open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked 49- just crashed
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

Author Topic

Judson Gallargo
Posted - 2010.01.18 16:29:00 - [91]
 

Edited by: Judson Gallargo on 18/01/2010 17:04:51
Originally by: Konoch
Edited by: Konoch on 18/01/2010 04:13:25
How about banning every player in that system for and dealing out some serious corporate damage for not filling out the fleet form like a decent person would instead hmm?

You people brought this on yourself stop *****ing to CCP and FILL OUT THE ****ING PAPERWORK. Because honestly like i've said in multiple threads be glad its not me in a dev or GM position. I'd have banned every user in that system first and let the ****ing lawyers sort it out.



Inappropriate content removed.Applebabe To put it in short words that even you should be able to comprehend:

49-U has been reinforced for days.

BTW: Your idea of player caps... Won't work. Simply turns the battle from blob to who can get there first with the most people on grid. With sov warfare (as horribly broken as it is now), this would turn EVE online to EuEVE online, as the EUTZ just needs to log people in first, and sit on grid until the job is done.

tl;dr: You don't know what the hell you're talking about. You think you do, but you don't.

SupaKudoRio
Posted - 2010.01.18 19:07:00 - [92]
 

I suggested it once before and I'll say it again (I sound old Crying or Very sad), when the node detects extreme load, it should go into a 'bullet time' mode; simply slowing down the rate at which everything is processed, giving the node more time between 'steps' and thus giving you the same effect as increasing available CPU cycles (in theory). Fleet battles would take longer, but at least the node won't crash and (maybe) module lag won't be such a huge problem.

You could also plug in high end graphics cards to the nodes and use them as additional processors, but I don't know if CCP already does that.

Jonas Trelonian
Posted - 2010.01.18 19:39:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: Omal Omal
Originally by: Eien Hart
I have a noob hardware question: Will Solid State Drives help with server load?


Insane amounts of RAM would be cheaper and easier.

I don't know all the inner workings of how their node is setup (or how large their databases are), but allowing for more database information to load into RAM is the easiest way to upgrade any database server.

The last database I worked on was 32GB and was crashing. We installed 64GB of RAM on that server and ran the entire database from RAM with a matching page file on a RAID 0+1.

Database ran flawlessly.

However, I'm not sure where the bottleneck is. If it's a concurrent connection issue with the server and having that many people request identical information at the same time, or a networking issue, there can be alot more investigation needed for troubleshooting. Most fixes aren't simple, cheap or easy. Our solution was.


CCP bought a RamSan 500 before Apocrypha was deployed, so I'm pretty sure that disk IO is not the problem (unless the TQ DB is over 2TB in size...). I think it's simply a matter of not enough CPU power/memory over the whole cluster (read: too few nodes/blades to go around). I'm hoping that CCP are waiting for the 6-core Nehalem (Gulftown) CPUs to arrive before they buy more blades - but in the meantime, what happened to dynamic node balancing?

Originally by: SupaKudoRio
I suggested it once before and I'll say it again (I sound old Crying or Very sad), when the node detects extreme load, it should go into a 'bullet time' mode; simply slowing down the rate at which everything is processed, giving the node more time between 'steps' and thus giving you the same effect as increasing available CPU cycles (in theory). Fleet battles would take longer, but at least the node won't crash and (maybe) module lag won't be such a huge problem.

You could also plug in high end graphics cards to the nodes and use them as additional processors, but I don't know if CCP already does that.


(1) Blade servers aren't exactly ideal for housing massively long dual-slot video cards, and smaller cards aren't worth the cash performance-wise.

(2) I seriously doubt that CCP are concentrating their efforts on porting the EVE server codebase to a GPGPU implementation. Hardware is cheaper and simpler than programming.

Jonas Trelonian
Posted - 2010.01.18 19:49:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Alanea Winddancer
Originally by: Carniflex
If you look closer then you see that most people who complain do not claim to be masters of all that. They just complain that before Dominion the server was able to keep up with larger fights than it can currently. So - something must be performing worse than before in the new system.


So? It happens all the time. You update something as massive as EVE or add new features etc, then it is bound to introduce issues, or worsen something. That is just something which is inescapable. It will be resolved eventually, whether by finding and correcting the code, or by further improving the hardware. Point is that people are acting almost as if CCP is causing these lags and whatnot else on purpose whether it is through incompetence or simply to **** the players off, so clearly said people must be experts in the earlier mentioned fields.


While I agree that accusing CCP of wilfully sabotaging things is ridiculous, the OP does have a valid point - many people who were part of the testing cycle for Dominion complained that performance was poor, but CCP still went ahead and deployed the expansion. If they ask the players to test, and then ignore the feedback, what is the point of testing?

Furthermore, in a game this big and complex, everything should be regression tested before a new deployment. Doesn't matter if the code has been touched or not, it should all be tested and if performance is notably down - as with Dominion - then the expansion should not be released, simple as that.

Please, CCP - listen to your playerbase. We don't want new expansions every 3 months - we want stability because that makes for great gameplay. New features aka bling are nice, but nice only goes so far when the core game mechanics are breaking down left right and center and ****ing off even the most dedicated players.

Erick Odin
Amarr
Local-Spike
Posted - 2010.01.18 19:53:00 - [95]
 

This is what happens when you run your application on Personal Computers.

On IBM's Power6 platform you can have a server which can scale from 1 CPU to 64 without an admin lifting a finger - the Hypervisor takes care of everything for you. Everybody shares the CPU's in the pool, based on some simple rules.


Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
Posted - 2010.01.18 20:42:00 - [96]
 

C4C going down now - 700 in local

only the second month into dominion... Rolling Eyes

meanwhile [pvp] character sales are plummeting

SomebodyKickedMyDog
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2010.01.18 20:49:00 - [97]
 

Edited by: SomebodyKickedMyDog on 18/01/2010 20:52:58

Originally by: N'tek alar
Originally by: Speaker4 theDead
Originally by: N'tek alar
Originally by: Lilly Tigress
hey ccp get the system online asap, 1300 ppl crashed so restart the system asap, thx


Yes, Insulting ccp because your megablob crashed the system will totally make it come back up faster.

Let me guess, It wasn't reinforced, you knew it would lag like hell and probably crash, You still brought your superblob, and you think it's CCPs fault that todays technology can't handle infinite numbers of players in one area.


Dude, this is what CCP wanted with Dominion, perhaps they should have considered the issue before the upgrade. Not to mention the fact that large fleet battles actually played better beofre the patch.


Yes, CCP clearly stated that the objective of dominion was to make blobs larger, totally.


"Large scale warfare - Participate in epic conflicts with a thousand or more players in a single battle." (http://play.eveonline.com/en/getting-started/career-options.aspx) Rolling EyesLaughing

Fantome
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.01.18 21:40:00 - [98]
 

Edited by: Fantome on 18/01/2010 21:42:21
18/01 - 2130 eve time...

Somewhere in Curse a "big" XIII fleet with 10 peeps got wtfpwned by some other peeps in another huge fleet with ~15/20 peeps without being abble to do anything : reveiving assurance mail with ship full shield, seing his corp in space when being in pod .. and stuff like that.

We appologie CCP to do huge battle without asking for reinforcing node. Now each time we go in roaming we'll ask for reinforcing all curse !

WTF is happening at the bloody server ?????! We can't even doing small skirmish without to be glued in full laggy space Rolling Eyes.

Tobin Shalim
Eclipse Industrials
Quantum Forge
Posted - 2010.01.18 21:44:00 - [99]
 

Edited by: Tobin Shalim on 18/01/2010 22:18:01
Originally by: Speaker4 theDead
Originally by: N'tek alar
Originally by: Lilly Tigress
hey ccp get the system online asap, 1300 ppl crashed so restart the system asap, thx


Yes, Insulting ccp because your megablob crashed the system will totally make it come back up faster.

Let me guess, It wasn't reinforced, you knew it would lag like hell and probably crash, You still brought your superblob, and you think it's CCPs fault that todays technology can't handle infinite numbers of players in one area.



Dude, this is what CCP wanted with Dominion, perhaps they should have considered the issue before the upgrade. Not to mention the fact that large fleet battles actually played better beofre the patch.


There is truth in this post.

No sarcasm, it's a known fact.

Psilocin
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.01.19 01:30:00 - [100]
 

This thread is like the second coming of Jesus and Christmas all rolled into one.

Hidiyoshi
Posted - 2010.01.19 01:48:00 - [101]
 

Are there seriously empire missioning pubbies complaining at 0.0 players complaining about a game that can't handle fleet battles while at the same time boasts of being all about huge fleet battles?

Can you imagine what it would be like if empire players who never leave the security of 0.4 couldn't run their boring and repetitive missions over and over and over and over and over? Why, I bet there would be hell to pay!

N'tek alar
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.01.19 02:26:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: SomebodyKickedMyDog



Ok, Since noone seems capable of reading dev blogs, or at least, capable of remembering what was said in them, Here you go.

And since i know that you won't bother reading it, Here's the relevant part:

We get (hopefully!):

* A more comprehensible, streamlined and robust way of showing who owns a particular system
* A better conquest experience
* More organic, meaningful and fun small-fleet combat
* Less territorial sprawl by major alliances
* A more diverse and interesting political landscape
* More opportunities for players to get involved in nullsec
* More awesome emergent gameplay

I didn't say they succeeded, I said it was not their INTENTION to make blobs bigger, But to make small-fleet combat possible, And even meaningful.

Blane Xero
Amarr
The Firestorm Cartel
Posted - 2010.01.19 02:44:00 - [103]
 

Originally by: N'tek alar
Originally by: SomebodyKickedMyDog



Ok, Since noone seems capable of reading dev blogs, or at least, capable of remembering what was said in them, Here you go.

And since i know that you won't bother reading it, Here's the relevant part:

We get (hopefully!):

* A more comprehensible, streamlined and robust way of showing who owns a particular system
* A better conquest experience
* More organic, meaningful and fun small-fleet combat
* Less territorial sprawl by major alliances
* A more diverse and interesting political landscape
* More opportunities for players to get involved in nullsec
* More awesome emergent gameplay

I didn't say they succeeded, I said it was not their INTENTION to make blobs bigger, But to make small-fleet combat possible, And even meaningful.
Except they didn't. What they did has made Blobs more prevalent and important than ever.

N'tek alar
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.01.19 02:57:00 - [104]
 

Edited by: N''tek alar on 19/01/2010 02:57:51
Originally by: Blane Xero
Originally by: N'tek alar
Originally by: SomebodyKickedMyDog



Ok, Since noone seems capable of reading dev blogs, or at least, capable of remembering what was said in them, Here you go.

And since i know that you won't bother reading it, Here's the relevant part:

We get (hopefully!):

* A more comprehensible, streamlined and robust way of showing who owns a particular system
* A better conquest experience
* More organic, meaningful and fun small-fleet combat
* Less territorial sprawl by major alliances
* A more diverse and interesting political landscape
* More opportunities for players to get involved in nullsec
* More awesome emergent gameplay

I didn't say they succeeded, I said it was not their INTENTION to make blobs bigger, But to make small-fleet combat possible, And even meaningful.
Except they didn't. What they did has made Blobs more prevalent and important than ever.


What did i just say? Let me repeat myself...

"I didn't say they succeeded, I said it was not their intention..."

"I didn't say they succeeded"

Opus Dai
Posted - 2010.01.19 03:01:00 - [105]
 

Originally by: N'tek alar


Ok, Since noone seems capable of reading dev blogs, or at least, capable of remembering what was said in them, Here you go.

And since i know that you won't bother reading it, Here's the relevant part:

We get (hopefully!):

* A more comprehensible, streamlined and robust way of showing who owns a particular system
* A better conquest experience
* More organic, meaningful and fun small-fleet combat
* Less territorial sprawl by major alliances
* A more diverse and interesting political landscape
* More opportunities for players to get involved in nullsec
* More awesome emergent gameplay

I didn't say they succeeded, I said it was not their INTENTION to make blobs bigger, But to make small-fleet combat possible, And even meaningful.


Nice trolling Wink

What they said and what they actually did are two entirely different things. It's not possible to remove the anti-blob weapons and introduce static structures with large hitpoints and sit back saying to yourself "this'll obviously reduce numbers".

In addition, it's been stated in many places that lag has rolled back to more 2005 levels where it favours whoevers in system first, those that jump in just get a blackscreen. This is why they introduced API mail messages, so you can check for the insurance mail and know when there's no more point trying to log back in.

No attempt has been made mechanic wise to make small-fleet combat meaningful or possible - instead caps and even supercaps are now victim to the one-button-click-go-buy-yourself-another-one

Dominion has failed on every level and CCP refuse to accept or recognise any criticism to the terrible design changes.

But at least Goons and their pals will be gone in a few weeks, so it's not all bad.

Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Posted - 2010.01.19 03:03:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: N'tek alar
Originally by: Lilly Tigress
hey ccp get the system online asap, 1300 ppl crashed so restart the system asap, thx


Yes, Insulting ccp because your megablob crashed the system will totally make it come back up faster.

Let me guess, It wasn't reinforced, you knew it would lag like hell and probably crash, You still brought your superblob, and you think it's CCPs fault that todays technology can't handle infinite numbers of players in one area.


2nd reply won this thread. You can lock it now.

N'tek alar
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.01.19 03:05:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: Opus Dai
Originally by: N'tek alar


Ok, Since noone seems capable of reading dev blogs, or at least, capable of remembering what was said in them, Here you go.

And since i know that you won't bother reading it, Here's the relevant part:

We get (hopefully!):

* A more comprehensible, streamlined and robust way of showing who owns a particular system
* A better conquest experience
* More organic, meaningful and fun small-fleet combat
* Less territorial sprawl by major alliances
* A more diverse and interesting political landscape
* More opportunities for players to get involved in nullsec
* More awesome emergent gameplay

I didn't say they succeeded, I said it was not their INTENTION to make blobs bigger, But to make small-fleet combat possible, And even meaningful.


Nice trolling Wink

What they said and what they actually did are two entirely different things. It's not possible to remove the anti-blob weapons and introduce static structures with large hitpoints and sit back saying to yourself "this'll obviously reduce numbers".

In addition, it's been stated in many places that lag has rolled back to more 2005 levels where it favours whoevers in system first, those that jump in just get a blackscreen. This is why they introduced API mail messages, so you can check for the insurance mail and know when there's no more point trying to log back in.

No attempt has been made mechanic wise to make small-fleet combat meaningful or possible - instead caps and even supercaps are now victim to the one-button-click-go-buy-yourself-another-one

Dominion has failed on every level and CCP refuse to accept or recognise any criticism to the terrible design changes.

But at least Goons and their pals will be gone in a few weeks, so it's not all bad.


Ok, For the fourth time, I have NEVER said that they made blobs smaller, I have NEVER said that they succeeded at making small-gang warfare more viable and i have NEVER said that the server handles blobbing better now than before dominion.

The ONLY thing i've done is say that their INTENTION was to make small-gang warfare more viable and shift focus AWAY from huge blobs and that saying that "this is what they wanted" regarding blobs getting bigger/nodes crashing more frequently and so on is ****ing stupid.

Obviously this is too difficult for you to comprehend.

Opus Dai
Posted - 2010.01.19 03:26:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: N'tek alar


Ok, For the fourth time, I have NEVER said that they made blobs smaller, I have NEVER said that they succeeded at making small-gang warfare more viable and i have NEVER said that the server handles blobbing better now than before dominion.

The ONLY thing i've done is say that their INTENTION was to make small-gang warfare more viable and shift focus AWAY from huge blobs and that saying that "this is what they wanted" regarding blobs getting bigger/nodes crashing more frequently and so on is ****ing stupid.

Obviously this is too difficult for you to comprehend.


No, how can you state what their "intention" was? There is no evidence they expected anything less than whats occurring other than generic remarks made in a dev blog that bear absolutely no relation to the mechanics that they've implemented Rolling Eyes

Half the other remarks you quoted are also just as meaningless.
"A more diverse and interesting political landscape" for example. Never before has the political landscape been so polarised into two groups, hard to believe infact since it was pretty god damn polarised before Dominion. I guess you can call that an achievement of sorts Rolling Eyes


N'tek alar
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.01.19 03:49:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Opus Dai
Originally by: N'tek alar


Ok, For the fourth time, I have NEVER said that they made blobs smaller, I have NEVER said that they succeeded at making small-gang warfare more viable and i have NEVER said that the server handles blobbing better now than before dominion.

The ONLY thing i've done is say that their INTENTION was to make small-gang warfare more viable and shift focus AWAY from huge blobs and that saying that "this is what they wanted" regarding blobs getting bigger/nodes crashing more frequently and so on is ****ing stupid.

Obviously this is too difficult for you to comprehend.


No, how can you state what their "intention" was? There is no evidence they expected anything less than whats occurring other than generic remarks made in a dev blog that bear absolutely no relation to the mechanics that they've implemented Rolling Eyes

Half the other remarks you quoted are also just as meaningless.
"A more diverse and interesting political landscape" for example. Never before has the political landscape been so polarised into two groups, hard to believe infact since it was pretty god damn polarised before Dominion. I guess you can call that an achievement of sorts Rolling Eyes




Ok fine, Their STATED intentions, Anyway, Since you obviously want to believe that they wanted to sabotage their own game, I'll leave you to it >_>

Anslo
Disciples of Night
Dominion of Darkness
Posted - 2010.01.19 04:12:00 - [110]
 

I'll say it again seeing as my first post didn't get through to you people.

IF YOU DONT LIKE IT DONT PLAY.x

Opus Dai
Posted - 2010.01.19 04:14:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: N'tek alar

Ok fine, Their STATED intentions, Anyway, Since you obviously want to believe that they wanted to sabotage their own game, I'll leave you to it >_>


I'm simply pointing out you can't remove weapons introduced to the game precisely for the purpose of destroying blobs and therfore reduce the will to create them and then wonder why the game becomes more blobby.

Not that I mind. I like CCPs dark humour in the fact that they introduced Doomsdays precisely to soothe fears about the growing threat of Goonswarm and now they've removed Doomsdays precisely so Goonswarm can be safely and quickly swept of the map.

That said, I think CCP underestimated in how quickly this is being done. Consequently 0.0 politics will stagnate more than ever before and lead to inevitable accusations of bias and favouritism. While I applaud the removal of Goonswarm, I would have preferred a simple blanket ban on the membership in view of their antisocial behaviour and exploits. While not an ideal solution, it's considerably better than harming the reputation of the game.

...or I'm wrong, my imagination awash with past lies and deceits, in which case the only remaining possibility is the fact that the designers of the game are no less than the dumbest people ever to walk Gods green earth.

Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.01.19 04:31:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: Opus Dai
...or I'm wrong, my imagination awash with past lies and deceits, in which case the only remaining possibility is the fact that the designers of the game are no less than the dumbest people ever to walk Gods green earth.



Now you're finally coming close to the truth.
It's fairly obvious that nobody engaged his brain while designing the sov system.

Opus Dai
Posted - 2010.01.19 04:34:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Batolemaeus
Originally by: Opus Dai
...or I'm wrong, my imagination awash with past lies and deceits, in which case the only remaining possibility is the fact that the designers of the game are no less than the dumbest people ever to walk Gods green earth.



Now you're finally coming close to the truth.
It's fairly obvious that nobody engaged his brain while designing the sov system.


I'm inclined to agree, however the knowledge of who these designers are and their past allegiances ingame coupled with the results of Dominion so early on leaves a rather nagging doubt that Eve-History is just repeating itself.

Or maybe I'm just trying to convince myself that so I don't have to come to terms with how stupid these designers really are Laughing

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2010.01.19 04:59:00 - [114]
 

Titan doomsday as anti blob weapon was replaced by bombers, that is in fact quite effective countering the 'deathballs' - ie whole fleet warping to one point. However as a result of timezone stuff and amount of hitpoints on sov structures it is not effective at countering blob as you need either blob or opponent that does not show up to do something about those. Ofc it would be silly to excpect that if you provide single focus in 'do or die' manner for the system control that everyone and his dog don't pile on it. As far as bombers go however they can be neutralized with proper tackiks and pain is quick teacher. By now most 0.0 entities involved in territorial conflicts have managed to react to bomber threat and nowdays you have 'death clouds' instead of 'deathballs' in multiple locations around the target. Plus some rather quick locking support in the mix that can and will kill bombers before they recloak or warp off.

Sindek Yarivov
Posted - 2010.01.19 05:47:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: Roemy Schneider
C4C going down now - 700 in local

only the second month into dominion... Rolling Eyes

meanwhile [pvp] character sales are plummeting


So nodes have died with 1500, 1300 and now 700 in local...and then there's Section XIII with a fight totaling about 20 that lagged out.

Sounds like they need to stop work on whatever next expansion they are working on and devote the resources to fix whats on Tranquility now. We've seen enough tales of woe from fights large and small across New Eden of people that aren't having FUN due to lag/crashes/node deaths.

We've seen other MMO's screw up their games and things slid down the tubes (heya Sony!) CCP needs to acknowledge the issue and pause future development until the current issues are resolved.

Hecatonis
Amarr
Posted - 2010.01.19 06:35:00 - [116]
 

i must be daft to get into this but here i go anyways.

have anyone ever thought of maybe changing their tactics?

this is what everyone can clearly see:
1) if you attack a system, the other guy will get every ship they can muster to protect it
2) they will need to pull ships from other system to do this
3) once in the system they are paralysed with lag

you know maybe you should attack another system wile their main force is tied up. maybe having super blobs fighting isn't an efficient tactic. maybe you should rethink how you fight.

superblob battles don't work because it crashes the nodes therefore superblobs don't work in eve, learn from this, modify your approach, work within the system.

or continue to ***** and be unproductive and ineffective. and here is some advice you were giving the hulkageddon whiners.

dont play harder, play smarter, if you cant think of a way to get around it then you are not trying hard enough.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2010.01.19 07:45:00 - [117]
 

Originally by: Hecatonis
i must be daft to get into this but here i go anyways.

have anyone ever thought of maybe changing their tactics?

this is what everyone can clearly see:
1) if you attack a system, the other guy will get every ship they can muster to protect it
2) they will need to pull ships from other system to do this
3) once in the system they are paralysed with lag

you know maybe you should attack another system wile their main force is tied up. maybe having super blobs fighting isn't an efficient tactic. maybe you should rethink how you fight.

superblob battles don't work because it crashes the nodes therefore superblobs don't work in eve, learn from this, modify your approach, work within the system.

or continue to ***** and be unproductive and ineffective. and here is some advice you were giving the hulkageddon whiners.

dont play harder, play smarter, if you cant think of a way to get around it then you are not trying hard enough.


Your proposal does not work bcos of timers. You can attack as many other systems as you want, but you will achive nothing doing that, as after the initial zerging the battle happens in the time your opponent picks and you either have to be there and win or you are back to square one. The timers - they enforce the demand that you will need to bring everything you can and provide focal point to the conflict so there is 1300 guys stiked to one grid at specific time and server melts.

If you will bring anything less you will lose, as your opponent will bring as many as he can as sure as ice in the north.

Mkiaki
Gallente
Progressive Business Solutions
Posted - 2010.01.19 16:54:00 - [118]
 

I do so love all your tears.


Psilocin
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.01.19 18:02:00 - [119]
 

So Lilly, what is your opinion on us anchoring SBU's in 49?

Hecatonis
Amarr
Posted - 2010.01.19 22:40:00 - [120]
 

Originally by: Carniflex
Originally by: Hecatonis
i must be daft to get into this but here i go anyways.

have anyone ever thought of maybe changing their tactics?

this is what everyone can clearly see:
1) if you attack a system, the other guy will get every ship they can muster to protect it
2) they will need to pull ships from other system to do this
3) once in the system they are paralysed with lag

you know maybe you should attack another system wile their main force is tied up. maybe having super blobs fighting isn't an efficient tactic. maybe you should rethink how you fight.

superblob battles don't work because it crashes the nodes therefore superblobs don't work in eve, learn from this, modify your approach, work within the system.

or continue to ***** and be unproductive and ineffective. and here is some advice you were giving the hulkageddon whiners.

dont play harder, play smarter, if you cant think of a way to get around it then you are not trying hard enough.


Your proposal does not work bcos of timers. You can attack as many other systems as you want, but you will achive nothing doing that, as after the initial zerging the battle happens in the time your opponent picks and you either have to be there and win or you are back to square one. The timers - they enforce the demand that you will need to bring everything you can and provide focal point to the conflict so there is 1300 guys stiked to one grid at specific time and server melts.

If you will bring anything less you will lose, as your opponent will bring as many as he can as sure as ice in the north.


yes you have to hold it for 12 hours.

so hit 12 systems at the same time, they have one hour per system to get you out with one super blob, or split into smaller groups.

how about hitting 24 systems, leaving them only 30 min per systems or splitting into even smaller groups.

I cant believe that there is only one system you can attack, so work within the rules and think harder. be prepare to only take one system out of 12 it war take risks. your system does not work that is made painfully clear every time this happens, but just as they have to work to correct the problem why dont you try to correct your failing tactics.

think smarter people.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only