| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Jamie Banks
Gallente
Wasted and Still Mining
   |
Posted - 2010.04.17 09:51:00 -
[121]
 Originally by: YT Forever
Stuff
Please for the love of God, stop blaming people for your lack of knowledge in the game. If you knew how to use Google you would have answered your own Questions.
Good compromise CCP.
Join in-game Channel 'Aussies' |
Fiery Redhead
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 09:57:00 -
[122]
Good compromise.
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 09:59:00 -
[123]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Rokkit Kween
Edited by: Rokkit Kween on 16/04/2010 21:55:29
@ CCP Lemur: So we will still be able to warp to objects beyond the boundary (that is not a boundary apparently, not confusing the issue at all)? Yes or No?
Yes.
The two changes mentioned at the end of the blog are the only differences we're currently planning between pre-Tyrannis and post-Tyrannis in this specific regard. All other measures mentioned in the previous blog have been dropped.
Does that mean it will still be possible to create a bookmark beyond the 20 AU boundary and it's just going to be harder to get there?
Sorry if this was covered somewhere in between and I missed it...
|
PeHD0M
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 10:01:00 -
[124]
DSS will be created again, but before that: Astrometric 5 - wasted SP (also Survey 5).
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 10:06:00 -
[125]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 17/04/2010 10:10:59
Quote:
See Greyscale.. AGAIN a player has to tell us WHAT the possible reason for this is. That is embarrassing
Dear Einstein, you know that since this second of that info being revealed, everyone and their dog will exploit it, and there's still 1 month before anything can be done?
Oh the surprise, that CCP don't want to entice mass exploiting.
Quote:
CCP does not officially agree with my position
And they are right. All of your pseudo-technical mumbo jumbo does not even mention about the UI limitations.
Something is deeply wrong at how "notifications" of new ships etc. arrive at the overview, something extremely bad is in the brackets, they seem interpreded code overlaid on an underlying "regular" 3D view and the result is that they have to be removed to make the game anywhere playable.
The crippled grid loading used NOT to be so crippled before Dominion so your "analysis" is wrong. Limitations on bandwidth should not come *after* a period of the game working well.
What I have noticed is how low sec FW sucked very hard nuts because of bugs in the FW structures (too many checks that loop over themselves?) and now, guess what, new structures have a similar effect in 0.0. That is, instead of making FW like 0.0 "lag free" and quick loading, 0.0 became like FW.
Quote:
However, it's something that will eventually HAVE to be worked out, as processor speeds have pretty much stalled for a number of years now (going to higher core counts instead, which doesn't really help eve's current architecture).
Imno they have to do an operation that looks complicate and is complicate: make a "core manager" where every CPU core in the whole server farm (ie 4 cores off server 1, 2 cores off older server 2...) publish their number and load to a management server. The server balances the load across the single cores, not the single server clusters, with an embedded calculated penalty for using out-of-chassis cores per each server involved.
(since cross-machine operations are more expensive, the penalty would prevent "barely out-of-chassis core need" situations).
With this architecture, it's possible to evenly spread the load of the whole game over a fine grained array of CPUs.
It's not even be needed to really pre-allocate servers for big battles any more, the central manager would detect the change in requirements and just allocate more distributed CPUs around the affected area.
Quote:
They show up on the overview regardless of how far someone is from them. There's no real tactical advantage of having a TCU so far out, so I'm not sure how it's an "exploit."
They pour the effort at placing TCUs down there because of no advantage. Seems logic.
Quote:
Then you...
... nerf deep safe spots.
Of course I'm not counting the ability to, again, suck resources out of another undepletable resource or implementing CCP's version of a social networking site.
Of course the VERY same devs coding in C++ are those designing the web site... That's really a contention in develompent forces we got there.
Quote:
Where are our freedom in space?
For the same reason you have jump gates and stations as choke points (besides the obvious servers architecture leading to that): CCP want people to clash, not to everyone sit in an unprobable ship in a private and never-touched place.
Hopefully they'll also nerf unprobable ships next.
-
Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read
http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Hyperforce99
Gallente
GoldTech Mischievous Industrial Logistics Ltd.
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 10:09:00 -
[126]
i forsee treasure hunting becoming a new (temporary) mini profession :P
---------------------------------------------
Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/ |
Kerfira
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 10:17:00 -
[127]
Edited by: Kerfira on 17/04/2010 10:18:06
Originally by: Ban Doga
Does that mean it will still be possible to create a bookmark beyond the 20 AU boundary and it's just going to be harder to get there?
I think you can still create them, but baring finding another exploit to get to deep space, only missions, exploration and perhaps lost fighters (dunno if this is fixed) will enable you to get out there, and those have limits to the range.
Originally by: PeHD0M
Where are our freedom in space?
You can do EXACTLY as you want in space... CCP is not putting any limits on you at all!
What you can do in a GAME about space is entirely different, as it is governed by what the game implementation allows. In any software there has to be boundaries as to what users can do because otherwise you'd never be able to handle all contingencies.
You were never MEANT to access deep space, you are still not meant to access it, and CCP is just correcting that fault!
You're like a kid complaining that he wants to play on the motorway...
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Stratio
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 10:56:00 -
[128]
Hurrah, thank goodness for that!
Quote:
The fun bit at the end
* There are around 2,300 items outside the 20AU boundary
* Around 60% of these items are ships
* Around 25% of these ships are unpiloted
* There are around 430,000 bookmarks outside the 20AU boundary
* The furthest bookmark is 5,900,000,000 AU (95,000 light years) from its sun. This is roughly the same distance as the diameter of the milky way
So 45% of the stuff they would have deleted were piloted ships. I'd love to know how many of those were alts in super-capitals.
Regarding the super-duper-deeep safe spot, I don't know how some people came up with their numbers, but as I figure it:
Flying at the max possible speed of just under 20AU/sec, it would take around 6,000,000,000 / 20 = 300,000,000 seconds to warp from/to the furthest BM.
300,000,000 seconds = 300,000,000 / (60*60*24*7*52) = 9.5 years!
_____________________
Poreuomai's Spokesman
For Tribe and Honour! |
Daedalus II
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 11:08:00 -
[129]
So imagine that some new bug is created somewhere along the line, that allows for new deep safes to be created (not at all impossible imo). What stops this from happening all over again? As you don't remove the ability to create bookmarks outside the 20AU boundry there will be no last line of defense for these sort of bugs.
And what about the Carrier fighter drop thingie? I don't know how that works, but if you can create deep safes with it, isn't all this kind of a waste of time? People will just create new deep safes again right after the cleanup!
|
Shade Millith
Caldari
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 11:46:00 -
[130]
Quote:
There was a thread on this here while ago, where someone recalled how a corpy of his found people with relative ease at distances of up to 600 AU. It was NOT impossible to scan out ships there.
This.
I'm still not terribly happy, DSS's out to 1000 AU's are scanable and findable. Make your little 'wall' if you wish, but the wall SHOULD be a good distance out (200+ AU's), and there be a way to get out there.
But at least you're not gonna **** people who are currently out there anymore
------------------------
|
|
|
Tester128
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 12:02:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Shade Millith
Quote:
But at least you're not gonna **** people who are currently out there anymore
That's a pity really, they should be eaten by things from outer space
|
Catari Taga
Centre Of Attention
Rough Necks
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 12:15:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Tester128
Originally by: Shade Millith
But at least you're not gonna **** people who are currently out there anymore
That's a pity really, they should be eaten by things from outer space
That would be fun actually if you could probe "things from outer space" in extreme distances, would give a purpose back to deep space probes and exploration.
|
Kuseka Adama
Gallente
Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 12:25:00 -
[133]
Quote:
And they are right. All of your pseudo-technical mumbo jumbo does not even mention about the UI limitations.
Something is deeply wrong at how "notifications" of new ships etc. arrive at the overview, something extremely bad is in the brackets, they seem interpreded code overlaid on an underlying "regular" 3D view and the result is that they have to be removed to make the game anywhere playable.
The crippled grid loading used NOT to be so crippled before Dominion so your "analysis" is wrong. Limitations on bandwidth should not come *after* a period of the game working well.
What I have noticed is how low sec FW sucked very hard nuts because of bugs in the FW structures (too many checks that loop over themselves?) and now, guess what, new structures have a similar effect in 0.0. That is, instead of making FW like 0.0 "lag free" and quick loading, 0.0 became like FW.
Your quote is of something i posted but i think someone else might have said that as well i didnt read everything.
But my problem with what I said is the fact that outfits like -A- and others are deliberately crashing systems by not filling out fleet reinforcement forms and storming in with so many people fighting back is impossible. The result is that a system is taken with relatively low resistance. AFAIC thats a flat out exploit.
Taking names and kicking ass. All in the search for Bubblegum. |
Kerfira
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 12:43:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Kuseka Adama
But my problem with what I said is the fact that outfits like -A- and others are deliberately crashing systems by not filling out fleet reinforcement forms and storming in with so many people fighting back is impossible. The result is that a system is taken with relatively low resistance. AFAIC thats a flat out exploit.
Unfortunately it is quite often not possible to do so....
What an alliance at war normally have, is a list of possible targets. There is often a preferred one, but the decision of where to attack is not made until you see what kind of a fleet you have, what your enemy is doing, and what targets of opportunity might arise.
You're also assuming that the alliance leaders HAVE such a list, which is often not the case... Alliance leaders quite often aren't as organised as you think...
Until game MECHANICS are changed so blobbing is not profitable, it'll continue to happen no matter what stop-gaps (like reinforcing) are implemented.
Instead of the "This target must be attacked at 12:23am when it comes out of reinforced!" blob-inducing game mechanics, the game would need to move to activity based gradual sov gain if lag is ever going to be less of a factor.
If peoples activity in an area determined sov, then the peak effort you now see when things comes out of reinforced would be replaced by a spread-out effort over a period of time over a greater area.
Unless something like this is done, 0.0 combat will continue to lag no matter what is done because people will always bring what the server can handle at those peak times, plus 50%!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Atius Shinkan
UK Corp
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 13:21:00 -
[135]
How about rather making some legit ways of getting deep safe's. Like some other have suggested, make rare plexes (like faction spawns) appear deep outside normal boundaries, this way the deep space scanner probes would actually be usefull.
this way it would be accessible to everyone, and actually some more content in the process.
|
Cemial
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 13:28:00 -
[136]
Edited by: Cemial on 17/04/2010 13:29:27
Why not leave a ship to remain invulnerable and invisible until the client loads grid and the pilot gets control of his ship?
It surely must be possible for the server to know whether a client has loaded grid and is responsive to the user's commands. Then make ships to remain cloaked after jumping (as when using a gate) for a variable amount of time based on the average grid loading time (in that system at that moment in time), or until the ship moves, and you reduce the chances of fleets getting slaughtered before they can even do anything about it.
If that works, it would make the use of DSS's to enter a hostile system unnecessary, because lets be honest, if you fix lag for 500 v 500, we will start fighting 1000 v 1000 and the lag is always going to be there.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 14:03:00 -
[137]
Quote:
But my problem with what I said is the fact that outfits like -A- and others are deliberately crashing systems by not filling out fleet reinforcement forms and storming in with so many people fighting back is impossible.
First of all, it's downright idiotic that *random gamers* have to inform a third party system administrator.
They have to find a way to auto-allocate resources.
Second, as my wise corp leader in IT said: "always assume there are corp spies looking at all of this".
First consequence, corp ops are decided by the directors with a series of possible targets and the actual target is randomly picked while already in space and sometimes changed without any preadvice.
This is EvE, the game of spies and smart opportunism. Publishing a day in advance where to hotdrop your cap fleet is not advisable at all. It basically works only when you have a fixed priority target, like a POS.
Also, the enemy is prolly not going to sit there, they might decide to warp somewhere else. Can't invite the CCP personnel in fleet so that they reinforce the right nodes while we jump.
Quote:
It surely must be possible for the server to know whether a client has loaded grid and is responsive to the user's commands
A consequence of this would be severely exploitable to gain a massive advantage. Not going to happen.
-
Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read
http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Zerakix
Minmatar
LEAP Corp
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 14:10:00 -
[138]
Edited by: Zerakix on 17/04/2010 14:12:06
It is entirely possible CCP is hoping/planning to have a gridload fix as part of the patchday roll out but doesn't want to commit to it just yet but want to get the news/warnings on the other likely changes posted asap and then make a call on keeping them closer to release based on how the fix for the gridload is looking.
CCP in all likely hood have a fix now but they want to keep testing and reviewing it more and it probably needs a full patch day downtime to fix the grid fubar and since they will be going to for a path day soon enough they can use the extra time to make sure it's fixed.
