open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: The not-so-great-after-all deep safe nerf of 2010
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (11)

Author Topic

Erichk Knaar
Caldari
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2010.04.17 03:11:00 - [91]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei

Hontou ni, CCP will just have to solve the lag. Cropping the warpable universe to 20AU from the farthest-out sun, having to fill out a form before doing a large fleet op, so they can quickly add some bandwidth and/or additional hardware, these are all stopgap measures to an underlying problem few devs dare face: that, sooner or later, EVE will have to be divided over several, separate servers. We're not there yet. But the current trend of nerfing the known universe, as it were, to 'solve' the lag, somehow really doesn't feel like a solution at all.


No, I disagree. Eve will cease to be Eve if we move to multiple servers. The people are why I still play this game. Honestly, CCP seem like a nice bunch of people who care about what they are doing. I'd much rather give them my money, so they can R&D a way to solve numerous CompSci problems they face in solving these kind of problems, than some huge multinational corp.

Meno Theaetetus
Wildly Inappropriate
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2010.04.17 03:17:00 - [92]
 

Seeing as this has evolved to possible ways of fixing the lag or creating a work around, why not just let people light cynos inside a pos? perhaps at a cost to the pos shields hit points, or perhaps removing the pos's ability to go into reinforced mode.

Fleet is safe until they load, but the existing occupants to the system before the cyno get an advantage that they can destroy the tower, perhaps with the fleet that just cynoed in inside it. vov


Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.04.17 03:48:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: Erichk Knaar
Originally by: Ranka Mei

Hontou ni, CCP will just have to solve the lag. Cropping the warpable universe to 20AU from the farthest-out sun, having to fill out a form before doing a large fleet op, so they can quickly add some bandwidth and/or additional hardware, these are all stopgap measures to an underlying problem few devs dare face: that, sooner or later, EVE will have to be divided over several, separate servers. We're not there yet. But the current trend of nerfing the known universe, as it were, to 'solve' the lag, somehow really doesn't feel like a solution at all.

No, I disagree. Eve will cease to be Eve if we move to multiple servers. The people are why I still play this game. Honestly, CCP seem like a nice bunch of people who care about what they are doing. I'd much rather give them my money, so they can R&D a way to solve numerous CompSci problems they face in solving these kind of problems, than some huge multinational corp.

Not saying I like what I think is coming, but it seems sadly inevitable. Don't worry, though; I wasn't thinking of separating people from their buddies. :)

What I'm thinking of wouldn't have to be a full split; could be some form of load-balancing, between, say, 2 main servers. This is, in essence, how EVE currently works too. Typically (very simplified), player increase works quadratic: with 2 player on the field you need to send 2 packets to 2 players (2^2). With 3 players 3^3, etc. The (upload) bandwith of the EVE server would have to be astronomical to be able to serve all players in the same room. EVE still works, because, naturally, not everyone interacts with everyone at the same time. :) You are, at any given time, already inside a compartmentalized box, like, say, a solar system. And these individual 'boxes' interact with each other, when needed (like when someone jumps a gate; or a market transaction takes place).

In principle you could also treat 2 entirely separate EVE servers like those individualized 'boxes' that just need to exchange info every now and then. Not saying it would be easy. For one, these two 'hemispheres' would need a VERY highspeed connection between them; and you'd still wind up having to synchronize a lot. But essentially the entire population of each hemisphere would reside in its own box. Until you fly to the neighboring box (in what would have to be a reasonable seamless transission) and you hop worlds, as it were. Like, say, Jita being located on one IP, and, say, Rens, on another. Which would mean the EVE client would have to reconnect you to a different IP address when you cross borders; this could be accomplished without you even realizing it.

Again, not saying it will be easy; but I think it could be done. Or, rather, I think at some point it will just *have* to be done.

Bodega Cat
Posted - 2010.04.17 03:56:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Erichk Knaar
Originally by: Ranka Mei

In principle you could also treat 2 entirely separate EVE servers like those individualized 'boxes' that just need to exchange info every now and then. Not saying it would be easy. For one, these two 'hemispheres' would need a VERY highspeed connection between them; and you'd still wind up having to synchronize a lot. But essentially the entire population of each hemisphere would reside in its own box. Until you fly to the neighboring box (in what would have to be a reasonable seamless transission) and you hop worlds, as it were. Like, say, Jita being located on one IP, and, say, Rens, on another. Which would mean the EVE client would have to reconnect you to a different IP address when you cross borders; this could be accomplished without you even realizing it.

Again, not saying it will be easy; but I think it could be done. Or, rather, I think at some point it will just *have* to be done.


You are right. They could easily make this work though by tying it with content thats designed to leverage it entirely. Talking about new "areas" of the sandbox that are supposed to feel detached, remote, and even more distant. Something like deep deep wormhole space or something. Or Jove space.

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2010.04.17 04:20:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei
post about already implemented stuff..

New Eden is ONE PERSISTENT WORLD, period.
The problem we face here has nothing to do with 10,000s of players crammed into this one world. The problem we got here surfaces when (at the moment) more than 600 peeps decide they want to hammer each other at just a handfull of grids. There is no need to split the persistent world. It already runs as decentralized as CCPs code & gamemechanic-design-decisions allow it.

Would be nice to get an update on that parallel-computing/infiniband/split-up of sol system processes thing CCP where talking about nearly 2 years ago.




Maverick Ice
Posted - 2010.04.17 04:34:00 - [96]
 

All this fancy location determination code, and you still can't provide us with which POS modules are attached to our POSes in the API, nor what their status is....brilliant.

Typhado3
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.04.17 05:21:00 - [97]
 

Edited by: Typhado3 on 17/04/2010 05:38:09
Quote:

# The furthest bookmark is 5,900,000,000 AU (95,000 light years) from its sun. This is roughly the same distance as the diameter of the milky way


what the hell?

How was that one made? and how would you even get to it? just rough calculations but that would take something like 10 years to warp too.


EDIT: just taking a wild guess but could this be from when you could fit mutliple mwd's and someone stuck 8 mwd's on a scorp or soemthing?

Clansworth
Good Rock Materials
Posted - 2010.04.17 05:32:00 - [98]
 

The 'inevitable split' discussion has been had in the past, by devs.. The limitation currently rests with the processor speeds. The current architecture requires a system to only be able to be handled by a single node (core). Unfortunately, a heavily utilized system ends up with more than that node can handle, especially if that node is also used elsewhere (that's where the pre-battle notification helps). I think they've been testing for years now a system where they can split a system among different nodes, but as you can imagine, there is a lot of complications involved in doing so. However, it's something that will eventually HAVE to be worked out, as processor speeds have pretty much stalled for a number of years now (going to higher core counts instead, which doesn't really help eve's current architecture). Would be nice to get some sort of update on if this project is still in the works, but I am not goint to hold my breathe on the update (and won't threaten to emorage if they don't give it).

Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2010.04.17 05:36:00 - [99]
 

Quote:
We've been debating what to do about these bookmarks since before Apocrypha was even released: with the new scanning system, ships in these locations are essentially invulnerable in the majority of situations, and they can be utilized by any ship without any inherent cost.


I still don't get it.

Deep safe bookmarks are essentially the only way to do 0.0 sov warfare at the moment. Whenever something important comes out of reinforcement, the system will be blobbed and the inital jump-in lag will such horrendous that it will be total suicide to jump in. Once you are in the system at some other spot and then warp in to the blob, the grid load is not nearly as bad as the jump-in lag. Deep safe spots gives you the time to load the system before the enemy can utilize the lag to wipe out the attacker. So, deep safe spots are essential to current 0.0 large scale warfare.

Instead of removing them you should have added a viable game mechanism to scan them down and to create them in a defined way.

Introduce really LONG RANGE scan probes and only remove the grossest things.

It is a good start that you listened to your players in the other thread :-)


Tasha Voronina
Caldari
Caldari Navy Reserve Force
Posted - 2010.04.17 05:53:00 - [100]
 

Edited by: Tasha Voronina on 17/04/2010 06:15:34
First of all, thank you for addressing our concerns. Second, Ops is indeed awesome Razz.

However, we still have the problem of "dominion lag" - removing a band-aid is always a bad idea before the wound itself is healed. Delay deployment of this particular bit of code until the lag is at least down to pre-dominion levels, please?


Now for the part which probably would be better served being in a different forum section, but since we're on the topic of making bookmarks here..: regarding the "have/have not" argument. Allow any ship to enter a kind of an emergency warp. What it would basically do is have your ship warp in the direction it was aligned prior to this emergency warp, a random direction if no alignment was present. Limit emergency warp to not allow it to take your ship further from the sun than the 20 AU beyond the furthest celestial object if needed... (though many here, I suppose, would much prefer something more along the lines of 200 AU) and throw the "cannot warp any further due to CONCORD-imposed safety limitations" message in for those of us caring about background. As for how this emergency warp would work - simple: it would drain your capacitor in one go and warp you as far as it can with that power. Maybe have it take ten times the usual amount of power needed to initiate a warp. Just, please, allow us to utilize all that space within the solar system - it's woefully neglected right now (I mean the space above/below the planetary plane).


edit: I fail at proof-reading Embarassed

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.04.17 06:36:00 - [101]
 

I assume once you got the move script, you'll just re-run it every time another bug allowing deep safe spots to be made is squashed?

Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
Posted - 2010.04.17 06:39:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: ArmyOfMe
any chance you guys can wait with implementing this until you have fixed it so ppl can jump into a system in fleet fights and not die while staring at a black screen?


This.

greeny knight
Amarr
Solar Storm
Posted - 2010.04.17 06:46:00 - [103]
 

Edited by: greeny knight on 17/04/2010 06:46:06
now that deep space probes are in my expert cov op pilot scanner ( someone missing a pod yesterday on a 100 au spot Very Happy ) are nearly usseless

you can change the deep scanner probes to discover afk cloackers that realy buggs everybody that is in 0.0 space , and i remember a blog not long ago ,that whith the new sov changes the fleets that people orgenizing shold be smaller , well you as ccp faild missable in doing that .
are there changes on that front ?? .
because i don't see smaller alliances going to 0.0 because they are stopped on the border by the monster alliance ,that now upgrade the entry sys to 0.0 with verry deep 0.0 high grade minerals creating a sov border created by the powerblocks.

when i started to play this game 6 years ago 0.0 whas a open vast space no outposts no posses some npc station now its over seeded with outposts and only 1 alaignment north vs south no east vs west anymore and unplayable fleet fights with 1000 and more in 1 system i.
i agree with aloyt of people that say first fix these issuws before intreducing more in the bi anually patches ,use thase patches to fix firsat those problems and bring new contint in once a year you gonna have alot of more happy customers

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.04.17 07:01:00 - [104]
 

Enough with the, "But deep safes is the only way to do fights in 0.0" crap. I have seen both sides duke it out from jumping thru gates to fight each other, titan bridge in at a pos, at a planet, etc. I have seen this well more than this whole, 'pop cyno at a deep safe in order to get a fleet into a system to fight another fleet' crap.

So stop saying that deep safes are the only way to fight in 0.0. You are not fooling anyone.

Everyone has received the short end of the stick on the lag monster.

I have not witnessed a TCU being anchored at a deep safe myself, but I would not put it past anyone on either side to exploit a deep safe like that anyways. I thought they had to be at a planet or something anyways in order to be allowed to anchor, but whatever, not my specialty. Embarassed

In 0.0 you use any possible advantage you can in order to win. Via meta gaming, abusing things till CCP fixes it or deems it exploit, propaganda, whatever. You get the idea.

The end goal, is of course is the tears. Your happyness is dependent on others sadness. It is constant arguing over who is making who mad more, and the sheer idea that two sides having fun at the same time is just blasphemy in 0.0.

With thousands of players always looking for the next FOTM thing to abuse, I am sure the deep space nerf will be forgot when they move on to the next thing to abuse.

I for one, could care one way or another, because I will always find a way to extract those tears. Via jumping into you, you jumping into me, log on trap, RR, black ops, drakes, bombers, new whatever, old whatever, **** that just has not been done to you yet. There will always be a way.

So dry your eyes folks, and get to pew pewing again. Twisted Evil

coolzero
Gallente
Posted - 2010.04.17 07:06:00 - [105]
 

Edited by: coolzero on 17/04/2010 07:06:28
if 25% of those ship are not piloted and be move to within the solarsystem...does that mean probers gonna have hell of a profit making thing here :)

??

Mynas Atoch
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.04.17 07:27:00 - [106]
 

Answer the question.

Why are you removing the most effective way we have found to get into lagged out systems?

Do you even understand what we mean?

Myn

Centura
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.04.17 07:27:00 - [107]
 

We have greater things wrong with EVE than this **** for you Devs to focus on. Get your fcken head straight on what matters.

EYEDOLL
Amarr
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.04.17 07:34:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Have you ever tried to find anyone in X-7O?


No because WE CAN'T LOAD WITHOUT DEEP SAFES

Seth Ruin
Minmatar
Ominous Corp
Circle-Of-Two
Posted - 2010.04.17 07:58:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Marlona Sky
I have not witnessed a TCU being anchored at a deep safe myself, but I would not put it past anyone on either side to exploit a deep safe like that anyways. I thought they had to be at a planet or something anyways in order to be allowed to anchor, but whatever, not my specialty. Embarassed

They show up on the overview regardless of how far someone is from them. There's no real tactical advantage of having a TCU so far out, so I'm not sure how it's an "exploit."

Also, you can anchor a TCU pretty much anywhere as long as it's more than 50km from a POS.

Quesa
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.04.17 08:06:00 - [110]
 

Edited by: Quesa on 17/04/2010 08:09:05
Great, you guys fixed a somewhat arbitrary part of the game that is basically classified as "undesirable". Yet for the past 5 months, players have been playing in experience crushing lag with no more than the token "we are working on it" or "we may have found the problem" with no real gains.

So lets recap.

You implement the largest change to the game in years.
This change creates unacceptable amounts of lag.

Then you...
... nerf deep safe spots.

Of course I'm not counting the ability to, again, suck resources out of another undepletable resource or implementing CCP's version of a social networking site.

All of this, every last line of code or shiny that you implement/add to the game will be blotted out by the black hole of horrendous server stability, your lackluster and extremely time consuming attempts to remedy the situation and the severe lack of communication about the problem, what you have found and a realistic allotment of time it will take you to fix it. While I understand that creating a time line for a fix is extremely difficult to quantify, must we wait an entire year for you to fix a programmed default?

Do I think you are not working on it? No, not at all. However, the appearance of apathy you portray when you virtually ignore pleas for information and communication concerning the worst problem Eve has had to deal with in years is an insult to the thousands of paying customers. Furthermore the length of time it is taking to remedy the server stability problem increases the player bases' already negative perception of your Q&A and Dev teams.

Correcting this problem needs to be at the top of your "to do" list. Along with that, you must begin to communicate with your paying customers with more than the arbitrary "we are working on the problem" comments found sparsely scattered around your forums. The last blog I have found concerning this problem was over two months ago. Being, what should be, the most pressing issue to date, the perception you give is that of "we have more important things to do". Returning now to the removal of deep safes and yet another example of the CCP team appearing out of touch with it's own players and the actual state of the game.

This type of behavior must change.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.04.17 08:11:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: coolzero
if 25% of those ship are not piloted and be move to within the solarsystem...does that mean probers gonna have hell of a profit making thing here :)

??


"No more deletions! Things will be moved at some point!" - CCP <-- Answer is yes.

Originally by: Mynas Atoch
Answer the question.

Why are you removing the most effective way we have found to get into lagged out systems?

Do you even understand what we mean?

Myn


Maybe because they are a contributing factor to the lag? v0v

Originally by: Centura
We have greater things wrong with EVE than this **** for you Devs to focus on. Get your fcken head straight on what matters.


Stop being mad and find something else to exploit.

Originally by: EYEDOLL
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Have you ever tried to find anyone in X-7O?


No because WE CAN'T LOAD WITHOUT DEEP SAFES


I load just fine. Maybe you need to reset your router.

Originally by: Seth Ruin
There's no real tactical advantage of having a TCU so far out, so I'm not sure how it's an "exploit."


Laughing

It takes only the slightest bit of imagination on how a defender can use this as an advantage. But please, keep the tears flowing. They are durlicious! Very Happy

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.17 08:12:00 - [112]
 

The excuse about deep safes being the only way to get around lag is so pathetic...

If EVE has shown us anything, it is that players will blob to the limit of what the server can handle, then bring 50% more people!

The less laggy a fight will be, and the more chance that a fight will happen, the more people show up. More lag and less chance means that more people couldn't be arsed!

Using the deep safes to get in just increase the number of players, thus increasing the lag....

Why don't you go attack somewhere else if a system is too crowded. If all the enemy is in that system blobbing it, every other target is vulnerable, and your enemy will have to jump into you...

CCP obviously has some reason other than the have/have not argument, probably something with the database choking because of all the grids it has to keep track of. Most likely this change is PART OF the need for speed initiative, and what you're actually complaining about is CCP trying to reduce lag.

Grow up! CCP are capable enough to understand your complaint, and if they decide to go ahead anyway they most likely got a damn good reason!

Clb
The Intersect
Posted - 2010.04.17 08:14:00 - [113]
 

Still ignoring the issue of bookmarks that are within the limit but would have been impossible to create if the previous methods of creating them had not existed.

So there is still no point in what you are doing.

The only improvement in this is that the person who decided that destroying the ships outside the limit was a good idea has sobered up.

So, still a gap between the "haves" and "don't-haves". No way to cyno into empty grids. Still a failure.

Do it right or don't do it at all.

Cergorach
Amarr
The Helix Foundation
Posted - 2010.04.17 08:22:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: Quesa

Correcting this problem needs to be at the top of your "to do" list. Along with that, you must begin to communicate with your paying customers with more than the arbitrary "we are working on the problem" comments found sparsely scattered around your forums. The last blog I have found concerning this problem was over two months ago. Being, what should be, the most pressing issue to date, the perception you give is that of "we have more important things to do". Returning now to the removal of deep safes and yet another example of the CCP team appearing out of touch with it's own players and the actual state of the game.


There are currently 300k+ paying customers if more then 1-2% of those accounts participate in fleet battles that have serious amounts of lag, it would really surprise me. The 'problem' is that most of that 1-2% is also very active/vocal on these message boards and Dev posts.

You also can't have 50 mechanics working on your car (at the same time), the same is true with most bugs in programs. There's an optimal amount of people that can work on a given problem, any more and it's only counter productive. I can also understand why they don't communicate more over this issue, it partly involves the problem, it partly involves the behavior of the affected players (if you know what I mean).

While I agree that lag should be eradicated as soon as possible, I also find things like interaction with planets and even Eve Gate more interesting than the lag some large fleet fights might have.

Also, after the deep space nerf you can generate new deep space bookmarks, but everyone is now on equal footing. As a 'solution' to the lag problem both parties could agree not to attack until everyone is in place or until a certain time. It is a game after all...

Meno Theaetetus
Wildly Inappropriate
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2010.04.17 08:23:00 - [115]
 

Hey don't worry guys come the patch if you buy a special dell pc with lights on it it will flash a special colour when your out of cap in your lvl4 mission.

I'm declaring this a good use of developers time and budget and look forward to which colour they use to depict 'you just lost your ship without loading grid'.

I'm going with black to match the screen.


Quesa
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.04.17 08:30:00 - [116]
 

Originally by: Cergorach
Originally by: Quesa

Correcting this problem needs to be at the top of your "to do" list. Along with that, you must begin to communicate with your paying customers with more than the arbitrary "we are working on the problem" comments found sparsely scattered around your forums. The last blog I have found concerning this problem was over two months ago. Being, what should be, the most pressing issue to date, the perception you give is that of "we have more important things to do". Returning now to the removal of deep safes and yet another example of the CCP team appearing out of touch with it's own players and the actual state of the game.


There are currently 300k+ paying customers if more then 1-2% of those accounts participate in fleet battles that have serious amounts of lag, it would really surprise me. The 'problem' is that most of that 1-2% is also very active/vocal on these message boards and Dev posts.

You also can't have 50 mechanics working on your car (at the same time), the same is true with most bugs in programs. There's an optimal amount of people that can work on a given problem, any more and it's only counter productive. I can also understand why they don't communicate more over this issue, it partly involves the problem, it partly involves the behavior of the affected players (if you know what I mean).

While I agree that lag should be eradicated as soon as possible, I also find things like interaction with planets and even Eve Gate more interesting than the lag some large fleet fights might have.

Also, after the deep space nerf you can generate new deep space bookmarks, but everyone is now on equal footing. As a 'solution' to the lag problem both parties could agree not to attack until everyone is in place or until a certain time. It is a game after all...


You are completely missing the POINT of the post and misinterpreting the content. Furthermore, it's not only 0.0 residents that are affected by this. Anyone that ventures outside a high traffic node that has it's own special server, will notice a performance drop with only minimal pilot spike.

Furthermore, the intent wasn't to get their entire Dev team to work on it but highlight the effects of them not communicating their progress.

Last, the creation or use of DSS don't concern me. My experience with them is pretty limited and have only been used, as of late, to bridge into a system with more time to load before hostiles arrive at your location.

schwar2ss
Caldari
Madhatters Inc.
Posted - 2010.04.17 08:54:00 - [117]
 

Great news CCP. Thx for taking our thoughts into consideration and finding a suitable solution.

Now bring me the MWD, I need new ds sp ;)

Serpents smile
Posted - 2010.04.17 09:24:00 - [118]
 


Thanks CCP for considering our input, even if it was at some times a bit inflamed. Cool

Together we keep this the best game ever!

PeHD0M
Posted - 2010.04.17 09:28:00 - [119]
 

Restricted star system radius? Ok fine.. But please, look at that: picture


Basically, all your possible waypoints are restricted to the triangle between points 1,2,3. That is where you can create bookmarks using standart warp-bookmarking mechanics.

You can go outside the triangle only if:
1. you have scanned something (complex, anomaly, wormhole), wich are not very far from planets
2. you have an active mission there, wich can be created at some random location
3. you have a carrier with fighters
4. logoff exploit (most effective) - fixed
5. maybe there are some other ways, but idk about them

Where are our freedom in space?
Why you don't want to create a nice way of creating bookmarks?

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2010.04.17 09:39:00 - [120]
 

Good call on extending the possible safe spot boundary beyond the reach of onboard scanners .. maintains a minimum of usefulness.

Now put everything you have into fixing the DOM lag bug so this doesn't end up being another 12-gauge to the foot Smile


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (11)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only