Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Manfred Sideous
Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 22:05:00 -
[1]
It is evident that servers cannot hold up to large fleet engagments. Look at the node crashes BOB & ASCN ,MCFix & IAC and friends and now AXE & D2. Perhaps its time to change the thinking. Maybe we can all show some restraint. Instead of using the lamb theory of defense and fighting perhaps its time to shift gear and start using the lion. Smaller more potent fighting squads and skirmishes spread across multiple systems. Instead of amassing the zerglings in 1 system.
Bottom line we all know the condition of the server. If you bring a massive fleet to face another the node with most probability crash. By doing so and having this information in mind beforehand is kinda lame imo. The other day I issued a public challenge to the people we were fighting that we would face them with 2 to verse our 1 odds. The reason being is they had almost 7 to 1 odds in system and it was causing node crashes. Unfortunately the enetity I challenged couldnt see the wisdom of the idea past their own needs.
But basically if you have 100s of folks wanting to fight divide them up amongst different systems. Because 100s vs 100s in one system is just going to crash the node. In olden days honorable men would meet in the center of the battlefield and discuss terms. CCP im sure is working to fix the problem but its going to take time. It is in all our best interest that try to play within the peramiters of the server capability. http://www.hunters-agency.com/manfred/manfredlgray.png Please resize signature to fit under 400x120 pixels and 24,000 bytes -Eldo
|
Toppar Wear
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 22:10:00 -
[2]
We had a small 10 vs 10 ealier today in Impass, our gang had to relog after the battle. We couldnt even warp!.
There is a problem somewhere, i dont know what it is but its is making eve s*ck big time
CCP FTW.
|
Vegas
Rage of Angels Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 22:13:00 -
[3]
Eve's broke.
But no lag on collecting money for my subs
Go figure --------------------------------------------
Originally by: Mokelo Just browsing the killboards and wow someone just got owned.
Originally by: Ulynidd Yes you got owned for posting with an alt.
|
Pestillence
Chav-Scum
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 22:15:00 -
[4]
While I appreciate the spirit of the post, two sides fighting a contrived / staged fight is not what EvE is about either.
|
Serapis Aote
TBC
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 22:19:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Manfred Sideous It is evident that servers cannot hold up to large fleet engagments. Look at the node crashes BOB & ASCN ,MCFix & IAC and friends and now AXE & D2. Perhaps its time to change the thinking. Maybe we can all show some restraint. Instead of using the lamb theory of defense and fighting perhaps its time to shift gear and start using the lion. Smaller more potent fighting squads and skirmishes spread across multiple systems. Instead of amassing the zerglings in 1 system.
Bottom line we all know the condition of the server. If you bring a massive fleet to face another the node with most probability crash. By doing so and having this information in mind beforehand is kinda lame imo. The other day I issued a public challenge to the people we were fighting that we would face them with 2 to verse our 1 odds. The reason being is they had almost 7 to 1 odds in system and it was causing node crashes. Unfortunately the enetity I challenged couldnt see the wisdom of the idea past their own needs.
But basically if you have 100s of folks wanting to fight divide them up amongst different systems. Because 100s vs 100s in one system is just going to crash the node. In olden days honorable men would meet in the center of the battlefield and discuss terms. CCP im sure is working to fix the problem but its going to take time. It is in all our best interest that try to play within the peramiters of the server capability.
This is not the players problem it is ccp.
They dont need to fix the server...that isnt the major problem. The major problem is the game design. The game is designed to force battles into 1 system and then most likely all fight on the same 2-3 grids in that system.
With the introduction of the POS there is no point in going after an attacking force. The defensive posture of turtling up in the system is a game design feature, not a player one.
CCP keeps worrying about the servers, but there is no way they are going to fix the problem anytime soon.
It would be better if they came up with ideas that word encourage force splitting in order to gain sovreignty.
|
Lowa
Gallente North Star Networks
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 22:19:00 -
[6]
I see the point and I agree but it will only work for certain scenarios.
What will work (mostly); Outbreak/Celstial vs 50% of BoB = good fights, "small" numbers and relatively small amount of lag. Reason: It was for the thrill of the fight.
What will not work: ASCN vs BoB, MC vs IAC, D2 vs AXE All can and will field fairly large numbers causing large amount of lag and node deaths. Reason: Its for the survival of an entity.
In more words, the BoB vs Outbreak it wasnt for total territorial controll it was to show some guts and get some fights. The other scenario above is for territorial control, the survival of an entity (perhaps) and the shaping of the future.
Simply; the entity that feels threatened and stand to loose huge amount of isk, territory and assets will never ever agree to show up with a force that is not, in their mind, superior to the opposing forces. And why should they? For the defending party its about continued existance and evolution not conquest and the ultimate fight.
Meh, perhaps not the best explanation but I'm slightly drunk and logic + words is not operating at 100% efficency.
Cheers, Lowa
What if the truth was something else? |
ALPHA12125
Gallente 0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 22:31:00 -
[7]
imho the defender has every right to show up with everything they got.
as an attacker it is easily said to cut down the force cause the only thing you loose is a fight. the other side might loose everything.
justifying that with a sentence like "well we had another 100 bs in the next system but we didnt bring them cause we wanted to give the atacker an advantage" is not gonna do it.
everybody knew what was gonna happen live through with it and carry on fighting
|
Manfred Sideous
Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 22:33:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Lowa
Simply; the entity that feels threatened and stand to loose huge amount of isk, territory and assets will never ever agree to show up with a force that is not, in their mind, superior to the opposing forces. And why should they? For the defending party its about continued existance and evolution not conquest and the ultimate fight.
Meh, perhaps not the best explanation but I'm slightly drunk and logic + words is not operating at 100% efficency.
Cheers, Lowa
I conceed your estimation is dead on. I guess I was just poking at the "Why bring 100 lambs when 3 lions can accomplish the same results". http://www.hunters-agency.com/manfred/manfredlgray.png Please resize signature to fit under 400x120 pixels and 24,000 bytes -Eldo
|
Nez Perces
Amarr Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 22:36:00 -
[9]
nice thread Manfred... I started a similar thread to this one about a month ago.. suggesting something very similar....
I think you will find the responses to it very interesting.. and unfortunately it will become clear to you that it would never work, simply because in EVE there are too many people for whom losing is something they will avoid at all costs and that includes overloading the servers past breaking point. (by design or by accident)
I know FIX rather well and it is fitting that it be a FIX guy who suggets this topic again....
FIX is always up for the good fight, win or loose,.... unfortunately FIX is also very much in the minority.
Anyways here is the thread...
a solution for EVE warfare
|
maGz
The Priory Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 22:39:00 -
[10]
Edited by: maGz on 10/10/2006 22:42:54
Originally by: Manfred Sideous The other day I issued a public challenge to the people we were fighting that we would face them with 2 to verse our 1 odds. The reason being is they had almost 7 to 1 odds in system and it was causing node crashes. Unfortunately the enetity I challenged couldnt see the wisdom of the idea past their own needs.
It wasn't a bad post 'til you wrote this... I see your point, but with the above sentence the post completely fails at it's purpose. We do not meet with those numbers because we want to crash the node. We meet up with these numbers because we're defending something that is rightfully ours. You cannot expect us to be all fine and dandy about you crashing into G-7, and then also expect us to start to give you a chance by lowering our numbers.
You guys started this, don't start whining about node crashes. If you are so smart you should have realised that taking G-7 wouldn't be a walk in the park...
EDIT. And before the dear Nez Perces comes with some old man-logic; Don't bother mate. If you want good fights, you contact someone and agree on a place to fight. You don't crash into a system, put 5 POSs in reinforced, take a station, then whine about the defenders outnumbering and consequently crashing the node (mind you, the numbers are not that big because we want to break the node. Numbers are that big because a lot of people want to defend their investment.) ____________
The Priory Killboard |
|
Kryztal
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 22:39:00 -
[11]
I love the 200, 100, 50 man fleets just as much as the 5-15 roaming gangs. Its what i pay for and yes I'll agree that ccp need to juice up the servers or stop accepting more subs ...
BobÖ Goon Swatter - Eliminates Every Goon |
Randay
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 22:45:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Manfred Sideous Maybe we can all show some restraint. Instead of using the lamb theory of defense and fighting perhaps its time to shift gear and start using the lion. Smaller more potent fighting squads and skirmishes spread across multiple systems. Instead of amassing the zerglings in 1 system.
It could work, but it'll never work. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Originally by: Reddari
Now just be nice before I start to make life for the BOB devs (yes you have some) harder by exposing their player characters.
|
Manfred Sideous
Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 22:46:00 -
[13]
The servers are FUBAR. I love combat and thats why i play the game. As im sure a very large % of the Eve community does. Was just thinking outloud on how we as a community could still enjoy our past time while not making the servers crash.
I also had the idea of when a large scale battle was going to happen. Loading that system or constellation up into a Instanced based server. Players could leave and join the Instance but with a Queue. Loading the entire constellation or system up into its own server. http://www.hunters-agency.com/manfred/manfredlgray.png Please resize signature to fit under 400x120 pixels and 24,000 bytes -Eldo
|
mazzilliu
Caldari Sniggerdly
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 22:47:00 -
[14]
If an attacker brings a 100 person fleet of highSP characters- dreads and BSes against some alliance's home system, everybody's going to try defending it, which means a lot of low SP characters are going to join in. the odds are probably going to have to surpass 2:1 in order for the fight to be fair, which is also nearing enough to cause a node crash.
you can't blame the defenders for wanting to keep their stuff, the only thing that can be done is for the attackers to take a different strategy as full-on seige doesnt seem to work. (and, of course, all the while waiting for CCP to sort out the problem or something)
perhaps instead of the full-on seige of systems, attackers need to resort instead to smaller gangs and launch a wide scale piracy campaign. the enemy can still dock and log in their outpost, but they won't be able to NPC or mine. cut off their source of income, gank their haulers in empire, drive their membership to paranoia and greif with ruthless podding.
I'M IN YOUR SYSTEMS. I'M KILLING YOUR MANS!!! |
Scoundrelus
Unseen Jihad
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 22:47:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Randay
Originally by: Manfred Sideous Maybe we can all show some restraint. Instead of using the lamb theory of defense and fighting perhaps its time to shift gear and start using the lion. Smaller more potent fighting squads and skirmishes spread across multiple systems. Instead of amassing the zerglings in 1 system.
It could work, but it'll never work.
Contradictory sentence.
It could work, but it will never happen, would be a more accurate statement. =============================================== We are Watching You. |
Manfred Sideous
Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 22:59:00 -
[16]
Originally by: maGz Edited by: maGz on 10/10/2006 22:42:54
Originally by: Manfred Sideous The other day I issued a public challenge to the people we were fighting that we would face them with 2 to verse our 1 odds. The reason being is they had almost 7 to 1 odds in system and it was causing node crashes. Unfortunately the enetity I challenged couldnt see the wisdom of the idea past their own needs.
It wasn't a bad post 'til you wrote this... I see your point, but with the above sentence the post completely fails at it's purpose. We do not meet with those numbers because we want to crash the node. We meet up with these numbers because we're defending something that is rightfully ours. You cannot expect us to be all fine and dandy about you crashing into G-7, and then also expect us to start to give you a chance by lowering our numbers.
You guys started this, don't start whining about node crashes. If you are so smart you should have realised that taking G-7 wouldn't be a walk in the park...
EDIT. And before the dear Nez Perces comes with some old man-logic; Don't bother mate. If you want good fights, you contact someone and agree on a place to fight. You don't crash into a system, put 5 POSs in reinforced, take a station, then whine about the defenders outnumbering and consequently crashing the node (mind you, the numbers are not that big because we want to break the node. Numbers are that big because a lot of people want to defend their investment.)
I certainly can respect IAC's posistion. FIX 6 months ago was up against 7 alliances. We brought everything we had to the table as IAC should. You all have heart for not turning over and letting McFix take your system without a fight.
I told Seleene before we came into G-7WUF that this was goint to be fun because IAC loves to fight. Everytime in the past a FIX gang has crossed paths with a IAC gang it was a awesome clean smack-free fight.
/emote Salute and Respect to IAC.
Reffering directly to the MCFix IAC conflict was not my aim in this thread. I did use a exerpt from the conflict to add to the argument but as you notice I didnt mention any names.
All im saying is with the current tactics that are being employed. BOB vs ASCN D2 vs AXE IAC vs MCFIX and every other large scale conflict are going to get owned by CCP servers. Personally in the conflict im involved in if my party is to have victory I hope it is because we secured it not that Node crashing tipped the scales in our favor. http://www.hunters-agency.com/manfred/manfredlgray.png Please resize signature to fit under 400x120 pixels and 24,000 bytes -Eldo
|
Dekein
No Quarter. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 23:02:00 -
[17]
Knowing the state of the servers. Why would any large group initiate a territorial war or large fleet fight against another large group? I feel your logic is a little backward Manfred. The people that initiate the problem are the attackers. They chose to create a situation where the defenders want to protect more than just the ship they are in.
The attacker can probably get many good fights with roaming gangs. But, that is an artificial restriction posed on the attacker, which is equally unacceptable.
I think we can all agree that the people really at fault are not the players, on either side. But they are the ones suffering the results of the problem. until it is corrected though. The ones initiating such attacks have no real basis to complain to the defenders when the situation wouldn't exist if they had not chosen that level of aggression.
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty - Cortes |
Nez Perces
Amarr Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 23:02:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 10/10/2006 23:05:32
I'm starting to think that we are at a cross-roads in EVE.....
The game simply cannot handle the size of fleets that get thrown around these days.. and by the game I mean the servers.
.. and before people say.. oh CCP should fix it...
well I don't think they can, I do not believe that the servers will be able to handle 200 vs 100 or some of the extreme numbers that the big alliances can field.
So have we reached EVE's technological limit for the forseeable future?
I'd say yes we have.
So..
several things can could occur by assuming this.
1. Alliances that field 200+ on a regular basis have their days numbered as they are going to get horribly bored.
2. EVE is going to hemorrhage players to the point where the numbers become managable again... i.e Darwinism.
3. EVE dies altogether.
4. Alliances adapt to EVE's technolgical capabilities and introduce voluntary fleet size caps, so that the game becomes enjoyable again.
No. 4 has been discussed in this thread in in others and is not really gonna happen..
Scenario 1 and 2 are the most likely and would fit the 'sandbox' model CCP like to work with.
Its just a question of time.
|
CherniyVolk
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 23:07:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Serapis Aote
This is not the players problem it is ccp.
They dont need to fix the server...that isnt the major problem. The major problem is the game design. The game is designed to force battles into 1 system and then most likely all fight on the same 2-3 grids in that system.
The major problem is the server. They run Microsoft Windows, and that is the biggest contributor to instability issues (server diconnects, node crashes... "crash" period), and load/scalability issues (lag, server crunching, balancing and "clustering"). BTW: "clustering" can not be currently done in any high-performance sense with Windows; Windows is, a single user, consumer level, single application design. Not in any sense like when one says "behold... here's our Linux cluster!", and here is my boss, Mr. Google.com!
Problem for CCP, is it might be too expensive to initiate a platform shift. So, what other advice could be given to improve the experience a little for us pilots at home?
I think if they segregate public and internal network services with game services. Complete dedicated and seperate lines for the two. That might better garuntee 'x' amount of bandwidth for game time. We all know how sporadic and how insane general "WWW" traffic gets. With worms, email, hackers, dns, eve-o forums, slashdot etc. It seems, that this post will cross the same individual pipe as ship commands for some pilot currently logged in. I strongly disagree with this approach, and it's highly suspect for lag. But CCP might be sitting on an OC128 or something, who knows.
|
w0rmy
Intensive CareBearz
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 23:09:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Vegas Eve's broke.
But no lag on collecting money for my subs
Go figure
Its the one part of eve that always seems to work.
Perhaps the billing system guys should design the servers too?
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Dark Shikari
What single item is larger than a jetcan?
My ego?
|
|
pershphanie
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 23:09:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Manfred Sideous It is evident that servers cannot hold up to large fleet engagments. Look at the node crashes BOB & ASCN ,MCFix & IAC and friends and now AXE & D2. Perhaps its time to change the thinking. Maybe we can all show some restraint. Instead of using the lamb theory of defense and fighting perhaps its time to shift gear and start using the lion. Smaller more potent fighting squads and skirmishes spread across multiple systems. Instead of amassing the zerglings in 1 system.
Thats not fair to alliances like ASCN tbh. Some alliances are designed for a specific type of warfare which does involve large masses of players. Its the only way you can take players with lesser skill points and make them competitive against more experienced higher skill point pros. IMO it is good for the game to allow lesser skill point players a way of defending themselves against alliances like bob. The only real way to do that is to have more numbers. Not using big fleets basically bans newer players to empire which will lead to a stagnation of the game.
The answer is not smaller gangs. There are only 2 solutions to this problem.
1) Better servers and more of them.
2) Allowing players to turn off model rendering before entering big fights. This is so simple and would fix the problem. The appearence of ships in big fights is completly irrelevent anyways. There is no good reason we should be denied this feature. Not only would it stop the lag of big fights but it would allow players to use things like drones in big fights. CCP: denial of a problem does not make the problem not exist! The ability of alliance to form big fleets is a crucial part of the game. For the sake of the game please let us turn off model redering for big fights. It would not only fix the biggest single problem in eve but will probably end up saving you money on server upgrades.
Am i right or am i right?
|
Nez Perces
Amarr Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 23:13:00 -
[22]
Originally by: pershphanie CCP: denial of a problem does not make the problem not exist!
CCP seem to be quite good at this.. what happens if there is no intention/ability on the part of CCP to address this problem Persaphanie?
What if we have hit a technological glass ceiling?
|
Manfred Sideous
Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 23:24:00 -
[23]
Let us all drop our grudges and take the fight to the real enemy!!!
Eve's residents VS Concord.
We will take the motherland from the mighty Concord. Jita is primary!!!
....sorry comic relief had to be done http://www.hunters-agency.com/manfred/manfredlgray.png Please resize signature to fit under 400x120 pixels and 24,000 bytes -Eldo
|
Entilzah Valen
Band of Builders Inc. Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 23:34:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Entilzah Valen on 10/10/2006 23:34:52 My 2 cents.
Last month I returned to EVE after being away for two.
Before I left the game the last major engagement I was a part of (E3/N-CREL as a member of 0utbreak) was nearly lag free and local peaked at 130~.
Some of the engagements I've been in this last weekend, the numbers were less than or approaching the same and the node crashed with little to any actual combat.
My question is what the hell has gone wrong in the matter of 3 months? What point is there in investing in capital fleets or trying to seige a system if the server can't ******* handle it? Why all the POS war, when fundamentally you can't participate in what the designers have set out to do?
__________________
|
Serapis Aote
TBC
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 23:35:00 -
[25]
Originally by: CherniyVolk
Originally by: Serapis Aote
This is not the players problem it is ccp.
They dont need to fix the server...that isnt the major problem. The major problem is the game design. The game is designed to force battles into 1 system and then most likely all fight on the same 2-3 grids in that system.
The major problem is the server. They run Microsoft Windows, and that is the biggest contributor to instability issues (server diconnects, node crashes... "crash" period), and load/scalability issues (lag, server crunching, balancing and "clustering"). BTW: "clustering" can not be currently done in any high-performance sense with Windows; Windows is, a single user, consumer level, single application design. Not in any sense like when one says "behold... here's our Linux cluster!", and here is my boss, Mr. Google.com!
Problem for CCP, is it might be too expensive to initiate a platform shift. So, what other advice could be given to improve the experience a little for us pilots at home?
I think if they segregate public and internal network services with game services. Complete dedicated and seperate lines for the two. That might better garuntee 'x' amount of bandwidth for game time. We all know how sporadic and how insane general "WWW" traffic gets. With worms, email, hackers, dns, eve-o forums, slashdot etc. It seems, that this post will cross the same individual pipe as ship commands for some pilot currently logged in. I strongly disagree with this approach, and it's highly suspect for lag. But CCP might be sitting on an OC128 or something, who knows.
I respectfully disagree with the idea that concentrating on fixing the server is the best solution here.
As long as the gamer requires if not demands a single system fight for alliance warfare there are going to be problems. Node crashing is the biggest problem now, but lag has always been a problem and not just in eve.
Its not a windown problem (completely). The problem is that alliance and fleet fights are dynamic, and the server cluster is static when it comes to node balancing and ccp has said as much. When it comes to 0.0 the sysemts are relatively empty by Eve standers 90% of the time, thus very little is used to support the system. Then within a day or two the population spikes, the cluster cant shift resources on the fly and the node crashes.
In my opinion CCP should immediately look to changing the core game mechanics of alliance warfare, and implement a system that encourages force separation and battles accross constellations, not in 1 system. POS wars and such just do not work...the game cannot handle it. Nodes have crashed with only a hundred or so in local.
And personally is think there is something wrong with the pos itself. The lag for a fleet flight at a POS is always worse then one at the gate. And i have noticed more lag in systems with larger numbers of POS, regardless of where you are in system (this is all just speculation on my part, i have no proof).
|
pershphanie
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 23:35:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Nez Perces
Originally by: pershphanie CCP: denial of a problem does not make the problem not exist!
CCP seem to be quite good at this.. what happens if there is no intention/ability on the part of CCP to address this problem Persaphanie?
Well that is where we are at now it seems. That is also why I not only voiced the problem but provided an easy, realistic, and cost effiecent solution that would could have the problem fixed by tommarow if they implement it. What I cant do is force CCP to seriously consider it. One voice will not accomplish that. The only hope of seriously getting that done is to have everyone push for it.
Originally by: Nez Perces
What if we have hit a technological glass ceiling?
I know for a fact that isnt true. During the GNW someone did infact develop a third party mod for EVE where by pressing a key they could disable model rendering for big fights. It works great. It eliminated almost all lag from big fights. It was deemed an exploit by CCP (as it should have been. no one should be allowed an advantage by third party modifications to the eve client).
It has become very clear that with the spike in playerbase since then now is the time for CCP to impliment a disable model rendering key as a standard feature for EVE. There is no reason not to let the players make their own choice between graphics and preformance based on the situation they are in. People need to demand this if they want 0.0 warfare to be playable.
|
NATMav
F.R.E.E. Explorer EVE Animal Control
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 23:54:00 -
[27]
EvE is broken, plain an simple. Throwing hardware at it won't fix it, turning off model rendering won't fix it, closing subs won't fix it, and lowering fleet sizes won't fix it.
There is something seriously wrong in the code that is causing these problems, and until that is addressed, throwing more and more features on top of bad code will only make it harder to track down and fix.
FREEE is Recruiting |
Nez Perces
Amarr Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.10.11 00:03:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 11/10/2006 00:05:19
Originally by: NATMav and lowering fleet sizes won't fix it.
hmm.. you might be right.. but it doesnt make sense...
there is a direct correlation between the size of a gang and the amount of lag (leading to a node crash) experienced by that gang
There have been reports in past weeks of < 100 v 100 working just fine... not always but most of the time.
Its when the very big fleets square off that things start to go horribly wrong.......
I mean I remember reading about an Outbreak fight 3 or 4 weeks ago with RISE that was 50 vs 50 on a Sunday afternoon, peaktime and it was fine.
Yeah there is probably some dud code associated with POS and perhaps gate jumping with large fleets, but at the end of the day the mega-fleets seem to be lagging themselves to death anyhow.
|
pershphanie
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.10.11 00:30:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Nez Perces
k.. lets assume that your suggestion is easy to implement and would work...
there are two problems as far as I can see for it to become a reality.
1. It would be an admission from CCP their game model is flawed, as in it cannot support graphics + v large numbers at the same time.
They dont have to admit anything. Just give us a choice as customers where or not we want model rendering in big fights. It doesnt have to be an ommision of guilt. It would just be giving us a new "feature", like turning off turret effects. CCP likes new "features".
Originally by: Nez Perces
2. Getting the community to speak as one is a horrendously difficult task.
Agreed. Difficult but not impossible.
Originally by: Nez Perces
If BoB and I mean all of BoB thought this was a good idea... then perhaps other alliances could put their support behind it too.
So I guess the question is.. what is the feeling in BoB? would your alliance support a public signing of this suggestion to CCP?
TBH I have no idea. I do not speak for or represent BOB. I will ask.
Originally by: Nez Perces
Damn if it really would work I would sign such a petition also and I am sure a lot of EVE alliances would to.
If all EVE alliances sign a petition for CCP to allow disabling player models during big battles, CCP would have to listen .. no?
Well no. They dont have to do anything. But it would make them seriously consider it this and other solutions to the problem which is a step in the right direction.
|
pershphanie
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.10.11 00:37:00 -
[30]
Originally by: NATMav EvE is broken, plain an simple. Throwing hardware at it won't fix it, turning off model rendering won't fix it, closing subs won't fix it, and lowering fleet sizes won't fix it.
There is something seriously wrong in the code that is causing these problems, and until that is addressed, throwing more and more features on top of bad code will only make it harder to track down and fix.
Why wouldnt new hardware or the ability to turn off model rendering fix the problem? Maybe there is something seriously wrong with the code. Or maybe eve just has more players than it used to and the servers are overloaded. Rendering 200+ ships in an instant has to be very stressfull for any server. You are probably right that there may be additional problems in the code in recent months. However there has always been lag in big fleet fights because the servers cant properly process that much at one time. Why shouldnt CCP give its customers the choice not to process models if it helps? Do you really think processing model rendering during big fights has nothing to do with the lag/crashing of big fleets?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |