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) |
Estel Arador
Minmatar Estel Arador Corp Services
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 21:55:00 -
[61]
Quote: Note that if you get podded while in this state then the client should recover when your session is moved into your clone station.
That's comforting to know...
Free jumpclone service|874 stations - Truly Universal |
mrpapageorgio
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 22:27:00 -
[62]
Why would any attacker want to have ccp reinforce the node when currently it is more advantageous to pack the system before the defenders show up and kill them 1 by 1 as they fail to load grid
|
Slobodanka
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 22:28:00 -
[63]
What I got from all this is that you actually have a way to check if client lagged out (and pilots ship was killed) or was it just bad piloting on his part. If server does not send grid info to the client in under 8min... then you probably should give pilot at least an option to get back to where he was (if he's still alive that is) if you refuse to reimburse. And stop with "our logz ain't shoween nutn" BS.
|
Shamis Orzoz
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 22:30:00 -
[64]
Waiting it out worked pretty well for our titans. We waited 2 hours.
Faildevs are fail.
|
Jackson Taus
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 23:31:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Xtover
Originally by: Crimson11 Honestly, Move SBU's so that they are on the outside of a system rather than inside the system. That way attackers and defenders must be spread out. Solves alot of problems rather quickly too.
Simple
This idea has been mention several times now!
Crim
excellent idea, but what happens when you need to fight over the ihub?
If the relevant SBUs are destroyed, the iHub goes invulnerable. So in a 2-gate system, the attackers need to attack the iHub and defend 2 SBUs (one in each adjacent system) while the defenders need to blunt the iHub attack (or rep the iHub through the attack) until they either defeat the attacking fleet or kill SBUs. The strategic points of the fight are then split across 3 systems. The more gates in the system, the more spread out the fighting would be.
The problem is that in theory defenders could blob each SBU sequentially, and in any system with more than 2 gates, the attacker can just blob on the station or iHub and hope to shoot it down before losing 2 SBUs (or 3 SBUs in a 5-gate system).
Originally by: Caoim Fearghul
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema I think it's a matter of the client sending a "LOGOUT" message to the server, but as the server is overloaded, it won't actually act on the logout until, say 40 minutes later. This means that if you logged out at 19:00, the server will log it as 19:40, meaning that for the GM staff, it's impossible for them to see if you actually logged out at 19:00 like you claim, or if you logged at 19:40, after hostiles actually started shooting your ship.
The server will initiate the ewarp as soon as it realises that you've logged out, but the issue here is that the server doesn't actually KNOW that you've logged out, because it hasn't had time to process it yet.
Yes, it sucks, I've lost ships to that too. I trust CCP to work on improving it though.
I can show you this is false quite easily, simply pull out your internet cable and have a friend watch what happens to your ship after a few moments. The client cannot sent a "LOGOUT" message, it is simply severed from the game.
In order to keep the server up I suspect they overrode the normal timeouts which is why hours later a ship is still in game after the pilot left.
If the server gets overloaded, then what's happening is it's not processing in real time. So while an hour has passed in real life, the server may have only processed the first 2 minutes or so.
|
Jenessa
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 00:09:00 -
[66]
I'm just pleased to see that CCP have blogged about it, although most of us assumed through common sense that they were working on the problem it's nevertheless good to actually be told they are aware of it and are working on it.
There's a tendancy for people to start demanding it's fixed with complete ignorance of the scale of the problem CCP face fixing the lag. Hell I have no idea how programming works and how problems like this are sorted out. And I don't assume that because I pay my $15 a month that me demanding the problem is fixed automatically means that CCP will pull a magical fix out of their backside, I mean afterall CCP dont want their customers telling their friends who may be thinking of becoming Eve players "Hell Eve is good, shame about the lag"
Once again thanks for the blog CCP, people are generally much more receptive to a problem if they are at least told and kept upto date on whats happening. People's imaginations can run wild in the absense of concrete information.
I'm 100% confident you'll get there.
|
TheAdj
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 01:20:00 -
[67]
So, what you're saying is you're not reimbursing ships from a fleet fight in which a previously undocumented bug literally ate large fleets several hours after the players involved had logged off? You don't need logs to prove it, when someone kills 125 capital ships and kills.....2 battleships and a frigate, it's pretty clear they are either the worst pvp alliance in EVE or something stopped them from even firing back. I logged off a dreadnaught in the y-2 fight and it died 45 minutes later when it was unaggressed, there is no reason it should not have been gone from space 60 seconds after I clcked the little red X. Please tell me how that should not be reimbursed, in ANY, ANY other situation that would be returned except for this one, pretty much because you don't feel like reimbursing what is a perfectly legitimate reimbursement.
