EVE Search - this game suxs

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

this game suxs

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.02.20 21:57:00 - [31] Originally by: VaMei Originally by: Vagel Originally by: Jennifer Starling Lag is an inherent part of EVE, it will never be fully solved, games aren't supposed to have 1,000s of people on a grid. Take it or leave it. Then why change the sov mechanics so you NEED to blob ? Have you ever tried to shoot a station, ihub or sbu? CCP made blobs happen, not the players. Blobs existed long before these sov mechanics. Blobs exist because when many people are involved in a MMO, they are average to bad players. Therefore the equation quantity > quality becomes true and in order to win, huge numbers happen. - Auditing & consulting When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
James Tiberius Kirk	Posted - 2011.02.20 22:09:00 - [32] Consequences are what makes blobing so appealing. In any other game, where you don't have anything to loose, people can go nuts and do anything they please. In EVE, the things you lose, are the things you've worked for, so you bet your ass people will blob to protect their investment. Sov mechanics of the game makes it even worse, you start from 'safety in numbers' and go to 'OMFG CRASH THE NODE MOTHER****ERS!!1!' in a whim.
Jones Bones Heretic Army	Posted - 2011.02.20 22:42:00 - [33] Posting in a thread where a 75k man NAP complains of blobs/lag. Your tears, so tasty. Your stuff, gif me.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.02.20 22:50:00 - [34] Originally by: VaMei Blobs existed long before these sov mechanics. ^^ That. The blobs are perhaps larger now because the vast improvements that have been made to resolve lag has made it possible to field larger blobs before everything crashes. As blobs grow due to lag improvements, lag remains constant. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Abon Caldari Pandorum Research Incorporated	Posted - 2011.02.20 23:04:00 - [35] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: VaMei Blobs existed long before these sov mechanics. ^^ That. The blobs are perhaps larger now because the vast improvements that have been made to resolve lag has made it possible to field larger blobs before everything crashes. As blobs grow due to lag improvements, lag remains constant. Tippia hits the nail on the head as usual. Pretty much this!
Ban Doga	Posted - 2011.02.20 23:21:00 - [36] Originally by: Mastertz Easy there. You mad? Anyhow, I wouldn't beat up on CCP so much for creating blob warfare. It's not like it's an easy problem to solve. If it was, it would've been solved easily. I wouldn't put too much money on that assumption. I mean how long did it take to "fix rockets"? Do you really think it took so long because it wasn't easy to solve? Or do you think it took so long because no one at CCP thought it was important enough to work on it earlier? Quote: I'll offer up a suggestion instead of whining: Remove Drakes from the game. How's that supposed to help with lag? You think 1,000 Ravens or Nighthawks or Rooks will induce less lag or make blobs more unattractive than 1,000 Drakes?
Vincent Athena	Posted - 2011.02.21 01:29:00 - [37] How about replacing those 1000 drakes with 1000 supers? It seems to me that the main issue is not so much the lag, but the lag being so uneven. When the node starts to saturate, some players catch far more than their fair share. CCP has made passing remarks about working to make play degrade gracefully once the lag hits. If everyone went at half speed, it would be annoying, but at least fair. If a ship that jumped was not available to be shot until it had loaded grid and had a fair chance to partake in the battle, people would not complain so heavily. Any word on if that effort is going anywhere?
Antihrist Pripravnik 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.02.21 01:42:00 - [38] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Blobs exist because when many people are involved in a MMO, they are average to bad players. Therefore the equation quantity > quality becomes true and in order to win, huge numbers happen. Just a little mind game: - If both sides in the fight have quantity and let's say there is no lag, what would be the deciding factor for victory?
Novemb3r Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.02.21 02:18:00 - [39] Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Just a little mind game: - If both sides in the fight have quantity and let's say there is no lag, what would be the deciding factor for victory? Us -
Medarr Amarr ZeroSec Excuses.	Posted - 2011.02.21 06:01:00 - [40] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: VaMei Blobs existed long before these sov mechanics. ^^ That. The blobs are perhaps larger now because the vast improvements that have been made to resolve lag has made it possible to field larger blobs before everything crashes. As blobs grow due to lag improvements, lag remains constant. QFT
Khamelean	Posted - 2011.02.21 07:25:00 - [41] Edited by: Khamelean on 21/02/2011 07:26:49 If a System can handle 10 people without lag, players will bring 20, then 20 people complain about lag. If a System can handle 100 people without lag, players will bring 200, then 200 people complain about lag. If a System can handle 1000 people without lag, players will bring 2000, then 2000 people complain about lag. Hmm, seems to be a pattern there somewhere. The fact that so many people are even able to complain about lag would seem to suggest that CCP is working miracles.
Kengutsi Akira	Posted - 2011.02.21 07:30:00 - [42] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: VaMei Blobs existed long before these sov mechanics. ^^ That. The blobs are perhaps larger now because there are bar more bot miners than there have been in the past, making it far easier to get infinite amounts of minerals fixt
Amda Tori Minmatar	Posted - 2011.02.21 08:54:00 - [43] Edited by: Amda Tori on 21/02/2011 08:55:07 There was a big fight in the North, between the Russians and the Northern Coalition. Over 1.000 pilots were in the fight, in VSJ-PP ( http://evemaps.dotlan.net/system/VSJ-PP/kills ). The fight lasted for about 2 hours. The fight didn't actually take place in the targeted systems: 04-LQM or O2O-2X. In 04 NC had to reinforce a station, conquered by the russians. And in O2O, 600 russian were already waiting for the NC to come. But, things didn't come up as expected for CCP and the fight took place in VSJ. I feel free to explore only within boundaries.
Ban Doga	Posted - 2011.02.21 09:02:00 - [44] Originally by: Khamelean Edited by: Khamelean on 21/02/2011 07:26:49 If a System can handle 10 people without lag, players will bring 20, then 20 people complain about lag. If a System can handle 100 people without lag, players will bring 200, then 200 people complain about lag. If a System can handle 1000 people without lag, players will bring 2000, then 2000 people complain about lag. Hmm, seems to be a pattern there somewhere. The fact that so many people are even able to complain about lag would seem to suggest that CCP is working miracles. "My glass is half full" "Really, it looked half empty from here"
Sullen Skoung	Posted - 2011.02.21 09:13:00 - [45] I liked the first incursions When ppl that had never seen a fleet fight before and the slideshow that they turn the game into forumwarred against the 0.0 guys that eat nails for breakfast because they "know how to fight in lag" even though its kinda sad that they even NEED to know how to do that at all. The Need for speed initiative started in what 2006?
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.02.21 09:24:00 - [46] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: VaMei Blobs existed long before these sov mechanics. ^^ That. The blobs are perhaps larger now because the vast improvements that have been made to resolve lag has made it possible to field larger blobs before everything crashes. As blobs grow due to lag improvements, lag remains constant. And you'd be wrong. It is exclusively due to spectacular failure in game design that engagement sizes have been escalating beyond the sizes that typically introduce major logistical problems even for well prepared coalitions. Assembling two or three full fleets is a coordinative nightmare. These fleets are not assembled for ****s and giggles, but because they are mandated by the sov system, supercaps and the ehp grind. The ease that allows them to build up and traverse huge distances in an instant, allowing alliances to draw from a quarter of the map for numbers, leaves us with a self reinforcing cycle that inevitably leads to game braking numbers. All of this could be changed radically with a proper sov system that does not rely on singular points in time to call for max participation for a singular objective. (on that note, o2o outpost comes out this afternoon, known two days in advance. shooting it without supercaps is a brain melting exercise and to kill supers you need disproportional amounts of subcaps and..you get the idea) There was a time where numbers semi-stabilized with perfectly fine lag after apocrypha. In fact, a lot of engagements were with lower numbers due to the strategical situation in the south. Back then, objectives were spread out over time a lot more, so the numbers spread out accordingly too. If Eve headed towards requiring a continuous effort while greatly cutting down on ease of travel and removing supercaps and the ehp grind, you'd see numbers go down considerably below the threshold of game breaking load except for rare occasions. I've been in the NC for over four years. Believe me, if there's one topic I claim to have a good idea of what I'm talking about, it's the "blob". v0v
Tres Farmer Gallente Federation Intelligence Service	Posted - 2011.02.21 09:59:00 - [47] Originally by: Batolemaeus snip There was a time where numbers semi-stabilized with perfectly fine lag after apocrypha. In fact, a lot of engagements were with lower numbers due to the strategical situation in the south. Back then, objectives were spread out over time a lot more, so the numbers spread out accordingly too. If Eve headed towards requiring a continuous effort while greatly cutting down on ease of travel and removing supercaps and the ehp grind, you'd see numbers go down considerably below the threshold of game breaking load except for rare occasions. snap Mhm.. I like. Though, I wouldn't lay blame on the SC nor get rid of them completely. Get rid of Rooms with Doors - Shortrange Jumpdrives for everybody!
THERisingPHOENIX Caldari	Posted - 2011.02.21 10:06:00 - [48] Originally by: Batolemaeus Originally by: Tippia Originally by: VaMei Blobs existed long before these sov mechanics. ^^ That. The blobs are perhaps larger now because the vast improvements that have been made to resolve lag has made it possible to field larger blobs before everything crashes. As blobs grow due to lag improvements, lag remains constant. And you'd be wrong. It is exclusively due to spectacular failure in game design that engagement sizes have been escalating beyond the sizes that typically introduce major logistical problems even for well prepared coalitions. Assembling two or three full fleets is a coordinative nightmare. These fleets are not assembled for ****s and giggles, but because they are mandated by the sov system, supercaps and the ehp grind. The ease that allows them to build up and traverse huge distances in an instant, allowing alliances to draw from a quarter of the map for numbers, leaves us with a self reinforcing cycle that inevitably leads to game braking numbers. All of this could be changed radically with a proper sov system that does not rely on singular points in time to call for max participation for a singular objective. (on that note, o2o outpost comes out this afternoon, known two days in advance. shooting it without supercaps is a brain melting exercise and to kill supers you need disproportional amounts of subcaps and..you get the idea) There was a time where numbers semi-stabilized with perfectly fine lag after apocrypha. In fact, a lot of engagements were with lower numbers due to the strategical situation in the south. Back then, objectives were spread out over time a lot more, so the numbers spread out accordingly too. If Eve headed towards requiring a continuous effort while greatly cutting down on ease of travel and removing supercaps and the ehp grind, you'd see numbers go down considerably below the threshold of game breaking load except for rare occasions. I've been in the NC for over four years. Believe me, if there's one topic I claim to have a good idea of what I'm talking about, it's the "blob". v0v Your post got some merits.
Ulf Vegtamsa	Posted - 2011.02.21 11:33:00 - [49] I noticed when I first played EVE a few years back, my once fun and enjoyably instant undocking and system jumps turned into five minutes of sitting on my ass. Turns out it wasn't the game, but my system. Only way I figured that out, was from a system wide crash that forced me to reformat and reinstall everything. Game was back to being fast as a whip. Its worth a shot, but defrag your computer. Auslogics puts out a free defrag and system optimizer that has worked well for me. (And its 3x faster in the least then Windows native Defragger). Worth a shot, what else you gonna do while you sleep? :P
Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.02.21 12:57:00 - [50] Originally by: Ban Doga Looking forward to your eve-mail... too big to send it thru e-mail. I'll use my matter transporter as soon as I pinpoint your astral coordinates. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Joe Skellington Minmatar JOKAS Industries	Posted - 2011.02.21 14:27:00 - [51] Edited by: Joe Skellington on 21/02/2011 14:29:46 Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Originally by: VaMei Originally by: Vagel Originally by: Jennifer Starling Lag is an inherent part of EVE, it will never be fully solved, games aren't supposed to have 1,000s of people on a grid. Take it or leave it. Then why change the sov mechanics so you NEED to blob ? Have you ever tried to shoot a station, ihub or sbu? CCP made blobs happen, not the players. Blobs existed long before these sov mechanics. Blobs exist because when many people are involved in a MMO, they are average to bad players. Therefore the equation quantity > quality becomes true and in order to win, huge numbers happen. QFT Though, hopefully a this will change.
Daedalus II Helios Research	Posted - 2011.02.21 14:40:00 - [52] Originally by: Khamelean Edited by: Khamelean on 21/02/2011 07:26:49 If a System can handle 10 people without lag, players will bring 20, then 20 people complain about lag. If a System can handle 100 people without lag, players will bring 200, then 200 people complain about lag. If a System can handle 1000 people without lag, players will bring 2000, then 2000 people complain about lag. Hmm, seems to be a pattern there somewhere. The fact that so many people are even able to complain about lag would seem to suggest that CCP is working miracles. And the funny thing is that as soon as some people start thinking out of the box and suggests mechanics such as limiting the number of ships in a system or promote more tactical low number engagements to prevent lag there is a huge outcry from the leet pvpers who absolutely not want to change. So I guess in the end people are actually happy now because lag is what they want so they don't have to change their gameplay and can just happily continue to complain? I can understand the problem CCP has with this; the lag has to go, but they are absolutely not allowed change anything to make that happen! ___________ Interested in incursions? Join Helios Research!
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.02.21 16:12:00 - [53] Originally by: Daedalus II And the funny thing is that as soon as some people start thinking out of the box and suggests mechanics such as limiting the number of ships in a system or promote more tactical low number engagements to prevent lag there is a huge outcry from the leet pvpers who absolutely not want to change. We do because such suggestions usually show a total lack of understanding of how large-scale conflicts happen. (lol suggestion of limiting numbers in system)
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.02.21 16:45:00 - [54] Originally by: Batolemaeus It is exclusively due to spectacular failure in game design that engagement sizes have been escalating beyond the sizes that typically introduce major logistical problems even for well prepared coalitions. [etc] I wouldn't call it "exclusively" because that increase would happen regardless. Semi-stable is not a stable condition and the only upper bound is when a fleet can one-shot a target. àso is that the solution? Don't put a structure out there that 300 ships cannot volley? Kick the supercaps in the crotch until they cannot kill structures? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Zhim'Fufu	Posted - 2011.02.21 17:11:00 - [55] Originally by: Joiske why do i pay so much money only for a game that lags to **** The real question is why don't blobbers file a fleet fight petition? Oh wait they don't want a lag free fight so the defenders get stuck at the login screen. Ironic eh? Originally by: Response to bitter carebear tears in local [19:44:46] CCP Incognito > sorry i can't talk about game mechanics. you need to use your brains and figure it out.
Aessoroz Nohbdy.	Posted - 2011.02.21 17:36:00 - [56] Edited by: Aessoroz on 21/02/2011 17:37:09 Originally by: Zhim'Fufu Originally by: Joiske why do i pay so much money only for a game that lags to **** The real question is why don't blobbers file a fleet fight petition? Oh wait they don't want a lag free fight so the defenders get stuck at the login screen. Ironic eh? No, they do file petitions but it's REALLY hard to predict what's going happen, your 20 man roaming gang could easily escalate to a 2000 man battle if you have a tackle a mothership. It's also hard to predict the strategies of both sides, just because one system is the target doesn't mean the a) enemy won't try and cut off the defenders elsewhere b) defenders kill off fleeing gangs in other systems c) strategic movements through other systems
Zhim'Fufu	Posted - 2011.02.21 17:43:00 - [57] Originally by: Aessoroz just because one system is the target doesn't mean the a) enemy won't try and cut off the defenders elsewhere b) defenders kill off fleeing gangs in other systems c) strategic movements through other systems So you would agree its pretty damn handy to lag out the entire area the fight is in so the defenders can't even move at all even if they are 20 jumps away. Originally by: Response to bitter carebear tears in local [19:44:46] CCP Incognito > sorry i can't talk about game mechanics. you need to use your brains and figure it out.
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.02.21 18:07:00 - [58] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Batolemaeus It is exclusively due to spectacular failure in game design that engagement sizes have been escalating beyond the sizes that typically introduce major logistical problems even for well prepared coalitions. [etc] I wouldn't call it "exclusively" because that increase would happen regardless. Semi-stable is not a stable condition and the only upper bound is when a fleet can one-shot a target. àso is that the solution? Don't put a structure out there that 300 ships cannot volley? Kick the supercaps in the crotch until they cannot kill structures? The only reason why i said "semi", is because the time frame from apocrypha to dominion was way too small to accurately deduce more than anecdotal reference. However, even though server performance was vastly superior to todays performance, the day to day fleet engagements did not break the server even with quite a lot of alliances in the area. This is due to how much objectives were spread out, even in singular locations like 49-, where the objectives were spread out in time and thus a continuous struggle was required lowering peak numbers. Also, todays alpha fleets can easily one-volley a carrier. How much you can one-volley has little to do with fleet sizes, but everything to do with the are you can draw pilots from, the time you have to prepare in advance, and how long it will take people to travel back "home".
Daedalus II Helios Research	Posted - 2011.02.21 18:19:00 - [59] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Daedalus II And the funny thing is that as soon as some people start thinking out of the box and suggests mechanics such as limiting the number of ships in a system or promote more tactical low number engagements to prevent lag there is a huge outcry from the leet pvpers who absolutely not want to change. We do because such suggestions usually show a total lack of understanding of how large-scale conflicts happen. (lol suggestion of limiting numbers in system) Well apparently in the same way you lack basic understanding of computing. Without somehow limiting the number of ships in a system you can NEVER get a lag free game. That is a FACT. You can whine as much as you like about it, but that won't change the fundamental laws of physics regarding data handling and transfer rates. I guess you could technically make sure the system was lag free by dimensioning every node to be able to simultaneously handle all current users of EVE (what is it 300k-400k today?). Of course you would have to pay a monthly fee of 10000 USD to pay for CCPs new super computer but hey, it would be lag free dammit >.< ___________ Interested in incursions? Join Helios Research!
Ban Doga	Posted - 2011.02.21 18:38:00 - [60] Edited by: Ban Doga on 21/02/2011 18:41:38 Originally by: Daedalus II Well apparently in the same way you lack basic understanding of computing. Without somehow limiting the number of ships in a system you can NEVER get a lag free game. That is a FACT. You can whine as much as you like about it, but that won't change the fundamental laws of physics regarding data handling and transfer rates. I guess you could technically make sure the system was lag free by dimensioning every node to be able to simultaneously handle all current users of EVE (what is it 300k-400k today?). Of course you would have to pay a monthly fee of 10000 USD to pay for CCPs new super computer but hey, it would be lag free dammit >.< Why don't you sit down and take a deep breath? You seem to get quite aggravated over this. I'm sure you wouldn't need 3 billion Dollar every month to improve game performance. Maybe you saw the recent devblog, that a "little" thinking and optimization improved missile performance by 400%. The solution is not better hardware, it's better software! All high performance computers these days are relying on having a hideous amount of CPU cores (several thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands) with every single core being a rather common - and thus not high-end - piece of hardware. Alone the fact that CCP is still running a software that is largely bound by single core performance means no amount of money invested into hardware will solve lag. Quote: Edit: Let's look at it this way; what is best? A) A capped system where 1000 pilots are having a lag free battle (happy) + 2000 pilots that can't get in (annoyed) B) An uncapped system where 2000 pilots are lagged to hell and back (furious) + 1000 pilots can't get in (annoyed) A = 1000 happy and 2000 annoyed B = 2000 furious and 1000 annoyed Which letter would you give the highest score given happy > annoyed > furious? We have to realize that the system is capped either way, only currently it's capped AFTER it's lagged out, making everyone miserable instead of capping it BEFORE it lags out, at least making some people happy. The more realistic alternative to your A) would be A) 1000 people not having a fight because one side managed to cap out the system. A = 1000 laughing and 2000 annoyed and furious.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.