| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Payne Samiam
   |
Posted - 2011.02.23 07:05:00 -
[1]
We all know the problem, too many ships in a system be it frigates or capitals, too much load on the servers making large fleet battles an experience in torture.
This is compounded by the tactic of "lets drop 800/1200/1300 ships into a system and thus deny our opponents the ability to even load grid" it becomes a "who can populate a system first" and therefore using an out of game mechanic (lag) as an in game tactic.
Reinforcing the node can not work because a large alliance can field enough ships to lag out the upscaled processor power.
Refinements to code will not work because it just raises the limit of how many guys a FC needs to throw at system to lag it out.
Think of it in terms of Jita, over the last few years we have seen amazing increases in the amount of players that can enter jita as a functioning hub, has this made jita a lag free enviroment ? no because the amount of people getting into jita scale with the performance and exactly the same will happen to every sov/large fleet battle, no matter how efficient the code becomes, no matter how many tweakes to get us in systems.
How to fix this ?
No easy fix, you could grade each system on a node and limit the ammount of people allowed in, yes people would still be able to lock down a system (organisation and intelligence would win the day) but those who actually got into system could do wierd and wonderful things like target enemies, cycle guns oh and get on kill mails.
Crazy ideas like if its a sov battle split the system number limit between defenders and attackers, how wonderful would it be to have 300 players on each side of a battle all able to change target, warp out, engage, reload weapons.
Now some may say this would limit the sandbox but unless something is done the lag of large battles will never go away and large alliances will continue to use lag as a tactic, I don't know about you but I would much prefer to be in a system will 600 people and actually play the game have a damn good fight where FC ability and players get some fun.
|
Target Painter
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 10:05:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Payne Samiam
This is compounded by the tactic of "lets drop 800/1200/1300 ships into a system and thus deny our opponents the ability to even load grid" it becomes a "who can populate a system first" and therefore using an out of game mechanic (lag) as an in game tactic.
Metagaming always has and always will rule the day in sov 0.0.
Quote:
How to fix this ?
No easy fix, you could grade each system on a node and limit the ammount of people allowed in, yes people would still be able to lock down a system (organisation and intelligence would win the day) but those who actually got into system could do wierd and wonderful things like target enemies, cycle guns oh and get on kill mails.
Stealth power bloc buff as they can (and will) get nearly one thousand players on, regardless of TZ. Small independent alliances with only one strong TZ get steamrolled as they are literally locked out of systems, eight hours before any timer.
Quote:
Crazy ideas like if its a sov battle split the system number limit between defenders and attackers, how wonderful would it be to have 300 players on each side of a battle all able to change target, warp out, engage, reload weapons.
Now some may say this would limit the sandbox but unless something is done the lag of large battles will never go away and large alliances will continue to use lag as a tactic, I don't know about you but I would much prefer to be in a system will 600 people and actually play the game have a damn good fight where FC ability and players get some fun.
It's not just that you break the sandbox, by introducing artificial limitations, it's that your idea does it badly. How do you determine who is red and who is blue? Hey, I just found a fantastic new use for AWOXing and spy alts.
Is it based on mutual standings? And what about neutrals? Get a diplo on to reset them before every battle and continue to enjoy your three to one numbers advantage.
|
Grimpak
Gallente
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 19:36:00 -
[3]
artificial limitations on the system were, are and always will be, exploitable.
---
Quote:
The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.
ain't that right. |
Noisrevbus
Caldari
Breams Gone Wild
|
Posted - 2011.02.23 23:07:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Noisrevbus on 23/02/2011 23:08:57
With risk of sounding repetetive, the solution is and always have been... making casting your net wide a competetive option.
While very abstract, it's the answer to alot of the plights in sovereign space. Hammerhead was onto something in alot of the commentary prior to Dominion. If you go back and listen to interviews during AT or reading bits and pieces from the time you can see what the ambition was and that the ambition was right (or, well, at least in line with the argument here).
The problem is that the effect of the sovchanges were the direct opposite (and that's another likely reason why Dominion or it's subsequent patches weren't very well recieved), of what was pre-advertised. Post-dominion warfare has become even more of staking all your cards on one bet, flooding a system. The old POS-grind was hardly ideal, but in terms of stacking numbers you always had the option to grind POS on a broad front.
That ties into the second fold of the argument, volume. As long as volume remain the main resource for interaction with the mechanics of nullspace (note: mechanics, as in frames of the sandbox environment, not how numbers is an advantage in and of itself when two groups meet), you will have the issues that exist today where herding numbers and herding pets is far too easy. Volume manifests itself in numbers (players) or resources (eg., supercapitals, enter the mothership debate). That is the only real quality as long as the mechanics are defined by volume (hitpoints etc).
Likewise as long as they are reminiscent of castle defense you will have a feudal gameworld with old world march-formation-siege warfare.
Finding a way to overcome volume-oriented mechanics will allow you to cast your net wide, open up more fronts, interact with smaller numbers, make more groups competetive (or at least participant in molding the landscape, similar to PL sans the amassed supercapital resources) and break the existing stalemate of empire-lowsec-nullsec. Wormholes (and FW) in all fairness, but they are seclusive band-aid that should have been rendered superfluous with the correction of volume as the only ideal.
The myth that nullspace needed to be condensed is perhaps the most illustrative mistake of Dominion. There was always room, it was just too easy to occupy, AFK/herd and maintain.
Little has changed in that regard.
|
bartos102
|
Posted - 2011.02.24 10:55:00 -
[5]
the only way to stop the blobing in 0.0 is to change sov warefare atm if your system is under siege you have to kill sov blockade units with over 30mil EHP
|
aetherguy881
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.02.24 22:33:00 -
[6]
Unfortunately sov warfare is blob warfare...
Also, when you have a whole bunch of people who want to go pvping... And not necessarily on a roam/small defence fleet...
-------------------
Always remember this about EVE:
Life is cheap, or 15 bucks a month. |
Tuggboat
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 01:15:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Tuggboat on 25/02/2011 01:23:00
Edited by: Tuggboat on 25/02/2011 01:21:36
I was studying Queueing Theory a while back for some reason and although I forget most of it, a case study stuck in my mind. Instead of computer networks or grocery lines they talked of automotive assembly lines and how Toyota? solved an age old problem with assembly lines.
The assembly line of Ford and General motors suffered from the same problems we experience with lag in that the line comes to a complete halt if anyone makes a mistake or gets a bad part. One stops, they all stopped. So do we. At first the lines refused to stop which resulted in quality issues, later after workers could stop the line, productivity issues came to a head and plagued any attempts at faster throughput with the same quality.
What Toyota did which was simple was to put breaks in the line and assign areas for storage until the defect could be corrected. Cars were shunted off the line till they could be returned to the line. The old lines might have had hundreds of stations in a row, the new ones maybe only half a dozen. There are formulas for determining the breaks now.
Instead of ships being lost in a black hole of lag, they could be immediately shunted to special or regular wormhole spaces as overflow areas where the battle could continue. Stargates instead of wormholes could lead to other holes or the original system that was intended to be jumped into so that scanning would not be needed.
Perhaps the gates could be laid out in a geometric strategic patterns or even just a linear progression into the main area so that the battle proceeds as a elimination type event where you just trying to fight your way all the way in.
The main concept is to have buffer areas where people can actually warp into and function and continue on to the main front if and when it is able to accommodate them and for this to happen automatically when any system overflows. IF all systems hooked into this routine, the wormholes could be reinforced instead of the regular system and this could do away with advance reinforcement requests because any overloaded system would start dumping people into these buffer arenas.
I haven't seen this idea mentioned before.
Oh and of course our storyline people could claim that excess mass has upset time and space equilibrium or something to that affect. :)
|
Miles Parabellum
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 12:41:00 -
[8]
I've never experienced a 00 battle, so maybe I'm not the right person to comment, but Tuggboat's idea sounds promising.
I also have a weak spot for people who think out of the box and find solutions to problems by looking in unexpected places.
|
foksieloy
Minmatar
Universal Army
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 13:29:00 -
[9]
I like the above idea as well, but i do not think nulsec mechanics are in need of a "fix".
It is the human nature. There is several million of us, there is several thousand of you. You **** us off, it is not time for a brave duel of 10 of our finest to decide the fate of the nation. It is genocide time. With everything we got.
_______________________
Drink Eau du Nichup«, the taste of heaven. Now available as Nichup Citrus« as well! |
Dark Pangolin
Caldari
Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 17:12:00 -
[10]
Originally by: foksieloy
It is genocide time. With everything we got.
That quote is so appropriate and yet so frustrating :)...I agree with the quote but it makes me mad when I'm the one getting all genocided on :)
|
|
|
tankarmor
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 20:11:00 -
[11]
A thought about the issue that, the calculation load should grows like on second order of number of pilots in the system. So I hope if ccp has scalable code and keep the hardware growing faster than the number of pilots the problem maybe made not that annoying.
|
Dirlewanger
|
Posted - 2011.02.25 21:27:00 -
[12]
As it stands it is an unsolvable problem, because it is mathematically always better to stack numbers AND to focus fire - and the effect is not even linear. Lag just throws some spanners into the gears.
Only way you can actually change it is by changing the rules of the universe to force fleets to split up. Broaden the front, sort of; yet it will always be better to have local superiority.
Imagine you got 4 poses. All of them have a regen rate of 30 battleships (say it takes 30 BS to keep on par with its ability to regenerate). Each un-shot pos sends its regen to the others and lets say they also contribute CPU to its defence so give a multiplier bonus to the one that is attacked. Call it 25% extra cumulative. But this "repping" only happens if the pos is itself unattacked.
So to hit a single one, you'd need 120 BS (30x4) * 1.25 * 1.25 * 1.25 = roughly 235 BS equivalent before you even start breaking the defenses.
While splitting force, you would saturate defenses with 120 BS.
Thing is, the defence force would still win by staying together and going after the split attackers, forcing these to team up again.
You'd need for an attack to create multiple targets that would need to be attacked *and* defended at the same time, and a mix of them, even fictitional wageslave (read NPC, or mining / repair bots) ships that small fleets could hit and still manage to contribute to the main objective.
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2011.02.26 00:03:00 -
[13]
Sov warfare would be a little less blobby if it was possible to launch realistic surprise attacks - that actually change sov.
The way the system works now is that there's 24 hour safety net - minimum
No matter how hard your enemy tries to surprise attack you, you always get 24 hours to organize a response. To make things even worse, the defender controls the exact time when decisive battles will occur.
That means all sides have plenty of time to get blobs as big as possible.
This may be more "fair", but you pay for that fairness with blobbiness.
|
Target Painter
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.02.26 09:31:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Target Painter on 26/02/2011 09:35:00
Originally by: Ephemeron
Sov warfare would be a little less blobby if it was possible to launch realistic surprise attacks - that actually change sov.
The way the system works now is that there's 24 hour safety net - minimum
No matter how hard your enemy tries to surprise attack you, you always get 24 hours to organize a response. To make things even worse, the defender controls the exact time when decisive battles will occur.
The NC had about three hours notice that Rebellion Alliance had been disbanded and their sov would be up for grabs after downtime. Once again, metagaming rules the day in sov warfare. It always has and it always will.
|
Lord Dragonmede
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.02.26 13:41:00 -
[15]
I have always maintained that it is a "line of sight" issue. In EvE combat there is no friendly fire unless someone is careless with targeting. One big thing that keeps "blobs" from occuring in real world combat is that bullets do not harmlessly pass through friendlies. EvE weapons should cause DMG upon any object in direct line between shooter and the intended target. If that was to occur, these fleet blobs would spread out a bit, over multiple grids.
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2011.02.26 15:52:00 -
[16]
Solution to blob warfare: Allow collisions between ships to do massive damage. 
OMG Kamikaze warfare anyone!?!? 
|
Target Painter
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.02.26 15:58:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Slate Shoa
Solution to blob warfare: Allow collisions between ships to do massive damage.
OMG Kamikaze warfare anyone!?!?
Jita 4-4 undock.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.02.26 16:30:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Dirlewanger
As it stands it is an unsolvable problem...
Not at all, it "merely" requires some radical design changes and sacrifices.
- Move sovereignty warfare away from EHP towards an objective based system.
- Limit bridges either in functionality or numbers.
- Remove ability of bubbles to work when "unmanned".
- Reinvent the concept of supply lines so a particular nut that proves to hard to crack can be "starved out".
You'll still have the lag-fest shindigs but they would no longer be the only way to get things done. That is the primary problem of current system, there is really just the one option: "moar dudes!" .. Dominion Sov warfare is like a Capture-the-Flag map consisting of a single corridor.
Given the choice even powerbloc(b)s will probably relish the chance to wage war without waiting for 1k+ people to be available and it opens the door for lesser entities to have an impact.
|
Jade Imp
Caldari
M. Corp
M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2011.02.27 02:51:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Lord Dragonmede
I have always maintained that it is a "line of sight" issue. In EvE combat there is no friendly fire unless someone is careless with targeting. One big thing that keeps "blobs" from occuring in real world combat is that bullets do not harmlessly pass through friendlies. EvE weapons should cause DMG upon any object in direct line between shooter and the intended target. If that was to occur, these fleet blobs would spread out a bit, over multiple grids.
that might sound good on paper, but do you know how much more processing power everyone would need to track all those shots... 8x300x2? that is a ****tonne of shots to track and i seriously think that would make it more laggy then anything else.
check out a game called Sword of the Stars, It tracks all shots like that from all ships and at least for my machine, wich is admitatly old, will start to chug when you start to get alot of shots going everywhere.... this would be like that but on such a bigger scale as to be ******edly laggy. but if tech could handle this type of scale i would agree that it would be awsome to have the shots tracked like that.
I'd have something witty here but my wits have left me for my alt. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |