LK1K-5: Server-Tanked Fortizar Defeats Pilots’ Fun


Header Image by Empanada.

EVE Online’s big battles are one of the game’s main selling points. They’re the events that see two thousand players shoot each other over a strategic objective, or just have fun. Veteran EVE players tell stories of those fights. Often, much of the fun comes from their place in the bigger narratives. LK1K-5 should have been one of those fights. It was the final timer of a staging citadel in the face of a massive invasion; a desperate ‘last stand’. The narrative writes itself. This time, though, the crushing server load turned ‘last stand’ into ‘endless slog’.

Doing the Heavy Lifting

Being part of a so-called “TiDi fuckfest” is seldom fun for anyone involved. Masses of players crowding into a single system creates server loads that cause the software problems. The game not only slows down, but also ceases to function normally. Over the years, CCP has worked to find ways to mitigate this. TiDi itself, aka Time Dilation, is one of them. The server literally just slows down the way it’s handling commands and queries, so what should take 1 second can take as much as 10. This lets the system ensure that everything is calculated correctly and that no commands or requests get dropped. While it can be annoying, this is vastly preferable to the pre-TiDi phenomenon of ‘black screen of death’. People would simply never load system, or crash completely. Then later, they’d learn their ships were destroyed by the lucky few who did manage to get in.

Another is node mapping. Tranquility is a server cluster, in which varying amounts of resources are dedicated to solar systems. The more resources dedicated to a system, the more people can effectively be in system before time dilation slows down the pace of the game to allow the server to catch up and prevent crashes, disconnects and module malfunctions. CCP allows players to submit fight notifications to request such additional resources. We see the effects of proper node mapping in every-day gameplay: Jita, the massive trade hub in Caldari High-Sec, has its own dedicated ‘supernode’. CCP maintains at least one other ‘supernode’ for use when they’re notified of a particularly large fight.

So What Went Wrong?

Even with Jita-level supernodes available, things don’t always go smoothly. The Keepstar battle in 9-4 was run on the available supernode, but even it became overwhelmed. In this instance, though, rumour is that things  did not quite work as intended even before Thursday’s fight. Instead of reinforcing LK1K-5’s node, CCP reinforced a different node. The corresponding disconnects and malfunctions were difficult to handle for all involved.

Disconnect and modules refusing to work properly are even more crucial during fights over structures. When you shoot a structure, you are racing against a repair timer after which the structure becomes invulnerable again. You need to apply a minimum amount of damage per second to keep the repair timer from resuming. However, even with the whole system in time dilation, the citadel’s timer runs on the global server speed. This means that even with full time dilation reducing your DPS to 10%, you need to apply full undiluted damage. As a result, you need to basically apply ten times the minimum pausing damage in order to keep the structure paused under maximum TiDi.

Critical Response to LK1K-5

INN spoke to some of the FCs involved to get their impressions.

Hood aficionado Progodlegend, of TEST Alliance Please Ignore (TEST), was in overall command of the invasion forces. His group Legacy Coalition, provides much of the muscle for the Legion of xXDeathXx (xDeath)’s efforts to take new space in Immensea.

“Both sides fought well. The defensive advantages of the Fortizar put the balance of power in the defenders favor based on the capital fleets that were formed.  The subcap fleets had a shot, but ultimately CCP’s game doesn’t function well enough for any strategy or tactics to work other than stand still and shoot each other.  There’s no such thing as sig tanking when everyone gets disconnected at some point during the fight and their ship drops to 0 m/s. I’ve been playing for 11 years and participated in most of the heavy lag fights over that time period, and the performance in large fights hasn’t been this bad since pre-tidi.  There were 2500 people in local on a reinforced node. That is not a large fight, we’ve had larger fights in the past 5 years that functioned much better. There is something wrong with the code that effects fighters and citadels, and it’s breaking the game.”

The Therapists’ Noraus led the defense on behalf of the Winter Coalition. He was equally critical of the way the game is handling the current mechanics around fighters and citadels:

“[The engagement] wasn’t equally unbearable for both sides. Right now it’s impossible to kill a well-defended large citadel—the lag ensures it.” On the issue of disconnects he adds “We had 30-40 carriers disconnected. While should have won the [space superiority] fight, they died instead to a Goon prober. [Progodlegend] disconnected at a crucial moment, when he fleet-warped his fleet. [LK1K-5] shows us that citadel bashes are fruitless and not enjoyable at all. Either fighters or Fortizars need a fix.

The Imperium sent three fleets, including Jackdaws under Callius Nalelmir:

“It didn’t help that half the fleet [disconnected] the moment the fight started. All in all, I don’t think most people enjoyed the fight. The fight started with more than 100 people disconnecting, broadcasts barely working. It was draining for most of the people involved.”

Going Forward

While the siege of LK1K marks the opening campaign of a larger invasion, the conflict between Legacy and WinterCo has been a longer-simmering dispute. How this defense impacts WinterCo’s campaign against Legacy in Impasse is still unknown. This is unlikely to be the last structure shoot, with Legacy’s staging Keepstar for the region anchored in DY-P7Q. However, it is questionable whether WinterCo will attempt a counter-assault, as their self-expressed motivation is revenge for TEST’s cloaky camping, and not a strategic campaign at their home region in the south.

Looking at the wider importance of the battle, it raises the question how well CCP are doing in their campaign of allowing players greater control over their infrastructure by anchoring structures in space when those structures are playing by different rules than the rest of the server. During the interviews, the FCs agreed that the current state of server performance looks worse than before, sapping the fun out of big fights like these. LK1K-5 could have been an intricate dance of 2500 characters. Instead, to the degree that it worked at all, it was merely a stationary slugfest.

Let your voice be heard! Submit your own article to Imperium News here!

Would you like to join the Imperium News staff? Find out how!


  • Alot

    Did CCP ever finish that multi-thread game engine rewrite?

    July 2, 2018 at 7:43 AM
    • Arrendis Alot

      It’s still in progress. A lot of the core systems need to be completely replaced, is my understanding. It might not be completely feasible. The eventual POS removal will be another chunk of it.

      July 2, 2018 at 8:48 AM
      • Alot Arrendis

        Do you know if there are any systems which have actually been replaced with multi-threaded versions – besides those which are being flat out removed?

        July 2, 2018 at 11:43 AM
        • Axhind Alot

          Chat and market for sure. Rest is kinda dependant on the system (as in solar system) status and can’t be really farmed out too much. Brain in the box was attempt at it but not sure how well that paned out to be honest.

          They do occasionally shut some things of during fights (crime watch is notoriously demanding and contributes exactly nothing in low sec). Well, nothing, except getting goon logi killed every time we enter high sec 🙁

          July 3, 2018 at 1:16 PM
        • Arrendis Alot

          Chat, the market was redone, Brain in a Box replaced the old method for calculating your ship stats, etc etc. The drone changes would’ve helped things, but then capital proliferation happened.

          July 5, 2018 at 6:55 PM
  • Xa1n

    We need to do more from a community perspective to help CCP fix the cause of the TIDI issue once and for all. I cannot think of anything in real life that is similar to playing EVE in TIDI at 10%.
    How much money would it really cost to fix the cause of TIDI?

    July 2, 2018 at 8:31 AM
    • Arrendis Xa1n


      July 2, 2018 at 8:47 AM
    • Axhind Xa1n

      You can’t make CPUs faster and multithreading EVE would mean changing the balancing a lot. Timing of commands matters now, but in potential multi-threaded scenario you would collect 1tick (1second) of commands, apply them all and see what the end result is.

      It is impossible to multi-thread serial loads (loads that depend on previous result) so only way is to increase IPC (instructions per cycle) and CPU frequency. None of that is going anywhere significant any time soon (if ever with today’s tech)

      However, making TiDi affect citadel timers would help a lot.

      Also people are entitled as fuck. During B-R Laz and rest of the command team worked hard as hell to handle the load on the server. We know how it behaves in TiDi and still we chose to ignore it and just pile in random crap into the system (this makes sense for the defenders but not for the attackers).

      July 2, 2018 at 10:18 AM
      • Carvj94 Axhind

        “Also people are entitled as fuck” Oh god yea. Remember when ~1000 people was a super massive fight that crippled the servers? Then CCP upgrades the server and the max went up by 800 or so. No more than a couple months later people were complaining about lag after packing 1800 people into a system for a fight. They act like their “dog pile everything possible into X system” strategy can ever be easy for the servers to handle. Which it’ll never be without a literal revolutionary breakthrough in server multithreading being invented and applied to the EVE servers.

        July 2, 2018 at 12:11 PM
        • Dave Stark Carvj94


          When a game is literally designed to be played by dogpiling as many players in to one location as you can, it’s not entitled to expect to be able to do that without the server shitting the bed.

          Either it needs to be playable, or it shouldn’t be possible to do.

          It’s not entitled to expect the game, that you are paying money for, to function when played.

          July 2, 2018 at 1:27 PM
          • Carvj94 Dave Stark

            Dude. No other MMO can say 500 people were having a fight in the same area at the same time. Except in EVE it’s not just 500. It’s 2000+. In other words a deployment from The Imperium is will generate multiple fights that are much bigger than literally any other MMO can beat. What I mean is that the EVE servers and their coding is extremely impressive and saying that they are poor in any way for not handling a 2500 person brawl is stupid

            July 2, 2018 at 6:52 PM
          • Dave Stark Carvj94

            i don’t give a flying fuck about other MMOs.

            the fact is – this game is built around large fights. if the server shits the bed every time there’s a large fight then it is by definition unplayable and it’s not entitled to want a GAME to be in a PLAYABLE state. either that, or ccp need to recreate eve so that it’s not built around large fights.

            it’s literally that simple.

            either the game supports people playing it, or they redesign it to what the game can ACTUALLY do not what they WANT it to do.

            July 2, 2018 at 7:18 PM
          • Daito Endashi Dave Stark

            The game is in no way built around large fights. They are just one thing that’s possible because there’s so few limitations within the game

            July 2, 2018 at 8:56 PM
          • Dave Stark Daito Endashi

            no, it is built around it. the answer to literally every situation in eve is ‘more warm bodies’.

            July 2, 2018 at 10:55 PM
          • Axhind Dave Stark

            That is answer to nearly every problem. There are actual limits to computers and systems and it’s up to players to handle it. TiDi and server performance during big fights is just another parameter to take into account. Whining like a little girl is not going to fix things. Only “fixes” are sudden insane improvement in computer power (no way in hell that is going to happen) or basically instancing EVE to limit freedom of players (retarded beyond description).

            If you have an actual workable solution to the problem (TiDi was suggested by players to begin with) then say so. Whining and screaming is just pathetic.

            July 3, 2018 at 1:13 PM
          • Dave Stark Axhind

            No, it isn’t up to the players to handle it.

            It’s up to ccp. Either provide the infrastructure to host huge fights, or change the mechanics so fights that crash servers don’t happen.

            It’s up to ccp and nobody else. Not me, not you, and not the rest of us.

            July 3, 2018 at 1:16 PM
          • Axhind Dave Stark

            Feel free to quit eve and send me your stuff. Pubg or similar might be better suited for what you want from a game.

            July 3, 2018 at 1:18 PM
          • Dave Stark Axhind

            Uh, I’m not quitting?

            What I want is irrelevant. There are only 2 solutions to shitty tidi lagfests. I just told you what they were, and pointed out the only person responsible is ccp.

            July 3, 2018 at 1:19 PM
          • BoBo McJoboMo Dave Stark

            You have chosen the easiest possible way to be unhappy. You pick a problem that is beyond the limits of current available technology then blame the company because they can’t magically go beyond the limits of currently available technology. It’s the company’s fault because they can’t do the impossible.

            I bet it’s the weatherman’s fault when it rains on a day it wasn’t forecast to. It’s the ice cream makers fault that your ice cream melted when you left the freezer door open because they should have just made ice cream that never unfreezes.

