Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Orion Pax
Yoyodyne corporation Shadow Cartel
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 15:40:00 -
[1] - Quote
I would like to see an "industrialist" killboard. We could see which industrialist has produced the most ships. Which industrialist has the most ships blown up, who has produced the most Drakes, etc. |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
4722
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 15:50:00 -
[2] - Quote
You need to know that packaged items do not exist. They are only placeholders for real items to reduce the volume of the database. Thus, there is no individual information on a packaged item, like who produced it. Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Orion Pax
Yoyodyne corporation Shadow Cartel
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 15:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:You need to know that packaged items do not exist. They are only placeholders for real items to reduce the volume of the database. Thus, there is no individual information on a packaged item, like who produced it.
Yeah, I'm saying we should add it. |
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
108
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 15:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
Whenever you assemble something it gets an ID, when you repackage it the ID changes once you assemble it again.
And redundant post. |
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
2015
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 15:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
As cool as that would be, the answer to that would always be "NO!"
Simply because, each individual ship would be its own version because the extra few lines of code per ship build would be needed. Instead of the generic "Rifter" you'd be asking for...prolly by now and the age of EVE. somewhere along the lines of...well at least a Million different variants needed for each class of ship.
I won't even get into TiDi and lag in massive fleet fights and those extra lines of code per ship.... Then the database throws up when you ask for modules to have the same aswell... EVE needs more Pssshhhh |
Orion Pax
Yoyodyne corporation Shadow Cartel
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 15:54:00 -
[6] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:Whenever you assemble something it gets an ID, when you repackage it the ID changes once you assemble it again.
And redundant post.
Where is this post so I can read it? |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2931
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 15:57:00 -
[7] - Quote
Only if I can turn it off for every single ship I ever build, buy or fly.
I do not want to be handing out free intel on exactly who the, for example, capital builders in my alliance are. |
Orion Pax
Yoyodyne corporation Shadow Cartel
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 15:59:00 -
[8] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:As cool as that would be, the answer to that would always be "NO!"
Simply because, each individual ship would be its own version because the extra few lines of code per ship build would be needed. Instead of the generic "Rifter" you'd be asking for...prolly by now and the age of EVE. somewhere along the lines of...well at least a Million different variants needed for each class of ship.
I won't even get into TiDi and lag in massive fleet fights and those extra lines of code per ship.... Then the database throws up when you ask for modules to have the same aswell...
Don't say that. It just makes it sound like Eve's code is poorly written. Makes you wonder how it doesn't lag in massive fleet fights due to all the character names in the game.
Also that's not how programming works. If Eve can't even deal with text based statistics how are we ever going to get high resolution textures? |
Orion Pax
Yoyodyne corporation Shadow Cartel
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Only if I can turn it off for every single ship I ever build, buy or fly.
I do not want to be handing out free intel on exactly who the, for example, capital builders in my alliance are.
I'm assuming it would be like EveBoard. People can opt in or opt out. |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
4722
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:03:00 -
[10] - Quote
What do you think the database will do if it suddenly has to handle a billion more items because placeholders no longer exist? Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
|
Orion Pax
Yoyodyne corporation Shadow Cartel
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:05:00 -
[11] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:What do you think the database will do if it suddenly has to handle a billion more items because placeholders no longer exist?
You're kidding right? Just add an extra column to the database that links to the player ID that created the ship. It would still be a single query. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
5139
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:14:00 -
[12] - Quote
Orion Pax wrote:Abrazzar wrote:What do you think the database will do if it suddenly has to handle a billion more items because placeholders no longer exist? You're kidding right? Just add an extra column to the database that links to the player ID that created the ship. It would still be a single query. you can always spot someone who know nothing about coding. =]I[= |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2931
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:14:00 -
[13] - Quote
Orion Pax wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Only if I can turn it off for every single ship I ever build, buy or fly.
I do not want to be handing out free intel on exactly who the, for example, capital builders in my alliance are. I'm assuming it would be like EveBoard. People can opt in or opt out.
People as in pilots, or as in manufacturers? Because I'd rather not end up giving away toio much about my own industrial alt either.
Also, it wouldn't be a simple query. Right now, if I have a stack of five hundred packaged rifters, that's one database entry. If they stored info on who built them all, that would be five hundred separate entries. |
Orion Pax
Yoyodyne corporation Shadow Cartel
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:18:00 -
[14] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Orion Pax wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Only if I can turn it off for every single ship I ever build, buy or fly.
I do not want to be handing out free intel on exactly who the, for example, capital builders in my alliance are. I'm assuming it would be like EveBoard. People can opt in or opt out. People as in pilots, or as in manufacturers? Because I'd rather not end up giving away toio much about my own industrial alt either. Also, it wouldn't be a simple query. Right now, if I have a stack of five hundred packaged rifters, that's one database entry. If they stored info on who built them all, that would be five hundred separate entries.
It would be an additional single column of arrays of playerIDs. When it's packaged it would have the array of playerIDs to keep track of everything. When they are unpackaged the playerIDs would be distributed to said packages. This isn't that hard. |
Orion Pax
Yoyodyne corporation Shadow Cartel
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:19:00 -
[15] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote: you can always spot someone who know nothing about coding.
Please don't talk about yourself in such a demeaning way. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
11342
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:29:00 -
[16] - Quote
http://xkcd.com/1425/ Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Orion Pax
Yoyodyne corporation Shadow Cartel
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:31:00 -
[17] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:http://xkcd.com/1425/
Good one. ::thumbs up::
Also if you guys really want, show me an example of the database structure and the corresponding Python code associated with packaging items and I'll write it up for you right here. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2718
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:34:00 -
[18] - Quote
Redundant. This is pretty much just like every other "give industrialists credit for ships" thread that has ever been posted since the dawn of posting in EVE-O Forums. It's also impossible without a major database restructuring and it would add unspeakable amounts of data to be managed.
Even if this were to be a remotely good idea - which it really isn't - specifically how do you propose to keep the BuilderID assigned to the ship? Let's propose for a moment that I'm buying up Catalysts. I buy some made by Jim-Bob Bucktooth, some built by Veronica Bimberly and a one being sold cheaply by DestructoGod MaxPower who didn't actually build his but got it handed to him from the tutorials, meaning that the server created it out of vapor and magic space-pixie stardust.
Three sources, three separate lines in the database. Two lines have different builders and one line has no builder. I buy them all and put them into a single stack. Three lines in the database are merged, two being deleted and the third amended with the new quantity of ships. How precisely do you plan to tell these ships apart for your BuilderID idea? When I assemble them, they get unique IDs in the database as individual ships. When I repackage them again, they lose those IDs which are then recycled for some other item (another ship maybe, or perhaps a gun or someone's missile flying through space possibly) and the repackaged ships are assigned the default TypeID for a packaged Catalyst. Upon assembling those ships a second time they're given new unique IDs, but different than the ones they had before. The IDs they get this time may have once referred to someone's Megathron or Void Bomb or Light Neutron Blaster II.
Every time I repackage and reassemble those ships, items in the database are destroyed and re-created. This process of stripping, recycling and reassigning unique IDs repeats. Endlessly. For every single item in the EVE universe.
So tell me, Orion Pax, how you plan to ram a muddy stick into that and make it work with your free-intel-giving BuilderID idea.
In detail, please. We're not 5-year-olds here. |
Orion Pax
Yoyodyne corporation Shadow Cartel
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:39:00 -
[19] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Redundant. This is pretty much just like every other "give industrialists credit for ships" thread that has ever been posted since the dawn of posting in EVE-O Forums. It's also impossible without a major database restructuring and it would add unspeakable amounts of data to be managed.
Even if this were to be a remotely good idea - which it really isn't - specifically how do you propose to keep the BuilderID assigned to the ship? Let's propose for a moment that I'm buying up Catalysts. I buy some made by Jim-Bob Bucktooth, some built by Veronica Bimberly and a one being sold cheaply by DestructoGod MaxPower who didn't actually build his but got it handed to him from the tutorials, meaning that the server created it out of vapor and magic space-pixie stardust.
Three sources, three separate lines in the database. Two lines have different builders and one line has no builder. I buy them all and put them into a single stack. Three lines in the database are merged, two being deleted and the third amended with the new quantity of ships. How precisely do you plan to tell these ships apart for your BuilderID idea? When I assemble them, they get unique IDs in the database as individual ships. When I repackage them again, they lose those IDs which are then recycled for some other item (another ship maybe, or perhaps a gun or someone's missile flying through space possibly) and the repackaged ships are assigned the default TypeID for a packaged Catalyst. Upon assembling those ships a second time they're given new unique IDs, but different than the ones they had before. The IDs they get this time may have once referred to someone's Megathron or Void Bomb or Light Neutron Blaster II.
Every time I repackage and reassemble those ships, items in the database are destroyed and re-created. This process of stripping, recycling and reassigning unique IDs repeats. Endlessly. For every single item in the EVE universe.
So tell me, Orion Pax, how you plan to ram a muddy stick into that and make it work with your free-intel-giving BuilderID idea.
In detail, please. We're not 5-year-olds here.
Read 4 posts above you. Also I already offered to write that part of the code. I sure hope you're not 5 years old. Comms would be inappropriate for you. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
5142
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:39:00 -
[20] - Quote
Orion Pax wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:http://xkcd.com/1425/ Good one. ::thumbs up:: Also if you guys really want, show me an example of the database structure and the corresponding Python code associated with packaging items and I'll write it up for you right here. ok, my apologies, just enough to be dangerous.
i say let him try =]I[= |
|
Orion Pax
Yoyodyne corporation Shadow Cartel
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:41:00 -
[21] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:i say let him try
Challenge accepted.
I've been programming for 15 years. It's going to be a piece of cake. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
448
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:44:00 -
[22] - Quote
Packaged items only have one piece of data associated with their identity the database: an item ID. By adding another unique identifier to the database, you're doubling the amount of identity data that is associated with a packaged item. From a software standpoint, yes, it would very likely be an easy enough change to make. But there are Billions and Billions (Hi Carl!) of items in the EvE universe, and having the servers have to handle one more piece of data for all of them, would be a massive burden on hardware.
EvE is built around packaged items being completely, utterly, 100% indistinguishable from each other. Let's not go breaking that just so people can collect intel on who's building their opponent's ships. There are other ways to do that already.... CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content. |
Orion Pax
Yoyodyne corporation Shadow Cartel
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:47:00 -
[23] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Packaged items only have one piece of data associated with their identity the database: an item ID. By adding another unique identifier to the database, you're doubling the amount of identity data that is associated with a packaged item. From a software standpoint, yes, it would very likely be an easy enough change to make. But there are Billions and Billions (Hi Carl!) of items in the EvE universe, and having the servers have to handle one more piece of data for all of them, would be a massive burden on hardware. EvE is built around packaged items being completely, utterly, 100% indistinguishable from each other. Let's not go breaking that just so people can collect intel on who's building their opponent's ships. There are other ways to do that already....
I understand that. However, no matter what, we would have a column that keeps track of the number of items that are stacked correct? I'm saying add an extra column to the table that keeps track of this integer. This extra column would be an array type which keeps track of playerIDs that built said ship(s). When they are unpackaged the playerIDs would be redistributed to said ships. |
Leoric Firesword
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Redux
85
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:47:00 -
[24] - Quote
I'm not sure you're seeing the issue here. It's 1 database entry for each copy of a packaged ship someone has. Doesn't matter who built it.
Example: I've got 3 packaged Moa's in my hanger, I know 2 were built by a corp mate and 1 was bought off the market.
Since they're all packed they stack together making 1 single database entry with a quantity of 3. (2 of them have never ever been assembled, the other I really can't remember)
So, how do you propose that in a single database entry we store unique information tagging ship 1 to my corp buddy, ship 2 to the guy who built and then sold on market, and then ship 3 to my corp buddy (that's the order I acquired them in)?