This blanket policy is incredibly bad customer service, it is passing the buck because GMs don't feel like talking to the Development Team to sort this out in an equitable fashion. When these previously unannounced type of issue occurred before in Tribute '08, the losses for the the affected parties were reimbursed. This wishy washy, flip flop type of garbage is what gets players so annoyed with CCP they just unsub and leave. If your logs show nothing, perhaps you should improve the method in which information for logs are gathered because this smells like a giant cop-out to me.
What's funny is how the replies in the petitions changed over time, at first it was "Yea there was nothing wrong, everything was working fine THE LOGS SHOW NOTHING" to "Ok here have a few capitals back" to "I'm sorry, we cannot reimburse ANY ships from a fleet fight." It took like a week for the GM Team to decide on a response to what happened in Y-2, and the final answer was "Heh who cares they will pay anyways don't give them back anything." That's what annoys me more than anything, we won't get a decent directed response for this at all.
|
Lykouleon
Trust Doesn't Rust Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 02:34:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Lykouleon on 05/02/2010 02:44:06 Edited by: Lykouleon on 05/02/2010 02:43:43 I feel that the chatter in local is far too baised.
Edit: meh, forgot to be constructive.
Just out of curiosity, what were some of the fixes that CCP deployed during the live fleet fight? Are these things related to the new fleet-finder system at all?
Also, a nice lash-out to the complainers in this thread (CVA): I hope to see you all on SISI for the next round of fleet fight testing. Otherwise, man up.
Quote: CCP Mindstar > Sorry - I've completely messed all that up. lets try again
|
isAzmodeus
Low Security Military Excursions
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 02:57:00 -
[69]
Rumor has it, CCP deployed these --------------------------------- The Seven- Blowing up someone near you. |
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 03:10:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Jackson Taus
The problem is that in theory defenders could blob each SBU sequentially, and in any system with more than 2 gates, the attacker can just blob on the station or iHub and hope to shoot it down before losing 2 SBUs (or 3 SBUs in a 5-gate system).
The solution is to spread fleets over time, not space. If there was something to do every day, maybe even multiple times a day, instead of once every three days, you'd get a lot less numbers. Can you imagine assembling your entire coalition to defend a station system twice a day for a week or even longer? |
|
Una D
Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 03:13:00 -
[71]
So what are the chances of CCP even considering graceful degradation? It's all good to tell me that I should try and relog after 8 minutes but in last fights people have been dying hours after login off.
Since instancing and caping the nodes is going to ruin the game just spend some time on graceful degradation instead of next shiny thing (walking in stations is not essential while fleet fights are).
Just make the time slow down on the overloaded server until it can handle it. It's better to have stuff move in slow motion (literally) than total failure that happens now.
|
Phantom Slave
Universal Pest Exterminators
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 04:22:00 -
[72]
Perhaps a different approach can be taken to alleviate the one-sidedness of the current lag situation.
As every person jumps into a system, the whole system freezes purposely to keep any targeting, moving, module activation etc. from happening. Once there's been a 5 second gap between gate jumps and *every* person has loaded the grid then the fighting could commence. Basically the system would lock up for 5 minutes and not a single person could do anything to cause any additional lag for anybody jumping into the system.
I'm also curious about the calculations/movements/module activation queue. Is each item and person done sequentially? That way as 1 person does something everybody gets the information in a row straight down (or up) on local list. This may cause more lag than there seems to be now, but could possibly make fighting more even since it would lag everybody equally.
I'm no programming expert and will probably get flamed for the above, but I just like tossing out ideas to be discussed.
|
Ol' Delsai
Caldari Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 06:47:00 -
[73]
I think that for both a gameplay and lag point of view, it should be very interesting to move SBU from one side of the gate to the other side of the gate :
i.e. I f you'd like to conquer system A, which is linked to system B,C,D,E - you'll have to put an SBU in an A-Gate in B, C, D and E systems (or in the majority of them).
This would eventually split the attacking and defending forces to many systems and surely help with lag and also make the gameplay of disrupting a system with SBU more tactical.
Hope you'll find ways soon to solve lag issue
|
Kanuo Ashkeron
Capital Construction Research
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 08:16:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Kanuo Ashkeron on 05/02/2010 08:16:48 What is actually causing the lag?
As older dev blogs state, there are three layers on the server. Proxy, Sol and Databaselayer. Obviously the Sol nodes crash, but why? Is it because of the computational load, or because database queries can not processed in time, or what? As you guys from CCP understand, there are a few of us who have a clue about how things could work, and it is always cool if someone understands things he really likes.
On another note: Why werenŠt the CVA guys packing a few transports with SBUs and launching a counterattack?
|
InnerDrive
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 08:42:00 -
[75]
Originally by: mrpapageorgio Why would any attacker want to have ccp reinforce the node when currently it is more advantageous to pack the system before the defenders show up and kill them 1 by 1 as they fail to load grid
THIS, read it ccp this is exactly whats been happening.
not only that but than if you get like 800 people and they have 500 people and you coud easely kill them if jumping in woudent black screen they dare to be chestbeating that your afraid to enter the system with them to take it back, your the so called cowards ROFL.
its been affecting 0.0 pvp far more than "lag for both sides". the attackers have been at a massive advantage. but sure never reimburse anything, have your customer support drink some more coffee and play some more poker. |
Opus Dai
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 09:45:00 -
[76]
Maybe stop recruiting Game Designers from the playerbase, could lead to a slightly more professional approach - which in CCPs case is not difficult. It also may mean I won't have to login to the forum 3 times just to post something.
That said, it is quite hillarious.
- GMs are present in systems and unresponsive to stuck requests because they're too busy fighting to keep the node alive to ensure a thorough and complete turkey shoot takes place
- Game designers focus on "Blobinion" the concept of funneling as many people as possible into the same place at the same time. Meanwhile they introduce a comical bug that not only prevents a client from loading, it keeps the players ship in space ad infinitum until it's destroyed.
- CCP takes 3 months to even acknowledge the damage they've done
- CCP checks the MSN listing and finds no-one listed has fallen victim to said bugs. CCP refuse all petitions.
It's not often you see Game Designers taking such a prominent, albeit inadvertent, role in shaping the ingame politics. I should have guessed CCP would be the first, glad I was around to witness this.
Quote: On another note: Why werenŠt the CVA guys packing a few transports with SBUs and launching a counterattack?
When you lose a capital fleet to a bug, CCP deny it's a bug and blame you stating lag is a known factor in fleet warfare and it's the risk you took. Then a few days later CCP admit it's a bug but still refuse all petitions in the interest of "fairness" then people suddenly lose all interest in taking part in CCPs sovereignty experiment. It is of course fair, assuming you haven't been on the receiving end of the bug.
|
something somethingdark
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 09:51:00 -
[77]
besides that you usualy dont have a rightclick menu when you are lagged out on jumping into a system
i understand most of the oustanding calls queue but how is it that guns can get stuck for an 8 minute cycle (this explains allot of guncycing actualy) but once you go manualy (set autorepeat off etc) you have a much higher chance of recovering even though you are placing another call that presumably gets queued at the back (but aparently doesnt) thers even another way that can shorten your empty cycling time even further and it places even more gamecalls
so i can only presume certain calls get diffrent priorities and are capable of racing infront of the queue way past the ppor sob who has been trying to log in for over an hour
|
Kanuo Ashkeron
Capital Construction Research
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 10:56:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Opus Dai
Quote: On another note: Why werenŠt the CVA guys packing a few transports with SBUs and launching a counterattack?
When you lose a capital fleet to a bug, CCP deny it's a bug and blame you stating lag is a known factor in fleet warfare and it's the risk you took. Then a few days later CCP admit it's a bug but still refuse all petitions in the interest of "fairness" then people suddenly lose all interest in taking part in CCPs sovereignty experiment. It is of course fair, assuming you haven't been on the receiving end of the bug.
As you stated above, I was not on the receiving end of the bug. However, my question was more generally: When someone follows all these discussions, it seems that the general warfare strategy didnŠt shift with Dominion. Warfare still concentrates on one system after another. Why donŠt people try to open up a front with many systems contested at the same time? If you have a front of several systems you have to split forces among them and the lag problem is gone (it seems 250vs250 fights are possible).
|
Tharrn
Amarr Epitoth Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 11:34:00 -
[79]
If the enemy brings 100 and you bring 200 you are very, very likely to win. So unless youe xpect your enemy to be a pushover you bring as many people as possible to have more than the enemy to improve your odds. And you bring them in *before* your enemy can to get the good server resources. It's down to maths and using the broken mechanics to your advantage.
Asking people to please not do it won't solve it. Ever. The incentives and objectives need to change. I doubt that a sov rework will hit anytime soon though as it would basically mean admitting that Dominion was a step in the wrong direction. Again.
-----
|
Kade Jeekin
Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 11:35:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Kanuo Ashkeron
Quote: On another note: Why werenŠt the CVA guys packing a few transports with SBUs and launching a counterattack?
...Why donŠt people try to open up a front with many systems contested at the same time? If you have a front of several systems you have to split forces among them and the lag problem is gone (it seems 250vs250 fights are possible).
They tried. On Wednesday, 3 Feb. Whilst the .-A-. bloc were hammering 9UY4-H the Providence bloc attacked D-GTMI and HED-GP. They succeded in splitting up the attacking force. A detachment went back and eliminated the Provibloc SBUs. The detachment got back to 9UY4-H in time for the last dread cycle to put the station into reinforcement. Saturday, 6 Feb will be the next big test of the software. --------------------------------------- Outface the depths of evil with clarity --------------------------------------- |
|
kyrieee
Psykotic Meat Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 12:59:00 -
[81]
While on the subject of lag I'd like to bring something up
It's quite common for your guns to get stuck in heavy lag situations, meaning the module won't stop cycling. The way people get around this is by turning off auto-repeat while at the same time stopping the gun cycles manually.
If you click the gun icon next to the target box to stop the gun cycling everything tends to work pretty well, but for some reason deactivating the module with a hotkey (for example F1) or clicking on it in the module bar doesn't have the same effect. This becomes a huge issue if your gun hasn't stopped cycling before the target dies, because the target box disappears and it can take several minutes for the guns to stop cycling.
Maybe you'll tell me that there's no difference between deactivating the module by clicking the tiny icon next to the target and hitting a hotkey, but I'm sure a lot of people can attest to the fact that there really is a huge difference. I'd be great if you could look into that so we could, client side, more effectively prevent the guns from being stuck.
|
Mira O'karr
Minmatar Yin Bao
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 13:22:00 -
[82]
ships should be reimbursed because there was no fleet fight.
caps killed 2 hours after log out were not fighting back and they were not in fleet.
my logic, it makes sense.
|
Janko Frost
Blue Labs
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 13:33:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Janko Frost on 05/02/2010 13:35:50 Dear CCP, and whomever it might concern:
Do you realise how bad a failure of your support department (including your dev team - which obviously worked on the issue) is, when you publish a BLOG about exactly the same thing, 7 DAYS, after you denied - "kicking and screaming" - that such a gamedefect would exist with the following words:
[...]"lag is a conglomerate of several different technical processes and it is not equal at all, it is purely chance based which characters are affected from lag or not."[...]
[...]"Our decision in the matter is final, and I'm afraid, that any further discussion cannot alter this decision. This petition will now be closed.
Best regards, Senior GM <webbing your petition>" [...]
Disappointment doesn`t really describe the result of your customer relation policies.
|
Opus Dai
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 13:37:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Kanuo Ashkeron
Originally by: Opus Dai
Quote: On another note: Why werenŠt the CVA guys packing a few transports with SBUs and launching a counterattack?
When you lose a capital fleet to a bug, CCP deny it's a bug and blame you stating lag is a known factor in fleet warfare and it's the risk you took. Then a few days later CCP admit it's a bug but still refuse all petitions in the interest of "fairness" then people suddenly lose all interest in taking part in CCPs sovereignty experiment. It is of course fair, assuming you haven't been on the receiving end of the bug.
As you stated above, I was not on the receiving end of the bug. However, my question was more generally: When someone follows all these discussions, it seems that the general warfare strategy didnŠt shift with Dominion. Warfare still concentrates on one system after another. Why donŠt people try to open up a front with many systems contested at the same time? If you have a front of several systems you have to split forces among them and the lag problem is gone (it seems 250vs250 fights are possible).
It's a good question and the answer is two-fold
a) The bug is most likely to affect the Defender and so far it's only defenders that have suffered it. Defenders of course do not get to choose the system being attacked, there's no reason for Attackers to split their fire across systems when attacking only one is likely to produce them a turkey shoot where they get to wipe out hundreds of caps for no losses then die laughing when CCPs ridiculous support policy then backs them up in the interests of "fairness"
b) Dominion has dumbed down strategic thinking. Kiting POSs for a favourable timer has been thrown out of the window along with the stront timing mechanic itself. Instead there's a static timer which needs to be set only once and will produce a timer with a little variance either way. This is done multiple times to take control of a system/station. This makes the whole affair much more predictable making greater participation allowable, coupled with the decision to remove the AoE doomsday from Titans, you get a higher turnout as entire fleets can't be wiped anymore which helped tremendously previously to disuade the higher number of blobs. Now Dominion has effectively removed all the caps and CCP are scratching their heads as to why it's all gone to ****
|
Le Ming
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 13:49:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Jenessa [...]There's a tendancy for people to start demanding it's fixed with complete ignorance of the scale of the problem CCP face fixing the lag. Hell I have no idea how programming works and how problems like this are sorted out. And I don't assume that because I pay my $15 a month that me demanding the problem is fixed automatically means that CCP will pull a magical fix out of their backside, I mean afterall CCP dont want their customers telling their friends who may be thinking of becoming Eve players "Hell Eve is good, shame about the lag"[...]
When playing a computer game, you usually want to have fun and not bother about coding, what is a grid, what is off-grid, what is a node, what is a cluster and how they are set up and react on heavy load and all these stuffs. That's technical stuff that breaks your immersion and it's really nothing you should have to care about. It's sad that you actually have to know about the very technical details of the game, otherwise you're screwed in a couple of (important) situations.
It's not that i personally have no understanding of tech stuff, but it's just something i don't want to care about when playing the game. It's interesting to read about it and get a better understanding, but at the point where i have to know these things and have to keep them in mind while playing and have to act accordingly, it's not really fun.
At this time, you're actually screwed if you have little to no understandings of the technics that work behind the scenes, when your enemy does.
Just saying...
And still: Though CCP argues that they don't want to influence the outcome of a battle in any way - their argument when denying the reimbursement - they did so in a very strong way when keeping the DG node alive, if you ask me. That still leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth. Cool that they have some real data now to improve things, but at what cost?
|
Jelzid
Caldari GSZ Magnum Opus.
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 15:10:00 -
[86]
CCP: Thanks for the dev blog, and for keeping us informed about the progress on this issue. Your hard work is appreciated. Don't mind the flamers, their just as frustrated as you, but can't do much about it.
March on fearlessly! ;) |
Raketefrau
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 15:54:00 -
[87]
Quote: There are senior software engineers spending their evenings and weekends on Tranquility monitoring and measuring since we have not been able to see issues when testing because the sheer number of people required to trigger the problems and the specific 'usage pattern' of the game systems in question are outside what can currently be tested in the lab (although this is something that is being worked on).
If legions of macro ratters and miners exist, why can't CCP set up macro clients as well?
Something like the Amazon cloud would be ideal for this...
1)Set up one VM with as many clients as you can, test it to make sure you've got the max number of clients you can have before client lag becomes an issue.
2) Clone that one machine out to a couple hundred VMs. Fire them all up, launch the macros, monitor SiSi.
3) When you're done testing, the VMs go back into the cloud and you're not paying for them anymore.
This would be a pretty cost-effective way of doing massive-numbers client testing. You largely just need to test jumping into systems or fleets warping into each other, which should be pretty easy to set up macros for.
It's also a lot cheaper in terms of staff annoyance at having to work ludicrous hours to track this stuff down. I feel for those guys, and believe there has to be a better way.
I've worked for a couple of companies now that have had hundreds of VMs running in the Amazon cloud, and it's worked out very well for them.
It's worth looking at, IMHO.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 16:12:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Kanuo Ashkeron
As you stated above, I was not on the receiving end of the bug. However, my question was more generally: When someone follows all these discussions, it seems that the general warfare strategy didnŠt shift with Dominion. Warfare still concentrates on one system after another. Why donŠt people try to open up a front with many systems contested at the same time? If you have a front of several systems you have to split forces among them and the lag problem is gone (it seems 250vs250 fights are possible).
Then your enemy takes his entire blob and kills you one by one. Or, since he started contesting YOUR system earlier than you can counter attack, he IGNORES you, gets your system, sovs it up, and THEN defends. By that time your morale will be down the toilet anyways and you already lost a station.. ----------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 16:18:00 -
[89]
Glad to see a response on this issue. It would have been nice to get a "we're aware of the issue and working on it" blog a month ago though. This part:
Quote: What this means is that CCP will not be granting reimbursement for fleet fight losses.
Please understand that fleet fight reimbursement has always been very controversial and few issues have been discussed and argued in more detail within CCP. The conclusion has, however, always been to leave fleet battles alone rather than reimbursing them as a whole. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and we appreciate your patience as we work diligently towards resolving this issue.
While controversial, would have also been nice to know a month ago as well. Knowing the in-game stance CCP was taking on the issue would have allowed players, alliances, fleets, and FCs to adapt their play style to the current situation better.
Fix Local |
Clone 1
Ministry of Mojo
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 16:30:00 -
[90]
Dominion is probably the worst expansion that I can remember, both in bugs and .1 bug patchs. There is something definitely gone wrong at CCP. 2 months is bad form too.
But hey at least the patches are 'free' and the planets look cool.
-------------------------------------------------- I got ganked at Za'Ha'Dum, but I am ok now. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |