not.


This mechanic already exists. If you warp to the Jita gate in Perimeter and the Jita system is full, you get a popup that says, "Jump Prohibited" because the system is full.

Working as intended. I'm so glad we got that sorted.


considering your fix of the problem, is the problem, i see you've read and understood the thread.


My fix for the problem is going somewhere else. The people in Jita are the problem, not the gates. We've been over this.


actually the hardware running the game isn't sufficient for the amount of players the game has is the problem.


What you're saying here is that in order for CCP to have adequate hardware they would need said hardware to support 500,000 people in a single system. Not that 500,000 in a single system would ever happen but with that number of subscribers we need to make sure the hardware can support that many.

I could be wrong, but I don't think any such hardware exists, and if it does who the hell would be able to afford it?

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Ai Shun
#111 - 2014-02-23 20:27:09 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
So, you're suggesting that, before anyone, anywhere, warps to any gate, that the client pings the server to see if the gate is locked or not? And that this information be available on demand, yes?


You're taking a narrow view of the potential methods for solving this. (I don't think it needs solving, but damn that's a narrow viewpoint, mate)

I'd wager that there is already information exchanged between the server and the client when somebody initiates warp. I'd give you better odds that there is information exchanged between the server and the client when somebody jumps into a system. You could leverage that, with a 15m / 30m cache to even further reduce processing loads and flag the different gates in/out of a perimeter system at a very low data transmission overhead. (1 byte additional per gate)

This way the information is available when you jump into a system and you can decide if you want to attempt the next jump or not.
Dave Stark
#112 - 2014-02-23 20:27:57 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
read the original post.
So it's not actually terrible at all then — the problem is that people because they're sloppy, which is as it should be. Well, that's sorted, I suppose.


i can't actually be bothered to type a proper response since you refuse to even read, let alone type a proper response.

the issue the OP pointed out has nothing to do with being sloppy.
Ai Shun
#113 - 2014-02-23 20:30:48 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
That doesn't justify dying on gates due to lag.

Even if you know it's there, traders, haulers and manufacturers in particular NEED to get in and out.

Bearing in mind GMs treat empire lag losses that are server based differently to combat losses, I'm pretty sure people are petitioning and probably getting a few reimbursed. It's not an invalid argument.


You don't even know how big the problem is. All you have to base this conjecture on is a single forum post Big smile

You're also only looking in a narrow band. You don't generally NEED to get in or out in those time windows if you've done enough pre-thinking and planning to avoid it during those times. If, however, it becomes a LIFE or DEATH matter to get into Jita at 20:30 on a Saturday night in prime-time when the system is blocked, the risk is known and you need to decide if the odds of losing a cargo is worth the potential pay off. Like the rest of EVE, no?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#114 - 2014-02-23 20:31:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Dave Stark wrote:
i can't actually be bothered to type a proper response
I noticed.
I gave you a proper response anyway, since I'm a kind and gentle person like that.

The OP was about the implementation of a hideously idiotic gamebreaker just to cover for the fact that the OP had been sloppy and failed to use the information and mechanics at his disposal. This is, of course, not a problem, but rather the way it should be. Less sloppiness on hiss part would have resulted in less death.

All in all, not a terrible system, just terrible users.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#115 - 2014-02-23 20:32:15 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:

i can't actually be bothered to type a proper response since you refuse to even read, let alone type a proper response.


So instead you make another childish, petulant reply. Excellent work.
Angeleh
Silverflames
#116 - 2014-02-23 20:32:17 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Angeleh wrote:
A ship that has made it to the gate and activated it should be out safe and not risk being killed.
Why? This isn't Ender's Game. The enemy gate is not down.


No idea what Ender's game is, but when you transition system in Eve you can't be shot. And the transition is what should happen when you activate the gate.

Quote:
…except that the gate is not malfunctioning and it is not a game fault. *snip*


It is not an intended design of the gate that it doesn't work, it is a result of the server being overloaded. Yes the mechanism to prevent the server from crashing is working as intended, but the mechanism isn't intended to be there. If the server could handle it, there would be no locked gate. Therefore the locked gate is a result of the game's fault to handle the load.
Dave Stark
#117 - 2014-02-23 20:32:24 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
i can't actually be bothered to type a proper response
I noticed.
I gave you a proper response anyway, since I'm a kind and gentle person like that.

The OP was about the implementation of a hideously idiotic gamebreaker just to cover for the fact that the OP had been sloppy and failed to use the information and mechanics at his disposal. This is, of course, not a problem, but rather the way it should be. Less sloppiness on hiss part would have resulted in less death.


that's not what the op was about at all.
Dave Stark
#118 - 2014-02-23 20:33:09 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:

i can't actually be bothered to type a proper response since you refuse to even read, let alone type a proper response.


So instead you make another childish, petulant reply. Excellent work.


i can't give a reply to some one who isn't even able to discuss the topic and would rather have a monologue with themselves.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#119 - 2014-02-23 20:35:27 UTC
Angeleh wrote:
And the transition is what should happen when you activate the gate.


If the system is not full, sure. If the system is capped, traffic control politely refuses your jump and advises you to try again later.

You don't get a gate cloak for being told 'no.'

Working as intended.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#120 - 2014-02-23 20:35:44 UTC
Angeleh wrote:
If the server could handle it, there would be no locked gate. Therefore the locked gate is a result of the game's fault to handle the load.


Wrong. The locked gate is a result of the players knowing the limitations of the game's ability to handle the load and then ignoring those limitations.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!