EVE Search - [Proposal] I have fixed lag.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal] I have fixed lag.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
hired goon	Posted - 2010.11.28 02:48:00 - [1] Though most people would like Lag to completely disappear, at the current level of technology it is impossible to accomplish this. CCP are trying their hardest with 'need for speed' in a multi-faceted approach that involves upgrades to hardware as well as optimizing software and fixing bugs. Unfortunately if you are waiting for gameplay in a 3000 man fleet battle to approach that of a 10 man skirmish you'll be waiting a long time. My idea approaches the issue of lag by adapting to it, rather than fighting against it. In a nutshell, I believe when the server is having trouble dealing with requests and lag is taking hold, the whole game should slow down, as in slow motion, or "bullet time", until it clears up again. The reasons I think this would be good are numerous. Firstly, when lag takes hold, you have to remember this is how the game is playing anyway. Requests from players are held in a queue, and you have to wait a long time for your guns to activate, or to target something, or warp out. At the moment the game is not designed to display it properly in the front end, so although you can 'feel' the lag, it appears as though everything should be working. My idea just makes it more visible and therefore usable. Secondly, it would give reinforcements a chance to arrive to the actual battle rather than a standoff. This is what we all want when we are on the way and hear the targets being read out over voice comms. Thirdly, it would look really cool and give the opportunity for some nice fraps. Fourthly, the node would not crash any more, because it is taking everything at its own pace. It's like a teacher who is swamped with children saying "Alright I'll deal with you one at a time. It'll take a bit longer but at least you will all be sorted out" rather than "I'll deal with you all at once aaaarrrrrgghhhh" brain explodes By slowing the game down, the server will be given a chance to handle all the requests that have been piled on top of it. Where as before it would be struggling to complete them all in real time, this way it will be able to complete them all successfully at a pace it can handle. Most importantly players will be able to play the game, albiet slowly, rather than being unable to play at all. Remember the most important part of this suggestion is, this slow down would only happen in a situation that would otherwise be unplayable due to lag. So a useless critique would be "nah that'd be annoying as hell if everything was all slow" because the alternative would be the game-breaking, server-crashing lag we are all used to. It's kinda making the best of a bad situation. -omg-
Kabaal S'sylistha Technomage Trilogy Comrades-Of-Two	Posted - 2010.11.28 05:25:00 - [2] Fight lag with...lag? This seems too logical. There has to be something wrong with it. Unfortunately, it makes sense and is the only thing I can see compensating for lag. There's none of the silly mechanics trying to influence numbers. The only issue really is the one you pointed out about reinforcements technically having more time to arrive. It also gives CCP time for node reinforcement (not sure if they can do this on the fly, but I understand it's some possibility), and it doesn't alter any mechanics for the game itself within the slow down scenario. This keeps it from encouraging metagame "So if we bring this many we can have X effect, we can use this!", since all it does is literally slow the game down if it gets to a lag situation. Would +2 this if I could. A lag fix that isn't a stealth "force people to X fleet size" thread, and would do what it intends with acceptable (in my view) consequences. Holy crabcakes. -More Pewpew, Less QQ-
Black Dranzer	Posted - 2010.11.28 06:14:00 - [3] Edited by: Black Dranzer on 28/11/2010 06:24:45 Best of all, you could play it off fictionally as space-time distortion caused by a huge number of warp drives in one place, and because the communication channels aren't as jammed, it could actually lead to improved gameplay. Turn on the matrix music and slowly maneuver your interceptor between ships. I ****ing love it.
Halione	Posted - 2010.11.28 06:21:00 - [4] crazy but it just might work, its worth a shot no?
Gallians	Posted - 2010.11.28 06:32:00 - [5] I.. would rather it wasnt needed. but support it.
Tyber Zaan	Posted - 2010.11.28 09:23:00 - [6] Originally by: Black Dranzer Edited by: Black Dranzer on 28/11/2010 06:24:45 Sums up my reaction perfectly. Supported.
Kabaal S'sylistha Caldari Technomage Trilogy Comrades-Of-Two	Posted - 2010.11.28 10:03:00 - [7] Came back to see the image. Like above post, almost like someone put a camera in my room while I commented. -More Pewpew, Less QQ-
Arklan1 Dunedain Rangers	Posted - 2010.11.28 10:22:00 - [8] i... am having trouble seeign the flaws here. hmm.
hired goon	Posted - 2010.11.28 11:35:00 - [9] Thanks for the support and ideas guys. I hope you don't mind but I added two of your ideas to my main post and cleaned the whole thing up to make it a bit easier to read. If you don't want your ideas in the OP I apologize, just send me a msg and I'll take em out ASAP! But thanks for your excellent input!
DarkAegix	Posted - 2010.11.28 13:15:00 - [10] I'd love for this to be tested on Singularity :)

Aphrodite Skripalle Galactic Defence Consortium	Posted - 2010.11.28 13:41:00 - [11] Well time is only some subjectiv illusion, if it helps playing the game better, i support this. Why not, sounds logical. And time is relativ, so why not relativ to server lag ?
Shin Dari	Posted - 2010.11.28 13:47:00 - [12] Its making too much sense (head explodes).
Acastus Vasyl	Posted - 2010.11.28 14:08:00 - [13]
Icewinder	Posted - 2010.11.28 14:11:00 - [14] Why didn't someone think of this before?
Cpt Hawkes	Posted - 2010.11.28 14:15:00 - [15] This would be AWESOME
Jahpahjay	Posted - 2010.11.28 16:06:00 - [16] Totally supported. Fantastic idea mate!
Stig Sterling Aliastra	Posted - 2010.11.28 16:41:00 - [17] CCP should hire the OP and instantly promote him. I love this! If anything in this post was mean, rude, offensive, or just uncalled for, remember this; It was directed towards you!
FinnAgain Zero Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.11.28 16:53:00 - [18] Originally by: Black Dranzer ------------------------------------------------ Hohohoho, Mister Finn, you're going to be Mister Finnagain!
Biocross	Posted - 2010.11.28 16:58:00 - [19] Originally by: Black Dranzer Edited by: Black Dranzer on 28/11/2010 06:24:45 Pic says it all.
Xynthiar	Posted - 2010.11.28 17:17:00 - [20] Originally by: Black Dranzer

Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.11.28 17:41:00 - [21] This seems like too obvious an approach for CCP not to have considered it already. But if they have, and rejected it on the grounds that the playerbase wouldn't tolerate it, then I'll add my voice to the "NO, DO IT" chorus. Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
AtlantisX	Posted - 2010.11.28 17:47:00 - [22] I saw this on an IAMA that one of the devs did on reddit a couple of weeks back: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/e55qs/iama_programmer_fixing_the_lag_in_eve_online_amaa/c15eof4 Seems this is somthing they want to do, but only after every last drop of performance is pulled out of the servers. Regardless, a most excellent idea.
Lord's Servant The Imperial Fedaykin	Posted - 2010.11.28 18:21:00 - [23] Edited by: Lord''s Servant on 28/11/2010 18:21:10 **** YEAH!!!! There are, however, 2-fold issues with this. 1.) With no "lag" (ie lost cycles, improperly applied dps), on the scale that alliances are able to deploy caps/supercaps, we're gonna see some SCARY dps applied. caps/supers instapopping every single cycle anyone? :) 2.) I can see alpha getting pretty scary 3.) goodbye armor RR, we can't use you anymore as you take an ENTIRE cycle to give me HP, hello shields, instant HP the second I take dmg ftw.... :) Conclusion: PL/Other entities who create new tactics will all start flying around in shield buffered alpha ships like machari.....oh wait...they already do nvm then....Im all for it as the game will become moar playable -Lord's Servant PS-EDIT I forgot to check support lolz -Lord's Servant
Wu Jiaqiu Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2010.11.28 21:28:00 - [24] YES. THIS. WOULD. BE. AWESOME.
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles	Posted - 2010.11.28 21:41:00 - [25] Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 28/11/2010 21:45:19 I raised this idea in a thread in response to a presentation CCP posted a few months ago, and a dev confirmed that they'd at least thought about it. Found it. Originally by: CCP Warlock Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro In the presentation, a figure of 1 message per second is mentioned. How far can this be reduced while maintaining an acceptable game experience? During a fleet engagement, a 99% chance of 0.1/s probably beats an erratic 1/s occasionally dropping to 0.01/s, so has anyone looked into a possible trade-off here? That is indeed something we're thinking about. --- 34.4:1 mineral compression
Herping yourDerp	Posted - 2010.11.28 22:03:00 - [26]
Anna Lifera Holding HAWKS is Dangerous	Posted - 2010.11.28 22:44:00 - [27] Edited by: Anna Lifera on 28/11/2010 22:47:24 Originally by: Lord's Servant Edited by: Lord''s Servant on 28/11/2010 18:21:10 **** YEAH!!!! There are, however, 2-fold issues with this. 1.) With no "lag" (ie lost cycles, improperly applied dps), on the scale that alliances are able to deploy caps/supercaps, we're gonna see some SCARY dps applied. caps/supers instapopping every single cycle anyone? :) 2.) I can see alpha getting pretty scary 3.) goodbye armor RR, we can't use you anymore as you take an ENTIRE cycle to give me HP, hello shields, instant HP the second I take dmg ftw.... :) Conclusion: PL/Other entities who create new tactics will all start flying around in shield buffered alpha ships like machari.....oh wait...they already do nvm then....Im all for it as the game will become moar playable -Lord's Servant PS-EDIT I forgot to check support lolz with everything slowed down, u would have more time to react and start transversing since they'll lock slower in real time anyway. and since it's only the game speed that slows down, your transversal will remain the same 'cause even the turrets will move and track in slow motion. pretty much nothing that can happen in slow motion wouldn't happen at normal speed anyway. except for smarter decisions 'cause u'd have even more time to assess the situation and make your moves more strategically, kinda like speed chess, only even the pawns can move and think on their own. --- You're an asset to the community Anna. Thank you for your clear concise remarks. - Draek
klyeme Soft War	Posted - 2010.11.28 23:05:00 - [28] I see 1 large problem in this. While time for the people fighting would slow down, other areas left in the game wouldn't. This would allow large numbers of support ships to come to the aid of the fleet in that system, inducing a metagame "slow down the system so our reinforcements have something to reinforce when they get there." The only solution I can see is to make the gates and cynos only allow jumps out of the system when the system goes into this state.
Patri Andari Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer	Posted - 2010.11.28 23:24:00 - [29] Patri I'll Roshambo You For That Titan!
GeeShizzle MacCloud	Posted - 2010.11.28 23:36:00 - [30] this is suuuch an epic idea! nice work on thinking out the box! trying to fix lag by tech and speed has an achilles heel in the form of a generalised version of 'the peter principle'... basically whatever ccp does to create server headroom for fleetfights the player base will inevitably eat it up with more players! at least this will help to keep the game functional and playable untill ccp can roll in the extra computing muscle to kick the fight up a gear or two! +1 and another from my alt! CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2

GeeShizzle McCloud	Posted - 2010.11.28 23:39:00 - [31] CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2
KaiserSoze434	Posted - 2010.11.29 03:51:00 - [32] I like it. I wonder if it's not being done because of a technical hurdle or something. To somewhat mitigate the dogpile effect of reinforcements being able to affect the battle more because of the slowdown I would think some sort of staggered entry to the system might have to be implemented when the slowdown gets to a certain point. "Aghast the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is."
Sed Man Gallente Deus Imperiosus Acies	Posted - 2010.11.29 05:59:00 - [33] I like the idea, but I see it also needing to impact the guy in the station fitting his ships, and the other guy in station buying stuff and selling stuff from the market... The issues I see, which can be resolved quick, by the people in the fleets are: Close your market windows before jumping into a system. Close your assets window before jumping into a system. set your overview properly so things like wrecks and drones are appropriately visible/invisible. Get all your fleet members to use cables rather than wireless (reducing latency). The bullet time is a good idea but I find it hard to think of how it could be reasonably implemented so it couldn't be abused, unless it applied to the whole universe.
XAgentRedx	Posted - 2010.11.29 13:43:00 - [34] the way i see it is as huge fleetfights are rare, and this is a really good way of helping to keep gameplay up whilst ccp run around like crazyfools! just suspend typical non combat or combat related stuff in the system eg. market orders, contract acceptance etc... as the fleetfight would be a temporary thing. If you're in a null sec system where a massive fleetfight is to occur, and you're not planning to fight or provide recon, you tend to have time befor things really kick off and you tend to know that somethings bout to go down! if anything u could allow a timer to say something about networked comm systems going down due to projected high congestion, and count down untill not combat related game elements are isolated.
Jai Di	Posted - 2010.11.29 15:57:00 - [35]
Zhi Ying	Posted - 2010.11.29 17:13:00 - [36] Support.
Crazy KSK	Posted - 2010.11.29 18:43:00 - [37] ja und ja
Tub Chil	Posted - 2010.11.29 19:32:00 - [38] lol it's like legalizing ********* can't fight it? make it ledal :D
Miss Wraith	Posted - 2010.11.29 21:33:00 - [39] Edited by: Miss Wraith on 29/11/2010 21:33:21 Originally by: Xynthiar Originally by: Black Dranzer http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6380/wellactually.gif
Arklan1 Dunedain Rangers	Posted - 2010.11.29 23:47:00 - [40] a day later, and i still can't think why this wouldn't work. we even have a logical fictional reason to support it! i've never seen a serious proposal that didn't imidiately get at least ONE major negative reply, let alone two pages worth, and nothing but positive.

HulkHogan	Posted - 2010.11.30 18:39:00 - [41]
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E	Posted - 2010.11.30 19:35:00 - [42] I kind of like the idea. A couple issues I see with it: 1. Even though the game is moving slower, that won't stop people from spamming buttons. Think about the classic video gamer leaning IRL to in response to the turning in game not being fast enough. Or, a better example is games with bullet time. Really, how many people spam the keys anyway? I know I do "jump faster, jump faster!" So, that would still need to be addressed on the client end I think (accepting the first click and not accepting another of the same command until the server has responded). 2. There will still be metagaming. I remember in IAC when we would be told to jet can ammo as fast as we could and have our drones out shooting to bring down the node so MC couldn't take out stations before our reinforcements got to us. Same would be true, whether by that old trick (I think GMs get annoyed when people do that) or simply dropping a bunch of carriers and super carriers into a system and dumping drones to slow it down. 3. Nodes. Unfortunately, each system is not hosted on a single server. So, unless the system was reinforced by CCP, making a server laggy effects multiple systems. So, we might run into a random large fight in 0.0 and cause a bunch of mission/plex runners to experience this slow down (or will they just experience the node death they currently experience)? Keep it to only reinforced nodes and you are missing half the laggy situations. I still like the idea. Just thought it would be nice to point out some cons. This signature is useless, but it is red.
Arklan1 Dunedain Rangers	Posted - 2010.12.01 00:04:00 - [43] the final point you make there is i think the critical one. this bullet time effect (shall we go with calling it spatial distortions? time dilation? something even geekier?) has got to be limited to the system the fight is in. if that means reinforced nodes only, so be it. but i'm sure the minds at ccp could figure out a way to allow the other star systems on a given node to be uneffected by the slowdown, while the system with the battle was slowed. though perhaps not. hurts my head to think about. the priortization of instructions for processing would be insanly difficult to determine. as for the metagaming and button spam - yea. i don't think it's possible to really eliminate that sort of thing. perhaps mitigate it to a degree though.
Red Raider Evil Dead L.L.C. DEM0N HUNTERS	Posted - 2010.12.01 00:31:00 - [44] Originally by: Bagehi I kind of like the idea. A couple issues I see with it: 1. Even though the game is moving slower, that won't stop people from spamming buttons. Think about the classic video gamer leaning IRL to in response to the turning in game not being fast enough. Or, a better example is games with bullet time. Really, how many people spam the keys anyway? I know I do "jump faster, jump faster!" So, that would still need to be addressed on the client end I think (accepting the first click and not accepting another of the same command until the server has responded). They could resolve some of this by making the button non-functional while pressed and since time is slowed down it will be depressed until the server cycles the command. The same thing applies to issuing other commands to keep people from changing their mind mid cycle after issuing a warp command, until the command is accepted by the server the option is greyed out in the menu and overview. All said and done I like it.
hired goon	Posted - 2010.12.02 13:05:00 - [45] friendly bump :)
CommanderData211	Posted - 2010.12.02 17:54:00 - [46] Ok, I like the idea, but it seems to me there are some troubling issues that some people might have insight into. First and foremost you would need a relative basis for consistency and for this we would probably take CPU and load of an empty node and cross reference this to some sort of baseline for time. So we have a relativistic benchmark for the passage of time in EVE as it relates to server/node load. But this begs the question, where is the line drawn? How will this mechanic know exactly when to dilate time? For example, will Jita constantly experience some sort of time dilation effects when it isn't strictly necessary to do so? Will a node with only one person on it be subjected to the same effects to maintain uniformity? Or will it simply turn itself on when a certain level of backlogging occurs? Secondly, and more importantly in my estimation, how will this be applied to one system specifically? Rather one grid specifically. I'm no guru of the infrastructure in EVE as it relates to coding, but I think it would be a monumental task to apply this sort of time dilating effect on the fly. Since we know how well fleet engagement forms work out, unless this was automated it would amount to the same thing. Other than those things, fighting lag with lag seems like an innovative idea to me but I have my reservations, including the potentiality that it is impossible, or would actually not fix the lag.
Alias 6322A	Posted - 2010.12.02 17:55:00 - [47] Diablo 2. If anyone has ever played D2 (wait a minute, who hasn't?) you'll know that when online some pretty hilarious moments happened with lag. Swinging away...slow motion...then super speed to catch up. This concept runs in line with that a little. It's a good idea, but the problem is people don't want slow motion at all. You're right that the goal is unattainable (probably always will be because the game will get better faster than internet speeds?). I'd like to see what Devs could make of this though as there is one big advantage: no crashes and fleet battles keep going. They go slow...yes...but going that not at all is your point, I guess. Kind of like when SCII lags and your marines run half-speed. The game is slow as hell when that happens, but both players are still at least able to make tactical decisions at the same speed...which means the play field is still equalized, if only slower. In EVE this translates to slow cycle times and movement, but everyone can still play and it just gives every player an equal chance to contribute to the battle. I support further research on how well it works.
Kabaal S'sylistha Caldari Technomage Trilogy Comrades-Of-Two	Posted - 2010.12.03 19:04:00 - [48] Best lag fix shouldn't be on page 2 til it gets a blue post. -More Pewpew, Less QQ-
Shadow Lord77	Posted - 2010.12.03 22:59:00 - [49] Edited by: Shadow Lord77 on 03/12/2010 22:59:44 And CCP could bring back some older before-lag hunting benefits that EVE used to have.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.12.03 23:17:00 - [50] Technically this solution is possible, but it's not 100% clear it would work as intended when hardware is overloaded. If "bullet time" slows down to 10 minutes per second, then it's gonna be just as unplayable as it is now. I can imagine such design would require significant rewriting of the base game logic code. It would be massive amounts of work requiring months of development and testing. And if it takes CCP 2 years to fix rockets or change cyno effects, there's just no chance they can do this.

Kabaal S'sylistha Caldari Technomage Trilogy Comrades-Of-Two	Posted - 2010.12.04 05:19:00 - [51] 10 minutes = 60000% speed change = 600 * 3000 ships = You are upset it might take 10 minutes per second with 18,000,000 ships in one system? Holy math, Mr. Slippery slope guy. Percentages are what, first grade? As for the development time, your failure at math is going to make me fairly certain you have no idea what coding entails or how it actually works. Having done it, I know well how what seems like a monumental change can be done in two or three lines, and some tiny edit would break the code. If you aren't staring at the source code, development arguments fail. And as with anything in Eve player suggested, it'll take time to go in. -More Pewpew, Less QQ-
Riyal Chode Extravaganza	Posted - 2010.12.07 12:09:00 - [52] Good idea, slower but consistent response is better than no response at all.
Crumplecorn Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.12.07 12:51:00 - [53] Yes.
Captain Muscles Clan Farthammer	Posted - 2010.12.07 15:12:00 - [54] Hell yeah.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.12.07 19:46:00 - [55] Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha 10 minutes = 60000% speed change = 600 * 3000 ships = You are upset it might take 10 minutes per second with 18,000,000 ships in one system? Holy math, Mr. Slippery slope guy. Percentages are what, first grade Lag doesn't scale linearly. But hey, if you want CCP to waste their time doing this, I'm all for it. Either way they waste 90% of their development one way or another.
GeeShizzle MacCloud Caldari	Posted - 2010.12.08 09:20:00 - [56] Originally by: Ephemeron Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha 10 minutes = 60000% speed change = 600 * 3000 ships = You are upset it might take 10 minutes per second with 18,000,000 ships in one system? Holy math, Mr. Slippery slope guy. Percentages are what, first grade Lag doesn't scale linearly. But hey, if you want CCP to waste their time doing this, I'm all for it. Either way they waste 90% of their development one way or another. im glad you're all for it then! make sure u check the give support button then! and just fyi, it may have taken a while to change rockets and cyno effects, but thats only 2 small things ccp have been working on in a huge list that you've decided to ignore! tho i have to say kaball, not too sure why you decided to multiply the lag duration by 3000 ships to get more ships? that did confuse me! either way its the best method ive heard for improving lag performance. Due to the nature of the physical world you'll never ever get rid of lag totally so thinking laterally like this should be the way forward! CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2
Kabaal S'sylistha Caldari Technomage Trilogy Comrades-Of-Two	Posted - 2010.12.08 11:06:00 - [57] Originally by: Ephemeron Lag doesn't scale linearly. How exactly does it scale then? I'm no network guru, but intuitive reasoning suggests that if you have X% more time, you can handle X% more events. Yes, once you get past the number of events you can handle things start crumbling, but that's the essence of the idea. If you have something other than a 'this is a fact' statement and a number pulled out of thin air, please share. There's quite a few of this seeming to lack this insight. -More Pewpew, Less QQ-
matthiastee	Posted - 2010.12.08 14:47:00 - [58] supported
Hodgekiss	Posted - 2010.12.08 22:57:00 - [59] Thumbs up. This is an awesome idea. I would rather play a game that felt like slowly pouring treacle than a game that feels like slowly pulling teeth. I like the matrix element too... flying a tackler in slowmo has to be fun! I see what people are saying about the reinforcements getting there in a timescale that is unlike the current game, but I am sure that any fleet commanders good enough to be handling 3000 player fleets are good enough tacticians to take this into account. Also, I don't think that the difference would be too noticeable because although the fight SHOULD go on for, say, 5x as long as it would have if we were playing at 5s/1s speed, in reality the increased precision and predictability that each player in the battle would have when attacking things without lag would reduce this difference considerably. Nice one Goon!
Tarmaxx XIII	Posted - 2010.12.08 23:01:00 - [60] Thumbs up. CCP... read it, love it, work your magic. This boy has it going on!

SargeantNekkid DDS	Posted - 2010.12.12 17:17:00 - [61] Edited by: SargeantNekkid DDS on 12/12/2010 17:17:27 http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/11/14/8c0beb9b-88fe-4211-85f5-2c60588c8017.jpg
Sciencegeek deathdealer	Posted - 2010.12.12 17:47:00 - [62] This. Is. Genius.
Tek Handle Biotronics Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2010.12.12 17:53:00 - [63]
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2010.12.12 18:22:00 - [64] Good
Hecatonis Amarr	Posted - 2010.12.12 18:30:00 - [65] Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha 10 minutes = 60000% speed change = 600 * 3000 ships = You are upset it might take 10 minutes per second with 18,000,000 ships in one system? Holy math, Mr. Slippery slope guy. Percentages are what, first grade? dude, you are way too cranky, lag is not linear its best described as exponential (number of actions)^(number of observers) you should really read the dev blogs it was explained a bit. Quote: As for the development time, your failure at math is going to make me fairly certain you have no idea what coding entails or how it actually works. and your failure at understanding makes me very certain that you know even less in what where the problem is. please attempt to be a little educated before making remarkable bad comments like this Quote: Having done it, I know well how what seems like a monumental change can be done in two or three lines, and some tiny edit would break the code. If you aren't staring at the source code, development arguments fail. please submit the games you help develop and code on the same scale as eve. __________________________________________________________________________________________ i like this idea, as long as there are limits put in place to stop spamming commands. unless that is done the extra time would just give people more time to extend the backlog even more __________________________________________________ stop acting like tw*ts and use your brain
Tres Farmer Gallente Federation Intelligence Service	Posted - 2010.12.12 18:43:00 - [66] Edited by: Tres Farmer on 12/12/2010 18:44:04 The physics engine can't be slowed down as you get recoils: - missiles will miss although in range, as they overshoot - ships will 'penetrate deeper' and be flung away faster/stronger - orbiting/course changes will be calculated slower so you get out of your 'optimal' more often - .. - if it were that 'easy' CCP would have implemented this ages ago support Public Idea Tracker \| 24hr PLEX
Ranka Mei	Posted - 2010.12.13 00:57:00 - [67] Edited by: Ranka Mei on 13/12/2010 00:57:50 It's a crazy idea, LOL, but it might just work. :) +1 --
Kabaal S'sylistha Caldari Technomage Trilogy Comrades-Of-Two	Posted - 2010.12.13 00:59:00 - [68] If it was events^observers we would lag out before 100 people were on grid. It's more like (eventsobservers)(observers), or eventsobservers^2. This also isn't the issue. My math in that post was pretty godawful, yes, but how lag increases really isn't the issue. If a blade can handle a million events in one second without lag (made up), then if it was 'bullet-timed' to take 10 minutes it could handle 600 million events per second without lag. Say a ship does 10 events per second average (for easy math). Do some quick algebra and you get it can handle 1000 ships on without lag or slowdown. If you make it 2 real seconds per game second you get 1414 ships without true lag. At 10 seconds bullet time (what I'd consider the peak end of the actual implementation) it would handle over 3000, a 300% increase with more stability for a 1000% time increase (which sounds bad until you compare it to "Everyone lags out and you can't do anything"). If it reached the 10 minute mark suggested by the one opponent, you would need 25000 ships, or 2500% of original. You got me. I threw out numbers quickly on a random forum post to some guy playing naysayer to a good idea. And the game I coded for was called Lithmeria, a text MUD. Go look it up, it's in beta but if you're a fan of text games it's a homebrew project by some good MUD vets. Thinking the 'scale' of the game matters when considering code and lag optimization is silly, though. -More Pewpew, Less QQ-
Zibu 81 Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2010.12.13 01:36:00 - [69] There are several things that you don't take into account. If you slowed down the time, to a point where it takes 10 seconds for server tick you may find some strange situations, like: - If the opposing fleet is warping out to a different gate (which now would take 10 minutes instead the usual 1), instead of pursuing them in warp it may be easier just to jump out, and travel around the system (in normal time) to intercept them at the other gate before they come out of warp... - Even in the slowed down time you won't be able to fly your interceptor between all the BSes. The best you could do is make one direction change every 10 seconds. - How would you slow it and speed it up? Based on what? Say you bomb 50 people at the same time, and they all die (and get podded) and leave the system, would the system suddenly speed up and make everything go way faster than it should? - How would this impact things like session changes, jump in cloak, etc? With the way it works today most people just give up on issuing new commands, as they know it won't make any difference, now if you guaranteed that every command you issue would be executed people would start spamming a lot more commands which would cause the system to slow down way more than you would assume. And in the end you would be just as frustrated as the system would be just as unresponsive (well, maybe a bit less, but still unresponsive) as you'd have to wait up to 10 seconds (or rather a minute or couple minutes) for a module to activate.
Astroka	Posted - 2010.12.13 01:39:00 - [70] Edited by: Astroka on 13/12/2010 01:43:00 Hmm could this actually be a useful and good idea? It can't be. Yet...it is. Although how large of an area would it affect? One system? That would cause some problems with people in other systems that are involved. They'd be doing everything much faster in comparison. ====================================== "Rawr" means "I love you" in dinosaur! ======================================

Lilla Kharn B4D W0LF Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.12.13 03:53:00 - [71] I give my support for this. Maybe something base on how many players are in system like the server will start to slow down in intervals starting at 1000 players. ============================================= "Only the dead have seen the end of war" - Plato
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2010.12.13 06:03:00 - [72] I really like this. The only problem is your #2 point: reinforcements. While one system plays 1 minute in 15 minutes, the rest of the systems play 15 minutes in 15 minutes. Therefore, you can swap to a new ship and join the battle 15 times as fast as you should. More reinforcements being able to pile into an already lagged situation will only make it worse, not better. And because ships are not exploding fast enough because of time slowing down, it will get worse and worse until you might as well shut down the server because playing 1 minute per hour or 1 minute every couple of hours is not worth playing. Still this is a good idea that CCP should be working on, supporting! - It's not "Play through a pre-set story, become stronger, do endgame". Gameplay is open ended, and you make your own story. Unless you're too afraid of 'pvp grief' to do anything relevant
Reed Tiburon Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2010.12.13 19:26:00 - [73] Originally by: Lord's Servant Edited by: Lord''s Servant on 28/11/2010 18:21:10 ** YEAH!!!! There are, however, 2-fold issues with this. 1.) With no "lag" (ie lost cycles, improperly applied dps), on the scale that alliances are able to deploy caps/supercaps, we're gonna see some SCARY dps applied. caps/supers instapopping every single cycle anyone? :) 2.) I can see alpha getting pretty scary Both of these are a direct result of the game getting more playable. I don't see a problem vOv Quote: 3.) goodbye armor RR, we can't use you anymore as you take an ENTIRE cycle to give me HP, hello shields, instant HP the second I take dmg ftw.... :) This could be an issue... on the other hand, considering the CPU requirements of shield RR and the relative abundance of armor-tanking ships compared to shield tanking, I don't think anything has to change. In fact, since EVERYTHING is moving slower, including targeting and DPS, it gives the armor logis a chance to apply reps with better reflexes, resulting in better RR. Originally by:** Kabaal S'sylistha The only issue really is the one you pointed out about reinforcements technically having more time to arrive. It also gives CCP time for node reinforcement (not sure if they can do this on the fly, but I understand it's some possibility), and it doesn't alter any mechanics for the game itself within the slow down scenario. This keeps it from encouraging metagame "So if we bring this many we can have X effect, we can use this!", since all it does is literally slow the game down if it gets to a lag situation. I don't really see the metagaming as a problem either. You say that people may purposely put the system into "bullet-time" in order to have more time to get reinforcements... but to purposely "slow down" the system, you would have to jump people into the system until it lags... aka... you would have to bring reinforcements... Basically you would have more time to actually coordinate reinforcements, but getting there, jumping in, loading grid etc. takes the same time. And both sides get the same time advantage. And as an added benefit, you get more efficient primary calling / tactics in general, which reduces the time spent in laggy battles. Originally by: Tyber Zaan Originally by: Black Dranzer Edited by: Black Dranzer on 28/11/2010 06:24:45 http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6380/wellactually.gif Sums up my reaction perfectly. Supported. Same here The key that I see is that there has to be a visible UI indication that informs everyone on the node (aka, several systems) that it is experiencing bullet-time effects. Or, if you prefer, you can create separate levels of "bullet-time" - sending the node into BT 1 = 0.5x time dilation, BT 2 = 0.25x, etc. This creates a concrete indication of the level of latency, rather than the uncertainty that comes with lag. After all, the whole point is consistency between the front-end and the back-end, and the point should be to clearly communicate to the players exactly how the game will behave for a given action. I really don't think we'll fully understand the downsides to this idea until we implement it, and it could be a really good idea. Supported. fakeedit: When trying to post this I got a "Time Flux Error". fakeedit2: Apparently now something happened to the "Planck Bubble Stabilizer". This idea is so good it crashed the forum!
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.12.13 21:47:00 - [74] The point that should be emphasized is that making this feature requires rewrite of core game logic code. It is a massive undertaking. It would probably cost CCP about 1 million dollars in man hours (unless they pay minimum wage, then it's not so much)
Neo160	Posted - 2010.12.14 03:11:00 - [75] Fight Lag with LAG?? What is this i dont even....hold on a second...this is so freaking crazy it JUST MIGHT WORK!!! joking aside, WHOLLY COW, you are a GENIUS, I totally support this, and in fact, fiction wise, lag has been explained this way, so implementiing it into fiction has already been done . furthuremore, this solution could be implemented while devs tackle lag, and when (or if) they eventually do, they wouldnt need to remove bullet time because it wont be activated!! THIS NEEDS MOAR SUPPORTS
Seamus Donohue	Posted - 2010.12.14 05:57:00 - [76] Supported in principle. If this is implemented, then ALL game logic will have to be internally calculated in terms of ticks and not seconds. For example, in a normal situation, ticks and seconds are the same thing, and if someone is firing a turret volley every 10 seconds at a battleship that's moving 250 meters per tick, then the battleship can cover 2.5 kilometers per volley. However, if the system is heavily populated and goes into "bullet time", then you don't want a situation where the battleship is still only moving 250 meters per tick, but the turret modules are still firing once per 10 seconds (rather than once per 10 ticks). Let's say the lag is bad enough that the server needs to take 5 seconds per tick. If the battleship is going 250 meters per tick and the turrets are firing once per 10 seconds, then the turrets are firing once per two ticks. That battleship is now only covering 500 meters per volley being shot at it. Making sure that module events get slowed down in proportion with Destiny ticks might play merry havoc with the event scheduling, because now you have to manage a time axis that's different from the rest of Tranquility. Would a CCP Developer like to explain whether or not this is actually a problem, please? So, yeah, supported in principle. I'd love to hear, though, if it's actually feasible. __________________________________________________ Survivor of Teskanen, fan of John Rourke.
Wartrec	Posted - 2010.12.15 14:30:00 - [77] This is an interesting idea but the whole universe would have to slow down. EVE is influenced by all areas and you cant have other area moving at full speed and one area moving in slow motion.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.12.15 19:31:00 - [78] Edited by: Ephemeron on 15/12/2010 19:32:09 Originally by: Wartrec This is an interesting idea but the whole universe would have to slow down. EVE is influenced by all areas and you cant have other area moving at full speed and one area moving in slow motion. actually you can, but you'd have to make sure player skill points don't slow down, and all the production going on in outposts and moon mining has to keep same rate. Only combat has to slow down Anyway, it's all possible if designed with proper frame work. But that's not how EVE is designed. And changing the frame work is ****loads of work.
Chesty McJubblies Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2010.12.15 20:06:00 - [79] tl;dr. But your proposal is that you have fixed lag? Well done. Suggestion: Remove the "new topic" button from everywhere apart from the list of topics section within a subforum. That'd save those with chronic hand/eye coordination some face.
The Darkkness	Posted - 2010.12.15 21:39:00 - [80] Kind of a bandaid solution, but a solution nonetheless.

Aeronwen Carys	Posted - 2010.12.16 10:27:00 - [81] Gets my support
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2010.12.24 12:16:00 - [82] I support this! It would some using to, but then - 2000 man battle?! WORKING PROPERLY?!?! DO WANT!!! Very good idea indeed. _______________________________________ I believe I can be considered one of the MOST EPIC people of ALL TIMES!
Big Bit	Posted - 2010.12.24 12:31:00 - [83] It was here few years ago, but wny not?
Shinomura VI	Posted - 2010.12.24 12:57:00 - [84] I support this. I also believe to get rid of lag on such massive grid is kind of out off possibilities of anybody. This may be manageable.
Garrick Spacesailer	Posted - 2010.12.24 13:20:00 - [85] I love it Adrenaline kicks, anyone?
Kethry Avenger PIE Inc.	Posted - 2010.12.24 15:30:00 - [86] Me and all my alts support this. I think slow down on other systems on the node would be better than lag for no reason in a system with only 2 people in it while running a mission. Though of course ideally limiting the temporal distortion to one system, is better than one node, with the best being localized to one grid. If/When CCP figure out how to split solar systems up into multiple nodes. I don't think shutting down the gates into the system makes sense but it would make sense if your jump into the system was effected as well with a traffic advisory or temporal distortion advisory anyway. The thing about having more time to bring support is that both sides in theory have the extra time to bring reinforcements. Though never having been part of any major 0.0 conflict I don't know how these things go down usually.
Raging George Perkone	Posted - 2010.12.24 15:35:00 - [87] Though a bit harder to implement. There are already features of system wide effects, this could just be a more functional one of those. That happens to be dynamic.
George K'ntara We Build Stuff Inc.	Posted - 2010.12.24 15:41:00 - [88] Not that this will have much to do with me and my carebearing, but it is a very clever idea that deserves a chance to be tested out. How much trouble is it for CCP to do a test feature? Seems like this is an issue that has very vocal population even if the 0.0 population in general is smaller than that of highsec. But if 0.0 is one of the end games in EVE then isn't at least attempting it worth some development time. Or at least a CCP brainstorming session. Though I would rather they spend time first trying to get that total fleet fight number as high as software and hardware could make it first then roll with the punch that is massive fleet fight lag.
Brennivargur	Posted - 2010.12.24 17:11:00 - [89] i am ok with this
Chekov Nikahd	Posted - 2010.12.25 01:54:00 - [90] Originally by: Zibu 81 There are several things that you don't take into account. If you slowed down the time, to a point where it takes 10 seconds for server tick you may find some strange situations, like: - If the opposing fleet is warping out to a different gate (which now would take 10 minutes instead the usual 1), instead of pursuing them in warp it may be easier just to jump out, and travel around the system (in normal time) to intercept them at the other gate before they come out of warp... - Even in the slowed down time you won't be able to fly your interceptor between all the BSes. The best you could do is make one direction change every 10 seconds. - How would you slow it and speed it up? Based on what? Say you bomb 50 people at the same time, and they all die (and get podded) and leave the system, would the system suddenly speed up and make everything go way faster than it should? - How would this impact things like session changes, jump in cloak, etc? And just what do you think the alternative is? [Also, you have already seemingly decided how it's going to work and attacked this imaginary implementation, which quite frankly leaves half of your post rather pointless.] If the choice is between "not being able to do anything and being lag killed after half an hour of waiting for things to load" and "actually playing and fighting, but the speed is slowed down" I'm taking the second option. Your "issues" are just new gameplay avenues and new tactics. I fully support this idea OP, thumbs up.

Rustfizzle	Posted - 2011.01.03 20:39:00 - [91] Supported!
Decus Daga	Posted - 2011.01.04 05:37:00 - [92] But... what... hmm yeah! I like it!
Yabba Addict	Posted - 2011.01.06 02:52:00 - [93] Good god, this is...brilliant I don't want to be human! I want to see gamma rays! I want to hear X-rays! I want to smell dark matter! Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I'm a machine! And I can know much more.
Vallek Arkonnis	Posted - 2011.01.07 22:27:00 - [94] When server lag falls behind real time, slow down real time to match it... So simple.
Bavarian Witch	Posted - 2011.01.11 23:12:00 - [95]
Legionos McGuiros Legio Prima Victrix Imperius Legio Victrix	Posted - 2011.01.12 20:15:00 - [96] oh my word...its soo crazy it might just work
Ciaa The Executives IT Alliance	Posted - 2011.01.14 10:41:00 - [97] Blink that might work..... DON'T PANIC!
Rouge Commando	Posted - 2011.01.14 15:08:00 - [98] love this
Helen XVII	Posted - 2011.01.14 19:04:00 - [99] Supported
Windjammer	Posted - 2011.01.15 04:02:00 - [100] Edited by: Windjammer on 15/01/2011 04:03:34 http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6380/wellactually.gif

Windjammer Gallente	Posted - 2011.01.22 21:04:00 - [101] Bump. Because we like it.
Joshawu Minden	Posted - 2011.01.22 21:08:00 - [102] The Amarr approve.
L A G Hysteria Nexus	Posted - 2011.01.22 21:39:00 - [103] Originally by: hired goon Though most people would like Lag to completely disappear personal attack!
Cometeer	Posted - 2011.01.23 00:01:00 - [104] Woooow
Cassus Temon	Posted - 2011.01.23 02:17:00 - [105] I'm not really sure what to think of this one; but hey, it does make a certain amount of sense. I do have a few concerns of course. I'm also not certain; as to the difficulties involved in implementation. Maybe it's simpler than anyone really thinks; or, it may be hard, to nigh impossible, to bring into play. Here is what I think is good about it: Instead of each server tick requiring all events to play out in real time; the server runs through multiple ticks, prior to launching all events, for the next cycle. This is similar to old strategy games, in some respects; though, it wouldn't function in the same way, with command windows. The fraps thing is a cool idea. Slowing down events, while maintaining decent FPS; would make for the potential to get nice video's. Unfortunately, it would also induce client-side lag; while making for huge files, and a significant amount of editing. And here's some things; I think would help: 1.) Implementation of a Client side click prevention, would have to be implemented; so once a module has been activated, it highlights green, till the next server cycle, or click. Highlighted like this, it will only send the server one additional command; which will prevent some of the requirement, for lag slowdown. The client side would then have to allow for a module deactivation; which will allow for a module shutdown cycle to begin, and would highlight red. So maximum to clicks per module/group; that could send commands to the server. You could denote this, with a second ring; which would be available in all gameplay. Click the module, and the command is sent, and client informs you; click it again, and shutdown command is sent, and client informs you. Nothing more will occur with that module, until the next tick, or cycle; or until it has finished its full timer cycle, in either case. Once in shutdown, it will not accept any more commands, until it has shutdown; which makes things relatively simple, as far as that goes. That would eliminate the need to click on a module; until it shows some form of activation timer, sent back from the server. Lag is bad that way. Even if you know; its hard not to try anyway. 2.) Make the slowdown scalable if possible. As ships come into system, and fighting ensues; allow the server to scale the 'Time Dilation' effect as it is needed. 10 minutes, is a long time for a tick. Each tick would occur as normal, without executing events or actions; until the server had run a full cycle of ticks. This would be the time dilation. The server would say, "x number of ticks required, to activate all events without lag; becomes one cycle, for the purpose of handling lag in this system;" and would then proceed to inform players that the system was moving into time dilation. For physics purposes, the server would slow down all physics events, to an appropriate level; and proceed to allow the last cycles events play out, while it takes commands for the next cycle. In this way, Time Dilation could occur as needed, anywhere; and would be based on the number of active pilots in a given system. 3.) As systems become overloaded with pilots, communications could be blocked. Regional markets would become inaccessible, local markets would be shut down, and chat entries would be limited to one text entry per cycle; which would be queued client side, like the module activation indicators. Fleet communications, would be limited to external Voice or text communications. This would occur as a result of system communications bottlenecks; preventing access to regional or constellation data streams, due to datanet bandwidth overloads. Gates into and out of the system; would function based on the full cycle of ticks, as it plays out in system. It's conceivable that multiple systems could be effected by this; and the effect would spread outwards from the primary system effected. This would be to a lesser degree; and would slow down reinforcements called into system.
Mars Theran	Posted - 2011.01.23 02:20:00 - [106] ^^
Windjammer Gallente	Posted - 2011.01.31 00:44:00 - [107] Bumpy road.
Aessoroz Nohbdy.	Posted - 2011.01.31 01:51:00 - [108] Edited by: Aessoroz on 31/01/2011 01:53:40 Edited by: Aessoroz on 31/01/2011 01:52:11 Edited by: Aessoroz on 31/01/2011 01:51:24 I don't see the point....say the game world runs on ticks, a tick is an update of the world/rendering/etc, fps depending on the game can translate to the tick rate. At the start of each tick, a set of actions is done in order, for example ship positions update, then weapons fired, etc. The end of each tick returns to the start of the tick. When lag occurs due to server side overload, the tick is already slowed down. Slowing down weapon modules and movement won't do much because the server still has the same set of actions to execute in a tick. Quote: 1.) Implementation of a Client side click prevention, would have to be implemented; so once a module has been activated, it highlights green, till the next server cycle, or click. Highlighted like this, it will only send the server one additional command; which will prevent some of the requirement, for lag slowdown. The client side would then have to allow for a module deactivation; which will allow for a module shutdown cycle to begin, and would highlight red. So maximum to clicks per module/group; that could send commands to the server. You could denote this, with a second ring; which would be available in all gameplay. Click the module, and the command is sent, and client informs you; click it again, and shutdown command is sent, and client informs you. Nothing more will occur with that module, until the next tick, or cycle; or until it has finished its full timer cycle, in either case. Once in shutdown, it will not accept any more commands, until it has shutdown; which makes things relatively simple, as far as that goes. That would eliminate the need to click on a module; until it shows some form of activation timer, sent back from the server. Lag is bad that way. Even if you know; its hard not to try anyway. This already happens to the point weapon modules will become broken and unresponsive/stuck in a green no cycle state until you do something drastic like jump system or relog.
Fournone	Posted - 2011.01.31 02:53:00 - [109] This actually might work. supported
Helen Minayin	Posted - 2011.02.13 14:44:00 - [110] Support

Darveses printcraft	Posted - 2011.02.13 15:03:00 - [111] Better than what we have now =) ---
Doctor Invictus Zaneta Enterprises Inc	Posted - 2011.02.13 15:12:00 - [112] Looks good.
haav0c	Posted - 2011.02.13 21:27:00 - [113] http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6380/wellactually.gif
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.14 04:17:00 - [114] Morning bump. _____________________ ...everything blasts!
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.15 04:36:00 - [115] Morning bump. Wink _____________________ ...everything blasts!
James Tiberius Kirk	Posted - 2011.02.15 14:33:00 - [116] Edited by: James Tiberius Kirk on 15/02/2011 14:33:59 While this practically turns the game into a turn based cluster**, it is still better than the soul-crashing cluster** we have. This thread just got approved by Captain J.T. Kirk!
Bilbo Baggin The Scope	Posted - 2011.02.15 15:00:00 - [117] yes
Kleatus Slick Serenity Engineering and Transport Company Fatal Ascension	Posted - 2011.02.15 15:43:00 - [118] sounds good
Ardamalis A Third Betrayal Circle of the Shadows	Posted - 2011.02.15 15:56:00 - [119] Supported But just one thought. There should be a limit on the time dilation. If the server ever gets to the point where its running at 20 or 30 sec gametime versus realtime, then CCP should just let the modulelag/server crash happen. Overall its a brilliant idea.
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.16 04:03:00 - [120] Morning bump. Wink _____________________ ...everything blasts!

Pax Ratlin Metalworks Majesta Empire	Posted - 2011.02.16 11:51:00 - [121] Supported as a temp fix to the problem
Karl Axelman	Posted - 2011.02.16 12:50:00 - [122] +1 Of course, only CCP can know for sure if it makes sense to go down this route, but hey, brilliant idea!
I'm 5particus	Posted - 2011.02.16 13:28:00 - [123] Just weird enough to work.
Shandir EVE University Ivy League	Posted - 2011.02.16 18:34:00 - [124] Would be real nice to hear from CCP if this is feasable, and what they think of it. Clever idea.
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.17 04:18:00 - [125] It's morning again? I'd swear it's been only few minutes since I fell asleep. Anyway: Bump! _____________________ ...everything blasts!
Elzon1 Shadow Boys Corp White Angels.	Posted - 2011.02.17 23:53:00 - [126] Edited by: Elzon1 on 17/02/2011 23:54:18 I have been saying something like this should happen for quite a while now, so supported. Perhaps if they dropped the little improvements for a while and got this done things could get more interesting in EVE. With this war would become less about how many resources you have and more about efficiently using those resources strategically. Now people will be able to have absolutely massive fights where they will be using up their resources as fast as they can to destroy the other side. This would come as a pretty big boost to the economy, especially if they come up with an automated system for detecting bots. With this change the little people could matter a lot more then they do now Edit: Forgot to check support I don't know where, I don't know when... but something awful is going to happen xD
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.18 03:25:00 - [127] Bump. _____________________ ...everything blasts!
MeBiatch	Posted - 2011.02.18 06:07:00 - [128]
Elzon1 Caldari Shadow Boys Corp White Angels.	Posted - 2011.02.19 01:53:00 - [129] Bumping a good idea I don't know where, I don't know when... but something awful is going to happen xD
Zirise	Posted - 2011.02.19 02:56:00 - [130] Supported until the tech evolves.

Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.19 08:22:00 - [131] Bump for the win!
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.19 15:29:00 - [132] Bump while waiting in 020-2x for my ship to target the buddy that asked for rep few minutes ago and was probably dead several more minutes before then. _____________________ ...everything blasts! http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1422034Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has [u][b]SOLVED LAG[/b
DrLuke	Posted - 2011.02.19 20:43:00 - [133] I like this idea very much!
GeeShizzle MacCloud Caldari	Posted - 2011.02.20 04:06:00 - [134] hehe! i so love this idea! ccp needs to get a small team checking this out as lag is an adapt or die situation that cant be conquerd by RL tech, no matter how fast. People will always chew up server response time in a big battle. to put it simply, activating a set of guns with lag appearing in the situation goes like this. you click to activate ur weapon on someone, the module cycles constantly until its out of ammo and reloads. you click again to activate and nothing happens... why? because according to the server thats trying to chew through all the other requests going on, your new activation request has been put on the back of the queue... which will probably take the server around 2 minutes to get to. so your module seems to stick/become unresponsive for 2 minutes... generally that tends to lead to reclicking, compounding the situation. what the op intends is to add a multiplyer in the range of 0 to 1 on the end of many of the formulas that govern time based elements of eves combat systems. Slowing the pace of the onscreen game play (slowing module cycle times for example). so that you're not clicking on things that appear to have run their course client side but have not even begun to take effect server side. this is THE only viable way of making lag battles understandable and playable in eves universe. im unsure if ccp are trying out ways to implement this but it would not be tooo hard to assume the sansha incursions are a testbed for adding additional exceptions to combat code to see if an augmentation of combat formulas can be achieved system wide, with neighbouring systems being affected too. changing formulas governing alpha damage potential and resist levels differ between formulas using time based variables only on context, and can be augmented just as easily. the only issue is scale. as time based variables are in sooo many formulas used in eve. so it is achievable, im very certain of that. the only issue i can see is the moments of misalignment and realignment of (true) server time and perceived (bullet-time) game time. CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.20 08:00:00 - [135] Bump. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Allea Naar	Posted - 2011.02.20 08:32:00 - [136] /sign
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.20 11:02:00 - [137] Edited by: Blastfizzle on 20/02/2011 11:02:44 Originally by: Allea Naar /sign You have to check "Support this topic" checkbox to actually support the idea (can be done only once per character). It's right bellow "Preview". EDIT: (while replying to topic/editing your post) ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Prime FLux	Posted - 2011.02.20 11:42:00 - [138] sounds a lot better then the current solution
Venomia Zoix	Posted - 2011.02.20 12:42:00 - [139] It makes so much sence! This has my support 100%! Also, since the lagg is node-wide the slowmotion should also be node-wide. As it is you aren't able to play on the same node as a big fight anyway, so I don't see how that would be something bad.
Semi Conductor	Posted - 2011.02.20 12:46:00 - [140] slow motion pvp is better than no pvp

Aerich e'Kieron	Posted - 2011.02.20 15:19:00 - [141] +Support
Scoop EMP Quondam Souls of the Universe corporation R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.20 15:25:00 - [142] support
MC'SAKE GeoCorp.	Posted - 2011.02.20 15:34:00 - [143] +1
ComenGo Solar Nexus. -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.02.20 16:20:00 - [144] Sounds like a cool idea. Not sure how easy/realistic it'd be to implement but does sound interesting
Phoebe Halliwel	Posted - 2011.02.20 17:00:00 - [145]
Laviski UK Corp -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.02.20 17:36:00 - [146] supported! try on sisi at the very least and see how it will pan out?
Sargeamarrminer	Posted - 2011.02.20 17:51:00 - [147] Eve Matrix :D starts doing tricks in his frigate
Foggy Night	Posted - 2011.02.20 17:52:00 - [148] Any fix to the lag situation is better than nothing ~ we all hate the current situation. Support this.
Jilozz	Posted - 2011.02.20 17:58:00 - [149] This would be great!
Ishep Hill	Posted - 2011.02.20 18:06:00 - [150] Edited by: Ishep Hill on 20/02/2011 18:05:45 Supported.

HTP2K	Posted - 2011.02.20 18:16:00 - [151] Great Idea, would luv to see this incorporated into the game for large engangements
Fyrr Deerdan Epsilon Lyr R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.20 18:20:00 - [152] Good idea! I'm not sure that it technically makes sense, but it could be tried. ½It was like walking into a bear cave in the middle of winter and popping off a few rounds for lols then sticking around to see if you get eaten or not. Well ladies, we got eaten.+ -Bobby Atlas
CrazyjoeryNL nova magna varius viverra Eden Majesta Frontier Alliance	Posted - 2011.02.20 18:21:00 - [153] i fully support this new way of creating a new way to live with the lag. in this way we can reduce the incoming and outgoing commands which will slow down the game but also will reduce the lag. great idea
Viper718 Varion Galactic OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.02.20 18:34:00 - [154] Doing something is better than doing nothing at all.
Runespear	Posted - 2011.02.20 18:36:00 - [155] Any idea that may help is worth trying.
HellsAngell	Posted - 2011.02.20 18:38:00 - [156] Great ideea , honest im sick of playing "who loads grid 1st wins", if ur on the loser side u get the "Soul Crashing Lag" pop-up window and ur basicly stuck in space for ....5mins to 12 hours. The "Incursion" part of EVE should be taken out, it only causes more lag. Old things should be fixed before new things are implemented. 8-10 months ago everything worked perfectly....2500 men fighting in 1 system with no lag, now u got 1000-1500 people and u cant do anything. I support the ideea and hope its getting implemented.
DarkArtz Celestial Mayhem Violent Entity	Posted - 2011.02.20 18:53:00 - [157] Edited by: DarkArtz on 20/02/2011 18:53:58 Supported!
Ebenizer The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.20 19:11:00 - [158] x You take the high road. Ill take your wallet.
Elena Stormbringer	Posted - 2011.02.20 19:12:00 - [159] If it solves lag I support it.
Mavric Viscosity -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.02.20 19:25:00 - [160] There are a couple things here.. It appears most ppl missed the part about slowing down eve as a whole. There would be no realistic way to slow down just the area effected. This would cause a difference in time between the people involved in the fight and everyone else in eve. If 1 system time slows then all must. I would think there would be no easy way to regain the time difference between combatants and eve in whole. I think some people are thinking way to extreme in the slowdown as well. As it stands CCP has already stated that 1 tick in game = 1 second. If this were changed to 1 tick = 2 seconds this would double the amount of tasks the servers could accomplish in 1 tick. So realisticly a 2 or 3 second lag is barely noticable but would allow the servers to do 100 to 200% more. As for the servers not allowing clicks, someone already brought that up.. It would increase the server load to make that a server side responsibility. If it is client side it would do nothing but help server load.

MaaRa CZ	Posted - 2011.02.20 19:35:00 - [161] One word: AWESOME! CCP! Let's test it!!!
GeeShizzle MacCloud Caldari	Posted - 2011.02.20 19:38:00 - [162] the way it would work is not to slow down the server ticks compared to all other systems but augment the formulas that govern anything combat/navigation related that have a time element, so speed, dps, cycle times, lock times, tracking times, missile timers, explosion velocity etc... server speed and tick time doesnt slow down.. just things that govern combat and movement. so combat slows to allow the server time to catchup and not be overloaded with requests. CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2
Salinity Now	Posted - 2011.02.20 20:50:00 - [163] good stuff
Audax Rarnikwar	Posted - 2011.02.20 22:06:00 - [164] I support this.
Exedus Omni	Posted - 2011.02.20 22:17:00 - [165] I support anything trying to be made for a fair fight for everyone. Also, how about using an alternate server for big fleet fights? i.e. If the number of people in system are over 300(or w/e), the solar system server will automaticly move to an upgraded server. Idk if it is possible, just out of my head..
Narthon Deveral	Posted - 2011.02.20 23:47:00 - [166] Anything to fix the awfulness that is large fleet battle.
Shiashi Red Horizon Inc R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.21 02:02:00 - [167] Support this and let the testing begin
Colonel STFU The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.21 05:05:00 - [168] I am Colonel STFU and I support this message...
Jagger08 Infinite Improbability Inc -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.02.21 06:40:00 - [169] Edited by: Jagger08 on 21/02/2011 06:40:32 I endorse this product and/or service.
Jamuga	Posted - 2011.02.21 07:47:00 - [170] Great idea!

Nice Nicholas	Posted - 2011.02.21 08:45:00 - [171] Hi I support this great idea needs some thinking about people outside the time slow down zone and how to resinc but great idea
Batolemaeus Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.02.21 09:00:00 - [172] Originally by: Mavric There are a couple things here.. It appears most ppl missed the part about slowing down eve as a whole. There would be no realistic way to slow down just the area effected. This would cause a difference in time between the people involved in the fight and everyone else in eve. If 1 system time slows then all must. I would think there would be no easy way to regain the time difference between combatants and eve in whole. What makes you think that? I don't think you have understood just what happens when you slow down the tickrate.
Phoenix Tyrox Krupp-Stahl Majesta Empire	Posted - 2011.02.21 09:15:00 - [173] Edited by: Phoenix Tyrox on 21/02/2011 09:14:55 Actually this is just pure .. awesomeness? Count me in.
Bob Reynor	Posted - 2011.02.21 15:34:00 - [174] definatly something that needs to be tested, like every change if it can be exploited it will, it might be the temp fix we need until something better comes along.
HaRDOuSeK Quondam Souls of the Universe corporation R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.21 18:01:00 - [175] I am supporting this idea - +1. If nothing, it at least worth to try on Singularity.
Leonardo Sabrioski Red Horizon Inc R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.21 18:04:00 - [176] +1, would like to see this implemented. --- Blood for blood
Tegho Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.21 19:28:00 - [177] u sir are a genius <insert witty comment here>
Fzoul Solar Nexus. -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.02.21 19:36:00 - [178] +rep
Xucca	Posted - 2011.02.21 21:34:00 - [179] of course
Ama1205	Posted - 2011.02.21 22:06:00 - [180] Edited by: Ama1205 on 21/02/2011 22:10:49 does ccp consider those it at all?

Ezereth	Posted - 2011.02.21 22:14:00 - [181] Yeah slow motion would be really Badass :)
Ranud Sunraker Minmatar Brothers of Destiny	Posted - 2011.02.22 01:04:00 - [182] I don't know if it feasible, but it sounds a lot better than 'Soul Crushing Lag',Ghost Ships etc. Supported. The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..." ~Isaac Asimov
Arklan1 Fleet Coordination Commission	Posted - 2011.02.22 01:44:00 - [183] i stand by my support of this, unchanged. one thing though - might i suggest a title change? it seems to me this thread may not be getting the traffic, particularly dev wise, it deserves, nay, needs to get it noticed and get soem actual input from ccp on. something descriptive... "intentional slowmo bullettime lag counter" maybe?
StryP1	Posted - 2011.02.22 02:52:00 - [184] +1 I support this.
Bawsk	Posted - 2011.02.22 03:10:00 - [185]
Botia Macracantha Minmatar freelancers inc	Posted - 2011.02.22 18:30:00 - [186] If this is even vaguely possible, with no unintended exploitable angles its a no-brainer +100 signed from me.
Zirse ZED Industries	Posted - 2011.02.22 22:45:00 - [187] This would be great interim fix until the tech catches up. Supported.
Kwashi Adhocracy Incorporated	Posted - 2011.02.24 08:40:00 - [188] Good idea. May actually reduce the number of laggy situations if bringing enough players to crash a node is no longer a valid strategy.
lwxsky oli Minmatar FACTS on EVE OWN Alliance	Posted - 2011.02.24 17:33:00 - [189] Am I understanding it right?? If lag happens, the server till reset all mods to have longer duration time?? Like, if the lag is 3 seconds, all mods will have 10 seconds more duration time?? If I'm right, I would support this idea.
GeeShizzle MacCloud Caldari	Posted - 2011.02.24 17:46:00 - [190] Originally by: lwxsky oli Am I understanding it right?? If lag happens, the server till reset all mods to have longer duration time?? Like, if the lag is 3 seconds, all mods will have 10 seconds more duration time?? If I'm right, I would support this idea. you're starting to get the idea :) say the node that the fight is on can support up to 500 players completely lag free, and then another 500 jump in and start fighting, you'll experience lag. your modules cycle and dont disengage or dont turn on when u click them, contacts that are already dead still appear on ur overview for a moment longer than normal etc.... the server would slow down everything that has a combat or navigation element in it in the system. So DPS is reduced, Alpha is not, reps per minute is reduced, speed is reduced, explosion velocity reduced etc... everything used in combat and navigation that has a time based element in the calculations. what this means for the server is less requests by pilots trying to do stuff and because of that the lag is reduced/removed. so those extra 500 pilots that jumped in would force the server to add bullet time to 100% so everything that took say 10 secs to cycle would take 20secs to cycle. and because of that the server would be able to handle twice as many pilots that it originally could, without lag as such. CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2

Orboro Naheema	Posted - 2011.02.24 19:56:00 - [191] Anything to reduce the lag monster.
EdTeach	Posted - 2011.02.25 00:05:00 - [192] Facepalm simple on the face of it. Let's Do The Time-warp Again! There has to be a nerdy coding catch somewhere, but we should be giving CCP enough money to hire the Princes of Nerdom to code this in somehow. It would seem that anyone who is inside a system when it enters this time-warp mode would have to be tagged in some way. Tagged players cannot just jump in and out of the time-warp due to some wierd-@ss spatial distortion effects on your clone or something. The tag is a timer(running on time warp speed as it adjusts on the fly) that makes a pilot wait before being able to re-enter. ---- In addition, I think that the system and every connecting system would have to be included in the time-warp to keep gate games to a minimum. Ratters/Plexers/Miners would just have to deal. ---- It seems to me that once a system enters the time-warp, every pilot in that system becomes a copy that only exists as long as the system is in that state or until that clone dies or logs. Re-integration with all other aspects of the toon/account would take place after one of the trigger events. This keeps skillpoints/researching/etc still churning along with no coding changes needed. The battle copy is trapped in the time-warp. ---- It is like the system is cloned into it's own sisi-like spacetime, so the rest of EVE can access it is some ways, but it does not affect EVE. ---- -
Kerri Desdemonia	Posted - 2011.02.25 01:27:00 - [193] The idea, though clever and certainly unique, is self-defeating. No matter how you achieve the slowdown in system (increased cycle-times, distorted / expanded time, et cetera), you invite more and more people to enter the battle. Because deaths would be slower, the battle would last longer. Remember the rest of the EVE-world is chugging along at normal speeds. More time to bat-phone friends, reship when destroyed, whatever. New parties would be jumping onto the field like never before. Currently, if you can't race to a system in time, you get to drool over KMs missed. But under this proposal, you have plenty-o-time. And with each new entry / reentry, that distorted time becomes worse and worse. Allowing for entire alliances to call up their b-teams to get to the fray from further and further distances. And their friends. And so on and so on. While the system wouldn't crash like it does now, you would have fleets of ships just looking at each other (perhaps making rude gestures out the window) and doing little else. For those of you who have been on the test server, imagine "move" requests en masse on tranquility so you can go to work, kiss the GF / wife, develop old-age, to get out of the battle. Points for a clever idea. But IMO - counterproductive.
Slade Trillgon Endless Possibilities Inc.	Posted - 2011.02.25 01:55:00 - [194] Edited by: Slade Trillgon on 25/02/2011 01:55:25 Very interesting indeed. Supported. Slade :Signature Temporarily Disabled:
GeeShizzle MacCloud Caldari	Posted - 2011.02.25 20:25:00 - [195] Originally by: Kerri Desdemonia The idea, though clever and certainly unique, is self-defeating. No matter how you achieve the slowdown in system (increased cycle-times, distorted / expanded time, et cetera), you invite more and more people to enter the battle. Because deaths would be slower, the battle would last longer. Remember the rest of the EVE-world is chugging along at normal speeds. More time to bat-phone friends, reship when destroyed, whatever. New parties would be jumping onto the field like never before. Currently, if you can't race to a system in time, you get to drool over KMs missed. But under this proposal, you have plenty-o-time. And with each new entry / reentry, that distorted time becomes worse and worse. Allowing for entire alliances to call up their b-teams to get to the fray from further and further distances. And their friends. And so on and so on. While the system wouldn't crash like it does now, you would have fleets of ships just looking at each other (perhaps making rude gestures out the window) and doing little else. For those of you who have been on the test server, imagine "move" requests en masse on tranquility so you can go to work, kiss the GF / wife, develop old-age, to get out of the battle. Points for a clever idea. But IMO - counterproductive. this would be the end result if and only if the node being used to conduct the battle on was an amstrad or sinclaire spectrum. i hate it when people exadurate their points to the absolute extreme, its ridiculous and completely unnecisary! Firstly this measure is to counter lag and only lag, its not a full proof way of having 2000+ player battles on any single server blade. the idea is to keep gameplay remotely playable between a mass of players converging and overwhelming a server and ccp reinforcing the node to allow full speed gameplay. CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2
Allerthy Ministers Of Destruction. -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.02.26 19:34:00 - [196] Great idea! Supported
MisterOizo	Posted - 2011.02.27 12:18:00 - [197] I support it, just hope the space-time continuum stuff is ok with it too.
Daxel Magmalloy	Posted - 2011.02.27 13:44:00 - [198] Seems like a practical and sensible approach to minimising lag and making the game playable in large fleet fights. Supported.
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.27 19:04:00 - [199] Bump. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.28 04:18:00 - [200] Bump. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!

Flaming Lies	Posted - 2011.02.28 13:47:00 - [201] Strange idea..... but.... yes! supported
Azgard Majik -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.02.28 14:15:00 - [202] Like it.
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.28 17:24:00 - [203] Bumpage! ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Jonny Evil	Posted - 2011.02.28 19:00:00 - [204] I Agree, sound like a plan!
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.28 19:38:00 - [205] Originally by: Jonny Evil I Agree, sound like a plan! If you really want to support this idea, you ought to check "Support this topic: Check here if you want to give your support to the idea/discussion going on" checkbox - it's in the reply to topic/edit post screen. By the way, I will keep bumping this topic until I die... or until the idea is implemented into the game, wichever comes first. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.28 20:00:00 - [206] This topic needs a bump. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.02.28 20:23:00 - [207] Bump ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.01 17:25:00 - [208] Bump. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Saidin Thor	Posted - 2011.03.02 00:12:00 - [209] Very cool idea. It would need some testing to see how effective it would be, but, assuming it works as I think it would, this would be a great way to help reduce the lameage of large fleet fights.
Karles	Posted - 2011.03.02 06:27:00 - [210] I think will be better to solve the lag but I think is better than wait 40 minutes to see that you are in a pod. I support it.

Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.03 21:05:00 - [211] Lack of bump :( ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Gaius Duilius	Posted - 2011.03.03 23:59:00 - [212] Great idea! Ensures the game is playable in otherwise laggy situations and allows CCP to work on reducing lag without constantly being shouted at about how lag is breaking the game. Originally by: klyeme I see 1 large problem in this. While time for the people fighting would slow down, other areas left in the game wouldn't. This would allow large numbers of support ships to come to the aid of the fleet in that system, inducing a metagame "slow down the system so our reinforcements have something to reinforce when they get there." The only solution I can see is to make the gates and cynos only allow jumps out of the system when the system goes into this state. I like that idea especially since it will force the fight to be broken up across multiple systems, something CCP has said they want to see. Reinforcing fleets arriving on the scene too late will have to fight in near by systems unless they want to just sit around and wait for the temporal distortions to end. There should probably be some time delay between when a system enters bullet time and when it gets locked down, though. That way if you're planning to hot drop on someone, your bait fleet doesn't get hung out to dry when the system suddenly gets locked down.
Arklan1 Fleet Coordination Commission	Posted - 2011.03.04 00:08:00 - [213] exactly how i see it. bullet time engages, theres a window of oppurtunity to jump in system, after which only exiting is allowed and gates/cyno are locked, thus preventing the ever worsening of the bullet time effect, and potentially spreading the fight to other systems as fleets attempt to reach the locked system.
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.04 03:11:00 - [214] I'm a bump man! ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Tarikan	Posted - 2011.03.04 03:31:00 - [215] supported, would be a good idea and should at least be tried out on SiSi
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.04 14:16:00 - [216] Bump. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.04 16:36:00 - [217] Bump. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.04 17:19:00 - [218] Bump. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.05 07:19:00 - [219] Bump. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.05 16:17:00 - [220] Bump. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!

Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.05 23:06:00 - [221] Bump. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.06 07:12:00 - [222] Bump. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.06 15:46:00 - [223] Bump. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.06 19:14:00 - [224] Bump. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.07 04:09:00 - [225] Bump. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.07 19:07:00 - [226] Bump. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Yu Lee Infinite Improbability Inc -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.03.07 23:27:00 - [227] nice idea supported
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.08 04:20:00 - [228] Bump. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.08 19:15:00 - [229] Bump. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.08 20:19:00 - [230] Bump.

SammyullJackson	Posted - 2011.03.09 02:58:00 - [231] You really should stop bumping... if it's a good idea, it'll stay afloat on it's own. Filling it with literally a full page of bumps just makes you (the OP) look bad. That said, while it's a good idea, the problems with it have already been covered. There's no way you can justify slowing the whole game down whenever a big fleet engagement goes down, and the only other solution is to somehow prevent the metagaming (since time has slowed down in that system only, they just need to call their alliance in and wait for reinforcements). As said, this can be done by preventing jumps, but then this kind of ruins the strategy of having vanguards -- basically, you're forcing the attackers to either commit their full force or only part of it, since they won't be able to reinforce. But heck, what am I saying, it's all been covered in this thread probably dozens of times already.
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.09 04:24:00 - [232] Bump. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
GeeShizzle MacCloud Caldari	Posted - 2011.03.09 11:13:00 - [233] Originally by: SammyullJackson You really should stop bumping... if it's a good idea, it'll stay afloat on it's own. Filling it with literally a full page of bumps just makes you (the OP) look bad. That said, while it's a good idea, the problems with it have already been covered. There's no way you can justify slowing the whole game down whenever a big fleet engagement goes down, and the only other solution is to somehow prevent the metagaming (since time has slowed down in that system only, they just need to call their alliance in and wait for reinforcements). As said, this can be done by preventing jumps, but then this kind of ruins the strategy of having vanguards -- basically, you're forcing the attackers to either commit their full force or only part of it, since they won't be able to reinforce. But heck, what am I saying, it's all been covered in this thread probably dozens of times already. yes i do believe those comments were made and i do believe that both were met with counters that logically solved them without any game breaking situations, in fact i believe they actually started to achieve what CCP wants from large scale fleet fight + reinforcements, and that was a broken up engagement consisting of the main fight with smaller secondary fights in surrounding systems. CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.09 20:00:00 - [234] Bump. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.09 20:30:00 - [235] Originally by: SammyullJackson You really should stop bumping... if it's a good idea, it'll stay afloat on it's own. Filling it with literally a full page of bumps just makes you (the OP) look bad. "if it's a good idea, it'll stay afloat on it's own" - I wish that would be true, but my real life experience tells otherwise. Anyway... statistics: 86.51% of players live in empire, 11.07% in nullsec, and 2.42% in w-space. (source - QEN Q3 2010 eveonline.com/community/QEN/QEN_Q3-2010.pdf) So I believe it could be said that only 10% of all players have regular experience with big fleet battles. (I'm not sure how FW fares, never dit that) To simplify things - 90% of people that watch Assembly Hall aren't really hurt by lag... and it ain't medialized enough to make them care. So they don't care. Example: I know nothing about what eunuchs want... I don't care about them and I don't hear about them. And I don't care about homosexuals either - but I surely hear about them. My point is: We have to keep reminding that lag exists to people that don't experience, just like we are reminded that homosexuals exist even when we are heterosexuals. I keep reminding this thread in alliance and fleet and local channels (I'm part of NC and live in LS-JEP), and I keep bumping this thread so that it is vissible. If you have other suggestions how to medialize this thread... I'm listening. (Statement: I'm not homophobic or anything like that... as long as the people in my fleet keep the cap chain up AND LEAVE THE WRECKS FOR ME, I like them. And if I'm not the only one with full rack of salvagers I hate them, not caring for their religious/sexual/political orientation) ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
Blastfizzle R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.03.09 22:25:00 - [236] Bump. ___ Capsuleer 'Hired Goon' has SOLVED LAG. Support his thread in the Assembly Hall!
hired goon	Posted - 2011.03.10 02:03:00 - [237] Originally by: Blastfizzle Bump. Hey man. I do really appreciate your support for this idea. But I'm gonna ask you to stop bumping because; a) If the forum mods see that string of bumps they might lock the topic. b) People are going to think you're my alt and I'm bumping my own thread. c) Posting without 'supporting' creates a kind of 'counter-support' which people can see when they look at how many replies vs how many supports the topic has. Topics that traditionally have many more replies than supports show that many more people disagree with the topic and are posting their arguments against it. d) I have my own method for gathering support and directing people here, that i'm constantly working on behind the scenes Thanks so much for your evidently enthusiastic support though! If you really want to help, the best way is to get as many people as you can to post and click "support"
Che Biko Humanitarian Communists	Posted - 2011.03.10 14:30:00 - [238] Playing slowly beats playing terribly/not at all.

CCP Zymurgist Gallente C C P	Posted - 2011.03.10 17:06:00 - [239] Thread cleaned of spam. Please do not "bump" this thread, you are more than welcome to discuss the idea. Zymurgist Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact Us

Mielono SWARTA	Posted - 2011.03.12 08:32:00 - [240] Originally by: Culmen A cat is like that carebear who sticks around only while there's food, and at best kills a few rats.A dog F*cking enforces NBSI, and deep down is slightly disappointed you aren't tak

H3ndrix freelancers inc -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.03.24 03:10:00 - [241] I used to have a Sig but CCP Nerfed it !!!! It wasn't Nerfed, it was moderationally enhanced. -Darth Patches
J Kunjeh	Posted - 2011.03.24 13:36:00 - [242] Supported, though I'm not sure how technically feasible it is (but i'd LOVE to read a really long, totally geeked out Dev Blog discussing the possibility). ~Gnosis~
Max Kolonko Caldari Worm Nation Ash Alliance	Posted - 2011.03.29 11:26:00 - [243] as i was watching fanfest feed one of Devs said they will go for it. They will (not soon, but in a long run) try to implement something like this. Max Kolonko
Levistus Junior Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2011.03.29 12:37:00 - [244] Supported. Wanted to say how cool this idea is, but others said it already
Inka Kaoru Perkone	Posted - 2011.03.29 23:16:00 - [245] Genius. +1
GeeShizzle MacCloud Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.03 16:44:00 - [246] i thought it wasnt just me that saw that part of fanfest! theres no vid on youtube with the presentation on server performance etc... cant remember what that actual presentation was called bt made me smile when i caught Brian BossT's comment refering to this idea! YAAAAAAAY!!! CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2
Jonathan Malcom Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.04.03 17:40:00 - [247] This actually sound like a pretty cool solution. I mean, who doesn't like slow motion fight scenes.
Dunkler Imperator N.F.H.P. Fatal Ascension	Posted - 2011.04.04 03:22:00 - [248]
The Mittani	Posted - 2011.04.04 03:27:00 - [249] time dilation is the holy grail enabling of epic fleet fights. this is about to get a ****load of attention. The Mittani for CSM6 Sins of a Solar Spymaster
Tyme Xandr Gallente Dark Circle Enforcement	Posted - 2011.04.04 20:55:00 - [250] I've read much of this thread but it was difficult to find posts that added to the discussion. My main concern is like other have pointed out that this would give more time for reinforcements (which honestly isnt that bad of a thing in many cases as it works for both sides ...) but here my thought that may have been brought up before, so if it has just ignore me. The immediate area around the system should experience a similar effect. One or two jumps spidering from the system would be given the same notification and have similar 'bullet time' effects. This doesnt necessarily stop people from using caps to jump in but would slow down reinforcements using the traditional methods of coming in. Also, would caps that jump fleets experience an additional wait time to jump in? Say the system was decreased by a factor of half time. Would the cap jumping in from a different system have to wait twice as long to jump? [≡v≡]

GeeShizzle MacCloud Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.05 11:39:00 - [251] well there is the issue of titan bridging into a maxxed out system, as well as other caps. having a large amount of ships jumping in does create a lot of server load straight away so this specific fix wont be able to resolve that as such. but once in the system, request load for every kind of movement will be subject to the time dilation. although... the server wont be as backed up as normal from fighting in system so jumping in would be a little quicker i guess! and btw im glad you're in support of this Mittani! i see my vote didnt go to waste! =) i would like this understood and known to all though, im pretty sure the effect has to be server wide so affecting all systems tied to the server the system is on, therefore in the interests of all players on in the systems hosted on the server it would have to only be implemented on a pre-requested DEDICATED server only. basically fill out those fleet fight notification forms before downtime pretty plz! this isnt a suggested feature, just pre-empt'ing what i believe CCP would most likely say if they did implement it. hope that answered some questions for u Tyme Xandr =) CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2
Maaxeru	Posted - 2011.04.05 15:29:00 - [252] Edited by: Maaxeru on 05/04/2011 15:32:58 Think about it: Even the OP wrote Originally by: hired goon It would give reinforcements a chance to arrive to the actual battle rather than at a standoff. This is what we all want when we are on the way and hear the targets being read out over voice comms. it doesn't alter any mechanics for the game itself within the slow down scenario. This keeps it from encouraging metagame "So if we bring this many we can have X effect, we can use this!", since all it does is literally slow the game down if it gets to a lag situation. While slowing down cycle-times would not reduce alpha damage, it would reduce DPS, hence allowing for longer battles. Longer battles means, as the OP wrote, time for more reinforcements to enter the target system and time for those dead to re-enter the battle. The very thing you are attempting at fixing (lag due to blobs) is the thing you are encouraging! You are only essentially creating synthetic lag (the newly increased cycle time versus existing non-responsive modules) and creating a system that encourages even larger numbers of participants in a battle. If you are in a super and the whole world starts flashing red, you have a much greater chance with increased cycle-times to opt to exit the battle via the old Crtl-Q option. Which means fewer dead caps and supers. Hence the OPs suggestion that there are no meta-game aspects of this proposal are false. This proposal would also certainly help the largest of Alliances / Coalitions, and be another nail in the mid- to small Alliance's coffins. (Note: I am a member of an Alliance in a Coalition, but pointing this out to be fair.) More chances to turn the tide of a losing battle by calling in another group of people, but now with even more time if you are calling people from further away. Another hidden meta-game aspect of the proposal for battles where one or more of the participants didn't have a chance to monkey with game mechanics ahead of time. At fanfest, did talk with the Dev who champions this idea and pointed these realities out. Even he agreed that the consequences could be exactly what is explained above. If anything, this proposal should be called the "lag on steroids fix".
GeeShizzle MacCloud Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.05 16:35:00 - [253] Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud on 05/04/2011 16:39:33 Originally by: Maaxeru While slowing down cycle-times would not reduce alpha damage, it would reduce DPS, hence allowing for longer battles. Longer battles means, as the OP wrote, time for more reinforcements to enter the target system and time for those dead to re-enter the battle. The very thing you are attempting at fixing (lag due to blobs) is the thing you are encouraging! if i dont recall the whole war on lag is to streamline server performance to allow players to fight lag free... but its been seen that the more headroom u give the more players enter and fight. this although isnt a bad thing in principle as the perfect situation ccp's technical team want would be to handle any size fight lag free. theyre goal is to slowly close the gap from the current situation to this perfect state. Originally by: Maaxeru ...and creating a system that encourages even larger numbers of participants in a battle. from what you're saying it sounds like you're very much opposed to wanting a beautifully streamlined system capable of handling any size fleet fight. i guess the reasoning would be that opponents outgunned would have to actually fight fairly and actually bring in game tactics into use rather then metagaming/intentional server crash tactics to succeed against the odds. tell me another game where this isnt considered deliberate hacking or cheating? Originally by: Maaxeru If you are in a super and the whole world starts flashing red, you have a much greater chance with increased cycle-times to opt to exit the battle via the old Crtl-Q option. as apposed to having the whole server locked down with 3 1/2 hours of lag not knowing if your multi billion isk ship has survived or not through absolutely no fault of your own, your fc's or the games actual in built mechanics? less lag benefits both parties of a fight... u DO realise this right? less lag means in actual fact less server calls per second so more chance of being able to lock and alpha something off the field. plus you do realise that ships logging off take time to align and warp out from the field, let alone the aggression timer that has to go before the ship actually disappears from the system. Originally by: Maaxeru Which means fewer dead caps and supers. Hence the OPs suggestion that there are no meta-game aspects of this proposal are false. what you call incurred meta gaming aspects of this proposal im pretty sure everyone at CCP would call a c t u a l designed game mechanics. fair enough game mechanics would be stretched to an extent but they wont be utterly annihilated by the current clusterfk situation happening. Originally by:** Maaxeru This proposal would also certainly help the largest of Alliances / Coalitions, and be another nail in the mid- to small Alliance's coffins. (Note: I am a member of an Alliance in a Coalition, but pointing this out to be fair.) More chances to turn the tide of a losing battle by calling in another group of people, but now with even more time if you are calling people from further away. Another hidden meta-game aspect of the proposal for battles where one or more of the participants didn't have a chance to monkey with game mechanics ahead of time. i agree a large alliance/coalition that has stagnated and become carebares shouldnt be allowed to keep space by game mechanics but something like that would not by sheer behavior muscle up enough to fight blob vs blob regardless of being allowed more time to rally more members to the fight, purely for the fact they just wont fight. TL;DR... i love the fact people cry at game fixes that means they loose an edge they shouldnt have even had in the first place! since when should a game be augmented to allow the continuation of bugs and exploits than actually played using the original designers mechanics???? CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2
Maaxeru	Posted - 2011.04.05 18:35:00 - [254] Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud if i dont recall the whole war on lag is to streamline server performance to allow players to fight lag free... but its been seen that the more headroom u give the more players enter and fight. this although isnt a bad thing in principle as the perfect situation ccp's technical team want would be to handle any size fight lag free. theyre goal is to slowly close the gap from the current situation to this perfect state. All this proposal would do is replace the current server lag with intended module lag. Six of one and a half dozen of another. AND, because it allows for more people to enter the battle, does not counter the essential element of lag: The blob itself. Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud from what you're saying it sounds like you're very much opposed to wanting a beautifully streamlined system capable of handling any size fleet fight. i guess the reasoning would be that opponents outgunned would have to actually fight fairly and actually bring in game tactics into use rather then metagaming/intentional server crash tactics to succeed against the odds. tell me another game where this isnt considered deliberate hacking or cheating? Quite the opposite: I am in favor of streamlined battles that require tactics over solely numbers. But, as was stated in the roundtable on the matter, if you open the door to 2000 man fights, people will bring in 2500. Open it to 2500, they will bring in 3000. This proposal will not change that. And then you have traditional lag AND now defacto module lag. Nothing accomplished. And, though I agree with you that the Eve-mechanic of crashing nodes when things go south is reprehensible, nothing proposed here will stop other methods of deliberately causing node-death. Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud as apposed to having the whole server locked down with 3 1/2 hours of lag not knowing if your multi billion isk ship has survived or not through absolutely no fault of your own, your fc's or the games actual in built mechanics? That is why many FCs prefer not to drop into lagfests if avoidable. Look at the prolonged dance just this week between NC. and NC up north. Both sides decided to not drop into that situation rather then rather then risk their caps / supers with lag uncertainty. And in countless other instances where a fleet was stood down because the enemy was already in position. In a way, current lag does force some strategy. This proposal creates more of a free-for-all approach to blobbing with even higher numbers of conventionals and capitals / supers. Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud plus you do realise that ships logging off take time to align and warp out from the field, let alone the aggression timer that has to go before the ship actually disappears from the system. Yes - but with the reduced DPS due to module times being increased, the chances to kill a SC or Titan go down before it deagresses. Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud i agree a large alliance/coalition that has stagnated and become carebares shouldnt be allowed to keep space by game mechanics but something like that would not by sheer behavior muscle up enough to fight blob vs blob regardless of being allowed more time to rally more members to the fight, purely for the fact they just wont fight. We have seen fleets sent home for fear of crashing nodes (when things were going in that party's favor). Or being told they were too far from the battle. IF the module-cycle-timer does accomplish anything (and, last I checked, there are MANY other elements that contribute to lag that this proposal does not cover), those forces will now enter the battle. But yes: If a fleet / alliance / coalition just won't fight, it should die. But that goes beyond the conversation here.
Zirise Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2011.04.06 03:35:00 - [255] Originally by: The Mittani time dilation is the holy grail enabling of epic fleet fights. this is about to get a ****load of attention. Sweet.
Egilmonsc Massively Mob	Posted - 2011.04.06 05:04:00 - [256] Edited by: Egilmonsc on 06/04/2011 05:03:57 "Bullet time" Like Max Payne with Spaceships. Supported. --- Where we're going, we won't need eyes to see.
GeeShizzle MacCloud Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.06 10:39:00 - [257] Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud on 06/04/2011 10:43:42 PART 1 of 2 (im very very sorry!! :S) Originally by: Maaxeru All this proposal would do is replace the current server lag with intended module lag. Six of one and a half dozen of another. AND, because it allows for more people to enter the battle, does not counter the essential element of lag: The blob itself. current server lag consists of a variety of different types of lag. yes this proposal doesnt fix all of them but it DOES offer a fix for one of the more annoying ones for players on the client side and thats module lag. as i can practically guarantee at least half of the players in fleet fights re-activate and resend module requests to the server when their modules stick and continuously re-cycle. the increased cycle times due to time dialation would reduce the amount of re-requests for modules, reducing the "ahole" effect as bosse i think put it! lol! this is a pro-active fix to reduce the amount of re-requests by players in combat, thats the idea. Originally by:** Maaxeru Quite the opposite: I am in favor of streamlined battles that require tactics over solely numbers. But, as was stated in the roundtable on the matter, if you open the door to 2000 man fights, people will bring in 2500. Open it to 2500, they will bring in 3000. This proposal will not change that. And then you have traditional lag AND now defacto module lag. Nothing accomplished. yes it is true that previous experiences in opening the limit to higher fleet numbers have seen higher numbers than expected but this is not a linear thing... there IS a limit to how many people can be rallied we just havent seen the top of that curve yet. it doesnt mean we should give up when the going gets tough. nothing easily attained is worth it! this proposal WILL help reduce emorage from module lag, which generally causes module re-activations/re-requests to the server thats unnecessary. so in summary yes this doesnt tackle module lag in a perfect world, but when do u EVER experience a perfect world scenario in the real world? you dont! This proposal reduces the chance of emorage from module lag in large scale combat and therefore reduces the amount of re-requests for the same things in the server. plus with the reduction of the speed of battles you reduce the amount of necessary normal activations compared to a full speed battle. Originally by: Maaxeru And, though I agree with you that the Eve-mechanic of crashing nodes when things go south is reprehensible, nothing proposed here will stop other methods of deliberately causing node-death. thats very true.. and it was never ment to!!! the same tactics to cause node death will still be possible. BUT.. and this is a biiig but, massive amounts of server requests by players will be extremely obvious in comparison to players genuinely waiting for their modules to cycle at the longer durations. if anything Bosse could write an automatic program that can hunt down clients sending massive amounts of requests compared to a normal amount for a particular ship (as SC's will be putting out more requests to the server from fighters etc than an ecm BS for example.) what bosse wants to do with these people is up to him and CCP, but forcing a client DC with a re-logging cooldown timer i dont think would be that harsh bearing in mind what that person is trying to do. tbc... CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2
GeeShizzle MacCloud Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.06 11:11:00 - [258] Part 2 of 2 Originally by: Maaxeru That is why many FCs prefer not to drop into lagfests if avoidable. Look at the prolonged dance just this week between NC. and NC up north. Both sides decided to not drop into that situation rather then rather then risk their caps / supers with lag uncertainty. And in countless other instances where a fleet was stood down because the enemy was already in position. In a way, current lag does force some strategy. This proposal creates more of a free-for-all approach to blobbing with even higher numbers of conventionals and capitals / supers. No, as i had said before the proposal helps fix module lag and reduce unnecessary re-requests. Yes you could say that the reduction in re-requests might mean lag when jumping in to a new system would be reduced, but i doubt it would be abolished entirely. Originally by: Maaxeru Yes - but with the reduced DPS due to module times being increased, the chances to kill a SC or Titan go down before it deagresses. you do realise that this fix is designed to augment ANYTHING in the node that has a time based element in its calculations... that includes de-agression timers.. so yes DPS will be reduced but EVERYTHING combat related scales to the same degree. so you would have more time to kill that super because it would take longer to de-agress. Originally by: Maaxeru We have seen fleets sent home for fear of crashing nodes (when things were going in that party's favor). Or being told they were too far from the battle. IF the module-cycle-timer does accomplish anything (and, last I checked, there are MANY other elements that contribute to lag that this proposal does not cover), those forces will now enter the battle. sure, thats if you want to jump a massive fleet into a less lagged system that it would normally be, but the amount of request sent and needed to be recieved by that fleet to actively start pvp'ing is a lot more than the fleet already loaded and on grid.. so current strategic decisions on jumping in still applies. the increased module time would partially re-ballance this to what the original game mechanics were intended to do, and thats what we all want!! The only people who dont want that are people who want to carry on using metagaming/node-crashing advantages they shouldnt really have in the first place! currently in massive lag fleet battles your ability to pvp is irrelevent. its almost purely guesswork whether you'd live or die, and you're totally at the mercy of random elements that 99% of people dont understand and cannot predict. so at the moment yes its a blob fest that means if u blob bigger u win. but the less lag affects players ability to PVP the more skill and battlefield tactics trumps blob size. im done now, thank GOD!! :S CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2
Misaki Yuuko	Posted - 2011.04.06 14:51:00 - [259] good idea is good
Mamba Lev BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2011.04.06 18:02:00 - [260] +10

Raid'En	Posted - 2011.04.11 18:35:00 - [261] seems you win ---------------- Wormhole Trading
Zen Sarum	Posted - 2011.04.11 20:54:00 - [262] This is feeding a symptom. The symptom is everyone crowding in one system. what we need is 200 people in 10 systems fighting for sov and with each other.. not 2000 people all in the same system / 2 systems not fighting each other. If you blob you should fail and lose sov.. (yes you are going to need to organise and run multiple fleets to win, Fun stuff). This is the only way forward which is sustainable. It however requires devs to grow a brain and create a multifaceted sov system not based on ALL SIT HERE IN ONE SYSTEM AND GRIND TIMERS, this is not fun and is not a sandbox and will always cause this problem. A first step helpful step in this would also be for the NC to realise this is the problems, and stop blobbing and whining about the lag they cause and then demanding action to fix the symptom they created. As such I do not support this idea as it fixes nothing.
Tau Ching Yu	Posted - 2011.04.11 21:48:00 - [263] Supported. Currently lag turns a large fight in to a multiple billion isk dice roll, and anyone coming in to the party late doesn't get to play. I'd rather be annoyed at extremely slow moving ships than the hellish conditions currently going on. Also, Eve: Bullet Time may knock out one of the reasons to blob people don't like to mention: If you fill a system with your fleet, the enemy can't load before they are dead and the "grid holders" win by default. Swap that out for a situation where people would have to fight or flee in slow motion, and they will either live with it or come up with ways to not have everyone on grid at once.
Calathea Sata State War Academy	Posted - 2011.04.12 01:49:00 - [264] This idea needs to be strongly put down, because of reasons below. Originally posted in a thread in General Discussions. Time Dilation will not work. Formalizing lag as a game mechanic, really? That is really, really the worst way possible of fixing the problem, the problem of "whoever brings the most wins thus making everyone blobing as big a blob as possible". It will not fix the problem, only easing the syndrome, simply because of people will always try to bring as many as possible into the fight and the system will always be stretched outside its limit. Formalizing lag (Time Dilation) can ony ease out that much of lag and people will just keep bringing in more and more people until the server cannot afford the workload again. Moreover, it simply sounds ridiculous and immersion breaking. Lag is a natural product of the current game design itself: the fantasy of unlimited numbers of ship fighting together vs the realistic capabilities of the internet and the servers. As long as bringing as many ships into the fight as possible means easier wins, people will do it. Time Dilation won't work. Instead CCP should think about the game design itself: is the concept of an unlimited amount of ships fighting realistic? Perhaps 1000 vs 1000 will not be too different than 2000 vs 2000 simply because the screen and overview cannot contain that much information? Perhaps it is not 1000 but 500? How should we discourage people going over 500, maybe we can create some mechanisms to eliminate the advantages of bringing in more than 500 ships? Etc etc, I am only illustrating an example. I am sure there are better ideas than this one; I am sure someone can think of many more better ideas. But Time Dilation is the worst solution possible. Lag cannot be solved, only designed out Lag will always be present as long as the mechanics do not change: people will just bring in more and more until the server breaks, even if the server can run 10x faster than now. The game mechanics itself is to blame, not the coding or network itself (but it is relevant). I think it is not a hard concept to understand. The game mechanics simply need to be designed to accommodate realistic numbers. Instead of not limiting the number of ships on grid at all (which simply encourages bigger and bigger blobs) there should be at least some sort of discouragement of simply spamming quantity of ships(it is pretty stupid to be honest), if not hard limits on the game itself (max number of friendlies on-grid, max number of ships doing effective DPS to a target, etc). The game needs designed, unlike the current "no design" design which will always, always be broken by bigger and bigger blobs.
Ganthrithor Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.04.12 05:09:00 - [265] Awe so m e i d e a !
Astroka	Posted - 2011.04.12 05:48:00 - [266] Originally by: klyeme I see 1 large problem in this. While time for the people fighting would slow down, other areas left in the game wouldn't. This would allow large numbers of support ships to come to the aid of the fleet in that system, inducing a metagame "slow down the system so our reinforcements have something to reinforce when they get there." The only solution I can see is to make the gates and cynos only allow jumps out of the system when the system goes into this state. Pretty much this - and, if this restriction was put in place, they might as well just limit the number of people in the system and skip this whole idea altogether. ====================================== "Rawr" means "I love you" in dinosaur! ======================================
Khalis Sanguar	Posted - 2011.04.12 07:10:00 - [267] A simple, yet beautiful solution. Great idea!
GeeShizzle MacCloud Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.12 09:49:00 - [268] Originally by: Astroka Originally by: klyeme I see 1 large problem in this. While time for the people fighting would slow down, other areas left in the game wouldn't. This would allow large numbers of support ships to come to the aid of the fleet in that system, inducing a metagame "slow down the system so our reinforcements have something to reinforce when they get there." The only solution I can see is to make the gates and cynos only allow jumps out of the system when the system goes into this state. Pretty much this - and, if this restriction was put in place, they might as well just limit the number of people in the system and skip this whole idea altogether. this is certainly something i would prefer when time dialation gets to a certain level. I would like to stress that jumping a new fleet into a system with time dialation in motion would still have lag from all the differing calls to the server needed. it would affect the fleet jumping in most and not the fleet on grid. So even with time dialation in effect theres a strategic decision to jump people into a system, much like there is now. plz plz plz read the entire discussion before posting! all of these have been discussed to an acceptable state so far. CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2
GeeShizzle MacCloud Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.12 10:13:00 - [269] Originally by: Calathea Sata Formalizing lag as a game mechanic, really? That is really, really the worst way possible of fixing the problem, the problem of "whoever brings the most wins thus making everyone blobing as big a blob as possible". It will not fix the problem, only easing the syndrome, simply because of people will always try to bring as many as possible into the fight and the system will always be stretched outside its limit. honnest to GOD... READ THE WHOLE DISCUSSION before posting!! Originally by: Calathea Sata Formalizing lag (Time Dilation) can ony ease out that much of lag and people will just keep bringing in more and more people until the server cannot afford the workload again. Moreover, it simply sounds ridiculous and immersion breaking. if you're all for immersion, the id have to say this... a bit of eve fiction about titans was that a whole planets tidal forces were affected by merely the presence of a titan too close to a planet. let alone 40 of them in the same system along with dozens of supers and 100's of carriers releasing insanely collosal amounts of energy in a struggle for domminence. that level of activity and energy release would affect the fabric of space. you could even say the mass of all of the ships on one grid would be soo collossal that it'd cause a gravity well that woould cause a time dialation effect. Originally by: Calathea Sata Lag is a natural product of the current game design itself: the fantasy of unlimited numbers of ship fighting together vs the realistic capabilities of the internet and the servers. As long as bringing as many ships into the fight as possible means easier wins, people will do it. no sht! you tell me in what situation in real life that wont occur... my 5000 tank devision beats your 50 tanks! seriously? no way! my 50 tanks should beat your 5000 tanks... grr i hate the real world.. sum1 should change the way physics and logic works so that i have the advantage always! Originally by:* Calathea Sata Time Dilation won't work. Instead CCP should think about the game design itself: is the concept of an unlimited amount of ships fighting realistic? Perhaps 1000 vs 1000 will not be too different than 2000 vs 2000 simply because the screen and overview cannot contain that much information? Perhaps it is not 1000 but 500? How should we discourage people going over 500, maybe we can create some mechanisms to eliminate the advantages of bringing in more than 500 ships? Etc etc, I am only illustrating an example. I am sure there are better ideas than this one; I am sure someone can think of many more better ideas. But Time Dilation is the worst solution possible. im sure your idea would work if no one had any vested interest in anything on this game... but if that was the case then eve wouldnt be eve. if the concept u want above is really the game u want i have a simple solution for you... go play A SINGLE PLAYER GAME! the fact 1000's of people appear in one system is because they all believe in the need to fight for a common goal. There is an upper limit to the amount of people that a finite sized group of individuals can call upon to fight for a common goal. it wont scale to infinity. and if you think it will then u should check urself into some form of common-sense clinic, or failing that just announce yourself as clinicly insane as you seem to have the desire to be as absurd in your views as everyone else in those institutions. CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2
Araviel Epic.	Posted - 2011.04.12 10:19:00 - [270] i think this is a interesting idea and worth trying MAXSuicide> Araviels bat is even more powerful than the nerf bat.

hired goon	Posted - 2011.04.12 17:16:00 - [271] Originally by: Calathea Sata This idea needs to be strongly put down. This is a mash of all the stupidest, most unfounded arguments against time dilation. First you mention that most incorrect and abhorrent of insidious fallacies, the classic "if you fix lag then people will just bring more". This is beyond ludicrous. It firstly assumes in these huge fights people are being held back to avoid lag, when in fact as most alliance members will explain, when high stakes are on the table they try to bring every single person they possibly can. And secondly it acts as an argument against even fixing lag at all, because the better the servers get at coping, the more people will come, so CCP may as well not bother. Then you suggest a different solution, perhaps an incentive not to fight in two huge fleets. This is a good idea in itself, but is not a reason not to try time dilation. It is also an idea that should be discussed somewhere else as it is gameplay-related and not relevant. In addition, large fleet fights are something intrinsic to Eve, that a lot of people are proud of, and want to take part in. We are all sci-fi fans who have seen it on TV and in movies, why shouldn't we enjoy it in the best sci-fi multi player game that exists? CCP agrees with this point. Another two points you make at the end of the first paragraph are that the idea "sounds ridiculous" and "immersion breaking". These are highly subjective and many will disagree with you. Also even if you are correct, I know thousands of players who would put up with a little ridiculous immersion breaking if they thought it'd let them control their ship and have it actually respond.
GeeShizzle MacCloud Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.12 17:56:00 - [272] Originally by: hired goon Originally by: Calathea Sata This idea needs to be strongly put down. This is a mash of all the stupidest, most unfounded arguments against time dilation. First you mention that most incorrect and abhorrent of insidious fallacies, the classic "if you fix lag then people will just bring more". This is beyond ludicrous. It firstly assumes in these huge fights people are being held back to avoid lag, when in fact as most alliance members will explain, when high stakes are on the table they try to bring every single person they possibly can. And secondly it acts as an argument against even fixing lag at all, because the better the servers get at coping, the more people will come, so CCP may as well not bother. Then you suggest a different solution, perhaps an incentive not to fight in two huge fleets. This is a good idea in itself, but is not a reason not to try time dilation. It is also an idea that should be discussed somewhere else as it is gameplay-related and not relevant. In addition, large fleet fights are something intrinsic to Eve, that a lot of people are proud of, and want to take part in. We are all sci-fi fans who have seen it on TV and in movies, why shouldn't we enjoy it in the best sci-fi multi player game that exists? CCP agrees with this point. Another two points you make at the end of the first paragraph are that the idea "sounds ridiculous" and "immersion breaking". These are highly subjective and many will disagree with you. Also even if you are correct, I know thousands of players who would put up with a little ridiculous immersion breaking if they thought it'd let them control their ship and have it actually respond. very very well said hired goon! and just fyi Calathea Sata is sooo obviously trolling on the eve general discussion. Expect the same here im sure! sooo fail! CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.12 18:01:00 - [273] Many detractors seem to have the mistaken impression that these giant fleet battles are caused by sovereignty mechanics. Almost every single big fleet fight I've been in is caused by both sides springing traps on each other. For instance, one side will use a carrier as bait to trap a super cap. Once the super shows up, they get tackled, then they spring the trap. However, the super was also actually a trap and its support fleet jumps in. From this point on, it is little more than an escalation as both sides scramble to get additional forces on the field to prevent the destruction of the fleet they did not realize was at such a great risk. This spirals out of control until the system ends up with 2000+ pilots. Many of the huge fleets that jump in are reinforcement fleets called into a battle that was hanging in the balance. This signature is useless, but it is red.
Chris Vattic Paxton Industries -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2011.04.12 22:28:00 - [274] It's so insane it might actually work I definitely endorse this product/service. --- Paxton Industries is recruiting!
Soldarius Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.13 13:04:00 - [275] But... well... uh... ok... Actually, best idea thus far. Supported. Originally by: CCP Shadow ...I cannot guarantee (my) sobriety or decency.
Reiisha EVE University	Posted - 2011.04.13 21:35:00 - [276] Making EVE even slower? Who thought that would ever be a good idea :> "If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"
The Mittani	Posted - 2011.04.17 00:10:00 - [277] Originally by: hired goon Originally by: Calathea Sata This idea needs to be strongly put down. This is a mash of all the stupidest, most unfounded arguments against time dilation. First you mention that most incorrect and abhorrent of insidious fallacies, the classic "if you fix lag then people will just bring more". This is beyond ludicrous. It firstly assumes in these huge fights people are being held back to avoid lag, when in fact as most alliance members will explain, when high stakes are on the table they try to bring every single person they possibly can. And secondly it acts as an argument against even fixing lag at all, because the better the servers get at coping, the more people will come, so CCP may as well not bother. Then you suggest a different solution, perhaps an incentive not to fight in two huge fleets. This is a good idea in itself, but is not a reason not to try time dilation. It is also an idea that should be discussed somewhere else as it is gameplay-related and not relevant. In addition, large fleet fights are something intrinsic to Eve, that a lot of people are proud of, and want to take part in. We are all sci-fi fans who have seen it on TV and in movies, why shouldn't we enjoy it in the best sci-fi multi player game that exists? CCP agrees with this point. Another two points you make at the end of the first paragraph are that the idea "sounds ridiculous" and "immersion breaking". These are highly subjective and many will disagree with you. Also even if you are correct, I know thousands of players who would put up with a little ridiculous immersion breaking if they thought it'd let them control their ship and have it actually respond. you're a goddamned hero, hired goon shine on The Mittani for CSM6 Sins of a Solar Spymaster
DeftCrow Redriver Gallente Best Path Inc. Cascade Imminent	Posted - 2011.04.22 18:56:00 - [278] Congratulations for your idea being mentioned in the dev blog. http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=900 Although Veritas mentions that he made a prototype for this idea back in Aug. 2010, this post should get some attention for putting this idea in public.
Morgwa SolarFlare Mining INC	Posted - 2011.04.22 19:59:00 - [279] unless ccp has stated it wont work with the current code etc. i dont see this as a bad idea. +1
Gabriel Karade Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.04.23 14:49:00 - [280] I think this is a brilliant idea, which aside from the obvious gameplay benefits (no more futile mashing of keyboard yelling "GODDAMN YOU CCP AND YOUR SERVER!!!!11111"....) could look very cool if done properly. Kind of like the start of the Tyrannis trailor with the close up scene off the Naglfar's artillery... -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'

Skippermonkey Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2011.05.09 10:31:00 - [281] Did a dev read this, change the name to 'time dilation' and claim all the credit!? lol - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OLD FORUM I ♥ YOU, NEVER LEAVE ME AGAIN!
Inglewood Spilberg	Posted - 2011.05.11 18:35:00 - [282] Great idea, but just one question, what is supposed to happens with those battles that take about 3 hours to end?? are those gonna take 30 hours? (in our time relatively speaking of course)
Hermosa Diosas The Scope	Posted - 2011.05.12 09:48:00 - [283] The concept is good, but I am not sure about the execution. Yes ok from a fleet fight point of view 'knowing' what you have done will 'eventually' actually happen is is good, but from a gameplay point of view its still unplayable. You will still experience the same lag, same slow down, the fights will take just as long if not longer. Do you really want to see some jittery screen? or will it actually be really sloooowwww, and if so do you even what that either? it will kill the game, from a gameplay point of view IMO, do i really want to go into a fleet fight, wheres its supposed to be fast action, fast pased, everything and everyone going mental, to something thats dreary, slow and cumbersome..No..sorry I dont Yes for now, In support that its a 'temporary' measure. But I feel CCP will just implement this and it will stay like this. I think personally these are the problems 1) Badly coded and non performant modules that need looking at 2) Database queries and transactions need some serious love 3) Is Python the best language to use? Rather than C++ (I know some changes are happening) 4) But the biggie for me is are we kidding ourselves thinking that EVE ONE SHARD universe can actually work? Isnt this why many other MMOS have more than one world you can play one? Are CCP trying to keep this 'Look we have a single universe game' but infact as eve hasnt constantly grown this is just not feasible anymore?
xian2	Posted - 2011.05.16 10:38:00 - [284] I vote yes for time dilation, and I am glad that the CSM is making it their priority.
Manique Ominous Corp	Posted - 2011.07.04 09:56:00 - [285] /signed supported also Matrix CGI is nice :P
Darryl Ward	Posted - 2011.07.05 04:30:00 - [286] The only one problem is, in a situation where one system is lagged due to a huge battle, those in the battle can call for reinforcements who might be able to play at normal speed until they join the battle, giving them a timing advantage they would not have otherwise. But then again, weighing this con against an unplayable game makes it a worthwhile alternative. The metagaming ability to slow down a battle to ensure reinforcements is a worthwhile tradeoff, plus it might encourage even bigger, more epic battles. And they will be playable!
Jack Viresi Point of No Return Waterboard	Posted - 2011.07.05 23:54:00 - [287] supported.
killmc Navajo commandos	Posted - 2011.07.06 19:19:00 - [288] +1


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: [one 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.

It was directed towards you!