EVE Search - Lag and desync - lets fix it by ourselfs

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

Lag and desync - lets fix it by ourselfs

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Neena Valdi Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.09 15:22:00 - [61] Originally by: Levka I love EVE. I think it offers more to a gamer then any other MMO on the market. But what other game requires you to do this to even have a chance to have decent gameplay. 1. Turn off SOUND 2. Zoom all the way out to increase framerate. (I had a friend of mine ask me to show him a screenshot from EVE and i send him one from our fleet battle. He laughed cause all he saw is bunch of purple/red squares. Good thing we have all those nice textures to the ships) 3. Turn of Z-buffer (who cares if your small squares loko flatter ) It may only increase your fps (well beside the turning off z-buffer, as z-buffer is meant to be in any 3D game and you can't get a 3D without using Z-buffer or one of its modifications like W-buffer), but it is not a panacea against lag and desyncs.
S3dINSTBE The JORG Corporation FATAL Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.09 15:23:00 - [62] Originally by: Chukk Solo Well, when I thought I was having a desync issue, the GM's have assured me there is no lag, and desync does not exist. It's your mind that makes it real.... There is no spoon ---------------------------------------- Shove it
Neena Valdi Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.09 15:30:00 - [63] Originally by: Pariah Eutrophius It angers me greatly when people make whinning posts about a well known issue and then start demanding ccp fix it. THEY ARE, they are trying there best and investing lots of $$$ to try and make it happen, but things dont happen overnite. and its a no win anyway they fix 100v100 battles then there will be 200v200 battles lagging out and so on. If you dont like the lag, dont shoot our ****in poses and we wont have to blob you Correct me if im wrong, but the mass desyncs were introduced in Rev 2.0. It is obvious: CCP have screwed something up in their code while trying to implement "the need for speed"... We had a lag before. Now on top of that we also have the desyncs. Yesterday I did desync twice: one time without any hostiles around... on jump in into R-Y. The second time after the first 10 seconds of S-K battle. Actually, I cant remember a single day without desyncs when we were running 100+ men fleets. Thats post rev 2.0 of course.
Lazuran Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation	Posted - 2007.08.09 15:56:00 - [64] Originally by: Pariah Eutrophius THEY ARE, they are trying there best and investing lots of $$$ to try and make it happen, but things dont happen overnite. They've had plenty of time and it would help if they invested anywhere near the amount of $ they're throwing at their ad campaign. But I guess they don't have to, since they can lure in new players faster than the old ones are quitting, despite all the problems. "The whole of NYC is not 1.0. Some back alley in the Bronx is deep 0.0, while right outside NYPD headquarters is 1.0." -- Slaaght Bana
quellious COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.08.09 15:59:00 - [65] To the original poster: You made a wrong assumption. Some (many?) people find more fun in winning than in pressing f1 - f8 and watching a blow. - Did you noticed that a pendulum does not swing in deep space ?
Cletus Graeme Caldari Bladerunners Mordus Angels	Posted - 2007.08.09 16:14:00 - [66] Originally by: Hastrabull Yes, it would be nice. thats all. See how flawless this man's argument is ! LISTEN TO HIM!
Jennai The Silent Rage R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.08.09 16:20:00 - [67] Originally by: Lazuran What a stupid idea. Why don't you suggest that the FCs play tic tac toe in local instead of fighting ... even less lag. actually I think that, or FCs going 1v1, would be a better option in the current situation than dragging hundreds of people out for hours of boredom followed by half an hour of tremendous lag and the inevitable desyncs. it's not playable, it's not fun, and the result of the battle depends more on who got desynced worse than on any amount of tactics and maneuvering.
Gloomy Gus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.08.09 16:41:00 - [68] OK, the boy makes a good point. Goons, you heard the man, we're limiting fleet sizes from here on out to 50. If, AND ONLY IF, you turn in a Fleet Size Exception Form at least 3 days in advance, you may blob up to 80, but that's it. As Most Important Goon I've given my Word As Bond, so my honour is on the line here goons so don't screw it up. I've spoken to my diplomatic contacts in BoB and they have agreed to this, and actually assured me they would only show up in half that many ships since they only roll in tII ships so that's twice the lag anyway. I asked our Russian friends as well and they replied "Мне нравятся большие жопы , и я не могу это скрывать" which I believe means "yeah no problem buddy" if I translated that correctly. So it's a go! See you on the Fields of Honour! (only in limited numbers of course) Signed this day the Ninth of New July, Space-2007 Gloomy Gus Important Goon
Princess Jodi Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.08.09 16:42:00 - [69] Yes, Lag and expecially DeSync is destroying the game. I'd love to have those big fleet battles, but past experience tells me that this just is not currently possible. CCP - Draconian Measures time. Limit ALL systems to 50 people in system total. Then those who want to fight can get decent performance, while secondary battles will erupt as reinforcemets stack up on the systems leading there.
EvilPhog Amarr Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.09 16:47:00 - [70] Originally by: Princess Jodi CCP - Draconian Measures time. Limit ALL systems to 50 people in system total. Then those who want to fight can get decent performance, while secondary battles will erupt as reinforcemets stack up on the systems leading there. /me gets 50 accounts and takes over a -1.0 system with lots of belts.
Princess Jodi Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.08.09 17:01:00 - [71] Go for it, Evil. I know its not 'right', but you may actually be able to play in that system. And so might the people in the surrounding systems. Honestly...if the biggest need for a 'battle' is being able to take out a Large DeathStar POS, 50 people should be able to do that. Make the battle into more of a 'Front' than a mass melee. Look...all I wanna be able to do is play. Its obvious that 400 people in a single system means that about 398 of them don't get to play at all. So until CCP figures out how to have 400 people in a system, they should prevent 400 people from getting into the system in the first place.
Jennai The Silent Rage R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.08.09 17:16:00 - [72] Originally by: Princess Jodi Look...all I wanna be able to do is play. Its obvious that 400 people in a single system means that about 398 of them don't get to play at all. So until CCP figures out how to have 400 people in a system, they should prevent 400 people from getting into the system in the first place. but then you end up with "let's pile all our guys in here so the enemy can only get 5 in" and other such nonsense. a hard cap on numbers is easily abused; no cap on numbers is unplayable. the only solution is a server fix.
Nebuchadnezzar I Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.09 17:40:00 - [73] Originally by: EvilPhog 50 shuttles each start in the middle of a large POS. The aim is to bump the hostile shuttles out of the arena. We have a sniper fleet around the bubble that pop any shuttles that leave. Winner keeps the POS. Evil has my vote, better than blobfest pos warfare ccp invented, not to mention more fun!
Neena Valdi Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.09 17:49:00 - [74] Originally by: quellious To the original poster: You made a wrong assumption. Some (many?) people find more fun in winning than in pressing f1 - f8 and watching a blow. You mean those who like masochism? Winning/losing have nothing to do with present thread. Both sides have suffered and no one won. Out of 300-500 involved ships there possibly was destroyed maximum 30 in total on both sides. It was not a fight... it was a stress-test for the node and node failed to pass it. End of story.
Neena Valdi Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.09 17:54:00 - [75] Originally by: Gloomy Gus OK, the boy makes a good point. Goons, you heard the man, we're limiting fleet sizes from here on out to 50. If, AND ONLY IF, you turn in a Fleet Size Exception Form at least 3 days in advance, you may blob up to 80, but that's it. As Most Important Goon I've given my Word As Bond, so my honour is on the line here goons so don't screw it up. I've spoken to my diplomatic contacts in BoB and they have agreed to this, and actually assured me they would only show up in half that many ships since they only roll in tII ships so that's twice the lag anyway. I asked our Russian friends as well and they replied "Мне нравятся большие жопы , и я не могу это скрывать" which I believe means "yeah no problem buddy" if I translated that correctly. So it's a go! See you on the Fields of Honour! (only in limited numbers of course) Signed this day the Ninth of New July, Space-2007 Gloomy Gus Important Goon I know, I know... asking goons to limit their fleets is about same as asking goons to act mature and respectful. Oh, well...
Matrixcvd Last Serenity The Sundering	Posted - 2007.08.09 18:06:00 - [76] yeah the whole situation with De-synch is crazy, cause most people who experience it have taken over a year of game play, learning, effort, and spent so much time that the prospect of quiting right when things are almost good is not enough. If a pilot gets this game out of the box and sees the crap code not working he throws it away. And the game should have died, but it didnt start this way, wasnt this way over 2 years ago. So this steady progression of shoddy code increased traffic just when things are getting interesting has everyone peev'ed but nobody wants to dump the time they spent. The game plays like real life wiht real life problems, traffic jams etc, and so its hard to disconnect for pilots, so we wallow in misery waiting for some magical change from a beaurcratic organization to tell us what to think, do and how to do it, kinda funny actually. The only way to change this is to scrap the POS warefare, have NPC's control it and let arena battle for soverignty, like an alliance tourney, 10v10 or 20v20, or 50v50. Have a special gate where no shooting can occur until everyone is set. In its current state if you only allow one client per IP address it might work but we all no why CCP wont do this. The number of active players is bloated anyways, 1 player at a time will really change the metagaming, limit numbers of pilots, maybe not on the exact grid of battle but still allow for less, and get rid of any nerfs, like afk cloakers, etc.
Gloomy Gus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.08.09 18:13:00 - [77] Originally by: Matrixcvd The only way to change this is to scrap the POS warefare, have NPC's control it and let arena battle for soverignty, like an alliance tourney, 10v10 or 20v20, or 50v50. Have a special gate where no shooting can occur until everyone is set. This is good I like this we could call it Eve: Battlegrounds I think making Eve more like WoW would be a huge improvement.
Dahak2150 Chaos Monkeys	Posted - 2007.08.09 18:17:00 - [78] Originally by: EvilPhog 50 shuttles each start in the middle of a large POS. The aim is to bump the hostile shuttles out of the arena. We have a sniper fleet around the bubble that pop any shuttles that leave. Winner keeps the POS. Agreed. ---------------- Originally by: "Cyberus" cause its has no sence anyway your brains is simply wont accept that anyway. Ex- or current Planetsiders, join the "Auraxis Refugees" channel ingame.
Orree Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.08.09 18:21:00 - [79] I can understand the sentiment behind this sort of post. We're all very frustrated. Most of the options presented here just aren't practical for obvious reasons. You can get de-sync with 20 people in a given system. Gunship's idea about test battles on SiSi has merit...at least we might contribute to CCPs understanding of the problem. I don't know how much they already know, of course. I've been on the test server once in the years I've been playing EVE. It used to be a hassle to get on there for me, so I stopped trying. Our options are limited. The saying, "If it hurts when you do it, then stop doing it" is appropriate in this situation. Really, the only sensible options open to us are keep engaging in POS/Blob warfare and suffer the same results (until fixed) or simply stop engaging in POS/Blob warfare. Some people are willing to keep at it regardless of the cost, lack of fun...others aren't. After the first weekend in V7-MID, given the numbers involved on both sides, it was pretty clear that battle was simply going to suck. There just wasn't a lot of point in continuing. There wasn't a great deal of interest in seeing it continue from our standpoint. Now we're faced with it again, with the other side having a go. Not surprisingly, we're seeing more or less the same result. The only major difference I see is that the MM/RZR bloc were less vocal about the whole thing. We simply quietly withdrew and carried on with what was fun...roaming gangs/raids. "How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct." ---Benjamin Disraeli
Neena Valdi Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.09 18:35:00 - [80] Originally by: Gloomy Gus Originally by: Matrixcvd The only way to change this is to scrap the POS warefare, have NPC's control it and let arena battle for soverignty, like an alliance tourney, 10v10 or 20v20, or 50v50. Have a special gate where no shooting can occur until everyone is set. This is good I like this we could call it Eve: Battlegrounds I think making Eve more like WoW would be a huge improvement. FYI the so called "battlegrounds" existed long before WoW. The POS warfare is broken in so many ways. The arenas or battlegrounds is only possible solution. yes, it need to have advanced rules and maybe some additional balancing like getting rid of dampeners on not specialized ships and other similiar things, but this way it is possible to get rid of huge blobs and countless hours spent at absolutely mindless POS shooting / repping. Other then the territorial questions EVE should remain unchanged. This way we still will have roaming / recon gangs flying around and having a fun of small scale battles, while the territorial questions will be decided between strongly trained / good equiped teams on arenas. If you happen to know better solution do not hesitate to explain it...
Matrixcvd Last Serenity The Sundering	Posted - 2007.08.09 22:31:00 - [81] i still think getting rid of multiple peoples accounts, which would drop the number of pilots quite a bit would be great... it seems funny how the southern boys haven't seen all that much lag, no desynchs, and had 200+ in a couple systems, i know the lag has been bad in 66 but no 25 man jump desynch death with only 40 in local. Maybe CCP just shifts its crap around
Iasius Warp Angels Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2007.08.09 22:56:00 - [82] Edited by: Iasius on 09/08/2007 22:56:42 Well you guys have missed a trick. Most people play a single player version of eve that runs standalone on their PC. But this client shares a lot of code with the internet one.. a few people use. Sometimes it makes these players play against, like real people - cor! So thats where all the effete snobs come from. They are used to fighting NPC's that have 'honour' code that behave in the same pompous way they do. . Warp Angels - Acorns To Trees. Now Recruiting.
Asylum Seaker Quam Singulari M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.08.09 23:37:00 - [83] Originally by: Patch86 The main reason it wont work is because all pilots are not equal. in a "50 max" fight, whoever has the highest skill points (no achievement beyond "who started playing EVE first") automatically wins. You'd be able to pretty much calculate the winner just by checking character creation dates. Some alliances (BoB, for example) have a notoriously large number of high SP players, while others (like Goons) tend to be a lot "younger", but have numbers on their side. EVE's combat system makes this fine- GS and BoB can match each other by playing to their strengths. Limit the numbers, and you're limiting who can win. Psh. Maybe if its 5 mil characters vs 30 mil, but otherwise.. who cares if your enemy has 5% better tracking or 5% more shields or 5% more whatever due to level V skills. There are other variables in fights which have far greater influence on the outcome.. like how far away you land when you warp in, or what ammo you're using, or what ship you happen to be matched up against, or how appropriate your fitting is. And most of all, how experienced you are at PVP and how good your commander is. The universe is hostile, so impersonal, devour to survive, so it is, so it's always been.
Flinx Evenstar Minmatar Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions	Posted - 2007.08.09 23:55:00 - [84] Originally by: Hastrabull Guys, From S-K for example we know that its not possible to make 100vs100 fights. We all know that it makes more bad then good. no fun at all. Ok I admit, I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if I repeating the same point. It WAS possible to have 100v100 fights, in fact there was 250vs250 going on with playable lag and no desync. So your opening gambit is false. Whatever CCP did with this "need for speed" patch has screwed up large scale warfare. Bringing hundreds of battleships onto the battlefield makes complete sense if you in a large alliance. Shame the game can't handle it anymore I, erm, like kill things and stuff
TheAdj World Order The Imperial Order	Posted - 2007.08.10 01:17:00 - [85] Originally by: EvilPhog 50 shuttles each start in the middle of a large POS. The aim is to bump the hostile shuttles out of the arena. We have a sniper fleet around the bubble that pop any shuttles that leave. Winner keeps the POS. This is the most awesome ******* idea ever. ---------------- Alliance Killboard
Princess Jodi Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.08.10 16:40:00 - [86] Here's an idea to knock around a bit, and I'm sure some of you will give it some pretty hard knocks indeed. Let's make the basic assumption that Lag/Desynch is related to large numbers of ships in system, and that POS warfare mechanics and Soverignty are the reason for large numbers of ships. The Suggestion: Add an EVE-wide auto-killboard. All ship deaths generate a point increase for the Killing Alliance and a point decrease for the Losing Alliance. Soverignty is determined by the sustianed ratio of positive enemy kills, and lost by losing ships. POS do not contribute to Soverignty, except for kills made by POS guns. POS become defensive hardpoints which make it easier for you to kill enemies, and as such will still be a valuable target. POS spam goes away, fuel is only needed for Moon Mining and needed hardpoints in chokepoints. Then when someone wants to kill an alliance, they start killing its pilots. Enough deaths and the soverignty goes down, enough succesfull defenses and soverignty goes up. Battles can take place anywhere. Blobs are no longer needed. Lag gets better, PVP'rs have a reason to stay near home and campaigns will reflect the combat success rate. - PJ
Neena Valdi Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.10 16:48:00 - [87] Jodi it won't work.
wotwentwong Red Dwarf Mining Corporation	Posted - 2007.08.10 16:51:00 - [88] Originally by: EvilPhog 50 shuttles each start in the middle of a large POS. The aim is to bump the hostile shuttles out of the arena. We have a sniper fleet around the bubble that pop any shuttles that leave. Winner keeps the POS. Heh... I can see this happening and getting fraps'd... now, just to think of a song to go alongside it... "Fly Me To The Moon" perhaps? Fricking awesome idea... I DEMAND SHUTTLE BUMP FIGHTS!
dalman Finite Horizon	Posted - 2007.08.10 16:55:00 - [89] Originally by: Velios I will PMSL when the alliance tourney suffers a de-sync and it is captured on eve-tv for everyone to witness. No, you won't! Because it already happened last tournament! Last tourney was crippled with de-sync issues as well. Read in the eve-tv section... We (Red Skull) lost our match vs MC because of de-sync. We could not remote-rep/transfer. There were 20+ clients, including the ones at CCP HQ capturing it and broadcasting it, which all showed our ships next to each other - yet game told us we were out of range. I also provided pics of me webbing Sel from like 20km range (I was supposed to be outside Sel's lock range, but I was actually inside it, next to him). The IAC crew also had de-sync issues, where they were temporarely unable to remote impoc<->absolution because of it (in a match they won anyway). But on the other hand... We've been complaining about de-sync issues for over 4 years now. Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me
TrevorReznik Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.08.10 16:59:00 - [90] Bigger ships and drones are the real cause of lag. Pledge not to bring anything bigger than a t1 frig.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: 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.