EVE Search - TiDi

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

TiDi

» 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)
Lord Molly mind games. Suddenly Spaceships. 333	Posted - 2015.12.29 10:32:23 - [1] - Quote This video documents some real bad tidi issues If you look closely, you might also notice some glitching, such as smart bombs doing damage in warp....... All of this is caused by server node overload when to many people are in one system activating too many mod. To combat this very frustrating trait of gameplay, CCP made a jolly form that you fill in and effectively tell them there is gonig to be a big fight and etc etc, so that they may reinforce a node and divert resources to said systems node and hopefully make it all ok. Only issue is, that's not really the case is it. Have you ever been to a public event or a large pre-arranged scrap where tidi is down to 10%? where you fire a volley, then go and make dinner and come back to find you are still on the same cycle? Id be interested to hear from CCP about how they intend to improve the cancer that is TiDi. My Youtube Chan
FarosWarrior De Muuzevangers 3	Posted - 2015.12.29 10:39:43 - [2] - Quote Let's go back to the time when you had a big battle with 600 guys in local and the following would happen: - Modules not even activating - You being desynced for an hour without you knowing - Warping on grid and waking up in a clone bay. An hour later... And all the other crap that happened which are too numerous to write down. Ever heard the story about the battle in which 1 side jumped through a gate, and a 100-man fleet just woke up in clone bays because the other side had so many people on grid, that the jumping party couldn't even load grid? TiDi was implemented for a reason, while I must admit I don't know the exact reason but I think it had something to do with giving the server more time to do what it has to do so all the bad stuff didn't happen.
Top Guac Mexican Avacado Syndicate 68	Posted - 2015.12.29 10:40:39 - [3] - Quote Aegis sov. Has worked a lot for the most part. Tidi happens only occasionally now. Used to be weekly just 18 months ago. Aegis Sov: less conflict, fewer fights, smaller fleets = no server load. Back in the original devblog by Greyscale about fatigue, this was all predicted: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/long-distance-travel-changes-inbound/ CCP wanted to make the game boring.
Lord Molly mind games. Suddenly Spaceships. 333	Posted - 2015.12.29 10:46:45 - [4] - Quote It just seems like the threat of tidi puts people off doing anything large scale, especially if its short notice. My Youtube Chan Alliance Youtube Chan
Solecist Project The Scope Gallente Federation 28975	Posted - 2015.12.29 10:47:00 - [5] - Quote Not sure smartbombs doing damage in warp is a bug. Depends on where that happens. Also, shouldn't you ve called Molle? :P Alex Grison > If there was a bipartisan bill supporting cannabis use for arthritic pain, it would be Joint support for Joint support for joint support
Gregor Parud Ordo Ardish 2046	Posted - 2015.12.29 11:03:50 - [6] - Quote "Hilariously large fleets created to deter actual fighting cause crippling lag" and "tinfoil is just easier to use than realising you have spies amongst your ranks"
Barrogh Habalu Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 1094	Posted - 2015.12.29 11:05:51 - [7] - Quote Lord Molly wrote: To combat this very frustrating trait of gameplay, CCP made a jolly form that you fill in and effectively tell them there is gonig to be a big fight and etc etc, so that they may reinforce a node and divert resources to said systems node and hopefully make it all ok. Only issue is, that's not really the case is it. Resources, even re-routed, are still finite. Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6991	Posted - 2015.12.29 11:18:36 - [8] - Quote FarosWarrior wrote: Let's go back to the time when you had a big battle with 600 guys in local and the following would happen: - Modules not even activating - You being desynced for an hour without you knowing - Warping on grid and waking up in a clone bay. An hour later... And all the other crap that happened which are too numerous to write down. Ever heard the story about the battle in which 1 side jumped through a gate, and a 100-man fleet just woke up in clone bays because the other side had so many people on grid, that the jumping party couldn't even load grid? TiDi was implemented for a reason, while I must admit I don't know the exact reason but I think it had something to do with giving the server more time to do what it has to do so all the bad stuff didn't happen. Alternatively they could just do what any normal person would do and multithread their server code. I know it's legacy code and will be a large investment, but it's already a joke that their solar system servers have to run on a single core (because back in the day, CPU power grew primarily on clock speed whereas now it grows on additional cores), and it's only going to get funnier as time goes on. Tidi was a stopgap measure. It allowed them to give the server more time to get through the event queue so that they could still run everything on a single heavily overclocked core. At some point the promoted to "the fix" and now it's a burden. Things like BIAB help, but in the long run the solution has to be modernising their server code. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2857	Posted - 2015.12.29 11:19:50 - [9] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Not sure smartbombs doing damage in warp is a bug. Depends on where that happens. Also, shouldn't you ve called Molle? :P Smart bombs always do damage even if you are in warp still. That's a long standing feature of smart bombs.
Remiel Pollard Shock Treatment Ministries 7226	Posted - 2015.12.29 11:22:15 - [10] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Not sure smartbombs doing damage in warp is a bug. Depends on where that happens. Also, shouldn't you ve called Molle? :P Smart bombs always do damage even if you are in warp still. That's a long standing feature of smart bombs. Yeah, this. First hand experience here, been blown up ship AND pod by smartbombs while about to come out of warp on a gate. It's kinda fun . EDIT: as a side note, also seen it done to others while in a smartbombing gatecamp but not smartbombing myself. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Neuntausend GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 477	Posted - 2015.12.29 12:57:32 - [11] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Alternatively they could just do what any normal person would do and multithread their server code. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4rVC4ICQAAr65m.jpg It's not that easy.
Nafensoriel KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 239	Posted - 2015.12.29 13:06:49 - [12] - Quote BUWHAHAHAHAHAHA! "Just multithread it" Yeah. No. Id rather light myself on fire and let a thousand rabid chihuahuas feast upon my still living charred corpse. TiDi is an efficient and much loved replacement to the old method.. The black screen of death. Once upon a time there was no controlled slowdown. You either got in and lagged like a dead monkey trying to play tennis or you got treated to the black screen of "go make dinner while your client crashes and you die". I know I know.. saying TiDi is good even though it harvests your soul to sit in -10% TiDi seems weird... but trust me the alternative is far worse.
Solecist Project The Scope Gallente Federation 29017	Posted - 2015.12.29 13:09:15 - [13] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Not sure smartbombs doing damage in warp is a bug. Depends on where that happens. Also, shouldn't you ve called Molle? :P Smart bombs always do damage even if you are in warp still. That's a long standing feature of smart bombs. Yeah that was my thought as well. Where's Santo Trafficante anyway... ^_^ Alex Grison > If there was a bipartisan bill supporting cannabis use for arthritic pain, it would be Joint support for Joint support for joint support
Always Shi t Posting 21	Posted - 2015.12.29 13:19:06 - [14] - Quote Lord Molly wrote: Id be interested to hear from CCP about how they intend to improve the cancer that is TiDi. TiDi is a goddamn luxury compared to what came before it Smartbombs have always damaged ships in warp, it's just less noticeable at 100% speed The new TQ hardware coming in a couple of months time (plus the recent and ongoing software improvements like BitB) are all helping to make TiDi occur less often. In summary, your post is bad and you should feel bad.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6993	Posted - 2015.12.29 13:40:05 - [15] - Quote Neuntausend wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Alternatively they could just do what any normal person would do and multithread their server code. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4rVC4ICQAAr65m.jpg It's not that easy. I didn't say it was easy, but good developers don't give up because a task is difficult. Tidi isn't a real solution. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Kagura Nikon Bon Jovian Drifters Did he say Jump 2109	Posted - 2015.12.29 13:40:43 - [16] - Quote Lord Molly wrote: This video documents some real bad tidi issues If you look closely, you might also notice some glitching, such as smart bombs doing damage in warp....... All of this is caused by server node overload when to many people are in one system activating too many mod. To combat this very frustrating trait of gameplay, CCP made a jolly form that you fill in and effectively tell them there is gonig to be a big fight and etc etc, so that they may reinforce a node and divert resources to said systems node and hopefully make it all ok. Only issue is, that's not really the case is it. Have you ever been to a public event or a large pre-arranged scrap where tidi is down to 10%? where you fire a volley, then go and make dinner and come back to find you are still on the same cycle? Id be interested to hear from CCP about how they intend to improve the cancer that is TiDi. TIDi cancer? spoiled kid. before Tidi when we jumped into a large fight what hapepned is that you would wait between 30 minutes to 2 hours with a black screen. then 30% of people woudl disconnect, other 33% would load grid and be unable to use any controls of the ship. Other 13% would be able to laod and press fire a ingle time per hour. The rest would wait another hour and try their luck again... "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
Nat Silverguard Aideron Robotics 227	Posted - 2015.12.29 13:47:39 - [17] - Quote ah, ignorance is indeed a bliss. never change, op, never change. o7 Just Add Water
Kagura Nikon Bon Jovian Drifters Did he say Jump 2110	Posted - 2015.12.29 13:49:38 - [18] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Neuntausend wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Alternatively they could just do what any normal person would do and multithread their server code. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4rVC4ICQAAr65m.jpg It's not that easy. I didn't say it was easy, but good developers don't give up because a task is difficult. Tidi isn't a real solution. Introducing paralelism on a task whose bottleneck is I/O with the database and sincronization is not always the best thing to do. If you cannot change the model to remove data dependency you are not going to solve anything. Usually it is better to remodel the system. The thigns that are needed for an eve fleet battle are NOT huge and do nto justify even a single modern CPU being bottlenecked. Physics simulation of particles is a classic example of problem that in theory is a prime candidate for paralelization, but when you do it you incur in the need of a more complex iteration model and syncronization mechanisms that downgrade the performance massively> The result is that you need then to use several CPU to match what you could earlier do with a single CPU. Of course, if you can just throw even more CPUS at the problem you have a gain, but the cost involved is high, therefore it is not always a good solution. "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon Bon Jovian Drifters Did he say Jump 2110	Posted - 2015.12.29 13:52:14 - [19] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Tidi was a stopgap measure. It allowed them to give the server more time to get through the event queue so that they could still run everything on a single heavily overclocked core. At some point the promoted to "the fix" and now it's a burden. Things like BIAB help, but in the long run the solution has to be modernising their server code. Sorry, I might be mistaken, but you sound as someone that has no clue what multithreading is. What do you think BIAB is? It IS ALREADY paralelization (external) of the most consuming task of the node. "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6996	Posted - 2015.12.29 13:55:06 - [20] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Introducing paralelism on a task whose bottleneck is I/O with the database and sincronization is not always the best thing to do. If you cannot change the model to remove data dependency you are not going to solve anything. Usually it is better to remodel the system. The thigns that are needed for an eve fleet battle are NOT huge and do nto justify even a single modern CPU being bottlenecked. But we already know that's not the bottleneck. The bottleneck is CPU. This is why when you fill in that form they use a reinforced server, which is one where most of the cores are shut off on the CPU and used as a heat spreader while the core in use is overclocked like crazy. A single modern CPU has multiple cores, all (or most) of which will be used by most CPU heavy game servers. EVE doesn't. A single core has to process all of the information coming in from the thousands of players in the system. Even on a modern CPU, that is too much. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6996	Posted - 2015.12.29 14:02:30 - [21] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Tidi was a stopgap measure. It allowed them to give the server more time to get through the event queue so that they could still run everything on a single heavily overclocked core. At some point the promoted to "the fix" and now it's a burden. Things like BIAB help, but in the long run the solution has to be modernising their server code. Sorry, I might be mistaken, but you sound as someone that has no clue what multithreading is. What do you think BIAB is? It IS ALREADY paralelization (external) of the most consuming task of the node. BIAB is taking a service and moving it outside of the solar system service, much like how chat or the market is unaffected by the tidi in a system. Effectively if you undocked or jumped into a system in tidi, the math to work out your stats used to get queued with other action in that system, but now it does not. While that helps, it doesn't fix the issue (and isn't actually multithreading, it's relocating a process) because every action taken in that system by players is still in a single queue relying on a single CPU to process them. A modern game server would have spread the bulk of those actions across multiple CPU cores so that multiple complex calculations could occur simultaneously. This is why the new sov system takes you into multiple systems, because it spreads players across multiple nodes and thus across multiple CPUs. If they want to be able to run large battles without tidi however then the only real solution is to allow system actions to be spread across CPU cores, i.e. multithreading. Ed: Oh, and yes, you are mistaken. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Kagura Nikon Bon Jovian Drifters Did he say Jump 2112	Posted - 2015.12.29 14:20:04 - [22] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: Introducing paralelism on a task whose bottleneck is I/O with the database and sincronization is not always the best thing to do. If you cannot change the model to remove data dependency you are not going to solve anything. Usually it is better to remodel the system. The things that are needed for an eve fleet battle are NOT huge and do nto justify even a single modern CPU being bottlenecked. But we already know that's not the bottleneck. The bottleneck is CPU. This is why when you fill in that form they use a reinforced server, which is one where most of the cores are shut off on the CPU and used as a heat spreader while the core in use is overclocked like crazy. A single modern CPU has multiple cores, all (or most) of which will be used by most CPU heavy game servers. EVE doesn't. A single core has to process all of the information coming in from the thousands of players in the system. Even on a modern CPU, that is too much. Do not dare to think I do not know how a CPU work or a high parallelism system, #!#!@ I have a master degree on it (not an imaginary one, a real one from a good university). And All that do not means that a system is bottlonecked on a task with high parallelism potential. Let me give you a simple example, sorting a list. You may do it in hunreds of ways, and in 99.99% of time the bottleneck will be CPU. If you are using quick sort (a.k.a. partition search) you have a very high paralelism potential and using several CPU will boost you. If you are doing a bubble sort ( I know very horrible example , but it is an extreme example) and to use even a second CPU you would need to add so much overhead of syncronization that your code would likely get slower. So if their model, and I do not mean simply the data model but the information flow and data dependency model has bad paralelism qualities , then taking a huge effort to make that code tun in several cores might have a meaningless gain, and on some cases even reduce the performance. Whenever a problem is defined by a context sensitive grammar, then trying to execute the problem in a paralel way will scale very badly. When that happens the solution is to change your problem in a context free one. "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon Bon Jovian Drifters Did he say Jump 2112	Posted - 2015.12.29 14:25:15 - [23] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Tidi was a stopgap measure. It allowed them to give the server more time to get through the event queue so that they could still run everything on a single heavily overclocked core. At some point the promoted to "the fix" and now it's a burden. Things like BIAB help, but in the long run the solution has to be modernising their server code. Sorry, I might be mistaken, but you sound as someone that has no clue what multithreading is. What do you think BIAB is? It IS ALREADY paralelization (external) of the most consuming task of the node. BIAB is taking a service and moving it outside of the solar system service, much like how chat or the market is unaffected by the tidi in a system. Effectively if you undocked or jumped into a system in tidi, the math to work out your stats used to get queued with other action in that system, but now it does not. While that helps, it doesn't fix the issue (and isn't actually multithreading, it's relocating a process) because every action taken in that system by players is still in a single queue relying on a single CPU to process them. A modern game server would have spread the bulk of those actions across multiple CPU cores so that multiple complex calculations could occur simultaneously. This is why the new sov system takes you into multiple systems, because it spreads players across multiple nodes and thus across multiple CPUs. If they want to be able to run large battles without tidi however then the only real solution is to allow system actions to be spread across CPU cores, i.e. multithreading. Ed: Oh, and yes, you are mistaken. No I am not, since in a few posts you have proven to be very limited in knowledge of parallel systems. Taking a process to outside of another process is the DEFINITION OF PARALELISM. Since the BIAB is running on a different machine and therefore in a different CPU, by DEFINITION it is running in a different thread since not a single architecture of computers that is used outside academics have a single thread run at same time on different CPUs. The simple basics of operating systems for you.. a process can have one or more threads, 2 process will have at least 2 threads.. therefore.. multi thread. Now, since it is clearly established that you have no clue what multi threaded really means, maybe you should stop trying to say to CCP how to solve anything? "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
Lykouleon Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 1676	Posted - 2015.12.29 14:51:42 - [24] - Quote Can't we just run the server in the cloud? Why don't we use the cloud more? Big Data. MapReduce. Buzzwords. My work here is done. Someone go tell HR I'm taking the week off. Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword Happy holidays
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6996	Posted - 2015.12.29 14:56:53 - [25] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Do not dare to think I do not know how a CPU work or a high parallelism system, #!#!@ I have a master degree on it (not an imaginary one, a real one from a good university). And All that do not means that a system is bottlonecked on a task with high parallelism potential. Good for you? Though more important than a degree is working experience. Most of us that work as developers do, even new starters with very limited knowledge. The thing is, we already know what the problem is here, as CCP have shared this in the past, and the fact that it would add overhead is irrelevant. Even if they were just offloading some of the math to other cores and still processing the actual events on a single CPU, that would be better than what they currently do which is wait more than 10 times as long to process the events. Kagura Nikon wrote: So if their model, and I do not mean simply the data model but the information flow and data dependency model has bad paralelism qualities , then taking a huge effort to make that code tun in several cores might have a meaningless gain, and on some cases even reduce the performance. But we know what happens in MMORPG servers. There is wide ranging research into it, and even information given out by CCP. If they threaded the servers and reduced performance that would simply mean they wrote it wrong. I don't even think CCP would suggest that they wouldn't benefit, they simply aren't willing to dive that heavily into their legacy code. Kagura Nikon wrote: No I am not, since in a few posts you have proven to be very limited in knowledge of parallel systems. Taking a process to outside of another process is the DEFINITION OF PARALELISM. Since the BIAB is running on a different machine and therefore in a different CPU, by DEFINITION it is running in a different thread since not a single architecture of computers that is used outside academics have a single thread run at same time on different CPUs. No, you really are. And I didn't say parallelism, you did. I said multithreading, which can be a form of parallelism but isn't the same thing. Kinda like how an apple is a fruit but fruit isn't just apples. See, what you are talking about is how they took the old attribute code that existed within the solar system service and they added it to a new BIAB service which operates as a separate process on the server and thus can run on it's own core. That reduces the amount of work inside the solar system service. There's limited scope to do that however as a lot of what bottlenecks the solar system service can't be handed over to a separate service (at least not easily) as it requires granular control over how that service would operate and a lot of shared data. Taking the actual solar system service however and allowing it to use threads to distribute its workload across multiple cores would allow it to do some of the calculations simultaneously with the main service thread only needing to worry about the events as a whole. Say for example 10 people fire lasers at a target, each of those damage calculations could be done together on different cores and the service thread would take the results of those and apply them to the target. Kagura Nikon wrote: The simple basics of operating systems for you.. a process can have one or more threads, 2 process will have at least 2 threads.. therefore.. multi thread. Now, since it is clearly established that you have no clue what multi threaded really means, maybe you should stop trying to say to CCP how to solve anything? So if I open a copy of notepad, then I open another copy of notepad, have I multithreaded my notepad? The answer is no, those are two separate processes. Did you actually pay attention when you got that degree? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Solecist Project The Scope Gallente Federation 29037	Posted - 2015.12.29 14:59:52 - [26] - Quote lol Alex Grison > If there was a bipartisan bill supporting cannabis use for arthritic pain, it would be Joint support for Joint support for joint support
Harrison Tato Yamato Holdings 492	Posted - 2015.12.29 15:16:20 - [27] - Quote *nerd rage intensifies.
Kagura Nikon Bon Jovian Drifters Did he say Jump 2114	Posted - 2015.12.29 15:28:12 - [28] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: lots of ignorance... A multi process system is by definition multi threaded. If you run a task in a different machine, you are running it in a different process, therefore a different thread. More than one thread is multi thread. You can have one or more threads within a proccess but you cannot have a process that is not a thread since a process by definition shares its data with itself. Since the addressing model used in x86 and MAD 64 architectures do not allow for sharing of address space, when you run something in another computer you are running in another process. If you have another process you have another thread. So bad that your work experience has thought you nothing . At least 1+1 > 1(one thread + other thread means multi) should be the very least to expect. Just to be clear, I do not even care with what you think, ignorance and stupidity are things not worth to fight against, but other people read these forums and they should not learn wrong things by people like you. That is why kids you should all go to school, to not end up like this guy. "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7019	Posted - 2015.12.29 15:48:45 - [29] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: A multi process system is by definition multi threaded. If you run a task in a different machine, you are running it in a different process, therefore a different thread. More than one thread is multi thread. Are you aware that one process can have multiple threads, and that parallelism by multi-threading a single process and parallelism by creating multiple processes are not the same thing? Running a single-threaded process twice or running two single-threaded processes that communicate with each other does not make the processes multi-threaded. The bulk of the work of the solar system process cannot be split into multiple processes, and so the only way to increase throughput without increasing the speed of a single CPU core is by multi-threading the single process and distributing the load across multiple cores. Kagura Nikon wrote: You can have one or more threads within a proccess but you cannot have a process that is not a thread since a process by definition shares its data with itself. Since the addressing model used in x86 and MAD 64 architectures do not allow for sharing of address space, when you run something in another computer you are running in another process. If you have another process you have another thread. See, here you seem to be confused. At no point did I claim you could have a 0 thread process, and you're going on about shared address space and multiple computers as if that's part of the conversation. It's not. I get the feeling that you think the solar system service uses all of the cores of a single CPU and that we're talking about distributing the workload onto another machine. We are not, we are talking about how the solar system services uses one of many cores on a single CPU, and how by utilising more cores the single process could get more work done in less time even with the overhead. What I find amazing here is that you have the audacity to insult me as if I'm the one that is confusing the terminology. Perhaps you should go back and re-read the posts. You seem to have no understanding of why "parallelism" and "multi-threading" are not directly interchangeable. I call bullshit on you having a degree if you can't even work that out. Screenshot or it never happened. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Remiel Pollard Shock Treatment Ministries 7228	Posted - 2015.12.29 15:54:37 - [30] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: lots of ignorance... A multi process system is by definition multi threaded. If you run a task in a different machine, you are running it in a different process, therefore a different thread. More than one thread is multi thread. You can have one or more threads within a proccess but you cannot have a process that is not a thread since a process by definition shares its data with itself. Since the addressing model used in x86 and MAD 64 architectures do not allow for sharing of address space, when you run something in another computer you are running in another process. If you have another process you have another thread. So bad that your work experience has thought you nothing . At least 1+1 > 1(one thread + other thread means multi) should be the very least to expect. Just to be clear, I do not even care with what you think, ignorance and stupidity are things not worth to fight against, but other people read these forums and they should not learn wrong things by people like you. To the people learning computer science out there, the difference in in sharing or separation of data, a process is in a separate address space from other process, while a thread might be on same address space of other thread. A process can have one or more threads, when you have 2 process executing a task you therefore have at least 2 threads executing the task, but you can have more, but at least 2 of those do not share the same address space. When you are trying to solve a problem where the concurrency is over completely independent set of data, there is no need to keep the threads on the same address space. Those cases are usually the best candidates to be offload to a completely different machine. That is why kids you should all go to school, to not end up like this guy. Don't worry, no one that's actually capable of understanding computer science is taking Lucas seriously on anything ever anyway. He's a nobody. Hide his posts, pretend he doesn't exist, and the world will become immensely better for you, I promise. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7019	Posted - 2015.12.29 15:58:10 - [31] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: Don't worry, no one that's actually capable of understanding computer science is taking Lucas seriously on anything ever anyway. He's a nobody. Hide his posts, pretend he doesn't exist, and the world will become immensely better for you, I promise. So now you're even following me about to insult me? Jokes on you because that dude has no idea what he's talking about. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Remiel Pollard Shock Treatment Ministries 7229	Posted - 2015.12.29 15:59:06 - [32] - Quote I just showed my brother your work Kagura, and he says you know what you're on about. He even explained a few things to me that I didn't understand in all that myself. When it comes to computers, I take my brother's word for everything because he knows better than I do. Kell could learn a lot... wait, no, actually I take that back. It's unlikely Kell ever learns anything. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Lord Molly Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships. 333	Posted - 2015.12.29 16:07:48 - [33] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Lord Molly wrote: This video documents some real bad tidi issues If you look closely, you might also notice some glitching, such as smart bombs doing damage in warp....... All of this is caused by server node overload when to many people are in one system activating too many mod. To combat this very frustrating trait of gameplay, CCP made a jolly form that you fill in and effectively tell them there is gonig to be a big fight and etc etc, so that they may reinforce a node and divert resources to said systems node and hopefully make it all ok. Only issue is, that's not really the case is it. Have you ever been to a public event or a large pre-arranged scrap where tidi is down to 10%? where you fire a volley, then go and make dinner and come back to find you are still on the same cycle? Id be interested to hear from CCP about how they intend to improve the cancer that is TiDi. TIDi cancer? spoiled kid. before Tidi when we jumped into a large fight what happened is that you would wait between 30 minutes to 2 hours with a black screen. then 30% of people would disconnect, other 33% would load grid and be unable to use any controls of the ship. Other 13% would be able to load and press fire a single time per hour. The rest would wait another hour and try their luck again... I remember thems dark and horror-some days but i mean jita has no lag, that entire area has no lag and that has possibly the most high traffic gates in use in the EvE universe. Why can they not automatically re-allocate server resources as pilots move around. Use some sort of code whereby each pilot in space is given a value and when the combined pilot values peak over a specific figure the server automatically compensates by taking away resources from other areas. I know that in theory this does happen / CCP claim it happens but surely there is a less complicated way of doing it where it actually works out in the pilots favor. My Youtube Chan Alliance Youtube Chan
Solecist Project The Scope Gallente Federation 29072	Posted - 2015.12.29 16:14:48 - [34] - Quote Lord Molly wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: Lord Molly wrote: This video documents some real bad tidi issues If you look closely, you might also notice some glitching, such as smart bombs doing damage in warp....... All of this is caused by server node overload when to many people are in one system activating too many mod. To combat this very frustrating trait of gameplay, CCP made a jolly form that you fill in and effectively tell them there is gonig to be a big fight and etc etc, so that they may reinforce a node and divert resources to said systems node and hopefully make it all ok. Only issue is, that's not really the case is it. Have you ever been to a public event or a large pre-arranged scrap where tidi is down to 10%? where you fire a volley, then go and make dinner and come back to find you are still on the same cycle? Id be interested to hear from CCP about how they intend to improve the cancer that is TiDi. TIDi cancer? spoiled kid. before Tidi when we jumped into a large fight what happened is that you would wait between 30 minutes to 2 hours with a black screen. then 30% of people would disconnect, other 33% would load grid and be unable to use any controls of the ship. Other 13% would be able to load and press fire a single time per hour. The rest would wait another hour and try their luck again... I remember thems dark and horror-some days but i mean jita has no lag, that entire area has no lag and that has possibly the most high traffic gates in use in the EvE universe. Why can they not automatically re-allocate server resources as pilots move around. Use some sort of code whereby each pilot in space is given a value and when the combined pilot values peak over a specific figure the server automatically compensates by taking away resources from other areas. I know that in theory this does happen / CCP claim it happens but surely there is a less complicated way of doing it where it actually works out in the pilots favor. The latest TQ devblog hints at them being able to direct resources at will ... soon ... ... thanks to virtual environments that allow to sidestep pythons problematic use of multithreading. Don't forget ... it's still python with C, or C++. Doesn't make things easier. Alex Grison > If there was a bipartisan bill supporting cannabis use for arthritic pain, it would be Joint support for Joint support for joint support
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7019	Posted - 2015.12.29 16:15:50 - [35] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: When you are trying to solve a problem where the concurrency is over completely independent set of data, there is no need to keep the threads on the same address space. Those cases are usually the best candidates to be offload to a completely different machine. Now that your edits are showing up, this explains some of where your confusion is coming from. It's true enough that like BIAB, some parts can be moved to a new process, but the problem is that most of the work done on the solar system service can't be offloaded to a different machine and needs to share address space. Also Rem, while your brother may have read the isolated buzz words and unconnected fragments of fact in Kagura's post, for the most part he's missed the entire problem that CCP have that means that tidi is needed. You're doing him a disservice by posting his support without full understanding of the context. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7020	Posted - 2015.12.29 16:27:20 - [36] - Quote Lord Molly wrote: I remember thems dark and horror-some days but i mean jita has no lag, that entire area has no lag and that has possibly the most high traffic gates in use in the EvE universe. Why can they not automatically re-allocate server resources as pilots move around. Use some sort of code whereby each pilot in space is given a value and when the combined pilot values peak over a specific figure the server automatically compensates by taking away resources from other areas. I know that in theory this does happen / CCP claim it happens but surely there is a less complicated way of doing it where it actually works out in the pilots favor. Depending on what you are doing you'll already be distributed over multiple services. Undocking does a lot on BIAB now, market are on a service, so is chat, etc. The problem service that causes the lag is SOL, the solar system service. This only has a finite amount of resource that can be used (up to one maxed out CPU core) at which point it's at it's limit. If they know in advance, they can make sure the target solar system is on one of the machine with really beastly CPUs, but they can't move the node with a fight already occurring as everyone will get booted. Then the best they can do is move other solar systems off of the node and crank up the processor a bit. That can go wrong though, like in the battle of Z9PP. In theory though, the new virtual environments will allow them to move or expand a running node without booting people, but we'll have to see how that works out in practice once it's all rolled out. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Max Fubarticus The Scope Gallente Federation 46	Posted - 2015.12.29 16:31:07 - [37] - Quote Fancy that! I have a Masters Degree as well... Sadly it has nothing to do with computers so I guess I will keep moving along. Epeen fencing should be an Olympic sport. Just saying... Max
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7020	Posted - 2015.12.29 16:34:42 - [38] - Quote Max Fubarticus wrote: Fancy that! I have a Masters Degree as well... Sadly it has nothing to do with computers so I guess I will keep moving along. Epeen fencing should be an Olympic sport. Just saying... Max Now I'm curious... You should start a threadnaught on your chosen subject. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
ISD Supogo ISD Community Communications Liaisons 536	Posted - 2015.12.29 21:37:07 - [39] - Quote Removed some posts. Quote: Forum rules 4. Personal attacks are prohibited. Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated. ISD Supogo Lieutenant Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Pix Severus Mew Age Outpaws 1660	Posted - 2015.12.30 00:37:17 - [40] - Quote Always Shi wrote: The new TQ hardware coming in a couple of months time (plus the recent and ongoing software improvements like BitB) are all helping to make TiDi occur less often. I am so looking forward to this. My lord.

Nat Silverguard Aideron Robotics 230	Posted - 2015.12.30 03:10:48 - [41] - Quote Lykouleon wrote: Can't we just run the server in the cloud? Why don't we use the cloud more? Big Data. MapReduce. Buzzwords. My work here is done. Someone go tell HR I'm taking the week off. i understood this reference! yehey! o7 Just Add Water
ISD Buldath ISD STAR 253	Posted - 2015.12.30 05:53:19 - [42] - Quote Greetings Pilot! I would like to invite you to apply to www.ccpgames.com/jobs if you believe you are capable of creating a multi threaded experience For Tranquility that CCP could use to remove Tidi, since you believe it to be so easy. CCP Could really use your Expertise and assistance on such a grand task! ~ISD Buldath Interstellar Services Department Support, Training and Resources Division Lt. Commander
MidnightWyvern Night Theifs 123	Posted - 2015.12.30 06:00:13 - [43] - Quote ISD Buldath wrote: Greetings Pilot! I would like to invite you to apply to www.ccpgames.com/jobs if you believe you are capable of creating a multi threaded experience For Tranquility that CCP could use to remove Tidi, since you believe it to be so easy. CCP Could really use your Expertise and assistance on such a grand task! Critical Sass Levels _#portDust514 Don't let interactions like this become only a memory. (EVE alt> Sarayu Wyvern. Dust 514 alt> Mobius Wyvern.)
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7035	Posted - 2015.12.30 08:47:47 - [44] - Quote ISD Buldath wrote: Greetings Pilot! I would like to invite you to apply to www.ccpgames.com/jobs if you believe you are capable of creating a multi threaded experience For Tranquility that CCP could use to remove Tidi, since you believe it to be so easy. CCP Could really use your Expertise and assistance on such a grand task! It's funny, because I don't remember seeing anyone saying it was easy. In fact I quite distinctly remember saying the opposite. Here, I'll quote it so you don't need to find it: Lucas Kell wrote: I didn't say it was easy, but good developers don't give up because a task is difficult. Tidi isn't a real solution. The point is that Tidi is a temporary measure. Either they need to find a proper solution (for example multithreading SOL) or they need to face the fact that they can't do big battles, which is what they seem to be leaning to by nuking every aspect of the game that leads to big battles. Also I hear their pay sucks, so no thanks. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Kagura Nikon Bon Jovian Drifters Did he say Jump 2130	Posted - 2015.12.30 09:13:37 - [45] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: What I find amazing here is that you have the audacity to insult me as if I'm the one that is confusing the terminology. Perhaps you should go back and re-read the posts. You seem to have no understanding of why "parallelism" and "multi-threading" are not directly interchangeable. I call bullshit on you having a degree if you can't even work that out. Screenshot or it never happened. You are the one that made that mistake. You a re the one having the auddacity os trying to put this absurd statement in my mouth. You are the one that started saying that multi threaded is using more than one core. A Thread is the smaller fragment of a task that is subject to the task scheduler. The fact that it runs in one CPU or in another is irrelevant! A Thread can not even be running. And by definition, if you have a scheduler then you have a thread, that means you cannot have a system that is preemptive multi proccess capable (need to put the preemptive word there to avoid confusion with cooperative tasks of embedded systems) that do not have a thread. IT is pretty simple, you have a shceduler that can preempt code? then you have a thread on each proccess that is running. If you have multi proccess by DEFINITION you have multi thread on a preemptive capable system, and we are not discussing embedded systems here so preemptive scheduling is a given. If you have more than one process running in different computers (and assuming these computers are BOTH operating) then you do have a paralelism scenario! If one of these tasks end up being finsihed before the other have started is a potential result of fate and do not change the fact that you have a parallel architecture, even if in some instances of execution the 2 tasks do not really execute at the very same time (parallelism of a system or of an instance of execution are different things, but the later is almost never relevant to any discussion ) . BIAB runs in a DIFFERENT computer so it does imply in parallelism! That is not even up to discussion. I do not need to prove you my degree, that btw was not taken in an online university as you might think degrees are taken by your "screenshot" comment. I had a board of Professors convinced of my knowledge, but internet warriors might not be able to understand what real recognition and degree means. Btw my edits are mostly because English is not my mother language and when I try to type it fast I make a LOT of gramatical mistakes and end up with sentences that could clearly be improved. It is part of being educated to recognize that you made a mistake and correct it, you should try it. "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon Bon Jovian Drifters Did he say Jump 2130	Posted - 2015.12.30 09:25:07 - [46] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Running a single-threaded process twice or running two single-threaded processes that communicate with each other does not make the processes multi-threaded. That is where you fail at basic Computer science. You have 2 process you have 2 threads because a process can be scheduled, therefore it is a thread (in some operating systems) or it has a thread (in other operating systems). The only way for a process to not be or have a thread is if you have a cooperative system or a single process operating system, but we are not discussing embedded software here. You are confusing multi threaded process with multi-threaded system/architecture. Any multi process system is by definition multithreaded, even if each of the process have only 1 thread. BIAB make the SYSTEM multi threaded (if each of their processes is single or multi thread that is not up to discussion and it is not even relevant unless you can prove me that there is strong data dependency in the continuity of their tasks, enough that inter process comunication becomes relevant. Condidering almost everything made in eve is registered in a database, eve probably already faces inter process data barriers. But if that is not already a bottleneck then BIAB being in another process will surely not be a bottleneck either. Therefore your assumption that the PROCESS need to be multithread for them to achieve high performance is based purely on speculation. Again multi thread SYSTEM and multi thread PROCESS are different things on a conceptual level (although in some scenarios might map 1:1) "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
sero Hita Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 69	Posted - 2015.12.30 09:48:23 - [47] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Running a single-threaded process twice or running two single-threaded processes that communicate with each other does not make the processes multi-threaded. That is where you fail at basic Computer science. You have 2 process you have 2 threads because a process can be scheduled, therefore it is a thread (in some operating systems) or it has a thread (in other operating systems). The only way for a process to not be or have a thread is if you have a cooperative system or a single process operating system, but we are not discussing embedded software here. You are confusing multi threaded process with multi-threaded system/architecture. Any multi process system is by definition multithreaded, even if each of the process have only 1 thread. BIAB make the SYSTEM multi threaded (if each of their processes is single or multi thread that is not up to discussion and it is not even relevant unless you can prove me that there is strong data dependency in the continuity of their tasks, enough that inter process comunication becomes relevant. Condidering almost everything made in eve is registered in a database, eve probably already faces inter process data barriers. But if that is not already a bottleneck then BIAB being in another process will surely not be a bottleneck either. Therefore your assumption that the PROCESS need to be multithread for them to achieve high performance is based purely on speculation. Again multi thread SYSTEM and multi thread PROCESS are different things on a conceptual level (although in some scenarios might map 1:1) Why do you bother replying to him? You know he does not read what you really write and understand it. He will tell you what "you really mean", in spite of what you write and keep defending his homemade definitions, even if they do not fit to the real technical ones that are correct. Your point stands loud and clear, so if anyone comes to this thread they can decide what they find more convincing and look up the definitions themselves. Would also like to point out, one can hide messages from certain posters. Sure you can still see when they are being quoted, but overall it will reduce your blood pressure levels.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7035	Posted - 2015.12.30 10:01:34 - [48] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: You are the one that made that mistake. You a re the one having the auddacity os trying to put this absurd statement in my mouth. You are the one that started saying that multi threaded is using more than one core. A Thread is the smaller fragment of a task that is subject to the task scheduler. The fact that it runs in one CPU or in another is irrelevant! Good lord man, I said none of this. All I said was that they need to multithread their solar system process. You can keep going on about splitting it out into multiple processes but since they need to share address space it's irrelevant. It's one single service in one single process that needs to operate on multiple threads. Whether it's on one CPU or multiple CPUs is irrelevant, but it still has to be one process. At the end of the day I'm not going to continue this argument with you forever. You have no idea what you are talking about and you clearly want to pretend you have some knowledge on the subject. You're probably a uni dropout or something, but I have no interest in going around in circles. In the absolute simplest terms, their SOL process needs to operate as one process on multiple threads. It really doesn't get simpler than that. Kagura Nikon wrote: I do not need to prove you my degree, that btw was not taken in an online university as you might think degrees are taken by your "screenshot" comment. Then don't prove it, I don't care. The assumption will still be that you're lying. Nobody with a degree would get this confused and riled up over such a simple statement. Kagura Nikon wrote: That is where you fail at basic Computer science. You have 2 process you have 2 threads because a process can be scheduled, therefore it is a thread (in some operating systems) or it has a thread (in other operating systems). The only way for a process to not be or have a thread is if you have a cooperative system or a single process operating system, but we are not discussing embedded software here. No, it's where you fail, since while you have two threads, they are different processes. Running two copies of a single-threaded program don't mean that you have magically muti-threaded that process. For one process to be multi threaded, multiple threads must exist withing that single process. This is where you are confusing parallelism with mutli-threading. While parallelism can be accomplished using multi-threading it's not the same thing. Kagura Nikon wrote: You are confusing multi threaded process with multi-threaded system/architecture. Any multi process system is by definition multithreaded, even if each of the process have only 1 thread. BIAB make the SYSTEM multi threaded (if each of their processes is single or multi thread that is not up to discussion and it is not even relevant unless you can prove me that there is strong data dependency in the continuity of their tasks, enough that inter process comunication becomes relevant. No, I'm not. The SYSTEM is already running in multiple processes, and BIAB is a new service process within that system. The process responsible for all of the stuff happening in a system that causes tidi is called SOL. That SOL process cannot cleanly be broken down into multiple processes, thus to make it able to operate faster than a single core can handle, it must be able to run mutliple threads within that single process. I don't know if language is the problem here, because this is basic computing, like high-school level stuff. There's no way you don't understand why a process might need multiple threads if you have a masters unless it's a masters in comparing rocks. Kagura Nikon wrote: Condidering almost everything made in eve is registered in a database, eve probably already faces inter process data barriers. But if that is not already a bottleneck then BIAB being in another process will surely not be a bottleneck either. Therefore your assumption that the PROCESS need to be multithread for them to achieve high performance is based purely on speculation. Live data such as that occurring during big battles, module activations, warps, etc, won't be stored in a database as that would be shockingly bad for performance. That will all be stored in the SOL process running that solar system. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7035	Posted - 2015.12.30 10:05:44 - [49] - Quote sero Hita wrote: Why do you bother replying to him? You know he does not read what you really write and understand it. I understand entirely what he's saying, he's just wrong. He's suggesting that the solution would be to split SOL into multiple processes, like how they split out BIAB, but he has even stated himself why that can't be done because multiple processes can't share address space (easily) and SOL would need to. The only thing I don't get is why he's freaking out so much at the concept of a single process with multiple threads. Anyone with an ounce of technical knowledge can see he's just being difficult, likely on purpose as a troll. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Leila Meurtrier Why Am I Not Surprised 48	Posted - 2015.12.30 10:18:15 - [50] - Quote TiDi is temporary? What nonsense is next, short-term duct tape? Or single use tea bags?

Kagura Nikon Bon Jovian Drifters Did he say Jump 2131	Posted - 2015.12.30 10:57:13 - [51] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: sero Hita wrote: Why do you bother replying to him? You know he does not read what you really write and understand it. I understand entirely what he's saying, he's just wrong. He's suggesting that the solution would be to split SOL into multiple processes, like how they split out BIAB, but he has even stated himself why that can't be done because multiple processes can't share address space (easily) and SOL would need to. The only thing I don't get is why he's freaking out so much at the concept of a single process with multiple threads. Anyone with an ounce of technical knowledge can see he's just being difficult, likely on purpose as a troll. No I am NOT suggesting that! Are you unable to read? I Suggested not a SINGLE thing as solution. I stated that BIAB is already an effort on paralellism. I am also refuting your premise that you NEED to make the PROCESS multithreaded to solve the problem, when you do NOT have information enough to know if the problem currently resides on the category that NEEDS that as a solution. Reading is not about inventing things in your head and deciding that it is what the other person is trying to say! Learn the basics of communication please! "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon Bon Jovian Drifters Did he say Jump 2131	Posted - 2015.12.30 11:04:37 - [52] - Quote Leila Meurtrier wrote: TiDi is temporary? What nonsense is next, short-term duct tape? Or single use tea bags? you know very well that when duct tape is applied, the strings of destiny ensure it will be no other solution for as long as there is anyone that remember who was the first to put duct tape there. "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7035	Posted - 2015.12.30 11:14:54 - [53] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: No I am NOT suggesting that! Are you unable to read? I Suggested not a SINGLE thing as solution. I stated that BIAB is already an effort on paralellism. I am also refuting your premise that you NEED to make the PROCESS multithreaded to solve the problem, when you do NOT have information enough to know if the problem currently resides on the category that NEEDS that as a solution. I know that BIAB is an effort on paralellism, but as you can probably tell, it's doesn't solve the issue of TIDI still being required, thus another solution is needed. And yes, the SOL process would need to be multithreaded. We know this because CCP has actually stated this. Try attending a fanfest sometime and you might have a better understanding of how the nodes are built up. The problem is that they built the processes in stackless python with no ability to be multithreaded during a time when all the focus on improving CPUs was build around doubling of speeds. When that hit a ceiling and CPUs started focussing on adding cores and parallel processing CCP have been stuck with their single threaded process so that a solar system can only make use of a single core. As most of the work done by SOL can't be split out into multiple processes like BIAB was, the solutions are: 1. Find a CPU with a much much higher clock speed. 2. Leave Tidi in place and admit defeat. 3. Thread the process to spread the load across multiple CPUs/cores. In fact, here is an old quote from CCP themselves: Quote: On the hardware side we have been somewhat hampered by the fact that the EVE server is largely a single threaded application and thus limited performance-wise by the clockrate of the CPU. In the past we-¦ve been lucky in that we have been able to rely on clockrates increasing year over year. Sadly that party is mostly over for now and the emphasis is on horizontal scaling with multiple cores. Bad news for fleet fights and olGÇÖ single threaded EVE. Kagura Nikon wrote: If I had to take a guess, I would say that very likely there is not even NEEED of more than 1 modern CPU/CORE to do what is needed in a single system regarding eve current simulation, but since I do not work on eve code I will not put that at a fact. So you assumed there is a problem based on nothing but your own conjectures, while CCP always stated that the current bottleneck is in the operations that are being passed to an external process on the form of BIAB. That's a bad guess and it underestimate just how much the server needs to do with that many people firing off commands at once. Again though, I assumed nothing. CCP stated that a sizable chunk of tidi was caused by docking/undocking/changing ships and the brain calcs that were done with it. While BIAB reduces the loads when a fleet undocks and jumps between systems, it doesn't change tidi much in a big fight, as those events are much less frequent. Kagura Nikon wrote: Reading is not about inventing things in your head and deciding that it is what the other person is trying to say! Learn the basics of communication please! It's a little difficult since the person who's text I'm reading isn't a native English speak, is raging like a lunatic, has no knowledge of what he's discussing, pretends he's got a masters, is going off topic wildy and stops every three seconds to insult me. If you slowed down a little and stopped trying to pretend you know more than you do, you'd be easier to understand. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
FarosWarrior De Muuzevangers 7	Posted - 2015.12.30 11:20:03 - [54] - Quote Leila Meurtrier wrote: TiDi is temporary? What nonsense is next, short-term duct tape? Or single use tea bags? Ducttape is short term? Runs off to fix everything with ducttape applied
Solecist Project The Scope Gallente Federation 29258	Posted - 2015.12.30 11:31:10 - [55] - Quote Looking at you two ... ... with Kagura being completely blind about herself ... ... fighting for "him admitting defeat" ... ... I feel reminded of something. Lucas and Kagura ... ... sitting on a tree ... ... K-I-S-S-I-N-G. Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: The game has changed little from my point of view ... yet here I am, playing again with 3 accounts...
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 1990	Posted - 2015.12.30 20:20:09 - [56] - Quote Just want to remind everyone here that if you want to show off your mad tech knowledge you need to include at least 'microservice' and 'container' into your drivel or no one will take you serious. the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Nafensoriel KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 244	Posted - 2015.12.31 01:08:06 - [57] - Quote Tech knowledge isnt what is being discussed right now.. Seriously folks.. ISD just bodyslammed the topic. The only thing more epic than that is if Seagull walked in and did the exact same thing. Somehow I still thing people would come back next week and say multithreading is the fix to all the worlds coding issues. (seriously anyone else notice this trend? Ever since x64 magically multithreading is magic even though we've known its pros/cons for almost five damned decades)
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7039	Posted - 2015.12.31 08:12:17 - [58] - Quote Nafensoriel wrote: Seriously folks.. ISD just bodyslammed the topic. The only thing more epic than that is if Seagull walked in and did the exact same thing. ... Not really. He swooped in with sarcasm about something that nobody said. Nafensoriel wrote: Somehow I still thing people would come back next week and say multithreading is the fix to all the worlds coding issues. (seriously anyone else notice this trend? Ever since x64 magically multithreading is magic even though we've known its pros/cons for almost five damned decades) I don't think anyone here believe it to be a magical pill to solve all the worlds problems, but when you are overclocking a CPU so much that you have to disable cores to dissipate heat, you're still smashing the overclocked core up to 100% and you're getting lag on top of tidi because of the CPU bottleneck on your single threaded process, multithreading actually is the solution. I doubt it's going to happen though which is why CCP are just breaking up big fights which is a damn shame. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
RcTamiya SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart. 46	Posted - 2015.12.31 08:20:16 - [59] - Quote Nafensoriel wrote: Tech knowledge isnt what is being discussed right now.. Seriously folks.. ISD just bodyslammed the topic. The only thing more epic than that is if Seagull walked in and did the exact same thing. Somehow I still thing people would come back next week and say multithreading is the fix to all the worlds coding issues. (seriously anyone else notice this trend? Ever since x64 magically multithreading is magic even though we've known its pros/cons for almost five damned decades) But Legacy Code :O In my opinion the only real solution is to rewrite the server code, however I don't have any degrees in IT, so i might be wrong :P
Nafensoriel KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 245	Posted - 2015.12.31 23:08:11 - [60] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Nafensoriel wrote: Seriously folks.. ISD just bodyslammed the topic. The only thing more epic than that is if Seagull walked in and did the exact same thing. ... Not really. He swooped in with sarcasm about something that nobody said. Nafensoriel wrote: Somehow I still thing people would come back next week and say multithreading is the fix to all the worlds coding issues. (seriously anyone else notice this trend? Ever since x64 magically multithreading is magic even though we've known its pros/cons for almost five damned decades) I don't think anyone here believe it to be a magical pill to solve all the worlds problems, but when you are overclocking a CPU so much that you have to disable cores to dissipate heat, you're still smashing the overclocked core up to 100% and you're getting lag on top of tidi because of the CPU bottleneck on your single threaded process, multithreading actually is the solution. I doubt it's going to happen though which is why CCP are just breaking up big fights which is a damn shame. Ok. I'll bite. You've championed the need to massively rewrite EVE Online server code to take greater advantage of multithreading and parallelism. That's... Nice. Now lets break down the problem with this entire argument and what many people have tried to explain to you. You have zero idea how the server side is built. You have assumptions and devblogs where things have been publicly described but at base you know exactly zero. Why do you know zero? Because the Tranquility server is a custom built proprietary piece of hardware run by people who have been using it exclusively and tailoring every tiny scrap of physical and software assets for over a decade. You attempting to claim a magic pill that that team hasnt already thought of is on the order of a man looking at a tank and telling someone it needs a new transmission to go faster without ever having physically touched said tank. To further support your lack of knowledge(and well everyones really) consider that CCP is notoriously data crazy. They collect every bit that isnt nailed down and then dig in the sofa for more. Then they spend weeks looking at it and breaking down every aspect of it in relation to that custom designed proprietary hardware and software that is Tranquility. Also You cant claim to know how their system works by past experience. Nothing exists like tranquility. Its a one off. No one but the crazy nutballs(and we love ya) at CCP has had the raw testicular fortitude to actually build a super computer for a video game. So.. no. Your argument is utterly and pointlessly moot. It shows a lack of technical and professional understanding of what you simply cannot know. Trust me.. i have intimate knowledge with people doing this to companies and experts. I used to work on nuclear devices. Did you know that by simply mentioning that people will tell you exactly the wrong information. Apparently you can blow up the world or cause black holes and radiation automatically has a halflife of millions of years. Never mind chernobyl or fukushima or anything recent that shows the physical scientifically backed opposite. Why is this comparable to CCP? Well unless you actually work in the field.. you wont find truly accurate information on it. Same with Tranquility. Unless you physically work with it everything you say is raw conjecture and every comment you make as to its design is automatically doomed to be wrong by simple lack of information. But all that said.. if you seriously have the technical skill to build a superior tranquility(bear in mind this requires the professional understanding of not rebuilding something for exactly zero or nearly zero gain) then email CCP. Im quite sure Hilmar and Seagul would quite seriously welcome such a breakthrough considering how much of their lives theyve invested in EVE and how vested they are in its future success. They also have a track record for making huge changes when needed to support that game and this community. Considering that most other companies would just stop development and go for EVE 2.0 the simple fact that they have basically rewritten the entire game without disruption of service or loss of data should be more than enough proof of their devotion to the project.

Solecist Project The Scope Gallente Federation 29482	Posted - 2015.12.31 23:20:34 - [61] - Quote lol Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: The game has changed little from my point of view ... yet here I am, playing again with 3 accounts...
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7040	Posted - 2016.01.01 08:14:07 - [62] - Quote Nafensoriel wrote: Now lets break down the problem with this entire argument and what many people have tried to explain to you. You have zero idea how the server side is built. You have assumptions and devblogs where things have been publicly described but at base you know exactly zero. Why do you know zero? Because the Tranquility server is a custom built proprietary piece of hardware run by people who have been using it exclusively and tailoring every tiny scrap of physical and software assets for over a decade. You attempting to claim a magic pill that that team hasnt already thought of is on the order of a man looking at a tank and telling someone it needs a new transmission to go faster without ever having physically touched said tank. Well no, between dev blogs and fanfest, there's a lot of knowledge floating around about the servers and having spoken to the devs at fanfest they are aware themselves that threading the server would solve a lot of problems. It's not that they haven't thought of it, they just don't want to dedicate the time it takes to rewrite it. As for you're idea of looking at a tank, it's more like looking at a tank, seeing it has no tracks and suggesting they stick some tracks on it if they want to get anywhere. We know that they have a CPU bottleneck, we also know that SOL is single threaded, we also know that they are overclocking a beast of a CPU way beyond what it should be at to squeeze the most performance out of it. Unless there's massive improvements in CPU speed on their way the best way to squeeze out more processing power is by going sideway. Nafensoriel wrote: To further support your lack of knowledge(and well everyones really) consider that CCP is notoriously data crazy. They collect every bit that isnt nailed down and then dig in the sofa for more. Then they spend weeks looking at it and breaking down every aspect of it in relation to that custom designed proprietary hardware and software that is Tranquility. Also You cant claim to know how their system works by past experience. Nothing exists like tranquility. Its a one off. No one but the crazy nutballs(and we love ya) at CCP has had the raw testicular fortitude to actually build a super computer for a video game. True, but data collection should have very little impact on the server, and would also be an absolutely ideal use of multithreading since there's no reason whatsoever that aggregating and sending off data to a database needs to be done in the same thread as combat calcs. Also, you say "proprietary hardware and software" as if that means something. Most development companies will be running their own builds of hardware and software, and most large scale MMOS will run what CCP run. A lot exists like tranquillity actually. A long time ago what they had was pretty unique, but that hasn't been true for many years now. The only thing that makes theirs different is their aforementioned lack of process distribution leading to their strange need to try to set fire to their CPUs. Nafensoriel wrote: Well unless you actually work in the field.. you wont find truly accurate information on it. Same with Tranquility. Unless you physically work with it everything you say is raw conjecture and every comment you make as to its design is automatically doomed to be wrong by simple lack of information. That's simply not true. Any seasoned developer will be able to tell quite a lot with even limited knowledge of the system. There's certainly not enough knowledge for me to state exactly how it would be done and what processes could be best split onto multiple threads, but a high level view of it like this is pretty straightforward. Nafensoriel wrote: But all that said.. if you seriously have the technical skill to build a superior tranquility(bear in mind this requires the professional understanding of not rebuilding something for exactly zero or nearly zero gain) then email CCP. Im quite sure Hilmar and Seagul would quite seriously welcome such a breakthrough considering how much of their lives theyve invested in EVE and how vested they are in its future success. I'm sure they have the technical expertise on team to do it, it's more that they don't want to invest development time into it because it's a huge project the immediate benefit is unclear to consumers, but that doesn't mean that it's not what's needed if they want to be able to support big fights with less (or no) tidi. Again though, you're confusing me saying this is a solution to me saying it's easy. It's not. It's certainly not something that one person can swoop in and change and definitely not for what I've heard the CCP pay. Anyway, CCP seem to have already made up their minds. Large scale fights are just being phased out. Nafensoriel wrote: the simple fact that they have basically rewritten the entire game without disruption of service or loss of data should be more than enough proof of their devotion to the project. Rewritten the entire game? Where? I've been playing over 10 years and at least half of the game is unchanged from back then. A new UI to pretty it up maybe, but a good chunk for the game works as it always has. It's actually quite the opposite. CCP are notorious for their dislike of touching legacy code. This is why POS code isn't being fixed, it''s just being replaced with POS v2, AKA citadels then will be patched out at a later date. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Solecist Project The Scope Gallente Federation 29530	Posted - 2016.01.01 10:00:18 - [63] - Quote LOL Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: The game has changed little from my point of view ... yet here I am, playing again with 3 accounts...
Starbuilder Stasarik EVE University Ivy League 6	Posted - 2016.01.03 04:26:52 - [64] - Quote Just a little note about the whole "just update to multithread / not easy but still doable" bit... I'm a software developer who works in the banking industry in the States. I've done updates on legacy systems, I've done total rewrites, I've done burn-it-all-down-and-start-fresh jobs, I've done... basically everything in this regard. This includes updating complex single-core systems to be multi-threaded systems. For a game like EVE, with everything it has going on and the size of CCP's development team, to update it from single-core to multi-thread (from development to release, including all the QA and iteration your mind could never handle), you're probably going to be looking at ~2 years with their current development team's size, and that's if they focus on nothing else. It would be two years without any updates to anything else. Nothing new. Nothing fresh. Nothing of interest except two years of the same thing that would be invisible to players until it was released (and would be a hive of bugs for the first few months after, even with the best QA imaginable). Will it be worth it to spend two years and millions of dollars to turn the game into a multi-threaded system? Would it be better to keep the current "good enough" system of TIDI and instead update the hardware? How would players react if there were nothing but tweaks for two years? How would players react when the first release is a nest of bugs? CCP have already answered these types of questions with their actions. TIDI is a "good enough" system for what they currently have, and is less detrimental than updating would be. It's far cheaper and easier in this case to update the hardware.
Daerrol Death By Design Did he say Jump 285	Posted - 2016.01.03 05:02:12 - [65] - Quote funny I only been in 2 fights where Tidi was significant enough to effect the enjoyment level and in both despite 10% TiDi i was still alpha'd off the field in a blue-tanked battleship. It really just confirmed to me how boring big ass fleets are. I guess getting alpha'd off faster means you can be into your LOL game sooner since without tidi there would be no way to reinforce the fight (And probably that would significantly effect the chances of a large fight even happening) Oh and those reinforced server nodes do wonders. I'm in Low-sec we hit tidi around 100 in local
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 5636	Posted - 2016.01.03 05:13:59 - [66] - Quote Neuntausend wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Alternatively they could just do what any normal person would do and multithread their server code. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4rVC4ICQAAr65m.jpg It's not that easy. For what it is worth: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/carbonio-and-bluenet-next-level-network-technology-1/ There are also several other dev blogs on TiDi: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/fixing-lag-drakes-of-destiny-part-1-1/ http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/fixing-lag-drakes-of-destiny-part-2-1/ http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/introducing-time-dilation-tidi/ http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/time-dilation-hows-that-going/ http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/what-a-hed-ache/ http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/observing-the-burn-jita-player-event/
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7040	Posted - 2016.01.03 10:09:00 - [67] - Quote Starbuilder Stasarik wrote: (from development to release, including all the QA and iteration your mind could never handle) I love littde digs like this, like you're the only person in the world with development experience and noone else could possible imagine how it's done. This generally writes off anything that follows in my mind as it usually means the poster is 12. Starbuilder Stasarik wrote: you're probably going to be looking at ~2 years with their current development team's size, and that's if they focus on nothing else. It would be two years without any updates to anything else. Nothing new. Nothing fresh. I'd very much doubt that. The servers are modular, so it's not like they would have to rewrite absolutely everything, just SOL. I've seen bigger projects done by smaller teams in less time. That said it would be a long project for a couple of teams, but IMHO the payoff would be worth it since it would actually allow the main thing people liked about EVE. Big battles is what it's all about and they've hit a wall with them because they aren't utilising their hardware very well. Starbuilder Stasarik wrote: (CCP have already answered these types of questions with their actions. TIDI is a "good enough" system for what they currently have, and is less detrimental than updating would be. It's far cheaper and easier in this case to update the hardware. It's not though, is it? Most people would generally avoid tidi fights because they absolutely suck. Sitting about for 12 hours doing something that could have been accomplished in a couple watching things not even starting to cycle for half an hour isn't fun. Even CCP knows tidi isn't the solution which is why instead they are breaking up fights to make the chances of a big fight occurring much smaller. Shame that destroys a huge amount of appeal for the game really. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Solecist Project The Scope Gallente Federation 29767	Posted - 2016.01.03 10:19:38 - [68] - Quote The several thousand players who participated in BR do not exist ... ... and that it never happened ... ... and that obviously no one would ever participate in such a fight. Ever. Never has. Never will be. And no one, not a single one, actually prefers Tidi over blackscreens. How you can keep talking to obious hypocrites, who declare truths opposite to reality is beyond me. Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: The game has changed little from my point of view ... yet here I am, playing again with 3 accounts...
Esrevid Nekkeg Justified and Ancient 1423	Posted - 2016.01.03 13:29:09 - [69] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: The several thousand players who participated in BR do not exist ... ... and that it never happened ... ... and that obviously no one would ever participate in such a fight. Ever. Never has. Never will be. And no one, not a single one, actually prefers Tidi over blackscreens. How you can keep talking to obious hypocrites, who declare truths opposite to reality is beyond me. Yes they do, yes it did, yes they would. No. Yes it has. Yes it will. Yes they do. To answer your last statement in a far more serious way: Talking is easy. Making people understand, now that is hard. And in some cases a futile attempt at reaching an impossible goal. Here I used to have a sig of our old Camper in space. Now it is disregarded as being the wrong format. Looking out the window I see one thing: Nothing wrong with the format of our Camper! Silly CCP......
Solecist Project The Scope Gallente Federation 29770	Posted - 2016.01.03 13:55:53 - [70] - Quote Esrevid Nekkeg wrote: Solecist Project wrote: The several thousand players who participated in BR do not exist ... ... and that it never happened ... ... and that obviously no one would ever participate in such a fight. Ever. Never has. Never will be. And no one, not a single one, actually prefers Tidi over blackscreens. How you can keep talking to obious hypocrites, who declare truths opposite to reality is beyond me. Yes they do, yes it did, yes they would. No. Yes it has. Yes it will. Yes they do. To answer your last statement in a far more serious way: Talking is easy. Making people understand, now that is hard. And in some cases a futile attempt at reaching an impossible goal. You can NOT make someone who does not care about the truth understand it. That is a sign of weakness. People who keep argueing over and over, despite the obvious signs that anything past a first attempt it is futile, are only ever attempting to serve themselves. Because "You are wrong, get it already!" People are mindless puppets and Lucas is the one pulling their strings. More news at 11. Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: The game has changed little from my point of view ... yet here I am, playing again with 3 accounts...

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7040	Posted - 2016.01.03 14:41:17 - [71] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: The several thousand players who participated in BR do not exist ... ... and that it never happened ... ... and that obviously no one would ever participate in such a fight. So because nearly a year ago there was a fight that people showed up to, that automatically means that people enjoy fighting in 10% tidi with soul crushing lag? I really don't think there are many people that enjoy being in a heavy tidi fight which is why these generally only occur when people have to show up to defend their assets. Now with entosis modules it would be even worse too, since you could sit there for several hours only to watch the entosis ship pop and reset your progress. At least with structure shoots you could see slow but steady progress. The thing is, people see these sped up videos of massive battles and read these headlines about thousands of dollars of damage, but they show up and the reality is they will click a button then wait several hours for either their target or themselves to explode. How in any way is that good? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2001	Posted - 2016.01.03 15:54:05 - [72] - Quote Lucas just wants to see the game burn because CCP banned his cheat input-multiplex mining fleet. That's why he tries so hard to push every idiotic game destroying idea. If you don't believe me there is a sticky thread full of tears in the GD forum. There is really no need to ever talk to him, just ignore the troll and all will be good. the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7040	Posted - 2016.01.03 16:34:11 - [73] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Lucas just wants to see the game burn because CCP banned his cheat input-multiplex mining fleet. That's why he tries so hard to push every idiotic game destroying idea. If you don't believe me there is a sticky thread full of tears in the GD forum. There is really no need to ever talk to him, just ignore the troll and all will be good. Once again, I'm unphased by a piece of software I didn't use being partially banned. Once again you embarrass yourself by making assumptions that are clearly wrong. With the ISBoxer change I'd have rather seen CCP improve the game rather than work around the real problem. If the game was challenging to play, people couldn't use broadcasting or mass manual multiboxing to do it. This is EXACTLY the same. Instead of making fleet fights less likely to occur, I'd rather see CCP improve the game so they can work in a way that excites and engages players. Honestly, I'm shocked you still seem to be incapable of either reading or comprehending these things, but repeatedly showing up attempting to troll me really doesn't work when you're that clueless. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Solecist Project The Scope Gallente Federation 29994	Posted - 2016.01.03 17:55:36 - [74] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Lucas just wants to see the game burn because CCP banned his cheat input-multiplex mining fleet. That's why he tries so hard to push every idiotic game destroying idea. If you don't believe me there is a sticky thread full of tears in the GD forum. There is really no need to ever talk to him, just ignore the troll and all will be good. Troll isn't really the right word to use. There's plenty of better words that describe him ... ... some of which I've used already, which are pretty accurate. Someone writing "Honestly, I'm shocked" helps a lot exposing his "honesty" and sincereness. People will learn, eventually ... and the rest isn't worth it anyway. Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: The game has changed little from my point of view ... yet here I am, playing again with 3 accounts...
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7040	Posted - 2016.01.03 18:35:13 - [75] - Quote Haylp! A nobody insulted me. From someone like Solecist that contributes absolutely nothing to the community, attacks on my character mean less than nothing. Ed: And stop derailing the thread. Keep it on topic. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3736	Posted - 2016.01.04 02:31:26 - [76] - Quote About the time to multi-thread eve: I am reminded of a story. A homeowner wanted some shade for his study. He decided to buy a small tree and let it grow, to provide the coverage. He got the tree and told his gardener to make sure he planted the tree that week. "This week? Does it have to be this week? I have quite a few other jobs to do. After all, it will take five years for that tree to grow large enough to properly shade the study." "Five years?" The homeowner exclaimed. "Then you better plant it today." Something taking a long time to do is not an excuse to put off starting, it's a reason to start as soon as possible. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 42794	Posted - 2016.01.04 02:42:33 - [77] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: Something taking a long time to do is not an excuse to put off starting, it's a reason to start as soon as possible. This is very true. As long as it's the right thing to do. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Arancar Australis Dead Sun Rising Enterprises 138	Posted - 2016.01.04 06:04:53 - [78] - Quote Damn it, i ran out of popcorn. Anyone know a good home delivery service?
Solecist Project The Scope Gallente Federation 30013	Posted - 2016.01.04 09:09:33 - [79] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: Something taking a long time to do is not an excuse to put off starting, it's a reason to start as soon as possible. No context, but ... Should we have children at the earliest possible age? XD Oh and look at how angry LK got. Isn't he cute, being butthurt like this? ^_^ Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: The game has changed little from my point of view ... yet here I am, playing again with 3 accounts...
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7041	Posted - 2016.01.04 09:25:50 - [80] - Quote Hate to burst your bubble but I don't get angry over video games. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Solecist Project The Scope Gallente Federation 30014	Posted - 2016.01.04 10:17:23 - [81] - Quote Which shows how disconnected from reality you really are ... ... and what you really think of all of us ... ... because we are people, not a video game. :) Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: The game has changed little from my point of view ... yet here I am, playing again with 3 accounts...
Bringer of BadNews Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 7	Posted - 2016.01.04 11:14:24 - [82] - Quote ISD Buldath wrote: Greetings Pilot! I would like to invite you to apply to www.ccpgames.com/jobs if you believe you are capable of creating a multi threaded experience For Tranquility that CCP could use to remove Tidi, since you believe it to be so easy. CCP Could really use your Expertise and assistance on such a grand task! well why apply to help CCP fight tidi if CCP keeps allocating a lot of money to complete different projects like a failed vampire none sense MMO, Dust for an outdated console and now Valkyrie, that most probably would have been history by now if CCP would not have somehow convinced Zuckerberg to bundle it up with OR. You know how depressing it would be to have talents go for for a company and they see that most of the money goes to complete different projects which leaves them without any chance to actually help the company in its main game?
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7041	Posted - 2016.01.04 15:31:04 - [83] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Which shows how disconnected from reality you really are ... ... and what you really think of all of us ... ... because we are people, not a video game. :) No, but you are random players on the internet playing a game. Anyone that gets broken up because random people on the internet don't like them needs some serious help, and probably shouldn't be playing MMOs. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.


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.