EVE Search - Split up the Big T

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Split up the Big T

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:28:00 - [1] Originally by: Kallieah TQ should be divided into multiple, smaller server things Technically, it already is. Howeverà Quote: so that when you log on, you pick from a list of maybe ten to twenty duplicate worlds and play your character totally contained in that one world. Hell no. Quote: It could be like how other, super successful MMOs ruin their games. Fixed. Quote: It would make the economy more diverse because there's now like ten Jita 4-4s each with their own markets No, because each of those markets would still contain the same things with the same distribution of what's popular and not. Quote: Multiple worlds could fix that by limiting population to like say, 5000 players on one world at one time. àthus ruining the entire point of EVE and fixing lag simply by not having any people on any of the servers. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:33:00 - [2] Originally by: Kallieah That's good though! In what way? Quote: Moving from one world to another would keep you from wasting time planning fleet actions Where's the time waste? Quote: while you were focused on the social aspects of the game like people in Second Life are already doing ten times better than we are here. EVE ≠ Second Life, C/D? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 14:00:00 - [3] Originally by: Half **ed Originally by: Lorieen I'm willing to host one of those duplicate worlds from my home pc will that help? You would crash that computer and overload your connection with about 25 people. Well, that's ok then. He's probably got about 2× overcapacity for the server population numbers this kind of idea would produce. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 18:41:00 - [4] Edited by: Tippia on 29/04/2010 18:42:54 Originally by: failpirate think of it this way: would you rather have one universe that doesn't work, or multiple universes that work? I want one large universe that works (even with occasional limps), thankyouverymuch, mainly because multiple universes won't work by very definition. The problem with this idea is that it doesn't work because a) it doesn't solve the problem at hand, b) it completely disregards everything that makes the EVE universe work, and c) it completely disregards how the game backbone actually functions. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 20:19:00 - [5] Originally by: Kallieah While I agree that a single world with everyone in it together is ideal, it doesn't seem to be a realistic expectation given the ongoing, chronic lag problems. Sure it is. Just look at the pre-Dominion situation. Quote: I'm fairly certain that running a world with say 5000 to 8000 PCU is not a game breaking situation since, EVE was regularly running only 10000 during off peak times as late as two to three years ago. Riiiiightà so just because at its lowest it ran at twice what it would have at its highest, that new max number will be swell? Never mind all that happens during those peak hours that makes the 10k off-hours bearable. Never mind the critical mass that gives the economy the strength it has today. Never mind that it goes against what you claim you want to achieve. Never mind that you're forgetting the space expansion that has happened. Never mind the NPC-based support mechanics that have been removed. Never mind (etc)à Quote: It's really just a matter of getting used to seeing smaller numbers that most people will probably not notice much in the actual game. Oh I'm sure that a non-functioning economy, a complete lack of social context, and no consequences for your actions won't be noticeable at all. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 21:46:00 - [6] Originally by: Kallieah I would rather have lots of universes with the same or more subscribers instead of one very empty one. And yet you're arguing for a combination of the worst aspects of the two: lots of universes, all of them very empty. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 22:00:00 - [7] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Looking @ Tippia's posts, he's doing just fine. Call it pre-emptive if you like. Even if this idiot is trolling, there are plenty of morons who think the same thing and which need to have their delusions stomped on before they even appear. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 22:08:00 - [8] Originally by: Kallieah I'd like to see a well managed set of cute little EVEs, each with a sustainable population that represents a slice of the current population's total numbers. Won't happen. That's the whole problem: you seem to think that you can just divvy the current population up without any consideration of why the current population is what it is and what makes it sustainable. You're also confused about how your solution will "solve" lag. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 13:21:00 - [9] Edited by: Tippia on 30/04/2010 13:21:25 Originally by: Kallieah àbecause it believes that it is now necessary to have a population at current levels, regardless of whether or not those particular numbers are the numbers we have today or the numbers we had last year, the year before, etc.à àand you keep ignoring the fact that both space and game mechanics have been continuously expanded and updated to match these higher numbers. Therefore, the situation we had with lower numbers tells you nothing about what would happen should those numbers come back. You are the one expecting a status quo, when we have long since moved away from that, and are still moving. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 13:33:00 - [10] Originally by: Kallieah I hope you don't mind moving there in short bursts of carnage between half hour waits for grid load. This is something you assume û we have already seen that it's not an absolute truth. Quote: Certainly some aspects would simply have to be different to deal with a smaller subset of the community. But those changes would not be "fun demolishing" by any stretch. It's not a matter of changing û it's a matter of removing. Most importantly, it's removing the uniqueness of the game; it's main draw. That's about as fun-demolishing as they come. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki

Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 14:31:00 - [11] Edited by: Tippia on 30/04/2010 14:32:03 Originally by: Kallieah Tip, that first bit was intended as humor and I do understand that it's not always the case that the lag beasties should appear in every engagement. So why do you keep using it as an argument? The fact of the matter is that we've seen the servers handle far larger fleets than what it can now. Unfortunately, this ruins your argument that we need to reduce the size of things to get rid of the lag. Quote: What do you suppose would happen as a result and how would it result in an adverse impact in the unique fun that you're now enjoying on the Big T? Nothing. The vast majority would stay on one server, where everything happens. The rest would move over, find a deserted wasteland, and either return or quit. Granted, CCP would then have to close shop due to not being able to pay back the investment they made in duplicating the TQ hardwareà and that would ruin everyone's fun ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 14:45:00 - [12] Originally by: Kallieah I use it as an argument because it exists and has been a problem for years now. You missed all of last year, didn't you? Quote: I believe that it will continue to exist in some form or another until a fundamental change is made that hopefully preserves the entertainment value of the game, but allows for further growth as well such that CCP can continue to deliver unparalleled gameplay to the community. And how does cutting the community up into disparate parts with no connection to each other, and destroying the social aspects of the game solve this? It certainly won't "solve lag". Quote: Secondly, if nothing would happen, how does the existance of an additional cluster or clusters result in a fun demolishing cataclysm? Already answered. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 15:06:00 - [13] Edited by: Tippia on 30/04/2010 15:06:24 Originally by: Kallieah I was around last year and yes there was less lag, but not "no lag." There will never be "no lag" û that's the whole point. You're looking to dismantle one of the fundamental selling points of the game in an attempt to achieve something that doesn't exist. Quote: Cutting up the community does nothing to damage the social aspects of the game in the long term. Sure it does: game loses main appeal. People quit. No more social aspects. Total damage. Quote: In the short term there will be minor disruptions while people converge and fine different collections of like-minded players, but that isn't going to do any substantial harm. You might want to look into what happens when people are forced to "choose servers" where they previously hadn't. Plenty of examples of this exists already, always with the same result: people quit. Quote: And already answered in what way? You said nothing would happen so I contend there would be no harm. You mean apart from the server having to shut down, throwing money and effort down the toilet, and being back right where we are today with nothing solved or changed? That doesn't quite qualify as "no harm". I keep coming back to this: what, exactly, is it you think you will solve? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 17:56:00 - [14] Originally by: Kallieah Therefore, I see no reason why lag will persist in this manner following the splitting of Big T. Because of the fundamental truth of EVE: people pile into a system (or into a fleet) until it lags. More people = your fleet has a bigger chance to win. More people = the market is more efficient. More people = everything is easier and quicker. As others have mentioned, your solution does not address this. Splitting people up does not change the basic need to have a high concentration of people, so you solve nothing û in fact, you rather risk that people will grow bored and leave. Want to solve lag? Invent a way to make numbers hurt, rather than help. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 07:47:00 - [15] Originally by: Kallieah Originally by: Iture I'm betting 90% of the player base would leave outright. I'm betting almost no one will leave because there's nothing else around like EVE whether its on more than one realm or not. Actually, if it's more than one "realm", then would be just like those other games, so conversely, there would be quite a few around that would be just like EVE. àgranted, all of those are failed games in their last death throes as well, just like EVE will be. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.05.01 14:20:00 - [16] Originally by: Kallieah The problem is that anyone can go everywhere so too many people go to the same place with means we need to manage overpopulation. Right. Except that adding more realms doesn't solve that. Quote: Tip, it already is just like all those other games. It has treadmilling to develop your character, it has gear, it has crafting, it has guilds. Oh dear. Well, that explains a lot of your confusion. But ok, then there's even more reason not to remove the final distinguishing feature û the one that makes people play this game, rather than those others. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.05.01 14:36:00 - [17] Originally by: Kallieah It isn't an all encompassing fix, but to does mitigate the circumstances that cause the problem Not really. There's no reason to go to the new servers. There's no reason not to bunch up. In fact, I'd even say that your solution would cause more lag, since the same amount of people would have to be squeezed onto less hardware. Quote: It's not -the- reason. So which is it: is EVE like those other games or isn't it? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.05.01 16:03:00 - [18] Edited by: Tippia on 01/05/2010 16:05:43 Originally by: Kallieah Going with more realms doesn't mean that the same amount of computer crunchies is available per player. Where is the lag generating population going to come from when the overall numbers are comfortably small? The same place it comes from now: people being in the same place at the same time because that's what works best, because, again, your proposal does not address the actual root issue or give any reason for people to split up. Quote: And I don't think implementation of a new cluster automatically means that the amount of number crunchies per player is kept at the exact same level. That'd be sort of silly, I should think. And again, since you refuse to actually comment: you don't give any reason for people to split up soà no, in fact, there will be less crunch per player û they're not going to completely duplicate the cluster hardware for each "realm", and since there is no reason for people to spread, everyone will cram into the most populous one. In fact, if they're throwing that much money on the problem, they're still far better off keeping it as one cluster and figuring out how to parallelise the system û or even grid û management. Quote: And EVE is a game, so it's like every other internet game except that it has spaceships and you can train skills when you're offline...which you can kinda do in AoC so yeah whatever Oh and again here too: this really explains your confusion. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.05.01 18:02:00 - [19] Originally by: Kallieah And people will go up in scale till they make stuff lag really bad which is why I think that smaller populations would really mitigate that greatly. You don't see the inherent contradiction in this? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.05.01 18:09:00 - [20] Edited by: Tippia on 01/05/2010 18:09:40 Originally by: Kallieah No, not really. Can you 'splain what you're on about please? Read my previous posts: you don't offer any explanation why people would not just pile onto the most popular server, leading to more lag than ever. How will these vaunted "smaller populations" happen? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.05.01 19:11:00 - [21] Originally by: Kallieah Well it's not really for me to decide, but the guy who just posted kinda said it, but in a funny way. So in essence, you don't offer any kind of solution to the problem you want solved (which, btw, isn't connected the problem you claim you want to solve). Oh goodie. Quote: CCP would prolly have to determine what the safe max limit is and put a cap on how many accounts can be registered on one world. Thus endeth the game: "Hey, come play EVE with us!" "Ok!à Hey!? Wtf?! Server full û no more accounts allowed?" "Weeeellà you seeà" "Screw you guys, I'm going to play Duke Nukem Forever [which will be out by the time this idea of yours is implemented]" Quote: but I bet most people will naturally go where there's space and freedom so they'd self-balance a lot on their own. If that were true, we wouldn't have any lag in the game right now. So no, they won't. Mainly because, as mentioned about umpteen times by now, bunching up pays off and nothing you've suggested counters this fact. Quote: BTW, what happened to IT alliance and you? Not enough free time to feel useful, whereas my newly recruited RL friends (who wouldn't have been able to play with me given your scheme) wanted to leech off of my standingsà ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.05.02 14:00:00 - [22] Originally by: Kallieah Grouping is a social crutch for people. Crutch? It's only what makes us usà Quote: At least when I cited the original problem and how the current fixes aren't working, I offered a solution too. No, you offered a structure if a solution existed û the solution part is still absent. Quote: I totally respect you wanna keep the dinosaur idea of a single world going even though it's outlived its usefulness. How so? Quote: my idea is more progressive, elegant, and just downright awesome because it adds income in paid character transfers and lowers overall requirements (power, heat, hardware, etc.) Progressive as in "let's turn back time to when the game wasn't as good"? Elegant as in "let's force people (somehow) into doing the exact opposite of what they want"? Downright awesome as in "let's remove what makes the game special"? Colour me scepticalà Quote: but how are you proposing the problems with having a single world are resolved? What problems exactly? The lag? It was already solved, but then broken again. They main issue here is that the node management cannot be spread over multiple CPUs û a software problem (which, to some extent can still be solved by throwing beefier hardware behind it as well). It certainly isn't solved by cutting the hardware up in smaller chunks because that only means it's easier to bring it to its knees when people congregateà which they will do. From your dreamy pictures, though, it rather seems like the problem you really want to see solved is that there are a lot of people and no space to call your ownà Behind it all, it rather sounds like you're arguing for a server reset more than anything. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.