These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#361 - 2014-02-25 20:10:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
RAW23 wrote:
You haven't quoted any post in which I made such a suggestion.

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.

So again, make up your mind: is it or is it not a necessary limitation? Does it or does it not maintain playability? If it's not capped the way it is now, how should it be capped?
Also, do you even know what my preferred solution is?

Quote:
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.
No, it would alter the normal dynamic of when you get to a gate to locked system. After all, if it didn't alter anything, it would already work the way you wanted, wouldn't it? Or are you saying that the gate behaviour should not be altered?

It would be unnecessary because the desired results — not hanging around in the open to be shot at at will — can already be achieved through existing means.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#362 - 2014-02-25 20:12:34 UTC
Organic Lager wrote:
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?


Tippia is likely better equipped to address this than I am. He know more about what's what than anyone else posting here.

If I had to venture a guess, I would say that you are asking for intentionally long warp tunnels. Long warp tunnels are not a mechanic. They are a manifestation of TiDi and the server "shitting the bed". I think it would be counter-productive to code a simulated server "shitting the bed" for this issue. In truth, I can not for the life of me, figure why the other people in these threads can't just find another system to buy and sell their stuff. It is truly absurd that this one system causes more grief than the actual gankers that blew up the OP's Anathema and Pod.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#363 - 2014-02-25 20:12:35 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
RAW23 wrote:


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


Wrong.

You use the tools we have, you do not ask CCP to make the game protect you from everyone else.
Marsha Mallow
#364 - 2014-02-25 20:18:21 UTC
Aimy Maulerant wrote:
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?

Those on autopilot would still land off the gate and have the normal approach time during which gankers would have the same opportunity they have on every other gate, rather than exploiting what boil down to lag mechanics. I have a gank alt btw :P

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
Aimy Maulerant
DDo Squad Gaming
#365 - 2014-02-25 20:19:15 UTC
so if you want to have a permanent warp till the gates open what happens if you return from doing whatever you were doing and want to cancel the warp and go somewhere else?

bit of a silly complaint all together, dont see people complaining about warp bubbles in null or warp core disruptors or concord being able to warp so fast to locations where miners are getting ganked, sounds like you just want to play a perfect game where all you do is make isk and never lose any, all you have to do is go somewhere else whats the issue
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#366 - 2014-02-25 20:19:36 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
Those on autopilot would still land off the gate and have the normal approach time during which gankers would have the same opportunity they have on every other gate, rather than exploiting what boil down to lag mechanics.
What “lag mechanics” are being “exploited”?
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#367 - 2014-02-25 20:20:01 UTC
RAW23 wrote:
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'.


I care as much about aesthetics as you do.

You want to prevent gankers from ganking. So let's just make people invulnerable. Let's jam a bunch in pipes between New Caldari and Jita, between Perimeter and Jita, and between Sobaseki and Jita.

No.

Here are the facts

The population cap of Jita is 2175.
This cap exists to prevent TiDi and Soul Crushing Lag in the busiest system in the entire universe.
If the system is at the cap the gates entering Jita are locked down.

Here are the solutions.

1.) Control your own destiny using any number of available tools, hours of day, days, intel, other systems.
2.) ***** to CCP to make people invulnerable or put them in a pipe of session change for an indeterminate amount of time so they're invulnerable.

And then you wonder why people disagree with you.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
RAW23
#368 - 2014-02-25 20:27:15 UTC
Tippia wrote:
RAW23 wrote:
You haven't quoted any post in which I made such a suggestion.

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.

So again, make up your mind: is it or is it not a necessary limitation? Does it or does it not maintain playability? If it's not capped the way it is now, how should it be capped?


Shocked

You have serious reading comprehension problems don't you? Key words: 'in the way it is currently done'. ANY limitation of the population is a cap. Other ways of limiting the population will be other ways of capping the population. 'The way it is currently done' refers to having players sit in space spamming jump. Because, you know, that is the issue the discussion in this thread is about.

The argument isn't about whether there should be a cap but about what state the waiting player's ship should be in while waiting for space to free up. It's you that is mixing things up by talking about the necessity of the cap when literally no-one disagrees with that point and when it has absolutely nothing to do with the suggestions floated in this thread.

I'm pretty astounded that you can't follow the basics of the argument.

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.
Organic Lager
Drinking Buddies
#369 - 2014-02-25 20:27:31 UTC
Aimy Maulerant wrote:
so if you want to have a permanent warp till the gates open what happens if you return from doing whatever you were doing and want to cancel the warp and go somewhere else?

bit of a silly complaint all together, dont see people complaining about warp bubbles in null or warp core disruptors or concord being able to warp so fast to locations where miners are getting ganked, sounds like you just want to play a perfect game where all you do is make isk and never lose any, all you have to do is go somewhere else whats the issue



I did address this.

There would be a queue dialog box that you could cancel. At which point you would be spit out back to the gate you just jumped from with your normal cloak as if you had just jumped from jita.

I also don't care as i outsource my shipping but I do see it as a fault of the server and I don't understand why players should be punished.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#370 - 2014-02-25 20:29:01 UTC
Organic Lager wrote:
Aimy Maulerant wrote:
so if you want to have a permanent warp till the gates open what happens if you return from doing whatever you were doing and want to cancel the warp and go somewhere else?

bit of a silly complaint all together, dont see people complaining about warp bubbles in null or warp core disruptors or concord being able to warp so fast to locations where miners are getting ganked, sounds like you just want to play a perfect game where all you do is make isk and never lose any, all you have to do is go somewhere else whats the issue



I did address this.

There would be a queue dialog box that you could cancel. At which point you would be spit out back to the gate you just jumped from with your normal cloak as if you had just jumped from jita.

I also don't care as i outsource my shipping but I do see it as a fault of the server and I don't understand why players should be punished.


The server is a bucket. The players are water.

There isn't a bigger bucket.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
RAW23
#371 - 2014-02-25 20:30:08 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
RAW23 wrote:
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'.


I care as much about aesthetics as you do.

You want to prevent gankers from ganking. So let's just make people invulnerable. Let's jam a bunch in pipes between New Caldari and Jita, between Perimeter and Jita, and between Sobaseki and Jita.

No.

Here are the facts

The population cap of Jita is 2175.
This cap exists to prevent TiDi and Soul Crushing Lag in the busiest system in the entire universe.
If the system is at the cap the gates entering Jita are locked down.

Here are the solutions.

1.) Control your own destiny using any number of available tools, hours of day, days, intel, other systems.
2.) ***** to CCP to make people invulnerable or put them in a pipe of session change for an indeterminate amount of time so they're invulnerable.

And then you wonder why people disagree with you.


Because there is literally only one way of managing that cap, right? Don't worry, I get it. Once a mechanic is in the game it is absolutely sacrosanct. I mean, making suggestions to improve the management of technical limitations is just wrong. If it's already done one way it just always has to be done that way.

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.
Notorious Fellon
#372 - 2014-02-25 20:30:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Notorious Fellon
Aimy Maulerant wrote:
so if you want to have a permanent warp till the gates open what happens if you return from doing whatever you were doing and want to cancel the warp and go somewhere else?

bit of a silly complaint all together, dont see people complaining about warp bubbles in null or warp core disruptors or concord being able to warp so fast to locations where miners are getting ganked, sounds like you just want to play a perfect game where all you do is make isk and never lose any, all you have to do is go somewhere else whats the issue



It could be handled the same way that things are handled when you return from losing your connection. You simply warp to your previously known location.

Alternatively, code could simply check the target gate before entering warp, and inform you "Sorry, warp failed; target gate is too busy".

This would allow smart players to first warp to a pre-created safe spot in neighboring systems. Then try the busy gate from there. Upon fail, they could cloak up or simply turn around and head home. Again, no additional load on the servers, no additional traffic.

Crime, it is not a "career", it is a lifestyle.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#373 - 2014-02-25 20:31:18 UTC
RAW23 wrote:
The argument isn't about whether there should be a cap but about what state the waiting player's ship should be in while waiting for space to free up.


There's no argument. Special snowflakes want to be immune from ebil gankers, while everyone else is fine with them being at risk if they elect to sit still on a gate that isn't going to let them jump straight through.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Marsha Mallow
#374 - 2014-02-25 20:31:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Marsha Mallow
Tippia wrote:
What “lag mechanics” are being “exploited”?

Click jump * NO * click * click * click * splat * wat * - to the user it's server side lag, regardless of the reality or the cause.

Even those of us who voluntarily pvp throw a fit when click=lol, no. Well, more like a squawk.

On another note - if the only solution to this is indeed, not to go to Jita on a weekend/pay more elsewhere/pay someone else to go into a system you are too scared to go to: how do you propose to inform new players of that without inadvertantly admitting the game is overloaded in some areas? I'm really intrigued as to how this aligns with the marketing strategy of massive dynamic interraction. This argument was also made in relation to limitations on fleet fights, and it's potentially more relevant when it affects the core trade hub. If the answer is that they'll learn after first been splattered across a gate, followed by splattered across the forums for remarking on it, I'd argue that's damaging to player retention. Think of the poor newbies (and how many of them you will have to 'correct').

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#375 - 2014-02-25 20:33:05 UTC
RAW23 wrote:


You have serious reading comprehension problems don't you? Key words: 'in the way it is currently done'. ANY limitation of the population is a cap. Other ways of limiting the population will be other ways of capping the population. 'The way it is currently done' refers to having players sit in space spamming jump. Because, you know, that is the issue the discussion in this thread is about.


The population cap in Jita is a mechanic. Having players sit in space spamming jump is not a mechanic. Therefore, having players sit in space spamming jump is not "the way it is currently done".

RAW23 wrote:
The argument isn't about whether there should be a cap but about what state the waiting player's ship should be in while waiting for space to free up.


What state the waiting player's ship should be in while waiting for space to free up is completely up to the individual player.

Personally, the state of my ship is in space shooting rats or in a station checking my buy/sell orders from 10 or more systems from any market hub.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
RAW23
#376 - 2014-02-25 20:33:05 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
RAW23 wrote:


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


Wrong.

You use the tools we have, you do not ask CCP to make the game protect you from everyone else.


And while we're at it, lets go back to the days before TiDi because the mechanics of dealing with server limitations must never change! You simply have to make the best of whatever the situation is right now! there are no alternatives ever.

Also, slowcats should never be changed because you should never ask CCP to change things.

And etc etc etc for every change anyone has ever suggested.

Pretty **** poor level of argument.

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.
Salvos Rhoska
#377 - 2014-02-25 20:33:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Make it possible to mass smart bomb the hell out of gate blobs plz.

What? I cant suggest a massive game change but you can?

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#378 - 2014-02-25 20:34:20 UTC
RAW23 wrote:


Because there is literally only one way of managing that cap, right? Don't worry, I get it. Once a mechanic is in the game it is absolutely sacrosanct. I mean, making suggestions to improve the management of technical limitations is just wrong. If it's already done one way it just always has to be done that way.


There's nothing going on that necessitates change.

"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.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#379 - 2014-02-25 20:35:26 UTC
RAW23 wrote:
Because there is literally only one way of managing that cap, right? Don't worry, I get it. Once a mechanic is in the game it is absolutely sacrosanct. I mean, making suggestions to improve the management of technical limitations is just wrong. If it's already done one way it just always has to be done that way.


Except that you're not making suggestions to improve the management of technical limitations.

You're asking for people to be made invulnerable.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#380 - 2014-02-25 20:36:36 UTC
RAW23 wrote:
You have serious reading comprehension problems don't you? Key words: 'in the way it is currently done'.
…i.e. using a cap. You're saying that limiting the population using a cap is not necessary. You then go on to contradict yourself by saying that “no one is suggesting that a cap isn't necessary”.

So… Is it or is it not a necessary limitation? Does it or does it not maintain playability? If it's not capped the way it is now, how should it be capped? Also, do you even know what my preferred solution is?

Quote:
ANY limitation of the population is a cap.
No. Limiting the population through carrots and sticks is a different way (which, by the way, is also in use right now).

Quote:
'The way it is currently done' refers to having players sit in space spamming jump.
…which has nothing to do with limiting the population. It has to do with how jump gates work. I'm pretty astounded that you can't follow the discussion or even identify when you personally toss in red herrings.

Quote:
The argument isn't about whether there should be a cap but about what state the waiting player's ship should be in while waiting for space to free up.
Then you should probably not throw it in as a pointless digression from a discussion about why population caps are necessary and how they maintain playability.