EVE Search - Speculative Science: what if EVE had shards?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Speculative Science: what if EVE had shards?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Peter Stuyvesant Amarr	Posted - 2007.01.15 13:01:00 - [31] Edited by: Peter Stuyvesant on 15/01/2007 13:02:54 Edited by: Peter Stuyvesant on 15/01/2007 12:59:46 Originally by: BlackRain Operation Landgrab Mark II That is all. Really? You guys wuld still find the motivation to conquer space on a 2nd server? To build/take there what you've built/taken on TQ? I'm surprised. Me, I'd just quit Eve immediately, and get on with the rest of my life. One server - one Eve. Thankfully, I believe CCP feel the same. Edit: Originally by: Alliaanna Dalaii And the history that goes with it !! Exactly. To create a carbon copy of the universe would strip it of its 'realness'. Edit 2: Really, can we stop with these threads? I know the OP isnt saying that this should happen. But still - to suggest it is kinda lame. Do you guys go on the Counterstrike forums and suggest the developers remove guns?
Ediz Daxx FinFleet Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2007.01.15 13:09:00 - [32] Shard EVE thread #749 ? # of replies stating "Get lost newbie" also 749 ?
Roshan longshot Gallente Ordos Humanitas	Posted - 2007.01.15 13:24:00 - [33] What would happen? Well alot of new players would sign on the V2, some of the older players might go over there just for the fun of it. But lag on V1 would be just as bad. No I think it would be better to move entire corps/alliances to V2, thus removeing a huge resource drain and keeping groups together. Free-form Professions, ensure no limetations on professions. Be a trader, fighter, industialist, researcher, hunter *pirate* or mixture of them all. [i]As read from the original box.
Ogul Caldari ZiTek Deepspace Explorations Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.01.15 13:40:00 - [34] Originally by: magnus amadeus I think it might be inevitable that they need to separate Euro and American eve into separate shards. I mean there must be a point at which the cluster will not really be able handle so many users at once and all hardware/software changes get to the point of major diminishing returns right? Actually having different timezones is a pretty efficient way of using the single server infrastructure. Removing a certain timezone will only decrease average load and not the load spikes that cause lag.
Mira deVorsha Caldari Boards.ie	Posted - 2007.01.15 14:20:00 - [35] Shards? lol that's a Ultima Online term. What if Eve had baking? :)
Hans Steinberg Vengeance of the Fallen	Posted - 2007.01.15 14:30:00 - [36] Originally by: Ediz Daxx Shard EVE thread #749 ? # of replies stating "Get lost newbie" also 749 ? Chill, Winston... :) I never said 'OMG EVE is broken needs more servers!' at all, just an exercise in idle speculation - and I never read the forums so threads #1 - #748 passed me by ;) Being fairly new to 0.0 combat style play, POS Warfare is the only warfare I've ever known, so the comments on land-grabbing and so on are interesting and not something I'd considered :). In fact, most of the stuff in this thread is interesting even though we all know it'll never ever happen ever unless Blizzard buys CCP or something... ---
Redbad Minmatar Be Inspired Inc.	Posted - 2007.01.15 15:40:00 - [37] I also think that we shouldn't split our gaming experience into different shards, but I do think it would be possible to split New Eden into different shards. ???? you might say, but before you PWN me with kind words of critisism, consider this: If you split the NEW-EDEN into four different parts for e.g. North, East, South and West and instead of one server you make 4 servers with each a separate database on them with the same capactity as the one we have now, theoretically you'll loose some workload of the one database. Theoretically: In the situation we have now my data is available to the client of every other player in EVE because its operated on a single database and all gamedata is available for it. Searchtimes for request are therefore a certain amount. This gives a certain workload on the database. In the new situation my data is only available to the clients that are connected to clients that are connected to the same region North, South, East or West database and server. Thus searching through less data would reduce searchtimes for requests. This makes workload being spread on different databases. Theoretical problems: Communication between players through ingame mechanics is more difficult and should be facilitated on some other level. Migrating/Transferring data from one database to another and reconnecting a client to another database might be a bit frustrating or take more time, but its less frustrating for the users, because such databasetransactions can be better que-ed as the user is expecting to wait. So it also gives a possibility for the programmers and optimizers of the databases to prioritise the databasechanges and requests. The current code might be difficult to update to facilitate but who knows! Just a thought to combine the advantages of having different servers and databasses and still maintaining the single Universe that everyone (including myself) find so appealing. PWN the idea carefully!
