EVE Search - Lambs vs Lions

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

Lambs vs Lions

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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?
Louis DelaBlanche Cosmic Odyssey Chorus of Dawn	Posted - 2006.10.11 00:51:00 - [31] Originally by: Lowa 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. Like you say, such a system will only work for scenarios where the only thing at stake is how much fun can be had. In most cases, both sides want to have the upper hand in terms of numbers. Thus even if a group starts out with several spread out gangs, almost inevitably both sides will concentrate more & more of their forces in one place as they try to outsize the other. Its just the way it is.
Grimpak Gallente Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.11 00:52:00 - [32] Edited by: Grimpak on 11/10/2006 00:54:44 Originally by: pershphanie 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? model rendering fix only fixes cliend sided GFX lag. That is, if you count low framerate/slideshow EVE as lag. tbh I would appreciate it since many people (like I) don't have hi-end (or even med end!) machines to run eve in it's full blown characteristics, nor the money to make massive upgrades to it. as for the server side lag. I am of the opinion that something is wrong with the code. very wrong actually. We can only hope that CCP manages to fix it. edit: btw, server doesn't need to render the ships models. it only needs to know where are they and what are they doing (ship movement, shooting crap, firing missiles, ECM thingys, POS doing pew-pew, etc etc etc...). Server only sends the spatial location and whatever actions are happening. ------- Originally by: Abdalion Originally by: Jebidus Skari What, in EVE, is a Tyrant? Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.
sartorii Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.11 01:42:00 - [33] if you want 'fair' duels.. there are organized tournaments.. and (most) alliances will respect a 1v1 etc.. HOWEVER.. if you come for War.. expect to be greeted with any and everything available.. War has never been about 'fair', and never will be.... as for the rest... if it bothers 'us' that much (and it does) there is always the option to suspend accounts until CCP decides performance is worth the Dev's time.... *To Bad Ignorance isnt Painful*
Blacklight Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.11 01:50:00 - [34] 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. This man has it right. Session change code and loading graphics have been awful since day one and have got worse since the new hardware and recent code changes have been made. To be honest, despite the fact that we are ever more encouraged to play the team game, build empires etc etc... the servers and game in general cannot handle it. It's exceedingly dissapointing but the determined and dedicated amongst us will fight through it and continue to hope for a solution. Eve Blacklight Style
Murukan Minmatar The Priory Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.11 02:02:00 - [35] seriously what right do you have to expect a fair fight? Sorry if you didn't bandwagon up with mc you wouldn't be getting everything thrown at you. When you are defending something you don't say "oh well i'm going to only use part of my resources so my enemy can have an enjoyable time." ** that i hope we ruin your time in eve to the point you don't want to play anymore. The best conclusion would be that this war turns so miserable for you that you cancel your account. Cause you're the enemy, and a fighter never stops till his enemy is dead. In rust we trust!!!**
Karoth Tyu FATAL REVELATIONS	Posted - 2006.10.11 02:16:00 - [36] Originally by: NATMav There is something seriously wrong in the code that is causing these problems *coughDragonpatchcough*
Zedic Amarr Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.11 03:06:00 - [37] Nez, as always your posts are intelligent well though out and informative, but I respectfully disagree. :( Many players in Eve want large scale fleet battles, it's the direction we've taken the game and now it feels as though we're dragging a mule up a mountain by it's tail. The mule is grumpy and we're not making much headway. I personally would be happy if a Dev said something like, "Hey we know the lag is horrible, this is what we think the problem is / we don't know what the problem is - and we're working on it." That would be fine with me because then I'd know they honestly care and are working to correct the issue. And I'm sure they are, but communicating this to their customer base is soo important. Unless someone addressed it already and I missed it! lol p.s. I'm not sure why my corp / alliance and sig aren't posting but I'm in Shinra, Lotka Volterra. I have the show corp and alliance things ticked in my settings as well.
tbow10 Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.11 03:09:00 - [38] 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. you realy think that people are goign to only feild 10 people when your taking a station
tbow10 Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.11 03:11:00 - [39] Originally by: pershphanie 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? pershphanie the problem i think is in the code this wasn't a problem before. It realy came in after rmr when they 1st put the servers in it was awsome after some bug fixing then rmr crap boom death to evrything lag like hell and just more new content which i realy don't get. Why would you put your guys on new content instead of focusing all your power to fixing the server?
Nez Perces Amarr Black Spot.	Posted - 2006.10.11 04:06:00 - [40] Originally by: Zedic Many players in Eve want large scale fleet battles, it's the direction we've taken the game and now it feels as though we're dragging a mule up a mountain by it's tail. The mule is grumpy and we're not making much headway. heh .. thats a good way to put it
travelingsales Ars Caelestis Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.11 04:24:00 - [41] Originally by: tbow10 It realy came in after rmr when they 1st put the servers in it was awsome after some bug fixing then rmr crap boom death to evrything lag like hell and just more new content which i realy don't get. Why would you put your guys on new content instead of focusing all your power to fixing the server? From the perspective of a (somewhat) newer player, it seems things got considerably worse this summer after Dragon was introduced. I started playing right around RMR, and I have been involved in a number of the fleet fights discussed ad naseum on this forum (Huzzah/Fix war, BoB invasion of V2, BoB vs. CODA in 9cg, more recently ASCN vs. BoB) and it has only been post-Dragon that I've seen widespread node deaths and people getting kicked and crashing to desktop daily. In any of the pre-Dragon fleet fights I was in, things were laggy (which was frustrating in and of itself) but the node didn't crash and few people CTD'd. As someone else said you could at least sort of work through the lag and you generally knew what was going on even if it was all in slow motion. I am surprised and saddened to hear that things were even better pre-RMR, as it seems as far as server stability it has been all downhill in 2006.