            July 4, 2018 at 4:47 AM
          • Dave Stark BoBo McJoboMo

            Wrong. Players don’t get to pick the game mechanics. Ccp makes them and we have to endure them.

            There’s nothing stopping ccp changing how the game works, it’s their game.

            It’s a very simple supply and demand problem. Mechanics dictate that the server can supply enough capacity, and the mechanics demand we provide as much sever load as possible. Either the game must be able to supply enough capacity, or stop the demand to provide as much sever load as possible .

            It’s definitely ccp fault. They are the ones that demand we cram a billion nerds on to one server node, and don’t have the infrastructure to support it. Stop demanding a billion nerds, or get the infrastructure. Both are up to ccp and nobody else.

            July 4, 2018 at 5:13 AM
          • Axhind Dave Stark

            As I said if you want an instanced game with limits go play every other game on the planet. Majority of us like EVE because there are so few limitations to our actions. Yes that means there will be bad TiDi at some times but we know what causes it and can work around it (except the self-entitled arseholes).

            Why would CCP ruin the game for all of us just so that you can get your instanced 20v20 EVE?

            July 5, 2018 at 6:15 AM
          • Dave Stark Axhind

            I want a playable game, it’s the minimum I expect for my money.

            That’s not entitled.

            That is all.

            July 5, 2018 at 6:38 AM
          • Arrendis Dave Stark

            The bottom line is that it’s an impossible task. No matter how much capacity CCP builds into the system, until EVE can literally handle every single EVE player who has ever logged in being on the grid with a full supercarrier’s load of fighters out, then every time they expand the game’s ability to handle more people…

            … we’ll throw even more people at it.

            July 5, 2018 at 8:24 PM
          • Dave Stark Arrendis

            i have an alternative way to stop everyone throwing every available omega account at every fight causing the servers to crash.

            stop designing the game around that principle when it’s clear they haven’t got the infrastructure to support it. otherwise we’re going to be left with an unplayable game.

            like, if they can’t support every one in eve on the same grid – they need to stop designing things where that’s the optimal strategy.

            July 5, 2018 at 9:07 PM
          • Arrendis Dave Stark

            Well, here are your options:
            1)Introduce a completely artificial limit that prevents players from bringing more people in, or
            2)bringing more guys will be the winning strategy.

            So either you fundamentally break the sandbox in a way that makes EVE not EVE, or N+1 is the end result.

            July 6, 2018 at 5:52 PM
          • Dave Stark Arrendis

            No, those are ccp’s options.

            Mine, and your, options are to turn up to laggy shitshow fights, or not.

            I tend to skip those fights, I don’t feel they’re a good use of my time.

            July 6, 2018 at 7:50 PM
          • Arrendis Dave Stark

            So your solution is to not have a solution. Good job.

            If you don’t have an alternate idea for a solution, then you’re perfectly entitled to stand around whining about ‘fix it’, but really, don’t expect anyone to pay attention. Everyone knows there’s a problem. What people don’t know is ‘how do you fix this in a way that doesn’t fuck up the core conceits of the game?’

            Either contribute something useful, or feel free to not contribute at all.

            July 9, 2018 at 1:43 AM
          • Dave Stark Arrendis

            i don’t need a solution – i’m not a game dev.

            don’t have an idea? i’ve already laid out several times what the options are. provide adequate infrastructure or stop designing the game around intentionally crashing the servers.

            July 9, 2018 at 8:18 PM
          • Arrendis Dave Stark

            And you’ve already had flaws in those ideas illustrated many times, to which you throw up your hands and say ‘lalalalalanot my problem!’

            ‘I want to go to another planet in another star system!’
            ‘we don’t have that technology’
            ‘just build me a big cannon!’
            ‘That won’t work’
            ‘lalalalalalala not my problem!’

            Well, it is your problem if you’re not getting what you want. And you, clearly, aren’t.

            July 12, 2018 at 2:59 PM
          • Dave Stark Arrendis

            What do you mean? I have no interest in big fights.

            My only point in this entire discussion is that it isn’t entitled to want the servers to work when you’re forking over money in order to play the game.

            July 12, 2018 at 3:02 PM
          • Arrendis Dave Stark

            It is very much entitled to expect the impossible. Players who don’t want the big fights can just avoid them. Players who do want the big fights need to accept that the nature of those fights means there will be server issues.

            July 19, 2018 at 7:47 AM
          • shayneo Arrendis

            Yep. CCP could assemble a crack team of the best coders and comp sci theorists on the planet, and they’ll not solve the too many players on grid problem, because its unsolveable. Processing will always go up geometrically rather than linearly until its a big ol sea of shit. There are *strategies* that can reduce the pain (like TIDI), but it cant be solved completely. Not really

            July 6, 2018 at 12:49 PM
      • shayneo Axhind

        I made a suggestion to CCP a *long* time ago, prior to TIDI, of an idea I called “command quantization”. Basically the idea is during lag, rather than responding to commands instantly, queue commands to run in batches of … say… 5 seconds. as load increases, widen that time, even up to a minute. The idea is you knock out the effect of keyboard mashing, break up the actions into discrete deterministic chunks, and basically give the server room to breathe. I did some modelling with a simplistic but plausible “simulator” that shows it had a massive impact on server load, while also allowing some feedback to help the player understand whats going on. And of course it opens up other possibilities re server threading etc. Theres other tweaks as well. When the load piles up, give fast moving “twitch” ships like bombers and intys the ability to do one command per cycle, while slow moving sluggers like dreads and battleships could be rationed to a command every few cycles. Plus with Tidi, the effect could be ‘hidden’ within the expectation already in place that commands will take some time to function, so using the two means you can lessen the use of both. Honestly they shoulda taken my idea.

        July 6, 2018 at 12:42 PM
    • Carvj94 Xa1n

      No amount of money can fix it. It’s not the servers power that’s an issue it’s the fact that today’s technology limits this fight to being processed by a single CPU on the server and even the best CPU money can buy would only be a small bit less laggy and still be at 10% TIDI

      July 2, 2018 at 12:14 PM
  • Alaric Faelen

    It seems like CCP’s addiction to drones is part of the problem. We had server issues during the Wrecking Ball era of massed Ishtars too. Mechanics that essentially put hundreds if not thousands more ‘ships’ in space seem like a recipe for disaster. The problem made that much worse with the power creep of the last few years where now it’s massive carrier fleets instead of Ishtars.
    We talk about the numbers of player ships in a system, but each drone/fighter is it’s own ship, with stats modified by several factors, all with their own velocity, trajectory, shield/armor/hull, weapons calculations, etc….that need to be tracked and updated. These big fights are more like 10,000+ ‘ships’ to track and crunch numbers on.
    It was so bad during the Wrecking Ball era that mass launching drones to hopefully overload the server and cause a shut down became a battle tactic. I don’t think CCP has learned from that.

    July 2, 2018 at 2:03 PM
    • I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here. Still, we managed to handle a big fight quite well when us goons went north with the torpedo battleships that we’ll not bother recapping on. Everyone had fighters out there and numbers were similar. I think the incorrect node reinforced thing was the difference in this fight.

      July 3, 2018 at 3:36 AM
    • anaisanais501 Alaric Faelen

      Why do you think drones cause more lag than any other server-side entity? Aren’t turrets also server-side? It’s just a thing with a bunch of properties and some scripts and triggers. It has to be babysat by the server like everything else. I’m not seeing why it’s more lag-inducing.

      I would love to see the code though. Perhaps there’s more to do with a drone.

      July 3, 2018 at 2:41 PM
      • Alaric Faelen anaisanais501

        I don’t know for sure- I don’t know game coding. But they exist as mini ships tho, with tons of stats that need to be tracked. I assume (maybe incorrectly) that it increases server load. As I said, each drone has it’s own velocity, position, optimal and falloff, agility, Shield/Armor/Hull with individual resistances, AI at work, and it’s all modified by the owning player stats and ship modules.
        No doubt turrets and especially missiles create a wad of math for servers to crunch, but I just think that drones just have more ‘stuff’ for a server to do. I might be wrong. But I was there when Wrecking Ball cooked the servers on purpose. So I don’t think it’s a stretch to think drones might be part of the problem.

        July 3, 2018 at 7:13 PM
        • Axhind Alaric Faelen

          Turrets are hit scan weapons so they most definitely do not cause nearly as much load as drones. It’s a single calculation and one RNG.

          Missiles are a lot worse as they can be intercepted by firewalls (SBs) and ships can actually outfly them so there the server has to keep track of their path.

          To be honest the drones should be roughly equivalent of missiles as to the load, although it tends to be more of them. IIRC each ship launches 1 missiles (grouped launchers) vs. up to 5 drones.

          Additionally, fighters (main drone type in TiDi setting) move while sentries were more popular before so that ads a lot of load. They have area of effect weapons (some of them) and finally fights in low sec are just a cluster fuck due to crime watch.

          July 5, 2018 at 6:22 AM
      • shayneo anaisanais501

        The problem with drones is theres so many of them. A missile you just need to to know where it starts, where it ends, and how far into the flight it is, and you can use very basic math to carry the rest. perhaps a bit more to account for moving targets but its not that complicated. Drones , have full blown flight paths, and a degree of logic, and then each ship might have anywhere from a couple to a very large number. Multiply it by hundreds, or worse thousands, of ships and you’ve got a problem.

        I don’t think its a solvable problem, anymore than I think thousand player fights can be solved, its just an artefact of the math.

        July 6, 2018 at 12:31 PM
        • anaisanais501 shayneo

          Drones or fighters? Fighters don’t have AI really do they. Player tells them what to orbit, what to attack, etc. In that respect they’re like missiles. Drones do have minds of their own (kind-of) as they can be assigned, defend, focus fire and so on.

          So I suppose my question is… if you get the same number of players in a system and they all launch missiles more or less at the same time, in the same way fighters get deployed, does it cause the same problem?

          July 6, 2018 at 12:41 PM
  • dragonshardz

    The quick and easy solution to Citadels being able to TiDi-tank incoming damage is to do away with repair timers and require (capped) armor/hull reps to save a Citadel which has those HP bars vulnerable, and give them a passive shield regen for the shield pool – which could also be given (capped) repairs. Said repair cap would ideally be slightly higher than the DPS cap.

    There you go, now defenders and attackers are both equally affected by TiDi, with a slight advantage to the defenders.

    July 2, 2018 at 9:07 PM
  • Sothrasil

    Well, at least my probes worked 😛

    Also come on FRT, you had people on your side probing for DCs as well, don’t be mad at the player when it’s the game.

    July 3, 2018 at 1:24 PM
  • dragonshardz

    I know how drones work, thank you, and they are not the root of the problem here – TiDi is a fairly elegant solution to the resource load created by stuffing thousands of nerds’ spaceships into one server node.

    While drones certainly can contribute to TiDi due to how they work, the issue on display in this instance is not related to them except tangentially. ANY load on a node which it can’t handle is a cause of TiDi. The issue on display is the repair timer for the Fortizar not being affected by TiDi, thus implicitly encouraging defenders to create as much TiDi as possible so as to ensure the Fort repairs.

    However, the solution isn’t as simple as making the repair timer respect TiDi, since the logic for those timers is unified across the cluster. The easier solution to TiDi tanking is what I proposed – make the mechanics of Citadel defense respect TiDi by making them use the same DPS/reps fight as mobile ships on grid.

    July 4, 2018 at 8:53 PM
  • Dave Stark

    Players won’t dump them in because it’s possible. Players will dump them in because it’s optimal.

    July 5, 2018 at 6:46 AM
    • Axhind Dave Stark

      Obviously it is not optimal. Which is why good FCs and coordinators consider TiDi as one of the factors in a big fight. Sure if the stakes are low everybody piles in for fun but in serious fighting you have to consider TiDi and effect of your forces on it.

      I’m fairly sure that both Test and goons know how to do this, at least as long as we don’t let boat FC since he gets too excited for his own good (much love DBRB). Rest will either learn or lose when it’s serious fight time.

      July 5, 2018 at 6:51 AM
      • Dave Stark Axhind

        Absolutely, the only point I was making was that it’s absolutely not entitled to expect ccp to fix this problem, not the players.

        No doubt we have to work around it. It’s there, it exists, and we have to deal with it.

        However that doesn’t mean ccp gets a free pass to ignore it and pretend it’s fine.

        It’s not fine, and it’s definitely not entitled to expect them to be doing something about it, even more so when we are giving them our hard earned money.

        July 5, 2018 at 6:56 AM
        • Axhind Dave Stark

          It is entitled to expect them to fix it. It can’t be done without alien technology that defies our understanding of math and physics or changing the game in a way that is simply not acceptable. TiDi is a small price to pay for freedom and player impact that EVE offers.

          They should be working on improving the situation but in the end no amount of recoding can solve the fundamental issue that players can load the servers more than they can handle gracefully.

          Look at fozzie sov that was designed to spread the load. Everyone and their dog hates it and, even, if it is moved to damage application instead of jesus laser it will be annoying to deal with as it promotes fast gangs that never properly engage which results in boring game play (like interceptor gangs in delve that are not a danger but just annoying unless you titan them). Plus the movement of fleets between systems (what this kind of system forces) creates immense amounts of lag so you are probably back where you started anyway.

          PS: What CCP could do is stop mapping geographically close by systems to a same node. That would reduce the travel lag by a lot and make the game much more playable. I still have no idea what brain dead moron came up with it some years ago.

          July 5, 2018 at 7:16 AM
          • Dave Stark Axhind

            No. It isn’t entitled.

            I’m paying money, therefore a working game is the minimum expectation. It’s nowhere near entitled to expect to be getting a working product.

            July 5, 2018 at 7:18 AM
          • Axhind Dave Stark

            It is a working product. Your phone will not work either if you throw it out the window. Are you going to go to the producer and demand a phone that works when you drop it 100 m because you feel like doing that?

            If you have utterly unrealistic expectations then it is entitled and you should go play some other game (PS: give me all your stuff before you go, I will give it a good home in Delve).

            July 5, 2018 at 7:21 AM
          • Dave Stark Axhind

            If it was working, then we wouldn’t be in the comments section of an article dedicated to how shitty and broken it is.

            July 5, 2018 at 7:22 AM
          • Axhind Dave Stark

            It is working inside some kind of sane parameters. Outside of those it struggles which is to be expected and is a consequence of EVE design (freedom of players). That is a small price to play for that freedom and besides it can be handled.

            July 5, 2018 at 8:36 AM
          • Dave Stark Axhind

            Yeah, a situation where the nullsec powers are unassailable because the server dies for any big timer seems fine for the game.

            July 5, 2018 at 8:38 AM
          • Axhind Dave Stark

            There is plenty of action in null sec and movement that disproves your statement. Delve might be a bit harder nut to crack than most but it can be done if someone wants it bad enough.

            Of course it will take some effort unlike last time when infinite casino isk was paying the bills. And we are far better organised now and also a bit richer :p

            July 5, 2018 at 9:21 AM
          • Dave Stark Axhind

            I sincerely hope you are correct.

            July 5, 2018 at 9:24 AM
          • Axhind Dave Stark

            I’ve been playing EVE since 2006. There were several times statements about blue doughnut or dead null sec and it turned out to be wrong every single time.

            That being said, it doesn’t mean that it is easy to defeat a major null sec power.

            July 5, 2018 at 9:55 AM
  • Axhind

    There is no hardware period. Amount of money doesn’t matter. CCP already has some of the fastest CPUs on the planet and fastest ones are not that much faster.

    If they had infinite resources maybe they could change code and design a CPU that is optimised for such code but even then improvements would not be nearly enough to handle numbers that we can bring.

    July 5, 2018 at 6:52 AM