These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Time Dilation Sux

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#101 - 2012-02-13 14:37:58 UTC
Professor Alphane wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:


Complaining about an interim solution because it is not yet the final solution is pointless.




Essentially I was complaining that if they hadn't invested so much in 'gambling' on new products this interim solution would be a final complete and fully workable solution already.

Also not entirely sure the assertion, we would still need Tidi is entirely true but I don't think anyone but the devs really have the data to asses that problem in it's entirety.


That is correct, and they have assessed the issue... and published their findings on this topic more than once in various blogs on the subject.

As they have pointed out in the past, dynamically shifting people from node to node (or onto a reinforced or "super" node) would require a vast rewrite of basic EVE code. It was not designed with this premise in mind originally, which is unfortunate but there you have it.

I understand your point, so does CCP. They have and are continuously working in that direction... but it's a huge undertaking that will likely be years to completion (if ever). Other projects are not a factor in this equation... no more so that creating other content for EVE.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Professor Alphane
Les Corsaires Diable
#102 - 2012-02-13 14:41:35 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Other projects are not a factor in this equation...


Oh you say a massive rewrite of the fundamental code would be required , how massive is that , probably less than writing 2 new games from scratch I'd imagine.

[center]YOU MUST THINK FIRST....[/center] [center]"I sit with the broken angels clutching at straws and nursing our scars.." - Marillion [/center] [center]The wise man watches the rise and fall of fools from afar[/center]
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#103 - 2012-02-13 15:18:41 UTC
Professor Alphane wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Other projects are not a factor in this equation...


Oh you say a massive rewrite of the fundamental code would be required , how massive is that , probably less than writing 2 new games from scratch I'd imagine.


... or constant updates and new releases.

By your logic it makes sense to put all expansions on hold for a few years so that EVE can be rewritten from the ground up.

Lets try to be realistic here and let CCP devote a reasonable amount of resources to fixing this issue, as well as keep us happy with new expansions as well as expanding their portfolio to remain financially solvent.

We now have a very acceptable interim solution in place, with more to come shortly client side. Insisting that CCP should turn their business model and future plans upside down so that a few people won't risk having to move a system lest their game slow down temporarily is more than a little unrealistic.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Professor Alphane
Les Corsaires Diable
#104 - 2012-02-13 15:37:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Professor Alphane
Ranger 1 wrote:

By your logic it makes sense to put all expansions on hold for a few years so that EVE can be rewritten from the ground up.
.


You seem to have followed my logic incorrectly, IMO it makes no sense to heavily invest in other projects that might never make $1 in favour of your 'cash cow' , feel free to continue to be obtuse and try and put words in my mouth though Roll

Also

Quote:
as well as expanding their portfolio to remain financially solvent.


Recent staff cutbacks seem to indicate that this is whats threatening there solvency, but thats an entirely diffrent disscusion

/edit you also seem to misenterperate my position in your last paragraph as well, this specific case is an example of a more general problem IMO, not that this specific case is the entire problem

[center]YOU MUST THINK FIRST....[/center] [center]"I sit with the broken angels clutching at straws and nursing our scars.." - Marillion [/center] [center]The wise man watches the rise and fall of fools from afar[/center]
Jonathan Malcom
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#105 - 2012-02-13 17:31:40 UTC
Professor Alphane wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

By your logic it makes sense to put all expansions on hold for a few years so that EVE can be rewritten from the ground up.
.


You seem to have followed my logic incorrectly, IMO it makes no sense to heavily invest in other projects that might never make $1 in favour of your 'cash cow' , feel free to continue to be obtuse and try and put words in my mouth though Roll

Also

Quote:
as well as expanding their portfolio to remain financially solvent.


Recent staff cutbacks seem to indicate that this is whats threatening there solvency, but thats an entirely diffrent disscusion

/edit you also seem to misenterperate my position in your last paragraph as well, this specific case is an example of a more general problem IMO, not that this specific case is the entire problem


You're an idiot.

You think investing time and energy in a new product to generate revenue is the same as entirely rewriting an existing product for no tangible benefit except sparing a few lowsec systems some occasional dilation.

Also, every argument you've put forward in this thread has been from a position of ignorance. You don't know anything about Eve's server structure or how it was programmed. You're telling CCP to fix the problem and you don't even know what the problem is.

Stop posting.
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#106 - 2012-02-13 17:33:39 UTC
Never stop posting.
Doc Severide
Doomheim
#107 - 2012-02-13 17:51:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Doc Severide
Translation of all this:

TiDi really does help large fleet battles which I would hoped it would. The old way was a big big problem...

BUT

Everyone else playing who is inconvienced... Tough, suck it up or quit...your game time isn't valued by many in the EVE community...

Who ever said life is fair???
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#108 - 2012-02-13 17:52:56 UTC
Doc Severide wrote:
Everyone else playing who is inconvienced... Tough, suck it up or quit...you game time isn't valued by many in the EVE community...[/b]

They can TiDi with us or we can go back to the old days where they'd crash with us.

Maybe in future we need gank squads to go to systems that are TiDied and kill people there.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Doc Severide
Doomheim
#109 - 2012-02-13 17:55:43 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Doc Severide wrote:
Everyone else playing who is inconvienced... Tough, suck it up or quit...you game time isn't valued by many in the EVE community...[/b]

They can TiDi with us or we can go back to the old days where they'd crash with us.

Maybe in future we need gank squads to go to systems that are TiDied and kill people there.

No, don't wanna see that going backwards, I agree it really was bad...

All I'm saying is that some can play while others cannot under these circumstances. And it obviously doesn't matter to some.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#110 - 2012-02-13 17:58:59 UTC
Professor Alphane wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:


Complaining about an interim solution because it is not yet the final solution is pointless.




Essentially I was complaining that if they hadn't invested so much in 'gambling' on new products this interim solution would be a final complete and fully workable solution already.

Also not entirely sure the assertion, we would still need Tidi is entirely true but I don't think anyone but the devs really have the data to asses that problem in it's entirety.


It's a matter of geometry.

Scales increase, therefore we need TiDi. You don't necessarily have to believe it, just try to understand that if you make a box twice as big, it can still be filled. If you make it twice as big again, it can still be filled, and so on.

In this analogy, the box is the maximum threshold at which the server stops receiving all the module queues and they start to accrue. The substance filling the box is the modules queuing. What TiDi does is stretch the box's dimensions on the fly. That's the genius of it: They are monitoring the node and balancing it.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Doc Severide
Doomheim
#111 - 2012-02-13 18:48:54 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Professor Alphane wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:


Complaining about an interim solution because it is not yet the final solution is pointless.




Essentially I was complaining that if they hadn't invested so much in 'gambling' on new products this interim solution would be a final complete and fully workable solution already.

Also not entirely sure the assertion, we would still need Tidi is entirely true but I don't think anyone but the devs really have the data to asses that problem in it's entirety.


It's a matter of geometry.

Scales increase, therefore we need TiDi. You don't necessarily have to believe it, just try to understand that if you make a box twice as big, it can still be filled. If you make it twice as big again, it can still be filled, and so on.

In this analogy, the box is the maximum threshold at which the server stops receiving all the module queues and they start to accrue. The substance filling the box is the modules queuing. What TiDi does is stretch the box's dimensions on the fly. That's the genius of it: They are monitoring the node and balancing it.

Reminds me of this girl I knew. Her box was so big that....(Insert sick fantasy here)
Mongo Travler
Recreational Hazards
#112 - 2012-02-13 19:58:28 UTC
Time-Dilation was effecting more systems then just random null systems.

I was flying through low sec when I jumped into a dilated system. To me a node crash would have almost been preferable to hoping that my pursuers were experiencing the same time delay and that my client wasn't crashing. When you know you are jumping into a large fleet fight and expect the dilation that is completely different then trying to fight/flee in a system of 5 people and discovering that everything is moving at half speed.

I would agree with others in this thread that a more amicable implementation would be to assign nodes to constellations or connected systems. At the very least then you know that a large fight is taking place near by and not on the other side of the universe.
Professor Alphane
Les Corsaires Diable
#113 - 2012-02-13 19:59:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Professor Alphane
Darth Gustav wrote:

It's a matter of geometry.

Scales increase, therefore we need TiDi. You don't necessarily have to believe it, just try to understand that if you make a box twice as big, it can still be filled. If you make it twice as big again, it can still be filled, and so on.

In this analogy, the box is the maximum threshold at which the server stops receiving all the module queues and they start to accrue. The substance filling the box is the modules queuing. What TiDi does is stretch the box's dimensions on the fly. That's the genius of it: They are monitoring the node and balancing it.



Interesting analogy, surely you are shrinking the substance in the box not stretching the box, to be able to strectch the box on the fly you need dynamic nodes, which is what I am advocanting. Also how big these 'boxes' CAN be is something I dont think we know.

Also to whoever says it's not needed it's just time dilation, IMO giving the nodal system an overhaul is the possible first step of more possible improvemnets to EVE that include balancing player loads, I can think of a few .

/edit Darth to your final dramatic statement I would say you are correct but as ever my point is that expanding resources rather than throtteling input would have been a better solution

[center]YOU MUST THINK FIRST....[/center] [center]"I sit with the broken angels clutching at straws and nursing our scars.." - Marillion [/center] [center]The wise man watches the rise and fall of fools from afar[/center]
Feligast
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#114 - 2012-02-13 22:25:27 UTC
Professor Alphane wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:

It's a matter of geometry.

Scales increase, therefore we need TiDi. You don't necessarily have to believe it, just try to understand that if you make a box twice as big, it can still be filled. If you make it twice as big again, it can still be filled, and so on.

In this analogy, the box is the maximum threshold at which the server stops receiving all the module queues and they start to accrue. The substance filling the box is the modules queuing. What TiDi does is stretch the box's dimensions on the fly. That's the genius of it: They are monitoring the node and balancing it.



Interesting analogy, surely you are shrinking the substance in the box not stretching the box, to be able to strectch the box on the fly you need dynamic nodes, which is what I am advocanting. Also how big these 'boxes' CAN be is something I dont think we know.

Also to whoever says it's not needed it's just time dilation, IMO giving the nodal system an overhaul is the possible first step of more possible improvemnets to EVE that include balancing player loads, I can think of a few .

/edit Darth to your final dramatic statement I would say you are correct but as ever my point is that expanding resources rather than throtteling input would have been a better solution


I have to say, one of the more impressive trolls in GD in a long while. Stretched it to 6 pages on your troll alone.. well played, sir.
Akatenshi Xi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#115 - 2012-02-13 22:33:45 UTC
Here's a thought, how about you do small gangs instead of see who can bring more dumb asses to the party?

You'd save everyone in EVE from TiDi effects.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#116 - 2012-02-13 22:40:37 UTC
Throw more monies at it.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Sisohiv
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2012-02-13 22:49:51 UTC
Just add TiDi effect to the map. It should have been done at implementation.
Xolve
State War Academy
Caldari State
#118 - 2012-02-13 22:56:55 UTC
Confirming 500 vs 250 man fleet last night (including late join cap fleet) TiDi peaked at 42%; 1-3 second targeting lag, 405 second module activation lag. Nobody Crashed.

Even if TiDi effects the entire node, the way things are going in the North, its relatively unrealistic to ask CCP to reinforce multiple regions (Tenal, Venal, Branch, Deklein, Tribute), everyone in a system under the effects of TiDi is also slowed down, this is a glorious thing.

If you've never been in a large fleet battle (multiple fleets even) or you've never stepped foot into Null-Sec just shut up now, your opinion is worthless, your argument invalid.
Professor Alphane
Les Corsaires Diable
#119 - 2012-02-13 23:04:06 UTC
Xolve wrote:

If you've never been in a large fleet battle (multiple fleets even) or you've never stepped foot into Null-Sec just shut up now, your opinion is worthless, your argument invalid.



I'm not knocking people for liking the system that allows you to do what the game (CCP) have promised for so long that you should be able to do, and you should.

Most of my disscusion on the subject has been regarding it's quality, why development has suffered because of CCP business diversification stratergy and the technicalities of such undertakings.

At no time have I posted to delibartely inflame annoy or otherwise insult anybody, I don't believe others could say the same.

Farnkly null sec is of no interest to me personally at this time, nor has it ever been, doesn't mean I have no right to have my say.

[center]YOU MUST THINK FIRST....[/center] [center]"I sit with the broken angels clutching at straws and nursing our scars.." - Marillion [/center] [center]The wise man watches the rise and fall of fools from afar[/center]
Xolve
State War Academy
Caldari State
#120 - 2012-02-14 00:03:11 UTC
Professor Alphane wrote:
Farnkly null sec is of no interest to me personally at this time, nor has it ever been, doesn't mean I have no right to have my say.


Maybe my statement was a little too brash, I was simply implying that those that don't understand how much of a boon TiDi actually is, need not reply to this thread; understandably the entire node said battle is happening in can fall into TiDi, and TiDi can come into effect from a large group of players entering a system without any shots fired. Those who never experienced lag in Empire or LowSec because there were 4000 people battling it out in a system somewhere, crashing nodes, and sometimes the server don't understand how great this simple improvement is.

I also wouldn't consider it a permanent fix to the situation, its pretty great though being able to actually have large fleet battles without de-syncing from the servers, crashing, or staring at a black screen for hours (although jumping across a 240 AU system in Venal sucks at 10% TiDi).