Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kalened
|
Posted - 2005.08.31 19:36:00 -
[1]
Yes I've been thinking.. that would be that burning smell..
I've been thinking that we 0.0 alliances need to band together in protest of the recent server problems that occur with fleet battles. The only way we as players have to do this (besides cancelling our accounts which isnt realistic LOL) would be to pick a new system everyday for a week and all agree to a ceasefire. After a week of node crashes and complaining from carebears in empire maybe CCP would get the hint.
Let's face it whats been happening the last few months is a direct threat to what we do. Now i know that not every fight is a fleet battle but usually the important ones are. We need to send a message to CCP that they can't ignore.
Would there be any major interest from the alliance leaders to organize this?
|
Cividari
|
Posted - 2005.08.31 19:42:00 -
[2]
Wouldnt there be easier ways of getting banned?
Wanted for crimes against a rich guy. |
Drilla
|
Posted - 2005.08.31 19:43:00 -
[3]
Probably but this way is fun :)
EVE System Security - Killboard (still early alpha) |
Kcel Chim
|
Posted - 2005.08.31 19:53:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Kcel Chim on 31/08/2005 19:55:46 generally a "theoretically" good idea its not more then red tape.
By having this kind of agreement it would remove all the fun all the moving and all the tactics from the game.
Dont get me wrong, your idea is itself great but it needs ccp more then some player created agreements to fix the obvious shortcomings.
Not even to mention that maybe the playerbase wouldnt join up for this initiative either.
Sadly but true we have seen ppl using or abusing the lag to their advantage as they feel it will increase their "fun" and their chances. Without sounding too pessimistic i personally dont see how all sides would sign such an agreement and honor it, if its nowadays (as recently shown in some threads) even impossible to let someone jump in without one side "exploiting" it.
From a general perspective i would say that any defender, especially weaker ones wouldnt carve for "fair" and "lagfree" constructed battles. Their numbers and the homeground advantage are often the only things they can hope for. Especially if hatred and smack is the base of many conflicts which infact would prolly remove any honorable and respectfull agreements in the first place.
The only possible solution would be to get a deffinate ccp response and an official post on how they try to improve the serious issues. Because in the longrun it will be eve's downfall. You cant on one hand be proud of 100k subscribers and "x000 logged in players" if not even a 50 vs 50 can be fought out with reasonable server stability. Not to mention that eve puts "virtual possessions" on the line, which means any death, by lag, bug or simply as a result of playing puts a dent in players wallets. If you die i.e. in wow because of lag you say damn but thats it because frankly youve lost nothing and can rejoin the fight in 3 mins max. In eve its a totally different story with losing hours worth of income and hours worth of traveling. Resulting in your final departure from the battlefield (unless its your homesystem or you have a supplybase close) for that evening.
Note, im not bashing you or your idea, i just think that its more a theoretical mindgame then something which could work on a large scale.
edit: after rereading what you wrote i dont think ultimatums or forced nodecrashes will change something. In my first reading attempt i actually thought u talked about organized fleetbattles in "far far away" systems to reduce lag not to generate lag with the purpose to harm the game. Something which should never even be discussed.
|
Darko1107
|
Posted - 2005.08.31 19:57:00 -
[5]
Can everyone LAY off ccp. Theres not a "FIX IT" button that they can press, if there was i think they would be pressing it. Its not a case of just "fix it". I doubt they are ignoring the situation, they just dont know how to fix it yet, but they are working on it.
|
MAXSuicide
|
Posted - 2005.08.31 19:57:00 -
[6]
Edited by: MAXSuicide on 31/08/2005 19:58:47 bob the builder can fix it
My vids and random stuff
|
Kalened
|
Posted - 2005.08.31 20:00:00 -
[7]
I'm not saying theres a fix it button Personal attack removed -Abdalion ..
I just think CCP should be alot more proactive. This isnt a new problem anymore.
|
Darko1107
|
Posted - 2005.08.31 20:10:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Kalened Personal attack removed -Abdalion
Im sure they are working on it, maybe it just needs a little more time, or they just need to dedicate more people to it.
|
Kalened
|
Posted - 2005.08.31 20:21:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Darko1107
Originally by: Kalened Personal attack removed -Abdalion
LOL You know i love to tease.
I would like to see a post first admitting the problem and then detailing the efforts that they're taking. As much as like CCP i think the problem has been going on long enough. We are customers afterall and we are the community which makes their game tick. They should have enough respect for us to discuss this openly.
My idea is probably the wrong approach. I'm known for the wrong approach but something needs to be done :(
|
Marko Debreault
|
Posted - 2005.08.31 20:46:00 -
[10]
I am certain that CCP is working on the issue, and I am just as certain that the reason there is a lag issue in the first place is because we are pushing the limits of whats physically possible.
Every few months theres a post about us breaking the record for number of concurrent players online on the same server. Its not like CCP is ignoring the issue; its just that we're on the bleeding edge of technology.
I'd be interested to know the architecture of the server structure they use, or the amount of data transmitted/received each client generates. CCP may not choose to reveal this, as it might give their competition a clue about what to aspire to, but if they did I'd be happy. Or if it has already been revealed, I'd love a link.
|
|
Sarmaul
|
Posted - 2005.08.31 22:21:00 -
[11]
Wait until Kali - apparently the turret and effects rewrite will fix a lot of the lag.
Apparently
|
Drilla
|
Posted - 2005.08.31 22:56:00 -
[12]
Problem is that we can already disable effects and turrets - just doesnt help in 100 vs. 100.
I remember sometime ago a guy did a lot of research into the lag issue and he proved that by disabling loading models the lag was virtually gone.
EVE System Security - Killboard (still early alpha) |
Aman Sul
|
Posted - 2005.08.31 23:21:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Aman Sul on 31/08/2005 23:22:54
WTF are you people talking about:
7/11/2005 New Online Record Yesterday, Sunday, you set a new online player record when 12.895 of you were playing at the same time! No reports of lag were reported, the 'cold war edition' seems to have yet again lessened the server load.
Please stop flaming CCP the 'cold war edition' is taking care of everything.
"Oh yeah there's enough for erbody" |
Kalened
|
Posted - 2005.08.31 23:24:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Kalened on 31/08/2005 23:24:38
Originally by: Aman Sul Edited by: Aman Sul on 31/08/2005 23:22:54
WTF are you people talking about:
7/11/2005 New Online Record Yesterday, Sunday, you set a new online player record when 12.895 of you were playing at the same time! No reports of lag were reported, the 'cold war edition' seems to have yet again lessened the server load.
Please stop flaming CCP the 'cold war edition' is taking care of everything.
i like your sarcasm :P
|
Slaveabuser
|
Posted - 2005.08.31 23:51:00 -
[15]
"lets get together and...."
Worst idea ever.
Nothing personal |
Zzazzt
|
Posted - 2005.09.01 00:07:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Drilla Problem is that we can already disable effects and turrets - just doesnt help in 100 vs. 100.
I remember sometime ago a guy did a lot of research into the lag issue and he proved that by disabling loading models the lag was virtually gone.
"loading models"? ____________________________________________
|
Randay
|
Posted - 2005.09.01 00:36:00 -
[17]
*pretends to be Oveur*
whiners
|
Lucian Alucard
|
Posted - 2005.09.01 00:40:00 -
[18]
Well another thing people forget is that BMs,mails and your buddy list contribute to both player side and server side lag. I am on a 56k connection and I have to ritualistically purge my Inbox,buddy list and BM folders to minimise lag. It helps a bit maybe you can try that tho I know of a lot of players with over 200 people in their buddy list and mails dating back to september of 03. So if you clear it out it MIGHT help.
Undisputed Lord Of The Forums!!!
The best joke ever!!!! http://www.livejournal.com/users/sweet__kitty/40953.html?mode=reply
|
Azeroth Uluntil
|
Posted - 2005.09.01 00:53:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Azeroth Uluntil on 01/09/2005 00:53:58 Not to mention those morons giving out copies of 1000+ bookmarks. The bookmarks are the major problem when it comes to the server lag. I remember beta and shortly after, no lag with huge battles, because noone had any frigin bookmarks... Can't think of a way around this though...
And what blacklight said is right... Also, we definately need a response from CCP on this...
|
Blacklight
|
Posted - 2005.09.01 00:53:00 -
[20]
The serious lag is always associated with loading the screen either at warp in to a small degree or at jump in to a high degree, turrets and effects can't be the issue as there are no turrets firing or many effects going on (appart from sensor boosters) when the lag is initiated.
I'd love a post from CCP on the subject, they're far too quiet on this at the moment.
Eve Blacklight Style
|
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2005.09.01 03:15:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Azeroth Uluntil I remember beta and shortly after, no lag with huge battles, because noone had any frigin bookmarks... Can't think of a way around this though...
Enable "warp to gate", make warp bubbles cheaper, and make warp bubbles configurable in 0.5+ so you can use them to stop war enemies and let other people through.
Dunno how hard that would be to achieve, but it would wipe out 95% of bookmarks. __________________________________________ I tried strip mining, but I lost; and it's cold flying around in space naked. |
LadyScarlet
|
Posted - 2005.09.01 03:44:00 -
[22]
lets behonest it dont matter how many patches you have or new toys you get if the lag is not fixed peple arnt happy.
fix the lag then give us the new toys :)
|
Khatred
|
Posted - 2005.09.01 04:47:00 -
[23]
I think this is the "graal" for any mmorpg dev to be honest . I've seen big battles in Asheron's Call, Dark Ages of Camelot, Anarchy Online, Star Wars Galaxies and World of Warcraft. Some had huge lag, some would disconnect you from the game. Point is, no mmorpg to this date manages to handle "epic" battles so that's the first hint. Secondly, Eve has only one server. So if in other mmo's, you have one huge guild/clan/monarchy on one server out of 10 servers, here we have all the big boys in the same place. Also Eve has probably one of the worst penalties upon death. For me and others that's not a problem but by the looks of it lots of "carebears" have invaded Eve and God forgive should they loose a ship!. So yeah, the lag is bad, but hey, the enemies knows that so he might not jump in. Or he might jump in but I still get free shooting until he loads. And I should put out some drones too cause that will lag him even worse and increase the odds that I will not loose my precious.
|
MyFire
|
Posted - 2005.09.01 08:52:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Darko1107 Can everyone LAY off ccp. Theres not a "FIX IT" button that they can press, if there was i think they would be pressing it. Its not a case of just "fix it". I doubt they are ignoring the situation, they just dont know how to fix it yet, but they are working on it.
We could "lay off" ccp if ccp would "lay off" our wallets until they find the "fix it button".
We are paying customers for a great BUT rather expensive game. I love this game, but tbh this massive lag (now and then) is getting on my nerves. I don't say that I would like to leave this game (us I said, I just love it), but if ccp cannot handle 12k players online, at least stop accepting new ones until everything is ready !
If I don't pay for my subscription ccp will cut my account... If ccp doesn't give me what I pay for, what should I "cut" ?
IMHO this post should be considered by ccp us a warning and not us a threat. At the bottom line ccp is a "corp" and we are the "members"... don't let us down.
P.S. Keep on the good job !
|
Dalilah
|
Posted - 2005.09.01 09:31:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Baldour Ngarr Enable "warp to gate", make warp bubbles cheaper, and make warp bubbles configurable in 0.5+ so you can use them to stop war enemies and let other people through.
Dunno how hard that would be to achieve, but it would wipe out 95% of bookmarks.
Perfect idea! Seems like a best way to resolve BMs lag
------------------- The Xenobytes will give you experience beyond limits - pain and pleasure indivisible |
Kildan
|
Posted - 2005.09.01 10:00:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Dalilah
Originally by: Baldour Ngarr Enable "warp to gate", make warp bubbles cheaper, and make warp bubbles configurable in 0.5+ so you can use them to stop war enemies and let other people through.
Dunno how hard that would be to achieve, but it would wipe out 95% of bookmarks.
Perfect idea! Seems like a best way to resolve BMs lag
Its defintely along the right lines. Would remove safe spots from the game, though. Good thing? I heard ccp are thinking about including a hi-slot mod and a skill to allow insta'ing. Think the mod is overkill but the 'warp to station/gate' option should have a deviation of around 0-5k with a skill reducing this.
Just an idea |
Gungankllr
|
Posted - 2005.09.01 10:08:00 -
[27]
How about we all just agree to not try and put 400 ships into a system and expect it to run as good as pac-man?
God, just keep the size of the gangs down and leave it at that
|
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.09.01 10:11:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Kalened I would like to see a post first admitting the problem and then detailing the efforts that they're taking.
Oh look, they did.
Originally by: Kalened As much as like CCP i think the problem has been going on long enough.
Just because it's been going on for X months does not make a solution just magically appear. If it did, then my lack of ability to defy gravity using the power of my mind should surely have been solved after 22 years of trying.
Silly example, I know, but the point holds.
Originally by: Drilla I remember sometime ago a guy did a lot of research into the lag issue and he proved that by disabling loading models the lag was virtually gone.
That was a looong time ago (possibly even pre-exodus), and prompted a lot of work being done on the client to address the issues found. So that study can't be considered an accurate reflection of the performance of the current client - too much has changed in it since the test was done.
Originally by: Marko Debreault I'd be interested to know the architecture of the server structure they use, or the amount of data transmitted/received each client generates. CCP may not choose to reveal this, as it might give their competition a clue about what to aspire to, but if they did I'd be happy. Or if it has already been revealed, I'd love a link.
While they haven't given any detailed performance stats, they have slipped out the basic structure and some of the problems fleet battles pose.
The server itself is a large cluster, with 3 layers. There are the proxies, these accept incoming packets and transmit packets out to the client. They handle the TCP/IP overheads, and generally make sure the right packets go to the right places. At the other end is the SQL server. This holds the world DB, detailing who owns what, and where, and what status it's at. I the middle, are the "Sol" nodes. These are the nodes that actually do the work of simulating the eve world. The solar systems are spread across these nodes to attempt to spread the processing load and keep good performance for everyone, but there are limitations. Namely:
1) Each solar system can only be on one node at a time. So no spreading over 2 nodes if it gets busy. 2) There can be more than one solar system running on a single node (otherwise you'd need 5000+ nodes, which is silly). 3) A solar system cannot be transferred between nodes while there are players in it. Even if this could be done, it would involve all players being arbitrarily thrown into a "loading" state as they got shunted over to the new node.
It is these restrictions that cause fleet battles to be such a problem.
1) means that the total capacity or crowdedness of the server is irrelevant, the limit is the performance of a single node. Think of it like a hotel, with each node being a room in that hotel. If you spread everyone out across the rooms, you can get a lot of people in. Try and cram 200 people into one room, and you have problems. The number of other rooms in the hotel, or whether those rooms are full or empty, is irrelevant to the problem you're having in the room of 200.
2) This means that there is a slight exception to the hotel example above, and explains why fleet battle performance can be very variable from one battle to the next. You could have just 1 quiet system on the same node, or you could have several medium-traffic ones. Obviously, the first is going to give better results in your battle than the second. So global server load can have an impact, but an indirect and variable one, and one that can only be eliminated by kicking the whole 10k other players off the server. Unfortunately, 3) means that you can't hop the fleet-battle system to an empty node to give best performance.
Beware those beyond here, for they cannot see evil. |
Nifel
|
Posted - 2005.09.01 10:36:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Zzazzt
Originally by: Drilla Problem is that we can already disable effects and turrets - just doesnt help in 100 vs. 100.
I remember sometime ago a guy did a lot of research into the lag issue and he proved that by disabling loading models the lag was virtually gone.
"loading models"?
Sounds like they load up a completely new instance of a model for each ship. Which would be an extreme waste of memory & resources, so I'm gonna assume that isn't the case.
"We wield swords for the sound of laughter that used to be there long ago." |
NoNameNewbie
|
Posted - 2005.09.01 10:44:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Nifel
Sounds like they load up a completely new instance of a model for each ship. Which would be an extreme waste of memory & resources, so I'm gonna assume that isn't the case.
well, it was that way arround 9 months ago ... dunno if CCP fixed it meanwhile ... but i doubt it
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |