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

Blastfizzle
THE R0NIN
Posted - 2011.03.09 20:30:00 - [211]
 

Originally by: SammyullJackson
You really should stop bumping... if it's a good idea, it'll stay afloat on it's own. Filling it with literally a full page of bumps just makes you (the OP) look bad.



"if it's a good idea, it'll stay afloat on it's own" - I wish that would be true, but my real life experience tells otherwise.

Anyway... statistics: 86.51% of players live in empire, 11.07% in nullsec, and 2.42% in w-space. (source - QEN Q3 2010 eveonline.com/community/QEN/QEN_Q3-2010.pdf) So I believe it could be said that only 10% of all players have regular experience with big fleet battles. (I'm not sure how FW fares, never dit that) To simplify things - 90% of people that watch Assembly Hall aren't really hurt by lag... and it ain't medialized enough to make them care. So they don't care. Example: I know nothing about what eunuchs want... I don't care about them and I don't hear about them.
And I don't care about homosexuals either - but I surely hear about them.
My point is: We have to keep reminding that lag exists to people that don't experience, just like we are reminded that homosexuals exist even when we are heterosexuals.
I keep reminding this thread in alliance and fleet and local channels (I'm part of NC and live in LS-JEP), and I keep bumping this thread so that it is vissible. If you have other suggestions how to medialize this thread... I'm listening.

(Statement: I'm not homophobic or anything like that... as long as the people in my fleet keep the cap chain up AND LEAVE THE WRECKS FOR ME, I like them. And if I'm not the only one with full rack of salvagers I hate them, not caring for their religious/sexual/political orientation)

hired goon
Posted - 2011.03.10 02:03:00 - [212]
 

Originally by: Blastfizzle
Bump.


Hey man. I do really appreciate your support for this idea. But I'm gonna ask you to stop bumping because;

a) If the forum mods see that string of bumps they might lock the topic.
b) People are going to think you're my alt and I'm bumping my own thread.
c) Posting without 'supporting' creates a kind of 'counter-support' which people can see when they look at how many replies vs how many supports the topic has. Topics that traditionally have many more replies than supports show that many more people disagree with the topic and are posting their arguments against it.
d) I have my own method for gathering support and directing people here, that i'm constantly working on behind the scenes Wink

Thanks so much for your evidently enthusiastic support though! If you really want to help, the best way is to get as many people as you can to post and click "support" Smile

Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists

Posted - 2011.03.10 14:30:00 - [213]
 

Playing slowly beats playing terribly/not at all.

CCP Zymurgist


Gallente
C C P
Posted - 2011.03.10 17:06:00 - [214]
 

Thread cleaned of spam. Please do not "bump" this thread, you are more than welcome to discuss the idea.

Mielono
Caldari
SWARTA
Posted - 2011.03.12 08:32:00 - [215]
 


H3ndrix
Amarr
High Aces

Posted - 2011.03.24 03:10:00 - [216]
 


J Kunjeh
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.24 13:36:00 - [217]
 

Supported, though I'm not sure how technically feasible it is (but i'd LOVE to read a really long, totally geeked out Dev Blog discussing the possibility).

Max Kolonko
Caldari
Worm Nation
Ash Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.29 11:26:00 - [218]
 

as i was watching fanfest feed one of Devs said they will go for it. They will (not soon, but in a long run) try to implement something like this.

Levistus Junior
Caldari
Trojan Trolls
Controlled Chaos
Posted - 2011.03.29 12:37:00 - [219]
 

Supported.

Wanted to say how cool this idea is, but others said it alreadyVery Happy

Inka Kaoru
Perkone

Posted - 2011.03.29 23:16:00 - [220]
 

Genius.

+1

GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
Posted - 2011.04.03 16:44:00 - [221]
 

i thought it wasnt just me that saw that part of fanfest! theres no vid on youtube with the presentation on server performance etc... cant remember what that actual presentation was called bt made me smile when i caught Brian Bossť's comment refering to this idea!

YAAAAAAAY!!!

Jonathan Malcom
Gallente
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.04.03 17:40:00 - [222]
 

This actually sound like a pretty cool solution. I mean, who doesn't like slow motion fight scenes.

Dunkler Imperator
N.F.H.P.
Eternal Evocations
Posted - 2011.04.04 03:22:00 - [223]
 


The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.04 03:27:00 - [224]
 

time dilation is the holy grail enabling of epic fleet fights. this is about to get a ****load of attention.

Tyme Xandr
Gallente
State Protectorate
Posted - 2011.04.04 20:55:00 - [225]
 

I've read much of this thread but it was difficult to find posts that added to the discussion. My main concern is like other have pointed out that this would give more time for reinforcements (which honestly isnt that bad of a thing in many cases as it works for both sides ...) but here my thought that may have been brought up before, so if it has just ignore me.

The immediate area around the system should experience a similar effect. One or two jumps spidering from the system would be given the same notification and have similar 'bullet time' effects. This doesnt necessarily stop people from using caps to jump in but would slow down reinforcements using the traditional methods of coming in.

Also, would caps that jump fleets experience an additional wait time to jump in? Say the system was decreased by a factor of half time. Would the cap jumping in from a different system have to wait twice as long to jump?

GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
Posted - 2011.04.05 11:39:00 - [226]
 

well there is the issue of titan bridging into a maxxed out system, as well as other caps.

having a large amount of ships jumping in does create a lot of server load straight away so this specific fix wont be able to resolve that as such. but once in the system, request load for every kind of movement will be subject to the time dilation.

although... the server wont be as backed up as normal from fighting in system so jumping in would be a little quicker i guess!

and btw im glad you're in support of this Mittani! i see my vote didnt go to waste! =)


i would like this understood and known to all though, im pretty sure the effect has to be server wide so affecting all systems tied to the server the system is on, therefore in the interests of all players on in the systems hosted on the server it would have to only be implemented on a pre-requested DEDICATED server only. basically fill out those fleet fight notification forms before downtime pretty plz!

this isnt a suggested feature, just pre-empt'ing what i believe CCP would most likely say if they did implement it.

hope that answered some questions for u Tyme Xandr =)

Maaxeru
Posted - 2011.04.05 15:29:00 - [227]
 

Edited by: Maaxeru on 05/04/2011 15:32:58
Think about it: Even the OP wrote

Originally by: hired goon
  • It would give reinforcements a chance to arrive to the actual battle rather than at a standoff. This is what we all want when we are on the way and hear the targets being read out over voice comms.


  • it doesn't alter any mechanics for the game itself within the slow down scenario. This keeps it from encouraging metagame "So if we bring this many we can have X effect, we can use this!", since all it does is literally slow the game down if it gets to a lag situation.



  • While slowing down cycle-times would not reduce alpha damage, it would reduce DPS, hence allowing for longer battles. Longer battles means, as the OP wrote, time for more reinforcements to enter the target system and time for those dead to re-enter the battle. The very thing you are attempting at fixing (lag due to blobs) is the thing you are encouraging!

    You are only essentially creating synthetic lag (the newly increased cycle time versus existing non-responsive modules) and creating a system that encourages even larger numbers of participants in a battle.

    If you are in a super and the whole world starts flashing red, you have a much greater chance with increased cycle-times to opt to exit the battle via the old Crtl-Q option. Which means fewer dead caps and supers. Hence the OPs suggestion that there are no meta-game aspects of this proposal are false.

    This proposal would also certainly help the largest of Alliances / Coalitions, and be another nail in the mid- to small Alliance's coffins. (Note: I am a member of an Alliance in a Coalition, but pointing this out to be fair.) More chances to turn the tide of a losing battle by calling in another group of people, but now with even more time if you are calling people from further away. Another hidden meta-game aspect of the proposal for battles where one or more of the participants didn't have a chance to monkey with game mechanics ahead of time.

    At fanfest, did talk with the Dev who champions this idea and pointed these realities out. Even he agreed that the consequences could be exactly what is explained above.

    If anything, this proposal should be called the "lag on steroids fix".

    GeeShizzle MacCloud
    Caldari
    Posted - 2011.04.05 16:35:00 - [228]
     

    Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud on 05/04/2011 16:39:33
    Originally by: Maaxeru


    While slowing down cycle-times would not reduce alpha damage, it would reduce DPS, hence allowing for longer battles. Longer battles means, as the OP wrote, time for more reinforcements to enter the target system and time for those dead to re-enter the battle. The very thing you are attempting at fixing (lag due to blobs) is the thing you are encouraging!


    if i dont recall the whole war on lag is to streamline server performance to allow players to fight lag free... but its been seen that the more headroom u give the more players enter and fight. this although isnt a bad thing in principle as the perfect situation ccp's technical team want would be to handle any size fight lag free. theyre goal is to slowly close the gap from the current situation to this perfect state.

    Originally by: Maaxeru

    ...and creating a system that encourages even larger numbers of participants in a battle.


    from what you're saying it sounds like you're very much opposed to wanting a beautifully streamlined system capable of handling any size fleet fight. i guess the reasoning would be that opponents outgunned would have to actually fight fairly and actually bring in game tactics into use rather then metagaming/intentional server crash tactics to succeed against the odds. tell me another game where this isnt considered deliberate hacking or cheating?

    Originally by: Maaxeru

    If you are in a super and the whole world starts flashing red, you have a much greater chance with increased cycle-times to opt to exit the battle via the old Crtl-Q option.


    as apposed to having the whole server locked down with 3 1/2 hours of lag not knowing if your multi billion isk ship has survived or not through absolutely no fault of your own, your fc's or the games actual in built mechanics?

    less lag benefits both parties of a fight... u DO realise this right? less lag means in actual fact less server calls per second so more chance of being able to lock and alpha something off the field. plus you do realise that ships logging off take time to align and warp out from the field, let alone the aggression timer that has to go before the ship actually disappears from the system.

    Originally by: Maaxeru

    Which means fewer dead caps and supers. Hence the OPs suggestion that there are no meta-game aspects of this proposal are false.



    what you call incurred meta gaming aspects of this proposal im pretty sure everyone at CCP would call a c t u a l designed game mechanics. fair enough game mechanics would be stretched to an extent but they wont be utterly annihilated by the current clusterf**k situation happening.

    Originally by: Maaxeru

    This proposal would also certainly help the largest of Alliances / Coalitions, and be another nail in the mid- to small Alliance's coffins. (Note: I am a member of an Alliance in a Coalition, but pointing this out to be fair.) More chances to turn the tide of a losing battle by calling in another group of people, but now with even more time if you are calling people from further away. Another hidden meta-game aspect of the proposal for battles where one or more of the participants didn't have a chance to monkey with game mechanics ahead of time.



    i agree a large alliance/coalition that has stagnated and become carebares shouldnt be allowed to keep space by game mechanics but something like that would not by sheer behavior muscle up enough to fight blob vs blob regardless of being allowed more time to rally more members to the fight, purely for the fact they just wont fight.

    TL;DR...

    i love the fact people cry at game fixes that means they loose an edge they shouldnt have even had in the first place! since when should a game be augmented to allow the continuation of bugs and exploits than actually played using the original designers mechanics????

    Maaxeru
    Posted - 2011.04.05 18:35:00 - [229]
     

    Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
    if i dont recall the whole war on lag is to streamline server performance to allow players to fight lag free... but its been seen that the more headroom u give the more players enter and fight. this although isnt a bad thing in principle as the perfect situation ccp's technical team want would be to handle any size fight lag free. theyre goal is to slowly close the gap from the current situation to this perfect state.


    All this proposal would do is replace the current server lag with intended module lag. Six of one and a half dozen of another. AND, because it allows for more people to enter the battle, does not counter the essential element of lag: The blob itself.

    Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
    from what you're saying it sounds like you're very much opposed to wanting a beautifully streamlined system capable of handling any size fleet fight. i guess the reasoning would be that opponents outgunned would have to actually fight fairly and actually bring in game tactics into use rather then metagaming/intentional server crash tactics to succeed against the odds. tell me another game where this isnt considered deliberate hacking or cheating?


    Quite the opposite: I am in favor of streamlined battles that require tactics over solely numbers. But, as was stated in the roundtable on the matter, if you open the door to 2000 man fights, people will bring in 2500. Open it to 2500, they will bring in 3000. This proposal will not change that. And then you have traditional lag AND now defacto module lag. Nothing accomplished.

    And, though I agree with you that the Eve-mechanic of crashing nodes when things go south is reprehensible, nothing proposed here will stop other methods of deliberately causing node-death.

    Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
    as apposed to having the whole server locked down with 3 1/2 hours of lag not knowing if your multi billion isk ship has survived or not through absolutely no fault of your own, your fc's or the games actual in built mechanics?


    That is why many FCs prefer not to drop into lagfests if avoidable. Look at the prolonged dance just this week between NC. and NC up north. Both sides decided to not drop into that situation rather then rather then risk their caps / supers with lag uncertainty. And in countless other instances where a fleet was stood down because the enemy was already in position.

    In a way, current lag does force some strategy. This proposal creates more of a free-for-all approach to blobbing with even higher numbers of conventionals and capitals / supers.

    Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
    plus you do realise that ships logging off take time to align and warp out from the field, let alone the aggression timer that has to go before the ship actually disappears from the system.


    Yes - but with the reduced DPS due to module times being increased, the chances to kill a SC or Titan go down before it deagresses.

    Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
    i agree a large alliance/coalition that has stagnated and become carebares shouldnt be allowed to keep space by game mechanics but something like that would not by sheer behavior muscle up enough to fight blob vs blob regardless of being allowed more time to rally more members to the fight, purely for the fact they just wont fight.


    We have seen fleets sent home for fear of crashing nodes (when things were going in that party's favor). Or being told they were too far from the battle. IF the module-cycle-timer does accomplish anything (and, last I checked, there are MANY other elements that contribute to lag that this proposal does not cover), those forces will now enter the battle.

    But yes: If a fleet / alliance / coalition just won't fight, it should die. But that goes beyond the conversation here.


    Zirise
    Dreddit
    Test Alliance Please Ignore
    Posted - 2011.04.06 03:35:00 - [230]
     

    Originally by: The Mittani
    time dilation is the holy grail enabling of epic fleet fights. this is about to get a ****load of attention.




    Shocked

    Sweet.

    Egilmonsc
    Minmatar
    Massively Mob

    Posted - 2011.04.06 05:04:00 - [231]
     

    Edited by: Egilmonsc on 06/04/2011 05:03:57
    "Bullet time"

    Like Max Payne with Spaceships.
    Supported.

    GeeShizzle MacCloud
    Caldari
    Posted - 2011.04.06 10:39:00 - [232]
     

    Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud on 06/04/2011 10:43:42
    PART 1 of 2 (im very very sorry!! :S)

    Originally by: Maaxeru


    All this proposal would do is replace the current server lag with intended module lag. Six of one and a half dozen of another. AND, because it allows for more people to enter the battle, does not counter the essential element of lag: The blob itself.



    current server lag consists of a variety of different types of lag. yes this proposal doesnt fix all of them but it DOES offer a fix for one of the more annoying ones for players on the client side and thats module lag. as i can practically guarantee at least half of the players in fleet fights re-activate and resend module requests to the server when their modules stick and continuously re-cycle. the increased cycle times due to time dialation would reduce the amount of re-requests for modules, reducing the "a**hole" effect as bosse i think put it! lol!
    this is a pro-active fix to reduce the amount of re-requests by players in combat, thats the idea.

    Originally by: Maaxeru

    Quite the opposite: I am in favor of streamlined battles that require tactics over solely numbers. But, as was stated in the roundtable on the matter, if you open the door to 2000 man fights, people will bring in 2500. Open it to 2500, they will bring in 3000. This proposal will not change that. And then you have traditional lag AND now defacto module lag. Nothing accomplished.


    yes it is true that previous experiences in opening the limit to higher fleet numbers have seen higher numbers than expected but this is not a linear thing... there IS a limit to how many people can be rallied we just havent seen the top of that curve yet. it doesnt mean we should give up when the going gets tough. nothing easily attained is worth it! this proposal WILL help reduce emorage from module lag, which generally causes module re-activations/re-requests to the server thats unnecessary.

    so in summary yes this doesnt tackle module lag in a perfect world, but when do u EVER experience a perfect world scenario in the real world? you dont!

    This proposal reduces the chance of emorage from module lag in large scale combat and therefore reduces the amount of re-requests for the same things in the server. plus with the reduction of the speed of battles you reduce the amount of necessary normal activations compared to a full speed battle.

    Originally by: Maaxeru

    And, though I agree with you that the Eve-mechanic of crashing nodes when things go south is reprehensible, nothing proposed here will stop other methods of deliberately causing node-death.



    thats very true.. and it was never ment to!!! the same tactics to cause node death will still be possible. BUT.. and this is a biiig but, massive amounts of server requests by players will be extremely obvious in comparison to players genuinely waiting for their modules to cycle at the longer durations.

    if anything Bosse could write an automatic program that can hunt down clients sending massive amounts of requests compared to a normal amount for a particular ship (as SC's will be putting out more requests to the server from fighters etc than an ecm BS for example.)
    what bosse wants to do with these people is up to him and CCP, but forcing a client DC with a re-logging cooldown timer i dont think would be that harsh bearing in mind what that person is trying to do.


    tbc...

    GeeShizzle MacCloud
    Caldari
    Posted - 2011.04.06 11:11:00 - [233]
     

    Part 2 of 2

    Originally by: Maaxeru

    That is why many FCs prefer not to drop into lagfests if avoidable. Look at the prolonged dance just this week between NC. and NC up north. Both sides decided to not drop into that situation rather then rather then risk their caps / supers with lag uncertainty. And in countless other instances where a fleet was stood down because the enemy was already in position.

    In a way, current lag does force some strategy. This proposal creates more of a free-for-all approach to blobbing with even higher numbers of conventionals and capitals / supers.



    No, as i had said before the proposal helps fix module lag and reduce unnecessary re-requests. Yes you could say that the reduction in re-requests might mean lag when jumping in to a new system would be reduced, but i doubt it would be abolished entirely.

    Originally by: Maaxeru

    Yes - but with the reduced DPS due to module times being increased, the chances to kill a SC or Titan go down before it deagresses.



    you do realise that this fix is designed to augment ANYTHING in the node that has a time based element in its calculations... that includes de-agression timers.. so yes DPS will be reduced but EVERYTHING combat related scales to the same degree. so you would have more time to kill that super because it would take longer to de-agress.


    Originally by: Maaxeru

    We have seen fleets sent home for fear of crashing nodes (when things were going in that party's favor). Or being told they were too far from the battle. IF the module-cycle-timer does accomplish anything (and, last I checked, there are MANY other elements that contribute to lag that this proposal does not cover), those forces will now enter the battle.



    sure, thats if you want to jump a massive fleet into a less lagged system that it would normally be, but the amount of request sent and needed to be recieved by that fleet to actively start pvp'ing is a lot more than the fleet already loaded and on grid.. so current strategic decisions on jumping in still applies. the increased module time would partially re-ballance this to what the original game mechanics were intended to do, and thats what we all want!!

    The only people who dont want that are people who want to carry on using metagaming/node-crashing advantages they shouldnt really have in the first place!


    currently in massive lag fleet battles your ability to pvp is irrelevent. its almost purely guesswork whether you'd live or die, and you're totally at the mercy of random elements that 99% of people dont understand and cannot predict.
    so at the moment yes its a blob fest that means if u blob bigger u win.
    but the less lag affects players ability to PVP the more skill and battlefield tactics trumps blob size.

    im done now, thank GOD!! :S

    Misaki Yuuko
    Caldari
    Posted - 2011.04.06 14:51:00 - [234]
     

    good idea is good

    Mamba Lev
    BricK sQuAD.
    Posted - 2011.04.06 18:02:00 - [235]
     

    +10

    Raid'En
    Posted - 2011.04.11 18:35:00 - [236]
     


    Zen Sarum
    Posted - 2011.04.11 20:54:00 - [237]
     

    This is feeding a symptom.

    The symptom is everyone crowding in one system.

    what we need is 200 people in 10 systems fighting for sov and with each other.. not 2000 people all in the same system / 2 systems not fighting each other. If you blob you should fail and lose sov.. (yes you are going to need to organise and run multiple fleets to win, Fun stuff).

    This is the only way forward which is sustainable.

    It however requires devs to grow a brain and create a multifaceted sov system not based on ALL SIT HERE IN ONE SYSTEM AND GRIND TIMERS, this is not fun and is not a sandbox and will always cause this problem.

    A first step helpful step in this would also be for the NC to realise this is the problems, and stop blobbing and whining about the lag they cause and then demanding action to fix the symptom they created.

    As such I do not support this idea as it fixes nothing.

    Tau Ching Yu
    Posted - 2011.04.11 21:48:00 - [238]
     

    Supported. Currently lag turns a large fight in to a multiple billion isk dice roll, and anyone coming in to the party late doesn't get to play. I'd rather be annoyed at extremely slow moving ships than the hellish conditions currently going on.

    Also, Eve: Bullet Time may knock out one of the reasons to blob people don't like to mention: If you fill a system with your fleet, the enemy can't load before they are dead and the "grid holders" win by default. Swap that out for a situation where people would have to fight or flee in slow motion, and they will either live with it or come up with ways to not have everyone on grid at once.

    Calathea Sata
    State War Academy
    Posted - 2011.04.12 01:49:00 - [239]
     

    This idea needs to be strongly put down, because of reasons below.

    Originally posted in a thread in General Discussions.





    Time Dilation will not work.

    Formalizing lag as a game mechanic, really? That is really, really the worst way possible of fixing the problem, the problem of "whoever brings the most wins thus making everyone blobing as big a blob as possible". It will not fix the problem, only easing the syndrome, simply because of people will always try to bring as many as possible into the fight and the system will always be stretched outside its limit. Formalizing lag (Time Dilation) can ony ease out that much of lag and people will just keep bringing in more and more people until the server cannot afford the workload again. Moreover, it simply sounds ridiculous and immersion breaking.

    Lag is a natural product of the current game design itself: the fantasy of unlimited numbers of ship fighting together vs the realistic capabilities of the internet and the servers. As long as bringing as many ships into the fight as possible means easier wins, people will do it. Time Dilation won't work. Instead CCP should think about the game design itself: is the concept of an unlimited amount of ships fighting realistic? Perhaps 1000 vs 1000 will not be too different than 2000 vs 2000 simply because the screen and overview cannot contain that much information? Perhaps it is not 1000 but 500? How should we discourage people going over 500, maybe we can create some mechanisms to eliminate the advantages of bringing in more than 500 ships? Etc etc, I am only illustrating an example. I am sure there are better ideas than this one; I am sure someone can think of many more better ideas. But Time Dilation is the worst solution possible.





    Lag cannot be solved, only designed out

    Lag will always be present as long as the mechanics do not change: people will just bring in more and more until the server breaks, even if the server can run 10x faster than now. The game mechanics itself is to blame, not the coding or network itself (but it is relevant). I think it is not a hard concept to understand. The game mechanics simply need to be designed to accommodate realistic numbers. Instead of not limiting the number of ships on grid at all (which simply encourages bigger and bigger blobs) there should be at least some sort of discouragement of simply spamming quantity of ships(it is pretty stupid to be honest), if not hard limits on the game itself (max number of friendlies on-grid, max number of ships doing effective DPS to a target, etc). The game needs designed, unlike the current "no design" design which will always, always be broken by bigger and bigger blobs.



    Ganthrithor
    Caldari
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    Posted - 2011.04.12 05:09:00 - [240]
     

    Awe
    so
    m

    e



    i



    d





    e










    a










    !


    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