These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CFC/N3/PL Cap brawl

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#221 - 2014-01-27 23:12:33 UTC
Carmen Electra wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
If it's so easy, you go fix it.


When did I suggest that it was easy? Or even doable?

My exact words were "game mechanics/safeguards". Eg: 500 ppl max in a system.

You make demands, claim that's CCP's reponsibilty, then try to claim that you think it might not even be possible? Responsiblity ends where effectiveness ends. If, as you clearly suggest, the acts you demand are not possible, then clearly CCP isn't reponsible for doing them.
You just knee-capped your own thesis.
Your troll act is falling apart.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#222 - 2014-01-27 23:12:56 UTC
Who the **** cares about HED-GP?
N3PL titans are getting totally dunked now.
Let's talk about that.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#223 - 2014-01-27 23:14:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Plastic Psycho
Carmen Electra wrote:
Plastic Psycho wrote:
You actually had me believing for a bit you were serious - But this is so far over-the-top that now it's clear you're just a troll.


I don't even know how to respond to this. What part of my reply came off as non-serious?

Frankly, all of that particular answer - Hyperbole breaks when you push it too far.

Edit to clarify:
The whole post was so divorced from reality that it had to be hyperbloe. But it was just too, too much.

James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Who the **** cares about HED-GP?
N3PL titans are getting totally dunked now.
Let's talk about that.

Yes, lets.

So - Anyone willing to lay odds that this breaks PL for teh forseable future?
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#224 - 2014-01-27 23:14:48 UTC
Death2Supercaps and Nerf Highsec

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#225 - 2014-01-27 23:16:44 UTC
I fear PL's KB efficiency may have taken a hit.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#226 - 2014-01-27 23:17:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Kimmi Chan
Carmen Electra wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
If it's so easy, you go fix it.


When did I suggest that it was easy? Or even doable?

My exact words were "game mechanics/safeguards". Eg: 500 ppl max in a system.


And with your eight years as a software develop you would do what exactly?

This game means something because loss is real. More than $100,000 USD lost in this fight so far. Not sure how much in HED-GP but **** it - let's just give everyone their **** back?

If you're making the statement that CCP uses a well known and long existing reimbursement policy to **** over their customers then quit. Who keeps paying a company with ****** customer service when there are so many other games out there where loses aren't real...? Roll

ED: Just check the reimbursement policy. It's still there and unchanged.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Mario Putzo
#227 - 2014-01-27 23:17:27 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#228 - 2014-01-27 23:18:24 UTC
Carmen Electra wrote:
Batelle wrote:
You see, as much sense as that argument might make sense to you, its not really relevant at all when CCP has an explicit policy regarding reimbursements and large scale fleet warfare. And yes, they should have absolutely anticipated it.


So, I did some reading:

Quote:
Reimbursement will only be granted if a loss is attributable to a bug or server error.


Quote:
Any losses of any kind resulting from a large-scale player engagement are not covered by this reimbursement policy.


These sections of the policy are clearly at odds with each other in some situations. Just because CCP has arbitrarily given itself a lot of latitude in this matter doesn't make it a good way to interact with customers. CCP is saying "YOU are responsible for OUR technical failings". I'm sorry if I'm not seeing your point; all I have to draw on is my 8 years as a software developer, and that M.O. has never been acceptable on any of the projects I've ever worked on.

I'm not saying that CCP should up and magically fix their servers, because I know that's not possible. But CCP not reimbursing those dreads in the interest of maintaining the sandbox integrity is punishing the players for their own shortcomings.


There are HARDWARE limitations that have nothing to do with software. CCP could attempt to cap the system with a specific number of players, but that would be abused by all parties. So CCP lets players push as hard as they can, and the resulting computing mess is left to the players to sort out. Its like an elevator that has a max capacity of 50 people. You can cram 100 people in there, and it may crash resulting in lots of elevator riders having a bad day, but that's not the fault of the elevator company!
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#229 - 2014-01-27 23:18:33 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
I fear PL's KB efficiency may have taken a hit.

You don't say?

I bet we won't be seeing them down at The Club for a bit, either. At least not until they wash all the mud off their collective faces, anyway.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#230 - 2014-01-27 23:18:34 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
I fear PL's KB efficiency may have taken a hit.