I hope thats why at least.
I fail. |
Sister Megarea
Atlas Incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 14:20:00 -
[139]
Here is a possible, temporary, solution to the grid-load problem when large fleets are jumping in (puts on stellar temperature resistant flame suit):
Lock the system down until the fleet jumps in.
If the node sees >$X ships jumping in, a system-wide message goes out, something like "A massive flux in the space-time continuum has been detected! Time is slowing down for everyone in $Y system until the continuum stabilizes!"
Stargates would be locked down while the system stabilized.
There is a huge pro and a huge con to this, obviously, but I would think it balances out until a better grid lag solution is found:
Con: It alerts absolutely everyone in system that a massive mother of a fleet is warping in.
Pro: It prevents insta-death of large fleets of uber-expensive ships and much frustration.
Perfect solution ? Not by a long shot. I would imagine that it would prevent quite a lot of tears of frustration, though.
|
StinkRay
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 14:46:00 -
[140]
Edited by: StinkRay on 17/04/2010 14:49:03
I don't get it.
Why don't you instead make the boundary 20 off any planet/sun instead?
ie, check distance to sun and all planets.
If none is within 20 AU, place object at a distance of 20 AU of the closest celestial
That would solve your volume problem.
|
|
|
Clansworth
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 15:22:00 -
[141]
Originally by: StinkRay
Edited by: StinkRay on 17/04/2010 14:49:03
I don't get it.
Why don't you instead make the boundary 20 off any planet/sun instead?
ie, check distance to sun and all planets.
If none is within 20 AU, place object at a distance of 20 AU of the closest celestial
That would solve your volume problem.
Wow.. i was joking earlier when I brought this into this thread... but I still don't get why there's confusion here.
There is no 'volume problem' that they are trying to solve. the system load is based on what is in the system, and what those things are doing, not thhow much empty space there is. System performance has nothing to do with this change.
There is no 'volume problem' that they are trying to solve. A system's load is based on what's in it, not how m uch empty space there is.
Intel/Nomad |
Mavric
Viscosity
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 15:40:00 -
[142]
The 2 things I get from this are system volume and leveling the playing field.
System volume has much less to do with system load time as the number of people in the system. Jumping into x-70 has the same load time as jumping into a system 1/4 its size with the same number of people in it. So how is this whole volume argument even an argument?
As for leveling the playing field.. The only thing removing DSS will do is give a tactical advantage to the people already in system and a disadvantage to those trying to enter. How is this leveling anything?
|
YT Forever
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 16:01:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Jamie Banks
Originally by: YT Forever
Stuff
Please for the love of God, stop blaming people for your lack of knowledge in the game. If you knew how to use Google you would have answered your own Questions.
Good compromise CCP.
Good to see some constructive input! Thank you ôJamie Banksö
So looked on Google û wow you can find loads of stuff on there! Awesome û never knew about it before now!!!
But did find the thing about using mission generated BMs to get some movement out of celestial body plane and maybe into the Z above and below the sun. Oh and the thing about using a carrier in low sec and playing with the drones û but I guess to do that I would have to have a carrier û oh but that would make me a have not a have not.
So if you have a practical way of getting to the new limit (furthest celestial body from the sun + 20au) above the sun û then please feel free to share, as I am not the only person on here who has asked the question.
|
Kweel Nakashyn
shadow and cloaking
Yggdrasill.
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 16:10:00 -
[144]
Edited by: Kweel Nakashyn on 17/04/2010 16:13:53
This is better than deletion.
If CCP could move our bookmarks too, that could be great (because if items move, associated bookmarks should move too).
Originally by: CCP Lemur
Originally by: Rokkit Kween
Can we get some clarification on a couple of things:
1. will points outside the new 20AU boundary be bookmarkable?
2. Will points outside the boundary be warpable?
Yes, if you feel like burning your mwd for months to make a new bookmark you can do so. The space outside of the barrier which isn't a barrier is like any other space. Apart from there being nothing 
lol, there's others ways CCP 
~
OSEF |
Quesa
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 16:17:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
Then you...
... nerf deep safe spots.
Of course I'm not counting the ability to, again, suck resources out of another undepletable resource or implementing CCP's version of a social networking site.
Of course the VERY same devs coding in C++ are those designing the web site... That's really a contention in develompent forces we got there.
I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.
|
Cyxopyc
Navy of Xoc
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 17:12:00 -
[146]
good - Announcing the change 30 days or more beforehand.
good - Adjusting the plan some after valid player input and dev brains applied.
bad - CCP has more important things to fix and improve with EVE.
==
Support fixing the EVE UI |
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 17:18:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Cyxopyc
good - Announcing the change 30 days or more beforehand.
good - Adjusting the plan some after valid player input and dev brains applied.
bad - CCP has more important things to fix and improve with EVE.
QTF - priceless
|
BeanBagKing
Ch3mic4l Warfare
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 18:30:00 -
[148]
Thank you CCP Devs!
While the solution isn't perfect to me, it is a lot better in many ways. I'm aware that players/devs will never see eye to eye on any issue, people will always have a different view of things. So while I'm not -completely- happy with this, I am much, much happier about several things.
1) You listened to the players that 10AU was too close, 20AU at least puts us outside the onboard scanner range.
2) You listened to the players that said "destroying stuff is a bad idea!" and took the time to implement it properly. Proper implementation is -always- better than quick.
3) We can still go out past and warp to objects farther than the 20AU limit. While it'll probably be unreasonable to get much farther out than this, I like knowing I can, there's no walls on my space! A small detail, but one that makes me happy.
4) Dev blog's that have pictures are best dev blogs! =D seriously, this saves so much confusion
5) There were devs around answering questions for the first few pages. Thanks!
In short, you listened to the players, and found time in an already busy deployment schedule to properly implement a change. You then took the time to make a clear image of whats going on along with a clear description, and took the time to answer questions that popped up afterward. We know you guys are busy, but taking this kind of extra time means a lot to the player base.
So thank you again, this is the CCP that I like to see!
|
Sapphire Andromeda
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 19:03:00 -
[149]
As always, everyone make sure you have a long skill set up to train on Patch Day.
A couple of thoughts on fleet movement and combat:
The common wisdom is bring what you need to fight the battle and fifty percent more to quickly escalate the stakes when needed. We all know something in Dominion borked the ability to have large scale battles, but what if space combat were different?
What if there was no auto-broadcast local chat (like wormholes), and no predetermined reinforced timers (random failure after fuel is expended)?
While it probably doesn't kill alarm clocks ops, alliances would have to be cognizant of the time zones of members they recruit. "The target will be vulnerable to attack any time after XX:00; we must keep watch." Scouts take turns posting guard. You leave a fleet logged off in the system, but are limited to the amount of alliance resources you were willing to sacrifice. While the armada is away, home systems are vulnerable to the next attack. This forces you to either keep the important assets centralized, or keep fleets spread out, co-ordinating separate attacks/defensive blockades simultaneously. Spies and secrecy also become vitally important.
This was grossly off-topic, but the direction of the discussion had already moved to fleet warfare, in my defense.
|
Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 19:48:00 -
[150]
Edited by: Yaay on 17/04/2010 19:52:09
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Rokkit Kween
Edited by: Rokkit Kween on 16/04/2010 21:55:29
@ CCP Lemur: So we will still be able to warp to objects beyond the boundary (that is not a boundary apparently, not confusing the issue at all)? Yes or No?
Yes.
The two changes mentioned at the end of the blog are the only differences we're currently planning between pre-Tyrannis and post-Tyrannis in this specific regard. All other measures mentioned in the previous blog have been dropped.
Originally by: Crystal Starbreeze
I want a REASON for the 256AU deep safe probes (I used to have a reason because of stuff that is out there, now it won't be :( ).
Have you ever tried to find anyone in X-7O? Beyond that though, yes, we recognize that said probes have somewhat reduced utility after this change (although the range of situations that they were previously useful in was fairly limited already - one reason for making this change is that issues of spherical volumes quickly made finding things in deep safes exceptionally difficult/time-consuming from the off). We may find additional uses for the skill in future but we don't have development bandwidth right now to make any additional changes at this time.
The fact that you just quoted that system makes me think you have a vested interest in this happening for one side or the other of a current conflict. If that's the case, 1, you should be fired, and 2 you should at least remove yourself from this fix that nobody wants.
Deep safe's have in no way hindered this game's performance or given an advantage to 1 side of a conflict that was absent to the other side.
Removing them with the current game performance is just going to **** people off and make this game even more playable.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |