| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
   |
Posted - 2006.09.11 14:43:00 -
[1]
I have being toying with a certain concept and I think it could be the right time to share it..... (even though a little voice inside my head tells me I'm asking for trouble  )
.... but first I would like to establish some facts about the current state of warfare in EVE.
FACTS (N.B if anybody would like to dispute these facts/assumptions.. pls feel free to do so)
- The biggest enemy facing large fleets in the game in its current state is LAG.
- CCP know that LAG is a problem, and we must assume they are doing everything within their power to alleviate it. (if we cant assume this then there is no point playing the game at all)
- LAG isn't going to go away anytime soon, in fact it may steadily deteriorate before it gets any better.
- Engagements even at non-POS locations, over 100 vs 100 are not feasible.
- Engagments at Battle POS are most succeptible to lag and give the defender a distinct advantage as POS guns do not suffer from said lag.
SOLUTION :
- All major alliances agree to a cap on fleet engagements.
- 100 vs 100 for open field engagements (gates and planets)
- 100 vs 50? at L Battle POS locations where the defender already has the distinct advantage.
PROBLEMS that could arise from the implementation of such a solution :
Alliances with newer members are at a disadvantage vs established alliances : This will be true, however without a cap the newer alliance would have to bring at least twice as many pilots to make up for the lack in skills making a 100 vs 100 into a 100 vs 200 which = LAGfest and not feasible anyhow. Newer alliances must therefore launch simultaneous attacks at different locations or simply picks a fight with somebody of their own skill level.
What do you do if you have 200 willing pilots? : Launch two pronged attacks or have a fleet of 100 in reserve should the first battle be lost. In such a case the first fleet could be replenished by the second.
How can it be guaranteed that the enemy will honour such an arrangement: This is the tricky part... the big 4 power blocks ASCN, BoB, D2, LV would have to actually sign a document stating that they would no longer field fleets above the 100 mark. The remaining EVE alliances would have to then follow suit or face the wrath of the big 4. Alliances not honouring such an arrangement would be EVE pariahs...
Capping fleet sizes breaks the immersion of the game: 200 vs 200 (sometimes more) lagfests where nobody can activate modules and nodes drop doesn't?
Well I think Ive covered some important issues that could arise... but I think the basic fact that we are stuck with is that..
EVE cannot handle big fleet engagements. (over the 100 vs 100 mark)
Even if this idea gets ridiculed (quite possible  ) I hope it does get some alliance leaders thinking... I believe that playing the "numbers" game is not working and is killing the game. And I don't think its just CCP's fault... no hardware can handle the numbers which the big alliances sometimes throw at the server.
|
Kuentai
Beagle Corp
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 14:49:00 -
[2]
Sounds fair enough, the cause being for fun, will also cause the alliances that rely on massive blobbing to rethink their tactics making things more interesting.
Doubt it will go through though, this is a game but the powermad masses tend to forget that :P.
-
"The good man has few enemies, but the ruthless... None." |
Nikita Fontaine
Caldari
g guild
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 14:50:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Nikita Fontaine on 11/09/2006 14:52:01
The big question is 'why should you give the enemy a 'fair' fight when you are trying to protect something much more valuable to you than the enemy'?
Edit: I am not denying that close/more equal fights are certainly more exciting.
-----------------------------------------------
Great minds think alike but fools seldom differ
Directors are like buttons they hold things together.
|
Omeega
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 14:57:00 -
[4]
you cannot force someone not to come to battle.
Don't speak english. F1,f2,f3...
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 14:59:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Nikita Fontaine
The big question is 'why should you give the enemy a 'fair' fight when you are trying to protect something much more valuable to you than the enemy'?
Edit: I am not denying that close/more equal fights are certainly more exciting.
If we went on the assumption that the 'big 4' would agree to such a convention... there would no longer be a choice.
It would be a case of sticking to capping or else...
The truth is that this whole concept is only something that would work if the 'big 4' agreed to it.
And I'm the first to admit that thats a massive "IF"
|
Raid
Caldari
Tyrell Corp
Curse Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 14:59:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Raid on 11/09/2006 14:59:54
Originally by: Nez Perces
SOLUTION :
- All major alliances agree to a cap on fleet engagements.
- 100 vs 100 for open field engagements (gates and planets)
- 100 vs 50? at L Battle POS locations where the defender already has the distinct advantage.
Would be nice but such rules would have to be made on the fly. the 100 v 50 fight at a POS will never happen. Why would anyone defend billions of ISK worth of investments with only a portion of their army.
100 vs 100 on open engagments is possible... but again it would have to be on the fly with FC's gettign in contact with each others and designating how it would occur. Its only natural fo people to field as many ships as they can and organized fleet fights would be the only way to insure numbers stay reasonable.
|
El Covah
No Quarter.
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:04:00 -
[7]
CCP favours the forming of big alliances and larger corps. The achievements to hold step with the "other" competitors just require a large team to cooperate if you want to survive on long term in 0.0. Titans, motherships, POS-networks, outpostes etc. are not manageable with small structures if you also need to defend your territory. Today you can see more and more mergers into bigger structures going on as a direct result of the game mechanics.
If a hostile comes with a fleet of 100 pilots and I have 200 pilots ready to defend our assets I would throw them into battle and keep the assets we achieved with lot of our game time. I would be stupid if I don't.
Numbers also make a difference in fleet battles. Even if you have a good FC and far (!) less ships than your enemy you will loose the battle. You can fight outnumbered and win, but if the numbers are too much against you you will loose.
|
DigitalCommunist
Evolution
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:04:00 -
[8]
Even if I assumed the lag is the number one problem, which I don't, you're saying player created "rules" are the answer. Which ignores the fact of huge fleet battles like the ones you mention only happening during assaults on station systems. Somehow I doubt the defending side will place the enjoyment of a fleet battle above the defense of their station.
Not to mention, suspension of disbelief gets thrown out the window. Each battleship has a supposed 5000 crewmen, so you're looking at 1mil+ peoples lives being tossed away for a 'pistols at dawn' matchup in outer space. But you already covered that.
Oh and I guarantee you that if such a lag treaty were to exist, and be signed.. it would be broken for the explicit purpose of obtaining this "wrath" you speak of. I know I would. And thats assuming these alliances would somehow work together and be willing to toss away hundreds of billions to spank me for ignoring fictional rules in a fictional game..
Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame. |
jarack
Generals Of Destruction Syndicate
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:05:00 -
[9]
Edited by: jarack on 11/09/2006 15:05:31
from what i was told. when the creators of eve planned out, the moons / planets were locations of fighting / fleet battles but obviously its more at gates, and nez i have to disagree about the 100 vs 100 that still is not good for a game which i pay ú10 for monthly, i was getting probably 1 fps and it was 80 versus 40
EDIT-
HI NEZ!!! o/
|
Kurieg
Universal Manufacturing Corporation
Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:07:00 -
[10]
So, for the "Big 4" to enforce this rule, they would presumably have to violate it in order to bring a large blobbing group to heel. What you are proposing is an anti-lag ROE that needs a lagfest to enforce it.
I'm not quite certain that makes a whole lot of sense even if you assume the "Big 4" cooperate.
I also think we all know what will happen if there are 150 allies watching 50 lose a POS fight in a major system.
But, hey, maybe you're just hoping for a lot of "You guys brought 110, I'm telling BOB/ASCN/D2/LV" threads to spice up this forum?
It's up to CCP.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:08:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Raid
Would be nice but such rules would have to be made on the fly. the 100 v 50 fight at a POS will never happen. Why would anyone defend billions of ISK worth of investments with only a portion of their army.
100 vs 100 on open engagments is possible... but again it would have to be on the fly with FC's gettign in contact with each others and designating how it would occur. Its only natural fo people to field as many ships as they can and organized fleet fights would be the only way to insure numbers stay reasonable.
Those of us who followed the TCF campaign's vs D2 or the LV campaigns vs RA will remember that it was the defender that had the advantage even with massively inferior numbers. We heard of sometimes 400 strong fleets attacking a L battle POS with 50 - 75 defenders. It is therefore logical to assume that you do not need equal numbers to successfully defend your L Battle POS.
The defender might be glad to know that they will only face a fleet of 100 max.. and the attacker may be glad to know they will only face a max of 50?
Just because the numbers are pre-arranged in fleet fights it does not mean that the conditions of the battle have to be arranged... fleets could still play hide and seek across systems as long as it was a given that the fleet sizes will remain capped.
|
Max Teranous
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:10:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Max Teranous on 11/09/2006 15:10:46
It can't happen. As well as all the other things mentioned above, how would you feel and react if you were in a gang of 110 and your FC told you to log off, as you were in the 100-110 bracket ? Any alliance which tried this would run out of members damn fast.
Max 
--------------------
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:11:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 11/09/2006 15:11:37
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Even if I assumed the lag is the number one problem, which I don't, you're saying player created "rules" are the answer.
Well I would very glad to hear what you think the number one problem is.. I mean every time there is a big fleet engagement the first thing we hear about on the forums.. is
"OMGlag was unbearable couldnt activate modules"
Maybe I'm missing something and I would be happy to be corrected..
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:13:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Max Teranous
It can't happen. As well as all the other things mentioned above, how would you feel and react if you were in a gang of 110 and your FC told you to log off, as you were in the 100-110 bracket ? Any alliance which tried this would run out of members damn fast.
I personally would make myself a cup of tea.. sit on TS and listen whilst my alliance mates slaughter the other side fair and square
|
Max Teranous
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:16:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Nez Perces
I personally would make myself a cup of tea.. sit on TS and listen whilst my alliance mates slaughter the other side fair and square
You'd be in a minority I would think
It could work in individual cases, for example an RP war where both sides arrange a time and place for a 50 vs 50. But in general, nope.
Max
--------------------
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:31:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 11/09/2006 15:32:38
Originally by: Kurieg
So, for the "Big 4" to enforce this rule, they would presumably have to violate it in order to bring a large blobbing group to heel. What you are proposing is an anti-lag ROE that needs a lagfest to enforce it.
not necessarily.... several fleets hitting different locations at once, 100 pilots strong, would bring a rogue alliance to heel pretty quickly.
OFC it would mean that the 'big 4' themselves wouldnt break the treaty. It might be some medium sized alliance that in all probability cant field big fleets on a regular basis anyhow..
Its worth remembering that the only entities that can field very large fleets on a regular basis are in the 'big 4' or associated with them.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:39:00 -
[17]
Originally by: El Covah
CCP favours the forming of big alliances and larger corps. The achievements to hold step with the "other" competitors just require a large team to cooperate if you want to survive on long term in 0.0. Titans, motherships, POS-networks, outpostes etc. are not manageable with small structures if you also need to defend your territory. Today you can see more and more mergers into bigger structures going on as a direct result of the game mechanics.
You are quite right, EVE is becoming more and more about teamwork and working together to achieve high end content. Whilst the industrial aspect of this is not susceptible to lag.. the combat aspect of it is.
You gotta ask yourself whats the point in building all these new toys.. DN's, Titans etc... if you will never get to play with them properly as they only come out when there are mega fleets, which go hand in hand with unplayable lag?
K we can say its CCP's fault.. and yeah in some ways it probably is .. but... do you really need mega-fleets to enjoy the game, I mean playing EVE is about having fun.
Atm it seems that the first line of defence for an alliance is to ramp up the numbers... and if the game becomes unplayable.. so be it... our assets are safe.
This may have been k in the past, but when alliances can now field up to 300-400 pilots in one fleet.. its madness...
|
Amerame
Section XIII
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:42:00 -
[18]
It's impossible to kill a dreadnought with a 50 men fleet if the attacker has half a brain.
|
BoinKlasik
Eye of God
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:44:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Omeega
you cannot force someone not to come to battle.
agreed
also, can you imagine the annoyance of bloody manageing "ok who has the best skills here"?
*doh, I broke my edited sig :/* *cries*
this signature was lacking pink, I'll provide it for you. There. Looks better doesn't it? -Eris
Fixed it for you. Oh, btw, yarr!  ~kieron
Didn't I tell you? The damsel moved in with me, we're having a great time. - Wrangler
The damsel may not be distressed any more, but how many times does the informant have to be silenced before he gets the message? - Cortes
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:44:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Amerame
It's impossible to kill a dreadnought with a 50 men fleet if the attacker has half a brain.
Even at a death star pos? Even if in your 50 man fleet there are carriers and DN's too?
|
Snodgey2004
Mega Modal M0nkeys
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:45:00 -
[21]
I'm sure you'll remember some time ago a similar idea was pushed by someone on these forums and it was ridiculed , maybe not ridiculed but not taken seriously back then too , basically it wouldn't work ,
eg. BoB has a 100 man fleet in a2-v27 , and another a few jumps away , the fleet in a2- engages generic alliance a. , whats to stop the second BoB fleet a few jumps away to "accidently" jump into a2 and finish the alliance a. off for sure ?
You would need a high level of communication and discipline and even if you have that it would all come down to an "accident" which happens , how do you protect against accidents ? I wish I could put into words what I really mean but I am a typical Minmatar dunce  basically I don't think it would work
|
Heldane
Amarr
1st Praetorian Guard
Vigilia Valeria
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:49:00 -
[22]
I can't see alliances like RA or GoonSwsarm following such a treaty. They already don't care what your "Big 4" say or do so why would they bother? The goons seem to be one of the largest creators of lag with their 200+ fleets being so common. If I recall correctly the last 2 GIANT lag issues have involved GS in the XZH fiasco and friday nights battle when they showed up to support RA. Both incidents created horrible lag all over the server and these were the most hotly debated lag threads we've had.
It appears the only real solution is to hold of large scale invasions until CCP gets a handle on this problem. Defenders simply are not going to risk losing valuable assetts over player made rules created to fix a server side issue.
I wouldn't.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:51:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 11/09/2006 15:52:15
Originally by: Snodgey2004
I'm sure you'll remember some time ago a similar idea was pushed by someone on these forums and it was ridiculed , maybe not ridiculed but not taken seriously back then too , basically it wouldn't work ,
hehe... no I havent seen that post, If I had I probably wouldnt have posted this thread
Originally by: Snodgey2004
eg. BoB has a 100 man fleet in a2-v27 , and another a few jumps away , the fleet in a2- engages generic alliance a. , whats to stop the second BoB fleet a few jumps away to "accidently" jump into a2 and finish the alliance a. off for sure ?
You would need a high level of communication and discipline and even if you have that it would all come down to an "accident" which happens , how do you protect against accidents ? I wish I could put into words what I really mean but I am a typical Minmatar dunce basically I don't think it would work
K this is where the 100 man cap on fleets must be rigourously enforced at an internal level.. and that means that you dont have 2*100 man fleets engaging at the same time....
I'm sure BoB of all people have the internal communication and discipline to know what their fleets are doing at all times and that BoB FC's don't ignore their RoE.
You don't "accidentally" ambush an enemy fleet with twice the numbers.. something like that is usually intentional.
|
Hawkings SJ
Caldari
FATAL REVELATIONS
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:53:00 -
[24]
Your idea is based on one concept that is not going to work: It requires that everyone agree when the rules have been broken. Lets say one of the big four, Alliance A, uses 100 man fleets in a way that wins a fight that Alliance B thinks is unfair. Alliance C sides with B, D thinks they are bothe wrong...and viola, the system is in the can.
And since I can't remember the last time all of the big alliances agreed on anything more then "We don't like lag", getting this to work is actually harder then going to Iceland and holding CCP hostage at gunpoint until all the fixes you want are made.
And it has less chance of being made into a TV movie.
|
dalman
Finite Auxiliary
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:53:00 -
[25]
The blobs are created by CCP.
And if CCP can't handle the lag situation (which they obviously can't), it's time to re-think the way the game is heading in terms of mechanics and features.
Am I forced to have any regret?
I've become the lie, beautiful and free
In my righteous own mind
I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me |
Kalyster
Section XIII
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:53:00 -
[26]
Agreeing on "who" requires agreeing on "where" and "when".
Bye Bye surprise effect...
War is about organisation and dedication, not WOW-style gladiator fights.
|
Amerame
Section XIII
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:54:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Amerame on 11/09/2006 15:55:24
Originally by: Nez Perces
Originally by: Amerame
It's impossible to kill a dreadnought with a 50 men fleet if the attacker has half a brain.
Even at a death star pos? Even if in your 50 man fleet there are carriers and DN's too?
Death star damage output on dread is very low, a large arti is roughly equivalent to 1 BS, and considering that pos gun cycle, it's negligible. If the attacker use the regular dreadnought / support fleet configuration I don't see how you could kill the dreadnoughts.
Actually maybe you could with very specific fleets of highly skilled players and some decent carrier support, but that pretty much rule out Goon for instance or any upcomming alliance that does not have access to t2 guns / missiles / carriers.
A dreadnought will tank 50 t1 BS at 100km, and you can't really be closer than that if your opponent has more BS than you do.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:59:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Heldane
It appears the only real solution is to hold of large scale invasions until CCP gets a handle on this problem. Defenders simply are not going to risk losing valuable assetts over player made rules created to fix a server side issue.
I wouldn't.
You are probably right... Im just wondering when that is gonna be.... and furthermore, even if the situation improves for large fleet engagements, it seems that fleets are only getting bigger and bigger.
Even if CCP do get better servers will they really be able to handle 300 vs 300 or numbers like that.. I really doubt it...
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 16:02:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Kalyster
Agreeing on "who" requires agreeing on "where" and "when".
Bye Bye surprise effect...
You don't need a 200 man blob for a surprise effect.. a fleet of 100 is more than sufficient.
If your enemy is unprepared it means they haven't put a fleet together at all.
In EVE surprise attacks are extremely rare.
|
Amerame
Section XIII
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 16:06:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Nez Perces
Originally by: Heldane
It appears the only real solution is to hold of large scale invasions until CCP gets a handle on this problem. Defenders simply are not going to risk losing valuable assetts over player made rules created to fix a server side issue.
I wouldn't.
You are probably right... Im just wondering when that is gonna be.... and furthermore, even if the situation improves for large fleet engagements, it seems that fleets are only getting bigger and bigger.
Even if CCP do get better servers will they really be able to handle 300 vs 300 or numbers like that.. I really doubt it...
The real problem is that I fear that as long as the complexity of the fight is in n¦ there is no possibility of eve to be ever lagless, i'm pretty sure that if the server could handle 300 vs 300, you have alliance bringing 600 people in fight the next day, considering the number of people in the big 4 alliances, they should easily be able to get 1000 or 1500 men fleets, TCF has 800 player in alliance, regularly 100 players in fleets, sometimes 150-200, so the amount of ship ASCN or LV & co could get... I'd rather not even think about it.
If CCP aim to get 300 vs 300 lagless battle it's not going to be enough, they should aim at 2000 people in the same system, unfortunately.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 16:08:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Hawkings SJ
And since I can't remember the last time all of the big alliances agreed on anything more then "We don't like lag", getting this to work is actually harder then going to Iceland and holding CCP hostage at gunpoint until all the fixes you want are made.
hehe.. yeah admittedly there is more chance of what you suggest than this idea ever happening.
But that doesnt leave the big alliances with a lot of options then... I mean think about it, when is the next time you guys are gonna have a decent fleet fight without unbearable lag?
|
Verite Rendition
Caldari
AUS Corporation
CORE.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 16:22:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Amerame
Originally by: Nez Perces
Originally by: Heldane
It appears the only real solution is to hold of large scale invasions until CCP gets a handle on this problem. Defenders simply are not going to risk losing valuable assetts over player made rules created to fix a server side issue.
I wouldn't.
You are probably right... Im just wondering when that is gonna be.... and furthermore, even if the situation improves for large fleet engagements, it seems that fleets are only getting bigger and bigger.
Even if CCP do get better servers will they really be able to handle 300 vs 300 or numbers like that.. I really doubt it...
The real problem is that I fear that as long as the complexity of the fight is in n¦ there is no possibility of eve to be ever lagless, i'm pretty sure that if the server could handle 300 vs 300, you have alliance bringing 600 people in fight the next day, considering the number of people in the big 4 alliances, they should easily be able to get 1000 or 1500 men fleets, TCF has 800 player in alliance, regularly 100 players in fleets, sometimes 150-200, so the amount of ship ASCN or LV & co could get... I'd rather not even think about it.
If CCP aim to get 300 vs 300 lagless battle it's not going to be enough, they should aim at 2000 people in the same system, unfortunately.
And let's be perfectly honest, that's never going to happen, the hardware/software setup CCP uses can't do it. What's going to happen is that they're going to implement the god-damned queue permanently, and the winning side is going to be whoever can fill a node first in order to lock out the enemy.
----
AUS Corp
Lead Megalomanic |
Plutoinum
German Cyberdome Corp
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 16:39:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Plutoinum on 11/09/2006 16:39:52
I don't believe that it works. Many fights are not just to have a fight, but to win something by it or to protect something.
Noone likes losing, especially not in alliance warfare, so we'd start to argue, what 'fair' means.
E.g. if we said to Goonswarm: 'Lets not come with larger fleets than 50 people.', then they'd problably answer that that wouldn't be their way to play EVE and it wouldn't be fair, because we have the skillpoint advantage (tech-2 fitted battleships etc.), but their advantage are their numbers that they also want to use in a war for sure.
Fairness is really relative and since both sides want to win, they also try to achieve better odds than 50/50 by using what they have.
Another argument is that wars include sometimes some frustration and breaking the morale of the enemy helps to win, so such agreements are doomed to fail, I think.
And then, like others pointed out, you always have the problem that people want to take part. You can't tell them to stay away.
|
Unss
Gas Giant Industries
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 16:57:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Verite Rendition
And let's be perfectly honest, that's never going to happen, the hardware/software setup CCP uses can't do it. What's going to happen is that they're going to implement the god-damned queue permanently, and the winning side is going to be whoever can fill a node first in order to lock out the enemy.
Other MMOs have implemented queues and it works fine. Basically having multiple playable fights is better then one or two unplayable fights. Lockout is easy to solve as the cap\queue applies to two or more different sides, i.e. one side can only get 50% of the system's population. Only really challenge I see for CCP is determining sides. Obviously in a system with sov they would know one of the sides. War Dec could also be used to determine sides and I am sure a reasonable system can come up with a way determine sides.
|
Daxes
Cataclysm Enterprises
Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 17:01:00 -
[35]
such a rule would only hurt the smaller/weaker alliances.
The current big alliances would be the big winners of such a rule because they would be the alliance who could easily field 100 top quality pilots.
Just look at the Goonies, the only thing that made it possible for them to compete with the big boys was the fact that they could bring huge numbers.
Its simply a difference if there are 100 BoB pilots or 100 Goon pilots in a fleet, not to mention the kind of ships and the quality of their equipment. Numbers are not everything.
We shouldnt start to blame ourselfs for things which are CCP's responsibility.
They promised everyone that huge fleet battles are possible.
Noone expects a totaly smooth game without lag when 2 big fleets meet.
But there is a huge difference between a few seconds lag and ur screen being freezed for half a hour.
Since i play this game fleet battles are becoming worse (lag wise) and i see no improvments to lets say 1 year ago while CCP promised HUGE improvements, i have yet to seem them.
Only CCP can change it and if they think its simply not possible then its their responsibility to change the game mechanics in a way that discourages huge fleets (which i would really dislike because this is one of my favourite aspects of eve).
|
Verite Rendition
Caldari
AUS Corporation
CORE.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 17:07:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Unss
Originally by: Verite Rendition
And let's be perfectly honest, that's never going to happen, the hardware/software setup CCP uses can't do it. What's going to happen is that they're going to implement the god-damned queue permanently, and the winning side is going to be whoever can fill a node first in order to lock out the enemy.
Other MMOs have implemented queues and it works fine. Basically having multiple playable fights is better then one or two unplayable fights. Lockout is easy to solve as the cap\queue applies to two or more different sides, i.e. one side can only get 50% of the system's population. Only really challenge I see for CCP is determining sides. Obviously in a system with sov they would know one of the sides. War Dec could also be used to determine sides and I am sure a reasonable system can come up with a way determine sides.
Then what you describe is CCP forcing us to adhear to the plan presented by the thread's parent, including the pitfalls of that plan.
----
AUS Corp
Lead Megalomanic |
Murukan
Minmatar
The Priory
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 17:18:00 -
[37]
The whole "Big 4" scare tactic is stupid tbh. I really doubt some people fighting in Geminate or some other region fighting tooth and nail for territory could really give a flying **** what some alliance has to say simply on the grounds that they have "blob numbers".
The fact that you are trying to suggest that alliances threaten others for lag tactics is stupid and elitist. If you want to take their territory then by all means, but trying to regulate the way they fight will never work and is a rather lame suggestion too.
In rust we trust!!! |
Plutoinum
German Cyberdome Corp
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 18:00:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Plutoinum on 11/09/2006 18:04:29
Originally by: Amerame
complexity of the fight is in n¦ there is no possibility of eve to be ever lagless
Yes, I agree, but the question is, if EVE is already on a technical limit.
I mean we have only 70 blade servers or so currently that host these thousands of systems. If they are already working at 80% on average, there is no wonder that a fleet battle can kill a node. Then we might need a change in the software that moves the grid, where the fight happens, to an extra high-performance server that can handle it.
And then there might maybe room for more optimizations, if they haven't been done already. E.g. in a 200 vs. 200 fleetbattle, I would be happy to see something of the fight at all, I don't have to be updated with every single torp etc. of someone else that doesn't effect me or been informed of every single drone movement every few seconds.
Maybe there is still a lot room to get larger battles work. At the cost of some realism but doesn't matter. Still better than all people lagging out or dying due to lag.
I know, they can't totally change the software within like 3 months, but if CCP encourages us to build empires and field capital fleets, then it has to be improved.
I mean a titan in a 50 vs. 50 fight would seem a bit strange to me. If two empires fight eachother, I think a titan should fly together with a few motherships, like 20 or more other capitals and even more bs, cruisers and frigs.
Then the system needs to support at least the fighters of these motherships and carriers, keeping the fighters in because of lag would be a bit rediculous like telling a Dominix or Ishtar pilot not to use his drones.
If they want empires fighting eachother with these ships, they need to solve it somehow and make us able to fight at least 200 vs. 200 imho.
|
Serend
Gallente
GALAXIAN
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 18:06:00 -
[39]
I agree that fleet battles are virtually unplayable at present; it's the elephant in the room that degrades everyone's enjoyment of Eve. I don't think the proposal will work, for many of the reasons cited by others. Queue caps based on sovereignty might be a way around it, but such approaches might result in only the most highly skilled pilots getting to play, and that would be a shame. I applaud the discussion of this problem, and would love to see CCP's current thinking.
The considerable effort and resources required to control space in 0.0 means that holdings will always be heavily defended, and I think it unfair to limit an alliance's ability to defend its territory. Aggressors already have plenty of advantages, imho, and a cap on defenders would further be a further bias.
If CCP did away with bookmarks and instituted a "warp to zero kilometers" (perhaps with random error reduced on a skill basis)would that have any impact on lag? Bookmarks have always struck me as a waste of time, cpu, and bandwidth. Maybe Eve's engine revolves around them, but there's gotta be a better way.
Good discussion.
Serend
Galaxian
Rule of 3
|
Coran Ordus
Ominous Corp
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 18:21:00 -
[40]
As others have pointed out, doing this voluntarily just won't work.
Queues also are not the answer. They almost guarantee mismatched-sized fleets.
What could be done is some sort of in-game ship performance penalty tied to number of gang/corp/alliance members in the gang/system. Call it electronic interference, fog of war, whatever. There might need to be incentives to being in a small same-corp/alliance gang, to block meta-gaming by everyone having their own 10-person corps to dodge the penalties. |
Unss
Gas Giant Industries
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 18:49:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Coran Ordus
Queues also are not the answer. They almost guarantee mismatched-sized fleets.
Queues does not have to be on player count. It could be on ship type, skill points, etc. Balancing PvP in Eve is nearing impossible even if one could control the numbers of player issue since equipment\skills are not balanced capped like most PvP games. Most PvP games cap at the top and with everything even the differences come down to player skill. Still even within Eve there is a margin for player skill to show itself.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 19:03:00 -
[42]
Not unexpectedly... the response to this 'idea' if you can call it that.. .. is on the whole not very positve.
.. and I can see why, its really asking far too much from the playerbase, although it is telling that in fleet combat drone deployment is frowned upon, at least we can manage that
The problem as I see it though is that either the playerbase voluntarily caps the size of fleets or CCP is gonna cap them for us. Through including penalties for large groupings of pilots or queue systems or some other method.
I dont think we are ever going to get server hardware to support mega-battles. Its the year 2006, there are more users on broadband than ever before, the average computer logging onto EVE is more powerful than ever before. And yet the ability of the sever to handle large fleet battles has remained the same.
As the player base increases matters are only going to get worse. CCP recently had new hardware installed and a new dragon code to no visible avail.
I also think that the inevitable conclusion of all of this is that the mentality of ramping up fleet numbers has hit a glass ceiling too, even though alliance blocks are getting bigger and bigger.
Lag will not allow a fleet battle over a certain size to take place.....and it is my opinion that CCP will eventually force this realisation upon us through in-game mechanics.... that or lag is always going to be an integral part of the equation when it comes to fleet warfare, particularly as a defense mechanism. I.e blob up to the point where fighting becomes pointless..
|
Unss
Gas Giant Industries
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 19:11:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Coran Ordus
Queues also are not the answer. They almost guarantee mismatched-sized fleets.
Queues does not have to be based on player count. It could be on ship type, skill points, etc. Penalty and incentives based on some type of numbering system is needed as there are queues and caps in Eve already. Unfortunately they are defined by hardware limit rather then optimized for gameplay.
Balancing PvP in Eve is nearing impossible even if one could control the numbers of players issue since equipment\skills are not balanced capped like most PvP games. Most PvP games cap at the top and with everything even the differences come down to player skill. Still even within Eve there is a margin for player skill to show itself.
|
DigitalCommunist
Evolution
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 19:14:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Nez Perces
Edited by: Nez Perces on 11/09/2006 15:11:37
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Even if I assumed the lag is the number one problem, which I don't, you're saying player created "rules" are the answer.
Well I would very glad to hear what you think the number one problem is.. I mean every time there is a big fleet engagement the first thing we hear about on the forums.. is
"OMGlag was unbearable couldnt activate modules"
Maybe I'm missing something and I would be happy to be corrected..
Balance is the number one problem. People just like to complain about lag because it takes away their ability to control the situation. Assuming you found a perfectly lagless fleet battle, you'd see there was no control and no player skill to begin with. 90% of tactics & setups get thrown out the window and the whole fight would be over in 5 minutes or less.
Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame. |
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 19:20:00 -
[45]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Balance is the number one problem. People just like to complain about lag because it takes away their ability to control the situation. Assuming you found a perfectly lagless fleet battle, you'd see there was no control and no player skill to begin with. 90% of tactics & setups get thrown out the window and the whole fight would be over in 5 minutes or less.
I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying...
Are you saying that EVE fleet battles are skill-less anyhow and lag or no lag it doesn't make any difference?
I would like to hold on responding to your post ... as I don't want to respond to something I don't quite follow.
|
Kurieg
Universal Manufacturing Corporation
Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 19:24:00 -
[46]
Then there's BMs (and ya I use em, too), which allow large fleets to gather much easier and faster (which is usually advantage defender because initiative is usually advantage attacker). They make it harder to interdict movements, so battles become more centralized and single large entities are more wieldy for holding large areas of space. Etc. Of course, who wants to travel without them, right?
|
Dumus
Amarr
Veto.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 19:37:00 -
[47]
I hate to be a naysayer but here goes
Your numbers are wrong. 100v100 its terrible. I have been fighting in 9UY and this last few days has frankly been appalling. I lost an armageddon last night in a battle of roughly 30 v 15. we warped in (15) and my screen froze before I even saw a ship on my overview when it unfroze I was in half armour. I immiedietly obeyed orders to get out and tried to align but of course when you have 9 Battleships and 1 carriers fighters firing on you, you don't last terribly long.
As a side note I was amused after I got away in my pod and I open the mail to see my own deathmail and a killmail. I somehow managed to blow up a flycatcher with one volley from my trusty tachyon's. All I remember was clicking once in my overview whilst my ship tried to align.
As can be seen from the above example fleet battles of more than 10v10 are IMHO unplayable, if what you want from the experience is fun, like a "computer game" should be. I am not moaning about it, as we all had a laugh about it after (both sides) but the game as it is designed to be played, fleet battles being a large part of it, is failing on many levels.
That said, I love it and will not stop playing till they pull the plug out of the servers!
---------------------------
|
Kcel Chim
Caldari
Arcane Technologies
The Five
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 20:04:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Kcel Chim on 11/09/2006 20:04:21
imo a "treaty" wont work because simply said there are more alliances then just 4 and we already see that ppl play every possible card within the game rules to get an advantage. Bookmark copying - logon traps - Shuttlespam etc etc. Would a "limit to 100 guys" treaty make a difference ? Doubt it.
Also lets not forget that over time the pilotnumber which eve is able to handle dropped significantly and has nothing to do with how laggy a battle is or not. More then once a battle between 30 vs 30 turned into a total slideshow because the NODE was lagging due to other systems on it. Something the players cant influence and no treaty will change.
Additionally lets consider the "why". Why would someone sign such a treaty. If the defender is actually weaker (in skill) but has the numbers he currently can take a "free" card out of most pvp situations. Why would someone give this advantage away if billions are on the plate ? How would the pilots react if they constantly get told to bugger off because fleets are full, especially if the battle might turn out to be a loss.
Last but not least the game content is based around "huge" fleets, because pos, outposts, "capital"systems arent takeable without a huge amount of logistics, capitalships and enough support to protect these vulnerable buggers.
Noone will risk 30 dreads on a treaty the opponent might break because lets be honest even if the big 4 sign it what will happen ? "buhu d2/ascn/jesus broke the treaty and killed 50 bob dreads. They will end up hostile to each other, wait they already are. Ok they might have lost their virtual honor. Wait thats usually (atleast in 90% of eve combat) already the case...
A player created solution will never work and is simply an attempt to give a false sense of security to ccp. Atm they have to fix the lag problem sooner or later because ppl will quit/whine/generate negative PR over it. If a player solution is found nothing will change and ccp will focus on other (then) more pressing matters.
However if the game constantly raises in users (like it currently does) we will soon see the treaty numbers drop to 10 vs 10 and after that alliancewarfare is a thing of the past.
maybe abit pessimistic but my view....
|
Sebo Darrens
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 20:23:00 -
[49]
"lag" is a very general and non-technical term to describe the problems associated with large engagements.. There are things like loading other players' ship models and getting relevant information which are quite distinct from problems like module activation and 'ship out of control' etc types of things where there is a breakdown in communication.
As for a player agreements to restrict the game, those will never work as its a game - people already strain to break the rules and restrictions present in the very nature of the game, few would agree to further self-inflicted restrictions.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 20:26:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Dumus
Your numbers are wrong. 100v100 its terrible. I have been fighting in 9UY and this last few days has frankly been appalling. I lost an armageddon last night in a battle of roughly 30 v 15. we warped in (15) and my screen froze before I even saw a ship on my overview when it unfroze I was in half armour.
Whilst there may be instances of even small fleet battles being struck by silly amounts of lag.. there are occasions when 50 vs 50's are doable... point in case is the battle between Rise and Outbreak/Youwhat last night..
Originally by: Leilani Solaris
Lag was... ok after it cleared initially, warping in had me at 0 fps for 20 secs or so but after that cleared i was ok. Numbers were roughly 60 Rise, 25 Toxin, and roughly 15-20 -Y- IIRC.
.. and this was on a sunday evening, the busiest night of the week.
50 vs 50's are possible still..
I say that 100 vs 100's will also still be possible but this is the absolute limit of what can be called playable.
I don't think anybody can argue this unescapable truth.
|
AKULA UrQuan
Caldari
STK Scientific
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 21:03:00 -
[51]
....
These kinda of treaties never work. Not everyone is going to sign on and bring everything they have to a fight. How is it going to be enforced? Shame them to death? There are some groups out there that really could care less what the rest of eve thinks about their actions. They play to "WIN" at all costs and are already not shy on useing shady tatics to get that win.
I do respect your bravery on makeing this thread but this kind of thing just flies in the face of what eve is, A massively multiplayer online game.
Originally by: Wrangler
Win ME is more a some sort of virus than a OS..
|
Taurequis
Waylander 01
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 21:18:00 -
[52]
Hi,
Tbh as the total subs and players playing keep growing this problem is never going away.
The online numbers are raising as fast as the tech developments and code changes can keep up.
The only way to make it better TELL NO ONE NEW ABOUT EVE!
No more noobs = Time for the Dev's to up the hardware and software = less lag
Best Regards,
Taur
|
Grimpak
Gallente
Celestial Horizon Corp.
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 21:36:00 -
[53]
sorry nez, but omeega is right. you can't make anyone not to come into a battle.
can you imagine the outcome?
"hay, I and another 500 people are itching for a piece of action."
"sorry guys, but you can't"
"bull****! i'm leaving this alliance."
-------
Originally by: Abdalion
Originally by: Jebidus Skari
What, in EVE, is a Tyrant?
Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 21:44:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 11/09/2006 21:44:53
Originally by: Grimpak
sorry nez, but omeega is right. you can't make anyone not to come into a battle.
can you imagine the outcome?
"hay, I and another 500 people are itching for a piece of action."
"sorry guys, but you can't"
"bull****! i'm leaving this alliance."
I can understand that this concept is something that a lot of players will see as unworkable...
however, I don't accept that this is a valid reason.
If your enemy was attacking you with 100 pilots, in accordance to the treaty then you could field a maximum of 100 pilots to meet him.
If you have 500 willing pilots then leadership is under the obligation under such a treaty to find them 5 valid targets, not to send those 500 pilots into a lagfest from hell, where they will crash the node and spend several hours trying to log into the game.
If somebody gives me the option of sitting out a battle or spending several hours lagged to death, I know which one I would prefer.
|
Heldane
Amarr
1st Praetorian Guard
Vigilia Valeria
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 21:50:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Heldane on 11/09/2006 21:52:35
I wonder if it is any coincidence that most of these lag troubles occur when bubbles are present. Just warping into an area with a bubble lags me a bit and I have a fairly superior machine with a top notch graphics card and 2 gigs of RAM. Might there be any link between the bubbles and this problem?
|
Delani Altyr
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 21:50:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Delani Altyr on 11/09/2006 21:51:57
EDIT: Wrong Character
|
Rahn Altyr
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
Xelas Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 21:53:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Taurequis
The only way to make it better TELL NO ONE NEW ABOUT EVE!
No more noobs = Time for the Dev's to up the hardware and software = less lag
Never gonna happen. CCP is after all, a business. Why would they cut themselves out of gaining extra revenue?
Maybe CCP just needs to defrag their servers, or somehow coax the hamsters that power the processors to run faster. But seriously, instead of scaling up the technological specs of the servers, maybe a solution lies in scaling back the required processes/bandwidth/et al. per user. (running eve in a "wireframe mode" would be kind of cool, imo.) I dont have any suggestions on how that could be done, just that it might be a good tactic to use. If everyone is eating less pie, more people can have pie.
also... Stupid female alt getting in my way when I'm doing my "manly business" on the forum. Get back in your hoarder and do as your told!!
Originally by: Nials Corva This isn't a class based game. You aren't a level 10 million Missile Paladin that has to cross-class to Gunnery Wizard and start training from scratch.
|
Plutoinum
German Cyberdome Corp
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 22:24:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Plutoinum on 11/09/2006 22:24:58
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Balance is the number one problem. People just like to complain about lag because it takes away their ability to control the situation. Assuming you found a perfectly lagless fleet battle, you'd see there was no control and no player skill to begin with. 90% of tactics & setups get thrown out the window and the whole fight would be over in 5 minutes or less.
Fleetbattle balance is what Tuxford is working on. I expect from his blog that fleetbattles get better under lag-free conditions.
But I don't think that this reduces the fleet size, if pos and capital ships are involved and so it won't solve the lag problem.
If you want to take down a dozen of poses and the enemy is going to defend thrm, then an attacking fleet size above 100 seems normal to me (dreads+support). Don't think that it's gonna change, so either the server needs to be able to handle that or they have to change poses and/or sovereignty.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 22:41:00 -
[59]
I was going to say something similar in response to Digi...
.. there isn't a whole lot of point in having more balanced fleet engagements if the pilots cant activate their modules anyhow, which is what happens once you go over a certain fleet size...
...unless I am again missing something.
|
Heliodor Mordureau
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 22:47:00 -
[60]
Good idea Nez, but too many would follow the rules only when it suited them.
Realistically, there are a number of options and not really many that are easily workable.
1. When two fleets of over X number of ships are in the same constellation (or within X number of systems as each other); game time slows for everyone in the constellation. (Idea being less transactions with the database, per second, more performance for overall transactions?) If someone were to enter a constellation with the above, they would be queued so they could adjust to the slower speed.
2. CCP develops some miracle coding that makes the game lagless and carefree. Soon(tm).
3. For Large Scale Fights (as above) Assaulting a POS, etc. etc. the work is offloaded to a instance server to increase speed and reaction time and therefore hopefully a lag free experience.
Both options are a stretch, 1. being maybe out of reach with current environment/hardware and 3. would be a breach of the whole goal of EVE being a single environment server.
Personally, I could care less about 3, give me a lagfree fleet battle and I'll love you forever. 
________________________________________________
Look mate, if it's smack you want then I'll start sending Rohann into your Alliance chat everyday for a week.
-DB Preacher
|
Grimpak
Gallente
Celestial Horizon Corp.
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 23:27:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Nez Perces
Edited by: Nez Perces on 11/09/2006 21:44:53
Originally by: Grimpak
sorry nez, but omeega is right. you can't make anyone not to come into a battle.
can you imagine the outcome?
"hay, I and another 500 people are itching for a piece of action."
"sorry guys, but you can't"
"bull****! i'm leaving this alliance."
I can understand that this concept is something that a lot of players will see as unworkable...
however, I don't accept that this is a valid reason.
If your enemy was attacking you with 100 pilots, in accordance to the treaty then you could field a maximum of 100 pilots to meet him.
If you have 500 willing pilots then leadership is under the obligation under such a treaty to find them 5 valid targets, not to send those 500 pilots into a lagfest from hell, where they will crash the node and spend several hours trying to log into the game.
If somebody gives me the option of sitting out a battle or spending several hours lagged to death, I know which one I would prefer.
sorry, I meant people that want to defend something, and not an attack of some sort. The example would be like Alliance A is defending. Arround 500 people want to help on the defence, but they are turned down because they can't be used.
-------
Originally by: Abdalion
Originally by: Jebidus Skari
What, in EVE, is a Tyrant?
Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 00:02:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Grimpak
sorry, I meant people that want to defend something, and not an attack of some sort. The example would be like Alliance A is defending. Arround 500 people want to help on the defence, but they are turned down because they can't be used.
K lets use your scenario as an example...
Alliance X attacks Alliance Y with a fleet of 100 pilots. (In accordance with the 'treaty')
Alliance Y, however, has 500 pilots willing to lay down their lives for their alliance. Good stuff..
"Oh that means 400 pilots have to sit on their bums and do nothing.." I hear you say... well not quite, Alliance Y can be a little creative with their numbers... 100 pilots could be kept as a reserve fleet should the first 100 to engage Alliance X get slaughtered.
The other 300 pilots could launch a 3 pronged attack on Alliance X's homeland.
Result = All 600 pilots get to play the game instead of sitting in an almighty blob wondering why their modules are not responding and why nothing moves.
The alternative is to keep blobbing the servers to hell and back and instead of at least 200 pilots getting a good fight.. nobody does.. 
500 pilots fighting in the same system means only one thing..
nobody gets to play the game.
|
Lienzo
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 01:07:00 -
[63]
This fails to address the core problem of why 100 vs 100 fights are becoming so common.
-There are no costs associated with having 100 people back you up.
There is only a percieved benefit of possibly outnumbering the foe. What we need is a way to squelch this volunteer spirit but without damaging the esprit des corps. Ideally, people should have a reason to become more mercenary in the way they offer their time. The battlefield politics of waiting to field dreads is comprised of having a lot of pilots willing to stand semi-idle. The first behavior that should change is that standing idle should not only mean foregone income, it should entail ongoing and mounting costs going unmet. Voluntarism should hurt the wallet, if for no other reason than so it may be admired. Then corporations must be willing to foot the bill to keep their members on retainer simply to cover there costs. In this way, corp leaders choose to focus on activities which are focused on the bottom line. Perhaps there could even be tactical disadvantages to fielding large groups.
-There is too much concentration of resources on singular locations.
Because we can blob, we must blob. Because we must blob, POS have to be designed to take on blobs. It would be much better if POS had control panels or shield generators in multiple locations which must be simultaneously attacked and defended. If a force focuses all firepower on one node, they still have to knock down the other one in 30 mins or less. If the defense chooses to focus all firepower on one node, that node's static weapons should be weakened offensively by the loss of its sisters. This is the ideal of constellation warfare and sovereignty.
|
Aaron Static
Deep Space Consortium
Maelstrom Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 08:12:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Nez Perces
600 pilots fighting in the same system means only one thing..
none of them get to play EVE.
/signed
I like the idea.
The problem is how CCP would enforce/implement it...
- Limit numbers of any single alliance/gang in a system to 100
This would jus mean people get creative and hire mercs to increase the size of their blob and remain within limits.
- Limit the size of any gang to 100
This is obviously flawed.. split your gangs up and use ventrilo / alliance chat and this rule means nothing..
- Simply limit the amount of combat that can take place in a system
Basically if there is more than 100 pilots shooting at another 100 pilots that arent in the same alliance, then you can't target anyone. This -could- work but could also introduce a whole new range of problems...
I think CCP would have a hard time trying to come up with a solution that works in all situations and isnt exploitable in some way...
or...
- Don't limit it.. jus nerf it
What if a Blob was nerfed in some way?? the bigger the gang, the more negative bonuses are introduced... this wouldnt stop 'blobbing' once and for all, but at least discourage it no?
|
BirdBleed
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 08:51:00 -
[65]
never gonna happen nez :)
Thats like trying to make people stop using t2 guns with t2 long range ammo just to make it fair for the newbies ...
|
Drilla
Shinra
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 09:25:00 -
[66]
I wouldnt agree to any such deal and there's a simple reason why not - I shouldn't have too, the game should be able to handle it - CCP has had what, at least 4 years to fix fleet combat. So in my mind until they've actually done it or admitted they cant I wont do player workarounds.
On another note - I'm all for "fixed" fights for fun as in 50v50 in an agreed upon system at an agreed upon time where everybody is loaded up etc. - that'd be kick@ss!
Seek not to bar my way, for I shall win through - no matter the cost! |
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 10:40:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 12/09/2006 10:44:46
Originally by: BirdBleed
never gonna happen nez :)
Thats like trying to make people stop using t2 guns with t2 long range ammo just to make it fair for the newbies ...
well its not quite the same... the point of the exercise would not be to make things fair but to make things playable.
Not using t2 ammo or guns is akin to having a self-imposed handicap.
Not blobbing up a system past breaking point is common sense?
It kinda reminds me of spaceballs a little bit..
Colonel Sandurz: Prepare ship for light speed.
Dark Helmet: No, no, no, light speed is too slow.
Colonel Sandurz: Light speed, too slow?
Dark Helmet: Yes, we're gonna have to go right to ludicrous speed.
.. lets try some superlatives for fleet sizes..
50 (awesome) - 100 (epic) - 200 (insanity) - 300+ (retarded?)
Its basically the equivalent of those guiness book of records stories where they fit 30 people in a mini... its pretty outrageous but ultimately pointless
Originally by: Drilla
So in my mind until they've actually done it or admitted they cant I wont do player workarounds.
.. being serious for a second.. I can really understand this point of view. CCP should communicate with the playerbase about this problem.. or perhaps we can take their silence as an answer.....
|
Omeega
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 10:44:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Drilla
I wouldnt agree to any such deal and there's a simple reason why not - I shouldn't have too, the game should be able to handle it - CCP has had what, at least 4 years to fix fleet combat. So in my mind until they've actually done it or admitted they cant I wont do player workarounds.
On another note - I'm all for "fixed" fights for fun as in 50v50 in an agreed upon system at an agreed upon time where everybody is loaded up etc. - that'd be kick@ss!
trust me i once asked this to a guy who had wardecced RA (it was KiaEddz if i remember well) but he said he was too good for us and that he wanted to chose when and where to attack.
Don't speak english. F1,f2,f3...
|
Lag Fest
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 11:17:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Nez Perces
- The biggest enemy facing large fleets in the game in its current state is LAG.
- CCP know that LAG is a problem, and we must assume they are doing everything within their power to alleviate it. (if we cant assume this then there is no point playing the game at all)
- LAG isn't going to go away anytime soon, in fact it may steadily deteriorate before it gets any better.
- Engagments at Battle POS are most succeptible to LAG and give the defender a distinct advantage as POS guns do not suffer from said lag.
Geez... what did i do now... whatever it is i swear Tamora and Rohan made me do it. Although it's flattering to know that you see me as the biggest threat in fleet fights, i try to do my best and yes CCP is afraid of me so they're avoiding to see me as a "problem" cos i would just pwn them. No i have no plan on quitting eve anytime soon. Offcourse it's not fair towards the attackers when i'm defending a POS not that BoB has ever needed to defend one so...
THX for the encouraging words,
Lag Fest signing out.
_______________________________________
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 11:40:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Lag Fest
No I have no plan on quitting eve anytime soon.
|
Serge
Amarr
Nun Amun
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 11:53:00 -
[71]
- introduce handicaps for gang size (taken from 'hearts of iron')
- gang boni (from skills, command ships, implants, modules whatever) still work but decrease with gang size, effectivly zeroing out at gang size = X, penalty introduced at gang size = X+1 etx
- add more gang boni/penalty like damage output, tracking, damage resistance, again coupled with gang size
--> this favors small groups of high skilled pilots
--> leads to formation of many small gangs to get highest boni
--> is not decreasing blob/lag but i still like my ideas / suggestions :P
---
Mahlzeit, s¦gibt Bohnen mit Speck |
Eyeris
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 13:58:00 -
[72]
Limit number of gang members to 10-20 people.
Smaller gangs = less "gang warping 100+ people" = more scattered fleet = more small skirmishes = less blobing
The only thing that I can think of that would work with the current state of the game.
Except maybe at POS fights :|
|
Sae Marr
Amarr
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 13:59:00 -
[73]
Your suggestion is unrealistic.
-
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 14:12:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Sae Marr
Your suggestion is unrealistic.
I agree it is unrealistic..
... but equally unrealistic is expecting the servers to handle fights beyond ~ 100 vs 100 per side.
So I guess we are stuck...
|
RichThugster
Gallente
Revelations Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 14:38:00 -
[75]
i read the OP, but lack time to read the rest, therefore probs already been said. It means that the MC, would be able to go in and obliterate EVERYONE. MC, can field fleets of 100 members. It is well known MC has some of the best PVPers and FCs in game. the one thing which the likes of Goons, ASCN, etc had that could hold MC at bay, was the fact they can sit 150-200 ppl on a gate to camp it 23/7 no sweat. Implementing these changes would render huge megaalliances vulnerable, to a small group like MC, who has awesome PVPers, but lack the mega numbers.
Yes one fleet can sit as a reserve, however lets be honest, an ASCN 100bs fleet V MC 100bs fleet, ASCN would get nothing short of butchered. Second fleet step in, and meet the exact same end. the result being 200 ASCN losses, with maybe 50 tops MC. Whereas if ASCN fought with the full power they were capable with, it would be a totally different story.
sure caps on fleet numbers reduce lag, but ruin the idea behind building a huge powerful mega alliance
Originally by: KIATolon
I just got owned
|
Halseth Durn
Amarr
Oberon Incorporated
Prime Orbital Systems
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 16:59:00 -
[76]
The hungry mouths of POSs and thier undisputed lag have completely destroyed the fun of alliance warfare. End of subject.
|
Da Maddness
Deimos Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 17:14:00 -
[77]
Hats off to you Nez for coming up with ideas.
However I have to agree with whats already been said above but let me state what I think (and probably others have already said)
1)The 4 big alliances don't actually get any benefit from this. Infact wouldn't they lose out as they are the ones with the most numbers?
2)Think about the organisation involved in setting up a group of people. You'd have to find out who has the better skills and better ship setups...etc. I don't see a way how even an Automatic toll could be setup.
3)Alot of players will miss out on the experiences of big battles. If a new player is in BOB they'll never get to part of their limited 100 person fleet battles as there are much more experienced and better skills pilots out there.
The only thing that can be done is by CCP. Maybe have mroe processing done on the client side of things when it comes to big battles so Tranquility isn't so taxed. As it's already been stated, alot of people have really good comptuers out there. Maybe it's time to use some of that processing power (and sadly also bandwidth).
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 17:26:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 12/09/2006 17:28:08
Originally by: Da Maddness
1)The 4 big alliances don't actually get any benefit from this. Infact wouldn't they lose out as they are the ones with the most numbers?
Yes this concept would affect the big alliances the most as they are the ones that really field the mega fleets....
... however it would affect them the most in a good way, at least from my point of view....
they would be able to have fleet battles again without crippling lag.
For me the most fun part of my eve-career has been the awesome fleet battles I have taken part of, they are very exciting.
I do think that its a crying shame that a good fleet battle is fast becoming a thing of the past, as alliances keep ramping up the fleet numbers. And there seems to be no end in sight as to how big these fleets are gonna get.
I do think the numbers mentality is just plain wrong and no hardware is gonna be able to keep up with it.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 17:50:00 -
[79]
... just to expand on the implications of the increasing numbers mentality.
Two alliances: Alliance X ... Alliance Y
Alliance Y can put out fleets of 300 without much trouble.
Alliance X can also put out fleets of 300 without much trouble.
Alliance X attacks Alliance Y with a fleet of 200. Alliance Y says "hah. !!! I'll see your 200 and raise you 50."
Hmm alliance X reckons it can still call on another 100 pilots and does so. You end up with 300 vs 250 pilots facing eachother across a gate. They can barely move even before the fighting takes place, the lag must be atrocious...
You gotta ask yourself what is the point of these massive fleets, thats not playing EVE, thats messing up the server so bad that nobody can do anything..
I'll go as far as saying that its a borderline exploit. Both parties know that its pointless to expect a fight.. so EVE becomes an excersise in who can bog the server down the most.
Is this the future of EVE? Because that is the logical extrapolation of what is happening to the game.
And thinking that hardware is going to solve this problem is a fantasy...
|
Witch Doctor
Contraband Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 18:20:00 -
[80]
I would like to see more commanders divide forces and create multiple simultaneous engagements rather than the big lag/slugfest. Take the 100v100 example - if I split mine into 4 groups of 25 as the attacker, yes, the defending force of 100 can easily secure one asset, but 3 groups of 25 can roam with impunity and cause a lot of havoc.
I think if savvy assault forces start to split up their forces and pursue multiple targets, then defenders will have to adjust and not just sit on a huge blob protecting one high-value target. Hopefully then the dynamic changes to multiple fleets and smaller, more frequent encounters with a little less lag.
|
Dutarro
Kydance Radiant Industries
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 19:25:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Witch Doctor
I would like to see more commanders divide forces and create multiple simultaneous engagements rather than the big lag/slugfest. Take the 100v100 example - if I split mine into 4 groups of 25 as the attacker, yes, the defending force of 100 can easily secure one asset, but 3 groups of 25 can roam with impunity and cause a lot of havoc.
I think if savvy assault forces start to split up their forces and pursue multiple targets, then defenders will have to adjust and not just sit on a huge blob protecting one high-value target. Hopefully then the dynamic changes to multiple fleets and smaller, more frequent encounters with a little less lag.
I agree. Lag strongly influences the effectiveness of a fighting force, so fleet commanders who seek lag-free engagements will have an advantage.
An example -- let's say both sides have 100 pilots in system. Side A forms a single 100-ship blob, whereas side B forms 3 task forces of size 50, 25 and 25. B's 50-ship blob engages A's 100-ship blob, and the battle drags on slowly due to lag. Meanwhile, the two other 25-ship B task forces each position near an enemy POS, jump in dreads, and reduce them to reinforced mode. Side B will take more losses in the blob v blob fight, but wins overall because their two secondary assaults were unopposed.
|
Witch Doctor
Contraband Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 20:28:00 -
[82]
I was thinking more along the lines of having the other gangs engage targets in other systems - camping bottlenecks, popping POSs elsewhere, etc. Within the same system as the blob, they can do a pretty good job of limiting your options, but if you start pounding on POSs 3-4 jumps away, that forces their hand much more.
They can stay overcommited to defending your primary objective and pay a high price elsewhere; they can move the blob and overcommit to secondary objectives, freeing up your primary; or they can divide their defending forces and scale their forces to the threats in question.
If we start to see that in megafleet engagements, then we would see more lag-free encounters without any artificial agreements. And, in fact, it would make more strategic sense. But in many ways it is a lot easier to just form up a big blob and slave everyone to a single FC and avoids any internal political issues about who is in what gang.
It's that or CCP figures out how to engineer a way to dynamically scale server resources assisting a node.
|
Zedic
Amarr
Shinra
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 20:45:00 -
[83]
As I said in that other thread, Nez you (and others) have some very well thought out and intelligent ideas and solutions to this problem - but I sincerely feel we shouldn't have to resort to modifying our playstyle to help CCP with hardware / software issues.
I have the utmost respect for CCP, but as the saying goes, "out of sight - out of mind." If we lower our standard of play to a point where CCP's hardware doesn't lag, then how quickly would they put this issue on the back burner? We must continue to play the way we do now, we must continue to fuss about this issue. If we don't then it might be forgotten or ignored. I don't want that. I also don't think it's an unreasonable expectation to ask for lag free fleet battles - without any hard cap limits.
A sqeaky wheel awaiting some grease,
Zed
|
Luke Skyrider
DAB
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 22:55:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Nez Perces
Originally by: El Covah
CCP favours the forming of big alliances and larger corps. The achievements to hold step with the "other" competitors just require a large team to cooperate if you want to survive on long term in 0.0. Titans, motherships, POS-networks, outpostes etc. are not manageable with small structures if you also need to defend your territory. Today you can see more and more mergers into bigger structures going on as a direct result of the game mechanics.
You are quite right, EVE is becoming more and more about teamwork and working together to achieve high end content. Whilst the industrial aspect of this is not susceptible to lag.. the combat aspect of it is.
You gotta ask yourself whats the point in building all these new toys.. DN's, Titans etc... if you will never get to play with them properly as they only come out when there are mega fleets, which go hand in hand with unplayable lag?
K we can say its CCP's fault.. and yeah in some ways it probably is .. but... do you really need mega-fleets to enjoy the game, I mean playing EVE is about having fun.
Atm it seems that the first line of defence for an alliance is to ramp up the numbers... and if the game becomes unplayable.. so be it... our assets are safe.
This may have been k in the past, but when alliances can now field up to 300-400 pilots in one fleet.. its madness...
Maybe some in CCP are missing the whole point that a game are supposed to be ENTERTAINING. EvE is not very casual friendly and it's a joke when players have to invest alot of time to remove boredom from the game they pay to play. The gameplay should not be boring to start with, period.
If CCP want eve to become a larger pvp game, then they need to wake up. Why should pvper pay a monthly fee with insane lag and tedious work when in other free pvp games you can have nonstop action without much work.
EVE are a good game, but some of the gameplay are just to boring. When CCP make their plans they need to ask the question, will this make the gameplay more interesting? if not drop it.
Some of the new toys does very little to make the gameplay more entertaining.
Nerf the big blobs (if the server cant handle it) and make possible counters. Just like in real life, use artillery etc. against a high concentration of troops.
ie.: In eve, expensive small-large tactical nukes destroying all non-capital ships as the ultimate blobbuster.
Or gang skills such as "guerilla warfare" that give small gangs big bonuses, encouraging big alliances to split up their fleet.
Other than that, create new strategical objectives in several systems such as ability to block the travel / supply routes with gate ownership and sentry guns.
The other problem with the gameplay, pvping as the dynamic force in the game should be more rewarding. Currently as the saying goes, non-pvper get richer and dedicated pvper stay poor. Because of all the new expensive toys, pvper either need to much tedious work such as npcing, mining etc. that are not their dedicated role or resort to ganking / avoid losing ships, creating a boring gameplay overall. If eve are supposed to be a pvp game, this need to change.
One of the solutions to this could be to remove the npc insurance and instead give options to salvage ships ie.: 50% of production cost.
This way, the rich non-pvper will start losing more ISK to the dynamic force in the game.
Bottom line to build a larger pvp game, the gameplay need to be more rewarding in terms of fun and ISK to back it up.
[PvP-Recruitment] | www.dab-online.com |
Lienzo
ISS Navy Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.09.13 08:15:00 -
[85]
Soft limits are better than hard limits. Players will just find an angle to exploit to attempt to minimize risk with hard limits.
Soft limits can be observed if we are able to somehow force the gang leader to think: "Do I really want to pay for having all these contracted soldiers out here for the next 3 hours?" and also "Are the potential gains high enough to cover the expense of this much overkill?"
Then you have a mercenary economics that is radically different from the Skinnerian "push button - get treat" models of pushing players to do this or that.
In the real world, when a pride of lions grows too much, they don't simply go a little hungry. They starve to death unless they force the young males to go off on their own.
Of course, most species, lions included, are able to subdue their reproduction rates by some little understood mechanism. That model is not conducive to EVE's success obviously, nor is increasing the amount of natural prey.
To adjust the game, you have to adjust the player.
|
Zedic
Amarr
Shinra
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.13 08:59:00 -
[86]
Edited by: Zedic on 13/09/2006 08:59:40
Good thing this isn't the real world then. I hate to be all matrix-ish and such but in a digital world, rules are ment to be bent or broken. CCP themselves lauded the fact that we would all be on one server - something that seriously impressed the crap out of me and led me to apply for beta back in the day (no it wasn't this character, i was stupid and deleted the first Zed after release because the game was so damned buggy back then).
If I want to fly alongside 200 of my fellow allies in a mighty armada hell bent on bee squishing, I should be able to. If a swarm of bee's wishes to sting the mighty giant, they should be able to. And speaking of RL, since when to RL bee's have to sit around working out who gets to leave the hive and go on a rampage and who has to stick around mining honey?
I find it interesting that people commonly refer to fleets as "blobs" as if it has some sort of negative conotation. Fleets done right - aren't a bad thing at all, unless you're on the business end of it. 
Zed
|
Troubadour
Slacker Industries
Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2006.09.13 08:59:00 -
[87]
I think a better idea would be for CCP to raise the monthly fee $1, and then take the extra few grand and upgrade the servers/bandwidth. Nobody is going to abide by some arbitrary rule that might of otherwise not cost them a large loss. And when you speak of a "fair fight" I ask you this:
What is the virtue of a proportional response?
Evenly matched fights rarely happen in eve because the probability of that happening is very low. It's much more probable to run into a larger or smaller fleets as there are many other combinations of fleets to pit against each other that are not equal to each other. MATHS IS FUNS!
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.13 11:49:00 -
[88]
There has been some excellent rational arguments and discussions brought up on this subject, and I really appreciate the time posters have taken to write some responses in this thread.
However, I am slightly concerned that quite a few of the responses hinge on CCP solving the issue of unplayable lag above the 100 vs 100 mark.
What happens if CCP has no intention/ability to allow fleet engagements over the 100 vs 100 mark?
What happens if we have been provided a sandbox and CCP are happy for the crushing lag at engagements with too high numbers to be the limiting factor for battle sizes? A situation analogous to deep sea diving, there is no point diving beyond a certain depth as your movement is restricted and oxygen becomes compressed to a level where your lungs are unable to function.
We have to entertain the idea that for the EVE playerbase 100 vs 100 is the technological limit that EVE can handle for the forseeable future.
What happens then, do we stop playing? Or do we adapt?
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.13 12:52:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 13/09/2006 12:53:29
...
|
Exortius Amarrus
The Clearwater Society
THE H0RDE
|
Posted - 2006.09.14 18:13:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Exortius Amarrus on 14/09/2006 18:16:30
Originally by: Nez Perces
Originally by: Max Teranous
It can't happen. As well as all the other things mentioned above, how would you feel and react if you were in a gang of 110 and your FC told you to log off, as you were in the 100-110 bracket ? Any alliance which tried this would run out of members damn fast.
I personally would make myself a cup of tea.. sit on TS and listen whilst my alliance mates slaughter the other side fair and square
Understandable, and it is noted that you said "personally". Still, most PvPers or fleet pilots in EVE don't pay $15 a month to sit on TS and drink tea, while listening to their corp-mates who are actually playing EVE. As a CEO, it would be very very difficult for me to tell one of my pilots that they had to "sit this one out".
edit, added:
As for "blobbing", and the advantage that this suggestion would give to 100 man gangs of all 30mil sp pilots, i feel that blobbing is a legitimate battlefield tactic. As such it should be allowed for by EVE.
As has been stated, i fear we are stuck. The only possible solution for this will likely come from CCP, and i'm fairly certain not everyone will like it.
------------------------
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.14 18:53:00 -
[91]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 14/09/2006 19:08:22
Originally by: Exortius Amarrus
Understandable, and it is noted that you said "personally". Still, most PvPers or fleet pilots in EVE don't pay $15 a month to sit on TS and drink tea, while listening to their corp-mates who are actually playing EVE. As a CEO, it would be very very difficult for me to tell one of my pilots that they had to "sit this one out".
edit, added:
As for "blobbing", and the advantage that this suggestion would give to 100 man gangs of all 30mil sp pilots, i feel that blobbing is a legitimate battlefield tactic. As such it should be allowed for by EVE.
Again, whilst it is clear that this concept wouldn't work for a variety of reasons, the one you are quoting I don't believe is valid.
I have been a CEO and an alliance leader, there is no substitute for leading by example... if we are talking about a couple of pilots having to sit a battle out for the greater good, perhaps it is the CEO and a couple of his directors that could sit a battle out.
As for the SP argument in terms of alliances with newer pilots, well, they would have to make some skilled friends pretty quick or keep out of the way of the veteran alliances that can field a fleet of 100 pilots day in day out. There is a pecking order in the universe, they would have to simply find their place.
Imho the *real* reasons why this won't work are threefold.
1. The blobbing mentality has been a part of EVE since its inception, however, it is only now that it is starting to become obvious that this tactic has hit its glass ceiling with bigger alliances, a much larger playerbase and a server that seems to have reached its technological limits.
2. Those that rely on mega-fleets have too much to lose by adopting a smaller fleet mentality. I do not blame them, however, in doing so they are exchanging playability for security, perhaps knowingly.
3. CCP is partly to blame for the maladies affecting EVE atm. It is quite possible that they underestimated human nature and their sandbox model has inevitably resulted in large concentrations of players doing things in large groups, which is a nightmare for any server.
You are right that we are stuck, and we possilby will not like CCP's solution to the problem...
|
Lord Wimbishi
Caldari
Wolven Elite Guard
Ghosts of Retribution
|
Posted - 2006.09.18 08:15:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Lord Wimbishi on 18/09/2006 08:15:53
I think CCP needs to stop trying to increase the player base and the money coming into them.
CCP's servers are improving yes but towards what end? For new players (which is the case IMO) or to make the game better for those of us already playing.
They need to work more on the hardware for the current player base instead of making more room for new players when the old players are grumpy thinking the problem is going to go away some mystic way.
I wonder if the link between the game and this very online-site which seems to be connected to the game have any draw on the same resources. Imagine 20,000 + people logging in to the forums, searching for this and that and nosing through their characters; all of which is tied to the game.
when the server goes down most other functions on this site does too. Are they related? If they are wouldn't it be percieved that the two (game and eve-online website) draw on the same servers' resources? I ain't an expert at these things but would figure something is connected here.
Another possible fix is to reconfigure their sprites and graphics to be less demanding.
"Protecting the Ignorant from the immoral scum of the galaxy" |
Gunship
Amarr
FATAL REVELATIONS
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.18 12:04:00 -
[93]
I was wondering last night, if CCP changed the ROF (rate of fire), so it took twice the time to fire, perhaps even longer, then less calculations would have to be made and less traffic processed. It would also allow pilots longer time to deside what to do next and the "activate a module" would be less important. There are other things , like speed, shield boosting etc that would have to also take longer to make it all work out. It would make the game slower, but possible lag would be a little less, combat take longer and module activation less of an issue?
Just an idea 
So you want to join us? |
Blitzkrieg
The Older Gamers
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.18 13:40:00 -
[94]
The vagabond and pilgrim BPO holders must be rejoicing at this kind of threads. They are the only ships usuable atm with this kind of horrid lag.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |