open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] I have fixed lag.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Author Topic

GeeShizzle McCloud
Gallente
Posted - 2010.11.28 23:39:00 - [31]
 


KaiserSoze434
Posted - 2010.11.29 03:51:00 - [32]
 

I like it. I wonder if it's not being done because of a technical hurdle or something. To somewhat mitigate the dogpile effect of reinforcements being able to affect the battle more because of the slowdown I would think some sort of staggered entry to the system might have to be implemented when the slowdown gets to a certain point.

Sed Man
Gallente
Havoc Violence and Chaos
Posted - 2010.11.29 05:59:00 - [33]
 

I like the idea, but I see it also needing to impact the guy in the station fitting his ships, and the other guy in station buying stuff and selling stuff from the market...

The issues I see, which can be resolved quick, by the people in the fleets are:
Close your market windows before jumping into a system.
Close your assets window before jumping into a system.
set your overview properly so things like wrecks and drones are appropriately visible/invisible.
Get all your fleet members to use cables rather than wireless (reducing latency).

The bullet time is a good idea but I find it hard to think of how it could be reasonably implemented so it couldn't be abused, unless it applied to the whole universe.

XAgentRedx
Posted - 2010.11.29 13:43:00 - [34]
 

the way i see it is as huge fleetfights are rare, and this is a really good way of helping to keep gameplay up whilst ccp run around like crazyfools! just suspend typical non combat or combat related stuff in the system eg. market orders, contract acceptance etc... as the fleetfight would be a temporary thing. If you're in a null sec system where a massive fleetfight is to occur, and you're not planning to fight or provide recon, you tend to have time befor things really kick off and you tend to know that somethings bout to go down!

if anything u could allow a timer to say something about networked comm systems going down due to projected high congestion, and count down untill not combat related game elements are isolated.

Jai Di
Caldari
Posted - 2010.11.29 15:57:00 - [35]
 


Zhi Ying
Posted - 2010.11.29 17:13:00 - [36]
 

Support.

Crazy KSK
Posted - 2010.11.29 18:43:00 - [37]
 

ja und ja

Tub Chil
Posted - 2010.11.29 19:32:00 - [38]
 

lol it's like legalizing *********
can't fight it? make it ledal :D

Miss Wraith
Posted - 2010.11.29 21:33:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: Miss Wraith on 29/11/2010 21:33:21
Originally by: Xynthiar
Originally by: Black Dranzer

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6380/wellactually.gif


Arklan1
Dunedain Rangers
Posted - 2010.11.29 23:47:00 - [40]
 

a day later, and i still can't think why this wouldn't work.

we even have a logical fictional reason to support it! i've never seen a serious proposal that didn't imidiately get at least ONE major negative reply, let alone two pages worth, and nothing but positive.

HulkHogan
Posted - 2010.11.30 18:39:00 - [41]
 


Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2010.11.30 19:35:00 - [42]
 

I kind of like the idea. A couple issues I see with it:

1. Even though the game is moving slower, that won't stop people from spamming buttons. Think about the classic video gamer leaning IRL to in response to the turning in game not being fast enough. Or, a better example is games with bullet time. Really, how many people spam the keys anyway? I know I do "jump faster, jump faster!" So, that would still need to be addressed on the client end I think (accepting the first click and not accepting another of the same command until the server has responded).

2. There will still be metagaming. I remember in IAC when we would be told to jet can ammo as fast as we could and have our drones out shooting to bring down the node so MC couldn't take out stations before our reinforcements got to us. Same would be true, whether by that old trick (I think GMs get annoyed when people do that) or simply dropping a bunch of carriers and super carriers into a system and dumping drones to slow it down.

3. Nodes. Unfortunately, each system is not hosted on a single server. So, unless the system was reinforced by CCP, making a server laggy effects multiple systems. So, we might run into a random large fight in 0.0 and cause a bunch of mission/plex runners to experience this slow down (or will they just experience the node death they currently experience)? Keep it to only reinforced nodes and you are missing half the laggy situations.

I still like the idea. Just thought it would be nice to point out some cons.

Arklan1
Dunedain Rangers
Posted - 2010.12.01 00:04:00 - [43]
 

the final point you make there is i think the critical one. this bullet time effect (shall we go with calling it spatial distortions? time dilation? something even geekier?) has got to be limited to the system the fight is in. if that means reinforced nodes only, so be it. but i'm sure the minds at ccp could figure out a way to allow the other star systems on a given node to be uneffected by the slowdown, while the system with the battle was slowed. though perhaps not. hurts my head to think about. the priortization of instructions for processing would be insanly difficult to determine.

as for the metagaming and button spam - yea. i don't think it's possible to really eliminate that sort of thing. perhaps mitigate it to a degree though.

Red Raider
Caldari
Caldari Provisions

Posted - 2010.12.01 00:31:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
I kind of like the idea. A couple issues I see with it:

1. Even though the game is moving slower, that won't stop people from spamming buttons. Think about the classic video gamer leaning IRL to in response to the turning in game not being fast enough. Or, a better example is games with bullet time. Really, how many people spam the keys anyway? I know I do "jump faster, jump faster!" So, that would still need to be addressed on the client end I think (accepting the first click and not accepting another of the same command until the server has responded).



They could resolve some of this by making the button non-functional while pressed and since time is slowed down it will be depressed until the server cycles the command. The same thing applies to issuing other commands to keep people from changing their mind mid cycle after issuing a warp command, until the command is accepted by the server the option is greyed out in the menu and overview.

All said and done I like it.

hired goon
Posted - 2010.12.02 13:05:00 - [45]
 

friendly bump :)

CommanderData211
Posted - 2010.12.02 17:54:00 - [46]
 

Ok, I like the idea, but it seems to me there are some troubling issues that some people might have insight into.

First and foremost you would need a relative basis for consistency and for this we would probably take CPU and load of an empty node and cross reference this to some sort of baseline for time. So we have a relativistic benchmark for the passage of time in EVE as it relates to server/node load. But this begs the question, where is the line drawn? How will this mechanic know exactly when to dilate time?

For example, will Jita constantly experience some sort of time dilation effects when it isn't strictly necessary to do so? Will a node with only one person on it be subjected to the same effects to maintain uniformity? Or will it simply turn itself on when a certain level of backlogging occurs?

Secondly, and more importantly in my estimation, how will this be applied to one system specifically? Rather one grid specifically. I'm no guru of the infrastructure in EVE as it relates to coding, but I think it would be a monumental task to apply this sort of time dilating effect on the fly. Since we know how well fleet engagement forms work out, unless this was automated it would amount to the same thing.

Other than those things, fighting lag with lag seems like an innovative idea to me but I have my reservations, including the potentiality that it is impossible, or would actually not fix the lag.

Alias 6322A
Posted - 2010.12.02 17:55:00 - [47]
 

Diablo 2.

If anyone has ever played D2 (wait a minute, who hasn't?) you'll know that when online some pretty hilarious moments happened with lag. Swinging away...slow motion...then super speed to catch up. This concept runs in line with that a little.

It's a good idea, but the problem is people don't want slow motion at all. You're right that the goal is unattainable (probably always will be because the game will get better faster than internet speeds?). I'd like to see what Devs could make of this though as there is one big advantage: no crashes and fleet battles keep going.

They go slow...yes...but going that not at all is your point, I guess. Kind of like when SCII lags and your marines run half-speed. The game is slow as hell when that happens, but both players are still at least able to make tactical decisions at the same speed...which means the play field is still equalized, if only slower. In EVE this translates to slow cycle times and movement, but everyone can still play and it just gives every player an equal chance to contribute to the battle.

I support further research on how well it works.

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.12.03 19:04:00 - [48]
 

Best lag fix shouldn't be on page 2 til it gets a blue post.

Shadow Lord77
Posted - 2010.12.03 22:59:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: Shadow Lord77 on 03/12/2010 22:59:44
And CCP could bring back some older before-lag hunting benefits that EVE used to have.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.12.03 23:17:00 - [50]
 

Technically this solution is possible, but it's not 100% clear it would work as intended when hardware is overloaded.

If "bullet time" slows down to 10 minutes per second, then it's gonna be just as unplayable as it is now.

I can imagine such design would require significant rewriting of the base game logic code. It would be massive amounts of work requiring months of development and testing.

And if it takes CCP 2 years to fix rockets or change cyno effects, there's just no chance they can do this.

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.12.04 05:19:00 - [51]
 

10 minutes = 60000% speed change = 600 * 3000 ships = You are upset it might take 10 minutes per second with 18,000,000 ships in one system? Holy math, Mr. Slippery slope guy. Percentages are what, first grade?

As for the development time, your failure at math is going to make me fairly certain you have no idea what coding entails or how it actually works. Having done it, I know well how what seems like a monumental change can be done in two or three lines, and some tiny edit would break the code. If you aren't staring at the source code, development arguments fail.

And as with anything in Eve player suggested, it'll take time to go in.

Riyal
Chode Extravaganza

Posted - 2010.12.07 12:09:00 - [52]
 

Good idea, slower but consistent response is better than no response at all.

Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations

Posted - 2010.12.07 12:51:00 - [53]
 

Yes.

Captain Muscles
Caldari
Vindictive Bastards

Posted - 2010.12.07 15:12:00 - [54]
 

Hell yeah.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.12.07 19:46:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha
10 minutes = 60000% speed change = 600 * 3000 ships = You are upset it might take 10 minutes per second with 18,000,000 ships in one system? Holy math, Mr. Slippery slope guy. Percentages are what, first grade
Lag doesn't scale linearly.

But hey, if you want CCP to waste their time doing this, I'm all for it. Either way they waste 90% of their development one way or another.

GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
Posted - 2010.12.08 09:20:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha
10 minutes = 60000% speed change = 600 * 3000 ships = You are upset it might take 10 minutes per second with 18,000,000 ships in one system? Holy math, Mr. Slippery slope guy. Percentages are what, first grade
Lag doesn't scale linearly.

But hey, if you want CCP to waste their time doing this, I'm all for it. Either way they waste 90% of their development one way or another.



im glad you're all for it then! make sure u check the give support button then! and just fyi, it may have taken a while to change rockets and cyno effects, but thats only 2 small things ccp have been working on in a huge list that you've decided to ignore!

tho i have to say kaball, not too sure why you decided to multiply the lag duration by 3000 ships to get more ships? that did confuse me! either way its the best method ive heard for improving lag performance.
Due to the nature of the physical world you'll never ever get rid of lag totally so thinking laterally like this should be the way forward!

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.12.08 11:06:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
Lag doesn't scale linearly.



How exactly does it scale then? I'm no network guru, but intuitive reasoning suggests that if you have X% more time, you can handle X% more events. Yes, once you get past the number of events you can handle things start crumbling, but that's the essence of the idea.

If you have something other than a 'this is a fact' statement and a number pulled out of thin air, please share. There's quite a few of this seeming to lack this insight.

matthiastee
Posted - 2010.12.08 14:47:00 - [58]
 

supported

Hodgekiss
Posted - 2010.12.08 22:57:00 - [59]
 

Thumbs up. This is an awesome idea. I would rather play a game that felt like slowly pouring treacle than a game that feels like slowly pulling teeth.

I like the matrix element too... flying a tackler in slowmo has to be fun!

I see what people are saying about the reinforcements getting there in a timescale that is unlike the current game, but I am sure that any fleet commanders good enough to be handling 3000 player fleets are good enough tacticians to take this into account.
Also, I don't think that the difference would be too noticeable because although the fight SHOULD go on for, say, 5x as long as it would have if we were playing at 5s/1s speed, in reality the increased precision and predictability that each player in the battle would have when attacking things without lag would reduce this difference considerably.

Nice one Goon!

Tarmaxx XIII
Posted - 2010.12.08 23:01:00 - [60]
 

Thumbs up. CCP... read it, love it, work your magic. This boy has it going on!


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

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