| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Horizonist
   |
Posted - 2010.12.29 22:07:00 -
[1]
Having been bugged by the 300 standings slots limit for some time, and understanding that increasing that limit might mean extra load upon the servers, I propose this:
Give us an option on the client side to enable infinite standings slots. All slots should then be stored in a local database on the users computer. If any standings are stored on the server side (those fitting the 300 limit), those should be synched to the local database (include a mechanism to prevent more than one synch every 24h or so, to prevent excessive server calls).
After this has been enabled, all standings checks should be run by the client against the local database, decreasing (possibly) the ammount of traffic from client to server (and back), and also allowing users to freely put as many standings as they like.
It would of course also be nice to have a feature to backup this database, so that it could be restored after a reinstall, or moved to another computer.
I believe the benefits speak for this solution, and that it is technically feasible. it would be a great addition to the game.
|
bleb1
|
Posted - 2010.12.29 22:32:00 -
[2]
I agree
Thumbs up buddy :)
|
nugget906
|
Posted - 2010.12.29 22:35:00 -
[3]
Corp standings/nap train on server, your personal standings on your PC. You're the only one who can see your personal standing anyway, so no need to sync.
|
Professor Bunsen
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2010.12.29 22:40:00 -
[4]
What about multiple clients on multiple PCs?
So how about an export function?
------------------------------
I'm a logi pilot for sale, and I have 1.4mil unallocated SP. |
Horizonist
|
Posted - 2010.12.29 22:50:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Horizonist on 29/12/2010 22:57:53
Edited by: Horizonist on 29/12/2010 22:50:03
Nugget - thanks, I did not know that. In that case, the problem is even easier to solve, just give us the ability to set infinite standings as it is. Why do we have this limit at 300? Why should it not be reworkable?
Professor Bunsen - yes, I had that in mind as well, thats what I was suggesting when I said that it should be backupable, partly so that you can move it to other installations.
Thanks for your feedback both!
|
Dusenman
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.12.29 23:02:00 -
[6]
Not at bad idea, I support this!
|
ZiggyMeister
Minmatar
The Bat Empire
Fall From Grace.
|
Posted - 2010.12.29 23:08:00 -
[7]
I endorse this idea, or any improvement in this area.
|
Vaellin Tallis
|
Posted - 2010.12.29 23:15:00 -
[8]
I support this
|
Cz Ire
Minmatar
GunFall
|
Posted - 2011.01.03 19:48:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Cz Ire on 03/01/2011 19:50:38
/signed
But I wish CCP would actually FIX this
having recently made my own little corp and trying to be NRDS I discovered it only took 2 weeks or so to max out 300 contacts (9 of which are blue, the rest are reds).
CCP - unless you want to make NRDS simply impossible, this NEEDS fixing. Last I checked, eve was about CHOICE - this is a crippling game mechanic for NRDS-ers.
And if alliance's can have thousands of contacts, its silly that corporations cant. It just becomes a 1b isk fee for a increased contacts list.
maybe even introduce a "diplomat" skill that allows players to train up an increased contact list, if you want to minimize the amount of people who want more contacts.
But, if the reason really is server load/lag, then a personal local standings file would at least let me limp by. Not an ideal solution but so long as I have *SOMETHING*
|
Dr BattleSmith
PAX Interstellar Services
|
Posted - 2011.01.03 23:29:00 -
[10]
It seems a lot of recursive looping happenings in standings. They made lowsec lag to death at one stage with FW.
Generally, if the number of standings needs to be limited....... Then the algo that handles them needs to be changed.
|
Don Pellegrino
Pod Liberation Authority
HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 00:34:00 -
[11]
I don't care, but I guess it would be useful to some people, so why not.
Also, don't forget to tick the "Support this topic" box if you are supporting this proposal.
____________________________________________
|
Aineko Macx
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 09:10:00 -
[12]
 Originally by: Horizonist
EDIT: A technical premise for this proposal was flawed - I assumed that standings were stored server-side, not client-side. If this is not the case, then fixing this is practically a done deal.
Standings are coupled to contacts, which are stored server side.
To store standings locally, it would first be necessary to decouple them from contacts.
Although it would cause more server load, keeping them on the server and increasing the limits is the more elegant solution, avoiding you having to manually synchronizing multiple clients.
I support the fixing of the problem, by whichever method.
________________________
CCP: Where fixing bugs is a luxury, not an obligation. |
Carniflex
StarHunt
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 12:18:00 -
[13]
There is a mild problem with that. Soon thereafter major powerblocks would give you 'standings database' you can download, short time afterwards there would be third party application written that keeps the database updated real time and few days later it would be "bacon" all over again with sirens going off all over your hose when somebody that is not blue enters YOUR local chat channel.
I would like to have more standings slots indeed. the 300 limit is rather irritating. It's like facebook but hey you can have only 300 people you know so pick well and if you have been playing a long while .... tough luck.
|
Furb Killer
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 12:55:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Furb Killer on 04/01/2011 12:54:56
Quote:
Soon thereafter major powerblocks would give you 'standings database' you can download
Indeed, something that also needs to be included (i dont really see why you think it is a problem). Both NBSI and NRDS groups, but especially NRDS since they have way more standing slots used, have issues with keeping standings between allied groups synced. It would be great if there is some kind of ingame standing list you can subscribe to that sits between corp and personal level (or even below personal). So first you got alliance standings, then corp, then personal, and if the person is still neutral then this standing list decides the standing it shows.
I dont really see how this would be in any way related to bacon (hint: it isnt). I also think the easiest solution is to just download all standings to your client when you logon, then your client can calculate the standings (if that doesnt already happen) and there is not much of a reason to not allow infinite standing slots (really the part about downloading some standing list to your client on startup is insignificant).
Only cause of problems are POS's and stations, they also then need to calculate stuff with way more standings, and that has to happen server side. Although docking at outposts shouldnt give that much server load, and fighting at a hostile POS the relevant standings should just be cached.
|
Dr BattleSmith
PAX Interstellar Services
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 22:51:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Carniflex
I would like to have more standings slots indeed. the 300 limit is rather irritating. It's like facebook but hey you can have only 300 people you know so pick well and if you have been playing a long while .... tough luck.
This is the extra funny bit.
It's obvious that the team-leader had read a lot of articles on "growing the social graph".
With non-private features included to show contacts to your contacts, to allow friends to become
friends and the social network to function.
He obviously missed the part where 1% of that social network are the content creators when they said,
"We did an SQL query and it says the 300 limit will only effect 1% of players".
Limiting the social graph while spending so much on a usless social network that is ham-strung from the start?
|
Maxsim Goratiev
Imperial Tau Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 23:23:00 -
[16]
yeah, i can see it being bad.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |