I understand that there are a lot of people who are upset about what happened in M2-, last night.
There are a lot of people who have been upset in previous battles in EVE Online where disconnects, odd events occurring because of heavy TIDI, lag or memory optimization problems caused problems. We have seen multiple extremely large battles take place in this game, and in none of them did the server perform exactly as it does when it is not under a significant load.
Players know this, and - more importantly - the leadership of both sides know this, and they make battle plans and tactics to take this kind of ābattle weatherā into account. I have been in multiple battles where server issues made it difficult for me to take part. I have been in many more where server issues affected the outcome. I sat on a loading screen for most of the 9-4 fight that broke the first Guinness world record. I couldnāt get on grid at all in the YZ-9 fight that saw the first keepstar anchor in Delve, despite out best efforts to stop it. As ProgodLegend and other very seasoned players have noted, every decisionmaker at a high level in this game knows that the servers are unreliable when you get 6000+ people in the same place, and they take that into account. The decision to jump in to system in these conditions was made by each player who clicked jump, knowing that what happened was a possibility. And for those who claim they had no idea, I said as much was possible hours before what happened actually did: https://clips.twitch.tv/SullenPoliteCatKippa
CCP has invested millions of dollars in upgrading equipment, optimizing servers, and doing everything they can to make it possible for us to cram as many people as we possibly can into these fights. We apparently broke the world record we just set a few months ago TWICE last night, including one time in the PAPI staging system alone. One constant in EVE is that no matter how well CCP upgrades the game and the servers, we will find a way to cram even more people in and strain them to the breaking point.
I know that many folks are in the grieving stage now, theyāre angry and they want to point fingers. Thatās understandable. I will do my best to convey those sentiments in a forthright but professional way to the Developers as is my job as a CSM member.
the definition of a āsideā is the big issue other than the scale of the fight. coalitions are groups of parties that have agreed to work together, there is no coalition entity in EVE., changing sides mid fight would also be a thing. whether by deception or simply cash in hand, a declared partner could turn on you (this already happens). There is also a false sense of fairness in this arrangement. At what point did warfare become fair?
Just consider New York city as a real sandbox. The population of NY is under 18.8m people. Now try to bring there additional 20m people and tell me what kind of creativity theyāll show to be able to live there. What will happen? Most of them will leave to live in Austin or Tampa.
How to keep involved 10000 players in a single battle distributed between few subzones is a big question to the in game mechanic. IDK it and Iām not even interested in it anymore based on my first post here. This mechanic lost credibility for me. Iāll give my 700m ISK to Jita guys to get it doubled better.
Read Topic: CCP You failed again
Some players in M2-XFE could agree to that.
We donāt have to come with a solution.
CCP has to come with a proper solution
Keepstar killing (playing the game) is not possible this time. (time-joke)
CCP do something about that
CSM please ask for that
Not saying thereās good ways to limit numbers in a fleet in system, just that itās possible, and may be the lesser of three evils. There would also be other approaches. The current evil is TiDi and blobbing, with the well known downsides. The second evil would be ācoarse-grained fleet clumpingā, as you suggest, with attendant downsides of randomness, lack of individual agency, difficulty of implementation.
The ālimit the numbersā evil could be implemented various ways. You could make fleets self-limit by imposing diminishing returns on their firepower and accuracy as the fleet grows (or the total population within one set of allies, since players would just make multiple fleets), so that the largest practical effective fleet size would be limited.
You could impose two different levels of TiDi on opposing sides in a conflict, such that the smaller fleet would be more responsive. You could limit the numbers of ships allowed in a system on āone sideā until they had been matched by ships on another side using various mechanics. You could impose a cost or penalty on a having a large fleet present in a system.
Lots of different ways, all with their own issues, which every attempted solution would have. Enough that the concept shouldnāt be entirely off the table, especially if it proves to be the only workable/codeable one.
I meant exactly that. Thereās no point to implement absolute sandbox concepts when itās reffered to the null-sec SoV. In other parts of the game we can keep the sandbox as much as we can. Why as much as we can? The CONCORD canāt be counted as a normal sandbox, because in real world the thugs and criminals have options to run and hide from police after certain crimes
But you should agree with me that on a big alliance or coalition degree their BLOBS canāt work anymore. An alliance with 3000 players can subscribe for one month two pilots trained into a specific Destroyer or Cruiser and multibox the local up to 9000 pilots. With 10% TiDi they can prepare food and watch TV while doing on all toons what FC is telling them.
People Cyno their super fleets in waves to prevent stuff like this, as you could see the goons doing.
Normally PAPI does this too, yet this time they wanted to all cyno in at once last minuteā¦ not even on a friendly structure but directly on a fighter blob.
They wanted to log in the stuck supers during the fight (lol?) instead of forming subcap fleets during the day and extracting them before the fight, everyone knows logging into a heavy TIDI system isnāt going to work well.
When goons were chain crashing on the YZ-9 keepstar fight, PAPI laughed.
When goons failed the boson trap due to an actual server glitch, PAPI laughed.
But when you can do it, it should be possible
The game mechanic ask for it to kill a big citadel with Titans
When you try it out and it isnāt possible then something is wrong.
When try to kill a citadel and it isnāt possible the game is broken for that part.
See topic: CCP you failed
Congrats CCP, you utterly failed in providing what could have been a battle that would encourage new players. If you are serious about brining new players than create a system that actually works.
Everyone is acting as if this has never been a problem in the past.
Many, many previous wars have seen people trying to deliberately crash nodes with drones, jetcans and other such methods to deny attackers the ability to actually attack.
Then CCP improved hardware and introduced TiDi but then we keep feeding more and more players into the battles until the server canāt take it again.
And so the cycle continues.
All that happens is that CCP are chasing their tails trying to keep the server able to handle the loads because they love media headlines about total players involved, no matter how bad the actual gameplay experience is.
Nothing is done to address the actual gameplay and mechanics reasons why we need so many thousands of players to be attacking the same single point in space in the first place.
PAPI were dumb to feed their entire supercap fleet into an already struggling node.
That doesnāt let CCP off the hook though.
