EVE Search - Sorry but it seems that we need instanced battle fields (WOW ahoi!)

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Sorry but it seems that we need instanced battle fields (WOW ahoi!)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Asestorian Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:45:00 - [61] If you reduce the gang size people will just make more gangs. If you add a stacking penalty for each ship shooting another, it doesn't discourage blobbing, it encourages good tactics. Also, I'm sorry I like the idea behind EVE and don't want to compromise it because of a technical problem. I guess that makes me narrow minded on the issue, but I don't care. --- ---
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:46:00 - [62] Originally by: Asestorian If you reduce the gang size people will just make more gangs. If you add a stacking penalty for each ship shooting another, it doesn't discourage blobbing, it encourages good tactics. Also, I'm sorry I like the idea behind EVE and don't want to compromise it because of a technical problem. I guess that makes me narrow minded on the issue, but I don't care. so you rather keep it this way but unplayable. i dont get you rly:)
Verone Veto Corp	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:47:00 - [63] Originally by: d026 i mean if i want to take down (or destroy) this outpost, why should i fields 50 people instead of 500? and that my friend, is the ultimate question. >>> THE BEAUTY OF NEW EDEN <<<
Krugerrand 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:54:00 - [64] And how will instancing fleet pvp resolve the issue of taking space? "Alliance A contests [system name], do you wish to jump to fleet fight system?" Alliance B - No System stays in same hand?
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:54:00 - [65] Originally by: Verone Originally by: d026 i mean if i want to take down (or destroy) this outpost, why should i fields 50 people instead of 500? and that my friend, is the ultimate question. see there we are again, either reinforce nodes or kill the blobb. both would mean extrem changes to game mechanics and probably destroy eve as you love it today.. anyway its just not possible to keep eve as open ended as it is. ccp has to implement a limit on whats possible. the servers showed us for the past weeks that they are just not capable of handling what the players are doing in this open end sandbox. so there is need for change and imho soon (not in 2 years i wont be playing then for sure:)or 0.0 will become completely static and dull and the question is to if this wouldn't **** of more people than a convenient dedicated server where you can outsource your fighting for a short period of time..
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:56:00 - [66] Edited by: d026 on 29/07/2007 14:57:33 Originally by: Krugerrand And how will instancing fleet pvp resolve the issue of taking space? "Alliance A contests [system name], do you wish to jump to fleet fight system?" Alliance B - No System stays in same hand? well dunno mate, some sort of penalty for not accepting the pewpew? automatic lose? not lose the system but selfdestruct all ships?:)
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:58:00 - [67] Originally by: d026 Originally by: Verone Originally by: d026 Uninformed dribble Awesome Stuff Verone, you have just given me hope for EVE's player base and humanity as well. Thankyou. Originally by: d026 Im not sure how the nodes calculate whatever. But on a dedicated server there wont be any asteroids/rats/travelers to calculate. So its whole capacity could be dedicated to the actual fight. Also i would like like to point again to the Jita node which can support 700 people without causing to much lagg/desync/trouble:) First of all, calculations for NPCs, asteroids, etcetera are very, very small compared to a fleet battle. I doubt that removing those would have any noticeable effect on fleet combat. Second of all, very few of the 700 people in Jita are shooting at each other, so that isn't a viable solution. Market lag is based primarily in DB access/update speeds, not server speed. Third of all, fleet lag increases on a polynomial basis. Do you know what this means? It means that 10 people involved in a fleet battle use X amount of processing power, but 20 people use 4X processing power. So instead of 100 people using ten times as much proccessing power as 10 people, it ends up being closer to 1000X. Currently, assuming that the server breaks at 700 people, doubling the hardware would only mean that it would break at around 950 people, not 1400. And no matter what the hardware of the server can handle, people will just blob harder until it breaks. ------------ ULTIMATE LAG SOLUTION \| Forum Whiners - Unite!
Sniper Kalahari Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:00:00 - [68] I posted this over on features and ideas a month or so ago, and I think it's got legs. Mainly on the sam track as the OP.http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=555280&page=1#3 ************************************************** The public instancing solution. 1.) Fleet commander warps to location where "big" fleet fight is going to happen and hits the "create instance" button in the eve client. Now we would have to think about how this could be possibly exploited but the mechanic needs to be something either user initiated or possibly automatic maybe. 2.) The server then transfers a copy of the grid where the user hit the button onto a seperate server (a big one ). The grid would include all objects and ships, users etc into this new instance. (I could think of ways this could be abused but ho hum). So this would include a POS if thats where its at or warp gates etc etc. These would all be functional. In addition these seperate instancing servers could be a seperate farm which are only for these instances i.e. big fleet battles. 3.) The dungeon shows up on the local map as a warpable object. On warping to this object any ships/users enter the dungeon automatically. In addition anything warping/moving into this grid enters the dungeon. The important bit here is that ANYONE can enter the dungeon, its still open to any joe noob who cares to enter the grid. Its instanced but not private. 4.) Battle commences! The upside is that you get your major hardware horsepower in your fleet battle and these can easily be sectioned off for performance from other instances. Secondly the users who dont want to take part in your little party dont have to suffer the performance degredation of a huge amount of users in a single node. 5.) The teardown of the instance could be handled in either of two ways, again potential exploits need to be looked at... 1. The user who created the instance gets the option to tear it down... this is probably not a good plan. 2. The grid gets torn down after next DT or possibly after 30mins of inactivity (no ships in grid) within the grid in use. The teardown would involve copying back the new contents of the grid back to the node and destroying the instance. Note, that I dont know the architecture of EVE and it could be that the data for everything including its state is persisted at the database layer - which would make it even easier. Classic case of scaling out being easier than finding performance in existing code.... So long as your architecture supports it
Krugerrand 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:00:00 - [69] Well, is there a timelimit on it? If contestation happens when you have no fleet formed to fight, you lose your ships anyway? Will the contesting fleet have to chuck people out of the gang and only be able to match the numbers the defenders bring in order to achieve this? To me, its a step away from consensual pvp and other Eve fundamentals, not to mention there is no guarantee lag will be removed from these instances if there are still 300+ on, its still a lot of people.
Miki Fin Gallente Independant Union of Rangers	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:00:00 - [70] Originally by: Krugerrand And how will instancing fleet pvp resolve the issue of taking space? "Alliance A contests [system name], do you wish to jump to fleet fight system?" Alliance B - No System stays in same hand? Or, "Alliance A contests [system name], do you wish to jump to fleet fight system?" Alliance B = Yes Allaince B moves to fleet fight system and promptly cloaks forcing Alliance A to retreat or wait for days.
Veiko Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:00:00 - [71] To OP, Not signed. To Verone /signed completely Changing game isnt a solution. And we still have Rev3 which brings whole load of rewritting etc.
Nuyan Zahedi Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:01:00 - [72] Eve is already instanced. Yes, it is. It actually has around 5000+ instances. Although, just depends on how you use the word "instance" of course. ;)
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:01:00 - [73] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: d026 Originally by: Verone Originally by: d026 Uninformed dribble Awesome Stuff Verone, you have just given me hope for EVE's player base and humanity as well. Thankyou. Originally by: d026 Im not sure how the nodes calculate whatever. But on a dedicated server there wont be any asteroids/rats/travelers to calculate. So its whole capacity could be dedicated to the actual fight. Also i would like like to point again to the Jita node which can support 700 people without causing to much lagg/desync/trouble:) First of all, calculations for NPCs, asteroids, etcetera are very, very small compared to a fleet battle. I doubt that removing those would have any noticeable effect on fleet combat. Second of all, very few of the 700 people in Jita are shooting at each other, so that isn't a viable solution. Market lag is based primarily in DB access/update speeds, not server speed. Third of all, fleet lag increases on a polynomial basis. Do you know what this means? It means that 10 people involved in a fleet battle use X amount of processing power, but 20 people use 4X processing power. So instead of 100 people using ten times as much proccessing power as 10 people, it ends up being closer to 1000X. Currently, assuming that the server breaks at 700 people, doubling the hardware would only mean that it would break at around 950 people, not 1400. And no matter what the hardware of the server can handle, people will just blob harder until it breaks. not rly.. just add a limit on how many people could join the instance.. each 50/100/200 max. whatever teh server can handle. actually not much of a problem imho.
Verone Veto Corp	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:02:00 - [74] Originally by: d026 Originally by: Verone Originally by: d026 i mean if i want to take down (or destroy) this outpost, why should i fields 50 people instead of 500? and that my friend, is the ultimate question. see there we are again, either reinforce nodes or kill the blobb. both would mean extrem changes to game mechanics and probably destroy eve as you love it today.. anyway its just not possible to keep eve as open ended as it is. ccp has to implement a limit on whats possible. the servers showed us for the past weeks that they are just not capable of handling what the players are doing in this open end sandbox. so there is need for change and imho soon (not in 2 years i wont be playing then for sure:)or 0.0 will become completely static and dull and the question is to if this wouldn't ** of more people than a convenient dedicated server where you can outsource your fighting for a short period of time.. I'm all for killing the blob. Instancing is never the answer. >>> THE BEAUTY OF NEW EDEN <<<**
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:05:00 - [75] Originally by: d026 not rly.. just add a limit on how many people could join the instance.. each 50/100/200 max. whatever teh server can handle. actually not much of a problem imho. Then it becomes a contest of whoever can get their guys in fastest, which will just lead to massive stalemates because if side A has 60% 0f the maximum capacity, side B with 40% isn't going to engage since they're outnumbered. ------------ ULTIMATE LAG SOLUTION \| Forum Whiners - Unite!
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:08:00 - [76] Quote: To me, its a step away from consensual pvp and other Eve fundamentals, not to mention there is no guarantee lag will be removed from these instances if there are still 300+ on, its still a lot of people. same here mate.. but i really rather play anything else right now than constantly getting lagged out the game after hours of dedication to a op. so the trade off is reduced flexibility for maximized stability..
Krugerrand 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:13:00 - [77] Well I don't think Instancing is the answer to that problem, since I don't think it will remove the lag when you bring a large gang. Limiting gang size to 50 or so, won't work either. It limits it to 2 alliances fighting, screws over 3rd parties and may as well be a different game. Its not the kind of game I want.
Liten Lisa	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:16:00 - [78] Originally by: d026 Quote: To me, its a step away from consensual pvp and other Eve fundamentals, not to mention there is no guarantee lag will be removed from these instances if there are still 300+ on, its still a lot of people. same here mate.. but i really rather play anything else right now than constantly getting lagged out the game after hours of dedication to a op. so the trade off is reduced flexibility for maximized stability.. Can I have your stuff??
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:17:00 - [79] as an outbreak and your hit fast and hard run solo gankage tactics you are probably not that much affected by blobb issues anyway. so i can understand that you dont feel my pain:) (sorry if im completely wrong:)
Krugerrand 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:17:00 - [80] Edited by: Krugerrand on 29/07/2007 15:18:15 Originally by: d026 as an outbreak and your hit fast and hard run solo gankage tactics you are probably not that much affected by blobb issues anyway. so i can understand that you dont feel my pain:) (sorry if im completely wrong:) Yes, we never do fleet fights... edit: I lost several ships to lag and desyncs, I don't like it but I will still wouldn't want the game fundamentals to change.
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:17:00 - [81] Originally by: Liten Lisa Originally by: d026 Quote: To me, its a step away from consensual pvp and other Eve fundamentals, not to mention there is no guarantee lag will be removed from these instances if there are still 300+ on, its still a lot of people. same here mate.. but i really rather play anything else right now than constantly getting lagged out the game after hours of dedication to a op. so the trade off is reduced flexibility for maximized stability.. Can I have your stuff?? can i shoot your pod?
Sniper Kalahari Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:19:00 - [82] Originally by: Verone I'm all for killing the blob. Instancing is never the answer. Eve is already instanced. Each system is an instance. The issue you have with it, is the notion of making them PRIVATE. What I would say is that instancing is cool, so long as they are PUBLIC and open to anyone.
Liten Lisa	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:19:00 - [83] Originally by: d026 Originally by: Liten Lisa Originally by: d026 Quote: To me, its a step away from consensual pvp and other Eve fundamentals, not to mention there is no guarantee lag will be removed from these instances if there are still 300+ on, its still a lot of people. same here mate.. but i really rather play anything else right now than constantly getting lagged out the game after hours of dedication to a op. so the trade off is reduced flexibility for maximized stability.. Can I have your stuff?? can i shoot your pod? You could.. but we're not in the same instance
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:21:00 - [84] Originally by: Sniper Kalahari Originally by: Verone I'm all for killing the blob. Instancing is never the answer. Eve is already instanced. Each system is an instance. The issue you have with it, is the notion of making them PRIVATE. What I would say is that instancing is cool, so long as they are PUBLIC and open to anyone. ok lets make them PUBLIC but then we have the problem again that the server cant handle it:) make them public with a 400 man limit then we got the problem that the quicker outnumbers the slower.. make them public with a limit for each side 3rd party cant join..
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:22:00 - [85] Originally by: Liten Lisa Originally by: d026 Originally by: Liten Lisa Originally by: d026 Quote: To me, its a step away from consensual pvp and other Eve fundamentals, not to mention there is no guarantee lag will be removed from these instances if there are still 300+ on, its still a lot of people. same here mate.. but i really rather play anything else right now than constantly getting lagged out the game after hours of dedication to a op. so the trade off is reduced flexibility for maximized stability.. Can I have your stuff?? can i shoot your pod? You could.. but we're not in the same instance i dont have to i come to jita..
Krugerrand 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:22:00 - [86] which is why the idea doesn't work. You can't make it private.
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:26:00 - [87] Originally by: Weavil Zun Originally by: d026 Originally by: Liten Lisa Originally by: d026 Originally by: Liten Lisa Originally by: d026 Quote: To me, its a step away from consensual pvp and other Eve fundamentals, not to mention there is no guarantee lag will be removed from these instances if there are still 300+ on, its still a lot of people. same here mate.. but i really rather play anything else right now than constantly getting lagged out the game after hours of dedication to a op. so the trade off is reduced flexibility for maximized stability.. Can I have your stuff?? can i shoot your pod? You could.. but we're not in the same instance i dont have to i come to jita.. You really are quite dense. Peace out. can i have your stuff first?
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:27:00 - [88] Originally by: Sniper Kalahari Originally by: d026 Originally by: Sniper Kalahari Originally by: Verone I'm all for killing the blob. Instancing is never the answer. Eve is already instanced. Each system is an instance. The issue you have with it, is the notion of making them PRIVATE. What I would say is that instancing is cool, so long as they are PUBLIC and open to anyone. ok lets make them PUBLIC but then we have the problem again that the server cant handle it:) make them public with a 400 man limit then we got the problem that the quicker outnumbers the slower.. make them public with a limit for each side 3rd party cant join.. Well OK, your always gonna reach a point where the numbers will nuke the server, but if there was a bunch of jita size servers whose only purpose in life was to host these public instance fleet fights it would be plenty better than it is now. thats is quite my point:)
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.07.29 15:58:00 - [89] Originally by: d026 Originally by: Sniper Kalahari Well OK, your always gonna reach a point where the numbers will nuke the server, but if there was a bunch of jita size servers whose only purpose in life was to host these public instance fleet fights it would be plenty better than it is now. thats is quite my point:) And while that would be nice, it won't happen because it would require two separate servers (one for the "instance" and one for the system) to constantly share all their player memory for purposes such at local chat. This would put a large enough strain on the network infrastructure that you would likely lose any gains made by dedicating a single server to a battle. To the absolute best of my knowledge (and I've researched this a bit actually), there is really no effective way to split load processing of a single system or battle across multiple nodes. ------------ ULTIMATE LAG SOLUTION \| Forum Whiners - Unite!
Sniper Kalahari Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.07.29 16:27:00 - [90] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: d026 thats is quite my point:)[/quote And while that would be nice, it won't happen because it would require two separate servers (one for the "instance" and one for the system) to constantly share all their player memory for purposes such at local chat. This would put a large enough strain on the network infrastructure that you would likely lose any gains made by dedicating a single server to a battle. To the absolute best of my knowledge (and I've researched this a bit actually), there is really no effective way to split load processing of a single system or battle across multiple nodes. I dont see another way tbh...The fact is that the current system has a single process running a system. This IS the bottleneck. Doesnt mean we cant beef the databases or network, but your single point of failure is having a 1:1 between a solar system and the process which runs it. Worse is that CCP chose to host multiple solar systems on a single physical machine. This is obviously done for financial reasons, as for the majority of time these systems are empty in deep 0.0 and other places. I can tell you something, changing this architecture will be expensive and time consuming. This leads to the effect we are seeing where the smallest atomic unit of code (the solar system) is hitting a wall in performance because it cannot scale up any further (jita) or because they cannot predict where the load is going to be (0.0 fleet battles). The other way to look at this is how a bunch of people on the forum do, which is looking for potential performance increases in areas of the architecture i.e refactoring for performance. This will never give you the same level of benefits a change in architecture would, and will always be costly. To answer your questions specifically... @d026 - A major lift in performance for not much cost (relatively) is always always worth it. @tarminic - I guess we both dont know, but I believe its fairly unlikely that the network (the one which connects the servers together) is the bottleneck. Doubtful. I would also think that the traffic between servers could be minimised. What exactly would they have to talk about? chat channels? big deal.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: 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.