EVE Search - Whats the point of fleet battles when lag prevents it from happening

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Whats the point of fleet battles when lag prevents it from happening

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
HonorHarrington DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.15 05:19:00 - [1] 500 in 5N....slowing systems for 30 jumps in all directions warp in for a battle no response..., cant target , cant see enemies , can warp out ...I mean whats the point? for 3 years big fleet battles are always like this. I would gladly trade every enhancement for the last 3 years for a playable fleet battle Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
Im Dumb	Posted - 2007.12.15 05:21:00 - [2] Edited by: Im Dumb on 15/12/2007 05:21:45 You cant fix it ever. If CCP got new alian supper computers from Mars that let 1000 people play lag free in one system we would try and cram 1500 in so we have the advantage and win the battle and we are back and squar one of lag fest.
Dred'Pirate Jesus Amarr Ministry of War	Posted - 2007.12.15 05:23:00 - [3] So trinity + fleet battles still = Lag fest? I would have thought that at least a 500 ship battle would be playable now.. What about smaller skirmishes? Gallente the New Pink« Originally by: David Hackworth ò If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly.
Shoukei Boobs Ahoy	Posted - 2007.12.15 05:24:00 - [4] goon tears are overflowing from caod into other forums here be signatures!
Dirk Magnum FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.12.15 05:25:00 - [5] 400 is manageable but 500 seems to be overloading things when you take the whole system into account. I kept the Classic mode and I had huge trouble getting a lock on anyone until there were less than 200 ships loaded on the grid.
Hannobaal Gallente Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.15 05:28:00 - [6] Edited by: Hannobaal on 15/12/2007 05:29:49 Originally by: Dred'Pirate Jesus So trinity + fleet battles still = Lag fest? I would have thought that at least a 500 ship battle would be playable now.. What about smaller skirmishes? Client stutter kind of thing is better now if you keep your graphics settings minimal and sound off, but server-side lag remains the same.
HonorHarrington DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.15 05:43:00 - [7] yeah exactly..i had my client set for the lowest settings possible...i dont really care about the ship, the point is we can't have 250 on a side fleet battles..still after 3 years. sigh Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.12.15 07:04:00 - [8] Because CCP have painted themselves into a corner, OP. Duh. They'd have to scrap sov / POS warfare mechanics altogether and start from scratch. Not gonna happen. Enjoy your blobs and your lagdeath, because so long as N+1 ships beats N ships, that's what you're getting.
Igetshotalot THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.12.15 07:22:00 - [9] but but we have marauders now!!!!111
Estephania	Posted - 2007.12.15 07:33:00 - [10] Originally by: Amarria Black Because CCP have painted themselves into a corner, OP. Duh. They'd have to scrap sov / POS warfare mechanics altogether and start from scratch. Not gonna happen. Enjoy your blobs and your lagdeath, because so long as N+1 ships beats N ships, that's what you're getting. QFT. Blob warfare is the derivative of sov and POS game mechanics. I can't see CCP changing the fundamentals of the game, so we're pretty much stuck with POSs and blobs and lots of lag.
Chavu Ganja Labs Pure.	Posted - 2007.12.15 09:37:00 - [11] This is a legitimate question that really needs to be answered as well as a practical plan put in place to allow the game to be playable at the huge alliance vs huge alliance level. Sure, you can fit 500+ people in one system, and the system can barely stay online, but once combat starts, the server just can't take it. It's ridiculous to set up a game mode in which the game is ********ly unplayable, you don't see a 500 vs 500 option in a Battlefied game, or a 20 players vs 20 players in SupCom, no they know better, no possible hardware on Earth can handle that. I know CCP above all wants their game to be as free and open-ended as possible, but don't you also want your game to be playable at the highest of levels?
Chobham	Posted - 2007.12.15 09:49:00 - [12] I think they're on the right track with titans and doomsdays. Easiest way to counter blobs without changing the entire game is to add massive aoe massive damage weapons (in a balanced way obviously). They did that with titans and are trying to fix it with bombs by reducing bomb cost. Now all that has to happen is for someone to realize that a coordinated attack run by 5-10 bombers would deal out a lot of pain on a blob.
Caia Gallente Scrutari The Cyrene Initiative	Posted - 2007.12.15 10:00:00 - [13] I was hoping bombs would be the answer to this. So far its been lackluster. Of course, one of the problems is the cost of using bombs, and the other is the logistics of using them in a viable fashion. We need system wide bombs. Or maybe things that can make stars go nova. That'll end these blobs right quick. Adapt more, whine less.
Valan The Fated Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.12.15 10:40:00 - [14] Originally by: Chobham I think they're on the right track with titans and doomsdays. Easiest way to counter blobs without changing the entire game is to add massive aoe massive damage weapons (in a balanced way obviously). They did that with titans and are trying to fix it with bombs by reducing bomb cost. Now all that has to happen is for someone to realize that a coordinated attack run by 5-10 bombers would deal out a lot of pain on a blob. Its fine introducing anti blob techniques except we have POS which needs a blob. To make it worse they introduced sovereignty and cyno jammers making the blobbing worse. If you think bombs and titan weapons remove blobbing your as deluded as CCP. /start sig I love old characters that post 'I've beeen playing the game four years' when I know their account has been sold on. /end sig
Flog It	Posted - 2007.12.15 11:22:00 - [15] what i love is you have 200 people in local all suffering the same thing and they say there logs dont show anything.
MHayes	Posted - 2007.12.15 14:51:00 - [16] Wasn't Trinity supposed to allow 1 system to be run on multiple servers rather than just multiple systems on 1 server as it is now/was? Did this happen or is it still plnned?
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2007.12.15 15:02:00 - [17] Originally by: MHayes Wasn't Trinity supposed to allow 1 system to be run on multiple servers rather than just multiple systems on 1 server as it is now/was? Did this happen or is it still plnned? It's being worked on but we won't see it until Q2 2008, I think. Quote: Whats the point of fleet battles when lag prevents it from happening? Good question! Why don't you stop having them then? ---------------- Tarminic - 29 Million SP in ~~pink~~ Forum Warfare
Tortun Nahme Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.12.15 15:05:00 - [18] more importantly, whats the point of whine threads if they only make the whiners look stupid? Originally by: Cecil Montague They should change that warning on entering low sec to: "Go read Crime and Punishment for a few days then come back."
Kyra Felann Gallente Red Eye .Inc.	Posted - 2007.12.15 15:21:00 - [19] Originally by: HonorHarrington 500 in 5N....slowing systems for 30 jumps in all directions warp in for a battle no response..., cant target , cant see enemies , can warp out ...I mean whats the point? for 3 years big fleet battles are always like this. I would gladly trade every enhancement for the last 3 years for a playable fleet battle I'm not sure if you're trying to post in the form of a poem or if you just really don't understand English grammar. It might be interesting if people posted in poems though. Here is my attempt at an Eve-related haiku: Blue Gallente ships Really don't look all that bad At least consistent
Dzajic Gallente	Posted - 2007.12.15 15:28:00 - [20] Its mostly a software problem, not a hardware insufficiency, and should not be "fixed" by changing game mechanics. First, CCP runs MS SQL on Windows machines, enough said. Now, in eve fights, we have lest say 1000 ships, each with what, 15-25 important numbers, and maybe 20 secondary parameters. Ships are in 3D, but facing and occlusion are irrelevant. Lets say there are all combined 100 numeric parameters on each ship. 1000 ships, to determine relative positions between ships and such we get O(kn^2) complexity, at least. But our n ist 1000. Drones and fighters. Im a drone user, i love them, but i understand they are a huge game design flaw. A drone has almost all the stats a player ship has. Out of 1000 ships, 900 are BSes and support, each releases 5 drones. Lets 'round up' carriers and MSes and say there are all together 100 carriers in fleet fight, 15 fighters each. Now we have 1000+9005+100*15= 7000 entities. Ok, this is a worst case scenario, unachievable in practice. But lest say nearly 4-5000 entities can spawn on grid in a huge fleet fight. It is starting to be a problem. And now we cam to worst problem EVE engine has. One system can ran only on single CPU. By assigning entire nodes to a single system or region with fleet actions, network load can be lightened and distributed, but in end it all comes down to a single CPU running a fleet fight. And thats bad. Baaaad. CCP made a huge mistake when they didn't make their code fully distributed. That can delegate many empty systems to a single node, but load of one overpopulated overactive system cant be shared over multiple CPUs. Making code distributable is difficult, and i don't think CCP will have anything to show before second half of 2008, at least. And that makes me a sad panda.
Lazuran Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation	Posted - 2007.12.15 15:49:00 - [21] I'm sure they looked at their graphs and saw no hiccups ... Yeah, alliance warfare doesn't work and it's a shame, but you'd think people would have found out by now. I gave up long ago and find enough problems with bugs in other aspects of the game... There is no solution to be expected with CCP's "efforts" (eyecandy for new players, nerfs for older players to drive them out of the game), perhaps they will just add a system or constellation limit one day. "...been designed for one purpose and one purpose only. Imagine a handful of repair drones pouring from the carebear's mouth. Now imagine they have um, nothing." -Unknown Hel redesigner (2007)
An Anarchyyt Gallente Sublime.	Posted - 2007.12.15 15:51:00 - [22] Originally by: Tortun Nahme more importantly, whats the point of whine threads if they only make the whiners look stupid? Because it is amusing to see people pretend like they know what they're talking about. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Lazuran Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation	Posted - 2007.12.15 15:55:00 - [23] Originally by: Dzajic 1000 ships, to determine relative positions between ships and such we get O(kn^2) complexity, at least. But our n ist 1000. That's an oversimplification ... You only need to compute relative positions between ships when they can affect each other (e.g. when they try to target each other or when they use AoE effects). Quote:* And now we cam to worst problem EVE engine has. One system can ran only on single CPU. By assigning entire nodes to a single system or region with fleet actions, network load can be lightened and distributed, but in end it all comes down to a single CPU running a fleet fight. And thats bad. Baaaad. CCP made a huge mistake when they didn't make their code fully distributed. That can delegate many empty systems to a single node, but load of one overpopulated overactive system cant be shared over multiple CPUs. Making code distributable is difficult, and i don't think CCP will have anything to show before second half of 2008, at least. And that makes me a sad panda. Distribution of systems over several "nodes" is far harder than to just make the code multithreaded and it's completely unnecessary since you can get boxes with 8+ CPU cores easily now (and soon 64+). Making code multithreaded is not so hard and you'd think that a company the size of CCP would have enough capable devs to do that in a reasonable time frame ... but then again it took them a year or so for Trinity. "...been designed for one purpose and one purpose only. Imagine a handful of repair drones pouring from the carebear's mouth. Now imagine they have um, nothing." -Unknown Hel redesigner (2007)
Kyar eXceed Inc.	Posted - 2007.12.15 16:39:00 - [24] Originally by: HonorHarrington 500 in 5N....slowing systems for 30 jumps in all directions warp in for a battle no response..., cant target , cant see enemies , can warp out ...I mean whats the point? for 3 years big fleet battles are always like this. I would gladly trade every enhancement for the last 3 years for a playable fleet battle Been the same when there was only 10k playing. Lag will never be sorted and eve will never be able to perform epic battles unfortunately. Made me laugh when i saw the Trinity trailer....never gonna happen.
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.12.15 16:51:00 - [25] I find it quite hilarious that a member of the alliance who brings noob ships (and even shuttles sometimes) to fights is complaining over lag We can all agree that big fleet fights should be possible, but the reality is that they aren't!! Thus, since your party keeps bringing **ty small ships in large numbers, YOU are mostly causing the problems you're complaining about yourselves! While CCP really shouldn't advertise their big-battle stuff, neither should you complain over a problem you know is there, but which you provoke anyway by assembling huge blobs! Grow a spine and fight for yourselves instead of bringing half of EVE..... Originally by:** CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2007.12.15 16:53:00 - [26] Originally by: Dzajic (stuff) You, good sir, know what you're talking about. I applaud you. ---------------- Tarminic - 29 Million SP in ~~pink~~ Forum Warfare
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.12.15 16:59:00 - [27] Edited by: Kerfira on 15/12/2007 17:02:34 Originally by: Dzajic CCP made a huge mistake when they didn't make their code fully distributed. That can delegate many empty systems to a single node, but load of one overpopulated overactive system cant be shared over multiple CPUs. Making code distributable is difficult, and i don't think CCP will have anything to show before second half of 2008, at least. I personally think you're over-optimistic Personally I think we'll only see a slow improvement as processor speed goes up, but I don't really expect any huge improvements. Say you have multiple cores operating on the same grid (has to be grid, not just solar system). They may access the same memory thus have the same data about the battle, but since we now have more than one entity accessing the same data, we'll need heavy locking of objects, thus getting a hefty overhead. There's then also the question of load distribution on those processors, because if the processors aren't equally loaded, some people could have (way) more lag than others. While I shan't say they can't do it, it is not an easy task to say the least to do something about it..... Second part is that people will blob to what the server can take, plus 50+%. No matter what improvements are made, the only thing that'll change is the size of the blobs, not the amount of lag. This is the main reason I think CCP should be looking at blob reduction instead of lag reduction.... Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.12.15 17:13:00 - [28] The point is obviously to see how many people will continually go back and try to use a 'pointless' mechanic. - DesuSigs
Lazuran Gallente Time And ISK Sink Corporation	Posted - 2007.12.15 17:14:00 - [29] Originally by: Kerfira but since we now have more than one entity accessing the same data, we'll need heavy locking of objects, thus getting a hefty overhead. There's then also the question of load distribution on those processors, because if the processors aren't equally loaded, some people could have (way) more lag than others. It's not that hard and locking would not be bad either... As for load distribution, that's very easy with so many entities doing different stuff once it's cpu-intependent. Just make 1 thread per client and a couple more for drones/NPCs etc. ... It's a 2nd term CS student level problem really. ;-P "...been designed for one purpose and one purpose only. Imagine a handful of repair drones pouring from the carebear's mouth. Now imagine they have um, nothing." -Unknown Hel redesigner (2007)
Liam Liam	Posted - 2007.12.15 17:19:00 - [30] Theres fairly easy ways to overcome the lag problem but they all require a rethink on the main game design which is basically not going to happen. The best we can hope for is some simple drastic measures to reduce lag ... One simple way which has been mentioned by a previous poster is to curtail drastically the use of drones. I'd go for drones on gallante and carriers only. The rest of the races could get damage boosts to compensate. Other simple ways is to reduce the number of guns instead of 5-8 guns. Fire 1-2 big guns on big ships. Ammar would be a good race to do this with ... One or two Big Giant Lasers on their battleships. Something similar with missiles instead of firing loads of missiles which all have to be tracked and computed fire fewer bigger more damaging missiles at a slower rate. Theres loads of things which could reduce lag lets hope they start doing some of them.

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

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