| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
MichaelJackson RIP
   |
Posted - 2010.04.06 11:41:00 -
[1]
Im getting fed up with the fact that everywere u can read that EVE is such a masssive MMORPG where u can get fleet battles up to 1000+ people. However they do not announce the fact that nodes die every hour, u get a decync every half a hour and get insame amounts of lag. Even in reinforced nodes the problem still occours.
My proposal is to stop CCP announcing eve is a MMORPG where u can get fleet battles with 1000's of people. This is not the case anymore.
troll away
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 12:22:00 -
[2]
I had a very nice fleet battle with 700+ people in local. guns were laggy but playable (network monitor FTW).
i can just guess you are in NC and still try to jump hundreds of people onto an already filled grid?
anyway ... if you want to help fixing the issue instead of useless whine ... join the next mass testing events.
|
Aineko Macx
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 13:12:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: darius mclever
I had a very nice fleet battle with 700+ people in local. guns were laggy but playable (network monitor FTW).
700 is not over 1000.
Quote:
i can just guess you are in NC and still try to jump hundreds of people onto an already filled grid?
That is not the point. The point is that CCP is making false statements as to the current state of large fleet warfare. That's like saying you can fit 17 people in a VW beetle.
And btw, I haven't heard about NC losing major stuff to grid lately...
Quote:
anyway ... if you want to help fixing the issue instead of useless whine ... join the next mass testing events.
I've been there many times now.
Finally, this is one of multiple things CCP is misrepresenting in the marketing for eve.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Special Projects Executive
The Obsidian Legion
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 14:26:00 -
[4]
So basically you want the CSM to start changing the way CCP does business?
Lost cause is lost.
--Vel
Originally by: Jiseinoku
Mining is the path to enlightement.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
Looney Toons.
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 14:31:00 -
[5]
Has no baby bottle will cry?
=========================
CEO of Shadow Cadre
http://www.shadowcadre.com
========================= |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 16:44:00 -
[6]
... or you could ask CCP to keep working of decreasing the issues with large fleets.
Also, in before the lock.
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
MichaelJackson RIP
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 17:53:00 -
[7]
Originally by: De'Veldrin
So basically you want to make a point here while u know ccp will read this?
Lost cause is lost.
That is correct,
ps: fixed your post
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Special Projects Executive
The Obsidian Legion
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 18:07:00 -
[8]
Originally by: MichaelJackson RIP
Originally by: De'Veldrin
So basically you want to make a point here while u know ccp will read this?
Lost cause is lost.
That is correct,
ps: fixed your post
I noticed your "fix" didn't change the conclusion.
--Vel
Originally by: Jiseinoku
Mining is the path to enlightement.
|
Exploding Tukey
|
Posted - 2010.04.08 18:41:00 -
[9]
Actually dealing with this many people on a server gets very stressful and comes down to hardware speed. There is only so many read/writes you can do on a server with a set ram speed trying to do an insane amount of calculations, keeping track of every shot fired by every ship, everyone's health, boosts of every fleet, etc etc.
The fact that they said it was possible is not untrue, in fact it is doable and has been done before. I hope the next server upgrades would make this much more stable.
This is not the only game that suffers when server lag when the server gets essentially DDoS attacked by information coming from clients, and eve seems to be doing much more processing then most when it comes to server side 
|
Gunnanmon
Gallente
The Scope
|
Posted - 2010.04.09 12:27:00 -
[10]
Who knew Eve had less than 1000 people anyway.
Signature locked for discussing moderation. Navigator
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |