Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2521
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 04:55:00 -
[241] - Quote
I've removed some posts discussing moderation. If you have an issue with the way moderation is performed, you are invited to file a petition about the matter. Thank you. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Toshiro Ozuwara
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
322
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 05:08:00 -
[242] - Quote
It's ridiculous that this game claims to be able to support a single shard, and CCP promotes the large battles, which run like crap.
Now, I can understand that there are upper bounds on hardware. But with so much development money being directed in all sorts of other directions, why aren't Eve players getting the best hardware money can buy, ALL OF THE TIME?
Tidi is horrible, no one enjoys playing in it, the problem compounds because it creates huge dogpiles. And we're stuck with it. We get nonsense like ghost sites, silly narratives about the empire against the capsuleers, when what we actually need is better hardware and smarter code for large fleet fights.
This is sort of like the persistent issues with Sov which NEVER GET ADDRESSED. We teach ruthlessness and hazing. No blues. Kill everything.
In-game channel - Join Sniggwaffe |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
1597
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 05:53:00 -
[243] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote:Fact: 9 times out to 10, including this post right now, for the few times that I post the forums have crashed on the first attempt to post. The forums are broken, again. This is exclusively a browser issue. It happens to me one or two times out of every fifty or so posts, and has been for the last 2 years. My bad - forgot to include, 9 of 10 since the recent forum updates over the past two weeks. Before then I had about the same failure rate, one out of 50. Not rarely, but certainly much more reasonable.
Yes, and I had much the same problem once the update came out. For about twenty minutes, until I re-downloaded Firefox.
And now I'm back to my usual experience.
You may also wish to check what plugins you have active, regardless of which browser you are using. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
6390
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 07:43:00 -
[244] - Quote
Tidi is like chemo. It's hard to tell if it's worse than the problem it's trying to alleviate. EVE Online - An Unstable Game |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
2578
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 07:57:00 -
[245] - Quote
Q, Lors Dornick: You are aware that people can use out game communication to organise themselves? A: Even if they have no FC, they still are being logged off from the game. Also, ships without a FC are prioritized in the logoff precisely to avoid skipping the FC penalties. As an additional twist, high value ships could be prioritized too. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
212
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 07:59:00 -
[246] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:Q, Lors Dornick: You are aware that people can use out game communication to organise themselves? A: Even if they have no FC, they still are being logged off from the game. Also, ships without a FC are prioritized in the logoff precisely to avoid skipping the FC penalties. As an additional twist, high value ships could be prioritized too.
Q. Are you aware how insanely idiotic a game mechanic that intentionally disconnects people from the game would actually be? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
6391
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 08:07:00 -
[247] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:Q, Lors Dornick: You are aware that people can use out game communication to organise themselves? A: Even if they have no FC, they still are being logged off from the game. Also, ships without a FC are prioritized in the logoff precisely to avoid skipping the FC penalties. As an additional twist, high value ships could be prioritized too. Q. Are you aware how insanely idiotic a game mechanic that intentionally disconnects people from the game would actually be? These kinds of ideas aren't even worth acknowledging. EVE Online - An Unstable Game |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
4342
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 10:54:00 -
[248] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:These kinds of ideas aren't even worth acknowledging.
Niip 'em in the bud before you are tempted to call the poster nasty names. That will never well Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
4342
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 10:59:00 -
[249] - Quote
Alphea Abbra wrote:Doesn't 1.3 pretty much say that reimbursement can happen? Since it was due to a server error, and not the actual combat?
And then points 4 and 5 specifically state that reimbursement will never happen when a ship in a large player engagement was lost due to lag.
It helps to be less selective about your reading of the rules
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Seven Koskanaiken
Sons Of Saints Circle-Of-Two
506
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 12:35:00 -
[250] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:"Let's force less people to participate, that'll make things more fun"
Capping the system is the unequal sharing of blessings, tidi is the equal sharing of misery.
|
|
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
1791
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 13:04:00 -
[251] - Quote
The simplest, best, and only solution is to adjust the mechanics and incentives that make blobbing not just the winning strategy, but the only strategy.
/thread Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal |
Tialano Utrigas
Critical Mass Inc. Nexus Fleet
61
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 13:15:00 -
[252] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Alphea Abbra wrote:Doesn't 1.3 pretty much say that reimbursement can happen? Since it was due to a server error, and not the actual combat? And then points 4 and 5 specifically state that reimbursement will never happen when a ship in a large player engagement was lost due to lag. It helps to be less selective about your reading of the rules
Its also worth pointing out that a server disconnect isn't lag, and it does that that disconnects on the server side would warrant reimbursement.
The guys who lost their ships as a result of the DC have a credible case for petition. The billions of ISK of fighters may be a different ball game, although in fairness, they were also lost due to an in game error so its really anyones guess (well CCPs actually) as to what will happen. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
841
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 13:26:00 -
[253] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Ting Mei wrote:Veritas,
The problem is not only the node crash, but the TiDi system.
Even if we are all ok that is better to have TiDi than a systematic node crash as before, TiDi is really ruining the game little by little.
When you are in a fight, TIDI 10% is often activated, but the problem, is our brain not at 10%, and TIDI offer all the time for reinforcement to come, strategies to be discussed, etc ....
This really change the way of a fight ...
I'm very afraid CCP think TiDi is THE solution, and you are not working on something else ...
For me, don't know for others, even if on internal coms, most of players hate Tidi, that system is Ruining 0.0 fights little by little. the only way to counter Tidi is to make deminishing returns for too much players or dps or something that makes it not worth it to bring 1000's of people to a fight... thats the problem is the blob... i remember back in 06 when 200 people in a fight would cause black screens and node crashes now its 4000 people. the fact is they make it so you can play 4000 you guys will bring 5000 and so on... it really never ends... there needs to be a mechanic for demishing returns.
No, that changes NOTHING.
Even if you make diminishign returns is stillb etter more peopel than less!
The result is EXACLTY the same.
The way is chaging the war TARGETS. We nee dmore targets that are relevant in a war that can be knocked down by 20-30 ships before a massive blob can form up.
As long as eve is centered about billion EHP targets, the massive blob will be the only way.
"If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
2578
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 13:49:00 -
[254] - Quote
Q, SurrenderMonkey: Are you aware how insanely idiotic a game mechanic that intentionally disconnects people from the game would actually be? A: It is less stupid than risk to a node crash that averts the battle, and is less stupid than suffer 10% TiDi for 6 hours, and is less idiotic than spend time and resources to increase the population limit of a node so the alliances can move the goalpost farther again. And, on top of that, it would work. Keep calm and love the hamsters, and everything will be OK. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
1791
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 13:51:00 -
[255] - Quote
No, it's more stupid. Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
6397
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 15:11:00 -
[256] - Quote
Tialano Utrigas wrote:The guys who lost their ships as a result of the DC have a credible case for petition. No, they don't. The reimbursement policy is very clear on this. EVE Online - An Unstable Game |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
223
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 15:29:00 -
[257] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:Q, SurrenderMonkey: Are you aware how insanely idiotic a game mechanic that intentionally disconnects people from the game would actually be? A: It is less stupid than risk to a node crash that averts the battle, and is less stupid than suffer 10% TiDi for 6 hours, and is less idiotic than spend time and resources to increase the population limit of a node so the alliances can move the goalpost farther again. And, on top of that, it would work. Keep calm and love the hamsters, and everything will be OK.
That was a really round-a-bout way of saying "No". |
embrel
BamBam Inc.
78
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 18:23:00 -
[258] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: The way is chaging the war TARGETS. We nee dmore targets that are relevant in a war that can be knocked down by 20-30 ships before a massive blob can form up.
As long as eve is centered about billion EHP targets, the massive blob will be the only way.
That could be simple I assume, just split the EHP when a structure comes out of reinforcement to 4-5 new structures that spawn nearest to the actual target system.
However, I feel that is not wanted. Huge fights are PR after all.
Or there just will be 5 huge blobs:) |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
6401
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 18:51:00 -
[259] - Quote
The obvious answer here is that sov as a whole needs to be entirely revamped. CCP of course seems to be under the impression that it's working fine. EVE Online - An Unstable Game |
SFM Hobb3s
Vanguard Frontiers Black Legion.
32
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 19:16:00 -
[260] - Quote
I'd still like to see ccp get rid of drones entirely. Argue all you want but there's no denying that the thousands of drones on the field likely caused that node crash. Not that I'm complaining, was nice for us to get a moonwalk for a change.
The amount of system resources needed to process all those interactions from those drones...what they are doing, what is being done to them....in that battle had to be staggering. Probably close to what it would be like to have 7000 non-drone capable ships in system. So yeah, get rid of drones. That is the best guaranteed bang for the buck.
|
|
Leigh Akiga
Trickle Down Economics
360
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 19:21:00 -
[261] - Quote
A start would be to get rid of 10 drones coming out of a carrier and 20 fighterbombers coming out of a super. Make it spit out one drone that does 10x damage or one fighterbomber that does 20x damage depending on the number deployed.
Like how you used to have 7 missile launchers on a ship but graphically- only one missile would come out. All this new-fangled flashy graphics crap they keep adding is killing 0.0 fleet combat |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
235
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 19:24:00 -
[262] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:That is the best guaranteed bang for the buck.
Given the entirely speculative nature of the rest of your post, it's interesting that you throw in a "guarantee" at the end. You don't actually know what the "bang" would be, and the "buck" would actually be considerably expensive, when you consider that they would pretty much have to take all of their recent balancing efforts and do them all over again (among other things). |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
6403
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 19:33:00 -
[263] - Quote
Drones aren't exactly new. What is new (maybe) is this bug, whatever it is, that brought the entire node down. EVE Online - An Unstable Game |
SFM Hobb3s
Vanguard Frontiers Black Legion.
32
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 20:29:00 -
[264] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:SFM Hobb3s wrote:That is the best guaranteed bang for the buck.
Given the entirely speculative nature of the rest of your post, it's interesting that you throw in a "guarantee" at the end. You don't actually know what the "bang" would be, and the "buck" would actually be considerably expensive, when you consider that they would pretty much have to take all of their recent balancing efforts and do them all over again (among other things).
You assume I meant a dollar when I could have in fact, meant a deer. |
Desivo Delta Visseroff
Ark Royal Mining Trained Divinity
71
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 20:49:00 -
[265] - Quote
Ting Mei wrote:[i]
Various Things
When I'm not flying internet space ships, making people rage, or drinking heavily, while not giving a care, I moonlight as a hook-up expert. To that effect, there is a wonderful OP that made this thread in love and support of your e-honor.
I think, in light of the given the ridicule and sacrifice he made, you should ask him to a nice fleet warp around a local system. He's just too shy to ask you himself.
No need to thank me. I'm always on hand to help a pixel brother and sister out
Edit for hearts |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2308
|
Posted - 2013.11.29 15:09:00 -
[266] - Quote
Caydn wrote:Here's how to fix all of this in the first place:
Step 1, limit all corporations to maximum 50 members.
Step 2, limit all alliances to a maximum of 5x 50 member corps.
Step 3, limit fleet size to a maximum of 50 players
Step 4, during a 'fleet fight', a system is limited to no more than 6 total fleets for a reinforced node fight.
Step 5, lots of bitching and whining by 1000+ power block alliances/corporations who come on the forums ***** and whining about TiDi and and why shouldn't CCP spend 10mil USD on a Quantum Computer etc etc etc to let them have it their way.
CCP needs to take a stand on this, you want your cake and eat it too? Go play something else. Otherwise STFU and be happy you can cram 2000+ people in a system that isn't Jita and actually do something or let CCP find a way to prevent you from ruining the server and the game for everyone else *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal Step 4a: the first coalition to get 6 fleets into the system wins.
You cannot stop players from making a coalition of any size as its not a game mechanic, but emergent behavior. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Ramona McCandless
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1159
|
Posted - 2013.11.29 15:22:00 -
[267] - Quote
Leigh Akiga wrote:All this new-fangled flashy graphics crap....
Has actually no effect on 0.0 fleet combat High Priestess of The Temple of the Holy Amarr Suicide Cult of Haimeh "You are, quite literally, the best person ever." --áDomanique Altares,-áRifterlings "Send Ramona your ISK, and biomass." --áJarod Garamonde,-áSardaukar Merc Guild |
Trillian Stargazer
Origin. Black Legion.
11
|
Posted - 2013.11.30 00:22:00 -
[268] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Drones aren't exactly new. What is new (maybe) is this bug, whatever it is, that brought the entire node down.
As you are an esteemed member of the neutral 3rd party, You have been in systems with over 2k players and the node lived. On the night this Reinforced node died, there were only 1300 - 1500 people in the system. Plus about 3k drones and fighter bombers.
|
Dasola
Rookie Empire Citizens Rookie Empire
225
|
Posted - 2013.12.01 01:08:00 -
[269] - Quote
Read throw this thread quick and it seems CCP has problem. Node crashed hard and they don't know why. My bet is there's some bug still in server code that runs a node and when proper fleetmix is in play, wham it crashes node.
To my understanding was TiDi was put in place to make fight fair for everyone (everyone suffers the lag) and help prevent total node meltdown.
Maybe they should put autolog on any node that goes over X number of players automaticly. At least logs would show something for a change. And might give them some idea of test scenario that makes node server code crap itself.
Its actually too bad client docent have a battle recorder, that would unlock its recordings 24 hours later for replay with everything that was sent to client. Enough of those and CCP could actually piece together what happened during the combat and monitor how node responded to actions unraveling. Also would make some cool re-play battle analysis videos on youtube.
We are Minmatar, Our ship are made of scraps, but look what our scraps can do... |
Astradari
Dominion of Inter-Celestial Kings WHY so Seri0Us
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.01 14:56:00 -
[270] - Quote
*** SORRY FOR THE WALL-O-TEXT ***
What if, and hear me out here, what if sov warfare was reworked, completely disregarding the current model. At the moment, you simply throw as many people as you can at a timer and hope you out-blob the opposition. There is very little tactics in this. Changes such as fixing population caps or applying stacking penalties does not change the core 'idea' of simply throwing more people at a problem to make it go away. The skill of the pilots is arguably lost when it takes 15 minutes to activate a module. It becomes 'Who Clicked First'. That's not how warfare in this game, in my opinion, is supposed to be played.
Take for example, small scale warfare. I'm talking 50 - 150 people. At this level, the actions of one pilot can arguably change the entire course of a fight in seconds. It comes down to the individual skill of each pilot, the ability of the FC to react under pressure and the level of thought that has gone in to the setup of the ships in the fleet. The better prepared fleet, which may not necessarily be the fleet with the most numbers, will win. That is what EVE warfare is about, it shouldn't be about 'I clicked lock first, so that person will die'. Other games work like that, but that's not what attracted me to EVE.
I would propose a potential solution to this problem. This is basically a stream of conscious thought, so pull holes in it or whatever, but please do not just 'hate to hate', try and rework my ideas if they are not to your taste and offer your own solution instead of simply slandering the ideas of others.
Here is what I propose:
Sov warfare, as I stated previously, revolves around timers. The destruction or repair of the structures these timers correspond to decide who can take the system in question. This is on a very basic level but it is the truth of it. It is easy to see how one can simply 'bring' more players and therefore win the fight through overwhelming force..but this does not rely on the skill of the pilot, but rather the size of your blob.
What if, instead of these massive blob fights around an object, a complex of 'rooms' is created. Lets say this is only for the iHub timer and station timers, arguably two of the most important. These 'rooms' have strategic objectives. These strategic objectives must be captured/destroyed or defended by whichever team wishes to take or defend their sov. These 'rooms' exist independently of each other, and thus it does not matter whether they are all active or none of them are active, they should operate under their own power and not cause TiDi to the others. A 'special gate' will take you to whichever room you choose. Inside of these rooms, I would imagine an arena much like the Alliance tournament arena. Grid is, lets say, 350km across, and if you should stray outside of this you will be destroyed. Coming through this gate commits you to the fight. Only two fleets, regardless of faction, are allowed into this room at any time. This will cap the size of the fight. In order for the objectives to be destroyed or repped, the entirety of ONE of said fleets must be destroyed. This is either through fighting, or by violating the boundary rule. Multiple entry gates to these rooms should be hidden within the system in question, and they will have to be scanned in order to be found. They should refresh every 10-15 minutes to avoid camping. Capital ships may use these 'special gates' in order to enter the fight, but no cynos may be lit within the 'rooms'. Capital ships may cyno out of the room but ONLY when all of the opposing fleet has been destroyed or has violated the boundary rule. Cynoing your capital ship out whilst a fight is in progress will result in an unstable jump and rip your ship to shreds before it lands at it's exit point, depositing your capsule at the exit cyno. It is possible as well, two have two fleets in said room fighting over capturing the sov, with no defender present. Again in this instance, the entirety of one fleet must be destroyed or violate the boundary rule before the objective can be touched.
The amount of rooms and the nature of the objectives are irrelevant but CCP can surely come up with some fun lore about what you have to do etc etc.
This will only apply to sov warfare. This obviously isn't a perfect idea, and i'm sure there are holes in this I haven't considered, but it is one 'out of the box' idea to counteract massive blob fights over nullsec sov.
And if you've read this far, I applaud your concentration and apologize for the long-winded explanation :)
Any and all feedback is most welcome :) What do you guys think? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |