These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

What we learned from 6VDT

Author
Jafit McJafitson
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2013-07-29 17:10:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Jafit McJafitson
NOMAD and NOSMUG. Pls keep the space politics to another thread.

What do you think we could do to change sov mechanics so that lots of players can fight each other in a way that can actually be handled by today's technology and (gasp) might actually be fun? Because there doesn't seem to be a computer in the world that can handle 4000 players being on the same grid as each other, and while 6VDT was one-off fringe case where the Jita supernode was brought to its knees, it's still true that big tidi brawls are painfully slow and quite boring to actually participate in.

The problem is that the fundamental game mechanics of Eve are designed to force players to encounter each other at points in space, because space is big and when Eve first started it needed a mechanism for players to actually interact with each other. , the stargates that we use and the way the warp drive works all force players into single points and these mechanics are too deeply ingrained in the game to mess with or change.

So, is it possible to mitigate the problems somewhat and devise a system, particularly sov mechanics, that don't require one single fight over one single object at one single point, and can instead spread the action out over a wider area or several starsystems to ease the load on the servers?

I mean we had like at least 8 fleets up for 6VDT at one point simply due to the hard cap limit of 256 members in a single fleet, but all of those fleets ended up doing the same thing and piling on to the same grid, wouldn't it be more interesting if those fleets were all working on completing different objectives instead?

I think it'd be interesting from a gameplay perspective, because sov hasn't changed at all since Dominion and any kind of shakeup would be interesting and refreshing. But it's absolutely necessary from a technical perspective because as Eve gets more and more players there's no reason to expect the blobs to get any smaller
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#2 - 2013-07-29 18:17:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Destination SkillQueue
The title is misleading, since you're just parroting points people have made for years.

EDIT: Just to be constructive, there aren't going to be many people disagreeing with you and there certainly isn't any lack of ideas how to go about implementing something like that. It's just something everyone is waiting for CCP to devote resources to, so it can actually be done.
Kristoffon Ellecon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2013-07-29 18:47:58 UTC
Area of effect damage upon ship destruction.

IOW you die, your ship explodes and it damages all other nearby ships. In some situations it might cause a snowballing escalation of explosions.

BAM blobs over.
Zoe Arbosa
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2013-07-29 19:08:14 UTC
TBH, multiple objectives requiring the offensive fleets to hold all objectives would just lead to the defender going after defending a single objective since the offensive fleet is split up and would give the defender a small advantage until all fleets converge at one point which is what happens now. Or the offensive fleet would just meet each objective quicker with more ships.

Constructively, Brain in a Box would give the most tangible help since ships changing session is one of the things CCP Veritas identified as a major cause of lag.

Ship explosion AoE would only be effective if ships were close together. The fleets at 6vDT ended up quite spread out (for CFC at least) due to orbiting the station itself. Even then, saavy fleet commanders would come up with doctrines that are much more spread out in order to minimize AoE damage.
Jafit McJafitson
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2013-07-29 20:02:45 UTC
Kristoffon Ellecon wrote:
snowballing escalation of explosions.


I appreciate your input into this brainstorming session on HOW TO REDUCE SERVER LOAD during big engagements.
Kristoffon Ellecon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2013-07-30 00:46:01 UTC
Jafit McJafitson wrote:
Kristoffon Ellecon wrote:
snowballing escalation of explosions.


I appreciate your input into this brainstorming session on HOW TO REDUCE SERVER LOAD during big engagements.


Thank you for your appreciation Sir. Let me however guide you through the fogs of your mind and point out the, well, I thought it was going to be obvious but apparently I did make a mistake, and point out to you that if such a thing were to pass then yes server lag would be dramatically reduced because DEAD SHIPS CAUSE NO LAG.

HTH.
Powers Sa
#7 - 2013-07-30 00:48:15 UTC
I dunno I had a bunch of fun getting legion and zealot km's.

Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk

Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.

Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#8 - 2013-07-30 02:49:17 UTC
Kristoffon Ellecon wrote:
Jafit McJafitson wrote:
Kristoffon Ellecon wrote:
snowballing escalation of explosions.


I appreciate your input into this brainstorming session on HOW TO REDUCE SERVER LOAD during big engagements.


Thank you for your appreciation Sir. Let me however guide you through the fogs of your mind and point out the, well, I thought it was going to be obvious but apparently I did make a mistake, and point out to you that if such a thing were to pass then yes server lag would be dramatically reduced because DEAD SHIPS CAUSE NO LAG.

HTH.


Would also clean up the grid somewhat by destroying wrecks and pods. I don't think wrecks cause lag (?) but they sure screw you over if your overview settings aren't right.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Jafit McJafitson
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2013-07-30 03:02:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Jafit McJafitson
Kristoffon Ellecon wrote:
Jafit McJafitson wrote:
Kristoffon Ellecon wrote:
snowballing escalation of explosions.


I appreciate your input into this brainstorming session on HOW TO REDUCE SERVER LOAD during big engagements.


Thank you for your appreciation Sir. Let me however guide you through the fogs of your mind and point out the, well, I thought it was going to be obvious but apparently I did make a mistake, and point out to you that if such a thing were to pass then yes server lag would be dramatically reduced because DEAD SHIPS CAUSE NO LAG.

HTH.


Session changes such as docking, undocking, jumping in and out of systems (and I assume ship and pod deaths) cause TIDI to skyrocket. A snowballing escalation of session changes as thousands of players lose their ships, enter pods, and then leave the system as their pods are destroyed by AoE damage ship explosions, is probably not going to be conducive server stability.

We need a system that prevents people from needing to blob up, not one that destroys the server if they do. That never stopped people from piling into a system during the pre-tidi blackscreen era.

Thanks for your input. Also please continue trying to be condescending, it's quite endearing to watch.

Powers Sa wrote:
I dunno I had a bunch of fun getting legion and zealot km's.


This is a NOSMUG thread, back to CAOD with you. Also in general it's not a good idea to talk about enjoying killmails after losing a titan.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#10 - 2013-07-30 03:07:53 UTC
People tend to dogpile on one location (call it habit, follow the leader, etc). Moving everything over to squad based mechanics, capturing multiple locations instead of just a (Mass at point A and Pray) would make more sense. Missions would be more viable.

Your asking for a complete and total overhaul (literally a destruction of the current mechanic (whatever that is) and a recreation from the ground up).

We all want that.

Does CCP?

Yaay!!!!

Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#11 - 2013-07-30 03:27:21 UTC
OP-

It's been suggested many times before: a multiple objective system, with each objective wearing down a systems sov to a critical point. There would be a mixture of small gang objectives up to full fleet action. Ideally, a combination of both over a period of time would be required in the end; more small gang work means less fleet work, but neither one completely replacing the other. Sometimes the goal is to make nullsec more accessible to small corps, sometimes the goal is to reduce structure bashing. Either way, it's the same solution.

What I haven't seen before is any suggestions on what the actual mechanics of such a system would be. Any takers?

Phoenix Jones wrote:

Your asking for a complete and total overhaul (literally a destruction of the current mechanic (whatever that is) and a recreation from the ground up).

We all want that.

Does CCP?


They'd better. I live in highsec/NPC null because the sov mechanics are terribad. If this kind of change happened, I might actually go start playing real Eve.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#12 - 2013-07-30 04:05:13 UTC
Ines Tegator wrote:
OP-

It's been suggested many times before: a multiple objective system, with each objective wearing down a systems sov to a critical point. There would be a mixture of small gang objectives up to full fleet action. Ideally, a combination of both over a period of time would be required in the end; more small gang work means less fleet work, but neither one completely replacing the other. Sometimes the goal is to make nullsec more accessible to small corps, sometimes the goal is to reduce structure bashing. Either way, it's the same solution.

What I haven't seen before is any suggestions on what the actual mechanics of such a system would be. Any takers?

Phoenix Jones wrote:

Your asking for a complete and total overhaul (literally a destruction of the current mechanic (whatever that is) and a recreation from the ground up).

We all want that.

Does CCP?


They'd better. I live in highsec/NPC null because the sov mechanics are terribad. If this kind of change happened, I might actually go start playing real Eve.


Take the MTAC from Incursions idea that you have to do A to B, in order to attack C effectively.. Expand that up.
To attack a significant infrastructure (I.E. Station, IHub) there are smaller objectives that need to be hit. Have more objectives than need to be hit in order for moving fights to occur, so that they can't just camp one with their whole fleet and you have to engage, but they have to split up a bit to defend them.
While these objectives are taking fire, they don't work, if they cease taking fire (For say, 60 seconds) they work again. Also destroyable in the longer term, but generally speaking I'd set it up so the main target 'should' be destroyed before the secondary targets get destroyed, making it more a smaller ship game to jump around between them disrupting them so the main fleet can attack the primary target.
Suddenly we now have 6-10 grids combat takes place on when attacking a single target, rather than just one grid. Though in a lengthy siege if the defenders are effective at the station but not at the side nodes, it may devolve down to just the station. But if you put penalties in place for allowing the side nodes to be destroyed, they have a reason to care, and it makes it less of a slug fest if they decide to abandon the side nodes and pin everything on the main fleet battle to then down the 'target'.
Grids could be say..... 5000km apart? So close range to each other, but far enough you aren't normally N-Space flying between them (Unless you are an interceptor and even then it's a while)
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#13 - 2013-07-30 17:15:18 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Take the MTAC from Incursions idea that you have to do A to B, in order to attack C effectively.. Expand that up.

I approve of this product and/or service.

Some of those objectives need to be designed so that they are not mere HP sponges. Perhaps anchoring counter units and defending those (as the attacker) to mix things up? Also, it should be done so that a certain amount of damage can be done by roams a couple days in advance of the main fleet, to give roaming gangs some real meaning other then padding killboards.
Zoe Arbosa
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2013-07-30 17:32:18 UTC
[
Quote:

Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Take the MTAC from Incursions idea that you have to do A to B, in order to attack C effectively.. Expand that up.


Why would the defender hit more than 1 objective?

All this would do is force the defender to always have the ability to choose the field whereas now, it's the first in system that gets to prepare the field.

Individual grid density doesn't matter in a TiDi situation either, it's the entire solar system that is effected.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2013-07-30 17:45:52 UTC
I learned from looking at battle reports that only 1 Titan went down.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#16 - 2013-07-31 05:50:35 UTC
Zoe Arbosa wrote:
[
Quote:

Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Take the MTAC from Incursions idea that you have to do A to B, in order to attack C effectively.. Expand that up.


Why would the defender hit more than 1 objective?

All this would do is force the defender to always have the ability to choose the field whereas now, it's the first in system that gets to prepare the field.

Individual grid density doesn't matter in a TiDi situation either, it's the entire solar system that is effected.

Handshake Game.
You are in a room of x people. You will shake hands with everyone else in the room once.
They will do the same.
1 person. 0 handshakes.
2 people. 1 handshake
3 people. 3 handshakes
4 people. 6 handshakes
5 people. 10 handshakes.
Get the pattern?
Now, obviously we don't work on pure handshake protocols any more, but the density on grid does impact as well as the number in system in most computing systems. I can't confirm that EVE is impacted at all, but I can't see why it wouldn't be impacted since at the very least, the handshake game is played over collision bubbles being checked every server tick, even if gunfire is a linear scale.

So, extrapolating the above table to the actual formula gives us x players = ((x-1)/2)*x. Since there is an exponential involved (x*x) it scales faster than the number of players, so halving the number of players on any given grid by moving them to another grid, more than halves the computing power being used in any system which uses the handshakes. I.E. Collision detection.

As for why the defender would choose more than one objective, read what I suggested. To give example numbers.... There are 4 'sub nodes' and one 'primary node' but the attacker gets full effect for shooting at only 2 sub nodes. So.... the Defender has to defend at least 3 of the sub nodes to avoid this. And even allowing them to disrupt one sub node matters. Exact balance of this would be hard to craft, but it would encourage situations where smaller forces can skirmish over the sub nodes while the main fleet engages the primary node. And the Defender then has a reason to match where possible. Or if they only defend the main node, they are making a sacrifice of the bonuses/penalties not defending the sub nodes brings.