You mean the killboard isn't green anymore? :ohgod:

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#231 - 2014-01-27 23:20:13 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Just an everyday 200B Titan.

Shocked
Holy. Mother. Of. God.

THAT had to sting!
Carmen Electra
AlcoDOTTE
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#232 - 2014-01-27 23:21:26 UTC
Plastic Psycho wrote:
You make demands, claim that's CCP's reponsibilty, then try to claim that you think it might not even be possible? Responsiblity ends where effectiveness ends. If, as you clearly suggest, the acts you demand are not possible, then clearly CCP isn't reponsible for doing them.
You just knee-capped your own thesis.
Your troll act is falling apart.


It's not possible to support an unlimited number of players on a node. Yet CCP will allow so many people onto a server that it slows to a crawl. They allow this (I'm guessing) because of the excellent publicity these fights generate. This is all done at the players' expense.

You want me to "fix it myself"? Fine, here's my pseudocode for a fix:

function jumpIntoSystem(system)
{
if (system.playerCount > 50)
return false;
}

Happy?

Bacon makes us stronger
Mario Putzo
#233 - 2014-01-27 23:23:13 UTC
I stopped keeping track of stuff but i think last count was 22-10.

Solar brought more Titans as well at some point.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#234 - 2014-01-27 23:23:35 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Carmen Electra wrote:
Batelle wrote:
You see, as much sense as that argument might make sense to you, its not really relevant at all when CCP has an explicit policy regarding reimbursements and large scale fleet warfare. And yes, they should have absolutely anticipated it.


So, I did some reading:

Quote:
Reimbursement will only be granted if a loss is attributable to a bug or server error.


Quote:
Any losses of any kind resulting from a large-scale player engagement are not covered by this reimbursement policy.


These sections of the policy are clearly at odds with each other in some situations. Just because CCP has arbitrarily given itself a lot of latitude in this matter doesn't make it a good way to interact with customers. CCP is saying "YOU are responsible for OUR technical failings". I'm sorry if I'm not seeing your point; all I have to draw on is my 8 years as a software developer, and that M.O. has never been acceptable on any of the projects I've ever worked on.

I'm not saying that CCP should up and magically fix their servers, because I know that's not possible. But CCP not reimbursing those dreads in the interest of maintaining the sandbox integrity is punishing the players for their own shortcomings.


There are HARDWARE limitations that have nothing to do with software. CCP could attempt to cap the system with a specific number of players, but that would be abused by all parties. So CCP lets players push as hard as they can, and the resulting computing mess is left to the players to sort out. Its like an elevator that has a max capacity of 50 people. You can cram 100 people in there, and it may crash resulting in lots of elevator riders having a bad day, but that's not the fault of the elevator company!


To expand your analogy (so you can see why it's broken):

This elevator company advertises itself by showing examples of 50+ people crammed into an elevator and selling it as uniquely possible in their elevators.
Everyone involved in getting in that elevator that day had previously gone in many other elevators with more people, and experienced no sudden falls.
The elevator company refuse to say how many their elevator can hold, but will (whilst it's filling up) make a big show of telling everyone how they've strengthened it so another 50+ ride can zip up the shaft.

Now.

How many people can ride in the elevator?

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#235 - 2014-01-27 23:25:14 UTC
Carmen Electra wrote:
Plastic Psycho wrote:
You make demands, claim that's CCP's reponsibilty, then try to claim that you think it might not even be possible? Responsiblity ends where effectiveness ends. If, as you clearly suggest, the acts you demand are not possible, then clearly CCP isn't reponsible for doing them.
You just knee-capped your own thesis.
Your troll act is falling apart.


It's not possible to support an unlimited number of players on a node. Yet CCP will allow so many people onto a server that it slows to a crawl. They allow this (I'm guessing) because of the excellent publicity these fights generate. This is all done at the players' expense.

You want me to "fix it myself"? Fine, here's my pseudocode for a fix:

function jumpIntoSystem(system)
{
if (system.playerCount > 50)
return false;
}

Happy?
Wouldn't bother me any. Clearly, it bothers you though. I think you need to go play something else - it's abundantly obvious to the most casual of observers that this is not the game for you.
Alehandro Zing
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#236 - 2014-01-27 23:26:30 UTC
think they will postpone the patch if the battle rages on till then? Big smile
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#237 - 2014-01-27 23:31:38 UTC
Alehandro Zing wrote:
think they will postpone the patch if the battle rages on till then? Big smile

That's a New and Interesting thought!
Cool

I dunno. I don't have any precidents on which to draw, but it does make for some interesting speculation... What's more important: the publicty value of the on-going drama AND the good-will of teh palyers involved, or the need to maintain schdules and push software that was almost certainly scripted for delivery - meaning that they'll have to cancel the script post-haste?

If it were me, I'd roll back the update to next week, same day and time.
Seven Koskanaiken
Shadow Legions.
SONS of BANE
#238 - 2014-01-27 23:33:22 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Carmen Electra wrote:
Batelle wrote:
You see, as much sense as that argument might make sense to you, its not really relevant at all when CCP has an explicit policy regarding reimbursements and large scale fleet warfare. And yes, they should have absolutely anticipated it.


So, I did some reading:

Quote:
Reimbursement will only be granted if a loss is attributable to a bug or server error.


Quote:
Any losses of any kind resulting from a large-scale player engagement are not covered by this reimbursement policy.


These sections of the policy are clearly at odds with each other in some situations. Just because CCP has arbitrarily given itself a lot of latitude in this matter doesn't make it a good way to interact with customers. CCP is saying "YOU are responsible for OUR technical failings". I'm sorry if I'm not seeing your point; all I have to draw on is my 8 years as a software developer, and that M.O. has never been acceptable on any of the projects I've ever worked on.

I'm not saying that CCP should up and magically fix their servers, because I know that's not possible. But CCP not reimbursing those dreads in the interest of maintaining the sandbox integrity is punishing the players for their own shortcomings.


There are HARDWARE limitations that have nothing to do with software. CCP could attempt to cap the system with a specific number of players, but that would be abused by all parties. So CCP lets players push as hard as they can, and the resulting computing mess is left to the players to sort out. Its like an elevator that has a max capacity of 50 people. You can cram 100 people in there, and it may crash resulting in lots of elevator riders having a bad day, but that's not the fault of the elevator company!


A court may decide differently...
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#239 - 2014-01-27 23:36:08 UTC
Carmen Electra wrote:
So, I did some reading:

"Reimbursement will only be granted if a loss is attributable to a bug or server error."

"Any losses of any kind resulting from a large-scale player engagement are not covered by this reimbursement policy."

These sections of the policy are clearly at odds with each other in some situations.


Even if you equate lag with server error/bug, the second section is clearly an exception that overrides the first. If you have trouble with this concept, I don't really know what to tell you.

Quote:
Just because CCP has arbitrarily given itself a lot of latitude in this matter doesn't make it a good way to interact with customers. CCP is saying "YOU are responsible for OUR technical failings". I'm sorry if I'm not seeing your point; all I have to draw on is my 8 years as a software developer, and that M.O. has never been acceptable on any of the projects I've ever worked on.

Probably has a lot to do with the fact that we're talking about pixel spaceships instead of enterprise software. Furthermore, even among other MMO-running companies, CCP's customer relations policies and philosophy for customer relations have been distinctly unorthodox since day 1. CCP's success over the last decade is due in no small part to such unorthodox methods.

Quote:
I'm not saying that CCP should up and magically fix their servers, because I know that's not possible. But CCP not reimbursing those dreads in the interest of maintaining the sandbox integrity is punishing the players for their own shortcomings.


No, its just the equivalent of "**** happens. Deal with it, even if its not 100% your fault. Or even if its not your fault at all" Losing your fleet to node death is a well-understood risk that is always present. Even though people say the CFC should have known better, we'd be saying exactly the same thing if somehow the lag had only hit N3, despite them being in system first. All is fair.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#240 - 2014-01-27 23:41:42 UTC
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:
A court may decide differently...

Please. Take it to court. Please. Pretty please with cherries on top!
I can't wait to read the decision thowing it out - Jurists have some of the best, most biting sense of humor, and I LOVE reading their decisions when dropping the hammer on stupid cases.