EVE Search - What we really want. Give back warfare on a massive scale.

All Channels

Assembly Hall

What we really want. Give back warfare on a massive scale.

» 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)
Praetor Novak Macabre Votum Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2008.09.02 19:33:00 - [31] Originally by: EzSnake Good luck w/ this ... CCP don't seem to care or have the ability to do anything about lag. Plus they rather keep adding useless things to the game (like Faction Warfare, this ambulation crap they want to add, etc etc) that only ADD to the 'lag' issue. In order to gain more and more subscribers, which also adds to lag. So in other words, they are only worried about increasing thier income from this game and that's it!!!! IMHO- The only way we going to fix it is to put a dent in thier 'income' and then maybe, just maybe they will get thier heads out thier arse!! Good Points But then if we all protested by not playing it kinda defeats the need to fix lag as there wouldn't be any pilots shooting each other and we wouldn't be posting here anymore. :) I really believe that changes could be made in the server that would improve things regarding lag within fleet battle systems when they occur. However, I do admit it would involve CCP investing heavily to fundamentally change the software and hardware running EVE. At some point in the future we'll not see anymore huge battles because there will be a new 5th empire within EVE controlling vast tracts of space OR CCP will have so many subscribers ôwalkingö in stations screwing around they'll be no more laggy pew pew in space. If EVE ever breaks 500,000 subscribers and 50,000 online consistently CCP will be forced to do away with massive fleet battles all together or replace the server and software with something more dynamically scalable and much higher performance.
Phony v2 Caldari Heavens Gate Consortium	Posted - 2008.09.03 03:46:00 - [32] Edited by: Phony v2 on 03/09/2008 03:50:35 to the OP...combat on a grand scale was never taken away, Fleet battles have been getting bigger and bigger since day one. As CCP has been upgrading their servers people have just been packing more and more people into their fleets. The cycle goes like this 1. alliance brings 100 people to fight. there is lag 2. they complain 3. CCP upgrades servers 4. lag goes away 5. alliance now brings 200 people to fight, there is lag 6. they complain 7. repeast styeps 3 and 4 8. now they bring 300 people to fight, there is lag so you see the problem. no matter what people will just keep taking for granted what ccp has already done to improve fleet warfare. It used to be alot worse than it is. And at this rate the 'lag problem' will never go away. You are the problem. SO FIX THE PROBLEM YOURSELF OR SO SOD OFF OH and BTW to the other people who say no new content till they 'fix the lag'. First of all in some crazy scheme to be efficient you think they will have multiple departments. So that the development of new content wouldnt affect the Fixing of the lag?? AND CCP HAS TRIED TO FIX THE LAG MANY MAN TIMES BUT PEOPLE JUST KEEP PILING MORE PEOPLE ONTO THE BATTLEFIELD. if there was no new content released before they 'fixed the lag' we would still be using t1 gear and having large guns that could hit frigs orbiting 1k from them, and torps that do full damage to frigs.
Zareph Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.09.03 12:29:00 - [33] While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers.
BiggestT Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.09.03 13:01:00 - [34] Originally by: Butternut Squash Praetor ... can I have my Thesaurus back now please? You are right in everything you say, but like others have said, its not like CCP are unaware. What does frustrate the hell out of me though is the fact that they (CCP) are working on things like Ambulation which can only put more stress on the servers and therefore increase lag even more. If somebody wants to walk around ... then let them do so in WoW (yes I said it) ... I prefer my pixels in space. CCP have certainly come up with some good lag reducers and have been flamed for it before people came to appreciate the benefits ... we can all live in hope that they have another such ace up their sleeve. wow this. Oh and to the OP plz edit ur post and meniton how @#$% the system of getting primaried is (no i dont mean by shiptype as htats fair) i mean by alphabet, it sucks that the only thing determining wether u live or die in massive fleets is ur name and not skill..Plz remove alphabet enabled overview! Proudly annoying FC's since 2007 Originally by: Sherrif Jones ding ding! Wrangler: Hello and w- ding ding! Wrangler: Damn nanowhiners...goes back to reading
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.09.03 16:53:00 - [35] Fix lag? Lag is not a technological problem, in that no plausible technological advances will fix it. It is a sociological problem.
Praetor Novak Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.09.29 23:39:00 - [36] The events in Tribute this past week are a classic example of this issue. The emergence of massive fleet engagement have escalated out of control and everyone counters that it's our own fault for bringing these said massive fleets to to the fight. That's extremely weak logic at best and at worst it's a flimsy attempt to divert the real issue. To defend against absolute force you have to bring absolute force. There is no way to skirmish and win against a +250 pilot enemy fleet occupying a key system you need to recapture and defend. Due to CCP's meticulous game designs and improvements you need to bring a force which matches that in numbers and composition and basically do so with a full frontal attack. I would like one CCP staff member or CSM to acknowledge that the emergence of massive fleet numbering in the hundreds has caught CCP off guard and they have planned to eventually at some point in the future resolve this issue to their paying subscribers? This will never happen because they didn't only know this would happen, they planned for it to happen and without the needed improvements to the game's infrastructure to handle it. It's a classic example of enabling the feature without supporting the feature. Which boils down to the root cause of poor planning.
Astria Tiphareth 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.09.30 12:19:00 - [37] Originally by: EzSnake Good luck w/ this ... CCP don't seem to care or have the ability to do anything about lag. Plus they rather keep adding useless things to the game (like Faction Warfare, this ambulation crap they want to add, etc etc) that only ADD to the 'lag' issue. In order to gain more and more subscribers, which also adds to lag. So in other words, they are only worried about increasing thier income from this game and that's it!!!! IMHO- The only way we going to fix it is to put a dent in thier 'income' and then maybe, just maybe they will get thier heads out thier arse!! Clearly you never actually bother reading the dev blogs or interviews, like the recent Stackless IO release. Just because you view a particular feature added to the game as 'useless' doesn't make it so. Perhaps you should get off your high horse and recognise that this is a very deep multiplayer game with enough complexity that no one person finds appeal in every part of it. If CCP have determined that a given feature adds appeal, they have every right to add it, and you have every right to not continue to pay them money; that's about it. Plus you clearly know nothing about lag if you think that Ambulation or even more amusingly, Factional Warfare, add to lag. I truly can't believe you are against the notion of more subscribers purely because more people might cause more lag - that's just plain stupid. Yes I support the notion that larger fleets should be less laggy, and that either large fleet battles should either be fun, or not possible, not somewhere in-between (for reference, many talk of trying to get the return of the small roaming gang, so huge fleets aren't everyone's cup of tea, but they should be possible). I'm not quite sure why this issue is necessary given that it's very clear CCP have this goal already in mind (a quick glance at the Infiniband project would show that). ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... Environmental Effects
Khandara Seraphim StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.09.30 13:29:00 - [38] After last night this issue once again rears its ugly head. CCP, you can't make pos warfare mechanics the way they are and then punish fleets for trying to fight. Last night's engagement was a Travesty and you should be ashamed of yourselves. Not only was the lag crippling to NC, but it WASNT for GBC... resulting in a slaughter and a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. I do not expect this to be fixed but I have to post on it anyway. The game is broken and I'm not sure I want to play it like this anymore.
Rad Ion	Posted - 2008.09.30 14:25:00 - [39] In 2005 when i began playing this game i remember no major instances of lag .Now i notice lag just in normal game play and thats been going on for some time..lag in missions..lag in loading solar systems...lag in warp..so on so on..i do believe stackless python will go a long way in helping..but the problem is while player numbers have grown quickly the effort to produce programming and infrastructure to handle the load has (forgive the pun)lagged behind..i dont believe trying to discourage new players from joining or changing mechanics in a way that only benefits the highly skilled etc.is the answer anymore..its way beyond that..time to get serious CCP if your gonna add new features and entice more players then better get to work on supporting it!1 or it will bite you in the rear end
CTec Wasting Time RnD	Posted - 2008.09.30 15:04:00 - [40] Originally by: Astria Tiphareth ...Yes I support the notion that larger fleets should be less laggy, and that either large fleet battles should either be fun, or not possible, not somewhere in-between (for reference, many talk of trying to get the return of the small roaming gang, so huge fleets aren't everyone's cup of tea, but they should be possible). Holding space in 0.0 is not a small gang level of play. Not to wave a flag for one side or the other on this. The Fight should decide the victor, not node crash/who can re-log in the fastest. Small scale fights are great, but they do not win major conflicts. CCP fix the game. Goto a VMware format or something. Allow for something other the game programming to load level the nodes. O/S level balancing could possibly help here. I do not know what your data center looks like nor do I know what your clusters hardware/infrastructure setup is. You've got a good game here and you need to pony up and fix it. Make it THE game. Slow up on adding new material until you fix whats currently wrong. My 2 cents.
Drake Draconis	Posted - 2008.09.30 16:17:00 - [41] /me signed
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.09.30 16:59:00 - [42] What you need is a proposal to change the way sovereignty warfare works in 0.0. At the moment it encourages (necessitates) enormous blobs as the only way of harming the enemy. You need a complete and fundamental re-write of the sovereignty war mechanics that makes blobbing tactically and strategically stupid. There is no technical fix here. Only option is to change the rules so the wisest fleet commanders and alliance planners distribute their forces and avoid blob fest scenarios as a bad idea.
Khandara Seraphim StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.09.30 17:19:00 - [43] Originally by: Jade Constantine What you need is a proposal to change the way sovereignty warfare works in 0.0. At the moment it encourages (necessitates) enormous blobs as the only way of harming the enemy. You need a complete and fundamental re-write of the sovereignty war mechanics that makes blobbing tactically and strategically stupid. There is no technical fix here. Only option is to change the rules so the wisest fleet commanders and alliance planners distribute their forces and avoid blob fest scenarios as a bad idea. As much as everyone likes to hate blob warfare, I've yet to see any reasonable mechanic that would replace it. I know how much we all hate real world comparisons, but there's no warfare tactics I know of to explain why the larger of two similarly equipped forces should lose on the types of battlefields you encounter in eve. Pos warfare isn't fun, but even without it blobs are going to be around as long as there are large organizations of players that want to win fights. CCP needs to fix this on a technical level because they designed a game with large fleet battles in mind, and the current server technology can't support it.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.09.30 17:59:00 - [44] Originally by: Jade Constantine What you need is a proposal to change the way sovereignty warfare works in 0.0. At the moment it encourages (necessitates) enormous blobs as the only way of harming the enemy. You need a complete and fundamental re-write of the sovereignty war mechanics that makes blobbing tactically and strategically stupid. There is no technical fix here. Only option is to change the rules so the wisest fleet commanders and alliance planners distribute their forces and avoid blob fest scenarios as a bad idea. That would require a change to game mechanics whereby the smaller fleet inflicts more economic damage upon the larger fleet. And I can't think of any such change I could support. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Col Callahan Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.10.01 00:39:00 - [45]
Praetor Novak Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.10.06 17:51:00 - [46] Originally by: Jade Constantine What you need is a proposal to change the way sovereignty warfare works in 0.0. At the moment it encourages (necessitates) enormous blobs as the only way of harming the enemy. You need a complete and fundamental re-write of the sovereignty war mechanics that makes blobbing tactically and strategically stupid. There is no technical fix here. Only option is to change the rules so the wisest fleet commanders and alliance planners distribute their forces and avoid blob fest scenarios as a bad idea. Jade - Changing the way EVE sovereignty works is an interesting proposal toward helping to reduce the reliance of power blocs and alliances on massive fleets and decrease blob warfare thus reducing lag, however that defeats the purpose of this topic which is quite plainly - Give Us Massive Fleet Battles That Don't Lag - Period. Perhaps there needs to be two additional components added to Sovereignty that takes into account the amount of days a friendly and hostile force has actively occupied a system or area of space called - Residency and Occupation. These would be composite scores based on the number of active pilots over time (excluding afk campers) in a system that would determine a weighted average of a suite of bonuses that would discourage blobs or enable more distributed warfare. These bonuses would need to target anti-blob mechanisms such as bombs, DDs, etc. (perhaps a new miniature DD needs to be developed to take advantage of this properly) Grid loads through Star gates/Jump Bridges and Jump Portals have always been troublesome and allowed the upper hand to the force already occupying the field. If an option was added to allow inbound jumping fleets to distribute randomly into other grids in the system and then coordinate a rally point from there it would reduce the node strain arising from massive gate camps and breaking forces. This would definitely make warfare more mobile and fast paced as it would rely on more probing and system scouting to locate the opposing forces. Spamming gates with fighters is also a contributing factor to gate grid loads - there needs to be something added to discourage fighter spamming under selected circumstances where the node is under severe loads or at least allow a fleet to properly counter a fighter heavy force with tactics or weaponry.
Drake Draconis Minmatar	Posted - 2008.10.06 19:32:00 - [47] Edited by: Drake Draconis on 06/10/2008 19:32:07 Originally by: Praetor Novak Originally by: Jade Constantine What you need is a proposal to change the way sovereignty warfare works in 0.0. At the moment it encourages (necessitates) enormous blobs as the only way of harming the enemy. You need a complete and fundamental re-write of the sovereignty war mechanics that makes blobbing tactically and strategically stupid. There is no technical fix here. Only option is to change the rules so the wisest fleet commanders and alliance planners distribute their forces and avoid blob fest scenarios as a bad idea. Jade - Changing the way EVE sovereignty works is an interesting proposal toward helping to reduce the reliance of power blocs and alliances on massive fleets and decrease blob warfare thus reducing lag, however that defeats the purpose of this topic which is quite plainly - Give Us Massive Fleet Battles That Don't Lag - Period. Perhaps there needs to be two additional components added to Sovereignty that takes into account the amount of days a friendly and hostile force has actively occupied a system or area of space called - Residency and Occupation. These would be composite scores based on the number of active pilots over time (excluding afk campers) in a system that would determine a weighted average of a suite of bonuses that would discourage blobs or enable more distributed warfare. These bonuses would need to target anti-blob mechanisms such as bombs, DDs, etc. (perhaps a new miniature DD needs to be developed to take advantage of this properly) Grid loads through Star gates/Jump Bridges and Jump Portals have always been troublesome and allowed the upper hand to the force already occupying the field. If an option was added to allow inbound jumping fleets to distribute randomly into other grids in the system and then coordinate a rally point from there it would reduce the node strain arising from massive gate camps and breaking forces. This would definitely make warfare more mobile and fast paced as it would rely on more probing and system scouting to locate the opposing forces. Spamming gates with fighters is also a contributing factor to gate grid loads - there needs to be something added to discourage fighter spamming under selected circumstances where the node is under severe loads or at least allow a fleet to properly counter a fighter heavy force with tactics or weaponry. I like!
Kadoes Khan	Posted - 2008.10.07 06:17:00 - [48] I fully support improving the quality of the servers. There is a problem though and the problem is we need to be reasonable. If you could improve infrastructure enough that you could have say 1500 people on the same grid fighting, what's to stop 3000 people from coming in and bringing the lag back? You make it sound like removing the lag is easy when it's not. Without a major leap in technology your going to have to deal with lag as people are going to bring as many as the possibly can before shit break, as unless you didn't notice... people like to win. -=^=- "Someday the world will recognize the genius in my insanity."
Ghost 3374923	Posted - 2008.10.07 09:19:00 - [49] Agreed and supported
Strill	Posted - 2008.10.07 09:47:00 - [50] Originally by: Khandara Seraphim Originally by: Jade Constantine What you need is a proposal to change the way sovereignty warfare works in 0.0. At the moment it encourages (necessitates) enormous blobs as the only way of harming the enemy. You need a complete and fundamental re-write of the sovereignty war mechanics that makes blobbing tactically and strategically stupid. There is no technical fix here. Only option is to change the rules so the wisest fleet commanders and alliance planners distribute their forces and avoid blob fest scenarios as a bad idea. As much as everyone likes to hate blob warfare, I've yet to see any reasonable mechanic that would replace it. I know how much we all hate real world comparisons, but there's no warfare tactics I know of to explain why the larger of two similarly equipped forces should lose on the types of battlefields you encounter in eve. Pos warfare isn't fun, but even without it blobs are going to be around as long as there are large organizations of players that want to win fights. Actually I heard of a pretty nice idea where instead of attacking one POS in order to get it into reinforced you had to attack five other supporting structures each on a different grid in order to get the main POS shield down. It's not impossible to make a situation where it's better to split your forces up.
Niraco79 Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.10.07 14:31:00 - [51] Originally by: Jade Constantine What you need is a proposal to change the way sovereignty warfare works in 0.0. At the moment it encourages (necessitates) enormous blobs as the only way of harming the enemy. You need a complete and fundamental re-write of the sovereignty war mechanics that makes blobbing tactically and strategically stupid. There is no technical fix here. Only option is to change the rules so the wisest fleet commanders and alliance planners distribute their forces and avoid blob fest scenarios as a bad idea. I complettly support this. On a psihological plane, is all about goals. In a social environment with a hierarchy established like is the 0.0 environment, there always be a need to concentrate brute force in order to acumulate power. The thirst for power is imperative, and this is all about 0.0 pvp warfare, even if you talk about actual POS blobs, the miriads of freighters in empire moving alliance goods, the matrix of economical products of T2 market. With this thirst in mind and with the easy way rule of all human beeings, you will see why always more people will be needed. In the end if the game mechanics will force the players to spread around systems, if game tools will allow and promote this approach of game and if the real power of sovereignity in 0.0 can be changed only when fleets will battle not only in a single solar system but in entire constelattions, maybe we can have epic battles with no or only few lag. Until then the hardware evolution will always be outrunned by the numbers of players in a battle. In addition of what Serenity said i would like to add the change of pipe architecture of constelations so actual travelling, tactics, strategies would not rotate around choke points. just 2 cents from a larger idea i have
Praetor Novak Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.10.07 18:56:00 - [52] Just so people know I do actually appreciate CCP's recent work on their hardware (EVE64) and software (stacklessIO) architecture and I do read the Dev Blogs (actually I hover over them like a hawk) quite often. I recently posted this comment and these questions on a Dev Blog: Originally by: "Praetor" This is great work CCP! Thanks for applying resources toward solving lag. Most all PvP driven 0.0 Alliance junkies occasionally need to run into Jita to pick up stuff to fit out for a fight, however the real concern is when a server node hosting a 0.0 system that is hardly ever stressed suddenly becomes the focal point of the next epic massive fleet battle of EVE with over 1000 pilots loading the grids there. Originally by: "CCP Explorer" The server nodes will run a mix of 32- and 64-bit nodes since most nodes in the cluster don't have memory requirements requiring EVE64. How do you decide which 0.0 server nodes receive EVE64 treatment and extra memory? Originally by: "CCP Explorer" The need has to be clear as there is not gain in all cases to run EVE64, but where there is need we are now able to respond to it. When is the gain not achieved switching to EVE64 on the server nodes and how quickly are you able to switch a server nodes from 32 to 64 if you see or detect a spike in utilization on a given node? These questions need to be answered by CCP about their ability to predict or quickly respond to the needs to switch a 0.0 system or group of systems to a stronger server node. For further information on what CCP is doing to improve performance throughout the tranquility cluster read here: EVE64 My node was equipped with the following However, even after CCP switched M-OEE8 to a dedicated Intel EVE64 server node and the GBC and Northern Coalition brought all they had to bear on the system it still crashed a horrible death so there is definitely more work to be done to improve performance for massive 0.0 fleet engagements: Originally by: "CCP Mindstar" 3 x Epic Fleet Fights That Saturday, out of the blue we saw one of the nodes supporting 0.0 go to Critical status and shortly afterwards it shut down. This happened a few more times in quick succession, and it became apparent that there was a new issue where extremely loaded nodes were simply not able to keep up with their heartbeat. This issue in itself is fixable and we are working hard to get it resolved. At this point, it was apparent that with 700+ players trying to "pew pew", the AMD node they were on was not going to do anything other than keep crashing. We re-mapped the system in question to one of our dedicated Intel blades, just to see what it was capable of. Jita had performed so well the night before, that we thought these nodes would handle a fleet fight quite nicely. The system held, and the rest, as they say, is history. On Sunday night, the M-OEE8 System was the hotspot and it had been placed on an Intel 64 bit dedicated SOL blade in anticipation. It held fine with a peak of around 450 players. On Monday night, over 1000 players tried to start a fight in this system. As with Sunday, we had anticipated there would be fighting there, so it had been placed on a dedicated node. Unfortunately, what had caused node crashes at 700 players on our AMD blades caused our Intel blade to miss its heartbeat after going a bit over 1200 players. Interestingly enough, despite missing its heart beat, many players have reported that the performance of this blade with 1000 players was very good in the 10 - 15 minutes prior to its shutdown.
Praetor Novak Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.10.07 19:03:00 - [53] Keep up the good work CCP and eventually the dream of 600 vs 600 fleet battles without crippling lag may one day be a reality! Also for all those naysayers out there that believe this is in vain because it will escalate to more pilots further straining the improved architecture - there are limits to how many pilots an Alliance or Power Bloc can field and bring to the fight. However one day as EVE grows those limits will also be exceeded and a new MMO super computing cluster will be required - CCP will need to continue to toil and burn to reach ever greater heights of space combat MMO greatness.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.07 20:03:00 - [54] I have a lot of thoughts on this particular issue. On the one hand I think it's silly to go to CCP with a "fix lag" issue. Of course they want to fix lag. "Duh" will be the response. On the other hand I think they haven't done a very good job of acknowledging the issue and being forthcoming about what is being done to rectify it. This leads people to continuously keep bringing it up and posting these topics and in some cases, quitting the game in disgust, which in reality doesn't benefit anyone. Now, what I was originally going to propose was a request that CCP keep the players up to date on this issue. That we would pass a resolution requesting that CCP have an ongoing status statement on what's being done to combat lag and improve the situation. It certainly isn't nothing. The thing is that in the past 2 or three weeks we've had 2 different announcements regarding lag. The first was the Stackless IO annoucement and the second was the 64 bit server upgrade blog. I'm really not too sunshiney about asking for somehting that they may already be addressing proactively as they see both the performance of the game and their lack of communication on the subject to be detrimental. I'm going to give this bad boy a bit more thought. Whatever we deliver should be constructive and useful. "Fix Lag" is neither. Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.07 20:32:00 - [55] I've detailed a bit regarding what I think is a bit more realistic a response here: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=891773 I've listed it as a separate issue for the sake of clarity and for our reference documentation. It's painful to dig 7000 posts into these assembly hall threads for a point of reference. This thread and any others I can find here will be used as reference material in the template submitted. Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
Praetor Novak Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.10.07 23:11:00 - [56] copy from cross post More communication from CCP concerning what has been done, what is being done and what the future plans are to attack lag are would be greatly appreciated. I support this proposal, however they also need to stay vigilant on the issue of actually fixing lag in addition to communicating what is being done about it. I consistently and frequently raise the issue of lag in massive fleet battles in hopes of keeping the volume turned up on this issue which is of a grave and pressing nature to EVE. To many subscribers who play EVE for many hours every month this is really issue number one. We often wonder why we are incapable of convincing CCP that without fixing lag EVE's future as an un-sharded MMO is questionable. I will continue to raise "fix lag" as the most important issue facing EVE. We all know what this means and we must continue the message to CCP on this.
Katarina Arisdeed Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.10.09 11:55:00 - [57] /signed
procurement specialist	Posted - 2008.10.09 16:15:00 - [58] post on the forums 2-3 weeks in advance that you are planning a massive fleet battel in system whatever so that at downtime an appropriate amount of resources can be directed to that one specific system. let me know how that works out for you. i dislike pvp. i play eve for the economy. GIVE ME MORE MINING STUFF!
K'Talas Marta	Posted - 2008.10.10 04:37:00 - [59] What are you guys ***ing about? instead of saying oh I want lag free battles, whine whine whine, try posting ideas to fix it or shut up. Fact is they are doing a great job. 10 sec mod delay would be a god send in fleet battles. past that, you guys miss all that info on stackless IO, and possible HPC systems, as well as 64 bit clients and servers running 3.0 ghz dual cores, with 16 gigs of ram. I dont see the issue, jita with 1400 players in it still responsive. 1100 man fleet battles with 20 to 40 sec mod lag. I don't see the issue, and the promise of it getting better with there plans right up where everyone can see them in the dev blogs. You guys forget yourself, 2 years ago you couldn't cram 400 people into a system without it crashing, your talking about 1000's of calculations a min, each gun, each missile, each drone, each ship. The type of dmg, resists, ammo type, ROF. and 1000's of more calc's that have to be done by the server. The server is running better then ever, if you want to keep smacking CCP, then make your own MMO that supports the kind of play style and 40,000 plus players online on a single server, and show them how its done. Is eve perfect? Is stackless python the best code they could have used? NO but that doesn't mean bash them, and act like they have done you some wrong. They are doing the best they can, and TBH, its damn good. So stop sticking your nose up at them and offer things that could help, not just the same old * thread of FIX LAGGGG OMG THE LAGGGGG, or quit *ing, they have shown us all how they have reduced lag, and they don't need the poeple in this thread to * at them all the time. As its already been said, you make the server so it can support 1000 man fleet battles then people will try to stuff 1400 people into a system, you dont want lag, make sure to keep your fleet battles to 300 a side or less and you should be just fine. less ***ing, more constructive posts.

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.