Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arec Bardwin
Perkone Caldari State
442
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 10:58:00 -
[31] - Quote
Gorki Andropov wrote:Our ships fly in a space that's more akin to oil than vacuum, and you complain about this?! Aaand let's finish off the thread with this... |
Kaaeliaa
Ministry of War
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 11:00:00 -
[32] - Quote
Rodj Blake wrote:Alex Sinai wrote:Himnos Altar wrote:it's so you can't get OMG UBER stats from stacking invul/other hardeners on top of each other. SEriously, you'd get 90-100% (EM :P ) resists FAR too easily with 4 Invuls if you trashed the stacking penalty So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily. If you have two computers solving the same problem, you do not solve the problem in half the time.
This is why CPU clock speed is preferable to parallel processing. The only reason Intel and AMD are slapping more cores on everything is because they have no choice, since we've reached the end of practical clock speed increases.
Since our ships are presumably highly dependent on computer automation...well, there you go, OP.
|
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
38
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 11:01:00 -
[33] - Quote
If you want a real world example of a stacking penalty just look at an SLI or Xfire rig. You have 2 x GPU's so you get double the performance of 1 GPU right?
Nope. |
Serge Bastana
GWA Corp Unified Church of the Unobligated
510
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 11:01:00 -
[34] - Quote
A wizard did it. WoW holds your hand until end game, and gives you a cookie whether you win or lose. EVE not only takes your cookie, but laughs at you for bringing one in the first place... |
AureoBroker
Natural Inventions
44
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 11:03:00 -
[35] - Quote
ITT: Lack of basic computer science knowledge, but performing high-tier trolling. |
Ptraci
3 R Corporation The Irukandji
509
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 11:14:00 -
[36] - Quote
"If I have 2 computers"
You are neglecting a few things in your imaginary set up:
2 computers means twice the room. You will need another desk, because it also means another mouse, another keyboard and another monitor. Another desk means you need a bigger room. Another desk means you now have to swivel with your office chair to access one or the other computers. It also means more cables. You could need another plug - certainly another power-bar. And you will be drawing more amps from the breaker box.
3 computers you definitely need more room. Possibly cooling solutions. Your cables must be organized or they will be an unholy mess. Remember to clean up regularly because 3 computers are now dust magnets (quite literally, thanks to static).
4 computers - now I don't want to see your electric bill. I hope you have surge supression too because one voltage spike will now cost you a hell of a lot of money. By the way, you did run in a seperate power cable with a separate circuit breaker, right? Made sure it was a heavy gauge wire so your house doesn't burn down?
Etc. Oh now you can make all sorts of arguments about racks and virtualization, but you are only arguing against yourself. Diminishing returns is an important part of both science, economic and business theory. It's part of life. Eve attempts to simulate this. Deal with it. |
Savage Angel
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 11:14:00 -
[37] - Quote
Alex Sinai wrote:Himnos Altar wrote:it's so you can't get OMG UBER stats from stacking invul/other hardeners on top of each other. SEriously, you'd get 90-100% (EM :P ) resists FAR too easily with 4 Invuls if you trashed the stacking penalty So i can't get two separate computers work on same aircraft at their full capacity because of? Because you know two separate computers work at their full capacity on aircrafts and also everywhere else without any "stacking penalty". This thing is too far beyond logic and breaks immersion heavily.
You do realize that two or more computers working on the same problem will have a stacking penalty? On independent problems they will not duplicate work or resources, but if on the same problem you will not solve it twice as fast by running extra processors, unless the job is uniquely suited to be completely parallel. |
Plentath
Sudden Buggery
11
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 11:19:00 -
[38] - Quote
Real life physicists need to work out this "stacking penalty" thing because it's not very realistic.
Why is it that when I double the horsepower of my car the performance to top speed and acceleration isn't linear also?
It's not very realistic.
Before posting these kinds of threads, ask 2 questions:
1) Woud the game actually be better? 2) Can I honestly say casting real life aspersions on the situation is valid? |
Harristotle
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 12:16:00 -
[39] - Quote
Life is sometimes strange!
x = 0.999 10x = 9.999 10x - x = 9.999 - 0.999 9x = 9 x = 1
For my next trick I will prove that black equals white. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
37
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 12:28:00 -
[40] - Quote
Because iirc, scorpions use to be able to fit an ungodly (all hardeners) tank back in the day for one reason. Now, they can still put up a tank but not one that was OP. |
|
RubyPorto
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1536
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 12:34:00 -
[41] - Quote
Stacking Penalties weren't always here.
Back in the days of Yore with the Cavalry Raven (Torps had awesome range, too) launching Torps, warping to Target, launching again and having both volleys land at the same time.
Everything was Nano. And ridiculous. Doesn't matter how slow the base ship is with 8 lows filled with pe-nerf Nanos.
Battleships and HACs were literally faster than interceptors. And drones. And most missiles. And the ships were crazy agile.
But even before that, before RMR, there was no stacking penalty. And that was worse.
Sniping with Arty from across the grid for Dread* sized alpha? Tracking comps and lows full of gyros and you got it. DPS of a Titan* on a small gang of battleships? Sure, why not.
Defensive mods didn't scale quite as well.
*They didn't exist yet, but... Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Abel Merkabah
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 12:46:00 -
[42] - Quote
Harristotle wrote:Life is sometimes strange!
x = 0.999 10x = 9.999 10x - x = 9.999 - 0.999 9x = 9 x = 1
For my next trick I will prove that black equals white.
Eh wrong...
10x = 9.99 10x != 9.999
10x - x = 8.991
Nice troll though...lol "To destroy is always the first step in any creation." - E. E. Cummings |
RubyPorto
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1536
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 12:49:00 -
[43] - Quote
Abel Merkabah wrote:Harristotle wrote:Life is sometimes strange!
x = 0.999 10x = 9.999 10x - x = 9.999 - 0.999 9x = 9 x = 1
For my next trick I will prove that black equals white. Eh wrong... 10x = 9.99 10x != 9.999 10x - x = 8.991 Nice troll though...lol
I assume he meant the 9s to be repeating.
x=.9999[repeating] 10x=9.99999[repeating] 10x-x=9.999[r]-.9999[r] 9x=9 x=1 1=.99999[repeating] Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Rajan Marelona
Hedion University Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 12:52:00 -
[44] - Quote
Alex Sinai wrote:Surprise. Boeing uses 5 to 7 completely separate backup systems that backs each other in case of fault and no they dont have any "stacking" penalties. Does the boeing fly 5 to 7 times better compared to 1 computer ? I say it flies the same. That means it has infinite stacking penalty. |
Harristotle
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 12:53:00 -
[45] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Abel Merkabah wrote:Harristotle wrote:Life is sometimes strange!
x = 0.999 10x = 9.999 10x - x = 9.999 - 0.999 9x = 9 x = 1
For my next trick I will prove that black equals white. Eh wrong... 10x = 9.99 10x != 9.999 10x - x = 8.991 Nice troll though...lol I assume he meant the 9s to be repeating. x=.9999[repeating] 10x=9.99999[repeating] 10x-x=9.999[r]-.9999[r] 9x=9 x=1 1=.99999[repeating]
Correct I did mean them to be repeating, thanks for the clarification. |
Pinstar Colton
Sweet Asteroid Acres
75
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 13:12:00 -
[46] - Quote
The stacking penalty encourages diversity.
In an old MMO I used to play (City of Heroes) they didn't have a stacking penalty, so everyone just took the same enhancements for their powers to maximize them. It got rather dull. Then they introduced a stacking penalty and builds got a lot more diverse and interesting.
Given the huge variety of modules available to us, it would be a shame if 95% of them fell by the wayside in favor of spamming and stacking the popular 5% of them on every single ship build.
I don't make minerals. I just make ore 20% cooler. |
Effect One
Selective Hearing Nearly Feared
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 13:24:00 -
[47] - Quote
Because back in the day my 2000dps 'geddon was OP :( |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
179
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 13:42:00 -
[48] - Quote
Effect One wrote:Because back in the day my 2000dps 'geddon was OP :( Poor 'geddon |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6880
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 13:50:00 -
[49] - Quote
Parallelisation is always GÇ£stacking penalisedGÇ¥ due to data sharing and synchronisation overhead. Serialisation is always GÇ£stacking penalisedGÇ¥ due to increased resistance and noise.
Even setting aside the balancing argument, stacking penalties are quite realistic and make sense to anyone who has actually had to build something that uses two of the same part.
So there. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Shift-click does nothing GÇö why the Unified Inventory isn't ready for primetime. |
Thabiso
Merchants of the Golden Goose
11
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 14:54:00 -
[50] - Quote
Alex Sinai wrote:Hi there,
I was and is wondering what's up with that "bright" idea of stacking penalty? If i have 2 computers they both work at full capacity and not like stack to 1.2 or 0.4 of their full power.
Same everywhere else. Its not like 2 nuclear reactors "stack" up to 1.2 or whatever else number of their full capacity.
What's up with this nonsense and why everyone tolerates it. It simply does not make any sense.
I think its time to remove this thing from the game.
When you have two computers computing something that is embarrasingly parrallel, then yes, you (theoretically) get twice the throughput, however, most things are not embarrasingly parrallel. For a real world example, look at how well multiple GPUs are doing, generally you won't get speedups of more than 1.5, it is bloody dificult to balance the polygons between the two powerhouses that are your GPUs.
And on top of that, when you start having multiple computers working on the same problem, you start getting trouble with communication, you need all machines to be on the same page at the same time exchanging data so processors tend to spend a lot of time waiting for data; it's actually a very interesting topic for computer science geeks.
Tl;dr: Here is a bucket and a spoon, go and play in the sandbox. |
|
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 15:52:00 -
[51] - Quote
Why there are stacking penalties?
The same reason as to why SLI/Crossfire cards have stacking penalties.
'nuff said. |
Xercodo
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Dark Matter Coalition
1085
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 16:21:00 -
[52] - Quote
Btw the comparison to the several backup systems on a Boeing doesn't apply here. Being back up systems only one or two of them is ever running at one time.
The thing you probably haven't realized yet is that things kinda like the stacking penalty really does occur in real life, ESPECIALLY on computers. This is why it's actually not a very good idea to go nuts on this multi-core stuff and why AMD has created a heterogeneous mutli-core system in the form of the APU.
The basic concept is that the more cores you cram into a processor the more time you have to spend in processing just to figure out which core does what. In the end your performance gains level off as you add more cores and in the end you need to add 100s to gain 1% or something.
I've also seen the same thing in a similar regard. I've been working with someone that is developing a new 8-bit processor (yes people still use those, small stuff like TV remotes and digital clocks) and this processor has better performance than most of the standard 8-bits used today. Just like with multi-core we find that the performance gain our processor has over the other levels out at a certain number of instruction cycles.
In regard to Co-processors in EVE their stacking penalties would make a LOT of sense in real life given the examples above. It can then be extrapolated to pretty much everything in EVE that has a stacking penalty. For resistance modules you can make a claim that the way resistance works in the EVE universe works on mechanics of physics that create the same curve with a falloff of efficiency. For heat sinks I would imagine the same is true in real life. You can only add so many heat sinks or change the heat sinks so much before you start dropping off heat dissipation potential they have.
Another guy in this thread had a good analogy too, 1000s people can't build a house in two minutes. CCP has even said the same thing about artists. They can't just crank out new ships or even updated versions of existing ships just by throwing more art guys at it. Having two art guys working on the same bit of concept art will not go well.
So see the concept of a stacking penalty is very much a real life thing and makes a LOT of sense for these things in EVE. It just has the added benefit of giving the game balance to ensure things don't get too overpowered. In fact I'd be willing to say that there could be a universal stacking penalty equation that we could apply to real life to give someone the %loss in efficiency based on how difficult, involved, or creatively taxing a task is and how many people or "units" you throw at it. The Drake is a Lie |
Knot'Kul Sun
Rebirth. THE GOD SQUAD
40
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 16:25:00 -
[53] - Quote
Stacking condoms doesn't mean two 99.9%'s make 199.8% |
Pok Nibin
Viziam Amarr Empire
144
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 16:56:00 -
[54] - Quote
Gorki Andropov wrote:Your first fail was drawing a comparison with real life. So what fairy land do you drift into when you boot your computer? I want some of what he's smokin'. Don't fight it.-á Rejoin your Amarrian patriarchs.-á You know you want to. |
Shea Valerien
House of Valerien
27
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 17:03:00 -
[55] - Quote
Vaal Erit wrote:and if we get 10,000 people we can build a house in about 2 minutes.
The critical path disagrees with you. |
Gorki Andropov
Kerensky Initiatives
451
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 17:42:00 -
[56] - Quote
Pok Nibin wrote:Gorki Andropov wrote:Your first fail was drawing a comparison with real life. So what fairy land do you drift into when you boot your computer? I want some of what he's smokin'.
In a game that's so obviously out of touch with reality, trying to equate such-and-such in the real word with this-and-that in a game that exists in 'fluidic' space, where things can be and are seemingly invented, from scratch, repeatedly, where capital ships can be jumped from one point of the 'universe' to another but you can't have an in-space call with your mission agent and time-dilation affects the lowliest mission runner in Dodixie is so, utterly, bat-**** insane you shouldn't even try.
Back under your bridge, young troll-let.
|
Orlacc
161
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 17:46:00 -
[57] - Quote
If you don't get why I feel bad for you. (Not really) |
Abel Merkabah
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 04:30:00 -
[58] - Quote
Harristotle wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Abel Merkabah wrote:Harristotle wrote:Life is sometimes strange!
x = 0.999 10x = 9.999 10x - x = 9.999 - 0.999 9x = 9 x = 1
For my next trick I will prove that black equals white. Eh wrong... 10x = 9.99 10x != 9.999 10x - x = 8.991 Nice troll though...lol I assume he meant the 9s to be repeating. x=.9999[repeating] 10x=9.99999[repeating] 10x-x=9.999[r]-.9999[r] 9x=9 x=1 1=.99999[repeating] Correct I did mean them to be repeating, thanks for the clarification.
My Apologies, I stand corrected. Whenever you work with infinite concepts Math can get screwy... "To destroy is always the first step in any creation." - E. E. Cummings |
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
108
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 06:20:00 -
[59] - Quote
There are stacking penalties in real life. For instance... try stacking too many breakable objects on top of each other. Gravity will eventually take over, making the pile collapse or fall over. The penalty is something will break and you won't have as many as you began with.
Besides... would you really want to try to shoot a rookie ship that has 100% resists on everything, and alphas you with its civilian modules? ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o ) ( o Y o )
The world would be a better place if boobies ran the world instead of boobs. |
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1181
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 06:44:00 -
[60] - Quote
Next week on the myth busters.... |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |