These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Regarding E-YJ8G last night

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
BigSako
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2013-11-23 15:31:08 UTC
Abdiel Kavash wrote:


What should happen instead is a general nerf of capital/supercapital EHP and capital repping capability. Capital reps are the reason for 1000 man fleets - you simply can't break 100 archons repping a super or a titan without either hundreds of dreads or a thousand of subcaps.



1. They allready have been nerfed (at least super capitals and titans)

2. What you are saying is that CFC, Razor and BL are both stupid and blind for trying to attack our capitals.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2013-11-23 15:31:25 UTC
Minmatar Citizen160812 wrote:
Remove killmails from null fights that involve more than 100 players and BAM no more 1000's that log in when the "supers tackled" call goes out. What do I win for fixing the issues?


Because KMs are very important and a measure of ones ability to pvp?
Minmatar Citizen160812
The LGBT Last Supper
#43 - 2013-11-23 15:36:02 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Minmatar Citizen160812 wrote:
Remove killmails from null fights that involve more than 100 players and BAM no more 1000's that log in when the "supers tackled" call goes out. What do I win for fixing the issues?


Because KMs are very important and a measure of ones ability to pvp?



Not to me and apparently not to you either...but I never see people all excited to link a SOV capture in chat. Try it and see how many show up when there is "something to shoot".
Ambassador Spock
Doomheim
#44 - 2013-11-23 15:37:39 UTC
CCP Veritas wrote:
It was processing a standard gameplay request from a player. This was not a case of developer interaction with the node.


Aw man I really hope it was me turning on my remote repper that killed the node. Then I could change my signature to say "I am Spock. Killer of nodes in my t1 logi."

Fun fight though, even though we would have come out better had the node not crashed. I'm just surprised my magical Exequror survived yet another massive null fight...

 --  - Ambassador Spock

"Vulcans never bluff."
gobbybobby
Negative-Impact
#45 - 2013-11-23 15:39:49 UTC
Thanks for keeping us informed, was very disappointing when that soul crashing lag message popped up, but at least the node crashed early on unlike the last big battle I was in where "soul crashing lag" message read that I had waiting 45 mins for a remote call, before the node finally died.

Maybe there is some way you could implement some sort of recovery when a node does crash, save the state of the battlefield, locations of ships, bubbles, drones ETC, and then perhaps implement some sort of time pause once recovered to allow people time to log back in (maybe 5 mins), before the fight resumes. I mean its not ideal, but at the moment a node crash is fight ending.
BigSako
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2013-11-23 15:40:43 UTC
I agree, killmails are the main part of what is driving the game. Being able to claim that you killed a titan is worthless unless you actually have proof.

Sov warfare would be worthless without seeing your alliances name in the top left corner of the screen (and on dotlan, ingame map, ...).

In the end, all you would get is "I was there, and we killed a lot, but I dont know how much". It would drastically reduce numbers in fleets, and the game itself.
So while you would fix TiDi, you would break CCPs income and the fun for most people.
Minmatar Citizen160812
The LGBT Last Supper
#47 - 2013-11-23 15:49:28 UTC
BigSako wrote:
I agree, killmails are the main part of what is driving the game. Being able to claim that you killed a titan is worthless unless you actually have proof.

Sov warfare would be worthless without seeing your alliances name in the top left corner of the screen (and on dotlan, ingame map, ...).

In the end, all you would get is "I was there, and we killed a lot, but I dont know how much". It would drastically reduce numbers in fleets, and the game itself.
So while you would fix TiDi, you would break CCPs income and the fun for most people.


Well, maybe the live streams, screenshots and the Titan's mods in your cargo might prove it so killwhores still think they did something of worth?

Add a little token that drops in your cargo when a super goes down in lieu of the killmail that says....I was THERE!
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#48 - 2013-11-23 15:52:26 UTC
CCP Veritas wrote:
Abrazzar wrote:
Is IA checking on who authorized that process?

It was processing a standard gameplay request from a player. This was not a case of developer interaction with the node.

Not to be all tinfoily but I assume you're checking to make sure it wasn't malformed or the like in a way that might have been deliberate.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Diivil
Magellanic Itg
Goonswarm Federation
#49 - 2013-11-23 16:00:45 UTC
I hope this fight and the one in KW-I6T earlier are not a start of a trend where every big supercap fight on an unreinforced node ends up in a node crash. I don't like TIDI but I accept it because we have no other option right now however the time for band aid fixes is over. Considering how Eve is the only thing keeping CCP afloat I would assume they are working on a better solution.. Hopefully. I hope that the lack of new short term solutions is a sign of long term solutions being worked on. Veritas has commented how "he lost his team" (team gridlock that worked on these issues) and was reassigned. This does not sound very hopeful to me. CCP must understand that the current state can't last for more than a few more years. I hope Eve's second decade doesn't consist of small border skirmishes that crash server nodes. That's a lot of hope and I really don't have any of it for CCP.

The size of the battles is not going down and will not do so until subscriber numbers start dropping. The current meta is drone assist and that will not be changing considering the advantages and most importantly drone assist works much better in high lag than normal gun/launcher modules. I don't know if drone based doctrines are more taxing to the servers but considering how this node crashed at 1100 people I might just make that assumption. TIDI itself is a bit counter productive because it allows one person to bring all his accounts and play them perfectly because he has so much time to act. Personally I don't bother with that in these fights that don't concern our space. Instead I just play other games and do a single bombing run every 30 minutes or just have my FC play my Dominix while I play other games.
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#50 - 2013-11-23 16:36:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Eram Fidard
Diivil wrote:
I hope this fight and the one in KW-I6T earlier are not a start of a trend where every big supercap fight on an unreinforced node ends up in a node crash. I don't like TIDI but I accept it because we have no other option right now however the time for band aid fixes is over. Considering how Eve is the only thing keeping CCP afloat I would assume they are working on a better solution.. Hopefully. I hope that the lack of new short term solutions is a sign of long term solutions being worked on. Veritas has commented how "he lost his team" (team gridlock that worked on these issues) and was reassigned. This does not sound very hopeful to me. CCP must understand that the current state can't last for more than a few more years. I hope Eve's second decade doesn't consist of small border skirmishes that crash server nodes. That's a lot of hope and I really don't have any of it for CCP.

The size of the battles is not going down and will not do so until subscriber numbers start dropping. The current meta is drone assist and that will not be changing considering the advantages and most importantly drone assist works much better in high lag than normal gun/launcher modules. I don't know if drone based doctrines are more taxing to the servers but considering how this node crashed at 1100 people I might just make that assumption. TIDI itself is a bit counter productive because it allows one person to bring all his accounts and play them perfectly because he has so much time to act. Personally I don't bother with that in these fights that don't concern our space. Instead I just play other games and do a single bombing run every 30 minutes or just have my FC play my Dominix while I play other games.



Most definitely all of this, bolded for emphasis.


I really hope CCP is working on 'brain in a box' stuff, as that would hopefully take away a lot of the potential for carriers/supers/droneboats crashing the node on jump-in.

I also have to agree that hundreds of capital reps are too much. 255 dreads might do the trick, but try actually jumping them into a fight that size, with thousands of FBs already deployed. Time for stacking penalties on reps (scaled by ship size) when applied to a player?

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Reiisha
#51 - 2013-11-23 16:47:04 UTC
Ting Mei wrote:
Veritas,

The problem is not only the node crash, but the TiDi system.

Even if we are all ok that is better to have TiDi than a systematic node crash as before, TiDi is really ruining the game little by little.

When you are in a fight, TIDI 10% is often activated, but the problem, is our brain not at 10%, and TIDI offer all the time for reinforcement to come, strategies to be discussed, etc ....

This really change the way of a fight ...

I'm very afraid CCP think TiDi is THE solution, and you are not working on something else ...

For me, don't know for others, even if on internal coms, most of players hate Tidi, that system is Ruining 0.0 fights little by little.


It always boggles the mind how people think a simultaneous connection between 1000+ people can be 'solved to run perfectly at all times even when random fights happen'. There's a very very good reason why most games are limited to just 64 people, even most MMO's are limited to 100 people per (combat) instance.

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...
Mad Ani
Meta Zero
Meta Reloaded
#52 - 2013-11-23 16:51:08 UTC
I was there...

Streamed the whole thing

http://www.twitch.tv/mad_ani/c/3285133

♫ ♪ MAD ANI TV/RADIO • 24/7 EVE live stream with Trance/Dance/Chillout • On air since 17th Jan 2013 •Most popular stream •3rd Party Super Service
Reiisha
#53 - 2013-11-23 16:52:19 UTC
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
I would in fact love a mechanic that would discourage multi-thousand man node-crashing fights (at least as long as they are node-crashing). But I have yet to see a proposal that actually works.

You can't simply penalize based on fleet size. The same group of people would just split off into multiple smaller fleets, lead from the same out-of-game comms. You won't make it undesirable to run large fleets, just more tedious.

You can't stacking penalize DPS on ships. That would only mean that even more people are needed to break the same tank and would lead to even bigger fleets to apply the same DPS.

What should happen instead is a general nerf of capital/supercapital EHP and capital repping capability. Capital reps are the reason for 1000 man fleets - you simply can't break 100 archons repping a super or a titan without either hundreds of dreads or a thousand of subcaps.


Line of sight fire. Blobbing will be ineffective since people have to account for friendly ships being in line of sight. This would also require actual formations, multiple warp-in points, in the process making instaprobing pointless and fight distances relevant again.

You're welcome.

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#54 - 2013-11-23 16:55:18 UTC
Reiisha wrote:


Line of sight fire. Blobbing will be ineffective since people have to account for friendly ships being in line of sight. This would also require actual formations, multiple warp-in points, in the process making instaprobing pointless and fight distances relevant again.

You're welcome.


Not to mention increasing the amount of calculations the server has to do exponentially.

Try again with less smug.

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Rudina
Deaths Consortium
Pandemic Horde
#55 - 2013-11-23 16:57:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Rudina
Reiisha wrote:

Line of sight fire. Blobbing will be ineffective since people have to account for friendly ships being in line of sight. This would also require actual formations, multiple warp-in points, in the process making instaprobing pointless and fight distances relevant again.

You're welcome.


Because hundreds of additional calculations for every shot fired is going to reduce server load. Roll

E: Bah! beaten to it.
Servanda
Liga Freier Terraner
Northern Coalition.
#56 - 2013-11-23 17:15:55 UTC
Laserak wrote:
CCP Veritas wrote:
It was processing a standard gameplay request from a player. This was not a case of developer interaction with the node.


Was it a Cheetah??



Only Ev0ke knew that magic.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#57 - 2013-11-23 17:17:14 UTC
Open up monitor during a fight like this, and what do I see?

The client is fetching bounties and killrights. Again and again and again.

Nobody ******* needs these in a large null battle. Killrights are completely irrelevant, and bounties can be payed out later/ Seriously, why are bounties still payed out instantly, when NPC bounties are on a 20 minute tick for the exact reason of avoiding excess server load?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#58 - 2013-11-23 17:24:55 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
The solution is obvious.

People answer to incentives, but bad peformance is not incentive enough to stop piling every last possible ship on grid.

So, a incentive to stop piling ships on grid must be provided.

The war against poor performance in big battles is lost beforehand. No matter how much CCP raises the cap, every faction will try to outnumber the others and all combined will bring down the server.

So stop it altogether. Quality of experience is preferable to quantity of players bored to death as their game plays without them.

My suggestion: improve as much as possible the performance of 4,000 ships battles and add stacking penalties to fleet size and force proportion (that is, big fleets and fleets that massively outpower others will suffer increasingly harsh penalties).



Clearly, the only hope CCP has to end this stupidity is to engage in major social engineering.
The more technical firepower they bring to bear on these nodes, the more people that will try to jump into the node, and the problem starts all over again.

No, the answer lies in making it prohibitively expensive to jump 2000 plus ships into a system.

Something like:

1st 1000 ships: free
next 1000 ships: 1 million/ship
next 500 ships: 10 million / ship
next 500 ships : 100 million / ship
next 250 ships: 500 million / ship
next 250 ships: 1 billion / ship

Would that play into the hands of the richest cartels? Possibly, but if people are willing to commit fleets worth trillions, then additional billions to get all those ships into the fight seems reasonable.
Would this ensure that groups bring out the heavy guns first, instead of a fight escalating? Very likely, and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Something like this would preclude some group purposely overloading a node to save ships, or at least, ensure it does cost them a pretty penny to overload a node.

And CCP can then also give up this idiotic arms race between their technology and the size of the blob that the cartels are willing to throw into a system.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#59 - 2013-11-23 17:26:02 UTC
"Let's force less people to participate, that'll make things more fun"

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
RAW23
#60 - 2013-11-23 17:53:03 UTC  |  Edited by: RAW23
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
"Let's force less people to participate, that'll make things more fun"


It probably would, for precisely the same reason you don't stick 2000 players on a single football pitch (it's more fun to play in a way that is scaled to the available infrastructure). The problem is that no one has yet come up with a system that could restrict numbers that couldn't be horribly gamed by one side filling up the system first.

There are two types of EVE player:

those who believe there are two types of EVE player and those who do not.