Can't use the previous stack I'd's because I'm sure that at least 2 of them got wiped out when I got them to a central location and stacked them.
Can't use the previous ship Id's because those get wiped when you repackaged (and in my case some of those ships never have been assembled to get that item id).
Then even if you did find a way to associate that data, if you have a fleet fight you're going to have to retrieve this data for each ship, which is going to add time to the query, which will add processing time, causing lag. |
Orion Pax
Yoyodyne corporation Shadow Cartel
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:49:00 -
[25] - Quote
Leoric Firesword wrote:I'm not sure you're seeing the issue here. It's 1 database entry for each copy of a packaged ship someone has. Doesn't matter who built it.
Example: I've got 3 packaged Moa's in my hanger, I know 2 were built by a corp mate and 1 was bought off the market.
Since they're all packed they stack together making 1 single database entry with a quantity of 3. (2 of them have never ever been assembled, the other I really can't remember)
So, how do you propose that in a single database entry we store unique information tagging ship 1 to my corp buddy, ship 2 to the guy who built and then sold on market, and then ship 3 to my corp buddy (that's the order I acquired them in)?
Can't use the previous stack I'd's because I'm sure that at least 2 of them got wiped out when I got them to a central location and stacked them.
Can't use the previous ship Id's because those get wiped when you repackaged (and in my case some of those ships never have been assembled to get that item id).
Then even if you did find a way to associate that data, if you have a fleet fight you're going to have to retrieve this data for each ship, which is going to add time to the query, which will add processing time, causing lag.
Read the post above you.
|
Leoric Firesword
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Redux
85
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:52:00 -
[26] - Quote
Orion Pax wrote:Leoric Firesword wrote:I'm not sure you're seeing the issue here. It's 1 database entry for each copy of a packaged ship someone has. Doesn't matter who built it.
Example: I've got 3 packaged Moa's in my hanger, I know 2 were built by a corp mate and 1 was bought off the market.
Since they're all packed they stack together making 1 single database entry with a quantity of 3. (2 of them have never ever been assembled, the other I really can't remember)
So, how do you propose that in a single database entry we store unique information tagging ship 1 to my corp buddy, ship 2 to the guy who built and then sold on market, and then ship 3 to my corp buddy (that's the order I acquired them in)?
Can't use the previous stack I'd's because I'm sure that at least 2 of them got wiped out when I got them to a central location and stacked them.
Can't use the previous ship Id's because those get wiped when you repackaged (and in my case some of those ships never have been assembled to get that item id).
Then even if you did find a way to associate that data, if you have a fleet fight you're going to have to retrieve this data for each ship, which is going to add time to the query, which will add processing time, causing lag. Read the post above you.
actually, how about you go ahead and build a prototype system?
eve dumps their item data, you can make up some tables about what you think might be held once a ship is assembled, then go for it.
I bet you find it a lot tougher than you think it'll be. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
448
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:55:00 -
[27] - Quote
Orion Pax wrote:I understand that. However, no matter what, we would have a column that keeps track of the number of items that are stacked correct? I'm saying add an extra column to the table that keeps track of this integer. This extra column would be an array type which keeps track of playerIDs that built said ship(s). How would you handle splitting of stacks? Would ships split from a stack pick a random builderID, pick from the top, pick from the bottom, etc.? Keep in mind, this action is extra compute time.
How would you handle the increased throughput requirements for adding an array equal in size to the stack size for every single packaged ship in the game? If someone had a stack of 1000 Rifters, you've just multiplied the size of the database entry for that stack by a thousand-fold.
Why are you limiting this to only ships? Surely people would be interested in knowing who built their modules, implants, ammunition, etc, right?
See where I'm going here? Any way you cut this, it's a performance nightmare for something that doesn't add to gameplay. CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content. |
Orion Pax
Yoyodyne corporation Shadow Cartel
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 17:01:00 -
[28] - Quote
Leoric Firesword wrote:Orion Pax wrote:Leoric Firesword wrote:I'm not sure you're seeing the issue here. It's 1 database entry for each copy of a packaged ship someone has. Doesn't matter who built it.
Example: I've got 3 packaged Moa's in my hanger, I know 2 were built by a corp mate and 1 was bought off the market.
Since they're all packed they stack together making 1 single database entry with a quantity of 3. (2 of them have never ever been assembled, the other I really can't remember)
So, how do you propose that in a single database entry we store unique information tagging ship 1 to my corp buddy, ship 2 to the guy who built and then sold on market, and then ship 3 to my corp buddy (that's the order I acquired them in)?
Can't use the previous stack I'd's because I'm sure that at least 2 of them got wiped out when I got them to a central location and stacked them.
Can't use the previous ship Id's because those get wiped when you repackaged (and in my case some of those ships never have been assembled to get that item id).
Then even if you did find a way to associate that data, if you have a fleet fight you're going to have to retrieve this data for each ship, which is going to add time to the query, which will add processing time, causing lag. Read the post above you. actually, how about you go ahead and build a prototype system? eve dumps their item data, you can make up some tables about what you think might be held once a ship is assembled, then go for it. I bet you find it a lot tougher than you think it'll be.
I expect it would take an hour or two.
My point is, the solution I provided is elegant and will work easily. I find it unfortunate that people are always telling others that provide ideas, "It'll make the game laggy!", "That's billions of new entries!", "How is that even possible?!"
And once, I'm like, "I'll write it for you."
It's like, "Write a prototype and hand it to us on a silver platter and we'll think about it. (Because we can't deny it won't work now.)" |
Orion Pax
Yoyodyne corporation Shadow Cartel
24
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 17:08:00 -
[29] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Orion Pax wrote:I understand that. However, no matter what, we would have a column that keeps track of the number of items that are stacked correct? I'm saying add an extra column to the table that keeps track of this integer. This extra column would be an array type which keeps track of playerIDs that built said ship(s). How would you handle splitting of stacks? Would ships split from a stack pick a random builderID, pick from the top, pick from the bottom, etc.? Keep in mind, this action is extra compute time. How would you handle the increased throughput requirements for adding an array equal in size to the stack size for every single packaged ship in the game? If someone had a stack of 1000 Rifters, you've just multiplied the size of the database entry for that stack by a thousand-fold. Why are you limiting this to only ships? Surely people would be interested in knowing who built their modules, implants, ammunition, etc, right? See where I'm going here? Any way you cut this, it's a performance nightmare for something that doesn't add to gameplay.
It would be a simple array shift or pop. I can't see it making a difference. A stack of 1000 Rifters would still be a single array of playerIDs that built the ship. I don't really care about the mods but it would be nice to have. If CCP designed their database to handle mods, ships, items in a generic way, adding this to ships would automatically provide the same feature to all items in the game. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
449
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 17:27:00 -
[30] - Quote
Orion Pax wrote:It would be a simple array shift or pop. That wasn't there before. Now, multiply that operation by however frequently people split stacks.
Orion Pax wrote:A stack of 1000 Rifters would still be a single array of playerIDs that built the ship. Again, an array that wasn't there before, and scales, without limit, with the size of the stack. And, again, multiply the modification of this array by however frequently people split, add to, or create stacks.
With those two items alone, that's a whole mess of operations that weren't there before. And we haven't even covered the extra database writes necessary to store the information in the first place (admittedly a small issue), or how to handle items that were already in existance (another small issue), etc. As someone who's worked in a high-power compute environment for a number of years, I can tell you firsthand that even a small additional computation can break a robust database system if the frequency of that computation isn't taken into account.
Orion Pax wrote:If CCP designed their database to handle mods, ships, items in a generic way, adding this to ships would automatically provide the same feature to all items in the game. This is precisely what CCP did. Packaged items are 100% generic. They are indistinguishable from each other for the purpose of lessening EvE's database needs. That's what's so brilliant about them. All you need to identify a packaged item in the database is an item ID, and nothing else. What you're proposing is making packaged items non-generic and increasing EvE's database needs. CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |