Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Tharrn
Amarr Epitoth Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 16:38:00 -
[301]
Hard caps on systems just mean whoever has more people who can be online earlier after downtime wins - not much better than the current Gridwars. There still wouldn't be a game (as the current way sov wars have to be fought is actually not within the game mechanics but 100% a metagame).
-----
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 17:19:00 -
[302]
Originally by: Future Mutant If you want less bugs upon release of a patch- cross your fingers. Bugs happen. You can test for as many things as you can think of but infinity is a big number- good luck expecting perfection.
Again you are explaining there is no way to get less bugs (crossing your fingers is really doing nothing) because there is no way to eliminate all bugs. There is a difference between those two.
It's the same with "learning from past problems". It cannot and will not prevent all future problems, but it can prevent having the same problems again and again and make it less likely to have similar problems.
No one demanded perfection. In fact you are the one using impossible perfection as an argument to justify introducing similar problems again and again.
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 17:44:00 -
[303]
Edited by: Future Mutant on 18/02/2010 17:44:32 Nothing would make me happier if ccp made the next expansion nothing more then fixing current issues and optimizing their software. Im not saying ccp shouldnt strive for less bugs- but who is to say they are not? What i am saying is bugs happen, they are literally impossible to weed out beforehand. And that doesnt mean you dont try- and you must fix what does crop up. But then again- thats exactly whats happening. They are trying to fix the problems.
On the second point- im not really trying to justify anything. Ive made arguments for and against things i thought would work/not work. Usually suggestions on all sides are a moot pt because we lack complete knowledge of the situation.
One thought ive had recently ill pose as a question mostly meant for ccp. Given the nature of server technology, and eve software that in many cases cannt utilize it, has there been any thoughts on a complete redo of server/client software? A complete rewrite with the ultimate goal of software that interacts as best as possible.
|
Celia Therone
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 18:52:00 -
[304]
Originally by: Lusulpher
Fix 1: Create at least 7 beacons for iHubs at ranges[warpable?] from each other. Putting 1 offline makes the hub vulnerable. Ensure that you have to hold all 7 beacons at once. The beacons have high resists, "low" HP. A 50man defense fleet can have RR boost them up in seconds, but it takes significant time/ammo to grind them down[2+mins] CONCENTRATED FIRE that prevents 200 attackers from being efficiently in 7 places at once. 7 is an odd number, harder to plan an attack that way. CCP needs to wrap their minds around Coverage instead of HPbuffer.
I see where you're going with this but wouldn't an attacker simply blob each beacon in turn, killing it with minimal casualties? Set up bubbles to catch defenders sneaking to reinforce the point and move on to the next one... Once you've defeated the defenders you automatically get to capture the hubs so you're just trying to provoke a battle anyway. If the defenders want to stop you they pretty much have to blob so back to square one minus a few cloaked pickets standing off each beacon spying.
I can't help but wonder if the whole sovereignty idea isn't a mistake. Remove it, let people anchor whatever they want. If they can't hold the space then they lose their investment. It's a cold, hard universe out there, does it really need arbitrary rules forced on it?
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.19 02:31:00 -
[305]
Originally by: Future Mutant
Nothing would make me happier if ccp made the next expansion nothing more then fixing current issues and optimizing their software.<SNIP>
I utterly and completely agree with you on this.
|
Lusulpher
Blackwater Syndicate Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.02.19 03:51:00 -
[306]
Originally by: Future Mutant If you want less bugs upon release of a patch- cross your fingers. Bugs happen. You can test for as many things as you can think of but infinity is a big number- good luck expecting perfection.
As for lag caused by fleet sizes being too large. I still dont see the answer being more objectives which to me would encourage larger fleets (on both sides)
A sane approach- is one no ones going to like. Eliminate blues. Eliminate standings towards each other altogether. Eliminate naps and alliances. Hard cap a limit of ships in a system. Is any of this a good idea? No. Would it reduce the number of lagged out fights? Yes
You sir, have impressive *********. I understand, crossfingers for finding ALL the bugs, but CCP has had bugs revealed on SiSi, and DO NOT notify anyone that they are aware of it/it's an exploit/they release writeups. EVE players just want to know that they have started on the research. That's it. We then go to the same laggy node* and know we get no reimbursements[like always ]. We will then keep an eye out for cheaters. But more of us CAN RECOGNIZE THE CHEAT. The SiSi players can do so.
*Grids have a limit that is messing with the servers[Goonfleet gridfu] Each player renders an overview based on all the ships that reach the overlapping grids, and it will burn a hole in a node with hundreds arrive and render more overlaps. It's all about how you enter the grid. MassjumpofCHARGEEEE!!! is not helping.
More objectives, in different grids, that have to be patrolled at the same time. A Defender can use a larger coalition to try and secure more, but they know that mistakes will happen on both sides while warping around. Lots of "smaller, better" fights on more grids, more server load distribution.
An Attacker can harass the weakest point in the chain with good Cov Ops pilots.[The Pacific WW2/VietCong] If they setup to blob on your first attack, start feigning movements...no more stale, camp-bubble-slaughters. Do not miss the point again, please. 1200 players shooting in system, but not on the Jita undock point.
Undoing standings would ruin the endgame immediately.Pre-Standings: Imagine Chess where the pawns were all a third colour and some of yours were enemy pawns. And you arrange this colour by mailing and MSN. Current Sov: And you had to paint them black everytime you wanted to move them, and you had waterpaint on their plastic husk. And it was raining, and they all wanted to be parked in your King space because they held the frontlines. Imagine 9000+ pawns. Treaties will stabilize/streamline EVE Sovfare, hopefully.
And the cap would be abused by Russian/mercenary "logoffski" tactics. Talentless *******s.
'Tactical' Cynoing needs to be nerfed. That removes the advantage from the unprepared coalition right there. If Caps had a day of downtime to use after going across the map. Caps you could actually prepare to destroy. And then they use small ships and your tactic is lost.[Airborne Drop,D-Day] That's how invasion is done.
9001. Over 9000... 7 |
Lusulpher
Blackwater Syndicate Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.02.20 08:14:00 -
[307]
Originally by: Celia Therone
Originally by: Lusulpher
Fix 1: Create at least 7 beacons for iHubs at ranges[warpable?] from each other. Putting 1 offline makes the hub vulnerable. Ensure that you have to hold all 7 beacons at once. The beacons have high resists, "low" HP. A 50man defense fleet can have RR boost them up in seconds, but it takes significant time/ammo to grind them down[2+mins] CONCENTRATED FIRE that prevents 200 attackers from being efficiently in 7 places at once. 7 is an odd number, harder to plan an attack that way. CCP needs to wrap their minds around Coverage instead of HPbuffer.
I see where you're going with this but wouldn't an attacker simply blob each beacon in turn, killing it with minimal casualties? Set up bubbles to catch defenders sneaking to reinforce the point and move on to the next one... Once you've defeated the defenders you automatically get to capture the hubs so you're just trying to provoke a battle anyway. If the defenders want to stop you they pretty much have to blob so back to square one minus a few cloaked pickets standing off each beacon spying.
I can't help but wonder if the whole sovereignty idea isn't a mistake. Remove it, let people anchor whatever they want. If they can't hold the space then they lose their investment. It's a cold, hard universe out there, does it really need arbitrary rules forced on it?
If they blob, the solution would be to add even more beacons, eventually it becomes impossible to blob each beacon, without having to redirect forces to the vulnerable one.
This is the entire point, if the Defender is organized they can warp in the correct squads/wings to fight off the attack. BUT, the Attacker can cause frustation/ by going on the offensive in several areas at once. They might lose a Wing but gain the system. Tradeoffs are Capitalist, right?
Defender can rep them up fast but has to be under fire, they can primary most of the bubblercraft/EWAR too, and can reship[home court advantage]. If they choose not to fight for the beacons the hub will fall withing the hour, no matter the size of the force. 20 guys at 20 beacons or fleets of 200 at 7, it all crumbles when it's abandoned. And besides the more aggravating you are at each beacon brawl, the more determined the attacker has to be to invade ALL YOUR SPACE.
That's what encourages blobs, invasion has become easy with Capitals. At the flick of a cyno, a ****train is summoned.
Attackers get to harass, but it's not a mindless primary system, they have to shoot beacon[s] AND find the rep ships, first.
Bombers and Recons will become more vital than Dreads. A squad of sniper ships will actually move to several beacons and pick off stragglers, this is ON BOTH SIDES.
This is complicated to write out, but it looks exactly like a war[aka "good fight"]. Lots of ambushes, frantic calls for help, decisions to let one force collapse, etc... 7 |
Opus Dai
|
Posted - 2010.02.23 03:00:00 -
[308]
11 pages later and it seems CCP aren't actually aware of the underlying problems Dominion has brought afterall
But at least they have a tight reimbursement policy where people aren't reimbursed despite it being not lag but a fault with the game. Except of course where rogue GMs have read the petition and thought "christ, that's hardly fair" and gone ahead and reimbursed. Fortunately these GMs have been given a formal warning for their behaviour and hopefully such isolated incidents will no longer happen.
btw CCP, just incase you hadn't noticed, nodes break whenever a 80 man gang passes through leaving the system laggy and gates buggy. I would state that this wasn't a regular occurrence pre-Dominion but your tactics are beginning to pay off and I'm sure most people are sick of stating the obvious while you steadfastly ignore it.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2010.02.23 07:54:00 -
[309]
Originally by: Opus Dai 11 pages later and it seems CCP aren't actually aware of the underlying problems Dominion has brought afterall
But at least they have a tight reimbursement policy where people aren't reimbursed despite it being not lag but a fault with the game. Except of course where rogue GMs have read the petition and thought "christ, that's hardly fair" and gone ahead and reimbursed. Fortunately these GMs have been given a formal warning for their behaviour and hopefully such isolated incidents will no longer happen.
btw CCP, just incase you hadn't noticed, nodes break whenever a 80 man gang passes through leaving the system laggy and gates buggy. I would state that this wasn't a regular occurrence pre-Dominion but your tactics are beginning to pay off and I'm sure most people are sick of stating the obvious while you steadfastly ignore it.
your main just lose a ship?
|
Katana Seiko
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 09:29:00 -
[310]
Well, I have programmed my server with something similar once. The "grid" request in that case was a "map" request, and since it timed out in some clients, I came up with a priority list in three types. Priority type one was "map", Priority 3 was "chat", Priority 2 everything else... Maybe you want to try something similar.. For testing lag issues at least. --- "Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign for a diseased mind." -Terry Pratchett |
|
Saralle Zhukov
Minmatar Win Tech Arcane Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.27 14:44:00 -
[311]
I finally figured it out CCP = AT&T!!!
"We don't care, We don't have to."
From an old Saturday Night Live episode.
----------------------------------- Kill them all God will know his own. |
Vogue
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.01 04:41:00 -
[312]
Combat fleet lag is widespread. But up norf we get lag jumping fleets of 100-255 through jump gates. 'Traffic control' is a regular feature. In five years of playing EVE this extra lag problem is new to me!
As other players have said i would gladly forfeit any future upgrades to EVE until the lag problem is fixed. I watched a fanfest video where a 'Excellence' ethos was touted. Just call it 'fix lag'!
In my own little way i am have a demonstration about lag. Until it is fixed i am only having a subscription for one of my three accounts.
|
Stratio
Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.03.01 19:23:00 -
[313]
As the client throws away server responses which are more than 8min old (Calls do time out), does the server bother fulfilling requests which have been waiting for more than 8min already? _____________________
For Tribe and Honour! |
Ruby Xenoshade
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 22:43:00 -
[314]
I got an idea. We can protest by logging in right after next downtime and all go to CL-85V (Curse) with our alts. Let's choke some nodes. Actually, I'll probably be sleeping, but you get the idea.
|
Aralis
Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.05 17:28:00 -
[315]
I look forward to the day you realise you totally screwed up the game with Dominion. In the meantime some traditional CCP denials telling us how much you've improved gameplay and increased the number of people in 0.0 should be good for a laugh.
|
Ouranos Kline
Aether Wynd Associated Exploration and Research
|
Posted - 2010.03.06 21:32:00 -
[316]
I don't know if this is germane to the issue, but I had the exact same thing happen to me today as described in CCP Atlas' dev blog when I was jumping into Jita. There were about 1200 people in the system, but that's about normal. I've never experienced this failure to load the system before, though. It happened exactly like CCP Atlas described. I checked the system monitor for the one outstanding network request and it was there. The only difference between today and other days was that today I had an info window open looking at the stats for a character in the system that I was leaving behind. And to my knowledge, that's about the only time I've ever been doing that that while jumping.
|
Lev Aeris
b.b.k Fidelas Constans
|
Posted - 2010.03.06 22:50:00 -
[317]
Had a fight with 300 in local yesterday. Lag was still enough of an issue to cause severe mod bugs / gun lag (ungroup guns and turn auto repeat off).
I'm sure plenty of folks can remember fights this big pre-dominion that worked. I've had grid load lag when jumping 30 man fleets into systems with only a handful already in local.
So you don't need 1000+ to break a system, it seems 300 is more than enough to break CCP's brilliantly engineerined software. |
Den Dugg
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 14:36:00 -
[318]
bs pure bs ur say u cant see all thats goinon in ur mmo
|
WaiKin Beldar
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 10:45:00 -
[319]
Originally by: Aralis I look forward to the day you realise you totally screwed up the game with Dominion. In the meantime some traditional CCP denials telling us how much you've improved gameplay and increased the number of people in 0.0 should be good for a laugh.
QFT.
It won't happen soon, and definitively we don't expect it must be publicly announced as "Best MMORPG of the year". But if CCP applies the same philosophy as it's been used till now, more or less will be in the way of introducing small changes, until the final product has evolved enough that all the actual problems (including the SOV Warfare and Lag)will be overwhelmed by the new ones
|
Opus Dai
|
Posted - 2010.04.10 12:00:00 -
[320]
I heard CCP Atlas was doing some rigorous testing in V-NL3K last night
How's that going?
Still aware of the problem? Good. See you in another couple of months then.
|
|
Ruby Xenoshade
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 22:10:00 -
[321]
I, too, wish to live in a region defended by the Great Wall of Lag.
|
TheLordofAllandNothing
Caldari NailorTech Industries RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:32:00 -
[322]
CCP have pretty much broken their netcode so badly that even a moderate fleet fight of 200 total participants exhibits ENORMOUS ****ing lag symptons, to the point of having to do the kind of things i did before dominion in fleet fights of 1,600 people to be able to shoot.
Small scale pvp you can even see some lag kicking in, auto-repeat should just be automatically turned off when your fleet number rises above 80.
_______________________ Fix rockets in '09 =( |
Axhind
Caldari Ars ex Discordia Here Be Dragons
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 01:33:00 -
[323]
How about CCP drops the expansion or two and you just rewrite the underlying code to handle graceful degradation? Sure there will be no broken new shiny but I'm sure that we can live with that.
That way you will not have to make lag hunting task force after every expansion that does nothing or very little to actually fix the problems (IIRC the last successful lag reduction was 2 patches ago and took several years to happen).
Cleaning up your code to make it degrade gracefully plus make it a bit more future proof might even enable new features without a lot of ugly hacks so please do that instead of whatever new shiny. We can live without planet interaction (or dust514 for that matter).
|
Jattzia
Gallente The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 03:36:00 -
[324]
ARE YOU CERTAIN YOU ARE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM????????
CCP NOT AWARE.
|
Meno Theaetetus
Wildly Inappropriate Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:44:00 -
[325]
Originally by: TheLordofAllandNothing CCP have pretty much broken their netcode so badly that even a moderate fleet fight of 200 total participants exhibits ENORMOUS ****ing lag symptons, to the point of having to do the kind of things i did before dominion in fleet fights of 1,600 people to be able to shoot.
Small scale pvp you can even see some lag kicking in, auto-repeat should just be automatically turned off when your fleet number rises above 80.
They just need to adjust the way things work, why not just get the server to presume the module is active until it receives instruction from the client to turn it off, you then cut out every 'module is still active message' every cycle.
Please resize signature to the maximum allowed size of 400 x 120 pixels and a maximum size of 24000 bytes. Navigator |
Dyzzy Dyvyl
|
Posted - 2010.05.04 20:44:00 -
[326]
personaly i think the lag is getting worse with the release of the new patch i thought the idea was progress. If so well done u have stoped nodes from crashing.. clap.. clap .. clap . Inturn you have created a form of lag unknown to any online game eve to have been created. the fact that we are paying u for the privlage of pretending to work on the issue when all you are interested in is. Finding new ways to either A) make life easyer for carebear and as such make life more expensive for players in 0.0 cos lets face it those high sec nublits dont even pay for time code they carebear there little hearts out. B) find new ways for ppl to lose ship or lose isk like reducing the payout for cap ships. C) add new things to the server when inturn they should be sorting out the problems that already exist. You think adding planet mining is going to take our attention away from the fact that your servers are clearly F**KED. anyone who wants to start a CCP page on facebook and make it clear to computer hackers who is a good target for capitalist B****DS the feel free i will sign up anyday
|
Yunii
Gallente Black Serpent Technologies R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 16:53:00 -
[327]
any progress? need more testing? hopefully not ignoring us.. ------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Arkanon I think this thread also illustrates perfectly that we neither censor nor do we try to silence our customers. |
Darth Vapour
|
Posted - 2010.06.05 10:33:00 -
[328]
Quote: We were finally able to reproduce this with a special fleet test on our Singularity test server on Jan 27th where over 400 people participated in helping us out. That was really fantastic to see and I would like to thank everyone who showed up.
So what progress has been made in the nearly 6 months since identifying the issue ? Players report things are getting worse rather then better.
|
mkmin
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 21:00:00 -
[329]
Originally by: Darth Vapour
Quote: We were finally able to reproduce this with a special fleet test on our Singularity test server on Jan 27th where over 400 people participated in helping us out. That was really fantastic to see and I would like to thank everyone who showed up.
So what progress has been made in the nearly 6 months since identifying the issue ? Players report things are getting worse rather then better.
They've made excellent progress. They nerfed the deep safes that were used to circumvent lag.
In seriousness, a dev interview said they've got a lag patch ready to deploy but they are waiting to make sure PI doesn't screw everything up first (lol or cry? Either way, I'm just gonna keep posting on the forums until my account expires.)
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 09:35:00 -
[330]
what interview?
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |