open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked How to fix fleet lag in a fair way once and for all.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.27 22:36:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: UniqueOne on 28/03/2011 14:01:03
This is an idea I had earlier tonight that should force the people causing the lag to fix the problem themselves, without to much of an effect on balance.

The basic idea is to make the side that is causing the lag pay for it in order to force them to release stress on the server themselves.

"If you cause the lag, you pay for it!"

To do this (once a system has a set number of players - based on current hardware/software limitations, or based on CPU usage level), for every 1% more players one side has in a system, they recieve a 2% lower priority in the server queue (eg: 2% of their players get moved to the end of the queue). The only exception to this is that warp commands and gate/bridge jump commands always get full priority (to allow FC's to ask squads or wings to leave the system to even player numbers out and reduce the lag).

As sides loose ships they can call in reinforcements from the next system (or via a bridge) to come in (again with full server priority jumping and warping in).

If one team ignores the numbers and blobs, then they are simply going to loose more ships to lag (it is their own fault).

Note that the 1% would need to be rounded up or down to an even 10 (squad size - to make it easier for FC's to call in more waves)

Right now you are probably saying to yourself, but what if they remove standings on people helping them to get around this... Well that is the second part to this idea.


"A System War Mode"

Basicly the system war mode is started when an alliance declares it against the system (or even simply based on -10 standings; although declaring against the system would probably be better as it could possiby be used to auto-reinforce nodes? Specially if it needs to be declared before downtime). Unless "System War Mode" is dclared, the attacking side simply can not shoot structures.

In addition (while in "System War Mode"):
* All neutrals are counted as hostiles (-10). If they have positive standings to one side (or both sides) then they are counted as friendly (+10) numbers. While a system is at war, there is no such thing as neutral, there is just +10 and -10.
* The local names list is replaced by a simple count of hostiles and friendlies. Reducing bandwidth usage and helping FC's keep the balance.
* Overview does not show alliance or corp tags (as all people in the system are either red or blue). Again, reducing bandwidth, and making sure that neutral (or even -5) standings can not be used to avoid the system.
* If possible add FC tags to fleets (like current scout tags). These should be limited to 3 per side, but should always have full server priority. Any player in a fleet marked with the FC tag (or fleet boss) can appoint another FC if one dies in battle. The same could be done for the actual scout tags too (limit of 3, full priority).

Anyway, those are the basics. I do not see any reason it would not work, and make fights a lot more fun for both sides.

Advantages of this system:
* The number of people fighting in a system will remain below the specified levels. There will be no lag unless the side causes it for themselves.
* The max number of players before the punishments hit can be scaled as software and hardware changes simply by raising the value.
* Large alliances still hold an advantage as they have more reinforcements ready to come in as needed (but good tactics of a smaller side actually also gives them a chance)
* This would force the reinforcements to hold the gate in the next system along so that they can jump in as required. This spreads the fighting over multiple systems.
* New tactics. Bring in the right reinforcements at the right time to your advantage.

Disadvantages:
* The larger alliances/coalitions are forced to fight on a slightly more even level and can not simply lag systems into submission (why is this not an exploit? Cargo can lag is considerred one!). Is this a disadvantage?
* I can not think of any others.. Anyone?

Thoughts?

Gangster101 PureLove
Posted - 2011.03.27 22:39:00 - [2]
 

Eliminating DSL connections works too. Very Happy

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.28 13:10:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Gangster101 PureLove
Eliminating DSL connections works too. Very Happy


lol. wha?

Asuka Solo
Gallente
Stark Fujikawa
Posted - 2011.03.28 15:18:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Asuka Solo on 28/03/2011 15:20:01
Edited by: Asuka Solo on 28/03/2011 15:18:46
Isn't the answer to lag obvious?

Automation. Hamsters need to be replaced by steam engines as per the industrial Hamster revolution. Steam powered mechanical Hamsters don't need food, breaks, sleep, housing, over-time or union representation.

In all honesty tho. A pay-2-play game that charges me for playing in laggy overpopulated systems? Not sure about that one.

Then again, neither will any pilot that has business in Jita.

Lork Niffle
Gallente
External Hard Drive
Posted - 2011.03.28 15:26:00 - [5]
 

An extremely overly complex system that is easily circumvented and removes everything that players want. Players can just stay neutral and use their brains to remember who's who.

What is wrong with players wanting 1000+ ship battles? Why should they be penalised for it? Surely with focus on improving efficiency of the server and network communication this can be achieved.

The only solution is the change the paradigm of fleet fights to make them dynamic, your system only places a terrible bolt fix on top of a system that is designed to reach max anyway.

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2011.03.28 15:31:00 - [6]
 

If I bring 400 people to your space and you want to defend it with 600 who's causing the lag?

Are you saying nobody should defend their systems anymore? Or are you saying that the invader should pay the price for 'causing' the lag as they're forcing the defenders to come with even or greater numbers? What if the attackers were in system first and the defenders jump in afterwards, or the other way round?

Then you speak of blobs. What is a blob to you? 250 is a blob or 500? At one point we could have 1000 people in system shooting without killer lag, so, what's this blob?

Reinforcement limits? Again, if I bring a certain amount and you see you need double the amount to win you're pretty much out of luck.

What if I'm using lasers and you're using missiles? Who's causing the lag?

Your proposal propagates stagnation.

I wonder whether you're part of the NC or have ever experienced a massive fleet fight.

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.28 16:01:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: UniqueOne on 28/03/2011 16:18:46
Originally by: Super Whopper
If I bring 400 people to your space and you want to defend it with 600 who's causing the lag?



I doubt the max level will be set to anything less then 1000, so it would have no effect on this scenario... But say the numbers were higher, (eg: 800 and 600, and the max was 1000) the system ecourages 300 of the defending team's pilots and 100 of the attacking team's pilots to move to the next system and wait or fight there (if they go to the same system). Warping and jumping would recieve full server priority to make this easy.

Originally by: Super Whopper
Are you saying nobody should defend their systems anymore? Or are you saying that the invader should pay the price for 'causing' the lag as they're forcing the defenders to come with even or greater numbers? What if the attackers were in system first and the defenders jump in afterwards, or the other way round?


As above. The system is based on current system numbers, at all times. It simply encourages both sides to keep the fight lag free.

Note: the system does not in any way "force" you to not overload the system, but it does penalize you if you do.

If you are causing the lag, then why shouldn't it? Why should innocent players pay for you overloading the server?

Originally by: Super Whopper
Then you speak of blobs. What is a blob to you? 250 is a blob or 500? At one point we could have 1000 people in system shooting without killer lag, so, what's this blob?


Read the top answer in this post. Max number can be adjusted as the servers can support them.

Originally by: Super Whopper
Reinforcement limits? Again, if I bring a certain amount and you see you need double the amount to win you're pretty much out of luck.


There is no reinforcements limit. In the next system/jump location you can have as many players as you want... but if you go over that system's limit (and that system is fighting), these same rules should apply there too (forcing you to have players in yet another system to reinforce that one).

There is no limit to how many you can bring, just to how many can be in each system.

Originally by: Super Whopper
What if I'm using lasers and you're using missiles? Who's causing the lag?


I guess the max limit needs to account for missiles.

Originally by: Super Whopper
Your proposal propagates stagnation.


No.
It promotes PvP as opposed to someone going home because theres no point trying to fight.
It promotes tactics and smart use of ship types (initial fleet and reinforcements) instead of server overloading.
It promotes a scaleable method to keep the fights lag free.
It promotes that larger alliances fight on multiple fronts.
It promotes more pew pew and less waiting for your modules to respond.
It also gives FC's and scouts full server priority so that they can better do their jobs.

Originally by: Super Whopper
I wonder whether you're part of the NC or have ever experienced a massive fleet fight.


no, and many (and they all sucked).

Lork Niffle
Gallente
External Hard Drive
Posted - 2011.03.28 16:43:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: UniqueOne

It promotes PvP as opposed to someone going home because theres no point trying to fight.
It promotes tactics and smart use of ship types (initial fleet and reinforcements) instead of server overloading.
It promotes a scaleable method to keep the fights lag free.
It promotes that larger alliances fight on multiple fronts.
It promotes more pew pew and less waiting for your modules to respond.
It also gives FC's and scouts full server priority so that they can better do their jobs.



It doesn't as it doesn't change the system at all and can be circumvented by neutrals and memory (and believe me people will do that if a penalty occurs), any change that can be circumvented will do nothing but waste time.

And even then people may just not care and when the penalty occurs jsut bring in even more to overpower the other side; think 2000v800 witht eh 200 side having the penalty and they'll eventually win.

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.28 16:56:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: UniqueOne on 28/03/2011 17:24:49
Originally by: Lork Niffle
Originally by: UniqueOne

It promotes PvP as opposed to someone going home because theres no point trying to fight.
It promotes tactics and smart use of ship types (initial fleet and reinforcements) instead of server overloading.
It promotes a scaleable method to keep the fights lag free.
It promotes that larger alliances fight on multiple fronts.
It promotes more pew pew and less waiting for your modules to respond.
It also gives FC's and scouts full server priority so that they can better do their jobs.



It doesn't as it doesn't change the system at all and can be circumvented by neutrals and memory (and believe me people will do that if a penalty occurs), any change that can be circumvented will do nothing but waste time.


Read "In addition (while in "System War Mode"):" in the top post. Neutrals are shown as hostiles (and corp/alliance tags are not shown). The only way to not shoot them would be to know all their names.

Note also that if they are blue to one side, they are counted as their numbers, if they are neutral they are enemy, if they are neut to both, they are counted as enemies to both sides. There is no way to abuse this.

Originally by: Lork Niffle
And even then people may just not care and when the penalty occurs jsut bring in even more to overpower the other side; think 2000v800 witht eh 200 side having the penalty and they'll eventually win.


If they did then they would experience unplayable lag while the smaller side would recieve much less.

If the system limit was 1000 pilots, then the 2000 side would recieve 600% extra module lag (base is 500 per team, they have 300% more then that, which is doubled by the penalty, so 600% extra module lag). The 800 side would recieve 120% more lag (60% over the limit). Many of the larger team would soon find themselves dead until balance is reached (but they can leave at any time with full server priority - the system is designed to allow them to remedy the situation).

If that 2000 was meant to be 200, then 200 vs 800 is within the limits and noone would be forcably lagged. The system only comes into effect when the limit is reached. This is not designed to stop alliances from using their numbers against a smaller target, it is simply to give us lag free fights between 2 large entities.

NOTE: If CCP do not want to change the actual server priority code, this could also be done as a direct "fleet bonus" style negative bonus to module activation timers. It would have basicly the same effect... You fire slower, etc...

Lork Niffle
Gallente
External Hard Drive
Posted - 2011.03.28 18:09:00 - [10]
 

OK, easy way to abuse this system.

Everyone is neutral. There is no side that this idea can see.

Another flaw.

One side has 800 on defense, permanently, this means there is no way to attack as you can only fit about 400 before the node dies.

Tasha Voronina
Caldari
Caldari Navy Reserve Force
Posted - 2011.03.28 19:08:00 - [11]
 

One of the better ideas I've read over time, however, there are two points that I feel aren't ... well thought-out.

-Are you sure you want to allow attacks on all structures within a system only when this mode is active? Or perhaps just the sov-relevant ones along with POS towers? If the latter, then you at least retain potential targets for small roaming gangs (yeah, yeah, I know they don't do that, but still)

-This seems like a nice way to get rid of local, can you declare war on all hostile systems at once to deny them precise intel?

If I think of any more, I'll post it.


Oh, and of course, we all know this isn't going to happen Rolling Eyes (sadly, as this would've been an incentive-based approach)

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.28 23:03:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: UniqueOne on 28/03/2011 23:18:40
Originally by: Lork Niffle
OK, easy way to abuse this system.

Everyone is neutral. There is no side that this idea can see.


Neutrals would see eachother as hostile. Under this system all neutrals show as hostile within the system (unless they have positive standings to eachother).

Originally by: Lork Niffle
Another flaw.

One side has 800 on defense, permanently, this means there is no way to attack as you can only fit about 400 before the node dies.


If one side has 800 on defence permanently and the other side brings in their 201 (210 actually after rounding up, and assuming limit is 1000) then the system takes effect and the 800 takes the penalty for being 300 over. The side with 210 takes no penalty until they go over the 500 players limit for their side.

The system also does not force either side to not go over the limit, it only penalises them if they do, until they fix the problem themselves.


Originally by: Tasha Voronina
One of the better ideas I've read over time, however, there are two points that I feel aren't ... well thought-out.

-Are you sure you want to allow attacks on all structures within a system only when this mode is active? Or perhaps just the sov-relevant ones along with POS towers? If the latter, then you at least retain potential targets for small roaming gangs (yeah, yeah, I know they don't do that, but still)


Yes war mode would only effect sovrenity and POS structures.

Originally by: Tasha Voronina
-This seems like a nice way to get rid of local, can you declare war on all hostile systems at once to deny them precise intel?

If I think of any more, I'll post it.

Oh, and of course, we all know this isn't going to happen Rolling Eyes (sadly, as this would've been an incentive-based approach)


It actually does not get rid of local, it just shows totals instead of actual players. Generally more useful to the FCs on both sides during large fights - specially if they need to manage their own numbers. They can also see quickly if the enemy is currently taking penalties.

I am not sure if the system should be in effect unless the side(s) that declared war are actually in the system.. Something to ponder I guess.

Vardec Crom
Skyforger
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.03.28 23:38:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Vardec Crom on 28/03/2011 23:41:28
Originally by: UniqueOne

If the system limit was 1000 pilots, then the 2000 side would recieve 600% extra module lag (base is 500 per team, they have 300% more then that, which is doubled by the penalty, so 600% extra module lag). The 800 side would recieve 120% more lag (60% over the limit). Many of the larger team would soon find themselves dead until balance is reached (but they can leave at any time with full server priority - the system is designed to allow them to remedy the situation).



Terrible poster, worst idea to grace these boards in a very long time, get out.

Also I hope you realize it's impossible to control WHO gets lag. Its not like the server can delegate lag to one side in certain proportions. Lag occurs from too many remote calls being made to the server at once, causing a backlog. You sir, are a grade A idiot.

Originally by: Uniqueone

I doubt the max level will be set to anything less then 1000, so it would have no effect on this scenario... But say the numbers were higher, (eg: 800 and 600, and the max was 1000) the system ecourages 300 of the defending team's pilots and 100 of the attacking team's pilots to move to the next system and wait or fight there (if they go to the same system). Warping and jumping would recieve full server priority to make this easy.



So you're saying the invading side who would outnumber the defending side would have the incentive to move several hundred pilots out of the system so the fight is perfectly even? Why? The benevolence of their hearts? Sounds like you want every single battle to be a perfect arena style match-up where everything is fair and we're all happy in our circle jerks. WoW is that way ----->.

This is EVE, HTFU.

If CCP didn't want these fights to occur they wouldn't invest in things like $50,000 next gen servers. Outnumbering the opponent is a legitimate strategy in EVE. Until the tech and software catches up with the fights, I'll be content to participate in lag fests and QQ about it.

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.28 23:58:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: UniqueOne on 29/03/2011 00:07:29
Edited by: UniqueOne on 29/03/2011 00:05:40
Originally by: Vardec Crom
Edited by: Vardec Crom on 28/03/2011 23:41:28
Originally by: UniqueOne

If the system limit was 1000 pilots, then the 2000 side would recieve 600% extra module lag (base is 500 per team, they have 300% more then that, which is doubled by the penalty, so 600% extra module lag). The 800 side would recieve 120% more lag (60% over the limit). Many of the larger team would soon find themselves dead until balance is reached (but they can leave at any time with full server priority - the system is designed to allow them to remedy the situation).



Terrible poster, worst idea to grace these boards in a very long time, get out.

Also I hope you realize it's impossible to control WHO gets lag. Its not like the server can delegate lag to one side in certain proportions. Lag occurs from too many remote calls being made to the server at once, causing a backlog. You sir, are a grade A idiot.


Requests are queued server side. It is as simple as rearranging the queue... Or taking the other route and doing it via module activation penalties.

Originally by: Vardec Crom
Originally by: Uniqueone

I doubt the max level will be set to anything less then 1000, so it would have no effect on this scenario... But say the numbers were higher, (eg: 800 and 600, and the max was 1000) the system ecourages 300 of the defending team's pilots and 100 of the attacking team's pilots to move to the next system and wait or fight there (if they go to the same system). Warping and jumping would recieve full server priority to make this easy.



So you're saying the invading side who would outnumber the defending side would have the incentive to move several hundred pilots out of the system so the fight is perfectly even? Why? The benevolence of their hearts? Sounds like you want every single battle to be a perfect arena style match-up where everything is fair and we're all happy in our circle jerks. WoW is that way ----->.

This is EVE, HTFU.

If CCP didn't want these fights to occur they wouldn't invest in things like $50,000 next gen servers. Outnumbering the opponent is a legitimate strategy in EVE. Until the tech and software catches up with the fights, I'll be content to participate in lag fests and QQ about it.


Tech will never catch up. The better the tech, the more it gets abused. Nothing has changed since eve started.

A larger force would loose very little under this system unless they are too stupid to use what they have correctly (and call in the right ship types from their reinforcements at the right times). In actual fact, they probably get a bigger advantage from more types of ships to choose from - all with working modules!

God forbid eve should require any tactics...

Vardec Crom
Skyforger
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.03.29 00:34:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: UniqueOne

Requests are queued server side. It is as simple as rearranging the queue... Or taking the other route and doing it via module activation penalties.



Rearranging the queues based on aggregating all of the derived standings of every single participant in the battle and determining which side receives said lag penalty and then determine each participants call order based both on the order of call to the server and their imposed penalty. Seems like an awful lot of cpu overhead, if the concept would even work, which I doubt it will. And it's doing this all while suffering under very heavy load. Imposing rate of fire/activation penalties on each individual modules once again by being forced to aggregate all the standings of every single player and determine the penalty which is constantly in flux is not solution either. Once again a lot of cpu overhead. Not to mention the fact that a flat out RoF increase is a completely arbitrary punishment for outnumbering a side.

Originally by: UniqueOne

Tech will never catch up. The better the tech, the more it gets abused. Nothing has changed since eve started.

God forbid eve should require any tactics...



Never say never, and if you haven't lived under a rock the last 20 years you should know better than to say this when it comes to the tech industry. As it is, CCP has promised 3000 man lag free fights with their new tool. NC vs DRF couldn't reach that on a good day.

Yea, playing to your fleets comps strengths, smart target calling, good positioning, good logi chains, battle awareness, that's not tactical at all.

Tasha Voronina
Caldari
Caldari Navy Reserve Force
Posted - 2011.03.29 09:21:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: UniqueOne

Originally by: Tasha Voronina
-This seems like a nice way to get rid of local, can you declare war on all hostile systems at once to deny them precise intel?

If I think of any more, I'll post it.

Oh, and of course, we all know this isn't going to happen Rolling Eyes (sadly, as this would've been an incentive-based approach)


It actually does not get rid of local, it just shows totals instead of actual players. Generally more useful to the FCs on both sides during large fights - specially if they need to manage their own numbers. They can also see quickly if the enemy is currently taking penalties.

I am not sure if the system should be in effect unless the side(s) that declared war are actually in the system.. Something to ponder I guess.



Yes, that's where I was going. If this system can be enabled by simply declaring war on a system, then you have the situation where you, for example, have a system full of blues, then one neutral enters, and you don't know who it is. Now I'll admit that right now you almost always have to assume the worst, that it's a hostile scout, but under the new system, you wouldn't know *which* hostiles you should be expecting - the next-door small roamers or the huge coalition blob? (A somewhat unrealistic scenario, but heh) What I'm trying to say is that getting rid of current local in any way, shape or form will require a reworked intel system. (Not that that isn't a bad thing as such)


Oh, and yeah, overhead issues. Whether this is a workable idea entirely depends on how much overhead in the added calculations it would generate.

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.29 10:08:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Tasha Voronina
Originally by: UniqueOne

Originally by: Tasha Voronina
-This seems like a nice way to get rid of local, can you declare war on all hostile systems at once to deny them precise intel?

If I think of any more, I'll post it.

Oh, and of course, we all know this isn't going to happen Rolling Eyes (sadly, as this would've been an incentive-based approach)


It actually does not get rid of local, it just shows totals instead of actual players. Generally more useful to the FCs on both sides during large fights - specially if they need to manage their own numbers. They can also see quickly if the enemy is currently taking penalties.

I am not sure if the system should be in effect unless the side(s) that declared war are actually in the system.. Something to ponder I guess.



Yes, that's where I was going. If this system can be enabled by simply declaring war on a system, then you have the situation where you, for example, have a system full of blues, then one neutral enters, and you don't know who it is. Now I'll admit that right now you almost always have to assume the worst, that it's a hostile scout, but under the new system, you wouldn't know *which* hostiles you should be expecting - the next-door small roamers or the huge coalition blob? (A somewhat unrealistic scenario, but heh) What I'm trying to say is that getting rid of current local in any way, shape or form will require a reworked intel system. (Not that that isn't a bad thing as such)


Oh, and yeah, overhead issues. Whether this is a workable idea entirely depends on how much overhead in the added calculations it would generate.


From that point of view the module activation penalties would probably create less load (they would be fleet wide), but the local list only need be updated every 10 seconds or so anyway... and also note that its 2% penalty for every 1% over the specified limit - that should release server time for these things exponentially.


Hayaishi
Gallente
Aperture Harmonics
Posted - 2011.03.29 10:45:00 - [18]
 

I believe time dilation is a better solution. Giving any particular party the ability to control the server against another is just going to be exploited.

Reeno Coleman
Posted - 2011.03.29 11:24:00 - [19]
 

One Problem > You cannot accurately determine 'sides'. Therefore this doesn't work/is too easily abusable.

UniqueOne
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.29 12:12:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: UniqueOne on 29/03/2011 12:12:46
Originally by: Reeno Coleman
One Problem > You cannot accurately determine 'sides'. Therefore this doesn't work/is too easily abusable.


Why not? I don't think you are understanding the concept.

The fact that sides are reduced to 2 (red and blue) means there is no possible way to abuse the system.

Lork Niffle
Gallente
External Hard Drive
Posted - 2011.03.29 16:01:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: UniqueOne


From that point of view the module activation penalties would probably create less load (they would be fleet wide), but the local list only need be updated every 10 seconds or so anyway... and also note that its 2% penalty for every 1% over the specified limit - that should release server time for these things exponentially.




Assuming it is possible to create a queuing system for actions that doesn't completely negate any effect. If you understand how programming works you'll know very quickly that this is unworkable.

Also it is very easy to circumvent this system:

Everyone turns neutral to everyone, people then create a simple list window in VB or java or whatever that sits on top of all windows on the system and they can input who's on who's side. No one receives any penalty and the nodes still die.

Its better to invest time into optimizing the network and server code than this.

NinjaSpud
Posted - 2011.03.29 16:08:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: NinjaSpud on 29/03/2011 16:09:01
Originally by: UniqueOne
Edited by: UniqueOne on 28/03/2011 14:01:03
To do this (once a system has a set number of players - based on current hardware/software limitations, or based on CPU usage level)



I appreciate your efforts, they are nobel. However, this is where your mistake is.

EVE lag is not 100% based on hardware/software. It's based on bandwidth (and a little old code, that CCP is fixing). Basically, each persons internet connection running slow is the problem.

More specifically, each persons upload to eve is the problem. See, what commercial ISP providers dont tell you, is with that awesome 18mb downlaod high speed interenet you get...only has a 1/2 mb uplaod speed. The 'rule of bottlenecks' states that a network will only run as fast as its slowest node (there's a lot of fine print in that statement, but for the majority it's true).

Hardware/software, I'm sure does contribute, but isn't the isuse. the issue is the home internet connection.

Yulinki Atavuli
Minmatar
Caldari Investment and Security Industries
Innovia Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.29 16:55:00 - [23]
 

i think what CCP is doing already is working. I.E. more and faster servers.


 

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