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)
Lost Troll Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.04.30 05:20:00 - [91] Originally by: Kallieah I think there's a basic misunderstanding in what I'm proposing here. Yes, EVE exists on multiple computers and I know that. So yes, it does act like it's a bunch of realms already and that's great, but it also allows everyone to go everywhere at any time. This is also good, but it causes the potential for lots of laggies that adversely impact the people who are driving the bulk of the player-created content, the nullsec empires. If there were cute widdle EVEs, you couldn't all go swarming into the same place at the same time like a bunch of lemmings and there wouldn't be the same laggies that everyone gets now, even with the exact same number of computers running multiple worlds. That's kinda what I'm getting at here and lotsa people keep missing what I kinda thought would be a pretty obvious solution. It might take some things away from EVE and I don't argue that, but I'd rather have smaller worlds (population I mean) with unique histories of their own versus one large broken one full of people who all hate the game because the big empires can't have the fleet fights they deserve. Kallieah, we get what you are saying, but it would not fix the lag issue with null sec fleet battles. Each system runs on its own node with the exception of a few systems that share nodes. Each node is its own blade computer with multiple CPUs and ram installed. Now the only time a node is used by a client, is when they jump into the system that node contains or log in. So a person traveling from say RQH-MY to MQ-PNY will not have an affect on you fleet battle in system D2-HOS. But what will affect your fleet battle, is the code running on the node you are on, this is ware the issue lies. The code is broken right now and not allowing stack less I/O threading to work correctly and CCP is working on it now to get fixed. So even if you were to break the cluster up into smaller clusters, you would still have the lag issue that you are having now. You would also have less people to play with in your alliance. It would also segregate the player base like it dose with games like wow with players from different nationalities. And I think that would be one of the greatest losses for EVE as whole. In the 4 years I have played, I have met allot of people from around the word, and that's one of the things that keeps me playing. Well that and its Internet space ships.
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2010.04.30 05:32:00 - [92] Hrm, perhaps a more concise way of expressing the point I was trying to make is: "lag happens because people keep flocking to the same system until lag happens." Still, I think the idea of requiring near-simultaneous action in multiple disparate systems is the secret to reducing fleet fight lag (by reducing the size of the fleets on any one grid). Applying the same mechanism to empire, and thus having Traffic Control notices become a regular occurrence rather than a quirk of post-DT boot-up, and having trade in Jita restricted by the "physics" of star gate travel, would be a good thing. Trade requires relative scarcity. [Aussie players: join channels ANZAC or AUSSIES]
Ninetails o'Cat League of Super Evil	Posted - 2010.04.30 05:45:00 - [93] Originally by: Mara Rinn Hrm, perhaps a more concise way of expressing the point I was trying to make is: "lag happens because people keep flocking to the same system until lag happens." Still, I think the idea of requiring near-simultaneous action in multiple disparate systems is the secret to reducing fleet fight lag (by reducing the size of the fleets on any one grid). But then the defenders can just blob on one of the required objectives and the attackers will never be able to take it.
Zitus NON PROPERO	Posted - 2010.04.30 08:06:00 - [94] Originally by: Tippia Quote: It could be like how other, super successful MMOs ruin their games. Fixed /thread ------------------ I'm not sure if my eyes are actually bleeding, or if it's merely my brain bleeding out through my eye sockets, but either way, it hurts to read what you just wrote
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2010.04.30 09:09:00 - [95] Originally by: Ninetails o'Cat But then the defenders can just blob on one of the required objectives and the attackers will never be able to take it. Yeah, and it also occurred to me that there are problems in the situation where a system has, say, three gates, and two of the gates are to systems that the alliance already holds. But in that instance, the situation is no worse than it is currently - all the fleet are blobbed in one spot. In the least-good case, a held system has at least two star gates to other systems that the holder doesn't have claim over. So perhaps requiring the interdiction only reach an average over the non-sovereign stargates is the key. The defender blobbing one gate will make the second gate vulnerable. Or take a step back and reevaluate what the concern is. I want sov mechanics to allow systems to be attacked or defended using actions that take days or weeks to complete. This is to allow casual players to take part in alliance actions, and discourage alarm-clock ops. I want these actions to benefit from the attacker or defender spreading their forces out, without dictating that they do so - point action should have some reward, but the reward for diffuse action in this instance should be greater. No, this does not reflect real life, but then in real life we don't have stargates or ships that can travel at faster-than-light speeds in realspace. I want a sov claiming/challenging mechanic that will reward the deployment of black ops fleets in strategic situations. Perhaps we can adjust the Faction Warfare system to suit this situation? In the same way that friendly forces can probe down anomalies and what have you, the enemy could come in and do the same thing? If you can project more force than the enemy, your indexes go up. If the enemy manages to come into your system and clear out more asteroids, pirates and exploration sites than you can, you lose your claim to the system? Would this encourage more, smaller fights? Would attackers be willing to infiltrate enemy systems in many small ships to clear out as many exploration sites as possible before the enemy reacts? [Aussie players: join channels ANZAC or AUSSIES]
Jukhtress Mein	Posted - 2010.04.30 10:08:00 - [96] Tehehe
arbiter reformed Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.04.30 10:17:00 - [97] Edited by: arbiter reformed on 30/04/2010 10:20:59 Originally by: BORRIS DEMONTFORD Pirates of The Burning Sea started off with 13 servers it now has 2, 1 of which is on its last legs, most players attribute the shedding of the games population, at least in part, to the players being spread too thin. pobts is a bood example of why this doesnt work, 1 team will dominate one server another will dominate another and then some will be really boring and everyone flocks to the interesting servers also people seem to be forgetting CHINA SERVER!
Jasper Grimpkin Trader's Academy MPA	Posted - 2010.04.30 11:39:00 - [98] i want to be king of eve
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 13:14:00 - [99] So I suppose it's fair to summarize this by saying that the community is resistant to the idea of a multiple world game, because 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. The status quo must be maintained because the status quo seems the only acceptable solution to at least the vocal segment of the population that spends time in the forums discussing the nature of a problem it identified. I can understand that, but I'll contend that lag will be an ongoing problem that will persist regardless of optimizations since there are such large numbers of people living their lives out in the Big T. I'll be one of the first people to toss myself into the proverbial breech though when the day comes that a second cluster is opened up because, quite honestly, I see more space for fun in an empty place versus one filled to the +50k PCU of our current world. Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 13:21:00 - [100] 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
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 13:29:00 - [101] Originally by: Tippia 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. I hope you don't mind moving there in short bursts of carnage between half hour waits for grid load. In all seriousness though, I'm not ignoring that there have been a lot of game changes which were done to adapt the world to deal with increased numbers. 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. Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 13:33:00 - [102] 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
John Nerush Perkone	Posted - 2010.04.30 13:55:00 - [103] 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 This is just one of the reasons I would never vote you as CSM lol
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.04.30 14:19:00 - [104] Originally by: Kallieah So I suppose it's fair to summarize this by saying that the community is resistant to the idea of a multiple world game, because it believes that it is now necessary to have a population at current levels That's one reason. You seem reluctant to type all the reasons. I don't know why. Sure it would be a long list and would completely undermine your idea... oh wait nvm. - I wish I was a three foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 14:21:00 - [105] 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. Humor me for a moment though. Let's assume that CCP would announce that a new cluster is available and that players could transfer their characters there over the upcoming month free of charge. Following that there'd be a nominal service fee to relocate an account. 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? Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Mashie Saldana Red Federation	Posted - 2010.04.30 14:24:00 - [106] This is a really good troll +1 internets to the OP for making people post 4 pages with serious replies.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 14:31:00 - [107] 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
Jasdemi Caldari Caldari Frontiers	Posted - 2010.04.30 14:33:00 - [108] What a lame suggestion. --------------------------------------------- Jasdemi's High Quality TS3 Hosting
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 14:37:00 - [109] I use it as an argument because it exists and has been a problem for years now. 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. Secondly, if nothing would happen, how does the existance of an additional cluster or clusters result in a fun demolishing cataclysm? Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 14:45:00 - [110] 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
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 14:54:00 - [111] I was around last year and yes there was less lag, but not "no lag." Cutting up the community does nothing to damage the social aspects of the game in the long term. 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. And already answered in what way? You said nothing would happen so I contend there would be no harm. You, in essence, supported that, yet still claim there is some lurking horror we'd deal with. Obviously since we're still discussing the issue in a rational manner (for which I thank you, your civil exploration of the topic is uncommonly kind), so something is left that I'm missing. I want to understand you thoughts and involve you in this as a community member, but that does require a response with a little more substance. Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
AdmiralJohn The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 14:56:00 - [112] Kall, don't you have work or something? WORK, NOW.
Ana Vyr	Posted - 2010.04.30 15:03:00 - [113] You'd wreck EvE's best feature? Having everybody in one instance of the game is what makes it so unique and cool.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 15:06:00 - [114] 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
Boltorano Fourth Circle Total Comfort	Posted - 2010.04.30 15:30:00 - [115] Consider me another member in the "I will quit playing the day EVE is sharded because I will no longer be able to interact with the whole of the player base within the same game environment." camp. I will never play a MMOG that is not shardless in the manner that EVE is. I have never actually encountered real system lag beyond serious "cluster is going down!!1!11!one" moments, but I hear things were pretty lag-free before Dominion?
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 17:07:00 - [116] Tip, I really do think that we come from very different sides of this topic and I'm starting to doubt that we'll ever be able to find some agreeable point on this topic. Please don't take this as dismissive of your ideas though. I just think it's best to agree to disagree on the matter and acknowledge that we each find fun to be something fundamentally different. Originally by: Boltorano Consider me another member in the "I will quit playing the day EVE is sharded because I will no longer be able to interact with the whole of the player base within the same game environment." camp. I will never play a MMOG that is not shardless in the manner that EVE is. I have never actually encountered real system lag beyond serious "cluster is going down!!1!11!one" moments, but I hear things were pretty lag-free before Dominion? Bolt that'd be a shame if people left EVE because of something like this, but on the flipside, lots of people say they'll quit and never do or only use the most recent change as an excuse to quit. If you would genuinely leave over something so silly an insignificant as the existance of another EVE, then your contribution to the community woild be missed. In the pre-Dominion past there was a time when fleet lag was not as prominent and the getting was good, so to speak. However, even earlier still, there were lag issues that were considered game breaking by the small minority of people that did hop into large scale fleet battles. I think another alternative would be to modify game mechanics to make territorial control more fluid as running brawls rather than siege warfare which they are now. Nothing is fun about sitting outside or inside the castle walls hurling things at one another in a basically static conflict over the right to call some pretty space scenery your own. Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Thrasymachus TheSophist	Posted - 2010.04.30 17:22:00 - [117] OK, add me to the list of troll victims, but I can't resist ... 1. It won't solve Fleet lag. The game is on a single "server" but it really operates like multiple servers. You cannot interact with anyone in game unless you're on the same grid. That grid is placed on its own shard. Even if you split the total population into 10 servers with 5,000 players on each, when Alliance A attacks Alliance B, the size of teh fleet fight in the individual grid remains constant, and is not better handled simply because other shards are dealing with less data. The only solution to the lag problem is to increase the computing power applied to each grid - but that solution is independent of how many worlds you have. 2. The only aspects of the game that are truely global are the very ones that make Eve unique and so cool. (1) Chat channels and (2) The Market. However, splitting these off would have no effect on fleet lag because these functions are run on different resources than the fleet fights anyway. 3. Not only would the OP's suggestion have no effect on fleet lag, it would have a detrimental effect on the market and social aspects. With the market in particular - efficieny comes from volume. Cutting the volume down to 1/10 and you seriously cripple the ability to have an efficient market. Just look at the markets in those "otehr" games - they suck, mostlye because there is insufficient volume.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 17:38:00 - [118] Okay, I'll get super-dee-duper technical for a moment. I'm more concerned with PCU that total numbers of registered accounts. There are a lot more active accounts than there are people logged in at any given time. When I get into numeric values, I'm talking in terms of people connected at any given time. Now, with that said, if there were 5000 characters active from that pool, there's next to zero chance that even 600 of them will be in two warring nullsec alliances. Most of them will still sulk around highsec being involved in whatever is happening there and therefore be non-entities when it comes to lag on node X in "nobody cares but alliance A and alliance B space" since the actual war for sov, let's face it, is a yawnfest to the silent majority of CCP's current subscriber base. Of the people that do care, some of them will be unable to participate due to RL issues, or having the wrong skillset to benefit, or being elsewhere or what have you. Therefore, I see no reason why lag will persist in this manner following the splitting of Big T. Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Avon Caldari Versatech Co. Aeternus.	Posted - 2010.04.30 17:55:00 - [119] Originally by: Kallieah Now, with that said, if there were 5000 characters active from that pool, there's next to zero chance that even 600 of them will be in two warring nullsec alliances. In which case CCP will require less nodes to support the galaxy, so nodes will run an increased amount of solar systems (it isn't realistic to think that CCP are going to run a TQ capacity setup for 1/10th of the PCU - it isn't cost effective). So, the game will still lag, just with fewer players required to cause it. Come on, you can do better than that. Signature removed, please only use English on the forums. Zymurgist Okay sweet-cheeks xxx. Avon
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 17:56:00 - [120] 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

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.