These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page12
 

EVE 2.0 - The thought

Author
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2014-08-28 05:38:17 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Setting aside for a moment that we're on something like EVE 22.5 already, rebuilding from scratch is a very good way of ensuring that you will end up with two useless products: the old one that you didn't maintain, and the new one that doesn't work.

Beyond that, what parts do you feel as if they can't fit in? No amount of recoding will make a game that requires 1Hz ticks to resolve the kind of massive scale of conflict on one tier work well with a game that requires 30Hz ticks to resolve its small-scale conflicts. Different types of gameplay require different back-ends.

Seems appropriate.
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Midgard Academy
RONA Directorate
#22 - 2014-08-28 06:01:41 UTC
Not this thread again...

Why Can't I have a picture signature.

Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.

Felicity Love
Doomheim
#23 - 2014-08-28 06:04:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Felicity Love
CCP can rebuild EVE however they want.... so long as I'm the only player in the game with a "God mode" cheat code so I can blast dreads with a single shot from a bomber... cloaked.

Because if CCP is going to pooch things royally, then at least pooch them in my favour -- especially when I'm flying on 151. P

"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )

Aineko Macx
#24 - 2014-08-28 07:14:00 UTC
From a technical perspective CCP made some early choices for the architecture that today cause scalability issues like the choice of (Stackless) Python as language. CCP worked and still work on minimizing the effect of this, but it can't be removed completely.

Then there are game design decisions that in hindsight were bad choices, like Titans and T2 BPOs, to name just two cases.

However, even if there are good technical and game design reasons for a complete rewrite from scratch, it's simply not feasible to do, for the immense resources it would require, while you have a working product to maintain trying to hold the (stagnant) playerbase.
Ramona McCandless
The McCandless Clan
#25 - 2014-08-28 07:24:38 UTC
Instead of typing "I feel...."

Type "I think..."

But only if you actually have done so first.

"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

Mithandra
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#26 - 2014-08-28 07:34:43 UTC
Its taken over 10 years and god alone knows what that equates to in actual man-years of programming effort, to reach the point we are at now.

EVE in its implementation is still cutting edge, only the military comes close in raw processing power.

CCP's time and money would be better spent fixing the issues most of us know the game has, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater and coding "EvE 2.0" from scratch.

Eve is the dark haired, totally hot emo gothchild of the gaming community

Aineko Macx
#27 - 2014-08-28 07:45:45 UTC
Mithandra wrote:
EVE in its implementation is still cutting edge, only the military comes close in raw processing power.

Both statements are highly debatable.
Ramona McCandless
The McCandless Clan
#28 - 2014-08-28 10:31:34 UTC
Aineko Macx wrote:
Mithandra wrote:
EVE in its implementation is still cutting edge, only the military comes close in raw processing power.

Both statements are highly debatable.


Well.... the comparison may still be valid even if the qualitative statement is not.

"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

Indahmawar Fazmarai
#29 - 2014-08-28 13:31:41 UTC
We don't need EVE 2.0, but CCP surely needs something that gives them money when their only warhorse crumbles.
Misunderstood Genius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2014-08-28 13:41:29 UTC
The topic is senseless because this never will happen. So why waste time to think more about it and discuss?
Pok Nibin
Doomheim
#31 - 2014-08-28 17:58:59 UTC
If I suggested to you a good idea would be to drop an oil well in my front yard, your reaction would be:

a.) None at all aside from looking at me blinking.

b.) Pull out your checkbook and write me one for the total sum of the project expense.

c.) Say something witty and dismissive, and go on your merry way.

I'm at the point where I have to believe one of two things are true; people have no clue what things cost these days aside from the consumer products they think are so very expensive, but which they need, OR people actually think they're entitled to whatever they dream up, regardless of who has to pay...as long as it's not them.

In other words, when you say "rework this game" do you have any idea how much money you're talking about? Just the discussion phase would get into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The planning phase into the millions and the execution would approach tens of million or MORE.

Do you have any idea what you're suggesting...really?
Or are we going to see you pull out your checkbook?

The right to free speech doesn't automatically carry with it the right to be taken seriously.

NFain
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2014-08-28 18:06:26 UTC  |  Edited by: NFain
Pok Nibin wrote:
blah blah yadda yadda *insert crap here*


Dude, its a thought, relax. You're so hostile. It's simply a theory craft. The only people i suggested were entitled to whatever they dream up was the devs themselves. Which, is well. True.

Remiel Pollard wrote:
"EVE 2.0"..
*insert waste of time here*


Bee tee dubs my search button is working perfectly fine. Maybe if people talked about the subject constructively instead of bashing the entire time when it comes up it would be useful. Idea

All i wanted was to have a nice civil discussion while I sat at work bored out of my mind. People seem to be as nearsighted as the issues i'm bringing to the table. They're all looking in one direction. Open up a little bit. Technicality aside, im seriously curious to peoples real thoughts on this, not your troll related responses. This is the internet, have a little fun and break loose.

To the people that have posted thank you.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#33 - 2014-08-28 18:15:09 UTC
Tikitina wrote:
NFain wrote:
Ursula Thrace wrote:
Tippia ftw.

dunno OP, i'm sorta in love with eve 1.0.


I think this is quickly turning into a "**** im burned out of eve" thread..



To be honest, Eve 2.0 as you suggest it goes against what Eve Online is. Eve Online constantly evolves instead of being reinvented.

A reinvented Eve would divide the player base and spell the end for both games, as it has to other games in the past. A constantly evolving single game has much better chance of survival.

The most common reason people suggest an Eve 2.0 is because of "how long it takes to catch up" which shows how much they miss the point of Eve Online. Its not about catching up. Its about teamwork and being good enough to win.

You can be 80% capable of a vet in about 20% of the time. You can be par on a vet in a specific ship in probably 20% of the vets SP, but you don't need to be on par, just good enough with a few friends.

In regard to code, I think the majority of the Eve codebase has been rewritten a few times, but there are probably a few systems that haven't been touched since launch.

So, depending on how you view it, we could be on Eve 3.5 or Eve 7.5, depending on how you look at it. The work was simply done to update the existing game and codebase, not branch off into something else, that divides the players.

Catching up is a massive problem in eve. How can a relatively new player such as myself ever hope to catch up to a vet like Tippia? We always claim that you can max out a specialization in eve and that further specialization has diminishing returns, but this is blatantly false. Tippia's 24,000+ likes is a clear indication of how broken eve is. We obviously need a reset on this mechanic.

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!

NFain
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2014-08-28 18:25:29 UTC
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
Tikitina wrote:
NFain wrote:
Ursula Thrace wrote:
Tippia ftw.

dunno OP, i'm sorta in love with eve 1.0.


I think this is quickly turning into a "**** im burned out of eve" thread..



To be honest, Eve 2.0 as you suggest it goes against what Eve Online is. Eve Online constantly evolves instead of being reinvented.

A reinvented Eve would divide the player base and spell the end for both games, as it has to other games in the past. A constantly evolving single game has much better chance of survival.

The most common reason people suggest an Eve 2.0 is because of "how long it takes to catch up" which shows how much they miss the point of Eve Online. Its not about catching up. Its about teamwork and being good enough to win.

You can be 80% capable of a vet in about 20% of the time. You can be par on a vet in a specific ship in probably 20% of the vets SP, but you don't need to be on par, just good enough with a few friends.

In regard to code, I think the majority of the Eve codebase has been rewritten a few times, but there are probably a few systems that haven't been touched since launch.

So, depending on how you view it, we could be on Eve 3.5 or Eve 7.5, depending on how you look at it. The work was simply done to update the existing game and codebase, not branch off into something else, that divides the players.

Catching up is a massive problem in eve. How can a relatively new player such as myself ever hope to catch up to a vet like Tippia? We always claim that you can max out a specialization in eve and that further specialization has diminishing returns, but this is blatantly false. Tippia's 24,000+ likes is a clear indication of how broken eve is. We obviously need a reset on this mechanic.


I'm not suggesting we change this at all, one bit, that's what makes eve unique. What I was talking about was the change of the fundamental core of our game. The code eve is built around. Eve is built on a set foundation that seems to have limit itself within that foundation. When it was created i doubt the devs were planning on 50k players on at one time within their universe. It's like a country developing, you eventually just run out of space on your given amount land. But if you built on a bigger piece and/or had the ability to expand on that foundation(Which we don't, *insert legacy code issue* or "its to game breaking"), both the options and longevity of game play expands.

You can only build a skyscraper so high without it collapsing in on itself.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#35 - 2014-08-28 19:43:58 UTC
NFain wrote:
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
Catching up is a massive problem in eve. How can a relatively new player such as myself ever hope to catch up to a vet like Tippia? We always claim that you can max out a specialization in eve and that further specialization has diminishing returns, but this is blatantly false. Tippia's 24,000+ likes is a clear indication of how broken eve is. We obviously need a reset on this mechanic.


I'm not suggesting we change this at all, one bit, that's what makes eve unique. What I was talking about was the change of the fundamental core of our game. The code eve is built around. Eve is built on a set foundation that seems to have limit itself within that foundation. When it was created i doubt the devs were planning on 50k players on at one time within their universe. It's like a country developing, you eventually just run out of space on your given amount land. But if you built on a bigger piece and/or had the ability to expand on that foundation(Which we don't, *insert legacy code issue* or "its to game breaking"), both the options and longevity of game play expands.

You can only build a skyscraper so high without it collapsing in on itself.

Its kinda amazing how far over your head that post went. Let me spell it out.

Creating a sql to eve would divide an already small player base into groups that have no way of interacting with each other. Player groups in eve moving to the new game would lose years of work. An eve sequel is a horrible idea and would be a sure way of making CCP go under.

If instead you are suggesting a game engine rewrite, you may want to look a how that has worked for other projects. CCP is taking an iterative and stable approach that has a low chance of blowing up in their faces.

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!

Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2014-08-28 20:16:29 UTC
DaReaper wrote:
You do realize op, that eve is already building eve 2.0 right?

This is why we are not 'getting new stuff' because old, incomplete and broken crap needs to be fixed first. Thats all.

Eve, Valk and Legion COULD all work together, but you won;t play them at the same time. Each can easily do different roles that effect the others. There is no need to start from scratch, as they are just redoing what they have currently. These treads are getting lame.

To be fair there are a few design decisions that look more than questionable from today's point of view which are probably very hard to rework in an incremental fashion - grids being the obvious elephant in the room.

.

Previous page12