These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[out of game] allow players to host servers for gametime.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
SomethingIs InMyButt
Levy Guards
Pandemic Horde
#1 - 2015-06-05 00:30:13 UTC  |  Edited by: SomethingIs InMyButt
Hello all, I want to run this by some people and get some input.
I'm going to suggest that CCP let the players host servers for game time.
The players would be earning time based on NMA or Nominal Minutes Active at a 1:1 scale.
this means that if a player hosts a Nominal server for 23 hours a day (full host uptime daily) that a player could earn 28.75 days of free game time a month.

How CCP benefeits:
Saves money on bandwidth, slows upgrading time and save money on that. It also attracts new players that maybe wouldn't want to pay at first. Because hosting a server is very technical, It would keep out anyone too young, thus keeping the communtiy from turning into a RuneScape clone. Not only that, after the initial investment of writing the code, it's FREE CLOUD COMPUTING. I mean come on, it''s not much better than that.

How we make sure people are keeping the system healty:
This section is technical. be aware. For this example, the Player is running a Chat server. So, the player servers will operate on a hub-spoke-subSpoke structure. the HUB is CCP Games, and the Spoke is the player Servers, and the SubSpoke is a group of players. I have created a flowchart here ( you have to click open). CCP would use Quality controll packets to make sure that the hub is viable, and if needbe, cut out the middleman.

The following servers would be a good place to start;
Chat, Mail, Ad (corp), Skill point ( using encryption and pairity), Inustry jobs, Bounty, Journaling, Rat spawners, calendar, contracts, anythnig in station services, Missioning.

I also think that this would help prevent Time Dialation If the players can perform server tasks effectively, so in essence this will be good for everyone.

Thoughts?
Paranoid Loyd
#2 - 2015-06-05 00:33:55 UTC
Thought

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3 - 2015-06-05 00:34:57 UTC
You do realise that CCP hosts the servers on commercial gear way out of the reach of most players, right? And has a tendency to use technology not even available for home users yet?

I mean, let's not even talk about the major problems with latency, security, server architecture and what the hell happens when the node a player is hosting crashes (or giving players the ability to just unplug a node when they're losing a fight), most of our systems just aren't up to the job.



At least, I'm assuming you're talking about allowing us to host nodes, rather than private servers...
SomethingIs InMyButt
Levy Guards
Pandemic Horde
#4 - 2015-06-05 00:35:04 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Thought

it's mutual.
SomethingIs InMyButt
Levy Guards
Pandemic Horde
#5 - 2015-06-05 00:38:11 UTC  |  Edited by: SomethingIs InMyButt
Danika Princip wrote:
You do realise that CCP hosts the servers on commercial gear way out of the reach of most players, right? And has a tendency to use technology not even available for home users yet?

I mean, let's not even talk about the major problems with latency, security, server architecture and what the hell happens when the node a player is hosting crashes (or giving players the ability to just unplug a node when they're losing a fight), most of our systems just aren't up to the job.



At least, I'm assuming you're talking about allowing us to host nodes, rather than private servers...



nodes is what I meant.
nodes for chat, mail, market, Missions, rats, etc. anything that won't be affected by latency too much.
I'm thinking an effective server could host 10-12 players in chat.
Also that's why you send QC packets.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#6 - 2015-06-05 00:44:43 UTC
SomethingIs InMyButt wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
You do realise that CCP hosts the servers on commercial gear way out of the reach of most players, right? And has a tendency to use technology not even available for home users yet?

I mean, let's not even talk about the major problems with latency, security, server architecture and what the hell happens when the node a player is hosting crashes (or giving players the ability to just unplug a node when they're losing a fight), most of our systems just aren't up to the job.



At least, I'm assuming you're talking about allowing us to host nodes, rather than private servers...



nodes is what I meant.

I'm thinking an effective server could host 10-12 players in chat.
Also that's why you send QC packets.



And how does this help CCP in any way?

And how does this help the game in any way?

And how does this handle people unplugging their systems, given that as far as I know, CCP can't change the node a system is on without taking the system down first?

And how does it handle someone trying to host a node on a 56k satellite connection in the back end of Australia? (Or other less extreme examples of poor connections compared with whatever the ludicrous connection they have in London is)




In short, where is the advantage to this, and how does it mitigate the MASSIVE problems you'd be bringing in?
SomethingIs InMyButt
Levy Guards
Pandemic Horde
#7 - 2015-06-05 00:51:32 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
SomethingIs InMyButt wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
You do realise that CCP hosts the servers on commercial gear way out of the reach of most players, right? And has a tendency to use technology not even available for home users yet?

I mean, let's not even talk about the major problems with latency, security, server architecture and what the hell happens when the node a player is hosting crashes (or giving players the ability to just unplug a node when they're losing a fight), most of our systems just aren't up to the job.



At least, I'm assuming you're talking about allowing us to host nodes, rather than private servers...



nodes is what I meant.

I'm thinking an effective server could host 10-12 players in chat.
Also that's why you send QC packets.



And how does this help CCP in any way?

And how does this help the game in any way?

And how does this handle people unplugging their systems, given that as far as I know, CCP can't change the node a system is on without taking the system down first?

And how does it handle someone trying to host a node on a 56k satellite connection in the back end of Australia? (Or other less extreme examples of poor connections compared with whatever the ludicrous connection they have in London is)




In short, where is the advantage to this, and how does it mitigate the MASSIVE problems you'd be bringing in?


1) it's cloud computing. for free.
2) it helps lower the ping my spreading load.
3)QC pings, pairity in server clients.
4)the QC pings mentioned in the mindmap.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#8 - 2015-06-05 01:01:53 UTC
Where is the advantage in my connection no longer going me -> TQ -> Me, but instead going me -> TQ -> you -> TQ -> me?

How does this system take into account varying internet speeds, varying hardware specs, server nodes suddenly going down constantly, the increase in network issues, and why is needing to co-ordinate and check an entire cloud network better than having a server cluster in a major city with the best connection possible?

How is multiple distributed unreliable points of failure all connected to one central server better than just having that one central server.

How is this good for the game. How is having access to a terrible, unreliable cloud system with nodes that drop out constantly and which are not capable of doing any of the heavy lifting, so not actually saving any noticeable load, better than having a server cluster that does the lot?

How many people are using the cloud to butt addons, and how hilarious does this thread look to them right now?

How much do either of us actually know about EVE's backend, and shouldn't we both find something better to talk about?

This idea is unworkable. Let's discuss the deeper meaning behind the birdie song instead.
SomethingIs InMyButt
Levy Guards
Pandemic Horde
#9 - 2015-06-05 01:11:26 UTC  |  Edited by: SomethingIs InMyButt
Danika Princip wrote:
1.)Where is the advantage in my connection no longer going me -> TQ -> Me, but instead going me -> TQ -> you -> TQ -> me?

2.)How does this system take into account varying internet speeds, varying hardware specs, server nodes suddenly going down constantly, the increase in network issues, and why is needing to co-ordinate and check an entire cloud network better than having a server cluster in a major city with the best connection possible?

3.)How is multiple distributed unreliable points of failure all connected to one central server better than just having that one central server.

4.)How is this good for the game. How is having access to a terrible, unreliable cloud system with nodes that drop out constantly and which are not capable of doing any of the heavy lifting, so not actually saving any noticeable load, better than having a server cluster that does the lot?

5.)How many people are using the cloud to butt addons, and how hilarious does this thread look to them right now?

6.)How much do either of us actually know about EVE's backend, and shouldn't we both find something better to talk about?

This idea is unworkable. Let's discuss the deeper meaning behind the birdie song instead.


1.)It goes TQ -> Server -> you.
since each Server will cater to multiple players, TQ doesn't use as much bandwidth, or computational power.

2.)That's all managed in the QC packet system ( hosted on another player server?)

3.)It saves CCP money. It saves you lag, and It allows for more Fiscal descisions to be made.

4.)How am I to work with the most pessimistic view since the Burn jita victims? You just restated the above question.

5.)Zero, as such, this thread is in the suggestions spool.

6.) right, find something better to talk about. you can go away now and talk about whatever you like.
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2015-06-05 01:21:13 UTC
You can not be serious. I mean... ideas are one thing. At the very least do SOME research into basic viability before you start spewing this sort of non-sense.

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
SomethingIs InMyButt
Levy Guards
Pandemic Horde
#11 - 2015-06-05 01:34:46 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
You can not be serious. I mean... ideas are one thing. At the very least do SOME research into basic viability before you start spewing this sort of non-sense.

and the same to you. your claim of nonsense holds nothing without any evidence.
Christopher Mabata
Northern Accounts and Systems
#12 - 2015-06-05 01:58:24 UTC
That is actually a violation of the CCP TOS in certain circumstances.

Section 17:
"You may not engage in any activity that increases the difficulty and/or expense of CCP in maintaining the EVE Online client, server, web site or other services for the benefit and enjoyment of all its users."

This would literally mean for a player to host a CCP Node or server they would need to be able to maintain the node, at no expense to CCP, to the same standard CCP is able to. Given their much broader wallet, staff, training, and experience with such matters the logical answer here is to simply say "Not going to happen".

It also may be a minor infraction of section 15:
"You may not attempt to play EVE Online on any server that is not controlled or authorized by CCP."
particularly the part regarding "Control", which is simply defined as determining what it does and when. CCP would have no control directly here, which is a problem here

Plus you need stock in specially trained server hampsters as well, and thats not easy to come by.


Also this just seems like a stealth "free gametime" thread, pony up the PLEX like the rest of us or cough up the $0.50 a day to play.

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet
Clementina
University of Caille
#13 - 2015-06-05 02:27:29 UTC
The Could --> http://xkcd.com/908/

To be serious, it could be something interesting potentially, but the problems (as mentioned in the thread above) are almost certainly insurmountable.
Juan Mileghere
The Corporate Raiders
Safety.
#14 - 2015-06-05 02:32:15 UTC
OP the thing in your butt is your head, dislodging it may be a little difficult

Blobbing Explained
SomethingIs InMyButt
Levy Guards
Pandemic Horde
#15 - 2015-06-05 02:35:27 UTC
Christopher Mabata wrote:
That is actually a violation of the CCP TOS in certain circumstances.

Section 17:
"You may not engage in any activity that increases the difficulty and/or expense of CCP in maintaining the EVE Online client, server, web site or other services for the benefit and enjoyment of all its users."

This would literally mean for a player to host a CCP Node or server they would need to be able to maintain the node, at no expense to CCP, to the same standard CCP is able to. Given their much broader wallet, staff, training, and experience with such matters the logical answer here is to simply say "Not going to happen".

It also may be a minor infraction of section 15:
"You may not attempt to play EVE Online on any server that is not controlled or authorized by CCP."
particularly the part regarding "Control", which is simply defined as determining what it does and when. CCP would have no control directly here, which is a problem here

Plus you need stock in specially trained server hampsters as well, and thats not easy to come by.


Also this just seems like a stealth "free gametime" thread, pony up the PLEX like the rest of us or cough up the $0.50 a day to play.

First off, I apreciate the response, I do apreciate a serious reply.
I do see why, but in terms of paying, I think this would pull in more players that would pay later than If one player were to may at this time.
SomethingIs InMyButt
Levy Guards
Pandemic Horde
#16 - 2015-06-05 02:36:36 UTC
Juan Mileghere wrote:
OP the thing in your butt is your head, dislodging it may be a little difficult

I ain't no damn polititian.
FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#17 - 2015-06-05 05:35:23 UTC
No but you might be just a little batshit insane.

Eve sells itsself on "ONE SHARD" that would be compromised with this system even if your server permanently dials home. Say i host a chat server (aint no way any pc i have can keep up with tranquility which is the most powerful supercomputer IN ALL OF GAMING) I now need access to tranquility in a way that HORRIBLY compromises security. Not to mention the **** you can do if you just take the chat server i am running and then just turning it off mid fight to mildly inconvenience my enemies.

Basically Not supported and please, you dont wear pants on that side of your head...
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#18 - 2015-06-05 09:09:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
OP...I think you need to google some terms,. namely cloud computing. As A) your idea is not it and B) where the hell are you seeing free cloud computing being offered?

A) you have remote localized installation of server/services across wans. Lets take Symantec endpoint protection manager for my endpoint AV/AS solution (which my company does) as an example.

I have 2 small remote sites that do not need a dedicated server on site. Lets for examples sake say I do though. My main server at my shop's server room would be master for the whole organization, install a replication partner server at remote site that while not the full blown master server...can do most things to offset the remote sites hitting my main all the time. They still need the main server to keep them inline.

This is not cloud computing. This is remote installation across wans. Its going through the cloud. It is not residing in the cloud.


B) I actually run a server "in the cloud". It is not free. For $10 a month to digital ocean I get 1 droplet spec'd at 1gb ram, 30gb drive space, 1 proc and bandwidth limits at some level I cannot recall atm. I do not physically own this server. I do not physically own the hardware its on (to differentiate from virtual technologies). It is, well, in the cloud. Low specs some might say but its test bed linux (cli) server and does me just fine. I need more horsepower well digital ocean can and will give it to me. Not for $10.00 a month though lol. Price goes up.

Basically....please use the correct tech terms. I hate how cloud computing became a buzz word. One used incorrectly way too damn much. Next up will be other nit pick....big data, if someone mentions it.
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
#19 - 2015-06-05 09:36:03 UTC
Personally I'd rather depend on the company I pay to provide a reliable service to actually provide that service rather than having to rely on the vagaries of individuals there equipment and connections.

Not supported.

NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#20 - 2015-06-05 09:50:46 UTC
This idea is comp... OMG YOUR FACE!!!

Evil RatKid
12Next page