These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

TiDi
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Pete marino2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2014-01-04 13:33:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Pete marino2
if money was no object, is there the technology available (Hardware/software) to completely remove tidi from eve?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#2 - 2014-01-04 13:43:04 UTC
First of all, you don't want to remove tidi — you want to remove the conditions that triggers tidi. If you remove tidi and hit those conditions, things die horribly. Tidi is a solution, not a problem.

Second of all, sure. An infinite number of monkeys could probably rewrite EVE from the ground up in a language that is better suited for multithreading and thus take advantage of multiple cores or distributed computing in a finite amount of time.

More hardware won't solve anything until that happens, and when it does, more hardware would probably not be needed anyway.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#3 - 2014-01-04 14:01:04 UTC
Eve can at best place one solar system on one core of one computer. So faster hardware would imply a faster core. CCP currently has the fastest one available. When faster computers are made these days its done by adding cores and rewriting the software to use them. So what CCP really needs to make TiDi go away is to rewrite the software so a solar system can be run on several cores at once.

One interesting thing to think about is how much more speed would be needed. Currently battles of around 1000 to 2000 can be handled with not too mush issue. If there was no need for TiDi battles could grow to 10,000 or so, given the current membership numbers. Server load tends to grow like the number of people in a battle squared. So to handle a battle of 10,000 people the software would have to be able to split it to over 100 cores.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Johan Civire
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#4 - 2014-01-04 14:04:53 UTC
Urg like I told it before the code or "core" is based on 1998 computer. In that time there was only 1 cpu core. Also there was a 2 gpu at maxs. (voodoo). So the build a system code based on that. And like a house when its finish its finish and lets hope the house will made it 100 years. In this case and the time have past its proved that it works. Not on the best way but it works. The can not change the core code.

Like Vincent Athena says the need to build up a new core again. Waste of time for the moment.
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#5 - 2014-01-04 14:41:37 UTC
Johan Civire wrote:
And like a house when its finish its finish and lets hope the house will made it 100 years.


GUT IT! GUT IT NOW!

XD

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
#6 - 2014-01-04 14:45:31 UTC
Tippia wrote:
First of all, you don't want to remove tidi — you want to remove the conditions that triggers tidi. If you remove tidi and hit those conditions, things die horribly. Tidi is a solution, not a problem.

Second of all, sure. An infinite number of monkeys could probably rewrite EVE from the ground up in a language that is better suited for multithreading and thus take advantage of multiple cores or distributed computing in a finite amount of time.

More hardware won't solve anything until that happens, and when it does, more hardware would probably not be needed anyway.


I don't like agreeing with Tippia but she is right.


EVE is a single core coded game. Front and back. The only way to preserve EVE itself and move it forward would be to 'quarantine' battle zones. Or in true terms, instance them.

R.I.P. Vile Rat
Themanfromdalmontee
EVE RADIO ARMY
#7 - 2014-01-04 14:55:35 UTC
Pete marino2 wrote:
if money was no object, is there the technology available (Harware/software) to completely remove tidi from eve?


Please read the dev blogs related to Tidi, also read up on herd mentality and mental instability.

Also search Tidi in the forum search.

Once you've done all that you will understand why you are a little slow and need some help.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#8 - 2014-01-04 14:58:21 UTC
Ioci wrote:
The only way to preserve EVE itself and move it forward would be to 'quarantine' battle zones. Or in true terms, instance them.

What? That wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference. Any solution that would allow instancing to have any effect would itself solve the problem and make instancing unnecessary.
Deunan Tenephais
#9 - 2014-01-04 15:08:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Deunan Tenephais
Tippia wrote:
First of all, you don't want to remove tidi — you want to remove the conditions that triggers tidi.

Find a way to make concentration of AoE damage far deadlier, perhaps ?

EDIT: And at a hefty risk for the operator, to make sure it is not instant-win-eïm-ubba-pown-one-shot-button tactic
baltec1
Bat Country
The Initiative.
#10 - 2014-01-04 15:13:58 UTC
Deunan Tenephais wrote:
Tippia wrote:
First of all, you don't want to remove tidi — you want to remove the conditions that triggers tidi.

Find a way to make concentration of AoE damage far deadlier, perhaps ?

EDIT: And at a hefty risk for the operator, to make sure it is not instant-win-eïm-ubba-pown-one-shot-button tactic


You arn't getting them back.
GreenSeed
#11 - 2014-01-04 15:30:25 UTC
the problem is not TiDi, the problem is the lack incentives to break up the Blob.

the game needs more than gentle suggestions in the form of bombers, aoe jammers, target breakers, smartbombs, bubbles, etc, etc. so long as those are the only anti blob mechanics, then cramming two thousand bodies in system will continue to be the preferred tactic, and as soon as the servers can handle it, they will cram three thousand.

if the rewarded strategic approach to warfare is "lock broadcasted target" -> "F1" then the only way to win is to get more numbers than the opponent, this is as old as eve.

This cant be solved by just adding a module or two, there needs to be a radical change.

as an example, the current resistance model is broken, they lead to alpha when considered along reps. this in turn leads to the blob. ships should get a dramatic increase to their raw HP paired with a reduction on resistances on all hulls, add on top of that diminishing returns on rr. and voila, fleet engagements have their dynamic changed and the "path of less resistance" is no longer alphaing stuff off grid.

the same happens with SoV, the current model dues a lot of things right, and some wrong. but the worst of all is the fact that it encourages one system fights. add supply lines, even if NPC maintained, and you changed the logic of the engagement. its not just about making the timers, but about blockading and harassing supply lines.

my point is, the current gameplay design calls for fighting numbers with modules, ships, etc. and it fails miserably at that, because they risk creating no win scenarios. imagine if they buffed the target breaking module to the point that it becomes worth fitting. the blob is not just dead, it is destroyed. in the same "unfun" way the AoE DD tried to solve the blob and ended up creating such a "no-win scenario" that people refused to undock.

so, the problem is not with the modules that can be created within the gameplay restrictions that we impose, but with the gameplay restrictions themselves.

resistance model, sov, logistics, super capitals roles, even targeting mechanics need a review in light of the monster they have created.

but the worst part of it all, is that this problem is 10 years old. and people still insist in setting up fans and opening windows to make the smoke go away, instead of putting out the fire.
Deunan Tenephais
#12 - 2014-01-04 15:33:00 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Deunan Tenephais wrote:
Tippia wrote:
First of all, you don't want to remove tidi — you want to remove the conditions that triggers tidi.

Find a way to make concentration of AoE damage far deadlier, perhaps ?

EDIT: And at a hefty risk for the operator, to make sure it is not instant-win-eïm-ubba-pown-one-shot-button tactic


You arn't getting them back.

Huh ?

Okay, you think I must be talking about something that was removed and that I would like to see come back in the game.
I was thinking about mid-range broad-AoE ammos that would hurt the shooter if shooting at close range and be unusable at long range, making necessary to be in a "sweet spot" to operate them correctly.

Was something like that in the game at some point ?
Iria Ahrens
Space Perverts and Forum Pirates
#13 - 2014-01-04 15:43:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Iria Ahrens
Deunan Tenephais wrote:


Okay, you think I must be talking about something that was removed and that I would like to see come back in the game.
I was thinking about mid-range broad-AoE ammos that would hurt the shooter if shooting at close range and be unusable at long range, making necessary to be in a "sweet spot" to operate them correctly.

Was something like that in the game at some point ?


Dooms day device.

Boom 500 ships dead.

My choice of pronouns is based on your avatar. Even if I know what is behind the avatar.
Deunan Tenephais
#14 - 2014-01-04 15:52:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Deunan Tenephais
Iria Ahrens wrote:
Deunan Tenephais wrote:


Okay, you think I must be talking about something that was removed and that I would like to see come back in the game.
I was thinking about mid-range broad-AoE ammos that would hurt the shooter if shooting at close range and be unusable at long range, making necessary to be in a "sweet spot" to operate them correctly.

Was something like that in the game at some point ?


Dooms day device.

Boom 500 ships dead.

I was thinking about something less powerful on less tanky and more common ships.
Wouldn't the dilution of the dps by an increase in number of targets counter the pile-up blob tactic, making it less effective and less used ?
Knowing that with the range limitation it would need to be properly operated to be worthwile and avoid collateral damages.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#15 - 2014-01-04 15:56:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Bombs already do that, and it's not really a solution to the problem.

You really only have two options: make it sane, in which it's easy enough to overcome if you do things right so it won't really solve anything, or make it overpowered, in which case you exchange one problem for another.


Anyway, the problem is with the software and with the operational objectives — that's where the change needs to happen, not in what goes on on-grid.
Deunan Tenephais
#16 - 2014-01-04 16:08:57 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Bombs already do that, and it's not really a solution to the problem.

You really only have two options: make it sane, in which it's easy enough to overcome if you do things right so it won't really solve anything, or make it overpowered, in which case you exchange one problem for another.


Anyway, the problem is with the software and with the operational objectives — that's where the change needs to happen, not in what goes on on-grid.

Bombs do not, their main drawback is that a fleet cannot really pile them up unless it start hurting the smartbombers themselves, helping in their removal.
Not so with AoE range and spread-out shooters.
And a third option would be to make the tactic overpowered only against blobs, and lame against everything else.

But after thinking about it again, even if something worked to break the blobs, then what would prevent people from engaging in smaller fights all over the same system; it would be the same thing tidi-wise.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#17 - 2014-01-04 16:15:58 UTC
Deunan Tenephais wrote:
Bombs do not, their main drawback is that a fleet cannot really pile them up unless it start hurting the smartbombers themselves, helping in their removal.
Bombs, not smartbombs.

Quote:
And a third option would be to make the tactic overpowered only against blobs, and lame against everything else.
Good luck coding that in a way that doesn't make it hugely exploitable.

Quote:
But after thinking about it again, even if something worked to break the blobs, then what would prevent people from engaging in smaller fights all over the same system; it would be the same thing tidi-wise.
Exactly. The on-grid tactics are not where you're going to solve a systematic problem such as the operational requirement that you pile people onto a node until it (nearly) crashes in order to win.
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#18 - 2014-01-04 17:37:08 UTC
If money was absolutely not an object, of course TiDI could be fixed.

You could just hire a team of 15 or so hotshot PhD computer scientists and give them all underlings and a nice big budget and the problem would be fixed in no time.
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#19 - 2014-01-04 17:45:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Ptraci
Pete marino2 wrote:
if money was no object, is there the technology available (Harware/software) to completely remove tidi from eve?


Money is not an object, but the laws of physics are. If CCP upgrades their servers to handle fleet battles of 5000+ people, in two months' time there will be people trying to make 6000 person battles. Etc, until hardware limits are reached.

Fundamental law of human nature: No matter how much you have, you will need more.
Trii Seo
Goonswarm Federation
#20 - 2014-01-04 19:24:31 UTC
EVE's server is software-wise actually less screwed up than the client, it works well with multithreading since it's written in a different language. The best solution is to find an incentive to break up the blob, and the best hopes for that is a sov system reliant less on raw HP objective.

(That said, a software rework of many features is needed and ongoing, an example would be session change timers and skill queues. Currently, IIRC, the skill queue data is synced between the server and client for each session change, which causes massive load when a fleet undocks or bridges/jumps into the system - to the point a travelling fleet causes more tidi than a fighting one, and you can see on TiDi spikes when reinforcements jump into the system)

Since HP pools vanish faster when you pile in more guns on them, once you hit the damage ceiling per ship shooting a structure the only way to make things faster is to pile in more ships. A system that moves away from this could break one massive fight into multiple smaller fights, easier to manage by the server.

Proud pilot of the Imperium

Arek'Jaalan: Heliograph
12Next page