I actually like TiDi fights. You have to think differently.
You’ll still have your tidi. Even when distributed over several systems, you cannot prevent tidi entirely. What you can, however, is make it much less painful and way more interactive than watching your modules for 5 minutes to see whether it cycles or not. In a not overburdened system under tidi, you can still properly use your client.
the problem isn’t the server, is that alliance keep trying to flood the system with so much people that the server will crap it’s self, if the fight was spread out it would a proper battle instead of just roleplaying as “the battle of pavel house”
I disagree. Game allows it. It is natural that players will exploit it and force this TIDI crap to happen if it is beneficial to them.
Other games will put players over some limit that the servers can’t cope with into another instance. Sure, these games can’t claim there are battles with thousand of players, but at least it works and what you are proposing that the players should do themselves is basically the same.
However it just can’t work, because there is no way to instance something like a fight in EVE for reasons. If your goal is to kill citadel, then all attackers must be on the same grid, It is not possible for half of them be in another instance as the defender inside citadel could be only in one instance anyway. Etc…
yeah, going that route require changing a lot of sutff that null sec growh around it
1 Like
I think you’re missing the point.
CCP uses such battles for marketing, they encourage such battles and have for a long time.
As such they should have the servers etc to cope rather than having to make them a nightmare due to TIDI. They are responsible and players deserve better from CCP.
They turn over tens of millions of £/$ a year and it’s time they reinvested some of it into their main servers and game, or maybe they need better programmers and hardware/software engineers rather than Youtubers?
4 Likes
If you have some way to make that possible, please share it with CCP, but my point is that they are the ones pushing the limits of what is possible and that is what what they are showing off, that it even happened without the servers melting.
Oh but if we shared how to do it, we wouldn’t be able to make claims that the technology exists and that it’s really easy to obtain and implement.
1 Like
Every third post i read about “given the current age” … “at this point in the lifecycle” and other crap…what exactly do you know about EVEs lifecycle and where does this information come from?
These are just wisenheimer comments without any foundation. And there is no excuse for that as these arguments are the foundation of the accusations it seems.
The infrastructue and codebase was tuned and expanded multiple times in the last 25 years. Each improvement meant the allowance for larger battles and each time the battles grew to that new maximum size. Even at some point tidi was invented to avoid nodecrash. And still you are not satisfied, you would rather have a nodecrash when the maximum capacity is reached?
1 Like
So many in here making excuses for CCP… 
Since CCP loves advertising and marketing Eve around the gigantic battles then those battles should be playable and by playable I don’t mean click icon, wait 15 minutes for the command to get processed and hope you don’t crash in the meantime.
Thankfully I live in low and high sec and don’t deal with 3k player battles and never will. Null TiDi lagfests hold absolutely no appeal to me.
4 Likes
Hey it’s fine that you don’t like it, neither do I, but at least I can acknowledge reality. But people are acting like this is an issue that can be fixed when it can’t, not with the current technology. If someone has the knowledge to be able to “fix it”, then they should share that info and make a bunch of money off it. No matter what limits CCP puts in place, players will push those boundaries, we have the numbers to cram as many people into a system to get a job done. TiDi is the current best solution, pre-TiDi was even more terrible than the current situation.
2 Likes
People here claim it is easy, meanwhile CCP gets awarded world records, because what people claim to be easy is not so easy after all.
It is “so easy” that EVE Online is the only place where it happens afterall. I wonder how you can not realize this?
2 Likes
If ccp put a hard limit of 3000 players in space, both sides would try to push beyond it. Thats the case with every battle, players pushing the boundaries of ccps tech.
Going by this screen if they notify ccp that theyll have say 1000 from each side show up and an additional 500 show up on each side, ccp isnt accounting for 1000 more pilots.
Players will ALWAYS bring more and push the limits
but what about highsec ganking
1 Like
Since they do and since CCP knows that (they have been bringing this up every single time after a server tech enhancement or bigger battle as a mark of pride, of sorts), they should not just focus on improving their tech stack and instead focus on better mechanics that can cope with the player behavior. So far, CCP does neither successfully nor in a focused manner.
4 Likes
you havent realized yet that guiness world records are a marketing tool yet?
you either search in the list for something you can beat, or make one up yourself, then you pay guiness and they give you a record to put in your advertisement
3 Likes
slow performance is prevalent in eve and related products, i’m thinking it’s a working culture thing…it’s a choice.