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 - 2010.05.01 03:01:00 - [151] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Kallieah I am too! Nyah! In all seriousness, I'm listening to you right now and I want you to contribute in a valuable manner! The only constructive contribution would be to stop posting in this thread. Observe: I'll miss you Crumple! And no matter how we feel about this stuff, I still think you're a great guy for all the other things you do in the forum so thanks for dropping in your ideas! . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
failpirate	Posted - 2010.05.01 03:10:00 - [152] op is right. bawwwwwwing doesn't get you anywhere. adapt or die.
Don Pellegrino The Tuskers	Posted - 2010.05.01 03:41:00 - [153] 9.5/10 troll. It only lacks a picture or movie.
Usagi Toshiro Amarr PoliCratton Technologies Crimson Dragons	Posted - 2010.05.01 04:21:00 - [154] Originally by: Kallieah 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! See that bold part? That is what makes EVE truly great. If I want another kid's shovel and pail, I can take it or die trying. Just think of each Solar System as a "server" or "fresh sandbox" if you don't like what is going on in one, jump to another. Just watch out for a bigger kid without a shovel and pail...
Red Woodson Estrale Frontiers	Posted - 2010.05.01 07:06:00 - [155] Edited by: Red Woodson on 01/05/2010 07:20:05 From the OP: Originally by: Kallieah 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. From a later post: Originally by: Kallieah 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. --implementing a grid load queue to keep people from swarming a full system-- --implementing a grid load queue-- So wait, CCP has changed their official stance from 'grid load issues are not intended, and we are working on it' to 'grid load issues are a feature to discourage blobbing'? Where did i miss that announcement? I have to hand it to you, well hidden whine there. I didn't catch it in the OP the first time, as it is late here, and I'm tired, but something felt wrong enough with it to keep me reading, and when i read the later post it hit me like a brick. No points for the troll of multiple shards though. EDIT: Didn't read the whole thread before posting. Seems more people bit on the shard troll than i thought, and you began calling it lag rather than "grid load queue to keep people from swarming a full system". Not bad. So maybe it is later than i thought here, and i'm more tired than i thought.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 07:47:00 - [156] 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
Mr SmartGuy	Posted - 2010.05.01 09:32:00 - [157] Originally by: Kallieah What do you guys think? I'm thinking that you were not thinking when you posted your thoughts about thinking that it would be cool to have multiple servers. TL;DR: No.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 14:13:00 - [158] Originally by: Usagi Toshiro If I want another kid's shovel and pail, I can take it or die trying. Just think of each Solar System as a "server" or "fresh sandbox" if you don't like what is going on in one, jump to another. Just watch out for a bigger kid without a shovel and pail... I agree that is a good aspect of the game that can continue to happen when we get more than one widdle EVE to play on. The problem is that anyone can go everywhere so too many people go to the same place with means we need to manage overpopulation. I guess you could alternatively make EVE about five times larger, but it wouldn't totally fix stuff. Originally by: Red Woodson So wait, CCP has changed their official stance from 'grid load issues are not intended, and we are working on it' to 'grid load issues are a feature to discourage blobbing'? Where did i miss that announcement? Horrible people on the forums destroy CCP staff with angry ravings when they announce anything new or good. Why wouldn't they just slip it in there and see how things went? I know I would! Originally by: Tippia 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. 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. They do fine when they aren't mismanaged like PotBS or suck like STO. CCP won't mismanage the game. Originally by: Mr SmartGuy I'm thinking that you were not thinking when you posted your thoughts about thinking that it would be cool to have multiple servers. Hey, you're a smart guy, what do you think I was thinking? I'm just trying to make a positive contribution to the community with which I play internet spaceships. . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.05.01 14:20:00 - [159] 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
Albetta	Posted - 2010.05.01 14:21:00 - [160] Originally by: Kallieah Because I have a lot of insight into these sorts of things Apparently not.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 14:29:00 - [161] Edited by: Kallieah on 01/05/2010 14:30:52 Originally by: Tippia Right. Except that adding more realms doesn't solve that. It isn't an all encompassing fix, but to does mitigate the circumstances that cause the problem since sov space holders can't just agree to trade systems based on the outcome of a game of Reversi between the executor corp CEOs. Originally by: Tippia 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. It's not -the- reason. People want scifi spaceships. One world is just a gimmick that people already playing it use to justify continuing to play. Psychological crutch and nothing more and there are lots of others to use in its place. . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.05.01 14:36:00 - [162] 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
Serpents smile	Posted - 2010.05.01 14:45:00 - [163] Why are you guys arguing with someone who has Quote: Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM! in his signature? Supporting EVE's future combined with breaking up the cluster into cluster ****. Rrright.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 14:46:00 - [164] Originally by: Tippia 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? Going with more realms doesn't mean that the same amount of computer crunchies is available per player. I said earlier: Originally by: Kallieah This is directed mostly to Tip and Avon. Where is the lag generating population going to come from when the overall numbers are comfortably small? 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. So yeah, like DUH and stuff! If you don't read things, you can't make an informed point in a debate. 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. EVE's uniqueness isn't really debatable here though since this thread is all about making the Big T in Little T, Little T, Little T, etc. On topic with you! . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Avon Caldari Versatech Co. Aeternus.	Posted - 2010.05.01 16:02:00 - [165] As I said before: Quote: 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. If anything, lag will scale at worse than 1:1 per $ when you factor in things that need to be paid for which do not directly impact "in space" performance (like chat / market / proxy servers, etc). This takes you to a position where TQ lags at 500 player, but in each of 10 available shards the same lag will be experienced with less than 50 players. 250 vs 250 fights are pretty groovy, but the same lag level in a 20 vs 20 would be somewhat less epic. As I said before, sharding can not answer the problem because it addresses neither human nature or flawed game mechanics. Signature removed, please only use English on the forums. Zymurgist Okay sweet-cheeks xxx. Avon
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.05.01 16:03:00 - [166] 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
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 16:13:00 - [167] Edited by: Kallieah on 01/05/2010 16:14:25 Avon, you made a good point, BUUUUUT you're forgetting that increased numbers of people results in exponential scaling. I'll get all silly techie again to highlight the point, but on a more simplified numeric scale. (this kinda goes for you too Tip, since you insist on me doing detailed stuff, but I don't mind if it helps understanding!) Assume two people are brawling it out in a pair of rookie ships, each with one (edit: two, darn math!) civ blaster(s). They're the only two people on the grid and in the node at the moment. The node needs only manage interaction between say, four turrets at most and update two clients. So that's 2x4 = 8 right? Now add two more players in rookie ships and you get 4x8 = 32 That's a LOT more so as fleet interaction grows data processing requirements grow exponentially larger with each additional participant on that node. Fewer people means LESS crunchies are needed to run the same number of clients in a lag free enviroment! . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Agent77	Posted - 2010.05.01 17:05:00 - [168] if eve was ever seperated into multiple servers i would go for only 2. One for Non Rp'ers and one for Rp'ers
Armageddon Brown Bjorn Filthy Incorporated Eternal Strife	Posted - 2010.05.01 17:38:00 - [169] Edited by: Armageddon Brown on 01/05/2010 17:38:52 Originally by: Agent77 if eve was ever seperated into multiple servers i would go for only 2. One for Non Rp'ers and one for Rp'ers In my experience, in eve, there is precious little difference. except for the occasional sputters of "It's just a game, man!" the gameplay of non-rper's conforms pretty well to the RP expectations of other players. eve doesn't need sharding; eve needs more efficient net-code. (to be fair, eve already has some of the most efficient netcode in the world) even then though, if 500 v 500 didn't lag, people would just blob up to 1000 v 1000
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 17:59:00 - [170] Originally by: Armageddon Brown Edited by: Armageddon Brown on 01/05/2010 17:38:52 Originally by: Agent77 if eve was ever seperated into multiple servers i would go for only 2. One for Non Rp'ers and one for Rp'ers In my experience, in eve, there is precious little difference. except for the occasional sputters of "It's just a game, man!" the gameplay of non-rper's conforms pretty well to the RP expectations of other players. eve doesn't need sharding; eve needs more efficient net-code. (to be fair, eve already has some of the most efficient netcode in the world) even then though, if 500 v 500 didn't lag, people would just blob up to 1000 v 1000 Good points! I believe that two would be a great start, just open a new one and let people start to trickle into it. I'm not sure about roleplaying either. It'd be easy to encourage, but hard to enforce or make it mandatory and that could lead to another kind of griefing. "Let's go to the RP realms and harass the roleplay people!" or somesuch. And yes, I bet EVE is ultra-mega-super-sticky-gooey-efficient. 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. Thanks both of you for sharing! . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.05.01 18:02:00 - [171] 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
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 18:05:00 - [172] Originally by: Tippia 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? No, not really. Can you 'splain what you're on about please? . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.05.01 18:09:00 - [173] 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
Mashie Saldana Red Federation	Posted - 2010.05.01 18:10:00 - [174] Limit it to 64 players per server, lag problems solved.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 18:16:00 - [175] Originally by: Tippia 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? Well it's not really for me to decide, but the guy who just posted kinda said it, but in a funny way. 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. They'd be able to collect metrics really easily and use "open season" migration to let people flip between stuff, but I bet most people will naturally go where there's space and freedom so they'd self-balance a lot on their own. BTW, what happened to IT alliance and you? . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.05.01 19:11:00 - [176] 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
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.02 00:11:00 - [177] Originally by: Tippia 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. 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]" I'm pretty sure I just offered a solution that you said I didn't offer and then, after stating I didn't offer one, made fun of the one that I offered. (Hehe, confusing huh? But funny anyhow!) So yeah, it might not be to your liking, but I'm not too worried about making you in specific happy since you're kinda hard to please or might just be trolling like other people are saying: Originally by: Straight Chillen Damn, this guy is trolling the hell outta all of you. See?! He knows what you're doing! It's all in good fun though so have at it! Originally by: Tippia bunching up pays off and nothing you've suggested counters this fact. Bunching up can sometimes pay off, but generally this is best when dealing with similar sized bunching up. It's all maintained in scale with population density so smaller bunches will still work just as well when the other people are also in smaller bunches. Originally by: Tippia 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 I can sympathize with that. The time you hafta invest in EVE to really make a difference in a larger empire doesn't work with everyone's RL needs. If you're looking for another alliance you and your corp might want to <insert shameless plug> drop in an app with Elysium! It's on the opposite extreme as most sov alliances, being laid-back and quite fun which could be good for a new corp getting settled in. . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Hecate Shaw Caldari United Freemerchants Society	Posted - 2010.05.02 02:24:00 - [178] Originally by: Kallieah Originally by: Hecate Shaw Kallieah - have you seen the video released by CCP entitled "Eve Butterfly Effect"? Given what is said in that video, I think your chances of convincing them to shard TQ is somewhere between "NO!" and "Oh, **** NO!". I did see the video and it was sort of interesting and well made too even. Though I doubt that has anything to do with anything really aside from the fact that your actions impact potentially the whole world. That's still true if there's more than one world. First, you seem to have missed the point - the idea is that your actions can affect EVERYONE PLAYING THE GAME, not just the small percent on whatever shard you happen to be on right now. That is the way CCP wants it, as evidenced in that video. Given that, what do you really think are the odds that they will shard Eve? Second, we get a lot more attention on Eve from the staff and devs because they don't have endless dozens of shards to look in on, only one. They connect with us far more than you will ever see on one of those other games with countless shards. I played the most popular one for four years and saw only one ANYTHING in an open chat channel that whole time - the day of a very buggy patch. For a few minutes. Compare that to how often you find GM's lurking in Help and other channels here. Third, because they only need to cover a single server, they don't have to spend as much on staff. That's money that can run directly into other areas. Stercus accidit
illford baker EVE RONIN R-I-P	Posted - 2010.05.02 02:29:00 - [179] bad idea, on a list of bad ideas, keyboard lights as a major expansion feature would rank higher than any idea that uses multiple servers.
Boltorano Fourth Circle Total Comfort	Posted - 2010.05.02 03:12:00 - [180] Edited by: Boltorano on 02/05/2010 03:15:41 Forgive me, but it has been a few days since I last read the first few pages of this thread, but my question is this: Has anyone actually posted in agreement with the OP in this thread? Edit: This thread is only two days old? Seems like it has been going on for ages.

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.