These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

It's m'ka!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#21 - 2014-04-11 17:50:15 UTC
OP, id love to play your MMORPG game with half a million subs and 60k people online single shard universe. Please let us all know what it is so that we can play! I can only assume that you developed such a game seeing as that you know better than CCP.



PS- Hosting a 10 player RUST server on your old tower doesn't count.

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Tollen Gallen
Glory of Reprisal Enterprise
#22 - 2014-04-11 18:15:44 UTC
I like Cheese.

Zimmy Zeta - I f*cking love martinis. the original ones, with gin, not that vodka martini crap. Your old Friends can use me for 7 days, free!!!
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2014-04-11 22:16:22 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Marcus Caspius wrote:
Bragging about 21 hour engagements in Eve Online is not cool. TiDi is not an achievement CCP! It's a marginal improvement from the dreaded white-screen.

Piling thousands of people into the same system and having a sub-optimal experience is a bad excuse.


I work for an "organisation" where our transaction traffic peak exponentially once a year for about 20 mins - guess what we plan all capacity planning for that single unknown event: not the 99.99999% of the remainder happy path.

It can be done, try harder!


CCP are already running one of the gaming industry's largest clusters, if not the largest.

The only real way to get more performance out of it, without stepping into the realms of hideously expensive hardware, would be to completely rewrite Eve to take advantage of multicore processors, which is impractical, expensive and generally a pain in the arse.

However getting off their ass and doing it would solve SO many complaints about nullsec, for a while. so they can spend more time managing the rest of the game instead of babysitting every alrge engagement so it can last long enough for them to use it as advertising hype
Rowells
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2014-04-11 23:54:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Marcus Caspius wrote:
It can be done, try harder!

You can only run the hamsters so hard until their poor little hearts give out.

Have some compassion.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#25 - 2014-04-11 23:56:34 UTC
21 hour engagements are cool, EVE isn't some fast paced arena PVP game.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#26 - 2014-04-15 06:48:59 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
However getting off their ass and doing it would solve SO many complaints about nullsec, for a while. so they can spend more time managing the rest of the game instead of babysitting every alrge engagement so it can last long enough for them to use it as advertising hype


Rewriting the space simulation code to allow double the number of ships in any fight will mean the parties involved will bring triple the number of ships to every fight.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Serene Repose
#27 - 2014-04-15 11:45:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Serene Repose
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
CCP are already running one of the gaming industry's largest clusters, if not the largest.
The only real way to get more performance out of it, without stepping into the realms of hideously expensive hardware, would be to completely rewrite Eve to take advantage of multicore processors, which is impractical, expensive and generally a pain in the arse.
Hideously expensive is in the eye of the beholder. Aren't you really saying EVE is using obsolete programming, and that to "work around" that would require all this....stuff! Aren't you really saying EVE should join the ranks of the "up to speed," the current industry standard - maybe even top-of-the-line? All I hear in defending EVE is, "Hey, it's old. You can't expect old things to move fast." And, "Hey, they made a judgement call as to what the future would hold, and they were horrendously wrong. Let us limp along quietly...shhhhh. Maybe no one will notice."

I mean, having the largest load doesn't equate to managing that load efficiently, now, does it? And, if CCP is as on-the-ball as the ego-driven feedback we get from them all the time seems to SAY, why AREN'T they trying to catch up with the TIMES??? HUH???

You may now make the list of standard excuses for poor quality control.

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
Slade Trillgon
Brutor Force Federated
#28 - 2014-04-15 11:53:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Slade Trillgon
Wulfgar WarHammer wrote:
Marcus Caspius wrote:
I work for an "organisation" where our transaction traffic peak exponentially once a year for about 20 mins


Liquor store on welfare cheque day




That is 12 times a year Blink


EDIT:

Mara Rinn wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
However getting off their ass and doing it would solve SO many complaints about nullsec, for a while. so they can spend more time managing the rest of the game instead of babysitting every alrge engagement so it can last long enough for them to use it as advertising hype


Rewriting the space simulation code to allow double the number of ships in any fight will mean the parties involved will bring triple the number of ships to every fight.



That is not necessarily a bad thing if the revenue vs expenditure numbers are there.
Wulfgar WarHammer
Unrustled
#29 - 2014-04-15 12:54:15 UTC
Serene Repose wrote:
real talk


Name me another MMO that has 50,000+ concurrent connections on one server.

*crickets*

That's what I thought. You literally have NO IDEA what you are talking about (same as OP). EvE Online servers are leaps and bounds ahead of any others'
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#30 - 2014-04-15 13:55:09 UTC
CCP have said the most of the problem is single threaded legacy code.

Changing that is a massive undertaking. It would mean no other expansions for a year, perhaps 2. Then on top of all that you really really what to be sure than its not going to bleed data everywhere. As lose account data. Or scramble it.

TiDi may be frustrating. But losing 5 years of skill training would be far worse. sure there can be rollbacks etc. But just doing it once for a day would probably send more ppl unsubscribing than any amount of TiDi in a big battle.

All real systems evolve. They are never really designed. That implies the designer can tell the future perfectly. Turns out they can't.

Personally responsiveness of the gui during TiDi would be a really welcome fix. Depends how interdependent the client and the server is really.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.
lollerwaffle
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#31 - 2014-04-15 14:10:22 UTC
Serene Repose wrote:
The only real way to get more performance out of it, without stepping into the realms of hideously expensive hardware, would be to completely rewrite Eve to take advantage of multicore processors, which is impractical, expensive and generally a pain in the arse.
Hideously expensive is in the eye of the beholder. Aren't you really saying EVE is using obsolete programming, and that to "work around" that would require all this....stuff! Aren't you really saying EVE should join the ranks of the "up to speed," the current industry standard - maybe even top-of-the-line? All I hear in defending EVE is, "Hey, it's old. You can't expect old things to move fast." And, "Hey, they made a judgement call as to what the future would hold, and they were horrendously wrong. Let us limp along quietly...shhhhh. Maybe no one will notice."

I mean, having the largest load doesn't equate to managing that load efficiently, now, does it? And, if CCP is as on-the-ball as the ego-driven feedback we get from them all the time seems to SAY, why AREN'T they trying to catch up with the TIMES??? HUH???

You may now make the list of standard excuses for poor quality control.[/quote]
LOL 20/20 hindsight gifted armchair expert spotted.
Marcus Caspius
#32 - 2014-04-16 18:38:43 UTC
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
CCP have said the most of the problem is single threaded legacy code.

Changing that is a massive undertaking. It would mean no other expansions for a year, perhaps 2. Then on top of all that you really really what to be sure than its not going to bleed data everywhere. As lose account data. Or scramble it.

.


Hey some staff just became available in the US... fancy that!

Grammatical error and spelling mistakes are included for your entertainment!
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#33 - 2014-04-16 18:40:06 UTC
Marcus Caspius wrote:
Bragging about 21 hour engagements in Eve Online is not cool. TiDi is not an achievement CCP! It's a marginal improvement from the dreaded white-screen.

Piling thousands of people into the same system and having a sub-optimal experience is a bad excuse.



Being a big whine and having an ugly AV as well is not cool either

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2014-04-16 18:40:20 UTC
This problem could be solved with a highsec nerf.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Seraphi Nephalis
Seraphi Nephalis Corporation
#35 - 2014-04-16 21:34:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Seraphi Nephalis
Maybe it's time for them to start thinking about EVE 2? But that would mean a LOT of well established players would have to give up their time investment and start from scratch. Not sure how profitable that would be for CCP. And I wonder how many of the old vets would be willing to sacrifice their billions of ISK and SP for increased performance and better overall gameplay.

"What a sad world we live in, where politeness is mistaken for weakness."  - Usagi Yojimbo
Praetor Meles
Black Mount Industrial
Breakpoint.
#36 - 2014-04-16 21:43:32 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
This problem could be solved with a highsec nerf.


Deleting hi-sec entirely would dramatically reduce server load. And, probably, move sov-grind up the priority list too.

[insert random rubbish that irritates you personally] is further evidence that Eve is dying/thriving*

  • delete as required to make your point
Seraphi Nephalis
Seraphi Nephalis Corporation
#37 - 2014-04-16 22:08:25 UTC
Praetor Meles wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
This problem could be solved with a highsec nerf.


Deleting hi-sec entirely would dramatically reduce server load. And, probably, move sov-grind up the priority list too.


And likely drive off every single new player in the process.

"What a sad world we live in, where politeness is mistaken for weakness."  - Usagi Yojimbo
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2014-04-16 22:14:23 UTC
Praetor Meles wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
This problem could be solved with a highsec nerf.


Deleting hi-sec entirely would dramatically reduce server load. And, probably, move sov-grind up the priority list too.

Unlikely, unless I'm not understanding the distribution correctly. You would just end up with a large number of unused nodes while battles in single systems still generate the unredistributable load of that engagement to the node it started on. Actually, come to think of it, if server performance is standing in the way of sov improvements, the only way to get to those improvements is to depopulate null to the point where it's not worth fixing.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2014-04-16 22:21:56 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
This problem could be solved with a highsec nerf.

How do you figure? As I understand systems are grouped on nodes with other nearby systems now. That being the case highsec activity isn't affecting nullsec node performance and furthermore highsec activity is keeping people out of null that would otherwise be using your precious node clock cycles.
Salvos Rhoska
#40 - 2014-04-16 22:32:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
This problem could be solved with a highsec nerf.

How do you figure? As I understand systems are grouped on nodes with other nearby systems now. That being the case highsec activity isn't affecting nullsec node performance and furthermore highsec activity is keeping people out of null that would otherwise be using your precious node clock cycles.


Its just his rubber stamp. Its all he ever posts, regardless of the context.
Its harmless, but guys like you get tangled in it.

So far, 3 of you already.

Dont bite dat bait.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Previous page123Next page