These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Notorious Fellon
#341 - 2014-02-25 19:24:29 UTC
Organic Lager wrote:
Simple solution

1) when a ship lands on the gate to jita and jita is full have it initiate warp.
2) while in warp to jita place the player in a queue to get in and provide them with an eta and # in queue dialog box
3) allow players to cancel if they don't want to wait, this will spit them out into the lions den with the standard cloak as if they had just jumped from jita

All the processing stays on the non-jita blades
Gate campers don't get free kills on parked transports
Players get the much needed jita queue
Seems like a reasonable amount of work for devs

Everyone is happy, yes?



The sensible people would be happy with this, yes.

Quite frankly, the client should just check the target gate you are heading toward when you hit "Jump Through" in the Overview (even when you have just arrived in the neighboring system and click the next gate) and then simply leave you "in warp" until it is open. This would require no additional load anywhere.

Crime, it is not a "career", it is a lifestyle.
RAW23
#342 - 2014-02-25 19:26:53 UTC
Tippia wrote:

RAW23 wrote:
No-one is suggesting there should be no mechanic to solve the issue.
…other than through your attempt to discredit the simple fact that it is a necessary limitation and that it does maintain playability.


Absolutely false. Limiting the pop of Jita in the way it is currently done is in no way necessary. Again, you swing wildly around premises and build a strawman. The claim that some mechanism to limit the population is needed is accepted by all. But that does nothing to support your position. The discussion is about what mechanism and the issue of necessity has nothing to say on that topic, unless you want to claim that your preferred solution is the only one possible. This kind of shifting basis is entirely characteristic of your method of arguing.

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#343 - 2014-02-25 19:33:34 UTC
RAW23 wrote:
Tippia wrote:

RAW23 wrote:
No-one is suggesting there should be no mechanic to solve the issue.
…other than through your attempt to discredit the simple fact that it is a necessary limitation and that it does maintain playability.


Absolutely false. Limiting the pop of Jita in the way it is currently done is in no way necessary. Again, you swing wildly around premises and build a strawman. The claim that some mechanism to limit the population is needed is accepted by all. But that does nothing to support your position. The discussion is about what mechanism and the issue of necessity has nothing to say on that topic, unless you want to claim that your preferred solution is the only one possible. This kind of shifting basis is entirely characteristic of your method of arguing.



What is done.

Why it's done.

The best part.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#344 - 2014-02-25 19:48:04 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
RAW23 wrote:
Tippia wrote:

RAW23 wrote:
No-one is suggesting there should be no mechanic to solve the issue.
…other than through your attempt to discredit the simple fact that it is a necessary limitation and that it does maintain playability.


Absolutely false. Limiting the pop of Jita in the way it is currently done is in no way necessary. Again, you swing wildly around premises and build a strawman. The claim that some mechanism to limit the population is needed is accepted by all. But that does nothing to support your position. The discussion is about what mechanism and the issue of necessity has nothing to say on that topic, unless you want to claim that your preferred solution is the only one possible. This kind of shifting basis is entirely characteristic of your method of arguing.



What is done.

Why it's done.

The best part.


Poor naive Kimmi,,young in the ways of GD.

I too once thought posting proof and facts and reason and the words of the DEVS themselves would mean something. But alas, backing up what you say with proof only fuels more ignorance . You're be better of calling people trolls for no reason and spamming GD with yo momma jokes Twisted
RAW23
#345 - 2014-02-25 19:48:16 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
RAW23 wrote:
Tippia wrote:

RAW23 wrote:
No-one is suggesting there should be no mechanic to solve the issue.
…other than through your attempt to discredit the simple fact that it is a necessary limitation and that it does maintain playability.


Absolutely false. Limiting the pop of Jita in the way it is currently done is in no way necessary. Again, you swing wildly around premises and build a strawman. The claim that some mechanism to limit the population is needed is accepted by all. But that does nothing to support your position. The discussion is about what mechanism and the issue of necessity has nothing to say on that topic, unless you want to claim that your preferred solution is the only one possible. This kind of shifting basis is entirely characteristic of your method of arguing.



What is done.

Why it's done.

The best part.


Err ... what does that have to do with anything? Once again, no one is suggesting that a cap isn't necessary and none of those links provide any grounds for supporting one way of managing the cap over another. How would making a ship invulnerable change anything mentioned in any of those links?

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.
RAW23
#346 - 2014-02-25 19:50:08 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
RAW23 wrote:
Tippia wrote:

RAW23 wrote:
No-one is suggesting there should be no mechanic to solve the issue.
…other than through your attempt to discredit the simple fact that it is a necessary limitation and that it does maintain playability.


Absolutely false. Limiting the pop of Jita in the way it is currently done is in no way necessary. Again, you swing wildly around premises and build a strawman. The claim that some mechanism to limit the population is needed is accepted by all. But that does nothing to support your position. The discussion is about what mechanism and the issue of necessity has nothing to say on that topic, unless you want to claim that your preferred solution is the only one possible. This kind of shifting basis is entirely characteristic of your method of arguing.



What is done.

Why it's done.

The best part.


Poor naive Kimmi,,young in the ways of GD.

I too once thought posting proof and facts and reason and the words of the DEVS themselves would mean something. But alas, backing up what you say with proof only fuels more ignorance . You're be better of calling people trolls for no reason and spamming GD with yo momma jokes Twisted


Please indicate what in any of those posts indicates that the only way to manage the cap is the method currently used. Don't worry - I'll wait.

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#347 - 2014-02-25 19:50:41 UTC
RAW23 wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
RAW23 wrote:
Tippia wrote:

RAW23 wrote:
No-one is suggesting there should be no mechanic to solve the issue.
…other than through your attempt to discredit the simple fact that it is a necessary limitation and that it does maintain playability.


Absolutely false. Limiting the pop of Jita in the way it is currently done is in no way necessary. Again, you swing wildly around premises and build a strawman. The claim that some mechanism to limit the population is needed is accepted by all. But that does nothing to support your position. The discussion is about what mechanism and the issue of necessity has nothing to say on that topic, unless you want to claim that your preferred solution is the only one possible. This kind of shifting basis is entirely characteristic of your method of arguing.



What is done.

Why it's done.

The best part.


Err ... what does that have to do with anything? Once again, no one is suggesting that a cap isn't necessary and none of those links provide any grounds for supporting one way of managing the cap over another. How would making a ship invulnerable change anything mentioned in any of those links?


Oh I see we're back to the OP now.

The proposed solution is not suitable. It makes a player still in space invulnerable. Any player in space is a target. You are suggesting they not be a target. It is not a suitable solution.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#348 - 2014-02-25 19:52:28 UTC
RAW23 wrote:

Err ... what does that have to do with anything? Once again, no one is suggesting that a cap isn't necessary and none of those links provide any grounds for supporting one way of managing the cap over another. How would making a ship invulnerable change anything mentioned in any of those links?


Making a ship invulnerable goes against everything EVE stands for. You should not be removed from risk while you sit on a gate, people should never be protected from their own stupidity.
RAW23
#349 - 2014-02-25 19:58:16 UTC  |  Edited by: RAW23
baltec1 wrote:
RAW23 wrote:

Err ... what does that have to do with anything? Once again, no one is suggesting that a cap isn't necessary and none of those links provide any grounds for supporting one way of managing the cap over another. How would making a ship invulnerable change anything mentioned in any of those links?


Making a ship invulnerable goes against everything EVE stands for. You should not be removed from risk while you sit on a gate, people should never be protected from their own stupidity.


Putting in place a system under which a player is not needlessly disadvantaged by processing limits that they have no control over is perfectly reasonable. Call it 'invulnerability' or call it 'sitting in warp until space in Jita opens up to land', the effect is the same - dealing with the population limit issue without imposing an unnecessary alteration to the dynamics of the game environment due to excessive server load.

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#350 - 2014-02-25 19:58:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
RAW23 wrote:
Absolutely false. Limiting the pop of Jita in the way it is currently done [i.e. though a cap] is in no way necessary.
Quote:
no one is suggesting that a cap isn't necessary
…aside from you.

So make up your mind. Is it or is it not a necessary limitation? Does it or does it not maintain playability?
Oh, and if it's not capped the way it is now, how should it be capped?

Quote:
The claim that some mechanism to limit the population is needed is accepted by all.
Actually, some seem to suggest that it shouldn't be capped. You, personally, are even trying to discredit the fact that it's necessary.

Quote:
The discussion is about what mechanism
Actually, the discussion has wavered between being invulnerable while waiting for a spot and somehow removing the cap, with a side of “it's all CCP's fault and I can't do anything about it”.

Quote:
unless you want to claim that your preferred solution is the only one possible.
Do you even know what my preferred solution is?
RAW23
#351 - 2014-02-25 20:00:50 UTC
Tippia wrote:
RAW23 wrote:
Absolutely false. Limiting the pop of Jita in the way it is currently done [i.e. though a cap] is in no way necessary.

Quote:
no one is suggesting that a cap isn't necessary
…aside from you.

So make up your mind. Is it or is it not a necessary limitation? Does it or does it not maintain playability?
Oh, and if it's not capped the way it is now, how should it be capped?

Quote:
The claim that some mechanism to limit the population is needed is accepted by all.
Actually, some seem to suggest that it shouldn't be capped. You, personally, are even trying to discredit the fact that it's necessary.

Quote:
The discussion is about what mechanism
Actually, the discussion has wavered between being invulnerable while waiting for a spot and somehow removing the cap, with a side of “it's all CCP's fault and I can't do anything about it”.

[qutoe]unless you want to claim that your preferred solution is the only one possible.
Do you even know what my preferred solution is?[/quote]

Now you're just making stuff up. I have repeatedly said the cap is not a problem. If you want to claim otherwise please quote the post where I make that argument. You can't because I haven't. You are simply manufacturing a strawman in the teeth of the evidence.

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#352 - 2014-02-25 20:01:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
RAW23 wrote:
Putting in place a system under which a player is not needlessly disadvantaged by processing limits that they have no control over is perfectly reasonable.
Such a system already exists. However, it requires that people don't sit around in the open doing nothing.

No, making people invulnerable for doing nothing is not reasonable.

Quote:
Call it 'invulnerability' or call it 'sitting in warp until space in Jita opens up to land', the effect is the same - dealing with the population limit issue without imposing an unnecessary alteration to the dynamics of the game environment due to excessive server load.
…except, of course, that it imposes unnecessary alterations to the dynamics of the game environment.

Quote:
Now you're just making stuff up.
If by “making stuff up” you mean “quote you”, then yes. If not, then no.
By the way, could you answer the questions?
Aimy Maulerant
DDo Squad Gaming
#353 - 2014-02-25 20:02:45 UTC
Organic Lager wrote:
Simple solution

1) when a ship lands on the gate to jita and jita is full have it initiate warp.
2) while in warp to jita place the player in a queue to get in and provide them with an eta and # in queue dialog box
3) allow players to cancel if they don't want to wait, this will spit them out into the lions den with the standard cloak as if they had just jumped from jita

All the processing stays on the non-jita blades
Gate campers don't get free kills on parked transports
Players get the much needed jita queue
Seems like a reasonable amount of work for devs

Everyone is happy, yes?


sounds like a nerf to help autopiloters, id rather they sit there and die because they are too lazy to look at the screen and go dock up somewhere else, so it should be ok for freighters etc to que the jita gate but the gankers cant do it, your trying to play your game why cant the gankers play theirs?
RAW23
#354 - 2014-02-25 20:03:45 UTC
Tippia wrote:
except, of course, that it imposes unnecessary alterations to the dynamics of the game environment.


No. It would maintain the normal dynamic that when you get to a gate and hit jump you are safe until you land on the other side.

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#355 - 2014-02-25 20:04:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Kimmi Chan
RAW23 wrote:
Putting in place a system under which a player is not needlessly disadvantaged by processing limits that they have no control over is perfectly reasonable. Call it 'invulnerability' or call it 'sitting in warp until space in Jita opens up to land', the effect is the same - dealing with the population limit issue without imposing an unnecessary alteration to the dynamics of the game environment due to excessive server load.


No.

Everyone has control over their actions. Jita has been like this for the past month at least. What you are suggesting is that they be made invulnerable because they are too lazy to go somewhere else. Rewarding people for laziness is not a precedent that should be set.

Those of us who recognize the limitations are profiting in a big way from it. Because we're not lazy.

The solution you are proposing is not a suitable solution. No other player in space is invulnerable. Every player in space is a target. You want to make them not a target. This is not a suitable solution.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
RAW23
#356 - 2014-02-25 20:05:35 UTC
Tippia wrote:
If by “making stuff up” you mean “quote you”, then yes. If not, then no.


You haven't quoted any post in which I made such a suggestion. We are in the realms of obstinate fantasy here.

Go on, if it exists quote it.

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#357 - 2014-02-25 20:05:46 UTC
RAW23 wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
RAW23 wrote:

Err ... what does that have to do with anything? Once again, no one is suggesting that a cap isn't necessary and none of those links provide any grounds for supporting one way of managing the cap over another. How would making a ship invulnerable change anything mentioned in any of those links?


Making a ship invulnerable goes against everything EVE stands for. You should not be removed from risk while you sit on a gate, people should never be protected from their own stupidity.


Putting in place a system under which a player is not needlessly disadvantaged by processing limits that they have no control over is perfectly reasonable. Call it 'invulnerability' or call it 'sitting in warp until space in Jita opens up to land', the effect is the same - dealing with the population limit issue without imposing an unnecessary alteration to the dynamics of the game environment due to excessive server load.


You can access the market in jita from outside of jita, you can sell your items next door to jita and people will buy them, you can tank your ships and not toss billions into the hold and go unganked and you will at most spend a few minutes sitting on the gate to get in.

No this is not needed.
Organic Lager
Drinking Buddies
#358 - 2014-02-25 20:05:55 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
RAW23 wrote:


Err ... what does that have to do with anything? Once again, no one is suggesting that a cap isn't necessary and none of those links provide any grounds for supporting one way of managing the cap over another. How would making a ship invulnerable change anything mentioned in any of those links?


Oh I see we're back to the OP now.

The proposed solution is not suitable. It makes a player still in space invulnerable. Any player in space is a target. You are suggesting they not be a target. It is not a suitable solution.


Hey Kimmi, you seem to know what's what and I fully agree invulnerable ships in space is a bad idea.

Can you explain why my idea of having it intiate warp normally and enter a queue wouldn't work?

I'm no programmer and have no real horse in this race as I outsource my shipping. Just mostly curious as to why a seemingly simple and balanced middle ground can't be met?
RAW23
#359 - 2014-02-25 20:07:31 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:


The solution you are proposing is not a suitable solution. No other player in space is invulnerable. Every player in space is a target. You want to make them not a target. This is not a suitable solution.


So put them in warp when they punch the gate, just as they would be under any other circumstances that weren't constrained by server load, and just don't have them land until there is space if you are so concerned about the aesthetics of 'being in space'.

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.
RAW23
#360 - 2014-02-25 20:08:56 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
RAW23 wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
RAW23 wrote:

Err ... what does that have to do with anything? Once again, no one is suggesting that a cap isn't necessary and none of those links provide any grounds for supporting one way of managing the cap over another. How would making a ship invulnerable change anything mentioned in any of those links?


Making a ship invulnerable goes against everything EVE stands for. You should not be removed from risk while you sit on a gate, people should never be protected from their own stupidity.


Putting in place a system under which a player is not needlessly disadvantaged by processing limits that they have no control over is perfectly reasonable. Call it 'invulnerability' or call it 'sitting in warp until space in Jita opens up to land', the effect is the same - dealing with the population limit issue without imposing an unnecessary alteration to the dynamics of the game environment due to excessive server load.


You can access the market in jita from outside of jita, you can sell your items next door to jita and people will buy them, you can tank your ships and not toss billions into the hold and go unganked and you will at most spend a few minutes sitting on the gate to get in.

No this is not needed.


Sure there are workarounds. They are just unnecessary when the normal flow of the game (or something closer to it) can be maintained.

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.