EVE Search - True Tactical View, No Graphics Mode

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

True Tactical View, No Graphics Mode

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Roue Privateers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.08 04:56:00 - [1] Just an idea I had while chatting with someone. Why not a tactical view that allowed you to basically bypass graphics. Only lil squares like you see for the different sized ships, and icons to represent other items. Would that at all improve the performance of fleet battles. An option to use in those situations? I'm not sure I know all the lag bottle necks nor presume to. Just tossing out ideas. Technically you could fight by overview alone just about. Oh and I'm still hoping for my #1 change to eve idea. Warp Pursuit Module. Easy to fit on any ship, targetted ship when it actually warps, sends the location (ie bm) to your ship and warps you there. Adds calvary to the fight and gives field ownership the advantage rather then gank and runs. Forcing a balanced fleet composition to hold position or face being pursued and engaged at poor position. Imagine several blasterthrons to dissuade the snipers from just running off. Imagine bait and switch into waiting reinforcements. And of course if you have a POS you have a serious advantage. and best of all, wouldn't affect gate-gate travel. Just had to sneak that in there. Yeah yeah I know, I'm a privateer. My ideas are soley proposed because I eat babies, don't file taxes and leave the toilet seat up. Evil. This is my opinion not that of privateer corp, alliance, its member corps, affiliates, minions, pet animals, ex girlfriends, former roommates, 3rd grade gym teachers, late relatives, ontime relatives,
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar	Posted - 2007.03.08 05:09:00 - [2] You left out going through the 10 items or less isle with 11 items and paying in pennies Mods shrank my YARRR button
Reggie Stoneloader eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.03.08 05:25:00 - [3] I like simplified graphics. You've got my support on that much of it. Warp pursuit needs a lot of thought and attention to keep it from being too effective. I like the idea of it matching destination and sending you there, so if you're in a fast-warping ship, like an interceptor, you get there ahead of them. At the same time, I think it should follow through and warp you even if they cancel, so the target can use a feint warp to send all your tacklers to one of his POSes and their doom, or warp his pursuers to a nearby planet, then warp himself to a distant gate. Could be cool.
Frezik Celtic Anarchy Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.03.08 05:26:00 - [4] Quote: Why not a tactical view that allowed you to basically bypass graphics. Only lil squares like you see for the different sized ships, and icons to represent other items. Would that at all improve the performance of fleet battles. No, the problems of fleet battles is almost all server-side lag. A tactical view would only help the client.
Lord XSiV Amarr The Nine Gates	Posted - 2007.03.08 05:30:00 - [5] Well not really. Super large fleet battles have problems because the nodes can't sustain the amount of calculations being sent to each and every client involved. It must be a pretty intensive process and possibly it could be optimized, but without having internal knowledge, it is hard to say. Distributing the calculation part isn't a good idea as that will lead to a whole new world of exploits. This is the problem with security, the cost (in this case computational power) often creates a low threshold which is far lower than the cleint's user expectations. Cutting down to a stripped or even a text only client would only benefit those with old clunker machines. Those people need to die first in battle anyhow. It will give them the motivation to do what it takes in order to upgrade their machine. Yes, I don't even have any sympathy for that group of players.
Taedrin Gallente Mercatoris Technologies	Posted - 2007.03.08 05:43:00 - [6] This has been asked for before - thread actually got quite long I think. But it's probably never going to happen...
Porthos Cudlar Federation Scrap Dealers	Posted - 2007.03.08 06:09:00 - [7] I'd love the option to have a light weight graphic mode. I'd settle for having the zoom stay at the level I had set it to when crossing gates and when undocking. The game graphics are excellent but to be honest I normally zoom out as soon as I undock and would be surprised if most people don't.
Alannis Gallente Fusion Enterprises Ltd The Fifth Race	Posted - 2007.03.08 08:21:00 - [8] Edited by: Alannis on 08/03/2007 08:18:06 I have a bug where "space" freezes zoomed out a fair distance. The overview, chat windows and UI still work fine, i just cant click in space at all, or see what the heck is happening. Its happened to me a few times even after re-installs/re-formats, so now i just live with it and play from the overview when it happens. Is a pain having to keep switching stations etc on and off in the overview, but not as bad as a reformat to fix it. Sooo... I think already have this, maybe I am CCP's crash test dummy and they forgot to let me know
Herculite Hunters Agency Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.03.08 08:23:00 - [9] Originally by: Lord XSiV Well not really. Super large fleet battles have problems because the nodes can't sustain the amount of calculations being sent to each and every client involved. It must be a pretty intensive process and possibly it could be optimized, but without having internal knowledge, it is hard to say. Distributing the calculation part isn't a good idea as that will lead to a whole new world of exploits. This is the problem with security, the cost (in this case computational power) often creates a low threshold which is far lower than the cleint's user expectations. Cutting down to a stripped or even a text only client would only benefit those with old clunker machines. Those people need to die first in battle anyhow. It will give them the motivation to do what it takes in order to upgrade their machine. Yes, I don't even have any sympathy for that group of players. Lord for the folks at home, tell them what your new system specs are going to be.
Lord XSiV Amarr The Nine Gates	Posted - 2007.03.08 08:35:00 - [10] Originally by: Herculite Originally by: Lord XSiV Well not really. Super large fleet battles have problems because the nodes can't sustain the amount of calculations being sent to each and every client involved. It must be a pretty intensive process and possibly it could be optimized, but without having internal knowledge, it is hard to say. Distributing the calculation part isn't a good idea as that will lead to a whole new world of exploits. This is the problem with security, the cost (in this case computational power) often creates a low threshold which is far lower than the cleint's user expectations. Cutting down to a stripped or even a text only client would only benefit those with old clunker machines. Those people need to die first in battle anyhow. It will give them the motivation to do what it takes in order to upgrade their machine. Yes, I don't even have any sympathy for that group of players. Lord for the folks at home, tell them what your new system specs are going to be. Ok: qx6700 8gb ram 2x8800gtx evga 680i mb 4 Dell 3007s or the hp equiv depending on which gives me a better discount. Sad thing is, I will have to replace it at xmas once the 8 core procs are out. And I am still holding out hope that AMD quads come through and put AMD back on top again. My current opty system I still love but it is almost time to put it out in the lab. Did find a use for the lcds though - 4 monitors for 4 bathrooms :)

Crydawner	Posted - 2007.03.08 09:37:00 - [11] Edited by: Crydawner on 08/03/2007 09:34:07 Originally by: Lord XSiV Originally by: Herculite Originally by: Lord XSiV Well not really. Super large fleet battles have problems because the nodes can't sustain the amount of calculations being sent to each and every client involved. It must be a pretty intensive process and possibly it could be optimized, but without having internal knowledge, it is hard to say. Distributing the calculation part isn't a good idea as that will lead to a whole new world of exploits. This is the problem with security, the cost (in this case computational power) often creates a low threshold which is far lower than the cleint's user expectations. Cutting down to a stripped or even a text only client would only benefit those with old clunker machines. Those people need to die first in battle anyhow. It will give them the motivation to do what it takes in order to upgrade their machine. Yes, I don't even have any sympathy for that group of players. Lord for the folks at home, tell them what your new system specs are going to be. Ok: qx6700 8gb ram 2x8800gtx evga 680i mb 4 Dell 3007s or the hp equiv depending on which gives me a better discount. Sad thing is, I will have to replace it at xmas once the 8 core procs are out. And I am still holding out hope that AMD quads come through and put AMD back on top again. My current opty system I still love but it is almost time to put it out in the lab. Did find a use for the lcds though - 4 monitors for 4 bathrooms :) my willy is like a babies arm.
Jarjar Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency	Posted - 2007.03.08 09:47:00 - [12] Originally by: Crydawner my willy is like a babies arm. Lord XSiV, did you think for a second before posting? If so, dear god... "In Communist China ISK buys YOU!!" - random bio
Stitcher Caldari J.I.T. Enterprises Freelancer Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.08 09:55:00 - [13] Originally by: Roue Just an idea I had while chatting with someone. Why not a tactical view that allowed you to basically bypass graphics. Only lil squares like you see for the different sized ships, and icons to represent other items. Would that at all improve the performance of fleet battles. An option to use in those situations? I'm not sure I know all the lag bottle necks nor presume to. Just tossing out ideas. Technically you could fight by overview alone just about. I'd find it bloody difficult to align for emergency warp-out without being able to go double-click somewhere... Besides, your idea would do nothing to fix server latency, as telling the client not to render the ships and effects would still do nothing to reduce the amount of information coming in via your internet connection. What it would instead do is reduce the amount of stuff your graphics card has. A lot of people confuse real-time rendering with server lag. The two are very different things. BTW, try zooming all the way out, looking down from above, and turning your tactical overlay on. ***
Aphotic Raven Gallente E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.03.08 10:16:00 - [14] Edited by: Aphotic Raven on 08/03/2007 10:13:14 Originally by: Lord XSiV Originally by: Herculite Originally by: Lord XSiV Well not really. Super large fleet battles have problems because the nodes can't sustain the amount of calculations being sent to each and every client involved. It must be a pretty intensive process and possibly it could be optimized, but without having internal knowledge, it is hard to say. Distributing the calculation part isn't a good idea as that will lead to a whole new world of exploits. This is the problem with security, the cost (in this case computational power) often creates a low threshold which is far lower than the cleint's user expectations. Cutting down to a stripped or even a text only client would only benefit those with old clunker machines. Those people need to die first in battle anyhow. It will give them the motivation to do what it takes in order to upgrade their machine. Yes, I don't even have any sympathy for that group of players. Lord for the folks at home, tell them what your new system specs are going to be. Ok: qx6700 8gb ram 2x8800gtx evga 680i mb 4 Dell 3007s or the hp equiv depending on which gives me a better discount. Sad thing is, I will have to replace it at xmas once the 8 core procs are out. And I am still holding out hope that AMD quads come through and put AMD back on top again. My current opty system I still love but it is almost time to put it out in the lab. Did find a use for the lcds though - 4 monitors for 4 bathrooms :) No.. the sad thing is that you would waste all that money.. The other sad thing is that it still wont meet the minimum requirements for vista The sadest thing of all is that some people are actually switching to vista... Originally by: Dr Cupid Let me tell you all that I'm really enjoying eve-beta, and can't wait for the real game to come out!
Cardassius Seraphin Technologies S.E.R.A	Posted - 2007.03.08 10:19:00 - [15] Originally by: Lord XSiV Well not really. Super large fleet battles have problems because the nodes can't sustain the amount of calculations being sent to each and every client involved. It must be a pretty intensive process and possibly it could be optimized, but without having internal knowledge, it is hard to say. Distributing the calculation part isn't a good idea as that will lead to a whole new world of exploits. This is the problem with security, the cost (in this case computational power) often creates a low threshold which is far lower than the cleint's user expectations. Cutting down to a stripped or even a text only client would only benefit those with old clunker machines. Those people need to die first in battle anyhow. It will give them the motivation to do what it takes in order to upgrade their machine. Yes, I don't even have any sympathy for that group of players. Try loading 200 enemy ships instantly with your pc..doesn't work right? It is cause they need disk access (slowest part of your pc). I'd rather have modules that don't go online than not seeing my ship blow up because my client is still loading the enemies.
Crydawner	Posted - 2007.03.08 10:24:00 - [16] Originally by: Cardassius Originally by: Lord XSiV Well not really. Super large fleet battles have problems because the nodes can't sustain the amount of calculations being sent to each and every client involved. It must be a pretty intensive process and possibly it could be optimized, but without having internal knowledge, it is hard to say. Distributing the calculation part isn't a good idea as that will lead to a whole new world of exploits. This is the problem with security, the cost (in this case computational power) often creates a low threshold which is far lower than the cleint's user expectations. Cutting down to a stripped or even a text only client would only benefit those with old clunker machines. Those people need to die first in battle anyhow. It will give them the motivation to do what it takes in order to upgrade their machine. Yes, I don't even have any sympathy for that group of players. Try loading 200 enemy ships instantly with your pc..doesn't work right? It is cause they need disk access (slowest part of your pc). I'd rather have modules that don't go online than not seeing my ship blow up because my client is still loading the enemies. but xsiv runs eve off dual 4Gig ramdisks in raid0!
Berkey	Posted - 2007.03.08 10:31:00 - [17] Edited by: Berkey on 08/03/2007 10:28:03 I have an aging computer and I know when my CPU is too tied up rendering graphics in order to feed the server important data I get skipped over and my modules don't turn on. If I could run Eve in a bare bones / tactical view it would free up my CPU to send the server precious data and maybe my guns would turn on in a slightly more timely manner than they do right now. I would be all for it. The new graphics actually using a graphics card will help tremendously so I guess I can wait for that too.
Avernus Gallente Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.03.08 10:40:00 - [18] Originally by: Jarjar Originally by: Crydawner my willy is like a babies arm. Lord XSiV, did you think for a second before posting? If so, dear god... Could practically run the test server on that sucker. I honestly don't want to know what a setup like that costs... ok I do... but it would make me cry. Blog
Lord XSiV Amarr The Nine Gates	Posted - 2007.03.08 11:20:00 - [19] Originally by: Avernus Originally by: Jarjar Originally by: Crydawner my willy is like a babies arm. Lord XSiV, did you think for a second before posting? If so, dear god... Could practically run the test server on that sucker. I honestly don't want to know what a setup like that costs... ok I do... but it would make me cry. Multiple answers... First, baby chipmunks come to mind, so it is somewhat believable. Sorry, couldn't resist. Second, no I don't wait a second. It just streams out in free flow. I don't get to be ebil in real life, so I express it here. I doubt it could run the test server. The main database size alone would probably crunch it. As for cost, it isn't all that much. I have IPD status with Intel so the proc is cheap. Evga likes me. Ram is the big black hole right now as I am having trouble tracking down 2gb sticks. Monitors are around 1300 each after rebates but the hp contact is trying to swing getting me the new pricing that is coming out(btw, the hp ones I actually like the look of better than the dells). In total with the monitors, about 8k which can fluctuate a good 10% either way. On the other note, no I don't use ram disks. I set up my cache on a fibre channel array once before, but having the extra box sitting there on the desk was too muhc of a nuisance. As for the comment about it being a waste of RAM and not being able to use it, you sir should stop making comments about stuff you have absolutely no clue about whatsoever. I am not even going to give the reasoning as you obvious have a complete lack of comprehension skills. My current system has 4gbs of RAM and I use it up on a constant basis. 8gbs won't be a problem.
Liliane Woodhead	Posted - 2007.03.08 11:28:00 - [20] Signed ! I love block graphix

DarkMatter Amarr Mineral Aquisition Group	Posted - 2007.03.08 11:35:00 - [21] Edited by: DarkMatter on 08/03/2007 11:31:45 Years ago, we were asking for a wireframe mode... Most of the lag problems nowadays is because the servers suck (how the code was written, one node per solar system, etc), so wireframe would not help the servers at all... Building the homestead
Fubear Vogon Heavy Industries	Posted - 2007.03.08 13:33:00 - [22] It is not the server or lag that locks my client up for 70% of a fleet battle. A tactical mode which turns off ship models+effects wouldn't stop server side lag, but there is currently massive amounts of client side lag in battles, and anything that alleviates that is a good thing. However, this is CCP we are dealing with. Since this is a change that addresses one of the many problems the game has and would probably be well received by the community, it will be completely ignored in favor of new ships and modules that break the game further.
Hiro Kazamatsuri	Posted - 2007.03.08 13:44:00 - [23] Originally by: Lord XSiV blah... blah... Chibbra's evil twin ?
Winterblink Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.03.08 13:54:00 - [24] If I recall correctly the question was posed before, and the general response from developery type people was that to do so would take too much away from EVE, as an experience. The intent is to play EVE with as full of a visual and audio experience as possible, and as it stands now folks already turning off effects and audio to keep things running smooth in big fleety type operations, and I'm sure that's no the intended way to experience EVE. I know I for one will be turning everything back on (probably to my own demise) once I finally get around to upgrading my quaint nod to the turn of the millennium which I laughingly refer to as "my PC". warp drive active \| nature vraie
Lord XSiV Amarr The Nine Gates	Posted - 2007.03.08 14:02:00 - [25] Originally by: Hiro Kazamatsuri Originally by: Lord XSiV blah... blah... Chibbra's evil twin ? I have ebil Swede in my family tree.
hydraSlav Synergy Evolved Serenity Fallen	Posted - 2007.03.08 14:33:00 - [26] Am i the only one thinking: BattleZone? == Above comments are my personal views Oveur >Local shouldn't be a tactical tool, it's for chat
Shiraz Merlot Octavian Vanguard RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.08 16:42:00 - [27] How about a commandline?
Fubear Vogon Heavy Industries	Posted - 2007.03.08 17:08:00 - [28] Originally by: Winterblink If I recall correctly the question was posed before, and the general response from developery type people was that to do so would take too much away from EVE, as an experience. The intent is to play EVE with as full of a visual and audio experience as possible, and as it stands now folks already turning off effects and audio to keep things running smooth in big fleety type operations, and I'm sure that's no the intended way to experience EVE. I would have no problem with playing Eve with all video and audio effects on full if it actually worked. Right now, I fail to understand how having less than 5 FPS interspersed with 5-10 second client lockups after every few seconds of gameplay can be considered 'fun'. When I started to play over a year ago, the first thing I was told was to turn off Turrets, Effects and Sound because they just lagged your machine down. Since then, what have CCP done to improve on the performance of the sound engine or the effects to prevent people from wanting to turn them off?


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

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