Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 14 post(s) |
Bane Necran
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 20:57:00 -
[271]
Edited by: Bane Necran on 10/05/2011 20:57:55 Has anyone pointed out that when things like this happen time appears to flow normally to those affected, and they are only moving slower to observers who aren't?
edit: in terms of actual astrophysics, that is.
|
xxxak
Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc -Mostly Harmless-
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:47:00 -
[272]
Edited by: xxxak on 10/05/2011 21:54:48
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: Brannor McThife I don't like how multi-threading was "fobbed off" like this. Working in multi-threaded environments on various platforms on various App Servers has shown that multi-threading in high-load environments is the #1 solution. I know it is probably not the easiest thing to do and the EvE engine is probably architected around this single-threaded model, but please don't go saying that it wouldn't buy you much.
I said it wouldn't buy us as much as most people think. Going say, 4-wide does not quadruple performance except in the embarrassingly easy cases. With communication overhead and the required locking behavior, we'd be lucky to see a 2x-3x performance gain going 4-wide.
For the effort it would take to get us there, and the ongoing effort of maintaining a multi-threaded codebase, it's not the best plan right now. It is inevitable that we'll do it some time though, that's where a lot of the hardware is going these days.
Think about what you just wrote. 2x or 3x means that if you can handle 1000 ships now, you could handle 2000 or 3000 with multi-threading.
I realize that it would be hard, but that seems like a HUGE improvement, and it seems like it would be better than changing the dynamics of the gameplay with Time Dilation.
|
xxxak
Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc -Mostly Harmless-
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:54:00 -
[273]
Originally by: Rockin RicciBobbi
Quote: "Here's how I envision this working for a large engagement (say, 1600 or so). When the attacking fleet warps in, the server gets extremely overloaded - warp-in and other setup tasks like drone deployment are quite expensive - so the game clock gets dilated extremely, down to 5% of real time or something."
Some of my toons have been in large fleet engagements that lasted 4 hours. Even a 50% time dilation is not feasible in many cases and allowing time dilation down to 5% is just plain idiotic. Here is why: Players will find ways to exploit and manipulate the game mechanics to maintain such time dilation to their side's advantage. To use one example from the dev blog: by continuously warping a large fleet around and deploying drones. So now we have the possibility of what would otherwise be a 1 hour engagement stretched to 20 hours. Or a tower being attacked with plenty of time to reinforce before downtime/server reboot except the defending fleet can just dilate time instead of actually engaging to keep that from happening. That is ridiculous. I know more complicated scenarios about exploiting time dilation have already been mentioned, but just think of the very simple unpreventable ones. We need fewer exploitable game mechanics instead of CCP creating more and more. Crashes and disconnects and desyncs suck, but that is better than adding a time dilation mechanic. How is all that added code to make time dilation work going to make Eve more efficient overall? It's not. It's like claiming that you're making the Boston Marathon shorter by making everybody run slower.
The game has become a victim of its own success and most easy fixes have been tried. Time dilation would fix some of the symptoms associated with large fleet fights instead of making Eve work as promised and as advertised. A real solution will be difficult but we don't need another work-around bandaid. Given CCP's ever-increasing willingness to concentrate on their internal metrics instead of the user experience, I am not surprised at this proposal.
This
|
Horza Phlebas
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 22:48:00 -
[274]
CCP Next Year: "Im sorry Sir, But Lag is an intended game Mechanic...."
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.05.10 23:46:00 -
[275]
Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud on 10/05/2011 23:47:41 wow... just wow...
... have i missed some sort of full moon or something?
i have said it a thousand times before and i will keep saying it until people realise what i am saying, TD is a system that brings massive fleet fights from its current area where clicking on stuff doesnt do things for ****ing ages (how on EARTH can u say u prefer something thats actually borked and screwed up) to clicking stuff and it actually doing it immediately.
this LAG u all talk about isnt lag you would experience in any FPS game, its got absolutely nothing to do with your ping to the ccp servers. Its the servers ability to respond to the sheer volume, yes VOLUME of your requests.
so yes veritas could work on multicore stuff bt it'll prob take him 12 to 24 months at least to complete and initial form, then comes ironing bugs out of to the point the servers dont do really strange stuff that degrades players gameplay unexpectedly and without any obvious rational reason. you really want that??? and have 2+ more years of what we have right now?
so you would prefer for the McBlobs to rule for 2 or more years until moderately large scale fleet fight become relatively okay and large coalitions decide that they can just ramp the blobs up a tad more?
TD takes the current broken combat mechanics of large scale fleet fights and PRESERVES THE MECHANICS OF THE ORIGINAL GAME regardless of the blob size! HOW THE **** is this some sort of advantage to blobs??? if anything its an advantage to more experienced FC's to use game mechanics that actually beats blobs!! (say umm... large bomber fleets btw??)
the only main reason that blob warfare is successful currently is cause u dont jump into a blob in a high population system cause ur ships DONT ****ING LOAD GRID FAST ENOUGH and you end up dieing before you can do much of anything!
i ask you HOW IS THIS FAIR, HOW IS THIS IN ANY WAY WHAT A GAMES DEVELOPER WOULD ULTIMATELY WANT? its not.. its a population pushing a product to the point it doesnt work anymore.
so someone NOT from CCP comes up with an idea to fix the game.. and you start saying its CCP ****ing up again? go ****ing check what ur saying idiots. CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2 |
Glyken Touchon
Independent Alchemists
|
Posted - 2011.05.11 23:56:00 -
[276]
Please correct me if this is wrong.
currently, with lag (based on what I've seen on ops):
- click (eg on module)
- wait and hope
- something happens: module activates and timer starts
- wait and watch timer and hope
- timer ends
- wait and hope
- module stops (maybe)
What TiDi intends to do:
- click (eg on module)
- something happens: module activates and timer starts
- wait and watch timer move slower than normal
- timer ends
- module stops
If it works as intended, the waiting is moved to a point where the action has started, which will remove the uncertainty of whether something is working or not, because you will see an immediate response to your clicks (but slower completion).
|
Camaral
|
Posted - 2011.05.13 12:36:00 -
[277]
Originally by: Rockin RicciBobbi
Quote: So now we have the possibility of what would otherwise be a 1 hour engagement stretched to 20 hours.
Please reread and rewatch every post that CCP has ever wrote about why and how server lags. hint: they lag occures at the warp-in of fleet flights...people here are way too often writing giant amounts of text without even knowing anything about lag.
to ccp: this will maybe be the best feature ever made for eve!
|
davet517
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.05.13 14:19:00 -
[278]
The only downside that I see to this is that it reduces the impact of quick reaction time and reflexes. If everything goes into super-slow-mo, an FC and tacklers are going to have a long, long, time to call targets, get bubbles up, get points on, etc.
Net effect will most likely be that there will be few survivors on the losing side of an engagement.
|
debbie harrio
|
Posted - 2011.05.14 11:48:00 -
[279]
Originally by: davet517
The only downside that I see to this is that it reduces the impact of quick reaction time and reflexes. If everything goes into super-slow-mo, an FC and tacklers are going to have a long, long, time to call targets, get bubbles up, get points on, etc.
This, in effect it negates the advantage a better FC hasfor snap decisions, a mediocre FC will have more time to make decisions.
Originally by: davet517 Net effect will most likely be that there will be few survivors on the losing side of an engagement. Another effect will be that Logistics will have a larger impact. I'll have plenty of time to see that I'm being primaried and call for reps before I start taking damage.
It will also favour the blob, alongside the time that it gives a poor FC to make correct decisions.
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.05.15 10:27:00 -
[280]
excuse me for jumping te gun and assuming something here but FC's require intel in order to gather an understanding of a battlefield.
either this can be done on the assumption of what a typical fleet fielded by a certain alliance does based on experience, or gained on the field there and then by the effects observed by the FC and his/her team.
the latter has rarely been possible in large fleet fights (aka ones with 100 or more capitals on either side) because the lag causes the game to be soooo much more choppy/unresponsive
as i see it there are a plethora of new tactics that can be implemented on a large scale fight if commands are made as responsive as those in small scale gang pvp, even if the pace of those fights slows considerably.
Davet517 is totally right that the slowdown will help slow inexperienced FC's, but it wont stop an actual bad FC make the wrong decisions. So the comment about it helping/aiding blob warfare is a blatant show of your narrow minded fc skills and lack of creative thinking on the subject. CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2 |
|
Cybele Lanier
Amarr Viziam
|
Posted - 2011.05.15 20:21:00 -
[281]
Edited by: Cybele Lanier on 15/05/2011 20:23:19
Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud TD takes the current broken combat mechanics of large scale fleet fights and PRESERVES THE MECHANICS OF THE ORIGINAL GAME regardless of the blob size! HOW THE **** is this some sort of advantage to blobs???
Any change that anyone dislikes will promote blobbing....somehow. It's a buzzword that you can use to argue against anything if you're determined enough.
And really, I cannot imagine that any of the listed possible side-effects of TD would be worse than lag as it exists now.
Originally by: davet517 Edited by: davet517 on 13/05/2011 14:43:53 The only downside that I see to this is that it reduces the impact of quick reaction time and reflexes. If everything goes into super-slow-mo, an FC and tacklers are going to have a long, long, time to call targets, get bubbles up, get points on, etc.
If both FC's have the same time (unlike flipping a coin to see who can act, like now), I don't really see that as a problem. Who knows, it might encourage tactics beyond "Everyone shoot that one guy, and hope that the tiny proportion of attacks that the server recognises can alpha him." --------------- ""Minimum collateral damage" and "Entire star system" do not belong in the same sentence." |
Soldarius
Caldari Northstar Cabal Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2011.05.16 01:26:00 -
[282]
So I was considering the effects of TiDi on logistics ability to rep before a ship gets alpha'd; and I realized that missiles are gonna get screwed.
Turrets are instantaneous damage. The cycle timer is only indicative of the time it would take for the turret weapon to reload, recharge, or whatever. Damage will still be instantaneously applied, and more reliably so.
Missiles will still have to travel to the target, and thus there will be an even greater amount of time for logistics pilots to react and assist targeted fleet-mates.
Originally by: CCP Shadow ...I cannot guarantee (my) sobriety or decency.
|
Rassad2
|
Posted - 2011.05.16 04:08:00 -
[283]
So as I understand it.. Time will "slow down" for an entire system, when 1000 Ships deploy drones, or land on a grid etc.
So what happens If a fleet of 1000 people, decide to use Tidi as a tactic? Example: A fleet of 1000 people deploy drones. recall drones... deploy drones... recall drones... deploy drones...
Thus Tidi slows down all timers in the system greatly. If the fleet See's a hostile fleet incoming on scanner, they recall drones, and fleet warp to a new safespot.. and repeat.
What prevents a fleet from keeping a system constantly Time dilated? for whatever advantage that will give them?
|
Simeon Whiteheaven
|
Posted - 2011.05.16 09:19:00 -
[284]
Edited by: Simeon Whiteheaven on 16/05/2011 09:21:18 As the idea is not bad, but we have yet to see how the CCP has been applied in reality. Of course, like everything else has its advantages and disadvantages.
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.05.16 20:51:00 -
[285]
looks a lil convoluted and im sorry bout that!
Originally by: Rassad2 So as I understand it.. Time will "slow down" for an entire system, when 1000 Ships deploy drones, or land on a grid etc.
So what happens If a fleet of 1000 people, decide to use Tidi as a tactic? Example: A fleet of 1000 people deploy drones. recall drones... deploy drones... recall drones... deploy drones...
Thus Tidi slows down all timers in the system greatly. If the fleet See's a hostile fleet incoming on scanner, they recall drones, and fleet warp to a new safespot.. and repeat.
What prevents a fleet from keeping a system constantly Time dilated? for whatever advantage that will give them?
Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud 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. I'd loooove to know if this is possible... as im sure you can group server requests by ip address and watch over them to look for excessive levels.
Originally by: CCP Veritas
If it becomes a problem, yo, I'll solve it.
CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2 |
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 07:59:00 -
[286]
Originally by: Rassad2 So as I understand it.. Time will "slow down" for an entire system, when 1000 Ships deploy drones, or land on a grid etc.
So what happens If a fleet of 1000 people, decide to use Tidi as a tactic? Example: A fleet of 1000 people deploy drones. recall drones... deploy drones... recall drones... deploy drones...
Thus Tidi slows down all timers in the system greatly. If the fleet See's a hostile fleet incoming on scanner, they recall drones, and fleet warp to a new safespot.. and repeat.
What prevents a fleet from keeping a system constantly Time dilated? for whatever advantage that will give them?
They can (and, if you read the NC forum mirros) do use this tactic already. The only difference that TiDi will make is that the effects of the increased server load will be more evenly applied and less unpredictable.
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. |
N'oah
|
Posted - 2011.05.18 10:50:00 -
[287]
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: profundus fossura What will be the extent of the area effected by time dilation, will it be the grid the fight is on the system etc, the concern is if a fleet battle is taking 5 times longer than usual will this give one side an advantage in bringing in reinforcements and could this effect be deliberately produced for example buy whole fleet ungrouping weapons and lauching/recalling drones
First implementation will have all locations on the node dilated. For dedicated nodes that'll be only the system that's causing the load, but for shared nodes all systems on the node will be dilated. A couple other things need to fall into place before I can sanely have a per-system clock, but that's certainly desired.
I am unsure if you realize what youre saying here. I mean, i do hope you do but CCP have after all tried to delete boot.ini before so..
What do you think will happen the day you will have to explain why the three guys in the wormhole far away from everything else gets dilated for no apparent reason?
" oh im sorry but because some guys that you dont even know, and dont want anything to do with, has decided to put 2000 players in the same system, we made your game go slower" ?
How do you justify that?
How is it their fault that the alliances cant seem to wrap their head around the fact that eve doesnt lag unless you really really try?
I just know, that im not going to play anylonger the day i get slowed down because there is a fleet fight on the other side of the universe.
Really, dont bring the problem of the lemmings to me. I tried too long to avoid them. |
|
CCP Veritas
|
Posted - 2011.05.18 15:40:00 -
[288]
Originally by: N'oah I am unsure if you realize what youre saying here.
Yup, I do. Thing is, this is absolutely no different than the situation today. A huge fight on a non-dedicated node will degrade performance for all systems being managed by that node. TiDi does not change that fact, it just makes the symptoms of that degradation more tolerable, predictable and knowable.
That said, we tend to group up systems roughly by location, so if there's a big fight going on, say, somewhere in your constellation, you might be in for a rough time, but that's generally not going to have an effect on someone in another region or type of space.
So...I guess we'll justify it exactly as we have been.
|
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
|
Posted - 2011.05.18 20:21:00 -
[289]
Originally by: Cybele Lanier
Any change that anyone dislikes will promote blobbing....somehow. It's a buzzword that you can use to argue against anything if you're determined enough.
Word. To this day I still haven't seen a good definition of the term blob. From what I've pieced together over the last two and a half years I've been playing, a "Blob" is simply the fleet that you are losing to, that happens to be bigger.
If you're winning, you're with your fleet. If you're losing, its out of control "blob warfare" that did it.
Let's cut the nonsense.
Large fleet lag is inevitable, CCP is offering a compromise, something to try out, and naysayer theorycrafters are already drumming up exploitation scenarios or relying on their own sense of programming knowledge superiority to emo-rage about how this, along with probably every other CCP fix, is going to ruin everything. For Chribba's sakes, even if they slowed combat down to the point of being turn-based the element of strategy would still be there just the same, and the smarter FC would still win.
Here's to all the pilots out there that realize that the fleet that beat you had more ships, more firepower, in one place at one time and therefore they win fair and square. Good FC's know when to fold and live to fight another day. Don't like crippling lag? Stop assuming that all the l33t pew pew is in 0.0 and come hang out in lowsec, where we fight every day in ships of all types and every pilot in the fleet/gang has to be able to think both quickly and independently without relying on one good FC to annnounce that "we'll be starting with Abaddons and working our way down the list to Armageddons".
Eve is full of opportunities to showcase player creativity and imagination, and has one of the most responsive and close-knit player/developer relationships of any MMO out there. It kills me to see people complaining about Dev's all the time, and shooting down ideas before they get off the ground and not thinking outside the box.
|
Cheekyhoe
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 10:34:00 -
[290]
Can we have this now please.
You can fix lag later just let us play first tyvm <3
|
|
NereSky
Gallente RETRIBUTIONS. Legion of The Damned.
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 10:37:00 -
[291]
all sounds ver technical and if i understand this correctly its tackling the issue of large fleet fights but now not head on but but of tackling the symptoms of 'the lag monsters appearance' so you are still tackling the problem but rather than head on your investing time to look at the problem from a differant perspective?
I think its very creative thinking
|
N'oah
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 13:03:00 -
[292]
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: N'oah I am unsure if you realize what youre saying here.
Yup, I do. Thing is, this is absolutely no different than the situation today. A huge fight on a non-dedicated node will degrade performance for all systems being managed by that node. TiDi does not change that fact, it just makes the symptoms of that degradation more tolerable, predictable and knowable.
That said, we tend to group up systems roughly by location, so if there's a big fight going on, say, somewhere in your constellation, you might be in for a rough time, but that's generally not going to have an effect on someone in another region or type of space.
So...I guess we'll justify it exactly as we have been.
Thanks. Maybe you should have clarified that in the blog. All i have to do is what i allways do. Stay away from the lemmings. Far far away
|
Shang Ghjuvan
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 15:31:00 -
[293]
Just to add my 2c to the cyno argument what about a queuing system to get into the system, ex if in the dilated system 1/4 of the cycle (2.5 mins undilated) has passed at 1/2 speed (taking 5 mins) and you jump through you ship disappears from local and you get a black screen with a box counting down the difference (2.5 mins) and when it hits 0 you jump in. If the cyno pops while your are waiting it immediately kicks you back into the system you came from at the location you left from.
|
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
|
Posted - 2011.05.21 20:19:00 -
[294]
Crazy. You guys neve cease to amaze me. Good luck, hope everything goes smoothly
|
Pur3Bl00D
Minmatar southeast investments corp
|
Posted - 2011.05.22 07:40:00 -
[295]
pretty nice idea, though rather intrusive IMHO
although some sort of TD warning system should be in place to make it a trully level playing field and dont 'break up' the experience. maybe limit the 'time swings' to around 20% per 2 or 3 seconds and maximum dilation to 25%, if not more...
In fact the devs should consider that this system be available only at reinforced nodes IF the applying corp asks for it, because a bit part of fleet combat IS THE SPLIT SECOND DECISIONS that can win or lose a fight. On top of that we have the reinforcing and cyno issues..
Another solution could be to bring all timers down to 80 - 90 % and support a 50% TD on normal nodes and down to 25% on reinforced.
just some thoughts
|
mkint
|
Posted - 2011.05.22 17:12:00 -
[296]
Originally by: Pur3Bl00D pretty nice idea, though rather intrusive IMHO
although some sort of TD warning system should be in place to make it a trully level playing field and dont 'break up' the experience. maybe limit the 'time swings' to around 20% per 2 or 3 seconds and maximum dilation to 25%, if not more...
In fact the devs should consider that this system be available only at reinforced nodes IF the applying corp asks for it, because a bit part of fleet combat IS THE SPLIT SECOND DECISIONS that can win or lose a fight. On top of that we have the reinforcing and cyno issues..
Another solution could be to bring all timers down to 80 - 90 % and support a 50% TD on normal nodes and down to 25% on reinforced.
just some thoughts
There's no real reason to limit TiDi and no reason not to do it. In fact, it could be implemented so quietly that players don't notice that it's implemented, just that lag has a different texture. TiDi means no more and no less than controlled lag. It is still lag, just not wild runaway lag that crashes the node. It's controlled lag that allows people to continue to fight instead of having one side's entire fleet massacred while at a black screen. Only reason to argue against it is if you're in an alliance that manipulates lag to win fights (which seems like it ought to be a bannable exploit imo.)
|
xian2
|
Posted - 2011.05.22 19:38:00 -
[297]
I approve of time dilation, and I hope to see it soon.
|
Hakaru Ishiwara
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2011.05.24 14:07:00 -
[298]
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: N'oah I am unsure if you realize what youre saying here.
Yup, I do. Thing is, this is absolutely no different than the situation today. A huge fight on a non-dedicated node will degrade performance for all systems being managed by that node. TiDi does not change that fact, it just makes the symptoms of that degradation more tolerable, predictable and knowable.
That said, we tend to group up systems roughly by location, so if there's a big fight going on, say, somewhere in your constellation, you might be in for a rough time, but that's generally not going to have an effect on someone in another region or type of space.
So...I guess we'll justify it exactly as we have been.
It is not unusual for a fight involving thousands of player across a constellation or two (assuming pilots are re-grouping and / or traveling to the combat location) to impact performance for the entire gaming population.
I reserve judgment on the time dilation initiative.
I believe that CCP needs to continue investment in well-architected infrastructure and server upgrades. With increased subscriber growth comes a responsibility to properly scale resources to meet client demand. And while there will always be a balance between maintaining good profit margins and providing an excellent level of quality, it seems like CCP is falling behind the curve in a major way at the points of peak customer demand.
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 00:14:00 -
[299]
what... do u think they're just not doing hardware upgrades or something?
did you not hear at fanfest that they've received special purchase of a new cutting edge, still unannounced IBM server with an un-released CPU from Intel costing $50,000 a piece??
im sorry if u think u could put together a better server farm with better performance by going down to wallmart and buying a few pc's and linking them together bt id say that CCP are looking at server performance very very very seriously! u dont just drop 50 large on a whim!
jeez some people! CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2 |
Hakaru Ishiwara
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2011.05.25 13:46:00 -
[300]
Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud words expressing outrage at a request for good quality of service from CCP.
Ahhh. The promise of new and improved stuff.
Fanfest is a wonderful marketing tool for what might be possible with the EVE Online IP. And thus, a fancy box trundled out in front of the crowd is nice, but the dog and pony show does not deliver true in-game performance benefits when several hundred capitals and their 500 pilot support fleets collide.
Looking at performance is one thing. Delivering to what has been heavily marketed (Dominion's lag-free fleet fights) is another. CCP needs to deliver on their marketed promise of an environment that welcomes and enables large fleet fights. If CCP can not or will not make that experience possible, then they need to reset customer expectations. Business 101.
As for $50k for fancy hardware, so what? In the grand scheme of things, that's not all that much money to re-invest in the business considering the current and potential revenue streams. And relative to hiring another warm body or two to code / test / whatever, that's chump change.
Please come back when CCP has integrated the new hardware and EVE-O customers are experiencing automatically balanced resource allocation and a gaming experience whose outcome is not based upon who more skillfully exploited the server failure.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |