| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Drizit
Amarr
FREEDOM FIRST
Black Sun Alliance
   |
Posted - 2008.03.04 14:20:00 -
[1]
I know Eve has always maintained a rep for not sharding but the lag is getting silly now. How much longer can the servers become overloaded before we all crash and burn horribly.
I don't consider porting your char to a new server or having a choice of playing XMAN234 or whatever on the server of your choice. This would only serve to filter the existing playerbase.
What I propose is a fresh start. All players wanting to go on server 2 begin from scratch, no instant veterans and characters cannot migrate to the other server.
This will serve two purposes.
1. New players looking at 0.0 now see a big blob owned entirely by existing alliances. No open space to start their own empires and compete for areas. This leads players to remain in Empire and wonder what a home in 0.0 might be like for their corp. A new server allows them to go and set up and find out and establish a base and remain on that server.
2. New players are more likely to go to the new server where they have more of a fighting chance in 0.0 and lowsec. This reduces the load on the existing servers and everybody benefits from less lag as a result. You will still have new players joining Tranquility since some veteran players introduce friends and such to join, also players wanting the chance to do something in an established 0.0 alliance rather than starting fresh in a 0.0 POS and little more other than that.
--
|
Kaar
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 14:21:00 -
[2]
No, go away.
---
---
|
Winterblink
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 14:24:00 -
[3]
New players don't have a fighting chance in pvp in ANY game, why does EVE suddenly have to be unique?
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 14:26:00 -
[4]
i want my own shard where i have over 5000 systems to share between 100 people please
Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Skyr
ECP Rogues
The Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 14:33:00 -
[5]
No.
Why don't you read a little bit more forums and educate yourself on step CCP is planning to undertake to combat lag and improve server performance. Most notably Infiniband (spelling?).
|
Blaise Farmoon
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 14:40:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Winterblink
New players don't have a fighting chance in pvp in ANY game, why does EVE suddenly have to be unique?
Actually, EvE is unique in that a brand new player could, in effect, grief an older player. With scamming, corp stealing or merely tackling haulers.
This is a game that allows players to police itself.
__________________________________________________
The meek shall NOT inherent the earth, they will be beaten and their toys taken from them. - Blaise Farmoon |
Ieu Duin
Amarr
Star Sabre Industries
Dark Taboo
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 14:40:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Ieu Duin on 04/03/2008 14:45:37
Originally by: Drizit
This will serve two purposes.
1. New players looking at 0.0 now see a big blob owned entirely by existing alliances. No open space to start their own empires and compete for areas. This leads players to remain in Empire and wonder what a home in 0.0 might be like for their corp. A new server allows them to go and set up and find out and establish a base and remain on that server.
This is the same argument that led UO to make changes that killed the game and turned the world into an empty wasteland. Imagine traveling all day, ALL DAY, and never seeing another person, ever. This is an MMO, we should all be together, forever. There is a place for everyone.
All that being said, if CCP starts loosing money and subscribers because of the issues in the OP, they will do it if they think it will boost sales. It's all about the Benjamins baby.
Quote:
There are no fair fights in EVE. If you're in a fair fight, you planned wrong.
-- Agent Li, Caldari, Galactic Defence Consortium, BLACKHAWK FEDERATION
|
Tek'a Rain
Gallente
Collegium Mechanicae
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 14:41:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Tek''a Rain on 04/03/2008 14:41:41
Splitting playerbase and wrecking the economy?
Splitting managment resources, leaving each server to limp along?
Splitting FUNDING, becoming unable to make any meaningful upgrade to either unit?
wait, what was this supposed to help with?
point by point response:
1)a new server would be like a gold rush. any mega alliance (coughgoonscough) who could shove enough players into it would blob up and take control of vast swathes of real estate. so, no chance for "real" little people.
2)"This reduces the load on the existing servers and everybody benefits from less lag as a result"
Most, perhaps even All current lag situations come not from too many players online across the whole server, but from too many players interacting on a grid or in a solar system. These problems in scaling power are already being looked into and will be better managed by ccp soon (see infiniband and tranq as true supercomputer). splitting servers, while killing a unique aspect of CCP And managing to increase Maintenance costs, will make sure these fixes never go live.
put most simply- This isnt WoW, "separate(1)" servers fix nothing.
(1)-technically, tranq and and sing are Already running on multiple servers, all the nodes, systems, services spread across a big honkin array of equipment that works together.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 14:41:00 -
[9]
No sharding please :) Knowing that you can be a part of everything that happens in EVE is a big part of its appeal.
|
Sakura Nihil
Stimulus
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 14:44:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Kaar
No, go away.
|
Drasked
North Face Force
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 14:51:00 -
[11]
Whoever thinks sharding will solve the lag problems is mentally challenged.
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 14:55:00 -
[12]
no ... look at what happened to the first China server. Those in the know simply trampled over an other folks and took over the server. Want to have that repeat ?
Originally by: Aravel Thon
Originally by: Nith Batoxxx
Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox...............
I am so so terribly sorry...
|
Verone
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 15:00:00 -
[13]
No...
>>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW - EVE FICTION <<<
|
Fanjita
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 15:01:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Skyr
No.
Why don't you read a little bit more forums and educate yourself on step CCP is planning to undertake to combat lag and improve server performance. Most notably Infiniband (spelling?).
Shame infiniband wont help.
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 15:05:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Drasked
Whoever thinks sharding will solve the lag problems is mentally challenged.
This.
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Kreul Intentions ([email protected]) |
Verone
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 15:06:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Skyr
No.
Why don't you read a little bit more forums and educate yourself on step CCP is planning to undertake to combat lag and improve server performance. Most notably Infiniband (spelling?).
mmmmm.... skyr.... stawberry flavour is by far the most superior. 
>>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW - EVE FICTION <<<
|
knifee
Caldari
The Illuminati.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 15:17:00 -
[17]
Edited by: knifee on 04/03/2008 15:18:35
Originally by: Verone
Originally by: Skyr
No.
Why don't you read a little bit more forums and educate yourself on step CCP is planning to undertake to combat lag and improve server performance. Most notably Infiniband (spelling?).
mmmmm.... skyr.... stawberry flavour is by far the most superior.
This man speaks the truth. Though i did develop a strange love of plain Skyr with muesli.
oh yer and no to sharding. tbh if they could afford a whole other cluster, why not just spend it on making this one better.
www.eve-dev.net - making a good thing better
|
Drizit
Amarr
FREEDOM FIRST
Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 15:43:00 -
[18]
For those saying that "those in the know will trample others" are really going out on a limb to find excuses. "Those in the know" are already on Tranq and well established. You can't play effectively on both servers and attempting to keep your presence on both servers would lead to disaster. For every corp member on the alternate server, there is one less on tranq and a smaller, less effective blob.
Commander x: Holy sh*t we're being creamed. Where are the rest of our members, we need more firepower.
Loyal member y: They are on the new server using their knowledge of the game to get an advantage.
Infiband or whatever they call it has yet to be tested fully. We already know that past ideas did practically nothing to alleviate the lag. Great ideas maybe, but it's unfortunate that they did not really work. Tranq is growing faster than CCP can keep up with the lag issues.
The unsharded server was a nice idea and innovative but in practicality, the era has ended and however much we resist, Eve has to move on. CCP need revenue and that can only be generated by new users, how long will it be before everyone suffers because of this resistance to change? Yes, Eve made it's fame on being unsharded and will be forever known as the fist ever game to host so many players on a single server.
Times change and we must also or we become mired in our own stubborness and refusal to accept the inevitable.
--
|
Cosmar
Gallente
Kingfisher Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 15:57:00 -
[19]
As people have explained when this topic came up before, sharding will not provide the improvement you think it will.
People on the chinese server came in here complaining about lag of fleet warfare. And there's only 4000 of them at peak time. Now i don't know how good the Chinese cluster is, but i assume it was designed to handle as much as TQ.
It's simply not how the server works.
I do not find the server lag excesive if i move away from the main trade hubs, it's strictly a function of how many people are in local. I don't recall ever having server lag in lowsec for example (good thing too  ).
|
Wensbane
Amarr
GeoCorp.
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 15:58:00 -
[20]
Hell no... 
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 16:06:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Drasked
Whoever thinks sharding will solve any problems with EVE is completely clueless about how EVE works.
Fixed it a bit for you.
1|2|3|4|5. |
Agil TradeAlt
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 16:08:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Agil TradeAlt on 04/03/2008 16:09:04
The game is perfectly fine. Its only when you decide to enter a 700man battle that you get lag.
Usually, upto 100man battles are ok, and 100v100 can happen resonably as well on occasion. I think the solution is simple is for people to apply common sense. Yes yes, I know, CCP need to fix servers etc etc to handle 1000 man battles. But thats the thing, what I find, if you have 1 side with 100 top quality t2 fitted ships, the other side decides to bring 300, with majory being crap t1 fitted el cheapo ships to score a win without spending money.
The solution would be that if 1 side brings, say, 100 people, to bring around the same in multiple waves. So if one 100 defenders, and there is 500 attackers. Rather than put 500 in at one go, put in, say, 5 waves of 100 people each. Yes, I have stolen someone elses idea but that makes perfect sense and stops lag.
CCP cannot be blamed that people take stuff like condor to fight dreadnaughs and noobships to fight t2 fitted battleships. I mean, thats a joke and its not going to do anything other than create lag. Whats a condor going to do vs a seiged dreadnaight? Scratch it? Whats a shuttle going to do vs any ships?
Originally by: CCP kieron
ISK buying is a major contributor to the inflation in EVE's economy.
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 16:22:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Drizit
This will serve two purposes.
1. New players looking at 0.0 now see a big blob owned entirely by existing alliances. No open space to start their own empires and compete for areas. This leads players to remain in Empire and wonder what a home in 0.0 might be like for their corp. A new server allows them to go and set up and find out and establish a base and remain on that server.
So then what about one week later when people have claimed those areas and the cycle begins again?
Of course, it is completely possible for a small group of newer players to band together and start an alliance and work on getting 0.0. All alliances started somewhere.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Or'Chan
Minmatar
Blue.
Blue Federation
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 16:30:00 -
[24]
no, sharding is a bad idea. Unless maybe the new shard had no hi-sec; that would be interesting. But probably still a bad idea
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente
Noir.
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 16:33:00 -
[25]
No. GTFO.
|
Jai Centarium
Anqara Expeditions
The OSS
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 16:55:00 -
[26]
Think of all the electrons that had to be inconvenienced for this bad idea.
Honestly, OP, one of the reasons I started playing EVE, and one of the reasons I stay, is because there aren't any shards. If you do something awesome in EVE, you've done it in front of everyone. A shard just defeats the whole purpose of an unsharded, uninstanced world.
I want my disembodied head avatar back.
Jai's Guide to Research |
Niccolado Starwalker
Shadow Templars
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 17:02:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Kaar
No, go away.
This man speaks the truth!
Originally by: CCP Whisper
I got your ambulation right here... <walks off to get more wine>
|
Garreck
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 17:12:00 -
[28]
Sharding would not solve any performance issues and would likely have the opposite effect. Sharding would not solve issues of the haves and have-nots...veteran organizations would likely use their knowledge of the game to simply dominate the new shard(s) as it's not skillpoints and assets but attitude and game-knowledge that matter most in Eve. People that find ways to be successful in Tranquility would find ways to be successful in a new shard. People who can't find ways to be successful in Tranquility would be just as easily swept aside or disuaded in a new shard.
So you would create a situation where Eve loses its one-world magic that sets it apart, where each shard is gimped on performance for reasons already discussed in the thread...to set up (ultimately, and likely within just a few months) the exact same situation we already have in Tranquility.
That's a big no-go as far as I'm concerned. There's a very good reason this "idea" gets shot down quickly and vehemently every time it's brought up.
|
Sgt Blade
An Eye For An Eye
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 17:18:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Sgt Blade on 04/03/2008 17:20:11
sharding will NOT help the lag, not matter how many people are on the server be it 40,000 or 400, if 400 people wanted a 200v200 fleet fight in one system there WILL be lag. So unless you limit each shard to less then 1000 people there will be no chance to use sharding as an argument to stop lag.
second for those who want a fresh start, why would you? yes Vets on TQ will not be able to play on both but for those who do want to play on the new server and leave TQ and those who know enough about eve but are yet a VET, they will easily crush anyone on the new shard especially new players. so that is pointless. you will just get the same thing where people excell into 0.0 and take territory while the rest of the players become empire noobins
the whole point of eve is it being 1 server and no sharding. it is to be very hard and a steep learning curve, but where the new players ARE capable of taking down vets if tehy try hard enough. these are the main reason 90% of the current player base play eve for and if you take these things away, yes maybe CCP will get 10 times more subscribers but hell Eve will jsut become one of your bog standard mmo's that idle in the background
Hypnotic Pelvic Thrusting Level 5 |
Naomi Wildfire
Amarr
Stardust Heavy Industries
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 17:51:00 -
[30]
Make EVE like a Round based Strategy Game!
Player 1: Make your Move
Player 2: Make your Move
Player 3...
...
...
Player 37345: It's your turn now
Lag is gone :D
|
flaming phantom
Minmatar
Tyrell Corp
INTERDICTION
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 18:08:00 -
[31]
i think if your having problems with lag then your not being a good enough griefer to others enough to make them leave the game
|
UGWidowmaker
Caldari
Setenta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 18:14:00 -
[32]
yes... do something...
OMFG
I am the widowmaker stay tuned.
|
Berand
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 18:24:00 -
[33]
Topic should be renamed "Drizit's proposal for how to kill what makes Eve unique."
One of the biggest things that makes Eve fun is the single world. It allows for celebrities, for famous events, for events that actually matter. No one cares about some event on a WoW server, because it's just one little server that's irrelevant to all the others.
In fact I think WoW is still accepting new signups, if you want to go check that out.
|
Max Torps
Gallente
eXceed Inc.
eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 18:31:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Sakura Nihil
Edited by: Sakura Nihil on 04/03/2008 14:46:45
The thing that makes EVE great, the community's social interaction, would be lost. No longer would one group be "known as from Curse, who live and gank the local missioners", it would become "we don't know them, they play on a different server".
That thought repels me. I'm glad CCP have a vision they're working with, a more weakly willed set of devs may have given in a long time ago.
This, tbh.
The fact that you or your corp/alliance have the opportunity to grow and make a name for yourself is what makes Eve great. The thought of 20 Eve shards and deserted systems just makes me shudder.
STARFLEET COMMS - Eve blogs, groups and forums
|
Lirt
Ceratias Holboelli
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 18:39:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Lirt on 04/03/2008 18:39:23
Sharding WILL help servers cause CCP will know how much ppl servers should be able to handle. But no.
--------------------------------------------------
"Assumption is the Mother of Screw-Up"
|
Skjorta
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 18:41:00 -
[36]
Dear OP,
GTFO.
The same thing I said to the last 10 billion topics on this.
Also DIAF.
|
Zaerlorth Maelkor
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 18:50:00 -
[37]
No sharding!
There is no mmo so far that could handle 200 vs. 200 fights very well. WoW not excluded.
Infiniband and ambulation will help these issues alot. The overpopulated systems will have more than half the population loaded on a "seperate" server altogether, reducing the load significantly. Infiniband, and trash clean up will help alot on the lag too. Let's see the effect of these things before you take a step with completely unknown consequences, like sharding.
==================================================
I should really get a sig. |
Gone'Postal
Minmatar
Vengeance 8 Interceptors
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 19:01:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Zaerlorth Maelkor
No sharding!
Infiniband and ambulation will help these issues alot. The overpopulated systems will have more than half the population loaded on a "seperate" server altogether.
Isn't CCPs goal to keep Eve on a single server then going to go down the drain?
If as you state, going to be on a "Seperate server" then CCP have already taken the 1st steps into breaking there main goal. 1 Server
or have a misunderstood, (not flaming i just don't keep up with CCP's pipe dreams)
V8I
|
Ssoraszh Tzarszh
Minmatar
The Royal Engineers
Free Trade and Industries Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 20:12:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Max Torps
Originally by: Sakura Nihil
Edited by: Sakura Nihil on 04/03/2008 14:46:45
The thing that makes EVE great, the community's social interaction, would be lost. No longer would one group be "known as from Curse, who live and gank the local missioners", it would become "we don't know them, they play on a different server".
That thought repels me. I'm glad CCP have a vision they're working with, a more weakly willed set of devs may have given in a long time ago.
This, tbh.
The fact that you or your corp/alliance have the opportunity to grow and make a name for yourself is what makes Eve great. The thought of 20 Eve shards and deserted systems just makes me shudder.
Absolutely true.
Sharding Eve would destroy the comunity, and make it like any other general avarage grind.
|
Havohej
The Defias Brotherhood
ANTHRAX DEATH
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 22:13:00 -
[40]
Originally by: An Anarchyyt
So then what about one week later when people have claimed those areas and the cycle begins again?
Of course, it is completely possible for a small group of newer players to band together and start an alliance and work on getting 0.0. All alliances started somewhere.
Yeah yeah yeah, "Goons aren't even playing EVE, they're playing Something Awful" and "Goons are just all troll alts" and "hurf blurf" and all that crap aside... if you actually read goon posts, about every third or fourth one is a gem of knowledge that makes sifting through all the other Goon posts worth the while.
EVE isn't broken - at least, not THIS part of it. I don't WANT to gb2/WoW, I wanna stay in New Eden where I belong. No sharding.
|
pyr8t
Native Freshfood
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 22:40:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Naomi Wildfire
Make EVE like a Round based Strategy Game!
Player 1: Make your Move
Player 2: Make your Move
Player 3...
...
...
Player 37345: It's your turn now
Lag is gone :D
I'd argue this is the game we have now.
|
Alex Raptos
Caldari
The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 23:19:00 -
[42]
No, just no, eve is all about the single server, thats what its appeal is, plus, technically some people see every system as a "different shard" hell jita holds a tyon of people.
|
Agil TradeAlt
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 23:29:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Agil TradeAlt on 04/03/2008 23:30:02
The server should not shard.
The players should shard. Eve is perfectly fine for almsot everything. Only lag in eve is jita with its 700 local, and deep 0.0 fleet wars where 600 vs 100 force the system to collapse. Heck, even a month ago, a Titan soloed 800 in local in a 3 hour battle.
100vs 100 is stable and reasonable lag free. So why dont people do 6 waves of 100 vs the 100 defenders? Why lag out the system with 600 vs 100 in one go?
Originally by: CCP kieron
ISK buying is a major contributor to the inflation in EVE's economy.
|
Pan Crastus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 23:31:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Pan Crastus on 04/03/2008 23:32:20
/signed to the OP
Forget Infiniband and all that stuff, CCP is way too slow to fix lag, they are 2-3 years behind with server capacity / code fixes to accomodate for the number of players.
Bite the sour apple and shard it already, the new players will find a much more pleasing experience on a new server and stay longer, the veterans will find the lag-free TQ much better too (even the narrow-minded religious "unsharded" fanatics).
PS. they can always add a wormhole or so to travel between the servers if one day they manage to fix the lag...
EVE Online: a cold, cruel world where (RL-)rich people replace their losses with GTCs sold to poor students who need to farm ISK to afford their play time ...
|
Andtha Splits
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 23:31:00 -
[45]
CCP will never shard EVE. I'm sure i read as much on a fanfest conference slide (via video of course).
And that's just the way it should be. |
Vikarion
Caldari
United Heavens
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 23:46:00 -
[46]
Nope. No sharding. Sharding bad. 
I'd rather deal with lag than two servers.
--------
|
Oldin Kinrod
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 23:53:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Pan Crastus
PS. they can always add a wormhole or so to travel between the servers if one day they manage to fix the lag...
You know that's essentially what the stargates are right?
I think most people that bring this idea up are under the impression that the EVE 'server' runs on a single uber computer - which is so far wrong that everyone jumps to flame them. AFAIK it's a server cluster, where each constellation (this is where I'm not 100% sure) except Jita run on a seperate box, all networked together.
So to 'shard' EVE would mean to replicate the current cluster, of god knows how many machines, in an attempt to 'alleviate lag'. Or, as most people point out everytime this topic appears, the players for once could take the problem into their own hands and take a different approach. The main cause of lag seems to come from blobs, whether they come from fleets or mission/market hubs, and choke the server node to the point of breakdown. Myself, I've never really experienced any bad server lag - even in Jita on a Sunday - but I have noticed some client side lag due to my 300ms ping to the server.
The only real way to combat the server lag is through hardware, and more efficient network coding - which is the whole point behind the Infiniband project.
People stealing your wrecks? Players intruding your missions? |
Pan Crastus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 00:12:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Oldin Kinrod
Originally by: Pan Crastus
PS. they can always add a wormhole or so to travel between the servers if one day they manage to fix the lag...
You know that's essentially what the stargates are right?
I think most people that bring this idea up are under the impression that the EVE 'server' runs on a single uber computer - which is so far wrong that everyone jumps to flame them. AFAIK it's a server cluster, where each constellation (this is where I'm not 100% sure) except Jita run on a seperate box, all networked together.
So to 'shard' EVE would mean to replicate the current cluster, of god knows how many machines, in an attempt to 'alleviate lag'. Or, as most people point out everytime this topic appears, the players for once could take the problem into their own hands and take a different approach. The main cause of lag seems to come from blobs, whether they come from fleets or mission/market hubs, and choke the server node to the point of breakdown. Myself, I've never really experienced any bad server lag - even in Jita on a Sunday - but I have noticed some client side lag due to my 300ms ping to the server.
The only real way to combat the server lag is through hardware, and more efficient network coding - which is the whole point behind the Infiniband project.
Your idea of EVE is far too simplistic.
EVE is both "sharded" in that some parts of the solar systems are isolated from the rest of the universe and "unsharded" in that some other parts are "global" (contracts, chat, ...).
Making 2 completely isolated servers ("server" like TQ is one) with their own hardware and database has many more benefits than just adding new nodes.
If you haven't experienced any bad server lag, better keep out of the discussion, it means you haven't been around long and haven't seen much of the game.
EVE Online: a cold, cruel world where (RL-)rich people replace their losses with GTCs sold to poor students who need to farm ISK to afford their play time ...
|
Rastigan
Caldari
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 00:24:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Rastigan on 05/03/2008 00:23:58
Originally by: Drizit
no
Different servers to me = the end of Eve..
Eve is already run on multiple servers, 'sharding' would fix the lag as much as moving to a depopulated area. Click on your map click on players in space for the last 30 minutes button , and move to the black areas...
Want some 0.0 action ? Join an alliance, negotiate with one for rights to live there, or fight for it...
|
Vymorna Grom
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 00:32:00 -
[50]
Different servers means game over.
A single server is what makes EVE unique, and quite attractive.
Allow CCP to come up with a made-for-one-server solution, and please stop ******* with my subscription money.
Here's the funniest bit:
New players looking at 0.0 now see a big blob owned entirely by existing alliances. No open space to start their own empires and compete for areas.
Boo ******* hoo. You seriously need to put EVE down, this isn't the game for you, apparently.
|
Jebidus Skari
Amarr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 00:51:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Skyr
No.
Why don't you read a little bit more forums and educate yourself on step CCP is planning to undertake to combat lag and improve server performance. Most notably Infiniband (spelling?).
There are ALWAYS steps to improve lag, but its just gets worse and worse, sorry but im sick of hearing its getting sorted excuse..When its blantantly not..You cant even have a 50 v 50 fight without serious lag..Its pathetic tbh...This non sharding simply doesnt work.
|
ghosttr
Amarr
ARK-CORP
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 00:51:00 -
[52]
I dont like the fact that all 0.0 is becoming is just large powerblocs, blobs, and massive lag. And I wonder what thier next action will be, adding more space to 0.0 really doesnt do much for getting new faces in 0.0, becuase more than likely the same alliances we have now will just expand there powerblocs out there with pets and such.
Also any further expansion in made much harder by the fact that CCP forces 0.0 players into using npc-only items in order to exist. Making th fursther you go out from empire the harder it is to live, and right now the only possible expansion i see is outside of the current 0.0, making it impossible for new allainces to settle there, not only due to already established powerblocs, but due to the sheer amount of logistics that would be needed to survive 50jumps from empire would make it a pain in the ass.
I think that instead of a different shard CCP could expand 0.0 in any direction. We could have multiple intersecting platters of 0.0, that are just far enough away from each other to prevent capital movement between the 0.0 systems, but are all still connected to empire.
My Blog |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 01:12:00 -
[53]
Originally by: ghosttr
I dont like the fact that all 0.0 is becoming is just large powerblocs, blobs, and massive lag. And I wonder what thier next action will be, adding more space to 0.0 really doesnt do much for getting new faces in 0.0, becuase more than likely the same alliances we have now will just expand there powerblocs out there with pets and such.
Also any further expansion in made much harder by the fact that CCP forces 0.0 players into using npc-only items in order to exist. Making th fursther you go out from empire the harder it is to live, and right now the only possible expansion i see is outside of the current 0.0, making it impossible for new allainces to settle there, not only due to already established powerblocs, but due to the sheer amount of logistics that would be needed to survive 50jumps from empire would make it a pain in the ass.
I think that instead of a different shard CCP could expand 0.0 in any direction. We could have multiple intersecting platters of 0.0, that are just far enough away from each other to prevent capital movement between the 0.0 systems, but are all still connected to empire.
8-12 new regions of NPC sov with lots of empire connections but no/very few connections to other 0.0 regions.
Would be a lovely PvP playground with little POS warfare...
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Oldin Kinrod
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 01:17:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Your idea of EVE is far too simplistic.
Please enlighten me where my idea is "far too simplistic". I never stated that I knew exactly how the servers ran, or the loads they may experience.
Quote:
EVE is both "sharded" in that some parts of the solar systems are isolated from the rest of the universe and "unsharded" in that some other parts are "global" (contracts, chat, ...).
But that is not what the conversation was about, yes I agree that there is some information that is hidden from the user depending on his/her location, but as far as the underlying architecture of the server - it is unsharded. I can start a conversation with anyone, no matter where they are in EVE. The parts that are "sharded" as you put it are done so to add game elements - for example, if you could check every regions market, trade wouldn't be anywhere as lucrative as it is now. Or how about checking out the system your about to travel to? Sure you can get basic stats, but you cannot tell WHO is in that system without someone already there to relay the intel back to you.
Quote:
Making 2 completely isolated servers ("server" like TQ is one) with their own hardware and database has many more benefits than just adding new nodes.
List them. I know that actually sharding EVE means going further than just adding new nodes - because that isn't sharding EVE at all. But one of the main drawing points for most people, other than internet space ships, is the fact that EVE is one big universe - I know that was the reason I signed up.
Quote:
If you haven't experienced any bad server lag, better keep out of the discussion, it means you haven't been around long and haven't seen much of the game.
So just because I haven't experienced this "horrible lag" first handed (apparently we must be talking about some different type of lag that Jita experiences) I can't have my say. I have a rather in depth experience about what causes lag - I don't see why I need to have actually been involved in a blob fleet battle to know that it's most probably caused by stress on the server node's hardware and database calls. I also don't see how that could mean that I haven't seen much of the game or been around long - Judging by you forums post record I've probably been around as long as you, but I ditched my starting character a long time ago.
People stealing your wrecks? Players intruding your missions? |
Spectre80
Caldari
The Knights Templar
Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 01:25:00 -
[55]
yes
|
Pan Crastus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 01:54:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Oldin Kinrod
So just because I haven't experienced this "horrible lag" first handed (apparently we must be talking about some different type of lag that Jita experiences) I can't have my say.
You can have your say but it isn't relevant, sorry. People who say that they haven't had horrible lag in EVE do not play much or are lying.
Quote:
I don't see why I need to have actually been involved in a blob fleet battle to know that it's most probably caused by stress on the server node's hardware and database calls.
You don't need to be in blob fleet battles nowdays to experience tremendous lag, just because every major fleet battle is screwed up by lag. Read this forum more.
PS. I nearly gave up trying to post after around 20 login attempts (no exaggeration). It doesn't infuse me with confidence that CCP is capable of fixing the problems that are plagueing EVE.
EVE Online: a cold, cruel world where (RL-)rich people replace their losses with GTCs sold to poor students who need to farm ISK to afford their play time ...
|
Havohej
The Defias Brotherhood
ANTHRAX DEATH
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 02:08:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Jebidus Skari
...This non sharding simply doesnt work.
What makes you think for one second that 50 vs. 50 fleet battles on a 'new shard' TQ2 would be any different...? Sharding isn't the solution to laggy fleet engagements. If they made a new Live Shard, it would be empty at first and within a six months (IF that long) it would be the same as what we have now (blobs engaging blobs in the battle for 0.0 regions with good truesec or good moons or good npc agents, ultimately resulting in laggy fleet fights).
It would change nothing, other than to shatter the immersiveness (idk if that's a word or if I spelled it right...) that the un-sharded approach creates. Shards would just lead to a bunch of New Edens full of players kvetching about the same problems (jita is too laggy, node crashed and saved <insert alliance name>'s titan, etc., etc., etc....)
|
Zantrei Kordisin
True Centii
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 02:42:00 -
[58]
Hmm.
No.
Yours,
Zantrei K.
|
Sarakiel
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 02:53:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Naomi Wildfire
Make EVE like a Round based Strategy Game!
Player 1: Make your Move
Player 2: Make your Move
Player 3...
...
...
Player 37345: It's your turn now
Lag is gone :D
I LOL`d irl.
Seriously, get out of empire, CCP never invisioned a game that would have to handle 78% of its players in the noob training grounds.
|
Hippy Dave
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 04:14:00 -
[60]
Simply put - NO
The new EVE would have to be built first costing tons of cash in both hardware and extra employees to maintain it. For reasons already detailed it would not benefit new player much at all as it would soon become a carbon copy of Tranq, with the same trade hub lag, the same fleet battle lag etc etc
And imagine the field day the isk farmers would have on a new unpopulated server...
Also the reason new players can get cash so readily now is down to the economy which has developed slowly over the years and is for the most part kept alive by the big corps and alliances. A new eve would be ground zero, no big money for months and months...
And CCP have always said they wouldnt do it..
All of the supporters of this asshat idea use blob lag as their main argument. How in any way would a second eve server prevent 100s of people still fighting in one system and lagging the server, and the only other issue is Jita, do you not think the new EVE would soon have its own Jita with all the same issues.
And imagine the logisical nightmare for CCP of maintaining two eves.
Idea = EPIC FAIL
|
Banichi Atigieni
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 04:51:00 -
[61]
what you assume is that a shard would be less expensive and simpler than a server upgrade.
Twit.
|
Jason Travers
Space 1999
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 05:19:00 -
[62]
The arguments about splitting the server, I tend to disagree with. It will not destroy the economy. In time it will balance out, the only thing is that some of the PVPers will have to actually take on a carebear roll and mine to replace their ships and such. In time every thing will balance. I have played multiple server MMOÆs before IÆve seen server splits and combines. Yes there is a growing pain in both cases but it also allows for different cultures to form on different servers.
Now let me put on my PVPer/carebear/miner hater hat.
NO!! Eve is PVP itÆs all about me me me ME! You donÆt like it want to change it go play hello kitty or WoW. Its MY game, go away this is my cave. Your just a lazy carebear miner and they all need to be shot! And kicked out of highsecà. Wait no that is what another server would do. So no no no no NO!
|
Hippy Dave
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 05:47:00 -
[63]
The main argument against is the huge cost of creating a second EVE and the fact that it would completely FAIL to prevent blob lag
As i said before
Idea = EPIC FAIL
|
Kuolematon
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 07:43:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Kaar
No, go away.
Listen to this madman!
"The Amarr are the tanking and ganking floating rods of gold"
|
Rumours
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 07:46:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Rumours on 05/03/2008 07:48:23
Sharding will accomplish nothing towards whatever goals you think you have. I know that these forums are filled with "Goon this" and "Goon that" and "Goons are destroying the game" but do you think that sharding is going to change this sort of thing? Starting a new server will put groups like the Goons at an equal SP level as everyone else. This will just ensure that these groups that have learned how to overcome the SP gap through espionage, suicide fleets, and diplomacy to dominate the sharded servers.
That is until the last of these sharded servers are shutdown as EVE dies off. Why? Because the only thing that separated EVE from the rest of the pack is the single server.
It seems to me that the majority of people campaigning for multiple servers are unwilling/able to carve their niche into the structure of this game. They want to be in uberguild #1 on whatever crappy server they're on, which is far behind the curve of the rest of the servers but who cares because they're the big dogs in town. WoW/EQ2/whatever crappy MMORPG you want to name is filled with others like you, please join them and play a game that you'll enjoy more.
e: proofreading is gud
|
techzer0
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 07:48:00 -
[66]
Edited by: techzer0 on 05/03/2008 07:48:22
Originally by: Kaar
No, go away.
I'm going to agree and say that the simplest answer is the best answer 
Edit: Or was it first answer, best answer? bleh... you get the point
------------
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
It's great being a puppetmaster
|
Zaerlorth Maelkor
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 08:16:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Gone'Postal
Originally by: Zaerlorth Maelkor
No sharding!
Infiniband and ambulation will help these issues alot. The overpopulated systems will have more than half the population loaded on a "seperate" server altogether.
Isn't CCPs goal to keep Eve on a single server then going to go down the drain?
If as you state, going to be on a "Seperate server" then CCP have already taken the 1st steps into breaking there main goal. 1 Server
or have a misunderstood, (not flaming i just don't keep up with CCP's pipe dreams)
You have misunderstood.
Ambulation on tranq will still be on tranq, but on a different server cluster. So it will reduce the load on the space cluster. So there will be a space cluster for tranq and an ambulation cluster for tranq.
==================================================
I should really get a sig. |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 08:23:00 -
[68]
How about, "It really isn't the time to shard".
Also, spamming the forums with shard threads is bad. If you had played eve for any prolonged period of time, you know "ooooh, must shaaaaaard" moans show up every now and then. You effectively don't have anything new to say on the subject. It's been chewed and chewed already, and the majority of the playerbase and the developers have just said "no, lol, not going to happen".
So quit whining about it. You will only get flamed.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Khes
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 08:40:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Khes on 05/03/2008 08:42:54
It's really NOT the time to sharde. It is actually never time to sharde.
Beeing a single large and the same universe is actually one of the most fundamental feature of the game and changing that it would not be Eve anymore. And you beeing one who have played Eve for a long time and experienced fleet-lag and all Im surprised that you actually suggest sharding. That sounds to me that you don't appriciate the most fundamental things about Eve, hence beeing a nuuuuuuub or perhaps someone with a background from another game starring elfs.
|
Pan Crastus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 09:19:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Khes
That sounds to me that you don't appriciate the most fundamental things about Eve, hence beeing a nuuuuuuub or perhaps someone with a background from another game starring elfs.
The most fundamental thing in EVE isn't being dogmatic about the "unsharded" marketing buzz. The fundamental thing is it being a well-designed space MMO and that is being destroyed by the lag issues.
EVE was fine with a population of 5000, 10000, 20000 people (concurrently)... It is no longer fine with 40000, lag is the biggest issue in the game and there's no solution in sight (no matter what the re-occurring promises say) other than sharding. So let's go back to 20000 people playing on TQ and the expected mostly lag-free gameplay (because the code now is what it should have been when there were 20k users on at the same time).
Just read any battle report on CAOD, lag is always a huge problem nowdays. Then read the countless threads about lag in completely different settings (not only Jita, even underpopulated lowsec has lag nowdays).
I understand the fanaticism of some people who have to hold on deliberately to the notion of EVE being unique because it's "unsharded", but it's time to let go because EVE is no longer playable in its current state.
EVE Online: a cold, cruel world where (RL-)rich people replace their losses with GTCs sold to poor students who need to farm ISK to afford their play time ...
|
WhiteSavage
Dark Force Recon
Blood and Steel
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 09:20:00 -
[71]
Edited by: WhiteSavage on 05/03/2008 09:20:12
2 EVE's = Epic fail.
OP and signers are douchebiskets. If i could invent some contraption that would sling poo through the interweb i would use it on this thread first.
There are HUNDREDS of systems, highsec, lowsec, 0.0 with 3 or less people in them at ALL times. IF its getting too laggy for u MOVE MOFO.
___________________________________________
..My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fiber, and that I am therefore excused from saving Universes |
Pan Crastus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 09:29:00 -
[72]
Originally by: WhiteSavage
OP and signers are douchebiskets. If i could invent some contraption that would sling poo through the interweb i would use it on this thread first.
you would get it back double, douche.
Quote:
There are HUNDREDS of systems, highsec, lowsec, 0.0 with 3 or less people in them at ALL times. IF its getting too laggy for u MOVE MOFO.
Noob, 3 people in local do not change anything, lag has nothing to do with systems, it's node-based. You cannot avoid it by stupidly looking at the map and going to a system with low population (if you were dumb enough to do such a thing instead of playing the game like it's meant to be played, i.e. PVP = go where stuff to shoot is).
EVE Online: a cold, cruel world where (RL-)rich people replace their losses with GTCs sold to poor students who need to farm ISK to afford their play time ...
|
Cpt Branko
Surge.
Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 10:50:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 05/03/2008 10:53:42
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Noob, 3 people in local do not change anything, lag has nothing to do with systems, it's node-based. You cannot avoid it by stupidly looking at the map and going to a system with low population (if you were dumb enough to do such a thing instead of playing the game like it's meant to be played, i.e. PVP = go where stuff to shoot is).
Er, I don't have any lag in low-sec. At all - and many times, you've got 10-20 people in local and there is no lag to speak of.
I don't know what's the last time you've been to low-sec, but I get little lag if any (and I happen to spend all my time in low-sec), and given there's only one EvE, I'd say either your connection is crap, your computer is crap, or you haven't been to low-sec much recently.
Furthermore, a lot of the lag IS node-based, as you said it. Now, if a node is running five to ten not very populated systems on it.... well. It doesn't have anything to do with systems how?
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Just read any battle report on CAOD, lag is always a huge problem nowdays. Then read the countless threads about lag in completely different settings (not only Jita, even underpopulated lowsec has lag nowdays).
Lag in fleet battles is only expected. Guess what happens if a new shard happens and it becomes popular enough?
Lag in fleet battles as soon as there are 100+v100+ fights! OMG!
Lag in unerpopulated low-sec is a lie. Lag in overpopulated high-sec is noticeable, but eh - systems where there's 200 people running missions cannot be possibly lag-free, whatever you do about it.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 11:10:00 -
[74]
Sharding means less hardware available for TQ, or requires additional hardware - that could be used to improve TQ.
It is also the case that in a single shard model, new hardware benefits all players, whereas in a sharded model, new hardware benefits only a fraction of the players.
The only reason to shard is to have a different ruleset. Shards won't do a damb thing to help fleet battle lag, because that's a node capacity issue, unless you make so many shards that each has only a few dozen players on it.
In short sharding does not solve lag unless CCP are going to pay for dozens of shards and somehow persuade us to use them equitably. That problem requires more powerful nodes and coding improvements. (Improving the node hardware will be mode more expensive by sharding, btw) Another way to improve lag would be to tinker with game mechanics and POS rules to discourage blobbing, but so far no-one has come up with a credible way to make 50 ships better than 250 ships.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Pan Crastus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 11:56:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Malcanis
Sharding means less hardware available for TQ, or requires additional hardware - that could be used to improve TQ.
More hardware will only improve TQ if the code scales with it. It doesn't seem to.
Quote:
It is also the case that in a single shard model, new hardware benefits all players, whereas in a sharded model, new hardware benefits only a fraction of the players.
More shards = fewer players per shard. Since EVE does not scale well, reducing the players per shard gives a disproportionate performance improvement, whereas adding hardware to the same shard gives a less than proportional improvement.
Quote:
The only reason to shard is to have a different ruleset.
That is just another reason, also balance between new and existing players.
Quote:
Shards won't do a damb thing to help fleet battle lag, because that's a node capacity issue, unless you make so many shards that each has only a few dozen players on it.
Even with several shards a node will crash with 1000 players in a solar system, yes. But this is a rare occurrence compared to normal lag which is also due to globally shared data etc. Also, with half as many players per shard, it's not expected to have trade / mission hubs with the same number of players as now.
Quote:
(Improving the node hardware will be mode more expensive by sharding, btw)
Buying hardware is something that can be done quickly at a cost that can be easily calculated and managed. Fixing the software to support 40k+ concurrent players is a huge effort and CCP doesn't seem to be able to do it.
Which of the 2 is the sane and realistic choice (and 2nd best solution to doing both...)? Hardware is cheap nowdays (yes, really).
EVE Online: a cold, cruel world where (RL-)rich people replace their losses with GTCs sold to poor students who need to farm ISK to afford their play time ...
|
Oldin Kinrod
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 12:32:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Pan Crastus
stuff
Everything you have said still won't fix the problem though, as it's still just delaying the inevitable - lag will occur due to hardware limitations. Also as Hippy Dave pointed out, to replicate what TQ is now would require tremendous amounts of cash for the hardware and labour. "but it will be able to handle it" you say, but for how long? CCP are trying to push the boundries of what a single server MMO can do, and it wouldn't help that cause by spending extra resources in running multiple shards.
The main problem is due to bandwith limitations of current network systems, and there isn't a big demand for having that much real time data transfer happening to such a broad international audience, well maybe multi-international corperations.
And as others have stated as well as myself, the only complaints about lag seem to be from the large scale battles, where the node are being put under stress.
And getting back to your previous responses - I'm still waiting for you to show me how my say isn't relevant. Just because I haven't experienced your problems first hand isn't a reason. You were complaining about how you had to log in 20 times just to post? I've experienced thta once before clearing my cache and haven't had it since. Are you 100% sure that this lag you speak of isn't coming from your end, compounded with some server side lag?
Give me some examples of "laggy systems" and at what time you think it's the worst - and I'll check it out for myself. But to say that sharding will magically fix the problem, that is just crazy talk. There will always be a limit of how much work can be processed by a node, and the players will always push that limit.
People stealing your wrecks? Players intruding your missions? |
Roy Batty68
Caldari
Immortal Dead
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 12:53:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Pan Crastus
EVE was fine with a population of 5000, 10000, 20000 people (concurrently)... It is no longer fine with 40000, lag is the biggest issue in the game and there's no solution in sight (no matter what the re-occurring promises say) other than sharding. So let's go back to 20000 people playing on TQ and the expected mostly lag-free gameplay (because the code now is what it should have been when there were 20k users on at the same time).
Your arguement would hold weight if lag was felt proportionally across all of Eve. Since we do not experience anything like that, your conclusion of "less players means less lag" is illogical.
Therefore the original thought of, "split the playerbase to reduce lag" does not make sense either.
Furthermore, there is no "going back to 20k people on TQ" since the code has changed quite a bit since then as well. Reducing the playerbase to what it was 3 years ago may be nothing like it was then. You're assuming it would be, but you must realize that that is all assumption.
Something potentially interesting along that line of thought though is the fact that we do indeed "go back to 20k people" on a daily basis. It would be very interesting to have statistics about the incidence of lag versus time of day.
However, I would bet quite alot of isk that a laggy fleet fight at prime time would be just as laggy if it happened at 12GMT. Prove me wrong and you have made your point. Otherwise you're just arguing on (most likely) bad assumptions.
Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 13:02:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Pan Crastus
EVE was fine with a population of 5000, 10000, 20000 people (concurrently)... It is no longer fine with 40000
I find it very amusing that you critisize others for not having played long enough or having enough experience with lag, then you come out with a gem like this.
I remember a time with just 10k people on the server, and the half-dozen systems forming the old highway basically became no-go zones every weekend because of lag, and would frequently bring down the whole server when the nodes gave up and died.
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Just read any battle report on CAOD, lag is always a huge problem nowdays
Why stop at nowadays? Go back further. You'll find similar threads right back as far as you care to go. Large fleet battles have always lagged, all that's changed is the definition of large.
It didn't kill the game then, and it's not going to kill it now.
Originally by: Pan Crastus
So let's go back to 20000 people playing on TQ and the expected mostly lag-free gameplay (because the code now is what it should have been when there were 20k users on at the same time).
Having 20k people on TQ will make absolutely zero difference to the lag a fleet battle of a given size will experience. Fleet battles are limited to the performance of a single node. It would not matter if that fleet battle was the only thing on the server, it would still lag just as much.
That's a fundamental property of the clustering system used by TQ currently. Sharding will do nothing to change that. In order to make any difference there, you need to move towards true HPC architecture to allow node-spanning and dymanic reallocation.
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Then read the countless threads about lag in completely different settings (not only Jita, even underpopulated lowsec has lag nowdays).
Jita lags for the same reason that fleet battles lag - the load in a single solarsystem exceeds the capacity of a single node, and solarsystems cannot be spanned across nodes. Jita does have one advantage over fleet battles, in that the location of the load is always known, so it can be reinforced with a dedicated node.
Unpopulated lowsec lags because it shares a node with 0.0 systems that host fleet battles. There are over 5000 solarsytems, but only about 120 nodes running them, so on average your solarsystem is sharing a node with 41 other solarsystems. If a fleet battle occurs in any one of those 41 other systems, the node will lag, and the other 41 systems will also lag.
Players have no way of telling which other systems are on the same node with them. Systems are spread out according to expected load, not in-game geography. Which means that the lag looks completely random to the players, when really it's not random at all.
Again, sharding won't change these fundamental limitations. Moving towards HPC means that they will be able to dynamically move systems between nodes (currently they can only do it during a downtime, or by deliberately crashing a node). Not only will that help fleet battles by ensuring they have an entire node of capacity to play with, it'll help the lag in random unpopulated systems as well, because they can "dodge" the fleet battle and go to a less loaded node.
-------
There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 13:04:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Pan Crastus
But this is a rare occurrence compared to normal lag which is also due to globally shared data etc.
Globally shared data would only cause lag if the DB layer was the limiting factor. While in the past this has been the case, the nerfing of insta-bookmarks and the continued expansion of RAMSAN capacity has meant that the DB has not been the limiting factor for a long time.
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Also, with half as many players per shard, it's not expected to have trade / mission hubs with the same number of players as now.
With half as many players, the economy also won't be large enough to support a lot of the developments we've seen in that area in the last year or so. Sure, a sharded server would look like eve, but it wouldn't be eve anymore.
-------
There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Turzyx
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 13:17:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Turzyx on 05/03/2008 13:21:43
Sharding won't work because the same things will just happen in the new one. When people have a huge fleet battle in some random 0.0 system, it doesn't lag me out in my empire quest hub, does it?
The way I understand it, the servers are arranged into small clusters that maintain a region or other such group of systems, which is why only a handful are affected when big gatherings of people are there.
Your suggestion is only a pseudo-solution to the real problem, which is that individual clusters cannot handle loads of people there, so if anything, more server resource and/or more processing power is what is needed to sustain those amounts of people, not reducing the amount of people that can play on a server.
And hell, even if the Tranq population was 1k again, if they all went to Jita and started mass-spamming the market and flying about, it would just be as laggy, so your suggestion fails massively.
Quote:
I remember a time with just 10k people on the server, and the half-dozen systems forming the old highway basically became no-go zones every weekend because of lag, and would frequently bring down the whole server when the nodes gave up and died.
Gosh I remember when 'fleet' battles with pilots numbering less than 50 caused lag. People will push the limits regardless if the maximum supported fleet size was 2k entities.
|
Rodj Blake
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 13:29:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Pan Crastus
The most fundamental thing in EVE isn't being dogmatic about the "unsharded" marketing buzz. The fundamental thing is it being a well-designed space MMO and that is being destroyed by the lag issues.
EVE was fine with a population of 5000, 10000, 20000 people (concurrently)... It is no longer fine with 40000, lag is the biggest issue in the game and there's no solution in sight (no matter what the re-occurring promises say) other than sharding. So let's go back to 20000 people playing on TQ and the expected mostly lag-free gameplay (because the code now is what it should have been when there were 20k users on at the same time).
Just read any battle report on CAOD, lag is always a huge problem nowdays. Then read the countless threads about lag in completely different settings (not only Jita, even underpopulated lowsec has lag nowdays).
I understand the fanaticism of some people who have to hold on deliberately to the notion of EVE being unique because it's "unsharded", but it's time to let go because EVE is no longer playable in its current state.
Lag is no more of a problem now that it was when the record was 5,000 concurrent users.
Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
|
Poreuomai
Minmatar
Naval Protection Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 13:44:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Poreuomai on 05/03/2008 13:51:11
Originally by: Drizit
New players looking at 0.0 now see a big blob owned entirely by existing alliances. No open space to start their own empires and compete for areas. This leads players to remain in Empire and wonder what a home in 0.0 might be like for their corp.
No.
I've only been playing for a few months; I look at 0.0 and see a fascinating picture of existing coalitions of alliances competing for limited resources.
Instead of wanting to remain in empire, I want to become part of that (already existing) world.
EVE is great because there is no sharding. If I meet someone in real life who plays EVE, I can also meet that person in-game.
|
PaddyPaddy Nihildarnik
Gallente
MASS
Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 15:07:00 -
[83]
******************************************
LOOK AT MEH GUYS- IM KING O' MY ENTIRE SERVER LOLZ!!11....
guys...
guys...
where is everyone.
******************************************
If thats your wish for the future of eve than please continue with supporting any sharding of the eve server
As stated numourous times- lag is only really generated in either large fleet battles or trade hubs- Neither of which are going to go away from multiple shards, until you are flying around your 5000 systems with all of 30 guys, everyone grinding missions
No thanks.
Peace WithinSo if the theory of relativity is true, shouldn't i arrive at my destination before i warped in the first place?
Neon GhostYou do, but this is compensated for by lag |
Great Artista
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 15:19:00 -
[84]
If you shard, me and my 7 alts WILL ALL CANCEL ACCOUNTS AND QUIT!!!1 
_______
◕◡◕
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 15:42:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Blah Blah
For all your elitism you just show that you have absolutely no clue about how the server works.
Sharding the server would not solve anything at all. Just ruin one aspect that makes EVE unique.
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Kreul Intentions ([email protected]) |
hUssmann
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 17:48:00 -
[86]
No.
The server advanced along with the growing population, a huge up to date server (Read: POS, Capital ships, skill intensive features) with characters not fit to survive in the stone age (Read: New characters) doesn't work. EVE China failed at it, why the hell would you want to bring it to TQ?
Ginger Magician > You are merely an effective ganker of haulers who runs at the first sign of combat. |
Pan Crastus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 19:20:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Pan Crastus
EVE was fine with a population of 5000, 10000, 20000 people (concurrently)... It is no longer fine with 40000
I find it very amusing that you critisize others for not having played long enough or having enough experience with lag, then you come out with a gem like this.
I remember a time with just 10k people on the server, and the half-dozen systems forming the old highway basically became no-go zones every weekend because of lag, and would frequently bring down the whole server when the nodes gave up and died.
You misunderstood me. I wrote elsewhere that CCP is 2-3 years behind with performance and of course I know the lag from 2006 etc. (my main was in the famous battle of XZH where D2 lost 8 dreads to GS ;-P). I meant that EVE was fine regarding the population density and its effects on the game in general. Some people are arguing here that sharding EVE so that 20k people are playing on 1 server concurrently will break the game because population will be too low / markets broken, well, in 2006 there were no problems with these population levels gameplay-wise (but yes, lag-wise there were).
Quote:
Why stop at nowadays? Go back further. You'll find similar threads right back as far as you care to go. Large fleet battles have always lagged, all that's changed is the definition of large.
Because nowdays lag affects nearly everyone and not only fleet battles.
Quote:
Jita lags for the same reason that fleet battles lag - the load in a single solarsystem exceeds the capacity of a single node, and solarsystems cannot be spanned across nodes. Jita does have one advantage over fleet battles, in that the location of the load is always known, so it can be reinforced with a dedicated node.
So how many people do you think would be in Jita if EVE had 2 shards with half the current population on each? q.e.d.
Quote:
Unpopulated lowsec lags because it shares a node with 0.0 systems that host fleet battles. There are over 5000 solarsytems, but only about 120 nodes running them, so on average your solarsystem is sharing a node with 41 other solarsystems. If a fleet battle occurs in any one of those 41 other systems, the node will lag, and the other 41 systems will also lag.
Players have no way of telling which other systems are on the same node with them. Systems are spread out according to expected load, not in-game geography. Which means that the lag looks completely random to the players, when really it's not random at all.
Almost correct. Therefore lag affects everyone and there is no way to avoid it by moving to a low-population system or area.
Quote:
Again, sharding won't change these fundamental limitations.
It will help because EVE doesn't scale well. 1000 people on 2 nodes do not work as well as 500 on 1.
Quote:
Moving towards HPC means that they will be able to dynamically move systems between nodes (currently they can only do it during a downtime, or by deliberately crashing a node). Not only will that help fleet battles by ensuring they have an entire node of capacity to play with, it'll help the lag in random unpopulated systems as well, because they can "dodge" the fleet battle and go to a less loaded node.
They can do that, but the problem is that they're not. It's not something that will come any time soon and lag requires a solution now (or rather, 2 years ago). Sharding is possible now, as is purchasing new hardware.
EVE Online: a cold, cruel world where (RL-)rich people replace their losses with GTCs sold to poor students who need to farm ISK to afford their play time ...
|
Banichi Atigieni
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 19:50:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Pan Crastus
So how many people do you think would be in Jita if EVE had 2 shards with half the current population on each? q.e.d.
when Jita could only handle 300 people before it got as bad as it is now, there were only 300 people there. now that it can handle 800, 800 people go there. there will always be a load on Jita, and other Cluster****s. even if you divide the population in two, Jita will remain a Cluster****. large fleet battles? Cluster****. even if there are only half the people on a shard, the same hotspots will be there with the same Cluster**** of people. the lag keeps people out of jita, and if the lag lessens more people will go.
|
Turin Deathstalker
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 20:24:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Turin Deathstalker on 05/03/2008 20:25:00
As a fairly new player I'm obviously all for a fresh start with the possibility of establishing some 0.0 presence without all the people who have benifited from previous bugs, exploits, T2 lotteries, dev incidents etc etc having such an isk (ala power) advantage that it's pretty much impossible to establish anything without paying massive rent, bowing to the local lord and being at his beck and call to defend his assets.
Also, given the cumalative effects of moon mining income causing an even more polarised situation I'd say it's pretty much impossible now no matter how many man hours is devoted for any new corp to establish any lasting presence without the aforementioned kowtowing (or backing and thus being the "pet" of an established power, with no chance of ever challenging it).
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for politics, risk v reward, scheming, having to fight for what you want and having to put in the effort to earn it etc. It's not so much an SP issue, but an isk issue, as to fight successfully money is often as important as numbers (T2 BPO's help), which the established powers have in abundance and as we all know, money makes money making the situation exponentially worse. Corps / alliances rise and fall, but I'd bet that often it is the the same old rich characters / alts who are running the show.
Would only like to see sharding though after POS rubbish was resolved, and some checks and balances put on moon mining incomes for corporations. The most obvious solution would be far less 0.0 chokepoints meaning that an alliance could only hold as many systems as their numbers allowed. This would lead to a much more balanced isk / power ratio between the large and small alliances rather than a monopoly of large amounts of moon mining income by holding the chokepoints and backfilling.
|
Dirtee Girl
Omega Enterprises
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 20:26:00 -
[90]
hey look ! no
*
* |
Kweel Nakashyn
Minmatar
Aeden
Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 20:50:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Kaar
No, go away.
2isk
|
Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.03.05 21:04:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Pan Crastus
You misunderstood me. I wrote elsewhere that CCP is 2-3 years behind with performance and of course I know the lag from 2006 etc. (my main was in the famous battle of XZH where D2 lost 8 dreads to GS ;-P). I meant that EVE was fine regarding the population density and its effects on the game in general. Some people are arguing here that sharding EVE so that 20k people are playing on 1 server concurrently will break the game because population will be too low / markets broken, well, in 2006 there were no problems with these population levels gameplay-wise (but yes, lag-wise there were).
In 2006 the game was also significantly different to how it is today. Yes, it would still work as a game, but it wouldn't be the same game we're playing today. Splitting back into two would effectively set the eve community back 2 years in development terms
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Because nowdays lag affects nearly everyone and not only fleet battles.
I play 3+ hours a day, at peak times, flying all over the place, and have not experienced any lag. Heck, I even just passed through Jita without any noticeable difficulties.
Originally by: Pan Crastus
So how many people do you think would be in Jita if EVE had 2 shards with half the current population on each? q.e.d.
As many as the node would sustain. This should be clear from the history of the major trade hubs (Yulai and the highway in general in the olden days, more recently Jita and the missioning hubs) - the number of people in them has scaled with the ability of the node to support them, not with the number of players.
There's more than enough players avoiding Jita currently who would flood back to it if the lag cleared up.
Originally by: Pan Crastus
It will help because EVE doesn't scale well. 1000 people on 2 nodes do not work as well as 500 on 1.
Only because with 1000 on 2 nodes, the 1000 can all try and cram onto one of the 2 nodes and crash it. As long as the population remains spread out, the two cases are entirely equal in performance terms. But that's true as soon as you go above one node in any situation. To avoid your "not scaling well" you'd have to shard into at least 80 servers to ensure that no server contained more than 500 players, and thus could not cripple a single node by crowding up.
In actual fact, having more nodes in a single server is beneficial overall, because a fleet battle takes out a smaller proportion of the total universe. It also gives more flexibility when load balancing volatile load systems vs stable load systems.
Originally by: Pan Crastus
They can do that, but the problem is that they're not. It's not something that will come any time soon and lag requires a solution now (or rather, 2 years ago). Sharding is possible now, as is purchasing new hardware.
Yes, they are doing that. No, it's not an instant process. But neither is sharding.
To purchase, test and commission a second TQ would involve months of lead time. You can't just pop down to PC World and buy a rig like TQ. Not to mention the game design time that would be required to ensure that a new shard would bootstrap properly under the current TQ rules (which bear only a passing likeness to the rules that were in place when TQ bootstrapped the first time). The China server experienced a taste of the problems that would be faced here.
-------
There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
thecunning mrfox
Minmatar
Idle Miners
|
Posted - 2008.03.06 10:08:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
Originally by: Kaar
No, go away.
This man speaks the truth!
this man knows a man who speaks the truth!
|
Alberic Nydorm
FarCry Inc
|
Posted - 2008.03.06 10:33:00 -
[94]
Originally by: thecunning mrfox
Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
Originally by: Kaar
No, go away.
This man speaks the truth!
this man knows a man who speaks the truth!
This man knows a man who knows a man who speaks the truth!
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |