Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
ZombieFX
|
Posted - 2010.01.24 22:19:00 -
[1]
In a system in 0.0 is a fight right now. The fight started allready yesterday much as i know.
First there was around 200-300 ppl and than the next fleet arrived. Now we had 600ppl. Till than everything was fine. But after and after more ppl joined in. So the local raised in just an hour over 1000 ! (2nd time in 2days)
So now there is the situation: LAG.
Nobody cant move, fire, join fleets... I needed about 10minutes to leave the system... its pathetic.
plz do something about it! change the serverpower on this cluster OR JUST CLOSE THE SYSTEM after 600 ppl...
There is NOBODY helped with this massive lag. Thats no fun, there is no goal - and more lag just let lasts the situation longer!
Its a loop!
Quote: More ppl = More lag = Less die = More in System = Sounds more interesting = More join in = More lag...
I know u can say now "but if 600 bad boys jump in the system, they can close it up that way".
Than i suggest to make a kind of alliance filters that allows the system owner to get 51% of that capacity. (-> so they can decide of their own, who s needed most)
You must do something about it.
We cant do it. I cant image to get 1000ppl to agree - to split up the fight on other systems.
If just one starts thinking - he had an disadvantage couse he splitted up the fleet, u wont get it done.
And even if we get it done - till everyone is fine with the regrouping - its midnight and sry
I got something better to do than put in +3hrs for a fight: just couse of lag or anything that comes along with it -.-
ty
|
|
CCP Zymurgist
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.01.24 22:42:00 -
[2]
Moved to Features and Ideas Discussion.
Zymurgist Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us |
|
Dr BattleSmith
PAX Interstellar Services
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 01:15:00 -
[3]
Join FW.
FW = Fun
|
Aloriana Jacques
Amarr Royal Amarr Institute
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 01:30:00 -
[4]
Well it's the people who are going to have to agree to change.
Simple fact, if a system can support 1000 people, then 1000 people are going to show up to fight, AND bring friends. They improve the system to support 1500 people, then 1500 people are going to show up to a fight, AND bring friends.
This is not a new trend. It's the players who have to change, not the system. Because the minute CCP decides to put a hard cap on a system then the defenders will just camp all the access points into their space with the max number and no-one can jump in to stop them. - - - Aloriana Jacques - Skill Sheet
|
Silver Tongues
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 04:21:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Aloriana Jacques Well it's the people who are going to have to agree to change.
Simple fact, if a system can support 1000 people, then 1000 people are going to show up to fight, AND bring friends. They improve the system to support 1500 people, then 1500 people are going to show up to a fight, AND bring friends.
This is not a new trend. It's the players who have to change, not the system. Because the minute CCP decides to put a hard cap on a system then the defenders will just camp all the access points into their space with the max number and no-one can jump in to stop them.
TBH, as long as the bigger fleet has an advantage over smaller fleets then people will continue bringing the biggest blob they can. If CCP changed some mechanics to favor smaller fleets then you would see more of them. Both CCP and the players must change together, or nothing will ever get fixed.
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 07:36:00 -
[6]
ok how about to combat fleet lag that the jump-in timer aka invulnerbility timer be increased in proportion to the number of people in the system and also starts including ships that bride in be it via a jump bridge or titan along with cyno jumping ships.
Currently you get 30 seconds, upto 100 I think we can all say that tends to work out but can tweak if people experienced problems (examples if you have please).
SO above 100 you start adding say a second for every person over that.
101 ==31 second inv timer 300 == 230 seconds inv timer 700 == 530 inv timer (nearly 9 minutes FYI)
and so on.
Remember the inv timer is a sort of limbo as in you cant do anything nor can anybody do anything to you. until after that timer or you break that timer by activating a module or moving/warping etc.
This would IMHO whilst not fix the underlying issues would at least appease people with a fairer chance to play by ofsetting that whole issue of lag in a way that would yeild no advantage to either side. It would of course help mitigate the whole issue of lagged out systems that are casued by some blob and at least allow those entering that system a fairer chance to fight using the game mechanics as apposed to server mechanics.
Would this not help in at least one of the area's of concern.
Now you could take this approach further and have it effect the base sheild/hull/armour of people in system (all people) and as such increase proportionatly there sheild/armour/hull (in same way as gang bonus's do already) but completely independant of that, though I fear that woudl be a more contentious area to be looking at. Frigates with 5m sheilds just becasue 1000 people are in system would, ew well be fun given the cruiser and BS's and capitals would also be scaled, but hey.
SO the jump-in timer scalled by the number of people in the system, would that help you out?
|
Typhado3
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 12:10:00 -
[7]
------------------------------ God is an afk cloaker |
Neena Valdi
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 12:20:00 -
[8]
This is how EVE is. Always was, and probably always will be. CCP dramatically improved fleet performance in Apocrypha and screwed something up in Dominion regarding grid loading and general instability of nodes (in Apo we had another big issue called desyncs but even with 1700 local in 49- back a year ago node didn't crush).
Long ago, back before the Apocrypha, 500-600 pilots in system would make game totally unplayable. Up to 5-6 mins to get a single lock, another 3-5 mins to activate guns and up to 20-30 minutes to load the grid... Key of success in the EVE is persistence and patience. If you lack 'em better don't get involved into those large fleet fights at all. Save your nerves and reduce the load on the node.
|
ZombieFX
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 18:01:00 -
[9]
Edited by: ZombieFX on 25/01/2010 18:02:46 All this "it ever was like this - or allready got better is not the point right now.
The point is: its still not enought and in future, it only can get worse, if we dont change it.
Fights just got sexier (better DDD¦s, incresed ship balance, fleetfinder and so on...) but getting trough on the other side just went down :/
Zenst i like ur idea really! Its pretty simpel and pretty effective! Just what we need...
If there are like x.xxx ppl in a system and u need 30-60minutes to join in u may think twice about it.
At last it gives time to make some real war!
That means - while this ppl are on standbye (on the outside) there is time to get some ships blown up! (which makes the joinprogress faster again).
This could not just decrease lag pretty well, it also could rise up a the fight speed, if anyone tells them to hurry up^^
As Alorica said - ppl have to agree on it. I guess they will get used to it, like to the "session timer" or closed systems in highsec...
We should give it a try! There is nothing to lose
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 18:02:00 -
[10]
wanna fight the lag? join here http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1257211
|
|
ZombieFX
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 18:15:00 -
[11]
Ty darius!
|
CrestoftheStars
Caldari Recreation Of The World
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 22:22:00 -
[12]
well it is rediculess that they have tried to make it a one shard when they do not have the hardware to provide it. so big fights is rediculess, winner is the one with most people tolerant enough to not care about the 10min for each action. besides that in big fights it's just 1 hit kills all the way... stupid yes... ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded |
Neena Valdi
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 22:45:00 -
[13]
Originally by: ZombieFX Edited by: ZombieFX on 25/01/2010 18:02:46 All this "it ever was like this - or allready got better is not the point right now.
The point is: its still not enought and in future, it only can get worse, if we dont change it.
It was improved once. It will be improved more once CCP find out how to do it.
Running around cursing CCP really leads you no where.
Originally by: ZombieFX
Fights just got sexier (better DDD¦s, incresed ship balance, fleetfinder and so on...) but getting trough on the other side just went down :/
Zenst i like ur idea really! Its pretty simpel and pretty effective! Just what we need...
If there are like x.xxx ppl in a system and u need 30-60minutes to join in u may think twice about it.
At last it gives time to make some real war!
That means - while this ppl are on standbye (on the outside) there is time to get some ships blown up! (which makes the joinprogress faster again).
This could not just decrease lag pretty well, it also could rise up a the fight speed, if anyone tells them to hurry up^^
As Alorica said - ppl have to agree on it. I guess they will get used to it, like to the "session timer" or closed systems in highsec...
We should give it a try! There is nothing to lose
This will never happen. Because it will turn into who can get more ppl into system before the enemies.
|
Torpir Lee
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 22:55:00 -
[14]
I don't care about lag, there will always be laggy fleet fights as long as the subscriber base keeps growing.
The problems are:
1. Being stuck out of game or in a system for a day due to some kinda node crash.
2. Killmails not spawning correctly.
3. Critical game functions such as warping off not working at all, pretty important in fleet fights.
4. The inflexible node reinforcement system.
|
Neena Valdi
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 22:59:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Torpir Lee
3. Critical game functions such as warping off not working at all, pretty important in fleet fights.
Under which circumstances warping off doesn't work? I personally found and reported bug related to warping back inside the dictor bubble when it's inside the warp tunnel in oposite direction from your warp destination if such is on the same grid. CCP have it registered in a bug tracker and will fix it soon.
|
Torpir Lee
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 23:04:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Neena Valdi
Originally by: Torpir Lee
3. Critical game functions such as warping off not working at all, pretty important in fleet fights.
Under which circumstances warping off doesn't work? I personally found and reported bug related to warping back inside the dictor bubble when it's inside the warp tunnel in oposite direction from your warp destination if such is on the same grid. CCP have it registered in a bug tracker and will fix it soon.
Sorry I meant warping off shouldn't lag. I was yellow boxed and aligned and clicked warp-out, i wasn't tackled or anything. Couldn't warp out, after 20 seconds ship warped to the pos in 0% hull. That's what I meant and I'm sure i'm not the only one that experienced this.
|
KaiserSoze434
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 23:15:00 -
[17]
Do you think some sort of voluntary system closure mechanic would help this issue? For example, as a director level (or whatever) privilege the system can be closed at a certain population. For example, a fleet fight kicks off and the involved alliance directors can either fight it out like now (and risk node crash/lag that ruins everyone's fun) or choose to lock the system at a certain pop (they both have to approve the closure). As a side loses ships they can bring reinforcements in from neighboring systems. This fits with current backstory as the contest for sov is a contest for control of the gates. The effect would be distributing the fighting across nodes. Say the respective alliances have determined that a 600 ships total is a solid number that the node should be able to handle. They mutually agree that 300 per side can operate within the system at a time. Reinforcement fleets take position outside system ready to jump in as loses mount. Most likely both side's reinforcement fleets would engage each other outside the system under assault, repeating the process. Numerical superiority would still matter, but fighting would be a bit more distributed leading to less lag, faster fights, and more opportunity for battlefield tactics. Just a potential solution, I'm sure there are some issues there to be worked out. "Aghast the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is." |
Neena Valdi
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 23:20:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Torpir Lee
Sorry I meant warping off shouldn't lag. I was yellow boxed and aligned and clicked warp-out, i wasn't tackled or anything. Couldn't warp out, after 20 seconds ship warped to the pos in 0% hull. That's what I meant and I'm sure i'm not the only one that experienced this.
Well, yes. A lot of things shouldn't be but they are when the local is huge. But its more of a hardware limitation currently.
What CCP need is to spread players between as many nodes as possible to reduce the load on a single node... How to do it? Thats a main question.
|
Neena Valdi
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 23:26:00 -
[19]
Originally by: KaiserSoze434 Do you think some sort of voluntary system closure mechanic would help this issue? For example, as a director level (or whatever) privilege the system can be closed at a certain population.
Ok, I have a system My-Lovely-System under assault. I want to defend it. I bring into system N amount of blues and close the system. See what I mean?
No kind of mutual agreement between enemies will ever happen.
|
KaiserSoze434
|
Posted - 2010.01.26 00:02:00 -
[20]
I don't think you were getting what I was proposing. It was either there is no agreement and things fight out as they do now or there is an agreement from BOTH alliances that involves some sort of game mechanic, not an informal agreement. If BOTH sides click "ok" on whatever form there is they get whatever number of allowed combatants that they agreed on. So the system is hard coded to allow say 300/300 (not just a total 600) for the agreed upon time (within reason). I'm sure it would need tweaks but surely anything making lag more manageable has to be better than the current system, right? It really sounds like the current fighting in a frozen node isn't really fun for anyone. I'm sure a certain percentage of the alliances fielding 1200+ man fleets would love to field 4 x 300 man fleets for better fights IF they could be sure the playing field was somewhat lvl. What's the difference in trouncing an adversary in 4 systems rather than 1, particularly if the fights are actually more fun? The only reason it doesn't work that way now is that no sane alliance would just trust some gentleman's agreement on combatant numbers. Even with some sort of system to allow for mutually agreed upon combatant caps the involved alliances can certainly choose to not to click "ok" to the limit and just fight in lag, and there would still be a place for that sort of thing. "Aghast the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is." |
|
Sig Sour
|
Posted - 2010.01.26 01:19:00 -
[21]
They should make a ship that is really big, and have it equip a massive smart bomb like thing, but have it cost a LOT to fire so people wont fire it off unless it is going to have a big impcact. That way if someone wants to node-crash-blob somone, they can bring in this massive ship and activate the massive smartbomb and save the devs, the players and the GM's all the headache.
Thoughts?
|
KaiserSoze434
|
Posted - 2010.01.26 01:34:00 -
[22]
lol, good troll.
To let everyone know how big and bad those things are you could give the ship class a name from mythology. Call them "Giants" or something. The giant smartbomb things would be like an end of the world type level of destruction, so you could call them "worldEnder"s! "Aghast the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is." |
Misanthra
|
Posted - 2010.01.26 05:10:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Misanthra on 26/01/2010 05:12:19
Originally by: KaiserSoze434 I don't think you were getting what I was proposing. It was either there is no agreement and things fight out as they do now or there is an agreement from BOTH alliances that involves some sort of game mechanic, not an informal agreement. If BOTH sides click "ok" on whatever form there is they get whatever number of allowed combatants that they agreed on. So the system is hard coded to allow say 300/300 (not just a total 600) for the agreed upon time (within reason).....
Problems with this...what happens when people die or log off.
Go with dying first. Their pod still in system ergo part of that 300 population. Good run by one side and it could be 200 blues versus 100 reds and the rest are capsules. If defending with a station or pos in that system...man its a numbers grind game. On;y way to win is to have a losing side podding themselves all the time. That has a timer. Also gonna **** off people having to hike it back to the system for round 2...especially if they titan bridged it out or even worse we'll says its a border fight and the adjoining system has thier pos with back up ships.
Now the log out porblem. Got your counter from a blob fest...your ship is on grid if you pull the plug. Decent amount of time your ghost ship taking up a slot. Or lets say they let a manned ship come in for a log out and just leave the aggro'd ship there...your ship is now cluttering the system adding to node overhead. Get enough log outs and you could have 600 combatants but 700-800 ships in system lol.
|
Neena Valdi
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.01.26 18:27:00 -
[24]
Originally by: KaiserSoze434 I don't think you were getting what I was proposing. It was either there is no agreement and things fight out as they do now or there is an agreement from BOTH alliances that involves some sort of game mechanic, not an informal agreement. If BOTH sides click "ok" on whatever form there is they get whatever number of allowed combatants that they agreed on. So the system is hard coded to allow say 300/300 (not just a total 600) for the agreed upon time (within reason). I'm sure it would need tweaks but surely anything making lag more manageable has to be better than the current system, right? It really sounds like the current fighting in a frozen node isn't really fun for anyone. I'm sure a certain percentage of the alliances fielding 1200+ man fleets would love to field 4 x 300 man fleets for better fights IF they could be sure the playing field was somewhat lvl. What's the difference in trouncing an adversary in 4 systems rather than 1, particularly if the fights are actually more fun? The only reason it doesn't work that way now is that no sane alliance would just trust some gentleman's agreement on combatant numbers. Even with some sort of system to allow for mutually agreed upon combatant caps the involved alliances can certainly choose to not to click "ok" to the limit and just fight in lag, and there would still be a place for that sort of thing.
What you proposing is a version of WoW battlegrounds. No, this will never happen in the EVE. No instances, no limits.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |