EVE Search - Split up the Big T

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 [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:21:00 - [1] So there's some lag out there caused by big fleet fights and dev teams are working to resolve the problem. Because I have a lot of insight into these sorts of things, I'm going to toss out a suggestion. TQ should be divided into multiple, smaller server things 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. It could be like how other, super successful MMOs run their games. It would make the economy more diverse because there's now like ten Jita 4-4s each with their own markets making the game more interesting and fun. Also character transfers could cost money if you wanted to move from one world to another. I'm just saying this because the current way of fixing lag doesn't work very well. I mean, it's a good idea to discourage big fleets with the loading screen cooldown that forces players to wait to engage and reconsider fighting, but the point where the game turns that feature on is already too high. There's usually 500 people in a system before the grid load safeties are activated. Jerks are already exploiting to get around it by doing stuff like making safe spots way out in space. Multiple worlds could fix that by limiting population to like say, 5000 players on one world at one time. Big fleets wouldn't need to be there so the grid loading safety mechanisms don't ever have to turn on since there won't ever be 500 people in all of nullsec on each world. Mostly everyone will just be trading at Jita or doing those mission things. What do you guys think?

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:24:00 - [2] Originally by: Kallieah It could be like how other, super successful MMOs run their games. No thanks, EVE is the uber just because it's only one server. Having to log on to another server just to talk to pilot X instead of Y and I could just as well play Word of Weirdcraft. /c Secure 3rd party service \| my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Half Cocked	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:24:00 - [3] -10 for failure to understand game structure and mechanics. +0.1 for wasting that much time thought and energy to actually post it.
meat vapour	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:27:00 - [4] Originally by: Kallieah What do you guys think? i think you should stfu.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:28:00 - [5] 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
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:28:00 - [6] Originally by: Chribba Originally by: Kallieah It could be like how other, super successful MMOs run their games. No thanks, EVE is the uber just because it's only one server. Having to log on to another server just to talk to pilot X instead of Y and I could just as well play Word of Weirdcraft. /c That's good though! Moving from one world to another would keep you from wasting time planning fleet actions 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.
Cat o'Ninetails Caldari Rancer Defence League	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:30:00 - [7] i think there should be a seperate server for pirates and one for the rest of us who just want to play the game in peace lol x My Facebook! \| Safety Dance
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Sodalitas XX	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:33:00 - [8] Originally by: Kallieah Originally by: Chribba Originally by: Kallieah It could be like how other, super successful MMOs run their games. No thanks, EVE is the uber just because it's only one server. Having to log on to another server just to talk to pilot X instead of Y and I could just as well play Word of Weirdcraft. /c That's good though! Moving from one world to another would keep you from wasting time planning fleet actions 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. Your going to have to learn to troll more effectively if you want any kind of big reaction. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:33:00 - [9] 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
Louis deGuerre Gallente Amicus Morte Shock an Awe	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:38:00 - [10] Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails i think there should be a seperate server for pirates and one for the rest of us who just want to play the game in peace lol x I thought this was supposed to be evil Cat ? Sol: A microwarp drive? In a battleship? Are you insane? They arenÆt built for this! Clear Skies - The Movie
Lorieen AQ Militis Seprentia	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:39:00 - [11] I'm willing to host one of those duplicate worlds from my home pc will that help?
Half Cocked	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:47:00 - [12] 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.
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive The Obsidian Legion	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:55:00 - [13] Originally by: Kallieah So there's some lag out there caused by big fleet fights and dev teams are working to resolve the problem. Because I have a lot of insight into these sorts of things, I'm going to toss out a suggestion. TQ should be divided into multiple, smaller server things 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. It could be like how other, super successful MMOs run their games. It would make the economy more diverse because there's now like ten Jita 4-4s each with their own markets making the game more interesting and fun. Also character transfers could cost money if you wanted to move from one world to another. I'm just saying this because the current way of fixing lag doesn't work very well. I mean, it's a good idea to discourage big fleets with the loading screen cooldown that forces players to wait to engage and reconsider fighting, but the point where the game turns that feature on is already too high. There's usually 500 people in a system before the grid load safeties are activated. Jerks are already exploiting to get around it by doing stuff like making safe spots way out in space. Multiple worlds could fix that by limiting population to like say, 5000 players on one world at one time. Big fleets wouldn't need to be there so the grid loading safety mechanisms don't ever have to turn on since there won't ever be 500 people in all of nullsec on each world. Mostly everyone will just be trading at Jita or doing those mission things. What do you guys think? I am going to go out on a limb and say you're trolling. +1 Internets for getting people to take you seriously. Well done. --Vel Originally by: Jiseinoku Mining is the path to enlightement.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 14:00:00 - [14] 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
Ninetails o'Cat League of Super Evil	Posted - 2010.04.29 14:11:00 - [15] Originally by: Louis deGuerre Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails i think there should be a seperate server for pirates and one for the rest of us who just want to play the game in peace lol x I thought this was supposed to be evil Cat ? generic evil comment
Ripcha Headov Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2010.04.29 14:15:00 - [16] no no no. 1 of eves best aspects is the single shard universe, everyone in 1 big boiling pot of chaos and carnage. sending it down the route of 'other successful mmo's' i.e. 'same ole SH*T', would destroy the game. there would be no more epic fleet battles, no more fighting hard over an area of space to call your own, no more epic struggles over the prime real estate of eve. why fight for space on this server if u can chicken out and go to another server with hardly anyone on it. It would become hellokitty online. eve should NEVER, EVER become that.
Hammerswift Thunder Caldari	Posted - 2010.04.29 14:18:00 - [17] Hell no you want split servers then go play SWG. i like the sandbox as it is. it may be full of cat turds and rusty hot wheels but its where and how i want to play.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.04.29 14:22:00 - [18] Successful troll is successful. - I wish I was a two foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Serpents smile	Posted - 2010.04.29 14:27:00 - [19] Originally by: Kallieah What do you guys think? I think, A: you are trolling or B: you didn't think when composing that rabble. Cannot decide what's worse.
Irina Bubulyna Minmatar	Posted - 2010.04.29 15:44:00 - [20] Originally by: Kallieah So there's some lag out there caused by big fleet fights and dev teams are working to resolve the problem. Because I have a lot of insight into these sorts of things, I'm going to toss out a suggestion. Because I have a lot of insight into these sorts of things = I play WOW
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 15:51:00 - [21] Okay, some of you are making the incorrect assumption that bigger is always better. That simply isn't the case with EVE. In much the same way that frigates are useful, so are smaller world divisions. CCP could put up one or two PvP realms for the small percentage of people that actually fight each other (I'll be on one of those!) or just build ten realms and count off account from the start and assign the numbers one through ten to get them on the newer, faster realms in a fairly even distribution of account age. Personally, I prefer the consensual PvP and PvE only idea since it makes more sense and would bring the community closer together. Then CCP can remove the grid loading cooldown and worry about feature development l for things like customizable avatar clothing or uplodable ship graphics. And, by the way, I know its not the only solution. Second Life is all one world and even Hello Kitty that you guys constantly bash only has one, lag-free world.
Dan O'Connor Cerberus Network Dignitas.	Posted - 2010.04.29 16:02:00 - [22] Originally by: Kallieah Tl;dr Split up TQ into tiny realms like WoW I urge you to come back once you understand the Sandbox concept EVE is based upon, and why it makes it stand out of the crowd. ________________________ Store \| Apply
Wolfgang Jager Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2010.04.29 16:09:00 - [23] Splitting up the server is a horrid idea! But perhaps CCP should have listened a bit more closely to those of us who suggested that "fixing" SOV warfare by simply renaming the big mega-damage structures you had to blow up was a bad idea. If there was a reason to fight over multiple points in a system and over a longer period of time instead of the massive blob clusterhumping a target or two, you might not have the massive lag from 800+ ships trying to all be on the same grid.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 16:16:00 - [24] Originally by: Dan O'Connor I urge you to come back once you understand the Sandbox concept EVE is based upon, and why it makes it stand out of the crowd. Dan, I respect your opinion, but I urge you to do away with the narrowminded perspective that a sandbox has to be full or overflowing with preschoolers to be any fun. Consider ten realms with a PCU of about 2500 - 6000 players, some PvP and some not. You get TEN equally huge sandboxes that contain the same number of shovels, buckets, and plastic dumpers as you have now and far fewer children with which to have a grabby "That one's mine!" argument with. It makes EVE better and more diverse as well as bigger! And laggy fleet stuff is gone too automagically!
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 16:22:00 - [25] Originally by: Wolfgang Jager Splitting up the server is a horrid idea! But perhaps CCP should have listened a bit more closely to those of us who suggested that "fixing" SOV warfare by simply renaming the big mega-damage structures you had to blow up was a bad idea. If there was a reason to fight over multiple points in a system and over a longer period of time instead of the massive blob clusterhumping a target or two, you might not have the massive lag from 800+ ships trying to all be on the same grid. Wasn't that what Dominion was supposed to fix? By implementing a grid load queue to keep people from swarming a full system, the prevented people in big alliances from breaking the Big T when 800 morons all tried to stuff themselves into a system. And then you guys exploited deep safes to circumvent loading cooldown that compounded the problem further.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.04.29 16:44:00 - [26] Originally by: Kallieah Consider ten realms with a PCU of about 2500 - 6000 players, some PvP and some not. You get TEN equally huge sandboxes Quoting a sage response for truth: I urge you to come back once you understand the Sandbox concept EVE is based upon, and why it makes it stand out of the crowd. - I wish I was a two foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Ran Khanon Amarr Vengeance Innovations	Posted - 2010.04.29 16:44:00 - [27] Originally by: Serpents smile Originally by: Kallieah What do you guys think? I think, A: you are trolling or B: you didn't think when composing that rabble. Cannot decide what's worse. Yup. It is possibly the worst idea ever. I've played those other mmorpgs which do this and it is horrible. Having a single, perpetual gameworld should be a law for mmorpgs. Help us to make parrots game related today!
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.04.29 16:48:00 - [28] Originally by: Ran Khanon Having a single, perpetual gameworld should be a law for mmorpgs. I think any that don't violate the true definition. What's the difference between 'multiplayer' and 'massively multiplayer'? Some arbitrary number? I think not. Massively multiplayer should be defined as every player (however many or few) on one server/shard. - I wish I was a two foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 17:03:00 - [29] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Ran Khanon Having a single, perpetual gameworld should be a law for mmorpgs. I think any that don't violate the true definition. What's the difference between 'multiplayer' and 'massively multiplayer'? Some arbitrary number? I think not. Massively multiplayer should be defined as every player (however many or few) on one server/shard. Standardized definitions would be nice in order to more accurately represent a set of circumstances, but that isn't the case oft times. In reality the idea of something being massively multiplayer came about long before EVE was a competitor in the MMO arena. Honestly, I've seen lots of declarations that this is a stupid idea, but little (some yes) actual supporting commentary about why this is a bad idea as a lag fix. I believe I know why too, because it -will- fix lag and most of you feel threatened by other MMOs only because you're trying to convince yourselves that what you play now is the best.
Taedrin Gallente Xovoni Directorate	Posted - 2010.04.29 17:05:00 - [30] Alright, even though this might be a troll, allow me to explain why this does NOTHING. TQ is already split into multiple smaller servers. Each solar system is located on a node. Some nodes are responsible for more than one solar system, while some nodes are responsible for just one solar system (Jita and Motsu being the best examples, IIRC). When you jump from one system to another, your character and ship are literally moving from one server to the next server. You disconnect from one node and connect to the next node. BEFORE Dominion, EVE nodes would start suffering the side effects of being overloaded when they hit something like 1400 players. It should be noted that this is similar to WoW's servers. Or in other words, even IF you split TQ into smaller realms, you would still have to deal with the fact that each solar system can only withstand a certain number of concurrent players. In order to makes this effective, you would have to split TQ into so many different realms that EVE would cease to be what it is. Each realm would have to have a maximum population of around 4-6k players (based off of WoW numbers). If you REALLY want to get rid of lag, you need to do one of three things: a) Prevent players from piling into the same node, ie make it strategically important to split up forces and strike multiple solar systems at once instead of blobbing a single solar system at a time. b) Improve the performance of the nodes, for example by rewriting the server code from scratch to emphasize parallel computation of solar systems. Currently we have a maximum of one CPU per solar system. Alternatives to this is simply buying bigger and better hardware, but IIRC CCP already has just about the best commercially viable hardware in existence. c) Increase the efficiency of the node's code. Don't have any examples for this one, but this is what CCP has been focusing on for the most part. Examples include the "Dragon" patch which contained nothing but server optimizations. Somehow, the Dominion code turned out to be a huge step backwards in this regard. I am positive that CCP currently has many software engineers frantically working to bring lag back to pre-dominion levels. ---------- Originally by: Dr Fighter "how do you know when youve had a repro accident" Theres modules missing and morphite in your mineral pile.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.