Nez Perces Amarr Black Spot.	Posted - 2006.10.11 04:42:00 - [42] Originally by: travelingsales I am surprised and saddened to hear that things were even better pre-RMR, as it seems as far as server stability it has been all downhill in 2006. .. well this is interesting, perhaps we can put together a lag timeline. (Please Feel free to add or correct it) Pre RMR > lag was mangeable, obviously large fleets were still affected but not in a catastrophic way. RMR release > Lag again still an issue, however RMR introduced node dropping at L POS battles? Addition of blades to the server + hardware > Brief improvement noted but game performance gradually subsided to pre-hardware levels. ...period of gradual decline of server performance.... Dragon Code > meant to improve things, this code actually caused massive instability across all areas of EVE, seemingly introducing more frequent node drops leading to the abysmal state of the servers today. OFC all this happened to a backdrop of ever-increasing numbers of players.. and its quite possible that any imrovements to code and hardware additions just kept the lag at bay and from very rapidly increasing. It is clear that the Dragon code did something bad to server performance, but it would be nice to try and establish wether the game has been decreasing in performance due to being loaded with inefficient code or more due to increasing numbers of players across the board. P.S If anybody would like to ammend the timeline I posted, pls feel free.. perhaps it can be like a "LAGipedia" .. I'm sure there are players out there who can add more information or correct the timeline.
Nez Perces Amarr Black Spot.	Posted - 2006.10.11 04:49:00 - [43] Infact if there is enough interest in putting together a community "LAGipedia" (in the form of a thread on these forums) perhaps CCP might pay some more attention to it... It could be not only a timeline, but known proplems that cause node drops or excessive lag. Bug reports are great, but to have a history of lag and known problems with it all in one thread, with the people who experience it day in day out giving their input.. it could be a valuable resource.
Verite Rendition Caldari AUS Corporation CORE.	Posted - 2006.10.11 05:23:00 - [44] 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. Unfortunately, that assumes it can be fixed without rebuilding EVE. This was a small-man operation at one point, CCP has made it pretty clear the game has grown past their expectations. The hardware has changed, but at the end of the day the core server code is still the same. CCP would likely have to rewrite the entire backend to really fix things, which is basically starting from scratch, and that's not practical. ---- AUS Corp Lead Megalomanic
Nez Perces Amarr Black Spot.	Posted - 2006.10.11 05:26:00 - [45] Originally by: Verite Rendition [ The hardware has changed, but at the end of the day the core server code is still the same. CCP would likely have to rewrite the entire backend to really fix things, which is basically starting from scratch, and that's not practical. yup... this is what worries me ...
Seleene Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.10.11 05:56:00 - [46] No one in the MC should be ***ing about the enemy numbers. TBH, we haven't been this happy with an opponent since the Force of Evil contract. Bring it. What we are ***ing about is the same thing everyone else is - the code that won't allow BOTH sides to fight with everything they have. Then we have GM's that show up and order us not to fire on the steady stream of ships, dreads and haulers that are docking and undocking from a station that we were supposed to own... because I guess THAT is the way to deal with the node crashes? But, oh well... we're dealing with it. What else are you gonna do? Go play WoW? Screw that. - Movie: 9UY - Got Fighters?
Rina Shanu Phoenix Knights	Posted - 2006.10.11 06:18:00 - [47] As some of you would agree, if the node crash is so much of a concern, it comes in the hands of the attacker to bring in the lions. Surely a pack of lions could force the lambs to divide group.... This is a well known and fequently used strategy: have more batalions, attack in more than 1 strategic point in order to force the enemy to split forces also or loose one of the points. Anyone remember the local nerf idea ? the one in which you are visible only if you speak? Now that would further allow for strategy...... too bad other pilots whine all the time and our life gets easier (excluding the server issues). Image removed, not appropriate for this site. -Suvetar took you some time... what has 4 legs and 1 arm? a happy pitbull
Le Cardinal ECP Rogues Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.10.11 08:26:00 - [48] Originally by: pershphanie 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? Pardon me for being a noob here, but how will turning off model rendering actually graphic wise? Explain model rendering to me plz ;) However, if it reduces lag considerably i for one supports this. I agree with pershphanie Reducing lag should be CCPs primary goal atm. Implementing new mods and ships and other features doesnt matter atm. At least not for me :) We managed without all the hot T2 ships before and i think we can manage a bit longer without the new features. However, lag we cant manage. Titans, dreads, carriers and motherships. All this is implemented for major warfare. Major warfare = big number of players. You cant expect large alliances to reduce amount of pilots in their gang just to adapt to the servers. It wont work. Even with 50 vs 50 in a system it lags. And you will still have 150-200 pilots in the neighbour system waiting for their turn. Nodes will crash no matter what with the current state of servers. Now plz do something about it CCP. At least have the dignity to respond to these threads. It is a major problem. Dont turn the blind eye to the community. ECP.R killboard
Grimpak Gallente Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.11 08:51:00 - [49] Originally by: Le Cardinal Originally by: pershphanie 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? Pardon me for being a noob here, but how will turning off model rendering actually graphic wise? Explain model rendering to me plz ;) However, if it reduces lag considerably i for one supports this. I agree with pershphanie Reducing lag should be CCPs primary goal atm. Implementing new mods and ships and other features doesnt matter atm. At least not for me :) We managed without all the hot T2 ships before and i think we can manage a bit longer without the new features. However, lag we cant manage. Titans, dreads, carriers and motherships. All this is implemented for major warfare. Major warfare = big number of players. You cant expect large alliances to reduce amount of pilots in their gang just to adapt to the servers. It wont work. Even with 50 vs 50 in a system it lags. And you will still have 150-200 pilots in the neighbour system waiting for their turn. Nodes will crash no matter what with the current state of servers. Now plz do something about it CCP. At least have the dignity to respond to these threads. It is a major problem. Dont turn the blind eye to the community. as I said above turning off models only help when you get poor framerates in bigger fleetbattles. It's not lag per se, but more like slideshow sindrome. I hope that the new trinity engine will solve part of the issue since EVE is more CPU dependant than gfx card dependant, by shifting a bigger part of the grafical workload to the gpu than today. "true" lag however is the module activation lag and such. and atm that's where the main issue is imho. ------- Originally by: Abdalion Originally by: Jebidus Skari What, in EVE, is a Tyrant? Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.
El Covah No Quarter. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.10.11 08:52:00 - [50] What do I play this game for ? I was impressed 3 years ago by the possibility of a giant playground where players actually can build, defend and fight for their own space. I still remember the Jove-Event where some strange ambassador added the alliances to the "Jove register of nations". I mean, the idea is great. This is why I started the game and why I play it. The possibility that there is no difference between NPC and player created "empires". Hell yeah, I was so happy when all the events in the south started. Finally something exciting, something great to happen - one more step to a fully player created world. And what has it become ? This is no fun at all. This is just frustrating, the game is broken and I already started seeing more and more of the people which I know for several years now (on every side of the current events, same in BoB as in D¦ or ASCN/AXE) neither do not login anymore or cancel their accounts. I know it is difficult to debug code if you cannot create breakpoints etc. (which won't be cool at all in a fleetbattle ) and need realtime debugging. But seriously I hope this gets fixed before the Kali launch.
Mortecai No Quarter. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.10.11 09:14:00 - [51] Originally by: El Covah I know it is difficult to debug code if you cannot create breakpoints etc. (which won't be cool at all in a fleetbattle ) and need realtime debugging. But seriously I hope this gets fixed before the Kali launch. Looking at the track record for CCP it's not looking good. Long gone are the days where we could brag about EVE being in pretty good shape compared to other games. Each new content patch has made it worse in gameplay wise. Content has been added, but the cherry on the top (fleetbattles) is getting more rotten patch by patch. To be honest im abit scared of Kali now. Not because of the features it brings, they rock. But because if CCP doesnt change the way they code their expansions, then Kali will totally mess up the gaming experience (or what's left of it) and they will suffer the fate of SWG. Devs: Talk to us, like one of our corpies stated: There is no such thing as too much information. Even bad news is some time good news.
Shin Ra BURN EDEN	Posted - 2006.10.11 09:15:00 - [52] 5 of us faught 15 LV last night and got about 5-10 second module lag. No more than 20 in local and its still laggy as ****.
Semkhet The Priory Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.11 09:33:00 - [53] I would like to somewhat explain a bit the problem of lag. Then you will see that there is no simple solution. In a distributed client-server architecture like EVE, lag is function of 3 main factors: a) the time needed by clients to process inbound and outbound data, b) the time needed to transfer this data between clients->server and server->clients, and the time needed by the server to process the inbound/outbound data from/to all connected individual clients. a) Each time your client receives data, it must act on it. This may imply from a refresh of your interface to complex calculations and hard disk activity. Each time you do something in EVE, your client sends data to the server. Often, the cpu load your client suffers when having to process the server data is intimately interleaved with the processing related to your own actions which have to be sent back to the server. This happens mostly in space (specially PvP, Pve is less demanding) versus the relative static environment of docking stations. Every single element that will delay the speed at which your client talks with the server will increase lag. This implies almost every part of your computer participating in these activities, from harddisk access, reading and writing speed to the graphic adapter velocity passing by the raw cpu power of your machine, not to speak about all the routines hooked up to your system by the operating system (everything eats cpu time, even if you don't notice it, and has a cumulative effect). Player-side remedy: Shut down every application which isn't needed. Big ressource hookers are antivirus and anti-malware programs which constantly work in the background. Hence don't surf the net/retrieve mail while playing since it implies to maintain your computer Desactivate every overview feature that isn't essential. Don't talk on voice comms unless mandatory. CCP-side remedy: CCP has long ago decided to develop most of the code with Python. All scripting and compiled scripting languages have in common the singularity of sacrificing EXECUTION speed in order to achieve DEVELOPMENT speed. While this may initially make life easier to programmers, it induces processing-time problems on the client-side execution because being Python a dynamically-typed language, IIRC there is no compiler that is able to generate efficient code since Python often must handle data objects with a generic strategy. Maybe it's time CCP starts to think about translating their client into a mixed application using C & inline assembler. C is at least 5 times faster than Python, and Assembler is twice as fast as C. Also, data written during gameplay on disk should be limited as much as possible. It is of little significance to grind milliseconds here and there by optimizing the coding if harddisks get unduly sollicited. b) The internet is physically a spidernet of various technologies bridged togheter. Data is transmitted on copper or optic fiber lines and by microwaves to/from satellites. No matter the line technology, a common requisite is the presence of repeaters in order to adquire, reshape, reamplify and reemit the signals which get damped during their travel. That's the first source of lag: repeaters are electronic devices working magnitudes slower than the medias they interface with. Second lag source: routers, which not only suffer the same shortcomings than repeaters, but on top often reallocate the output on different lines in order to balance load accross the network. Then we have the third source of lag: since the routers may change the routing at any time due to constantly varying network load conditions, and since digital streams are segmented in tiny packets, a rerouting almost always occurs between packets pertaining to the same stream. It means that there is no guarantee that packet A of stream X will get at destination BEFORE packet B.
R3dSh1ft Caldari FIRMA Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.11 09:35:00 - [54] No. No. No. We will not fight on your terms. We will defend our home whatever it takes. We will be victorious. ______________________________________
EroniX Minmatar Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.11 09:41:00 - [55] I've been playing since the beginning & have never *****ed on the forums about lag, crashes, nerfs,... because it just wasn't that bad. However, in the past few months the server's performance has been really irritating! As for turning off the models: it might help to improve framerates & maybe lag but we might aswell go play a text based game. We're already playing without turret effects(which are great) and sound(which is even greater). You could argue that I could just play with them... but if it makes me lose ships because other people load the environment faster and have less lag, do I then really have a choice? The game needs to be fixed but in my book fixing does not mean removing features.
Tanya Kovacs SteelVipers YouWhat	Posted - 2006.10.11 09:53:00 - [56] Edited by: Tanya Kovacs on 11/10/2006 09:57:29 Edited by: Tanya Kovacs on 11/10/2006 09:53:05 Originally by: Karoth Tyu Originally by: NATMav There is something seriously wrong in the code that is causing these problems *coughDragonpatchcough* No! Devs told us Dragonpatch solved tons of performance problems. But as a player I have to say everything went very wrong since some month now. In a few weeks we will get new great features (which are decorated with some few bugs as usual). I'm curious how many developers are actually working on FIXING PROBLEMS instead of BRINGING NEW CONTENT (and some new problems) IN. But hey.. solving problems isn't good PR because it confirms there were massive problems. Spreading press releases about three dozens of new features and an continuously growing player database is better PR. Everything is "fine" for CCP atm, because playerbase grows and grows and grows. But in the long run this will hopefully not work. The "good" news is - more and more 0.0-players grumble. And this grumbling is constantly increasing for some month now. I wish I could travel to Iceland in November. Will be interesting.. But as a sidenote: It's not only CCPs problem. Whenever they enhance the performance players are increasing their blobs. This will not be solved until gamemechanics change but I doubt this will happen. Anyway - the problems in the last month are general problems. Fights with numbers which were ok before are now awful and full of lag. -- All my postings reflects just my personal opinion and my lacking knowledge of proper english. There is no lag in EVE \o/
Nez Perces Amarr Black Spot.	Posted - 2006.10.11 10:03:00 - [57] Originally by: Semkhet .. impressive post, very educational... did you write all that out yourself? cause if you did.. thx ... good reading.... even if you didnt it was still a very good read.. anyways.. If what you are saying is true, then CCP's hands may be pretty tied. K.. there is a problem with node dropping particularly at POS and at session changes (gate jumping of big fleets), they should be able to solve that. But that does not solve the underlying and inescapable truth that the technology available to CCP is simply not able to keep up with the ever increasing fleet sizes. And hence the crippling lag experienced by v large fleets. Shinra, complained of a small engagement being laggy, well its not surprising if there are lots of huge battles going on all over EVE. When the big alliances field their mega-fleets the whole server gets affected. ... and there doesn't seem to be a solution to this problem.. unless we the players cap fleet sizes in any one engagement. And I know nobody likes this idea.. but it does seem like the only way forward imo.
Zafon Caldari FATAL REVELATIONS Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.11 10:07:00 - [58] Does anybody remember a comment from one of the devs immediately after the Dragon patch along the lines of "some Kali code got introduced but we don't know what it was"? It may have been solely in relation to missions (remember the complete absence of courier missions immediately post Dragon and multiple types of the same mission etc)? Either way, the fact that the wrong code or code they are not certain of could be introduced to the code base in an uncontrolled way is seriously worrying. I've never seen a dev post saying "we chased all that erroneously incorporated code down and removed it from the current production code base".....
Wilfan Ret'nub Singularity.	Posted - 2006.10.11 11:56:00 - [59] Originally by: Semkhet Player-side remedy: Shut down every application which isn't needed. I must add that the biggest resource hog is Teamspeak. That application uses a lot of CPU when someone is speaking, noticabley more than Ventrillo. Originally by: Semkhet IIRC there is no compiler that is able to generate efficient code since Python often must handle data objects with a generic strategy. Maybe it's time CCP starts to think about translating their client into a mixed application using C & inline assembler. C is at least 5 times faster than Python, and Assembler is twice as fast as C. First, broad remark like "computer language A is X times faster than B" is just ignorant blathering, plain and simple. There's plenty of benchmarks where Fortran trumps every high-level language (including C) by order of magnitude and even whole batches of tests where Java or OcamML beat C++. Compilers and virtual machines can do evil optimizations most programmers can't even dream of. Even without them, workloads and program implementations vary too much to reduce the difference to a simple ratio. EVE (node) server is not written in Python, but in Stackless Python. It has native support for "lightweigth threads" and related concurrency conecepts, which should make massively parallel severs (which EVE node certainly is) easier to write and make them more performant (yes, those two go hand in hand). I say should, as Stackless Python is unproven in practice - EVE might very well be one of the largest commercial deployments. Because of that, there's probably a lack of decent tools (profilers, loggers, debuggers) for it and more important, a lack of experienced Stackless Python developers. Even so, we don't know how much of the server is written in Stackless Python. It might well have significant parts written in C/C++ or it might use buggy non-Python libraries. The days of large scale assembler programming days are long gone. Current x86 architecture is too user unfriendly to write a lot of code that performs well. Also keep in mind that compilers have greatly improved since the 90ties. And in the end, nodes crash due to errors in the code, not due to slow calculations. Originally by: Semkhet b) The internet is physically a spidernet of various technologies bridged togheter Lag due to "the internet" does not cause what we're seeing right now. If data from the client is lagging, server treats as if client did nothing. This kind of lag cannot crash a node neither lag out other players. ------ No ISK, no fun
Wilfan Ret'nub Singularity.	Posted - 2006.10.11 12:03:00 - [60] Originally by: Zafon Either way, the fact that the wrong code or code they are not certain of could be introduced to the code base in an uncontrolled way is seriously worrying. Originally by: Zafon I've never seen a dev post saying "we chased all that erroneously incorporated code down and removed it from the current production code base"..... Now I can't get the mental picture of code as some kind of viral or poisonous substance out of my head. Like it's some rogue T-Virus that turns nodes into flesh-eating zombies. Even after 5+ years of programming experience. ------ No ISK, no fun
Zafon Caldari FATAL REVELATIONS Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.11 12:08:00 - [61] Meh. I should have just said "CCP might not have the best source control available, that concerns me".
Semkhet The Priory Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.11 13:18:00 - [62] @Wilfan Ret'nub: I don't intend to be drawn into a highly technical debate that would be obscure to every non-initiated in the intricacies of how OS / API's and networked applications interact in a distributed environment. However, I did'n make a general statement as you implied but directly compared Python to other languages. And if I did not mention specifically "Stackless Python" as you where so keen to point out, it is for a very simple reason: none of the fundamental aspects that render Python compilers unable to generate very optimized code are adressed in the "stackless" version. I cite the own words of Stackless developpers: "Stackless Python is an enhanced version of the Python programming language. It allows programmers to reap the benefits of thread-based programming without the performance and complexity problems associated with conventional threads. The microthreads that Stackless adds to Python are a cheap and lightweight convenience which can if used properly, give the following benefits: + Improved program structure. + More readable code. + Increased programmer productivity. " Again, it's very nice on the paper concerning the modelisation and design phase, and may improve the amount of code produced in a given time. But where go reliability, fault tolerance and debugging quality at MACHINE CODE ? Because I hope you are aware that at the end, no matter which coding strategy you use, its' still conventional machine code that CPU's will swallow, right ? And here we reach one of the biggest paradox of modern IT technologies: more ergonomic the tools (understand closer to classic human reasoning), faster you can program, but more difficult gets the debugging since each superposed layer of code acts like an additional black box. Now a formal example of a fundamental aspect of Python, which is very convenient when programming, but renders optimisation difficult not to say hardly faisible. In Python, you can write: MyVar = 2006 MyVar = "This is a string" These statements reference first an integer object, then a string object. There was no need to formally declare MyVAR and assign a fixed data type before using it. This implies that because the type of the variable can change at any moment in time, Python compilers usually don't track variable assignements hence types, and handle the variable as a generic data object. Under such strategy, even simple mathematical operations require an extensive array of intermediate transformation and checking code just to know if said mathematical operation is pertinent. Compare that to stricly static-typed languages like C or assembler, where a variable is defined with its type, which automatically defines BEFORE COMPILATION the required memory footprint and limits the range of operations which can be applied, and allows the compiler to detect and notify any trivial illegal use of said variables. As far as I know, Python doesen't define any syntax for type declaration. Also, type inference could theorically solve this problem, but would crash frontally with the dynamic spirit on which Python is based. Basic line is, you can't have the best of those two worlds at the same time because the implications are mutually exclusive. Finally, I spoke about a client written in a mix of C and inline assembly. I don't know where you get your opinions from, but I can assure you that something that will never become obsolete is the ability to fine-tune programs by resorting to the least time-consuming code. This is achieved by writing critical sections in low-level languages. Maybe you believe that BIOS'es, OS and their API's + drivers are coded in Delphi ? Check Linux: C is still one of the kings. I agree with you that no amount of lag should crash a node. But here we go: further you go away from low level, and less are you able to understand what happens deep inside your creation on layers you don't master.
Semkhet The Priory Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.11 13:47:00 - [63] Originally by: Nez Perces did you write all that out yourself? cause if you did.. thx ... good reading.... even if you didnt it was still a very good read.. anyways.. If what you are saying is true, then CCP's hands may be pretty tied. Thx m8. IMHO it will take an horrendous amount of time to CCP to figure out where are the errors. I can cite the follow real-life example of a stupid problem I was once confronted, hence my understanding towards the poor folks at CCP. One day I get a project to develop a distributed system of automation controllers in a highly polluted EM industrial environment. We choose the hardware (Siemens Infineon microcontrollers), design the missing electronic interfaces, write the BIOS and the application. And like everybody else, since I don't like to rediscover the wheel I resort to a third party for a library covering the low-level networking routines and the corresponding hardware network extension. The day the system is fired up, everything works perfectly. Then we begin to add features. And comes a point where the networking becomes erratic despite the controllers enjoying a decent CPU load reserve. Simply put, the network acts like if someone is plugging and unplugging the connection cables randomly. After WEEKS of litteral headaches where we can't find any bug in our code (ANSI C + assembler), we decide to reverse-engineer the network library and begin to map the machine code to the schematics of the processor and the hardware network extension. And what do we find ? The network board included an RTC chip that we found very handy to implement concurrent timing routines. However, this chip had one of its UNUSED digital output line going high (+5V) at regular intervals. Since we did'n tie this line to anything we initially thought that there was nothing to investigate in this direction. But at the end, by careful examination of the schematics, we discovered that this line was INTERNALLY connected to a component involved in the network reception hardware, preventing said component to work as intended during small delays of a few milliseconds. This was the bug. The company which developped the network board never realized that there was a precise functioning mode of the RTC chip which was incompatible with the concurrent network reception ability because none of their clients had used that special RTC mode. As conclusion, that's why I always adopt caution in development and refrain to make inflammatory statements. We often don't realize how far and deep things can get screwed up in the most unexpected way. And if I would have been one of those who rely solely on librairies, without a solid knowledge of digital electronics, processors and assembler, we probably never have been able to find and correct this bug ourselves.
Silvestri FIRMA Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.11 14:11:00 - [64] Maybe Eve should check out my company...lol. Avid Technology Specialize in editing equip for movies... With our ISIS storage and bazillion different servers...maybe there's a way...lol. 16 Terrabyte chassis's.....and you can hook them up for more....I think a total of 8 chassis's...
NATMav F.R.E.E. Explorer EVE Animal Control	Posted - 2006.10.11 15:08:00 - [65] It's getting to the point where there really needs to be some drastic action taken to try to remedy the problem, whether it be disabling entire features, such as bookmarks, setting a maximum number of players per node, removing POS, or whatever it takes to track down the source of the problem. Yes, it will be difficult and painful, and there will be a lot of whining from the playerbase, but if CCP comes out up-front and says, "This week we're taking out bookmarks to see how it affects server performance. At the end of this test all bookmarks will be returned in their original state.", the majority of the playerbase will deal with it maturely, and if it helps track down the source of these problems, we'll all be alot happier. We know that they are working on tracking down the problems on Singularity, and have reproduced some of the issues, so hopefully that leads to the source of the problems. But if that is not the case, I think they have to take a real proactive approach and start eliminating potential sources one by one until it reveals itself. FREEE is Recruiting
Corsair Thunder 116.7	Posted - 2006.10.11 16:06:00 - [66] What could happen due to the node crashes, etc: The large alliances, could split down into smaller ones, each controlling a small area of 0.0 space. However, as people have said before, during the previous large-scale wars (GNW, Xetic & Stain Vs. Curse alliance) there was not a great deal of lag or server problems. It is probably due to the increased number of effects on screen, plus the addition of capital ships, etc. My 2 cents anyhow... -----------------------------------------------
Serapis Aote TBC	Posted - 2006.10.11 16:33:00 - [67] Originally by: Corsair Thunder What could happen due to the node crashes, etc: The large alliances, could split down into smaller ones, each controlling a small area of 0.0 space. However, as people have said before, during the previous large-scale wars (GNW, Xetic & Stain Vs. Curse alliance) there was not a great deal of lag or server problems. It is probably due to the increased number of effects on screen, plus the addition of capital ships, etc. My 2 cents anyhow... There are also a lot more people in Eve. then during those earlier wars. What was the average people on at peak during those wars. I remember when i started is was around 11k and that was after the GNW, now its hovers around 20k I think the devs have stated that often low pop systems are put on the same node as high pop systems to balance things out. So while it may seem like lag in a 25-30 man fight is ridiculous, we have no idea how many other players on on the node that system is on. Its hard to tell if its to many people in eve, bad code or what not...because we have had several patches and also a dramatic rise in players at roughly the same time.
Witch Doctor Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.10.11 17:06:00 - [68] So ... When is it getting fixed? That's all I care about.
Murukan Minmatar The Priory Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.11 17:08:00 - [69] Originally by: Witch Doctor So ... When is it getting fixed? That's all I care about. when parm stops wearing women's clothes In rust we trust!!!
travelingsales Ars Caelestis Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.11 17:09:00 - [70] Silvestri that's funny, I interned at Avid for a while. My desktop machine during the internship was a dual Xeon workstation with 1 terrabyte of attached RAID storage, they definitely don't skimp there To get back to the timeline thing a bit, I do not think "more players" is the problem causing the node deaths. If we think back to March or April there were frequently 20k+ players logged in and I do not recall hearing widespread reports of nodes dying. Granted the playerbase has grown further since then, but the average amount of players logged in at a given time is still around 20-23k. To be honest the first couple of times I remember hearing about large numbers of node deaths were during the Goons vs. D2 war in the north. How long ago was that? I seem to recall it was right around when Dragon came out, which would fit with the general theory that something went wrong with Dragon. Before that there were various accusations thrown around during the LV vs. RA war (and let me stress that I am not accusing anyone of anything, just trying to write the "history of lag and node deaths") but during that war it seemed the problem was more individual players CTD'ing near POS, as opposed to whole nodes dropping and hundreds of players getting kicked at once. Can anyone with a better memory than me confirm the timeline?
maGz The Priory Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.11 17:11:00 - [71] Originally by: Murukan Originally by: Witch Doctor So ... When is it getting fixed? That's all I care about. when parm stops wearing women's clothes So... never? ____________ The Priory Killboard
Nez Perces Amarr Black Spot.	Posted - 2006.10.11 17:14:00 - [72] Originally by: travelingsales To be honest the first couple of times I remember hearing about large numbers of node deaths were during the Goons vs. D2 war in the north. How long ago was that? I seem to recall it was right around when Dragon came out, which would fit with the general theory that something went wrong with Dragon. Can anyone with a better memory than me confirm the timeline? Actually the dragon code was introduced during the Goons vs D2 war (could be wrong .. but dont think so)... I do remember some D2 members hoping that the dragon code would solve their problems. The goon vs D2 war was plagued by problems from the start and there was no dragon code when it kicked off... ( i think..) The main reason for the horrific problems with Goonfleet and D2 was the massive numbers GF were fielding. Would be nice to hear more from D2 or GF about this.
Cicilus Hadrican Caldari Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.11 17:21:00 - [73] I think pershphanie hit the nail on the head with the statements he/she made. That would help ten-fold I also know there is a chip being made that suppose to revolutionize gaming as we know it. I know with added physics and image rendering, technology sorta hit a peak on really what they can do. Like I believe the most advance gaming engines can only run so many entities on screen that allows each piece to have a "physics equations" added to each when certain action coding happen to it. The developed chip is suppost to run all rendering and physics in it so that not just the processors and video cards are rendering all the codes and processes. If this chip does happen to be finally built, and marketed, then games and massive games like eve should balance out. Course you'll have to upgrade your motherboard to fit this chip in lol Regardless of the fact, I did notice lag started getting worse when they updated the resolution to the ship models and added ships (though the added ships shouldnt be a problem) And with Kali, the model resolutions are said to be INCREASED again! Think eve is broke now, think what this might do Not only that there is only high resolution settings for the eve-client. If CCP is reading this, I will ALWAYS! ALWAYS!!! sacrifice eye-candy graphics for a extremely fun and playable game. I'd do that anyday
Rikeka Amarr Eye of God Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.10.11 17:26:00 - [74] If I recall correctly, though. Back then it WAS possible for more numbers on the system before a node crash, as there were some serious fleet battles there (for what I was told)
Yodaron Ballsithor Gallente Black Avatar Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.10.11 18:05:00 - [75] Interesting topic that I know very little of. What I do know is that the 2 IAC posters that say things like "No, No, No" need to read, comprehend and then respond. This topic is not about IAC or any one particular alliance. It is about the struggle of fleet warfare - heck, the struggle for 20 v. 20 according to some. Keep the crap out of this thread and maybe we will see again another intelligent discussion like appears to be happening here. If you desire to flame someone, start your own thread or pick one of the hundreds that are riddled with them. I, for one, and learning from reading the well put together and cogent thoughts and suggestions that are in this thread. Let us keep it that way.
travelingsales Ars Caelestis Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.11 18:15:00 - [76] Edited by: travelingsales on 11/10/2006 18:16:26 Originally by: Nez Perces Originally by: travelingsales To be honest the first couple of times I remember hearing about large numbers of node deaths were during the Goons vs. D2 war in the north. How long ago was that? I seem to recall it was right around when Dragon came out, which would fit with the general theory that something went wrong with Dragon. Can anyone with a better memory than me confirm the timeline? Actually the dragon code was introduced during the Goons vs D2 war (could be wrong .. but dont think so)... I do remember some D2 members hoping that the dragon code would solve their problems. The goon vs D2 war was plagued by problems from the start and there was no dragon code when it kicked off... ( i think..) The main reason for the horrific problems with Goonfleet and D2 was the massive numbers GF were fielding. Would be nice to hear more from D2 or GF about this. I still think raw numbers are not the whole story though. To bring up the 9cg battle once again, at one point there were over 400 players fighting in local there (it was confirmed that at one point there were more people in 9cg than in Jita). The battle was pre-Dragon, and while it was not POS centric (there was no spamming) there were at least 6 or 7 POS in the system and Dreads were deployed (there was actually some dread-on-dread combat, it was a good fight all around). As far as I can recall the node never crashed, or at least it didn't crash during any of the times when I was there (there are players from about 8 different alliances who may be able to add more detail to this ) I was not at any of the GF/D2 battles but from what I heard they never exceeded the 400 in local that occured in 9cg. It would be nice to have some other data points to work from as far as REALLY large fleet battles, but sadly all the other ones I have been to with 300+ in local were post-Dragon, and all the other pre-Dragon ones I was at were around 100-120 per side, so only about 200-230 in local. However those were all fine, and judging from my current experience of the ASCN/BoB war as well as reading about the MC's recent events, it seems even 100v100 will often crash the server these days.
Murukan Minmatar The Priory Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.11 20:14:00 - [77] Edited by: Murukan on 11/10/2006 20:14:24 Originally by: Yodaron Ballsithor Interesting topic that I know very little of. What I do know is that the 2 IAC posters that say things like "No, No, No" need to read, comprehend and then respond. This topic is not about IAC or any one particular alliance. It is about the struggle of fleet warfare - heck, the struggle for 20 v. 20 according to some. Keep the crap out of this thread and maybe we will see again another intelligent discussion like appears to be happening here. If you desire to flame someone, start your own thread or pick one of the hundreds that are riddled with them. I, for one, and learning from reading the well put together and cogent thoughts and suggestions that are in this thread. Let us keep it that way. Uh i very much read and comprehended the original poster. If you read my post you would see that i talked generically about a defender. To ask that anyone defending their space hold back so the invader can have fun is stupid. So don't try and act like i'm some idiot and you're above me because i fully understood the original post and frankly it's crap. In rust we trust!!!
Yucali Candy Hearts	Posted - 2006.10.11 21:53:00 - [78] I agree completely with the OP, tbqh BoB, MC and FIX shouldn't have to go through this messy business of fighting for regions IAC and ASCN: plz line up in rows against the wall and wait quietly till its your turn to be dispatched
DB Preacher Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.11 22:13:00 - [79] Game is broken not the alliances. We'll keep pushing Eve to it's limits and I can't wait for the first 1000 enemies vs 200 BoB. That will pwn. dbp Caldari Alliance PVP Championship Winner Current RKK Ranking: (PSCAL6) Proficient Short Tanto
Mistress Suffering Einherjar Rising Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.10.11 22:20:00 - [80] My impression is that it got notably worse after Dragon. Whereas prior to that time, you could run a decent large gang action (20 v 20) without undue lag, after Dragon such engagements became utter sludge. Yes, hundreds of ships on both sides has been slow for quite a while, but it is my impression that as of Dragon it got worse. Plus Dragon brought us the utter abomination that is jump queues. These are a total joke and should not even begin to exist. Telling players to solve these issues by "not bringing so many guys" is not the answer. All that does is ask the honorable players to get reamed by the dishonorable. "Ok, we'll only bring 20 guys" - Enemy shows up with 30, or 3 groups of 20, etc... Forget that. If the game encourages team play with obstacles (POS) that can only be reasonably down in large numbers, you will see large numbers. The more important the conflict, the greater these numbers will be. CCP can address the problem in a number of ways but they made need to open their thinking. They may need to chunk space smaller and improve their transition logic. They may need to split the server into multiple shards so they can get fewer players per server machine. They may need to reduce the information being sent to each player's machine and do more prediction on the client. They may need to look at the POS code, or cause X number of players in a system to cause unpiloted objects (cans, shuttles, etc..) to be deleted. There are a great many options, but these options need to be explored, because the game right now is broken and annoying because of it.
Erichk Knaar Caldari Tactical Enterprise Group LTD The Imperial Order	Posted - 2006.10.12 03:42:00 - [81] The only thing I can add to the excellent posts Semkhet made is this: 1) Python, I believe, can be capable of the scale CCP is trying to achieve. I don't think everything should be re-written, just the performance critical stuff. Pythons interfaces to native code are excellent and can be leveraged to keep the flexiblity, but with the hard stuff done in the most efficient way possible. 2) Dragon is when every single string in Eve turned into unicode. 2 bytes vs. 7 bits. For the unaware, this means that almost evey piece of text in Eve is now double the size when being passed around the system. This is where I believe the root of the problem lies.
Yazoul Samaiel Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.12 04:00:00 - [82] Imo i was thinking about the issue from a differen direction , as a programmer when you look at the whole mass jump in system or login and the lag starts to spike you realy have to ask what is the common factor we dealing with here . BOB VS Toxin/Celes was not lag free , at least not for me , it was a lag festival and the system was crap even with 22 ppl in local I think that BMs are the major criminal here in this lag and node crash probelm. Here is some intresting facts: -Mass copying BMs have been noted as the most effective way to crash node and system , not sure if it is marked as exploit or not but i rememebr it was done in jita as a mass protest and crashed the system repeatedly , also some lamers use it from tiem to tiem to crash battels. -Fact , copying bms now even when you are docked laggs the client and lags the system so it is both a client and server side issue. -I dont know how BMs are dealt in the coe wise , using arrays or hash tabels etc but here is one important fact to consider., In every major fleet battle or medium sized engagemnt spehcialy during the jumpin , u have like 20 ppl each one of them carrying at least 5 k bms (Pretty sure some ppl have max 10k )they all jump into system and server has to search categorise these bms and see if they match current system or not !!! Just imagien the CPU load and search processes and arguments going back and forth so when u load up ur screen u only see the BMs in that system !!! -IIRC BM are an exploit to the original system and they werent intended to be , so beats me why they are still used ??? -IMO BMS should be removed and warp at 1.5 km to object option to be added , as for ppl who whine about empire wars saying they wont be possible , well hello bms are sold legit on escrow and ppl have BMs and can run in empire as they want just coz 1 or 2 war targets dont have the bms validates ur argument. -Also i have no idea about load balancing methods CCP uses but why not auto allocate node strengh etc to systems that are having mass activity judging from CPU utilization? I think this has been started recently sicne Dragon patch spechialy that system with no ppl go offline thus saving node strengh , u can see it if u logg off in a rmeote system and try to log back later on u will see a msg saying system being loaded , this was a brilliant idea . I realy suggest that CCP attempts a Stress test with 200 VS 200 ppl with no BMs just for factor eliminating coz i am willing to bet my top dollar that BMs are the most guilty party here . "There is no such thing as innocence , only different degrees of guilt"
James Potkukelkka BGG Freelancer Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.12 05:39:00 - [83] Originally by: Vegas Eve's broke. But no lag on collecting money for my subs Go figure Oh how true But! remember guys, you can vote with your wallet. That is the only way that will be heard: Set an extra long skill on and let sub run out. Come back when its playable again.
Sir Vivor	Posted - 2006.10.12 08:17:00 - [84] A possible fix could be to set grids into a sort of throttled "the matrix" mode when there are too many ships. Though this might feel "laggish," the system will not crash due to data saturation. A factor of two, for example, would mean one second in Eve time is equal to two seconds of real time. This effectively cuts the amount of data being transferred between eve and clients by half (relative to time). This would, however, gives pilots an advantage because they now have twice as long (with factor of two) to make a decision. A factor of two might be un-necessary. The throttling could be dynamic based on a saturation level (ship count, etc.) and might come out to something like 1.1 or 1.2 which wouldn't be as "noticeable" to the user. It is a lot better then hitting that saturation level where the system can't keep up with the data stream and starts to degrade exponentially... Of course, Eve could already be doing this... Just a though.. PS - But wow would it be interesting to deal with "time inconsistencies" between grids.
kDaser Caldari FATAL REVELATIONS	Posted - 2006.10.12 08:32:00 - [85] Yazoul Samaiel makes a very valid point with bookmarks. I agree that they are a big part of the issue. I, having no programing knowledge at all want to know if dragon being intended for Kali is causing the the other half of this issue and if it will resolve the issue by updating to Kali?

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.