ThaMa Gebir Gallente Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2007.01.15 19:47:00 - [38] Originally by: Anatolius ..........Company of Cousins has dev alts and omg h4x!!!!1111 Lets see if my sig can survive this round of *****ing There will be no survivors now that i'm around - Xorus pwnt - Immy!!!11
Kazuma Saruwatari	Posted - 2007.01.15 19:54:00 - [39] Originally by: Ishmael Hansen Is that time of the month again? I hope not, but oh well Whilst the idea may sound good on paper to people who suffer lots of lag, who havent played EVE a lot yet, and/or really want that T2 BPO, I have to give a negative to this one
DarkMatter Amarr Mineral Aquisition Group	Posted - 2007.01.15 19:57:00 - [40] Edited by: DarkMatter on 15/01/2007 19:54:59 Originally by: Redbad I also think that we shouldn't split our gaming experience into different shards, but I do think it would be possible to split New Eden into different shards. ???? you might say, but before you PWN me with kind words of critisism, consider this: If you split the NEW-EDEN into four different parts for e.g. North, East, South and West and instead of one server you make 4 servers with each a separate database on them with the same capactity as the one we have now, theoretically you'll loose some workload of the one database. Theoretically: In the situation we have now my data is available to the client of every other player in EVE because its operated on a single database and all gamedata is available for it. Searchtimes for request are therefore a certain amount. This gives a certain workload on the database. In the new situation my data is only available to the clients that are connected to clients that are connected to the same region North, South, East or West database and server. Thus searching through less data would reduce searchtimes for requests. This makes workload being spread on different databases. Theoretical problems: Communication between players through ingame mechanics is more difficult and should be facilitated on some other level. Migrating/Transferring data from one database to another and reconnecting a client to another database might be a bit frustrating or take more time, but its less frustrating for the users, because such databasetransactions can be better que-ed as the user is expecting to wait. So it also gives a possibility for the programmers and optimizers of the databases to prioritise the databasechanges and requests. The current code might be difficult to update to facilitate but who knows! Just a thought to combine the advantages of having different servers and databasses and still maintaining the single Universe that everyone (including myself) find so appealing. PWN the idea carefully! I brought this up almost a year ago, and never did get any type of response from the DEV's... Although my idea was basically splitting EVE up with regional shards. Every region has it's own "TQ". That's probably sometheing CCP cannot afford... However, that does not solve the problem when 400 players want to battle it out in a single solar system, in a single grid... That's where the MUCHO LAG comes from... Building the homestead
Uggster Caldari FinFleet Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2007.01.15 20:06:00 - [41] Originally by: Anatolius 1. Mediocre influx of people who think skillpoints equal skill. Mass outflux of these people when they realize that the pirate with 30m SP who was kicking their arse on Tranq is kicking their arse with 1m SP on the new cluster. 2. Jokes about there being twice as many hamsters running in wheels/bumblebees farting in tin cans. 3. Large segment of Tranquility leaving for the new cluster because waah, pirates, waah, evil alliances, waah, I want to carebear! It'll take them some months to realize that EVE is EVE, no matter what cluster it would be on, and they'll return to crying on forums in short order once that happens. 4. All the political history of Tranq is repeated, and in a few years, we'll have people insisting the game is ruined on the new server because Company of Cousins has dev alts and omg h4x!!!!1111 5. Jita would lag on the new cluster, too. LOL Respect QFT You win Eve Thread can now be locked etc...etc...etc... _______________________________________________ Sig removed as inappropriate- Tirg Story of my life that one :( Views expressed ARE the views of my corp and alliance, not my own.
Redbad Minmatar Be Inspired Inc.	Posted - 2007.01.15 23:29:00 - [42] Originally by: DarkMatter Edited by: DarkMatter on 15/01/2007 19:54:59 Originally by: Redbad I also think that we shouldn't split our gaming experience into different shards, but I do think it would be possible to split New Eden into different shards. ???? you might say, but before you PWN me with kind words of critisism, consider this: If you split the NEW-EDEN into four different parts for e.g. North, East, South and West and instead of one server you make 4 servers with each a separate database on them with the same capactity as the one we have now, theoretically you'll loose some workload of the one database. Theoretically: In the situation we have now my data is available to the client of every other player in EVE because its operated on a single database and all gamedata is available for it. Searchtimes for request are therefore a certain amount. This gives a certain workload on the database. In the new situation my data is only available to the clients that are connected to clients that are connected to the same region North, South, East or West database and server. Thus searching through less data would reduce searchtimes for requests. This makes workload being spread on different databases. Theoretical problems: Communication between players through ingame mechanics is more difficult and should be facilitated on some other level. Migrating/Transferring data from one database to another and reconnecting a client to another database might be a bit frustrating or take more time, but its less frustrating for the users, because such databasetransactions can be better que-ed as the user is expecting to wait. So it also gives a possibility for the programmers and optimizers of the databases to prioritise the databasechanges and requests. The current code might be difficult to update to facilitate but who knows! Just a thought to combine the advantages of having different servers and databasses and still maintaining the single Universe that everyone (including myself) find so appealing. PWN the idea carefully! I brought this up almost a year ago, and never did get any type of response from the DEV's... Although my idea was basically splitting EVE up with regional shards. Every region has it's own "TQ". That's probably sometheing CCP cannot afford... However, that does not solve the problem when 400 players want to battle it out in a single solar system, in a single grid... That's where the MUCHO LAG comes from... Jim McGregor mentioned earlier that the workload wasn't a problem, That considering its its all about processing the right request at the right time then I think. Sheer processing power is nice, but if at the wrong moment the wrong requests are handled it can get in the way of e.g. smoothness and create lag. Perhaps its possible to do "dynamic dedicated processing" ,e.g. you can allocate a big battle onto a seperate handler and much data that is actually created during a battle can be processed later. Or you might shard a fleet battle. Create a fleet battle processing database and let people jump in and out of fleet battles like the idea above with regions. Its only then that you can allocate extra processingpower to the areas that actually need it. The idea works both way. You can shard upward into regions or shard downwards onto eg fleetbattles. Think the latter is easier to accomplish then the first one.
DarkMatter Amarr Mineral Aquisition Group	Posted - 2007.01.15 23:42:00 - [43] Edited by: DarkMatter on 15/01/2007 23:41:27 Quote: Jim McGregor mentioned earlier that the workload wasn't a problem, That considering its its all about processing the right request at the right time then I think. Sheer processing power is nice, but if at the wrong moment the wrong requests are handled it can get in the way of e.g. smoothness and create lag. Perhaps its possible to do "dynamic dedicated processing" ,e.g. you can allocate a big battle onto a seperate handler and much data that is actually created during a battle can be processed later. Or you might shard a fleet battle. Create a fleet battle processing database and let people jump in and out of fleet battles like the idea above with regions. Its only then that you can allocate extra processingpower to the areas that actually need it. The idea works both way. You can shard upward into regions or shard downwards onto eg fleetbattles. Think the latter is easier to accomplish then the first one. Well, I was interested in regional sharding for population explosion, and regional databases, so system wide asteriod belts and much much more celestial and PvE content can be implemented, etc... So EVE can have 100-200k+ simultaneous players someday and not choke like insta's were choking the server... Not sure how you could do fleet battle sharding... I'd hate to have to log in and out whenever I need to warp in and out of a battle, etc... Problem is, how do you have more than one CPU involved in a fleet battle? ItÆs my understanding 1 node per solar system, meaning 1 server (cpu) per node, hence 1 node per fleet battle, which can't handle more than ~50 players atm... Building the homestead
Max Godsnottlingson	Posted - 2007.01.15 23:42:00 - [44] Edited by: Max Godsnottlingson on 15/01/2007 23:38:41 I can't believe that we've got this far without anybody suggesting the following might happen. If all happene as the OP suggests, somebody would come along and post a thread on the forums asking "What would happen if CCP set up a third server/shard for us to play on?"
Redbad Minmatar Be Inspired Inc.	Posted - 2007.01.15 23:52:00 - [45] Originally by: DarkMatter Edited by: DarkMatter on 15/01/2007 23:39:36 Quote: Jim McGregor mentioned earlier that the workload wasn't a problem, That considering its its all about processing the right request at the right time then I think. Sheer processing power is nice, but if at the wrong moment the wrong requests are handled it can get in the way of e.g. smoothness and create lag. Perhaps its possible to do "dynamic dedicated processing" ,e.g. you can allocate a big battle onto a seperate handler and much data that is actually created during a battle can be processed later. Or you might shard a fleet battle. Create a fleet battle processing database and let people jump in and out of fleet battles like the idea above with regions. Its only then that you can allocate extra processingpower to the areas that actually need it. The idea works both way. You can shard upward into regions or shard downwards onto eg fleetbattles. Think the latter is easier to accomplish then the first one. Well, I was interested in regional sharding for population explosion, and regional databases, so system wide asteriod belts and much much more celestial and PvE content can be implemented, etc... So EVE can have 100-200k+ simultaneous players someday and not choke like insta's were choking the server... Not sure how you could do fleet battle sharding... I'd hate to have to log in and out whenever I need to warp in and out of a battle, etc... Problem is, how do you have more than one CPU involved in a fleet battle? ItÆs my understanding 1 node per solar system, meaning 1 server per node? Its more like thinking the other way around. Not taking the processingpower to the data, but taking the right data to the processingpower.
Marcus TheMartin Gallente Tuxedo.	Posted - 2007.01.15 23:58:00 - [46] Originally by: Apocryphai Originally by: Benglada Originally by: Kirex I would seriously consider quiting eve if this happens. 1 server is one of the most attractive aspects to me in eve. True That! Double True! Ninja SNL fix Best Dressed Corp of 2006 and 2007! -Marcus TheMartin Marcus Thinks Eve who knew!?
DarkMatter Amarr Mineral Aquisition Group	Posted - 2007.01.16 00:26:00 - [47] Originally by: Redbad Originally by: DarkMatter Edited by: DarkMatter on 15/01/2007 23:39:36 Quote: Jim McGregor mentioned earlier that the workload wasn't a problem, That considering its its all about processing the right request at the right time then I think. Sheer processing power is nice, but if at the wrong moment the wrong requests are handled it can get in the way of e.g. smoothness and create lag. Perhaps its possible to do "dynamic dedicated processing" ,e.g. you can allocate a big battle onto a seperate handler and much data that is actually created during a battle can be processed later. Or you might shard a fleet battle. Create a fleet battle processing database and let people jump in and out of fleet battles like the idea above with regions. Its only then that you can allocate extra processingpower to the areas that actually need it. The idea works both way. You can shard upward into regions or shard downwards onto eg fleetbattles. Think the latter is easier to accomplish then the first one. Well, I was interested in regional sharding for population explosion, and regional databases, so system wide asteriod belts and much much more celestial and PvE content can be implemented, etc... So EVE can have 100-200k+ simultaneous players someday and not choke like insta's were choking the server... Not sure how you could do fleet battle sharding... I'd hate to have to log in and out whenever I need to warp in and out of a battle, etc... Problem is, how do you have more than one CPU involved in a fleet battle? ItÆs my understanding 1 node per solar system, meaning 1 server per node? Its more like thinking the other way around. Not taking the processingpower to the data, but taking the right data to the processingpower. Well, I'm guessing EVE isn't coded that way atm... Building the homestead
Maximillian Pele Caldari Jewel Enterprises	Posted - 2007.01.16 00:32:00 - [48] If the EvE population keeps growing ultimately CCP will be faced with three choices regarding the EvE servers. 1. Redesign the game to spread out the population and minimise "blobbing". Atm there is no disadvantages in numbers beyond lag and node crashes. Jita exists because of design. Node killing fleet battles exist because of design. CCP needs to have a hard look at what is really causing players to blob up so much: (i) The limited number of high value 0.0 systems. (ii) The trade/market system that favours "hubs". (iii) Choke points. (iv) POS warfare. If CCP wants Jita gone then they'll have to change the market to remove Jita's advantages as a hub (and stop another one forming in its place). If CCP wants fleet battles to be more than death by lag or whoever logs in quicker after node death wins then they'll need to change the design to make bringing every man and their dog to a fleet battle (a) unnecessary, and (b) counter productive. If they don't do the above then they face two other possibilities. 2. Shard EvE. 3. Do nothing and allow lag and performance issues to naturally cap growth, while concentrating on their next project (which will no doubt involve vampires and such). Things like jump gate queues are just symptoms of a far deeper problem. EvE encourages players to blob. If we don't want shards then that will have to change. In times of doubt I ask myself "What would BoB do?", and then do the opposite.
Event Horizen	Posted - 2007.02.16 16:32:00 - [49] Edited by: Event Horizen on 16/02/2007 16:38:58 Edited by: Event Horizen on 16/02/2007 16:36:36 Edited by: Event Horizen on 16/02/2007 16:35:02 I noticed when CPP initially starts eve, the various systems/constellations are loaded by clusters which seems to indicate that the eve universe is already just a bunch of interconnected "shards" (the word "shard" comes from the shards of crystal worlds from the game ultima online). Also I noticed when CPP is having server problems you get backup at the jump gates or travel a advisory is issued which really means you can't cross over to the other server. Any thoughts on this?
Dirtball Kemono. Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.17 01:04:00 - [50] everyone without t2 bpos would move, everyone with would stay
Alexi Borizkova Caldari New Age Solutions New Age Solutions Amalgamated	Posted - 2007.02.17 01:13:00 - [51] Originally by: Event Horizen I dont work for CPP, however user is a network engineer. Quick question, if you aren't even able to get the name of the company right, why should we listen to any of the rest of you "expert" opinion?
James Duar Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.02.17 01:20:00 - [52] Originally by: Alexi Borizkova Originally by: Event Horizen I dont work for CPP, however user is a network engineer. Quick question, if you aren't even able to get the name of the company right, why should we listen to any of the rest of you "expert" opinion? While it's a stupid mistake to make, this is an ad hominem attack and doesn't invalidate the other points made. That said, it reads a little too much like a sales pitch.
Breed Love FATAL REVELATIONS FATAL Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.17 01:48:00 - [53] Originally by: Anatolius Company of Cousins ----- Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker At this time I am more disgusted by the player base then with the dev to be honest! QFT!!
Event Horizen	Posted - 2007.02.17 02:38:00 - [54] Originally by: James Duar Originally by: Alexi Borizkova Originally by: Event Horizen I dont work for CPP, however user is a network engineer. Quick question, if you aren't even able to get the name of the company right, why should we listen to any of the rest of you "expert" opinion? While it's a stupid mistake to make, this is an ad hominem attack and doesn't invalidate the other points made. That said, it reads a little too much like a sales pitch. Just trying to make the point mate. I dont have nothin to sell - I was just annoyed by all the useless chatter with no end or progress made to answer the original question which was "What if CCP created EVE v2". Everyone has an opinion with no backup to thier thought process. With that said would one be lead to believe I could make isk and sell Infiniband technology to eve player? lol. I think not.

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.