Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Paranoid Loyd
9107
|
Posted - 2016.06.07 00:12:31 -
[31] - Quote
The number of skins is controlled and limited, this would not be the case for what you are proposing so, no.
Fix the Prospect! New Server Hardware!
|
Marcus Ulpius Trajanus
Hades Innovations
1
|
Posted - 2016.06.07 00:16:55 -
[32] - Quote
What's the limit on skins?
[SERSY] Mercantile/Industrial/Capitalist Alliance Recruiting Corps
|
Paranoid Loyd
9107
|
Posted - 2016.06.07 00:20:26 -
[33] - Quote
CCP controls them
Fix the Prospect! New Server Hardware!
|
Marcus Ulpius Trajanus
Hades Innovations
1
|
Posted - 2016.06.07 00:31:22 -
[34] - Quote
Kind of assume CCP controls everything in their game. Point is you can add unique aspects to items without making the game explode.
[SERSY] Mercantile/Industrial/Capitalist Alliance Recruiting Corps
|
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
386
|
Posted - 2016.06.07 00:32:51 -
[35] - Quote
Marcus Ulpius Trajanus wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:You didn't address ****. How to deal with the "bloat": "Make the items stack-able regardless of their point of origin. Have the game "ignore" it's point of origin unless you click a particular box such as when you only want to see materials, skillbooks, modules, or ammo." How the game shows the items and how the database stores them can be different.
In your proposal, they will be different. In your proposal, a stack will be made up of numerous db records - each record will list a manufacturer. To display a stack of ammo, the records will need to be aggregated by a stack-identifier. This HAS to happen because you (implicitly) want to be able to split a stack later on and retain the correct emblem on each item within the stack.
Currently, each stack is a single db record (Devs have implicitly confirmed this by way of discussing stacking of BPCs). A record would look, roughly like this;
StackID, ItemID, LocationID, Count 1234, "Void M", "Jita 4-4", 1,000,000
Source: I write accounting software for a living. If I were to implement your proposal in my stuff, I'd do it the way I've said. It would be terrible. |
Paranoid Loyd
9107
|
Posted - 2016.06.07 00:33:39 -
[36] - Quote
There is only one CCP, there are 40K+ accounts, can you really not see the difference if one entity is adding unique records as opposed to many?
Fix the Prospect! New Server Hardware!
|
Marcus Ulpius Trajanus
Hades Innovations
1
|
Posted - 2016.06.07 00:36:23 -
[37] - Quote
Well here's the thing, none of you actually program for CCP or actually know every detail in their program. So IF it can be done is not as relevant for us to discuss over if it should be done. I laid out some forms of gameplay that would enrich Eve I believe. It's up to CCP if they decide if it can be done or not.
[SERSY] Mercantile/Industrial/Capitalist Alliance Recruiting Corps
|
Paranoid Loyd
9107
|
Posted - 2016.06.07 00:39:21 -
[38] - Quote
Ok, so back to not if we can, but should we? No, we shouldn't. As I mentioned there are too many ways for you to mask who is actually making the items and who is buying the items, so the interesting "thing" you think you are creating will simply not exist.
Fix the Prospect! New Server Hardware!
|
Marcus Ulpius Trajanus
Hades Innovations
1
|
Posted - 2016.06.07 01:26:49 -
[39] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Ok, so back to not if we can, but should we? No, we shouldn't. As I mentioned there are too many ways for you to mask who is actually making the items and who is buying the items, so the interesting "thing" you think you are creating will simply not exist.
Why because of alts? And how many alliances do you think are going to blue up everyone's random production alt? And even if they do, you can find out who those production alts are, find them and challenge them by military or economic means.
[SERSY] Mercantile/Industrial/Capitalist Alliance Recruiting Corps
|
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
387
|
Posted - 2016.06.07 06:22:31 -
[40] - Quote
Marcus Ulpius Trajanus wrote:Paranoid Loyd wrote:Ok, so back to not if we can, but should we? No, we shouldn't. As I mentioned there are too many ways for you to mask who is actually making the items and who is buying the items, so the interesting "thing" you think you are creating will simply not exist. Why because of alts? And how many alliances do you think are going to blue up everyone's random production alt? And even if they do, you can find out who those production alts are, find them and challenge them by military or economic means. Find out my production alts then.
I have two of them. No more, no less. I bet you can't. Alts are a very powerful thing - one that circumvents your intended goal.
Now, in the future, suppose you were to find my alts (you can't), I can always drain the SP from them, drop their empty brains into the garbarge chute and make two new ones - and inject the SP back in. It's an economic loss, sure, but I'll just continue production rates unhindered. And now my alts will have even less connection to my main so they'll be harder to find.
Also, side thought: if I steal a freighter load of Scourge Fury Heavy Missiles from my enemy, I should be able to sell it to my alliance at a discount price. Your proposed idea of tracking producer actively harms me from doing that. Don't take away my gameplay. |
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
26193
|
Posted - 2016.06.07 11:26:02 -
[41] - Quote
Marcus Ulpius Trajanus wrote:Well here's the thing, none of you actually program for CCP or actually know every detail in their program. This is true, however many of us here are familiar with the structure of databases and the impact that your suggestion would have on performance.
Your asinine suggestion of making the game ignore certain db fields until they're required shows that you are not; those fields would still be there, creating unneeded bloat and thus impacting performance, regardless of whether or not they're required.
Quote:So IF it can be done is not as relevant for us to discuss over if it should be done. Yes it can. and no it shouldn't.
Quote:I laid out some forms of gameplay that would enrich Eve I believe. It's up to CCP if they decide if it can be done or not. To suggest improvements to how something works, it helps if you understand how something currently works.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Frostys Virpio
Yet another corpdot.
2912
|
Posted - 2016.06.07 13:12:18 -
[42] - Quote
Marcus Ulpius Trajanus wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:
As for the rest...yes of course you're going to need to program some things to make it work. But that shouldn't be a deterrent from making a good change.
Except it is not a good change because it would cause a large amount of database bloat for next to no gain for the game as people won;t care who made their missiles/ammo/hulls/whatever. Ammo made by my worst enemy does damage just as well as the ammo I produce.
Except database don't work like that. For the item to be stackable, it need to be identical so your new field for "manufacturer" integrate thousands of different possible entries. A stack is a bundle of identical items, if they are not identical, they can't be stacked. For them to be identical, they have to have the same value entered in every single field of their database item entry. A manufacturer field would integrate a large possibility of slightly different items. They behave the same when used but that does not make them stackable.
I mean, you could throw exception in the query but that also lead to more work for the server handling those items. |
Marcus Ulpius Trajanus
Hades Innovations
1
|
Posted - 2016.06.07 18:59:31 -
[43] - Quote
@ Rawketsled
1. Well yes right now I can't find your alts. That's kind of the point I was trying to make.
2. Yes you can SP drain them but again they can be refound and dealt with. I don't see how this is a counter argument.
3. If you steal a bunch of missiles yes you should be able to sell it for whatever you want. My idea doesn't change that unless your alliance places an embargo on their items.
@ Jonah Gravenstein
1. Let's assume you are right...what if the items were all stored on their own unique server then and opening the field connected you to it? If a server focused purely on items (or even a few) that should deal with any of this supposed bloat.
2. How that something currently works doesn't necessarily limit how something could work in the future.
@ Frostys Virpio
1. So throw an exception and figure out a way to deal with the extra work.
=========================
I don't know basically it seems people who are afraid their completely safe production lines could become targeted are posting here. Basically "Don't touch my risk free income stream"
[SERSY] Mercantile/Industrial/Capitalist Alliance Recruiting Corps
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4467
|
Posted - 2016.06.07 19:09:55 -
[44] - Quote
My industry alt is in the same corp as Dani here. I'm not hiding anything.
I still think this idea is atrocious, and that you do not understand databases.
I also also think that you don't understand the market. Who originally builds an item is useless information. Who even CARES if a rifter I buy in Jita was made by you, a Co2 guy, me the last time I sold a bunch, or some completely random highsec bear?
If your alliance places an embargo on everything built by goonwaffe players, and you then buy a bunch of things I have up on the jita market to ship to your staging system, guess who ends up out of pocket and holding stock they can't shift?
Hint: it isn't me. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy
10021
|
Posted - 2016.06.07 19:26:31 -
[45] - Quote
Quote:1. Let's assume you are right...what if the items were all stored on their own unique server then and opening the field connected you to it? If a server focused purely on items (or even a few) that should deal with any of this supposed bloat. Already the case.
And you will still have the same issue... which is not information storage size per se. The more unique things the severs have to look through when making a query, the longer it will take to find what it wants to find. And if time sensitive things are waiting for the server to finish that query... well... things slow down.
Quote:2. How that something currently works doesn't necessarily limit how something could work in the future. True... but only up to a point.
In this case, you are running into an issue hat has existed ever since man first started performing inventory; have too many unique things in your inventory / database, the harder it is to look through it and find what you want. Computers are no exception to this.
Quote:1. So throw an exception and figure out a way to deal with the extra work. "Just one more process / exception and it will work better!!"
Dude... seriously... take a class in database management. It is painfully obvious you do not know what you are talking about.
Even if there is a "toggle" on whether to view the information or not... the information (and multiple unique entries) has to be there in the first place order to make the "toggle" possible at all. There is no "it can have the information or it can not have the information." Either it is there for EVERYTHING or it is there for NOTHING. 1 or 0. True or False.
Blame the binary nature of computers for this. There are no "maybes" in database work.
How did you Veterans start?
The Mustache and Beard Thread
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
26193
|
Posted - 2016.06.07 19:52:25 -
[46] - Quote
Marcus Ulpius Trajanus wrote:@ Jonah Gravenstein
1. Let's assume you are right...what if the items were all stored on their own unique server then and opening the field connected you to it? If a server focused purely on items (or even a few) that should deal with any of this supposed bloat. File storage isn't the problem, database performance is. More fields = slower query responses.
Quote:2. How that something currently works doesn't necessarily limit how something could work in the future. I never said that it did, I said that if you're going to suggest improvements to a system it helps if you actually understand how the current system works in the first place.
Quote:I don't know basically it seems people who are afraid their completely safe production lines could become targeted are posting here. Basically "Don't touch my risk free income stream" This is not the case, if you decide to target a manufacturers production lines in this way they'd simply switch to an unassociated alt for production and bypass your embargo.
TL;DR you have no idea about the amount of work involved, the inherent performance hit that comes with implementing your suggestion and how ridiculously easy it would be to get round the basic premise of your idea.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
2633
|
Posted - 2016.06.08 05:49:48 -
[47] - Quote
Let's *temporarily* ignore that you still don't ******* understand databases and address the merits of your suggestion, shall we?
So far you've suggested two use cases: alliances taxing imports and somehow gaining an advantage by knowing who is producing what.
First off then: why would an alliance *want* to tax imports? They are already effectively more expensive simply because of logistics costs. Alliances would prefer to build on site, but often that isn't the most practical thing to do so imports are brought in to shore up the difference. Often in massive quantity. Under those circumstances you don't care one bit who built what; you just need the goods as soon as possible. So no, I don't see that as a valid use case.
Second, the idea that knowing who produces what provides a market advantage is somewhat daft. Yes, you could probably suss out some capital construction alts this way but that's about as far as it goes. It wouldn't matter one bit otherwise. And if that's all you want: go dscan for Thukker Assembly Arrays and be done with it. There's no truly compelling reason why the game should hand you that information. As for anything else: who cares? What would that add to the game?
And back to the real problem that you don't want to address: this is a huge change. The way stacking works assumes that all goods are identical. Like, absolutely identical. One could be the other and no one would notice. What you're suggesting is that the game could no longer track that I have, say, 50,000 280mm artillery. Each item would have to be unique because each one has the possibility of being different in as much as it was made by someone different. That's where the database bloat comes in. Rather than noting down a number of items owned and which item it is, you have to create individual entries for each item (or at least each item by a unique producer). If there are 5000 people producing that item, which I don't think is unlikely, then that one entry in the database is now 5000 entries minimum.
For each item in the game.
If you can't imagine what that does to performance then you've clearly never worked with any large data set. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
26193
|
Posted - 2016.06.08 06:47:41 -
[48] - Quote
^^ nailed it.
Also, in before little Bobby Tables
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
12313
|
Posted - 2016.06.08 17:40:30 -
[49] - Quote
I'm going to +1 and support the original post and poster, so as to befriend him and then - when all the others have left and it's just he and I standing in the sunset - I will space garrotte him (ingame) and this idea
Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .
Bumble's Space Log
|
Giaus Felix
Hedion University Amarr Empire
148
|
Posted - 2016.06.08 17:43:00 -
[50] - Quote
Bumblefck wrote:I'm going to +1 and support the original post and poster, so as to befriend him and then - when all the others have left and it's just he and I standing in the sunset - I will space garrotte him (ingame) and this idea Who said romance was dead?
I am Ralph's junk DNA.
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2777
|
Posted - 2016.06.08 19:41:18 -
[51] - Quote
Iain Cariaba wrote:Marcus Ulpius Trajanus wrote:https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=search&search=Maker%27s%20Emblem%20on%20all%20Products&forumID=270
Hmmm I guess shhh? Oh, look. You searched the exact title you made, and got no responses. However, if you use "manufacturer" as a synonym for "maker", and just search that one word, you get a nearly identical thread on page 2 of the search.
... i just googled the name of his thread and got this
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Marcus Ulpius Trajanus
Hades Innovations
1
|
Posted - 2016.06.09 02:12:16 -
[52] - Quote
I really don't feel like going back and forth for hours and hours over every anecdotal story of why this is a terrible idea according to people with clear interests here. In any case if the game cannot allow it to happen, then it won't and that's that. But if it can happen I think we could see more dynamic economic gameplay and that's really my interest. Stating that there is counter play to the suggestion, does not weaken the idea. Counter play is not a bad thing to me. In any case the idea is just something to consider and I could do with or without it all the same.
[SERSY] Mercantile/Industrial/Capitalist Alliance Recruiting Corps
|
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
387
|
Posted - 2016.06.09 02:52:11 -
[53] - Quote
I'm not seeing how you get counter play in this.
I sell cheap stuff to my friends, and expensive stuff to my enemies. If they somehow manage to prevent me from selling my overinflated wares to them, I'll just go find a stupider bunch of enemies to sell to. |
Marcus Ulpius Trajanus
Hades Innovations Serenisima Syndicus
1
|
Posted - 2016.06.09 07:43:12 -
[54] - Quote
Well that's the claim others were making. "I can just use a different alt" etc.
[SERSY] Mercantile/Industrial/Capitalist Alliance Recruiting Corps
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |