Cool EVE Article

[Hamma]

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/48596

Not a bad little article, makes me want to play it.

[Kam]

.

[Hamma]

Yea it is a well written article though, dispite who it is written by hehe.

I enjoyed the game but I just find it hard to get a good direction, and I can't really do anything I'd find to be fun

They should launch a clean server someday

[Rbstr]

Originally Posted by Kam

It's a good article, but there are a few problems currently. Mainly large scale battles are out for good, thanks to the system cap due to lag. Then in their infinite wisdom, CCP removed the trade forums a few days ago when no in-game system exists. Oh there's a contract system, but some items like anything capitol parts and services can't be contracted. But, as always, it remains one of the best games I've ever played. CCP has just been making some really poor decisions, especially after the most recent dev scandal.

Um, there's no system cap, thing justs get laggy. It's funny how people whine about it IMO. Used to be 100v100 was big shit, it used to be laggy as all hell, now I've found it to be quite usable. Now the players have caught up to the limitations of the game again.

They're upgrading hardware again, and rev2.2 is supposed to provide even more lag fixes soon they're going to have a system implemented that lets systems be hosted over multiple physical servers, with infiniband and some crazy remote-RAM setup.

The recent Dev scandal wasn't even a scandal. No one did anything wrong. Someone just brought up a bunch of old, closed, allegations and blitzed a bunch of news sites with it. Goons did it on purpose because at the time BoB was handing them there shit something awful. Now that goons are winning, don't you notice how they've shut up?

I think the devs are doing as best is as humanly possible, they're building a whole new fucking graphics engine and client UI to bring the game up to date.
The Khanid MK2 should be a very welcome change (except to people too set in their ways to realize the ships are now better then the old ones, period)
The other balance changes for tomorrow are great aswell.
Heat is a great mechanic, albeit quite underpowered in some cases.

And lastly, you don't have to be Alliance of Coalition, I'm not, infact we've got both sides set red. We own 0.0 space too.

[Hamma]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

they're building a whole new fucking graphics engine and client UI to bring the game up to date.

When this happens I will most certainly give the game another whack, I got an email a couple months back with a free trial too maybe I will jump in for a bit.

[Baneblade]

They did.

[Kam]

.

[Infernus]

Originally Posted by Kam

They should just disband all corps and alliances and remove everyones sovereignty in 0.0 so everyone can have a shot at it again. As it stands you either join BoB or goon or you join some other alliance and they get picked up by BoB a month later.

Or, you should just learn to play EVE.

Wiping the servers (of anything, in any way) would be a terrible idea in just about every way. How so? Well you sorta alienate basically your entire customer base, or at least the segment of it that has being playing for more then a year, and actually does know shit about the game and give a shit about their character and standing in the galaxy.

The hardcore EVE player gives a shit about all of that. If I woke up one morning and my alliance was just gone, I'd most definitely cancel. WHY? Well in a lot of cases people play EVE for the relative freedom you enjoy in game, freedom that CCP has always supported, by wiping the servers of characters or corporations or anything they effectively limit their championed freedom. You loose that entire customer base.

Add into that, how would you feel if you just fought a few months conquering "so and so" and you wake up the next morning and everything is just reset. It's a terrible idea.

As for system caps? I don't know what you're on about. There is no system cap, which is essentially the problem. They're damned if they do a system cap, damned if they don't. If they do it, well then the system capacity is limited. If they don't do it, it's still limited. And guess what, fleet battles have pretty much always been this way, for basically as long as I can remember (I've played since launch). They've never been fun, they've always been slideshows (except for maybe the ones that happened before the advent of the industrial).

You're just a looney.

[Peacemaker]

I lost interest when I got bumped to death... -_- Someday, maybe... but not right now.

[Hamma]

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

I lost interest when I got bumped to death... -_- Someday, maybe... but not right now.

Yeah...Im not looking forward to fighting that tactic with a Leviathon...hopefully it will be squashed by the time I have it.

[Rbstr]

For some reason I don't think You'll EVER have to worry about flying a titan.

[Baneblade]

Since when does it matter what you think?

Now we are just covering already covered ground...why even start it up?

[Rbstr]

My opinion is very valid though it may not matter to you. It comes from lots of experience seeing you play the game combined with a good bit of experience in Titan and capital production and a deep knowledge of game mechanics.

One does not simply walk into 0.0 and build a titan(unless your Bear Grylls). You lack the resources, and have never proven that you could ever muster them.

Why start it up? Hiding your boasting about a slimly possible situation where you actually manage to get a titian of your own (and are for some reason getting bumped by a bunch of ships you can't tank and your without any kind of support to save you ... also IMO it's a perfectly valid tactic and one that makes a lot of in game and true-to-life sense. Though there are some size/mass discrepancies that need addressing) annoys me.

[Baneblade]

First of all, you don't have 'lots of experience seeing' me play.

And second of all, I'd wager my understanding of Eve is as good or better than yours or anyone else's.

So your statement is merely a personal attack, not an accurate conclusion based on rational thought or factual information.