| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
   |
Posted - 2008.04.29 14:12:00 -
[1]
Regarding the "lag issue" -> it is an issue granted, but I personally don't think its something that is EVER going to get solved in isolation through implementation of new uber servers or endless need-for-speed refinements and efficiency-enhancing back end alterations.
Reality of the situation is that lag = a failure in game objectives and territorial conflict mechanics at the moment that have made it too attractive (and easy) to out-blob one's opponents utilizing Sovereignty tools and Starbase equipment. And this is only made worse by the current territorial conquest engine that allows the defenders to specify their period of highest numbers and activity when they want the critical fights to play out. Leads to dog-piling on an epic scale = lag.
Lots of people look back to the "golden age" of Eve when there was no lag(tm) and large fleet battles happened between adversaries and huge fun and entertainment was had by all.
Partially this is just nostalgia - partially its the fact that numbers were fewer then, partially its the fact that fights were not "alarm clock ops" and could be triggered at other times than at the defender's choosing and were by consequence far more likely to be uncertain and less numerically-charged affairs all round.
Solution to "lag" - is stop forcing the player base to fight single pitched battles at single points in space at predetermined times.
Spread out the objectives, make defenders "guess" more. Keep the battlefield fluid and distributed and actively balance the game to encourage all sides to split their huge "uber blobs" into smaller task forces pursuing multiple simultaneous objectives at remote locations.
Its a pretty damning indictment of the current 0.0 territorial status quo a lot of this could be achieved by simply rolling the clock back to 2004/05 grade capturable stations and attendant "ping pong" because at least there you had the ability to spread out an attack force and engage multiple points of enemy vulnerability and encourage the defender to split up their forces if they wanted to stop all the ongoing "flips" on that particular night.
Now I know. Yes yes, "all current territorials hate station ping-pong" because it means you need an actual 24/7 presence in space to stop the bad-guys taking the mickey out of your defenses - but really, was it so much against the vision and essence of eve when the defender did have "weak times" and "vulnerable periods" where particular timezones were a problem for them?
I mean, if I'm flying with Star Fraction's US/Pacific wing and we're peaking at a half dozen battleships because its our "weak tz" does that mean that when we get bounced by 20 enemy guys from Hawaii our ships should "go into reinforced mode" and the foes are going to have to come back in EURO primetime to finish the fight?
Funny example I grant you, but its pretty much the principle of current 0.0 territorial warfare and its the reason why the critical fights in POS domination always turn into immensely lag-filled nonsensical 15min module lag travesties rather than playing out as decent fleet battles.
Just when did we all accept the principle that the defender ALWAYS gets to fight in his or her strong TZ anyway?
---
So the point here regarding "lag" is that I just don't believe its meaningful to name "lag reduction" as a CSM campaign pledge without actually getting your teeth into the core issue of gameplay balance and focus that necessitates lag-inducing numbers-fests as the only method of territorial conquest resolution available to players.
Deal with the actual cause of "lag" by all means. Come up with proposals to reduce reliance and promotion of the uber-blob in starship combat. 50 vs 50 works fine in Eve pretty much. Lets have gameplay systems that split a horrible 250v250 grind slideshow fight into 5 different enjoyable mini-battles at remote points in the contested territory and then you're on the right track in my opinion.
CSM Election Manifesto 2008 |
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.29 14:41:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: LaVista Vista
But i think Jade is missing that it's a product of scale AND the network effect.
Yeah but this is the point. CCP have continually made the code and network better and more efficient throughout the history of eve. Whats changed is not that they've suddenly dropped the ball and CCP DevX has accidentally coded "[[if fighters launch = make more lag]]" in the patch code.
As they've improved the lag situation player base has gotten bigger, single objectives have encouraged dog-piling and more and more ships cram into the same grid/system/node and make the situation seem worse.
Think of it like a family house. Perfectly fine when its a man and wife, they have loads of space and a beautiful living environment. They then have a couple of children, then a couple more. Slowly the house gets crowed. The father converts the antic, puts some more beds in the spare room and it all gets crowded. (he's trying hard to stay abreast of the situation.) Children grow up get boyfriends and girlfriends and want to move in! More house conversions, they turn the shed into another bedroom and partition the living room into another bedsit and all the time its getting more and more crowded! Eventually something's got to give and they have to tell their offspring to go and get a place to live of their own because ultimately thats the only proper resolution.
Eve terms -> few years ago a 50 vs 50 fleet battle was massive! It pushed the server. It was epic and impressive and made everyone's jaw dropped. But as the server has improved fights get bigger and bigger and the server cannot keep up with the maximum blobbing potential of the largest alliances. If infiniband and code optimizations allow 500v500 battles to work smoothly then the Alliances will bring 1000v1000 and complain about lag.
Ultimately you've just got to split up objectives and bite the bullet about disincentivizing mindless fleet dog-pile.
CSM Election Manifesto 2008 |
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.29 16:29:00 -
[3]
Alternatively fix jita lag the same way station office hoarding was fixed. Look at introducing a system whereby it becomes more expensive to post sell and buy orders in popular stations. The more sell and buy orders in a particular station the higher the penalty tariff on orders. Eventually the free market system will balance itself out and it'll become less profitable to trade from jita when other alternative hubs have lower penalty tariffs. Lazy buyers/sellers can pay a premium if they choose, enterprising traders and salesmen can establish other smaller hubs. Eventually Jita trade diminishes because if it doesn't the tariff on buying and selling keeps rising month by month. Just a rough idea, but it would eventually work - concept is that you "fix lag" by better distributing the player base.
CSM Election Manifesto 2008 |
| |
|