Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
|
CCP Fallout
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 12:04:00 -
[1]
CCP Atlas' newest dev blog discusses our efforts to combat fleet lag, and shares some of the results of our investigations into the probable causes.
Please note: we are doing another test round on Singularity on Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 16:00 UTC. More information can be found in this thread.
Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us |
|
Bonny Lee
Caldari The Guardian Agency Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 12:16:00 -
[2]
Nice to see some progress.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 12:19:00 -
[3]
I think it's great to see that it is being worked on.
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 12:27:00 -
[4]
Secure 3rd party service |
|
Alexeph Stoekai
Stoekai Corp
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 12:27:00 -
[5]
LSC4-P seems to have a very friendly population, even if their name choices could be a bit more inspired. -----
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 12:34:00 -
[6]
Great blog, would read again.
|
Ulair Memmet
ORIGIN SYSTEMS Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 12:41:00 -
[7]
Cya on SISI |
Altaree
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 12:42:00 -
[8]
Thanks for posting this. It is nice to hear something after all of this time. Please remember that timely information (when was dominion released?) keeps people calm. All we needed was a post with some sketchy details a month or two ago to keep us going... |
Aineko Macx
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 12:54:00 -
[9]
How the grid load issue was described differs in two points of how I have experienced it: 1) The new nebula did load 2) There was no right click menu at all (right clicking didn't produce any menu)
And to customer the support comment: No one I know was petitioning for changing the outcome of battles (i.e. gained or lost sov), just for the reimbursement of ships lost to an obvious problem on CCPs side, which has now finally been officially admitted.
|
Ga'len
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 12:58:00 -
[10]
On Jan 28th, we had a 1600 person fleet fight on Tranquility which our team monitored closely, keeping the node alive using methods that make our system admins faint. This was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, fleet fight ever in EVE (at least where the node survived the ordeal). This event allowed us to identify what was causing some of these glitches and deploy fixes live.
So, finally after many of us have been literally screaming for you to actually monitor a live fleet fight on the production server because that's where the problem was occurring, you actually listened to us.
What happened? You learned something useful, you were able to address issue as they occurred and keep the node up.
Well done, the fleet fight in D-GTMI was something to behold.
In the future, when your stakeholders are first asking, next demanding and then screaming at you to do something, perhaps you will listen to them next time.
We actually DO know what we are talking about, we ARE versed in the technical intricacies of complex client/server applications and database clustering and we ARE ALWAYS willing to help.
Better late than never CCP.
I look forward to working with you in the future.
|
|
jamaicababy
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 13:01:00 -
[11]
i would like to ask something about:
If you are waiting for the grid to load the worst thing you can do is click buttons on the interface or chat in local
does that mean if I chat in local or if OTHERS, who already loaded the grid, chat in local it becomes worst?
b/c if so (the last one) players already in grid can abuse this mechnanic to generate more "grid lag" and those who want to jump in cannot load the grid ... if this comes true, i finally understand why allainces like mh or gs are smacking the local the day long
|
Tharrn
Amarr Epitoth Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 13:10:00 -
[12]
I won't complain about lag (used to it) but ships appearing on grid (as wittnessed by both our covert ops AND an enemy spy who graced us with his gloating on Vent) AFTER BEING LOGGED OUT FOR AN HOUR simply shouldn't happen.
If I don't load the grid and am dead when finally catching up, tough luck, we are all used to that. If I am not even in game for over an hour when appearing (after having given up trying to load the grid for 30-40 minutes with 1600 in local) it's a freaking BUG!
Or maybe just do what you said you'd do like years ago and give people incentives to NOT cramp as many people as possible into a single system.
-----
|
RedClaws
Amarr Dragon's Rage E C L I P S E
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 13:35:00 -
[13]
How is the development of those mini-eveclients going ccp? As an ex-Venus Blue programmer I got a special intrest in those :)
|
Opus Dai
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 13:40:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Opus Dai on 04/02/2010 13:42:18 I actually preferred it when CCP denied the problem existed.
Admitting it's their fault and then not reimbursing adds insult to injury.
Edit:- Also is keeping the node alive when it's trying to die fair in any way when there are ships that logged hours ago out in space being shot thanks to this bug? The results so far when this has happened have been tremendously one-sided so this just makes it even worse for those who are destined to lose.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 13:44:00 -
[15]
I'm just going to repeat my earlier statement that if getting onto Sisi with a compatible client wasn't such a convoluted pain in the ass you might be able to stress test much more easily in future. If you managed to get 400, then great, but I was in an earlier test where about 150 people showed up and I doubt you got much in the way of useful data out of that.
A side issue to this is that people involved in alliance warfare are understandably reluctant to jump over to Sisi for lag tests in large numbers for fear that their opponents will take advantage of their absence on Tranquility. It may be wiser to schedule Sisi tests for extended downtimes like patch days, or in extreme cases like recently it might even be worthwhile to give a few days notice that you'll extend a regular downtime by an hour or so and run a stress test during that.
-----------------
|
ShadowandLight
Amarr Hammer Of Light Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 14:06:00 -
[16]
long story short
u cant fix lag in systems with over 1000 people in it
CCP keeping the server/node alive only helps the people who are already in the system or on grid.
It basically helps the attacker ( who has already been blowing up your crap ) and screws the defender who trys to arrive and stop the attacker.
so no one in their right mind would bother fighting in these systems, thank you for breaking large fleet fights.
I can only see large alliances ONLY attacking, and playing station ping pong by taking the other guys stuff. Why bother trying to defend?
|
Tyrael Primus
Paxton Industries Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 14:10:00 -
[17]
Hi, I lost my dreadnought 40 minutes after I logged out. Will my game logs prove this? I don't understand why it is fair that I lose 1 billion isk and my allies lose trillions after they log off without aggression timer. Isn't this a bug?
|
Opus Dai
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 14:18:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Tyrael Primus Hi, I lost my dreadnought 40 minutes after I logged out. Will my game logs prove this? I don't understand why it is fair that I lose 1 billion isk and my allies lose trillions after they log off without aggression timer. Isn't this a bug?
No you won't. Previously some GMs did reimburse some lost caps, they have since been punished for breaking their own rules, which is to not reimburse during fleet fights under any circumstances except when SirMolle lost his Titan to a bug but that was different.
As I'm sure you agree this is the fairest way to do it, in the following example if you lose: 7 Titans 14 Supercarriers 109 Dreadnoughts 73 Carriers 321 Battleships 100 assorted frigs and cruisers
and your enemies lose:
1 Battleship 3 rifters
Then you'll be pleased to know that your enemies won't get their ships back either. I'm sure you agree entirely that this is by far the best way to deal with this particular bug and shows CCPs evenhanded approach. Sorry for you inconvience, sure you'll recover etc...
They won't use timestamps anyway as they don't trust them during high lag and server stress.
|
ShadowandLight
Amarr Hammer Of Light Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 14:24:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Opus Dai
No you won't. Previously some GMs did reimburse some lost caps, they have since been punished for breaking their own rules, which is to not reimburse during fleet fights under any circumstances except when SirMolle lost his Titan to a bug but that was different.
As I'm sure you agree this is the fairest way to do it, in the following example if you lose: 7 Titans 14 Supercarriers 109 Dreadnoughts 73 Carriers 321 Battleships 100 assorted frigs and cruisers
and your enemies lose:
1 Battleship 3 rifters
Then you'll be pleased to know that your enemies won't get their ships back either. I'm sure you agree entirely that this is by far the best way to deal with this particular bug and shows CCPs evenhanded approach. Sorry for you inconvience, sure you'll recover etc...
They won't use timestamps anyway as they don't trust them during high lag and server stress.
Providence lost almost all of this ( no titans or MOMS's ) in our fight in d-g because we could load grid for 45 min, then logged and our entire cap fleet appeared 2 hours later on grid ( when the server caught up ) and died.
how is this fair CCP?
|
Irongut
H A V O C Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 14:41:00 -
[20]
Originally by: ShadowandLight
Providence lost almost all of this ( no titans or MOMS's ) in our fight in d-g because we could load grid for 45 min, then logged and our entire cap fleet appeared 2 hours later on grid ( when the server caught up ) and died.
Providence lost in D-G when your FC called for your caps to jump out of the laggy system and then back in a short while later. You should either have stayed in system or stayed out once you had jumped. Those 2 stupid decisions are what cost you your caps.
Thanks for the devblog CCP Atlas. Was good to read what you were up to in D-G while we were fighting. Next time try not to pop one of our bubbles please. ;)
--
|
|
Opus Dai
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 14:52:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Irongut
Providence lost in D-G when your FC called for your caps to jump out of the laggy system and then back in a short while later. You should either have stayed in system or stayed out once you had jumped. Those 2 stupid decisions are what cost you your caps.
I have to admit, reading AAA spin it as their skill not a game breaking bug that handed them a turkey shoot is exceedingly funny
|
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 14:54:00 -
[22]
I loved the local channel comments in the picture. Really made me smile.
"I'm confident that CCP will fix the problem" etc
Confirming Eve players post comments similar to this when lag occurs. I've found everyone gets behind CCP at such times and is all pulling for you to resolve the issues with the minimum of discomfort.
Just curious, how much of the lag is down to fleet bonuses, loot logging, watch lists etc? Would eve work better in such fights without these? It might be radicle (and sad) but what about removing these during big fights - afterall it should affect all sides pretty equally?
|
Tharrn
Amarr Epitoth Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 14:59:00 -
[23]
Well, if the node had died (thank you for artificially keeping it alive so we could be lagged out longer and loose ships you then won't reimburse. Being guinea pigs in a live environment without notice is surely what we play and pay for) there might have been a chance to get an actual fight as a percentage of people from *both* sides would have loaded the grid.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it would have changed the outcome of D-G falling or us loosing lots of ships, but there might have been an actual fight. The way it went there wasn't a 'fight' unless you call someone shooting a brigade of blidfolded and handcuffed people who are actually passed out (logged out for > 1h) on top a 'fight', too. Thanks for keeping the handcuffs active though, CCP Dev in system.
I am really thankfull to hear that you got some data out of it. Maybe you can do these tests on SiSi next time or tell your customer support to have a better look at reimbursement requests on nodes you are actively *cking with.
-----
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 15:06:00 -
[24]
Since now you know (or are getting close to knowing) what caused the nodes to show reduced performance compared to Apocrypha will you be able to prevent this and/or similar things from happening in future releases?
Will this knowledge have any long-term effect in preventing new lag instead of fighting lag after it becomes evident?
|
Dragonia Redtail
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 15:14:00 -
[25]
Thank you for writing something about this issue. A lot of us play this game more often than they play any other game and it is nice to see that you are working on it.
(Oh, and thanks for letting us kknow where the monitoring tool is hidden so we can use it to see wether we need to wait some more, or just got to bed before grid loads ;) )
|
Carai an'Caldazar
Amarr Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 15:30:00 -
[26]
Thank you for the response and keeping us in the loop. I remember fleet fights earlier on in my EVE career where lag manifested itself in 200vs200 battles, and anything larger than 700 in local might crash the node.
Thank you for your efforts in trying to fix Dominion. I look forward to the post-fix universe ~Carai an'Caldazar~ ~Carai an'Ellisande~ -- Dawn of a new Empire --
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 15:39:00 -
[27]
what problem?
oh right, I don't blob
|
Togae Alus
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 15:41:00 -
[28]
all i have to say is welcome to eve where the strength of the fleet is not as important as the strength of the server
|
Phantom Slave
Universal Pest Exterminators
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 15:46:00 -
[29]
Thanks CCP, for acknowledging that the players are causing issues with lag by jamming so many players in a system it's unplayable for one side. Server code will be updated and give better performance after you're done, but it's really not going to help in the long run. Here pretty soon we'll see our first 2,000+ man fleet fight and the lag will return.
Too bad you don't have a time machine so you could go forward about 50 years and come back with a quantum computer that could handle millions of people on the server at the same time.
I just have one question. Why is the netcode attached to the graphics code (low FPS = more lag)? Unless I read it wrong.
|
Aralis
Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 15:50:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Aralis on 04/02/2010 15:51:24 Ah so our disaster there didn't just happen. CCP engineers were busily working to make it happen. That's nice to know.
I know it's against CCPs policy to admit mistakes or misjudgements but isn't it about time to realise that Dominion is ruining the game. It took everything that was wrong with Eve and added more of it.
It would be easy, more fun, and far more sensible to design a system that didn't encourage the biggest fleets possible.
You are not "aware of the problem" - the main problem is lousy game design. The fact that your servers physically can't cope is detail. As others have pointed out with this game design if the servers were better there would just be more people in there to break them.
|
|
Agent Unknown
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 16:02:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Agent Unknown on 04/02/2010 16:02:48 So, I'm guessing I was experiencing a different bug then? I tried to jump OUT of D-G to F9E (which had like 9 in local), but I was stopped by traffic control for over 10 minutes, after which I relogged and found myself in F9E in a pod. Petitioned, got the same old "the logs, they show nothing" response. Oh, and I got podded by a bomb after the e-warp, but that's different.
Edit: The first time I relogged I was still in D-G, but was stuck on loading game; next time I relogged I was in a pod in F9E. Also, I now have one of those annoying sigs.
Originally by: CCP Fallout
And yelling is bad. It makes the baby Jesus cry and when the baby Jesus cries I'm forced to lock threads
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 16:33:00 -
[32]
Interesting. You are missing the point. Completely and utterly.
CCP created a system that required more people than before. CCP concentrated multiple goals into singular ones. Even if the cluster behaved like before dominion and even if you get fights up to 1.5k under control, your failure in game design will produce higher and higher numbers until the nodes break again.
Had anyone spent any thought on the sov system beyond "let's make it like the old one", we wouldn't have this problem in the first place and you could spend your energy and time on something different.
Also:
Quote: The conclusion has, however, always been to leave fleet battles alone rather than reimbursing them as a whole.
This is not consistent with GM actions taken in the past months. Not that inconsistency in the GM department is anything new when it comes to game related petitions.. ----------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
|
Crimson11
Targeted Logistics and Manufacturing
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 16:38:00 -
[33]
Honestly, Move SBU's so that they are on the outside of a system rather than inside the system. That way attackers and defenders must be spread out. Solves alot of problems rather quickly too.
Simple
This idea has been mention several times now!
Crim
|
Yaay
UK Corp
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 16:44:00 -
[34]
The cause for the backup of data seems to be very closely related to damage calculations. That is to say, If you jump in and have time to load before damage calculations start happening, you will always load, and quite fast.
If instead you jump in and very quickly start receiving large amounts of damage calculations, the grid never loads. The most obvious form of this is when 1 single bomber launches a bomb on a fleet, it can prevent grid load.
Part 2 for server crashes seems to be high instantaneous damage calculations. This seems to be typically linked to grid load, but happens after grid load from time to time as well. The only real cause for this seems to be large fleets and their x 5 drones being hit by large swarms of bombs.
Now on to more of a rant mode. If you guys would quit balancing races by giving them more drones that they never needed, it would help with a lot of the lag your game creates. It would benefit this game greatly if you rebalanced all ships and limited drone bays to those ships that really deserved it. Case and point, why in gods name does a falcon have a drone bay.
Battleships too should not have a drone bay unless they are: geddon, Mega, domi, Phoon. Recalabrate all the others to do weapon damage are remove 5 entities from the game for all the other BS in engagements.
Even on great performing servers, once the drones start piling up, even with brackets off, the server takes a very noticable performance dive. And consider this, A BS that has 75 drone bay, if that's 3 waves of light drones, it's very likely by the end of the fight all 15 of his light drones will be deployed. So rather than just 5 active, he has 10 extras creating space junk on a grid.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 16:50:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Yaay Part 2 for server crashes seems to be high instantaneous damage calculations. This seems to be typically linked to grid load, but happens after grid load from time to time as well. The only real cause for this seems to be large fleets and their x 5 drones being hit by large swarms of bombs.
Nah, it's much simpler.
If you order everyone to shoot the gate while the enemy jumps in / warps on grid, he will never load. ----------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
|
Yaay
UK Corp
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 17:00:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Batolemaeus
Originally by: Yaay Part 2 for server crashes seems to be high instantaneous damage calculations. This seems to be typically linked to grid load, but happens after grid load from time to time as well. The only real cause for this seems to be large fleets and their x 5 drones being hit by large swarms of bombs.
Nah, it's much simpler.
If you order everyone to shoot the gate while the enemy jumps in / warps on grid, he will never load.
That would be part 1?
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 17:13:00 -
[37]
Yes, but you will hesitate to bomb your own fleet. Shoot a gate? Not so much. |
Manfred Rickenbocker
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 17:35:00 -
[38]
I for one will welcome our larger blob overlords when this gets fixed.
By the way, does CCP realize this will only exacerbate the problem? Once the lag has been fixed and you can bring more peeps, it will only increase the number of players that try and get in on the fun (pain?). Eventually we will just see people complaining about 2000 vs 2000 fights... ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Caoim Fearghul
Caldari Ammatar Free Corps Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 17:35:00 -
[39]
I've seen that the response from CCP regarding the ships being killed over an hour after logging out is that there are no logs of clients logging out. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but events are handled server side, and we have this little device called an emergency warp that normally kicks in if you quit the client, or even if you sever your internet connection. That means the server does monitor the status of its connection with a local client under normal conditions or else there would be no way for the server to be able to initiate an emergency warp.
Out of curiosity, would the games that CCP were playing with the server to prevent node death involve overriding the normal timeout protocols? Prodesse Non Nocere
|
Xtover
Suicide Kings
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 17:49:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Crimson11 Honestly, Move SBU's so that they are on the outside of a system rather than inside the system. That way attackers and defenders must be spread out. Solves alot of problems rather quickly too.
Simple
This idea has been mention several times now!
Crim
excellent idea, but what happens when you need to fight over the ihub?
|
|
El'hith
Gallente The Phoenix Enclave
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 17:58:00 -
[41]
Honestly post-big update lag threads do amuse me.
Everytime they release a new big patch this happens, most people expect it due to new content / new variables.
The new patch comes out, 6 months go by with terrible lag 6 months later a massive fix comes out that not only supports large fleet engagements, but even larger fights than before the previous patch.
Every year this happens, its nothing new but the trend is that the game gradually does get more stable and capable of having more players on grid at the same time. (Till the next expansion when it breaks again)
In short... if your new welcome to the cycle of lag > blob > lag > blob etc
For everyone whos been here a few years just help out by reporting bugs and joining in stress testing.
'Hith
~~~~Back from the dead! ~~~~
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 18:12:00 -
[42]
Any idea WHY the lag is suddenly such drastically increased? |
AgentFruitfly
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 18:20:00 -
[43]
Sounds like you guys need to get log better perf metrics.
|
Ancy Denaries
Forever Unbound
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 18:24:00 -
[44]
And here I was, thinking that people would be grateful that CCP is finally doing something about the lag. Shame on me for being positive. You bunch o' whiners. ---- The Demigodess with a Conscience - An EVE IC Blog
Originally by: CCP Dropbear rofl
edit: ah crap, dev account. Oh well, official rofl at you sir.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 18:27:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Ga'len
So, finally after many of us have been literally screaming for you to actually monitor a live fleet fight on the production server because that's where the problem was occurring, you actually listened to us.
....
In the future, when your stakeholders are first asking, next demanding and then screaming at you to do something, perhaps you will listen to them next time.
Your reply why it was not done before 8at least on this scale, as sometime you see CCP guys in big battles) is here:
Quote: Well, if the node had died (thank you for artificially keeping it alive so we could be lagged out longer and loose ships you then won't reimburse. Being guinea pigs in a live environment without notice is surely what we play and pay for) there might have been a chance to get an actual fight as a percentage of people from *both* sides would have loaded the grid.
and in all the similar posts.
|
AgentFruitfly
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 18:40:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Xtover
Originally by: Crimson11 Honestly, Move SBU's so that they are on the outside of a system rather than inside the system. That way attackers and defenders must be spread out.
Crim
excellent idea, but what happens when you need to fight over the ihub?
Wouldn't come to that. On that scenario, defenders only have to blob sbu systems 1 by 1 until below the 50%+1 threshold. Attackers are unlikely to have enough numbers to lag out many systems simultaneously.
|
Miklas Laces
tr0pa de elite Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 18:59:00 -
[47]
it's been 2 months already, and you still dont have a clue worst dev blog ever
________________________________________________ CCP Claw > Sokata has been destroyed for boundary violation Drug Kito > Sokata you'll always be remembered as a noob in history of alliance tourname |
Masada Akiva
Gallente Phoenix Division Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 19:13:00 -
[48]
I am glad CCP is working on figuring out the grid load problem. I'm sure it is not an easy one to solve. I look forward to its eventual fix.
The decision not to reimburse losses due to risk of CCP being "arbitrary" is a disappointment. The CVA capital fleet suffered 75-80% losses while -A- did not lose a single capital ship. The CVA armada is mortally crippled and without reimbursement CCP is arbitrarily giving victory over Providence to -A-. While -A- certainly did not initiate an "exploit" they sure did benefit from this bug. The last check I made put the death tally at 140 CVA capitals lost in D-GTMI... some of those hours after the pilots logged out.
The game goes on... but this response is not satisfactory. "If given the choice between knowledge and imagination, I choose imagination." ~Einstein |
Khandahar Bob
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 19:20:00 -
[49]
I'd like to point out a flaw in some of the advice being given by players to "alleviate the lag" is likely going to cause more problems. I've seen people advocate that you should ungroup all of your guns and fire them separately to prevent them from getting into a 'stuck' state. This seems entirely wrong to me, as for a Battleship this will multiply the number of calls to the server by up to 8.
Can someone from CCP please say out loud, for the uninitiated, "this is a very bad idea"?
It seems pretty obvious to me that this would cause more problems, but nobody listens to me.
|
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 19:23:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Caoim Fearghul I've seen that the response from CCP regarding the ships being killed over an hour after logging out is that there are no logs of clients logging out. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but events are handled server side, and we have this little device called an emergency warp that normally kicks in if you quit the client, or even if you sever your internet connection. That means the server does monitor the status of its connection with a local client under normal conditions or else there would be no way for the server to be able to initiate an emergency warp.
Out of curiosity, would the games that CCP were playing with the server to prevent node death involve overriding the normal timeout protocols?
I think it's a matter of the client sending a "LOGOUT" message to the server, but as the server is overloaded, it won't actually act on the logout until, say 40 minutes later. This means that if you logged out at 19:00, the server will log it as 19:40, meaning that for the GM staff, it's impossible for them to see if you actually logged out at 19:00 like you claim, or if you logged at 19:40, after hostiles actually started shooting your ship.
The server will initiate the ewarp as soon as it realises that you've logged out, but the issue here is that the server doesn't actually KNOW that you've logged out, because it hasn't had time to process it yet.
Yes, it sucks, I've lost ships to that too. I trust CCP to work on improving it though. --
|
|
Caoim Fearghul
Caldari Ammatar Free Corps Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 19:34:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema I think it's a matter of the client sending a "LOGOUT" message to the server, but as the server is overloaded, it won't actually act on the logout until, say 40 minutes later. This means that if you logged out at 19:00, the server will log it as 19:40, meaning that for the GM staff, it's impossible for them to see if you actually logged out at 19:00 like you claim, or if you logged at 19:40, after hostiles actually started shooting your ship.
The server will initiate the ewarp as soon as it realises that you've logged out, but the issue here is that the server doesn't actually KNOW that you've logged out, because it hasn't had time to process it yet.
Yes, it sucks, I've lost ships to that too. I trust CCP to work on improving it though.
I can show you this is false quite easily, simply pull out your internet cable and have a friend watch what happens to your ship after a few moments. The client cannot sent a "LOGOUT" message, it is simply severed from the game.
In order to keep the server up I suspect they overrode the normal timeouts which is why hours later a ship is still in game after the pilot left. Prodesse Non Nocere
|
Fina Kelitan
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 19:40:00 -
[52]
I think that if the "logout" message (more likely a disconnect than an actual message, but still) is delayed 40 mins, then it's also likely that the messages for the enemy locking and firing on you were similarly delayed.
So while you weren't dead (as far as you could tell) when you logged, events were already queued that would cause your death.
If there's actually a difference in delay between different people in the grid, so that e.g. you could try to log out, then the enemy locks and kills you (with little lag), and then the logout is finally processed, that would be a lot more serious.
Anyone able to confirm which it is?
- Experienced EVE player trying a new character |
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 19:49:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Batolemaeus on 04/02/2010 19:49:26
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema
I think it's a matter of the client sending a "LOGOUT" message to the server, but as the server is overloaded, it won't actually act on the logout until, say 40 minutes later.
Wrong. Everyone who has an alt can do a little test: Log out while gridload isn't working. Your main will be flagged offline immediately. You can see him going offline in your address book. So the info is there, it's just gms not caring if you lose your ship hours after logging out. |
InnerDrive
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 20:03:00 -
[54]
Edited by: InnerDrive on 04/02/2010 20:04:15 While im happy your working on it i can only say one thing.
OMG can u work harder?
i was at your sisi tests and i will continue to come and try get as manny people to come as possible , please do more if needed
|
Le Ming
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 20:12:00 -
[55]
Somehow it's bitter to read that the node was kept alive intentionally, as it would have crashed otherwise which in turn would have saved a lot of peoples ships and pods. On top of that you reject reimbursement, because your logs don't show when someone disconnects and when a ship explodes. If there is like an hour or two in between, things should be obvious.
On the other side it's good to hear that you're on it and fixes will be deployed soon - hopefully very soon.
|
Jackson Taus
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 20:47:00 -
[56]
First, let me say that as a CS student, I understand that lag is a very difficult to tackle problem.
But I think that prolonging node uptime is a mistake. It's better to have the node crash than to have a situation where "playing" devolves to "shoot once every 5 minutes" or where we have grid-loading issues. Both from a balance PoV and an enjoyment PoV, I would think "node's crashed, sorry, play on an alt for 45 minutes" is superior to being stuck in super-lag or stuck not loading grid.
I think you should also look into structural changes which discourage blobbing. Others have suggested putting the SBUs on the other side of the 'gates or similar measures. Even a brilliant and heroic fix will at best only allow slightly larger fights. If large fleet fights in a single system continue to be encouraged by the mechanics, we're going to eventually have even larger blobs that make the lag return.
I'd also like to suggest a temporary fix to the reinforcing problem - predictive reinforcement. It should be possible to go over a data-set and tease out trends in day[x-1] that predict which nodes will be high-traffic in day[x]. For instance, if there are reinforced nodes unallocated and unrequested, assign them to systems which have high-value targets coming out of reinforce (stations and iHubs, say). Or if a system saw heavy fleet action yesterday (but nothing put into reinforce) and there are spare beefy nodes, use them for that. Obviously the actual assignment algorithm would be more complex (and based on mining accumulated data) than that, but you get the idea.
|
Adril Alatar
Minmatar Galactic Shipyards Inc Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 20:52:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Batolemaeus Edited by: Batolemaeus on 04/02/2010 19:49:26
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema
I think it's a matter of the client sending a "LOGOUT" message to the server, but as the server is overloaded, it won't actually act on the logout until, say 40 minutes later.
Wrong. Everyone who has an alt can do a little test: Log out while gridload isn't working. Your main will be flagged offline immediately. You can see him going offline in your address book. So the info is there, it's just gms not caring if you lose your ship hours after logging out.
Confirmed. Most of the caps where logged out according to corp member list for quite some time when being killed. Some of them even logged alts on on the same account an hour before the got killed. GM's even refuse to escalate petition because they think the issue is closed after there copy&paste lag answer....
disappointing really
|
TraderRefinerJane
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 21:12:00 -
[58]
Edited by: TraderRefinerJane on 04/02/2010 21:15:40 CCP, this devblog is probably the most failure I've seen from a MMO company in a while, especially with regards to your reimbursement policy. Only boot.ini tops Dominion in terms of sheer incompetence.
The logic your customers will gleam from the dev blog is elegantly simply -- you say "We Are Aware of the Problem" but we won't reimburse anything -- so why should players play your game if they die to a bug? Why play at all when all major 0.0 conflicts since Dominion have been decided by game/server bugs or people quitting the game?
No wonder CCP's customer service is a joke in the industry.
|
Allen Ramses
Caldari Typo Corp
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 21:17:00 -
[59]
Now that it appears CCP understands why things are not happening, a fix should be on its way relatively soon. This is good...
...But it's too bad they don't spend the same kind of effort (or any effort, for that matter) trying to find out why the client is beyond unstable. How long must a person live with low gfx settings to use 2 clients, fear crashing whenever initiating warp, and experience terribad FPS before CCP mans up and says "Oops, we ****ed up. We're looking into it."? Most of the uberblobs have to complain about it, I guess.
____________ I'd make a forum signature that didn't suck, but I'm restricted by a character limit that does. |
Charles37
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 21:20:00 -
[60]
Even though this lag does not affect me, I appreciate the upfront and forthcoming nature of this blog post. In addition, it has been a fascinating peek behind the scenes at what makes EVE run.
I hope that the problems that the solutions that were alluded to help the problems.
|
|
Estel Arador
Minmatar Estel Arador Corp Services
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 21:55:00 -
[61]
Quote: Note that if you get podded while in this state then the client should recover when your session is moved into your clone station.
That's comforting to know...
Free jumpclone service|874 stations - Truly Universal |
mrpapageorgio
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 22:27:00 -
[62]
Why would any attacker want to have ccp reinforce the node when currently it is more advantageous to pack the system before the defenders show up and kill them 1 by 1 as they fail to load grid
|
Slobodanka
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 22:28:00 -
[63]
What I got from all this is that you actually have a way to check if client lagged out (and pilots ship was killed) or was it just bad piloting on his part. If server does not send grid info to the client in under 8min... then you probably should give pilot at least an option to get back to where he was (if he's still alive that is) if you refuse to reimburse. And stop with "our logz ain't shoween nutn" BS.
|
Shamis Orzoz
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 22:30:00 -
[64]
Waiting it out worked pretty well for our titans. We waited 2 hours.
Faildevs are fail.
|
Jackson Taus
|
Posted - 2010.02.04 23:31:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Xtover
Originally by: Crimson11 Honestly, Move SBU's so that they are on the outside of a system rather than inside the system. That way attackers and defenders must be spread out. Solves alot of problems rather quickly too.
Simple
This idea has been mention several times now!
Crim
excellent idea, but what happens when you need to fight over the ihub?
If the relevant SBUs are destroyed, the iHub goes invulnerable. So in a 2-gate system, the attackers need to attack the iHub and defend 2 SBUs (one in each adjacent system) while the defenders need to blunt the iHub attack (or rep the iHub through the attack) until they either defeat the attacking fleet or kill SBUs. The strategic points of the fight are then split across 3 systems. The more gates in the system, the more spread out the fighting would be.
The problem is that in theory defenders could blob each SBU sequentially, and in any system with more than 2 gates, the attacker can just blob on the station or iHub and hope to shoot it down before losing 2 SBUs (or 3 SBUs in a 5-gate system).
Originally by: Caoim Fearghul
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema I think it's a matter of the client sending a "LOGOUT" message to the server, but as the server is overloaded, it won't actually act on the logout until, say 40 minutes later. This means that if you logged out at 19:00, the server will log it as 19:40, meaning that for the GM staff, it's impossible for them to see if you actually logged out at 19:00 like you claim, or if you logged at 19:40, after hostiles actually started shooting your ship.
The server will initiate the ewarp as soon as it realises that you've logged out, but the issue here is that the server doesn't actually KNOW that you've logged out, because it hasn't had time to process it yet.
Yes, it sucks, I've lost ships to that too. I trust CCP to work on improving it though.
I can show you this is false quite easily, simply pull out your internet cable and have a friend watch what happens to your ship after a few moments. The client cannot sent a "LOGOUT" message, it is simply severed from the game.
In order to keep the server up I suspect they overrode the normal timeouts which is why hours later a ship is still in game after the pilot left.
If the server gets overloaded, then what's happening is it's not processing in real time. So while an hour has passed in real life, the server may have only processed the first 2 minutes or so.
|
Jenessa
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 00:09:00 -
[66]
I'm just pleased to see that CCP have blogged about it, although most of us assumed through common sense that they were working on the problem it's nevertheless good to actually be told they are aware of it and are working on it.
There's a tendancy for people to start demanding it's fixed with complete ignorance of the scale of the problem CCP face fixing the lag. Hell I have no idea how programming works and how problems like this are sorted out. And I don't assume that because I pay my $15 a month that me demanding the problem is fixed automatically means that CCP will pull a magical fix out of their backside, I mean afterall CCP dont want their customers telling their friends who may be thinking of becoming Eve players "Hell Eve is good, shame about the lag"
Once again thanks for the blog CCP, people are generally much more receptive to a problem if they are at least told and kept upto date on whats happening. People's imaginations can run wild in the absense of concrete information.
I'm 100% confident you'll get there.
|
TheAdj
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 01:20:00 -
[67]
So, what you're saying is you're not reimbursing ships from a fleet fight in which a previously undocumented bug literally ate large fleets several hours after the players involved had logged off? You don't need logs to prove it, when someone kills 125 capital ships and kills.....2 battleships and a frigate, it's pretty clear they are either the worst pvp alliance in EVE or something stopped them from even firing back. I logged off a dreadnaught in the y-2 fight and it died 45 minutes later when it was unaggressed, there is no reason it should not have been gone from space 60 seconds after I clcked the little red X. Please tell me how that should not be reimbursed, in ANY, ANY other situation that would be returned except for this one, pretty much because you don't feel like reimbursing what is a perfectly legitimate reimbursement.
This blanket policy is incredibly bad customer service, it is passing the buck because GMs don't feel like talking to the Development Team to sort this out in an equitable fashion. When these previously unannounced type of issue occurred before in Tribute '08, the losses for the the affected parties were reimbursed. This wishy washy, flip flop type of garbage is what gets players so annoyed with CCP they just unsub and leave. If your logs show nothing, perhaps you should improve the method in which information for logs are gathered because this smells like a giant cop-out to me.
What's funny is how the replies in the petitions changed over time, at first it was "Yea there was nothing wrong, everything was working fine THE LOGS SHOW NOTHING" to "Ok here have a few capitals back" to "I'm sorry, we cannot reimburse ANY ships from a fleet fight." It took like a week for the GM Team to decide on a response to what happened in Y-2, and the final answer was "Heh who cares they will pay anyways don't give them back anything." That's what annoys me more than anything, we won't get a decent directed response for this at all.
|
Lykouleon
Trust Doesn't Rust Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 02:34:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Lykouleon on 05/02/2010 02:44:06 Edited by: Lykouleon on 05/02/2010 02:43:43 I feel that the chatter in local is far too baised.
Edit: meh, forgot to be constructive.
Just out of curiosity, what were some of the fixes that CCP deployed during the live fleet fight? Are these things related to the new fleet-finder system at all?
Also, a nice lash-out to the complainers in this thread (CVA): I hope to see you all on SISI for the next round of fleet fight testing. Otherwise, man up.
Quote: CCP Mindstar > Sorry - I've completely messed all that up. lets try again
|
isAzmodeus
Low Security Military Excursions
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 02:57:00 -
[69]
Rumor has it, CCP deployed these --------------------------------- The Seven- Blowing up someone near you. |
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 03:10:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Jackson Taus
The problem is that in theory defenders could blob each SBU sequentially, and in any system with more than 2 gates, the attacker can just blob on the station or iHub and hope to shoot it down before losing 2 SBUs (or 3 SBUs in a 5-gate system).
The solution is to spread fleets over time, not space. If there was something to do every day, maybe even multiple times a day, instead of once every three days, you'd get a lot less numbers. Can you imagine assembling your entire coalition to defend a station system twice a day for a week or even longer? |
|
Una D
Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 03:13:00 -
[71]
So what are the chances of CCP even considering graceful degradation? It's all good to tell me that I should try and relog after 8 minutes but in last fights people have been dying hours after login off.
Since instancing and caping the nodes is going to ruin the game just spend some time on graceful degradation instead of next shiny thing (walking in stations is not essential while fleet fights are).
Just make the time slow down on the overloaded server until it can handle it. It's better to have stuff move in slow motion (literally) than total failure that happens now.
|
Phantom Slave
Universal Pest Exterminators
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 04:22:00 -
[72]
Perhaps a different approach can be taken to alleviate the one-sidedness of the current lag situation.
As every person jumps into a system, the whole system freezes purposely to keep any targeting, moving, module activation etc. from happening. Once there's been a 5 second gap between gate jumps and *every* person has loaded the grid then the fighting could commence. Basically the system would lock up for 5 minutes and not a single person could do anything to cause any additional lag for anybody jumping into the system.
I'm also curious about the calculations/movements/module activation queue. Is each item and person done sequentially? That way as 1 person does something everybody gets the information in a row straight down (or up) on local list. This may cause more lag than there seems to be now, but could possibly make fighting more even since it would lag everybody equally.
I'm no programming expert and will probably get flamed for the above, but I just like tossing out ideas to be discussed.
|
Ol' Delsai
Caldari Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 06:47:00 -
[73]
I think that for both a gameplay and lag point of view, it should be very interesting to move SBU from one side of the gate to the other side of the gate :
i.e. I f you'd like to conquer system A, which is linked to system B,C,D,E - you'll have to put an SBU in an A-Gate in B, C, D and E systems (or in the majority of them).
This would eventually split the attacking and defending forces to many systems and surely help with lag and also make the gameplay of disrupting a system with SBU more tactical.
Hope you'll find ways soon to solve lag issue
|
Kanuo Ashkeron
Capital Construction Research
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 08:16:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Kanuo Ashkeron on 05/02/2010 08:16:48 What is actually causing the lag?
As older dev blogs state, there are three layers on the server. Proxy, Sol and Databaselayer. Obviously the Sol nodes crash, but why? Is it because of the computational load, or because database queries can not processed in time, or what? As you guys from CCP understand, there are a few of us who have a clue about how things could work, and it is always cool if someone understands things he really likes.
On another note: Why weren¦t the CVA guys packing a few transports with SBUs and launching a counterattack?
|
InnerDrive
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 08:42:00 -
[75]
Originally by: mrpapageorgio Why would any attacker want to have ccp reinforce the node when currently it is more advantageous to pack the system before the defenders show up and kill them 1 by 1 as they fail to load grid
THIS, read it ccp this is exactly whats been happening.
not only that but than if you get like 800 people and they have 500 people and you coud easely kill them if jumping in woudent black screen they dare to be chestbeating that your afraid to enter the system with them to take it back, your the so called cowards ROFL.
its been affecting 0.0 pvp far more than "lag for both sides". the attackers have been at a massive advantage. but sure never reimburse anything, have your customer support drink some more coffee and play some more poker. |
Opus Dai
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 09:45:00 -
[76]
Maybe stop recruiting Game Designers from the playerbase, could lead to a slightly more professional approach - which in CCPs case is not difficult. It also may mean I won't have to login to the forum 3 times just to post something.
That said, it is quite hillarious.
- GMs are present in systems and unresponsive to stuck requests because they're too busy fighting to keep the node alive to ensure a thorough and complete turkey shoot takes place
- Game designers focus on "Blobinion" the concept of funneling as many people as possible into the same place at the same time. Meanwhile they introduce a comical bug that not only prevents a client from loading, it keeps the players ship in space ad infinitum until it's destroyed.
- CCP takes 3 months to even acknowledge the damage they've done
- CCP checks the MSN listing and finds no-one listed has fallen victim to said bugs. CCP refuse all petitions.
It's not often you see Game Designers taking such a prominent, albeit inadvertent, role in shaping the ingame politics. I should have guessed CCP would be the first, glad I was around to witness this.
Quote: On another note: Why weren¦t the CVA guys packing a few transports with SBUs and launching a counterattack?
When you lose a capital fleet to a bug, CCP deny it's a bug and blame you stating lag is a known factor in fleet warfare and it's the risk you took. Then a few days later CCP admit it's a bug but still refuse all petitions in the interest of "fairness" then people suddenly lose all interest in taking part in CCPs sovereignty experiment. It is of course fair, assuming you haven't been on the receiving end of the bug.
|
something somethingdark
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 09:51:00 -
[77]
besides that you usualy dont have a rightclick menu when you are lagged out on jumping into a system
i understand most of the oustanding calls queue but how is it that guns can get stuck for an 8 minute cycle (this explains allot of guncycing actualy) but once you go manualy (set autorepeat off etc) you have a much higher chance of recovering even though you are placing another call that presumably gets queued at the back (but aparently doesnt) thers even another way that can shorten your empty cycling time even further and it places even more gamecalls
so i can only presume certain calls get diffrent priorities and are capable of racing infront of the queue way past the ppor sob who has been trying to log in for over an hour
|
Kanuo Ashkeron
Capital Construction Research
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 10:56:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Opus Dai
Quote: On another note: Why weren¦t the CVA guys packing a few transports with SBUs and launching a counterattack?
When you lose a capital fleet to a bug, CCP deny it's a bug and blame you stating lag is a known factor in fleet warfare and it's the risk you took. Then a few days later CCP admit it's a bug but still refuse all petitions in the interest of "fairness" then people suddenly lose all interest in taking part in CCPs sovereignty experiment. It is of course fair, assuming you haven't been on the receiving end of the bug.
As you stated above, I was not on the receiving end of the bug. However, my question was more generally: When someone follows all these discussions, it seems that the general warfare strategy didn¦t shift with Dominion. Warfare still concentrates on one system after another. Why don¦t people try to open up a front with many systems contested at the same time? If you have a front of several systems you have to split forces among them and the lag problem is gone (it seems 250vs250 fights are possible).
|
Tharrn
Amarr Epitoth Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 11:34:00 -
[79]
If the enemy brings 100 and you bring 200 you are very, very likely to win. So unless youe xpect your enemy to be a pushover you bring as many people as possible to have more than the enemy to improve your odds. And you bring them in *before* your enemy can to get the good server resources. It's down to maths and using the broken mechanics to your advantage.
Asking people to please not do it won't solve it. Ever. The incentives and objectives need to change. I doubt that a sov rework will hit anytime soon though as it would basically mean admitting that Dominion was a step in the wrong direction. Again.
-----
|
Kade Jeekin
Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 11:35:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Kanuo Ashkeron
Quote: On another note: Why weren¦t the CVA guys packing a few transports with SBUs and launching a counterattack?
...Why don¦t people try to open up a front with many systems contested at the same time? If you have a front of several systems you have to split forces among them and the lag problem is gone (it seems 250vs250 fights are possible).
They tried. On Wednesday, 3 Feb. Whilst the .-A-. bloc were hammering 9UY4-H the Providence bloc attacked D-GTMI and HED-GP. They succeded in splitting up the attacking force. A detachment went back and eliminated the Provibloc SBUs. The detachment got back to 9UY4-H in time for the last dread cycle to put the station into reinforcement. Saturday, 6 Feb will be the next big test of the software. --------------------------------------- Outface the depths of evil with clarity --------------------------------------- |
|
kyrieee
Psykotic Meat Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 12:59:00 -
[81]
While on the subject of lag I'd like to bring something up
It's quite common for your guns to get stuck in heavy lag situations, meaning the module won't stop cycling. The way people get around this is by turning off auto-repeat while at the same time stopping the gun cycles manually.
If you click the gun icon next to the target box to stop the gun cycling everything tends to work pretty well, but for some reason deactivating the module with a hotkey (for example F1) or clicking on it in the module bar doesn't have the same effect. This becomes a huge issue if your gun hasn't stopped cycling before the target dies, because the target box disappears and it can take several minutes for the guns to stop cycling.
Maybe you'll tell me that there's no difference between deactivating the module by clicking the tiny icon next to the target and hitting a hotkey, but I'm sure a lot of people can attest to the fact that there really is a huge difference. I'd be great if you could look into that so we could, client side, more effectively prevent the guns from being stuck.
|
Mira O'karr
Minmatar Yin Bao
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 13:22:00 -
[82]
ships should be reimbursed because there was no fleet fight.
caps killed 2 hours after log out were not fighting back and they were not in fleet.
my logic, it makes sense.
|
Janko Frost
Blue Labs
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 13:33:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Janko Frost on 05/02/2010 13:35:50 Dear CCP, and whomever it might concern:
Do you realise how bad a failure of your support department (including your dev team - which obviously worked on the issue) is, when you publish a BLOG about exactly the same thing, 7 DAYS, after you denied - "kicking and screaming" - that such a gamedefect would exist with the following words:
[...]"lag is a conglomerate of several different technical processes and it is not equal at all, it is purely chance based which characters are affected from lag or not."[...]
[...]"Our decision in the matter is final, and I'm afraid, that any further discussion cannot alter this decision. This petition will now be closed.
Best regards, Senior GM <webbing your petition>" [...]
Disappointment doesn`t really describe the result of your customer relation policies.
|
Opus Dai
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 13:37:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Kanuo Ashkeron
Originally by: Opus Dai
Quote: On another note: Why weren¦t the CVA guys packing a few transports with SBUs and launching a counterattack?
When you lose a capital fleet to a bug, CCP deny it's a bug and blame you stating lag is a known factor in fleet warfare and it's the risk you took. Then a few days later CCP admit it's a bug but still refuse all petitions in the interest of "fairness" then people suddenly lose all interest in taking part in CCPs sovereignty experiment. It is of course fair, assuming you haven't been on the receiving end of the bug.
As you stated above, I was not on the receiving end of the bug. However, my question was more generally: When someone follows all these discussions, it seems that the general warfare strategy didn¦t shift with Dominion. Warfare still concentrates on one system after another. Why don¦t people try to open up a front with many systems contested at the same time? If you have a front of several systems you have to split forces among them and the lag problem is gone (it seems 250vs250 fights are possible).
It's a good question and the answer is two-fold
a) The bug is most likely to affect the Defender and so far it's only defenders that have suffered it. Defenders of course do not get to choose the system being attacked, there's no reason for Attackers to split their fire across systems when attacking only one is likely to produce them a turkey shoot where they get to wipe out hundreds of caps for no losses then die laughing when CCPs ridiculous support policy then backs them up in the interests of "fairness"
b) Dominion has dumbed down strategic thinking. Kiting POSs for a favourable timer has been thrown out of the window along with the stront timing mechanic itself. Instead there's a static timer which needs to be set only once and will produce a timer with a little variance either way. This is done multiple times to take control of a system/station. This makes the whole affair much more predictable making greater participation allowable, coupled with the decision to remove the AoE doomsday from Titans, you get a higher turnout as entire fleets can't be wiped anymore which helped tremendously previously to disuade the higher number of blobs. Now Dominion has effectively removed all the caps and CCP are scratching their heads as to why it's all gone to ****
|
Le Ming
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 13:49:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Jenessa [...]There's a tendancy for people to start demanding it's fixed with complete ignorance of the scale of the problem CCP face fixing the lag. Hell I have no idea how programming works and how problems like this are sorted out. And I don't assume that because I pay my $15 a month that me demanding the problem is fixed automatically means that CCP will pull a magical fix out of their backside, I mean afterall CCP dont want their customers telling their friends who may be thinking of becoming Eve players "Hell Eve is good, shame about the lag"[...]
When playing a computer game, you usually want to have fun and not bother about coding, what is a grid, what is off-grid, what is a node, what is a cluster and how they are set up and react on heavy load and all these stuffs. That's technical stuff that breaks your immersion and it's really nothing you should have to care about. It's sad that you actually have to know about the very technical details of the game, otherwise you're screwed in a couple of (important) situations.
It's not that i personally have no understanding of tech stuff, but it's just something i don't want to care about when playing the game. It's interesting to read about it and get a better understanding, but at the point where i have to know these things and have to keep them in mind while playing and have to act accordingly, it's not really fun.
At this time, you're actually screwed if you have little to no understandings of the technics that work behind the scenes, when your enemy does.
Just saying...
And still: Though CCP argues that they don't want to influence the outcome of a battle in any way - their argument when denying the reimbursement - they did so in a very strong way when keeping the DG node alive, if you ask me. That still leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth. Cool that they have some real data now to improve things, but at what cost?
|
Jelzid
Caldari GSZ Magnum Opus.
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 15:10:00 -
[86]
CCP: Thanks for the dev blog, and for keeping us informed about the progress on this issue. Your hard work is appreciated. Don't mind the flamers, their just as frustrated as you, but can't do much about it.
March on fearlessly! ;) |
Raketefrau
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 15:54:00 -
[87]
Quote: There are senior software engineers spending their evenings and weekends on Tranquility monitoring and measuring since we have not been able to see issues when testing because the sheer number of people required to trigger the problems and the specific 'usage pattern' of the game systems in question are outside what can currently be tested in the lab (although this is something that is being worked on).
If legions of macro ratters and miners exist, why can't CCP set up macro clients as well?
Something like the Amazon cloud would be ideal for this...
1)Set up one VM with as many clients as you can, test it to make sure you've got the max number of clients you can have before client lag becomes an issue.
2) Clone that one machine out to a couple hundred VMs. Fire them all up, launch the macros, monitor SiSi.
3) When you're done testing, the VMs go back into the cloud and you're not paying for them anymore.
This would be a pretty cost-effective way of doing massive-numbers client testing. You largely just need to test jumping into systems or fleets warping into each other, which should be pretty easy to set up macros for.
It's also a lot cheaper in terms of staff annoyance at having to work ludicrous hours to track this stuff down. I feel for those guys, and believe there has to be a better way.
I've worked for a couple of companies now that have had hundreds of VMs running in the Amazon cloud, and it's worked out very well for them.
It's worth looking at, IMHO.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 16:12:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Kanuo Ashkeron
As you stated above, I was not on the receiving end of the bug. However, my question was more generally: When someone follows all these discussions, it seems that the general warfare strategy didn¦t shift with Dominion. Warfare still concentrates on one system after another. Why don¦t people try to open up a front with many systems contested at the same time? If you have a front of several systems you have to split forces among them and the lag problem is gone (it seems 250vs250 fights are possible).
Then your enemy takes his entire blob and kills you one by one. Or, since he started contesting YOUR system earlier than you can counter attack, he IGNORES you, gets your system, sovs it up, and THEN defends. By that time your morale will be down the toilet anyways and you already lost a station.. ----------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 16:18:00 -
[89]
Glad to see a response on this issue. It would have been nice to get a "we're aware of the issue and working on it" blog a month ago though. This part:
Quote: What this means is that CCP will not be granting reimbursement for fleet fight losses.
Please understand that fleet fight reimbursement has always been very controversial and few issues have been discussed and argued in more detail within CCP. The conclusion has, however, always been to leave fleet battles alone rather than reimbursing them as a whole. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and we appreciate your patience as we work diligently towards resolving this issue.
While controversial, would have also been nice to know a month ago as well. Knowing the in-game stance CCP was taking on the issue would have allowed players, alliances, fleets, and FCs to adapt their play style to the current situation better.
Fix Local |
Clone 1
Ministry of Mojo
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 16:30:00 -
[90]
Dominion is probably the worst expansion that I can remember, both in bugs and .1 bug patchs. There is something definitely gone wrong at CCP. 2 months is bad form too.
But hey at least the patches are 'free' and the planets look cool.
-------------------------------------------------- I got ganked at Za'Ha'Dum, but I am ok now. |
|
DeadDuck
Amarr Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 16:57:00 -
[91]
Let's see how it goes. In the 3 last fleet fights I was involved the node just went down. I think we have reached an all time low in terms of game performance with Dominion. But I'm also confident that if anyone can fix it's CCP.
I would be eagerly waiting for further details on this subject.
PS: Your local chat ...
God is my Wingman |
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 19:18:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Skaarl on 05/02/2010 19:20:08
Originally by: DeadDuck Let's see how it goes. In the 3 last fleet fights I was involved the node just went down. I think we have reached an all time low in terms of game performance with Dominion. But I'm also confident that if anyone can fix it's CCP.
I would be eagerly waiting for further details on this subject.
PS: Your local chat ...
\
the problem with the 500:1 loss ratio in dg was CCP going to extraordinary measures to ensure that the node didnt crash, allowing the hours and hours of server backlog to clear and ships to randomly appear hours after logging to be blown up. then denying that they had any responsibility for the issues at all, and sending blanket, canned responses to all petitions in a horribly slow manner from the same GM-BOT saying we are sorry but our policy is non-interference... even tho we admit we interfered.
can you see where the angst comes in at?
edit: oh and i was at the last testing event, from what i saw they were looking at fixing something other than non-grid load. there really isnt any hope in sight that they will fix this bug.
|
Morp p'LLoran
Silver Snake Enterprise Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 20:06:00 -
[93]
Originally by: TraderRefinerJane Edited by: TraderRefinerJane on 04/02/2010 21:15:40 CCP, this devblog is probably the most failure I've seen from a MMO company in a while, especially with regards to your reimbursement policy. Only boot.ini tops Dominion in terms of sheer incompetence.
The logic your customers will gleam from the dev blog is elegantly simply -- you say "We Are Aware of the Problem" but we won't reimburse anything -- so why should players play your game if they die to a bug? Why play at all when all major 0.0 conflicts since Dominion have been decided by game/server bugs or people quitting the game?
No wonder CCP's customer service is a joke in the industry.
Yeesh, why don't you and all the other whiners just quit - YOU joined a fleet knowing that lags gonna be bad and knowing you'll have to jump into a big mess. You where just hoping you are the ones that would benefit - instead it was your opponents, that's the only reason you are crying like a bunch of spoiled brats here. CCP has NEVER reimbursed - not when we lagged out with 300 in local a few years back and not know when we lag out with 1500+ in local now. Go to empire, mine, rat, play with yourself - just don't join any more fleets where you know there's gonna be lag. Unashamed CCP fanboy and 0.0 lemming - I like the fights - lag or not. |
Shamis Orzoz
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 20:24:00 -
[94]
**** you guys.
|
A'rdan Vulpayne
Amarr 1st Praetorian Guard
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 20:31:00 -
[95]
Edited by: A''rdan Vulpayne on 05/02/2010 20:35:43
I have to deactivate game features to play a game introducing these features as making the EVE world more fun for the players ... I got guides from the developer to avoid the problems the game features causing ...
I am right now watching the all about fleet battles introducing trailer and reading this discussion ... wow
I read this: Quote: On Jan 28th, we had a 1600 person fleet fight on Tranquility which our team monitored closely, keeping the node alive using methods that make our system admins faint. This was one of the biggest, if not the biggest,fleet fight ever in EVE (at least where the node survived the ordeal). This event allowed us to identify what was causing some of these glitches and deploy fixes live.
and think to myself, this must have been an special exception, a CCP live test ...
And then i read the words from the customer support ... they must be cripted, the parameter exception is not implemented?
I am speechless ... there was a fleet battle with one party not able to respond? How can this bee a fleet battle? Roll back and resolve this problems like it should resolved or reimburse the pilots not been part of a fleet battle ...
Why the hell I am playing this game and why the hell pilots fighting in such large fleet battles?
Recruiting! |
Costermonger
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 20:41:00 -
[96]
Whilst I am delighted that CCP now acknowledge the exsitance of lag and are working on a final solution. I am concerned about the issues raised by the Customer service statement tagged on to the end of this dev blog.
The big issue I see is the blanket reimbursment cop out, I am in the midst of a petition myself on a different toon from a 70 v 90 fleet fight which is seemingly now a "large fleet fight" I lost my ship and warped my pod, and then crashed. Only seemingly my none scrambled pod didn't warp or vanish it sat there and was killed 5 minutes after I logged.
Now I lost the fight and my ship I am fine with that. I have no problem with it and in a fleet engagement to reimburse my combat ship would perhaps not be fair on the other particpants .
My issue is with a seemingly known bug which led to the loss of my pod. My pod was not scrambled and is unable to sway the outcome of any fight thereofe the reimbursment of the pod would effect noone but me so fairness on other players is not an issue here. For this to be lost to a bug that CCP ARE AWARE OF and to then be told by a senior gm that the blanket policy which is carefully worded to include this little catch all
"What this means is that CCP will not be granting reimbursement for fleet fight losses."
seemingly handing the the gms the power to reject all petitions in which a fleet was involved in any way. Not just "large" fleets(Q. what defines a large fleet incidently CCP?)
If this is indeed the intention why not just remove the ships and combat section from petitions because effectivly that is what has been done here.
|
Konoch
Caldari Azriel's Legion Free Worlds Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 21:17:00 -
[97]
CCP its time to screw everyone over and i mean everyone....
REMOVE SOV FROM THE GAME IN TOTAL!
I'm not kidding. The *****ing the complaining the moaning its utter crap. People want all the profit and none of the work. Its really beginning to grate on my nerves even more so with the bull**** happening down in providence.
POS sites are so strong that no unit can bust them in short order even titans. Because they are so strong a group has two options. Ignore them entirely or bring overwhelming force to bear and even with overwhelming force it requires hours to bring down.
You people want to end lag and giant fleet fights? End Sovereignty end moon mining end the reason for POS's to even exist. The situation honestly can not continue as is. Since the majority of these whining fools want a fix now and continue to harass and insult people develop these games. (oh and i bet 95% of the people who play this game couldn't write a lick of code for even a ****ing Nintendo game let alone something as complex as this.) Remove it all together.
Personally i think POS sites should be downable by one battleship but that's me. You'll never see non blob fighting in any game because that's all anyone ever EVER EVER ****ING EVER DOES! Go around to every friggin MMO and most online games over the past 10 years (FPS excluded) And tell me where the best tactic is NOT to swarm with everything you ****ing have! FC's are unimaginative bastards for the most part and no one has a single clue to tactics.
End Sov. You fix a lot of problems that way and you'll never have to worry about these lag problems when people blatantly overload grids, and ignore the fleet form to help you prepare for such engagements. I'm not kidding either the insults to the game developers and coders makes me want to punch everyone's lights out. Keep *****ing about it and maybe you'll see what you don't want. Jesus Christ they actually got super carriers right instead of that near disaster by that one dev and all you people can do is continue to insult.
You'll never see large fleet fights be anything more than blob on blob because the FC's wont fight any other way. And as long as its blob on blob i don't care what CCP does there will always be lag. Speaking as someone who wants to develop these games and knows exactly what he's walking into if there's one thing i couldn't tolerate it was the utter lack of respect i see in most of the posts. I honestly don't know how some of these Devs continue to be a public part of this game.
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 22:07:00 -
[98]
So in summary:
Dominion screwed things up and we dont know what we changed to do this despite the fact that its clearly some handshake issue thats been obvious since the start.
You accept its broken and even accept that you not only dont log things to level that would enable you to faiurly sort things.
You have no way to test things properly beyond testing on your customers. Who you clearly stated could end up being podded and indeed lose everything and you can go logs say no.
Conclusion:
You bunch of cnuts. You have told us nothing we already didn't know. Add more logging you lazy sods until you fix your mistakes.
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 22:29:00 -
[99]
"This requires running Logserver.exe from the client installation folder before you start the client. Your logs are extremely important, and each bug report you submit with this information will go a long way toward bringing us closer to a resolution or fix for this issue."
SORRY YOU DONT ACCEPT EM ON THE LIVE SERVER SO ITS NOT A REAL TEST
You don't accept logs on the live server from the client and as such you seem to be adopting double standards. Either sort logging so it is accepted period or stop taking the **** out of people by explaining how peoples time can go poof in a way your fully aware of except when it comes to loss's that frankly cant be explained as valid loss's with what you do log, let alone template smack talk us in petitions.
Now when you folks go mine umpteen titans worth of minerals - hand them over to me in Jita so I can right-click and trash em and tell you my logs show nothing, once that has happened then we can talk about testing, until then I'll avoid the holes you have made and you can fill them yourself. Am I being selfish, nope, just following CCP's examples. Either way I'm not expecting nor will we ever know exactly what the problem is beyond some dumbed down version or were you get to blame BGP or sombody else.
Personaly I'd run a network analyser on the connection and pretty easily conclude its a handshake issue, you took what, how long to get that far.
Get some QA and by QA I mean Quality Assurance and not Quitely Arragant. The way you wrote that report tells us nothing new, realy I dont and yet you still dont accept the facts.
Now go mine us a 2 digit number of titans minerals worth so we the players can trash em and see how you like your time wasted.
|
Lupus Aurelius
Legio V Fidelus Fidelas Constans
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 00:00:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Lupus Aurelius on 06/02/2010 00:03:28 Edited by: Lupus Aurelius on 06/02/2010 00:01:30 Edited by: Lupus Aurelius on 06/02/2010 00:00:24 1) CCP has a known issue with lag based on system population. This is a server/node issue. 2) People, and groups, know of this issue, and have found a way to utilize it for their benefit. 3) CCP's attempt to reinforce the node in D-G, not only left alot of people unable to fight/play the game, but also left pilots and ships in position that even hours after logging off, their ships were on the field, and being shot like fish in a barrel.
This is called an EXPLOIT, and should be treated as such by CCP until they fix the system. If an alliance can preload a system, as -A- and allies have been doing for the past 2 days, so they log on in mass with 1000 ships, tons of caps and supercaps, and they know by doing so they are literally preventing the defender from even getting in the system and loading the grid, then that alliance is EXPLOITING a game issue and mechanic.
CCP, you need to treat this as an exploit, right now it is CVA, but it could be ANY other alliance anywhere in EVE this happens to next. It affects everyone, our game play, and ablity to respond as your product is advertised to do.
You promote major fleet battles as a selling point to EVE, yet do not actually have the capablity to support them, and based on TZ and who loads more ships into a system, they can lag it so badly that NO ONE, no matter who it is, can do anything about it.
Fix your product, CCP, and ban the practice for the exploit it is.
Lupus Aurelius Senior Consul, Fidelas Constans |
|
mesosorry
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 00:20:00 -
[101]
read local chat in the screeny its pretty funny
|
Diomedes Calypso
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 08:48:00 -
[102]
A TIE
A Tie !
Win Lose Tie
When some external force interferes with competitions... be it football or chess or whatever the competition is canceled... Software/hardware or whatever you'd classify the problem wasn't functioning in a way that they could deem as acceptable.
Reimbursing would be effectively calling something a tie... actually it would still be a victory for a side that was able to function and achieve its strategic goals but the scale of the impact of the disfunction would be greatly reduced.
Its right to expect that there will always be computer issues in the future.. develping a method of server to client response that both logged the state of the client and made ships connected (if you can type in local, it seems to me that the client could send a similar message to the server that things werent working correctly and the ship could be put in the invulnerable 'warp" state until the client responded correctly ?
Anyway... better to have no decision than a capricious one.
When in doubt .. call it a tie ...
|
Celia Therone
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 11:13:00 -
[103]
Edited by: Celia Therone on 06/02/2010 11:16:17
Quote: When you see this, the worst thing you can do is to click any buttons or type in local
Perhaps have modules light up blue when you've clicked on them and then go green when the server agrees that they're working (or back to nothing if the action was invalid or times out?)
It is a bit frustrating when the client freezes up for a few seconds and you don't know if the client got your click and sent it off to the server or not so a visual cue would be really nice.
|
Serena Tiger
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 12:04:00 -
[104]
The fleet form is an exploit by itself. Coz Attackers don't fill them to be sure they are first in grid. :( Dominion bring us a gameplay ccp can't assume. And we are the guys paying for that. Paying in $ and isks. Many ally broken for that. There the ones who use the lag and win, and those that don t want to wait one hour loading the grid to see they already died. Anyway thanks for the beautiful screensaver...
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 13:08:00 -
[105]
the most worrisome thing to me is that either CCP doesn't realize that they altered the D-GTMI fight by taking an active hand in keeping the node up instead of allowing it to crash and flush, thereby giving one side a HUGE advantage (i.e. the side that could actually play) and giving them an advantage in the overall campaign from that point forward due to the hugely lopsided losses, or that they don't care that their actions gave one side an advantage.
the outcomes of fights and campaigns shouldn't be based on the actions of the CCP team.
|
Konoch
Caldari Azriel's Legion Free Worlds Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 14:31:00 -
[106]
Edited by: Konoch on 06/02/2010 14:31:27
Originally by: Lupus Aurelius Edited by: Lupus Aurelius on 06/02/2010 00:03:28 Edited by: Lupus Aurelius on 06/02/2010 00:01:30 Edited by: Lupus Aurelius on 06/02/2010 00:00:24 1) CCP has a known issue with lag based on system population. This is a server/node issue. 2) People, and groups, know of this issue, and have found a way to utilize it for their benefit. 3) CCP's attempt to reinforce the node in D-G, not only left alot of people unable to fight/play the game, but also left pilots and ships in position that even hours after logging off, their ships were on the field, and being shot like fish in a barrel.
This is called an EXPLOIT, and should be treated as such by CCP until they fix the system. If an alliance can preload a system, as -A- and allies have been doing for the past 2 days, so they log on in mass with 1000 ships, tons of caps and supercaps, and they know by doing so they are literally preventing the defender from even getting in the system and loading the grid, then that alliance is EXPLOITING a game issue and mechanic.
CCP, you need to treat this as an exploit, right now it is CVA, but it could be ANY other alliance anywhere in EVE this happens to next. It affects everyone, our game play, and ablity to respond as your product is advertised to do.
You promote major fleet battles as a selling point to EVE, yet do not actually have the capablity to support them, and based on TZ and who loads more ships into a system, they can lag it so badly that NO ONE, no matter who it is, can do anything about it.
Fix your product, CCP, and ban the practice for the exploit it is.
HERE HERE! I've been calling for exactly the same goddamned thing. People are lucky i'm not a GM in this game or i'd have torn alliances apart for this.
QFT
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 14:43:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Konoch
Originally by: Lupus Aurelius You promote major fleet battles as a selling point to EVE, yet do not actually have the capablity to support them, and based on TZ and who loads more ships into a system, they can lag it so badly that NO ONE, no matter who it is, can do anything about it.
HERE HERE! I've been calling for exactly the same goddamned thing. People are lucky i'm not a GM in this game or i'd have torn alliances apart for this.
So why don't the defenders get themselves in to the system before the attackers? I guess one side is more dedicated than the other...
|
Anela Cistine
Amarr GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 14:56:00 -
[108]
Artificially keeping the node alive while people are blind, paralyzed, and unable to log out is massively unfair. Preventing people from logging out when they realize the system is unplayable is simply inexcusable.
Taking heroic measures to prevent the node from crashing when you know that hundreds of players are stuck is wrong. Dead wrong. It would honestly be better and far more fair for you to manually reboot the node every 30 minutes or every 60 minutes during bugged fleet battles. Deliberately rebooting the node would be annoying and inconvenient for everyone, but it would be better than what we have now.
Periodically rebooting a bugged node would not only get everyone unstuck, it would also give you the opportunity t reinforce the node. It would remove the current incentive for attackers to NOT notify you of a planned fleet fight.
|
L'Petit Object
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 15:06:00 -
[109]
Yay, a response! I lol'ed pretty good to the chat in local.
Seems like a ship should not be presented in space until the server and the ship have completed their calls and have got handshakes done. All the mechanics appear to be in place for this (jump animation, ship is cloaked, ship moves and it appears.)
Why not simply: a)monitor traffic in system in a very light manner b) give a warning to players if they are entering a degraded system node c) make the ship immobile, invisible, and invulnerable until the appropriate packets are exchanged d) prioritize system loading packets over combat flight data for new entries into the system.
I said simply up there as a way of making it feel light and easy. Goodluck and bravo on reproducing a difficult glitch and getting those hamsters to run faster!
|
Olivia Wood
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 17:20:00 -
[110]
Quite simply if a large PoS / iHub / Station enters RF or SBU's are anchored the system should probably receive some automatic flag to be reinforced on the days these timers exit.
|
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 19:43:00 -
[111]
What else could CCP be doing now:
1) Make the jump in invulnerbility timer = 9 minutes if there is more than 300 people in the system if you say that it can take upto 8 minutes before you time out. No tactical advantage to be gained from that in these situations at all if you adopts this for 0.0 systems which have adjacent 0.0 systems or maybe all space if faction warfare a problem as well.
2) Reinforced nodes - publish a list of requests being actioned so people actualy know if the node is reinforced in that system or not. No tactical advantage and indeed would remove some unfair tactical advantages it seems.
3) Relook at the whole soverenty changes like having people deploying items near gates to take or hold severenty. that right there changed the fighting from any dozen or so moons+ to being held at a handful of jump-in gates. Make it so these deployables have to be within 1AU BUT NOT ON SAME GRID AS THE GATE and if be force people to probe them out.
4) Add additional logging, you have the spare CPU and will plicate alot of reinbursments to your satisfaction when so many are obviously reibursable but just not logged as such. If its goona get rough at least give people the chance as apposed to not giving them any hope as it now stands.
But hey I don't work at CCP, clearly
-- Sometimes ductape is the solution, sometimes it just helps do better than before. But it is never wrong (animals excluded). --
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 22:37:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
So why don't the defenders get themselves in to the system before the attackers?
Did it ever occur to you that defenders are the ones that react to what the attackers are doing? So they naturally are the ones who are late?
I know this is a very challenging thing for you to grasp, but in warfare it's usually the attacker who knows where to strike first. |
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 00:30:00 -
[113]
Awsome!
|
Veebora
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 05:08:00 -
[114]
This is what I have to say about this:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1264912&page=1
Congratulations for the hard work for fixing the issue!
Shame on you for bad customer support!
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 06:54:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Batolemaeus Did it ever occur to you that defenders are the ones that react to what the attackers are doing? So they naturally are the ones who are late?
I know this is a very challenging thing for you to grasp, but in warfare it's usually the attacker who knows where to strike first.
Oh, I see. Thank you for correcting my ignorance on how 0.0 sovereignty battles work. With this newfound knowledge I can properly appreciate the magnificent exploits of MM.
Not a single detail, no matter how small or insignificant, will ever again escape my notice again. Thank you, wise Batolemaeus, for the knowledge you have imparted upon me.
|
Inspiration
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 11:41:00 -
[116]
Edited by: Inspiration on 07/02/2010 11:45:59 Edited by: Inspiration on 07/02/2010 11:43:50 Just an idea that can help diagnose many problems:
Why not give the client the capability to send specific timing information back to the EVE cluster, where the health of the system can be monitored. The most crude version would be to send an compact responsiveness report on various aspects every N seconds. The value of N can even be made node specific and when trouble occurs you can fine tune the value as needed.
No more GMs telling someone, they did not see anything in their logs and you got a constantly updated picture of the cluster health and where problem cases start to build up. Combined with the monitoring tools already present for the nodes you will have awesome power.
My suggestion would be to have dedicated monitoring nodes that process these reports, thus not affecting the game nodes. But the data can be correlated and when issues start popping up, a recording can be made for later analysis, putting the node in a sort of diagnostics mode with support of the involved clients which are always ready to do so.
And of course the monitoring nodes do not need to process any other information, nor be aware of anything other then the logs. They can be quite simple and well performing without affecting any game play in a negative way.
Think about it :)
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 12:34:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Inspiration Edited by: Inspiration on 07/02/2010 11:45:59 Edited by: Inspiration on 07/02/2010 11:43:50 Just an idea that can help diagnose many problems:
Why not give the client the capability to send specific timing information back to the EVE cluster, where the health of the system can be monitored. The most crude version would be to send an compact responsiveness report on various aspects every N seconds. The value of N can even be made node specific and when trouble occurs you can fine tune the value as needed.
No more GMs telling someone, they did not see anything in their logs and you got a constantly updated picture of the cluster health and where problem cases start to build up. Combined with the monitoring tools already present for the nodes you will have awesome power.
My suggestion would be to have dedicated monitoring nodes that process these reports, thus not affecting the game nodes. But the data can be correlated and when issues start popping up, a recording can be made for later analysis, putting the node in a sort of diagnostics mode with support of the involved clients which are always ready to do so.
And of course the monitoring nodes do not need to process any other information, nor be aware of anything other then the logs. They can be quite simple and well performing without affecting any game play in a negative way.
Think about it :)
It's a good idea in the right area.
How about the ability of the client to log events in such a way that they can be replayed in a standalone way to replay what you see. These logs are then periodicly checksummed and this checksum is sent to a seperate CCP log server (Have local country log servers if you can so one in America would be one, Iceland, UK, Australia, few others, you have offices at alot of locations already and logging is seperate and non-dependant upon gameplay in this form of usage as well as being less impacting upon the clients and other positive reasons). Now the logs could be signed via a public key with CCP having the private key and then every x seconds a checksum of that periods logs is checksumed and the checksum sent to the logserver which then signs it with another public/private key that only ccp knows along with a internal timestamp and the return hash is sent back to the client to act as a solid form of proving said logs on the client but also acting as the return handshack acknowledgment that the log checksum was recieved and processed. You also have the option for realtime logging but the method outlined would be sufficient to allow a form of trusted local logs with no impact upon gameservers as they stand currently. Upgraded version of the logserver could accomodate this could it not and as such be worked upon independant of the game code. There are more benifits to this and could also open-up the ultimate potentual for user video's but beyond that would also allow:
- Allow the comparision between people in the system to actualy see the differences from what clients do and what other clients see and eventualy why.
Allow CCP to have the foundations to perform fleet tests in a automated test rig without the need to depend upon players goodwill to download test clients and rearange there lives for post panic test events.
Give the potentual to have logging at a level that will make alot of petitions to be automated and indeed potentualy automaticly raised and processed in a proactive way and above all in a fair that installs more fairness and mutual respect.
The bottom line **** happend and thats fine as long as its acknowledged and a level of fairness prevails to accomodate the ****. Alas currently the whole way of dealing with petitions is what is failing CCP and more so there relationships with there customers overall. [b]It's simple maths, fairer petition handerling == happy customers and more income for CCP. If only they did the maths.[
|
Droog 1
Black Rise Inbreds
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 13:03:00 -
[118]
Dear CCP,
Testing should be done on the test server.
|
Kaapro Tatu
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 17:07:00 -
[119]
Instead of having sovereignty fights over one system, make constellations affect the sovereignty of the single systems belonging to the constellation. Battles would have to be spread throughout the constellation instead of in one system and would add another dimension to strategy and spread the load out.
|
evsNOTeve
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 19:10:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
So why don't the defenders get themselves in to the system before the attackers? I guess one side is more dedicated than the other...
because Russian timezones have a huge advantage.....when dt ends for them they are home from school/work already, while for euros they are still in school/work, and for americans theyre either at school/work or getting ready to go...so its much easier for russian timezones to grab hold of a system first right after dt (this is not including weekends of course)
|
|
Caoim Fearghul
Caldari Ammatar Free Corps Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 22:41:00 -
[121]
So, will we get a Dev responding about what exactly it was they did to keep the D-GTMI node alive for their little experiment and how it caused ships to remain in space hours after a pilot logged out?
And can they then perhaps CC it to the customer support people....
And perhaps after that, refrain from monkeying with the game mechanics in the middle of a fight... Prodesse Non Nocere
|
Serene Pity
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 05:59:00 -
[122]
+1 whining. Shame on you CCP !
The new gameplay is technically unplayable and it s now official.
"You lost everything on the battles we wanted you to be involved in Dominion ? Yes it s our fault but we can t do anything for you. Keep playing and keep paying please. Thanks for being so addicted to eve and don't look after another game please. CCP" |
FlameGlow
Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 07:06:00 -
[123]
So big Dominion fights are supposed to be like: jump in wait wait wait wait upgrade clone
_____________ I don't care what is nerfed, as long as it's not my "undock" button. |
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 07:12:00 -
[124]
Originally by: LaVista Vista I think it's great to see that it is being worked on.
If CCP working on it is "great" what would be just "okay" - Not working on it but saying "we know it exists"? Would not doing or saying anything then be a "bad" thing?
But keep in mind: The tests to sort this out started only a month ago. Don't get ahead of yourself and expect them to come up with fix right now. This is serious business and there is no magic wand or switch they can use to resolve this...
/sarcasm
|
Jewed Lawl
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 07:42:00 -
[125]
Been told that this devblog is a panic response released after CCP realised that AAA have known about all the technical details of this bug for some time, almost as if told directly via a medium such as MSN.
This is why the devblog was never proof read else the bragging about keeping the node alive would have been redacted for obvious reasons. It's just meant to level the playing field and give every alliance the same information on how the exploit works so CCP can shrug and state the same information is available to all.
Well done CCP
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 09:03:00 -
[126]
You ppl whine way too much.
You whine when they dont release details. You whine when they do release details. You whine when the node crashes. You whine when they prevent the node from crashing.
Anyone else noticing a pattern here?
Im pretty much convinced everone living in null is a 4 yr old girl.
|
|
CCP Atlas
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 09:37:00 -
[127]
Thank you all for your comments. I'll just make a brief comment about the concerns people have about the node being kept alive for the 1600 person fight that is mentioned in the blog.
We are deploying a fix to Tranquility this week (probably tomorrow) which identical to the methods used that fateful night in keeping the node up. The problem was that under great strain nodes were unable to contact the database to 'heartbeat' which is a way for them to tell the cluster that they are alive and kicking. A bug was introduced in the Dominion expansion where database calls were not scheduled 'fairly' so low level management functionality such as the heartbeat would not have enough precedence over game functionality such as shooting a gun. This was jury-rigged live on Jan 28th and is making its way to a permanent fix this week. The fix that is being deployed is identical to the live-fix that was made on Jan 28th.
So, despite 'making people faint' comments this change was done in an extremely controlled manner and was not a case of 'keeping the node alive longer than it should have been'. If the node would have been allowed to die the results would have been extremely bad for everyone as the solarsystem would not have been properly persisted, and it would have come up on a different node, where it would immediately die again because of the population count and that would continue to cascade as long as there were more than ~1000 people fighting there leading to horrible gameplay for those involved and a possible destabilization of certain parts of the cluster.
The cluster cannot gracefully handle a 1600 person fleet fight right now but bouncing between dying nodes every 2 minutes with the solar system in an indeterminate state is not really any kind of a solution.
We will be deploying fixes this week and the next and are continuing to closely monitor fights as they occur. Please bear with us a little while longer.
|
|
Caoim Fearghul
Caldari Ammatar Free Corps Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 09:46:00 -
[128]
I am still left wondering how exactly that results in the ghost ships that can be killed an hour after a pilot has logged out? Prodesse Non Nocere
|
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 10:29:00 -
[129]
Originally by: CCP Atlas If the node would have been allowed to die the results would have been extremely bad for everyone as the solarsystem would not have been properly persisted, and it would have come up on a different node, where it would immediately die again because of the population count and that would continue to cascade as long as there were more than ~1000 people fighting there leading to horrible gameplay for those involved and a possible destabilization of certain parts of the cluster.
So you're saying when two forces fight each other in a system then you'd much rather one group dies to a total buttf**k thanks to your bugs rather than have both suffer equally?
You guys are cretins. Please don't ever leave CCP, I would much rather sleep safe at night knowing that you're only able to do damage to a fictional make belief game rather than worrying if you're working somewhere where you can actually do real harm.
|
Kanuo Ashkeron
Capital Construction Research
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 10:49:00 -
[130]
It seems the epic fleet fights for conquering 0.0 space will be done using t1 frigs in the future
|
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 11:19:00 -
[131]
Originally by: CCP Atlas
So, despite 'making people faint' comments this change was done in an extremely controlled manner and was not a case of 'keeping the node alive longer than it should have been'. If the node would have been allowed to die the results would have been extremely bad for everyone...
*confused*
In one sentence you are saying that you did not keep the node alive and then the next sentence starts with "If the node would have been allowed to die"?? So did you prevent the death of the node or not?
Keeping something alive means it would die on it's own. If it wouldn't die on its own there is no need to keep it alive by doing anything, no? If this was not a case of "keeping the node alive longer than it should have been" what case of "keeping it alive" was it?
Is this all just a case of poor wording? What did you really do and what would have happened without it?
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 11:26:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Future Mutant You ppl whine way too much.
You whine when they dont release details. You whine when they do release details. You whine when the node crashes. You whine when they prevent the node from crashing.
Anyone else noticing a pattern here?
Im pretty much convinced everone living in null is a 4 yr old girl.
Well CCP is not the first company to say one thing but do another. They are not the first to tell their customers there is no problem although there is one. They are not the first to start telling self-contradicting stories about what's happening. Also they wouldn't be the first company to stop doing that. That's nothing new at all.
But what do you find so admirable about that kind of behavior that you expect everyone to be content about it?
|
Opus Dai
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 11:30:00 -
[133]
Looks to me like CCP is going out of its way to indicate they shafted a small section of the playerbase and there's nothing they can ever do about it.
I preferred it when trolling used to be confined to only players on COAD.
|
Puicu
Caldari Rubbish and Garbage Removal Legiunea ROmana
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 11:48:00 -
[134]
Edited by: Puicu on 08/02/2010 11:49:24 The solution exist gents and is simple! You just roll-back to Apocrypha 1.5 and voila, it will work!
If they will not resolve the lag in Dominion it will be the only solution, except the case they change recently the hardware which could be the second cause of the problem.
|
Manks Girl
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 12:02:00 -
[135]
I would like to ask CCP this.
If they experienced such problems as "paying gamers" what would their responses be to petitions that only get answered by copying and pasting customer service robots writing off any bugs that occured during big fleet fights.
I am a cap pilot that logged off at 23:15 died at 00:45. If the node was kept alive intentionally, it seems that the safety protocols of emergency warping when logging was turned off.
Can this finally be answered and confirmed? or is it going to be spin doctored again?
CCP realise your responses are directly related to people not renewing their subscriptions again.
|
Serene Pity
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 12:04:00 -
[136]
Originally by: CCP Atlas Thank you all for your comments. I'll just make a brief comment about the concerns people have about the node being kept alive for the 1600 person fight that is mentioned in the blog.
We are deploying a fix to Tranquility this week (probably tomorrow) which identical to the methods used that fateful night in keeping the node up. The problem was that under great strain nodes were unable to contact the database to 'heartbeat' which is a way for them to tell the cluster that they are alive and kicking. A bug was introduced in the Dominion expansion where database calls were not scheduled 'fairly' so low level management functionality such as the heartbeat would not have enough precedence over game functionality such as shooting a gun. This was jury-rigged live on Jan 28th and is making its way to a permanent fix this week. The fix that is being deployed is identical to the live-fix that was made on Jan 28th.
So, despite 'making people faint' comments this change was done in an extremely controlled manner and was not a case of 'keeping the node alive longer than it should have been'. If the node would have been allowed to die the results would have been extremely bad for everyone as the solarsystem would not have been properly persisted, and it would have come up on a different node, where it would immediately die again because of the population count and that would continue to cascade as long as there were more than ~1000 people fighting there leading to horrible gameplay for those involved and a possible destabilization of certain parts of the cluster.
The cluster cannot gracefully handle a 1600 person fleet fight right now but bouncing between dying nodes every 2 minutes with the solar system in an indeterminate state is not really any kind of a solution.
We will be deploying fixes this week and the next and are continuing to closely monitor fights as they occur. Please bear with us a little while longer.
And now what about the guys you sent that after they petitionned for their capital ship loss in DGTMI ?
Quote: Our reimbursement policies are very strict and we can only reimburse if we are able to verify that a bug or server error caused the loss. We hope that you understand our position and that you will recover swiftly from the loss.
It s still not a verified server error ?
|
Aralis
Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 12:13:00 -
[137]
Originally by: CCP Atlas Thank you all for your comments. I'll just make a brief comment about the concerns people have about the node being kept alive for the 1600 person fight that is mentioned in the blog.
We are deploying a fix to Tranquility this week (probably tomorrow) which identical to the methods used that fateful night in keeping the node up. The problem was that under great strain nodes were unable to contact the database to 'heartbeat' which is a way for them to tell the cluster that they are alive and kicking. A bug was introduced in the Dominion expansion where database calls were not scheduled 'fairly' so low level management functionality such as the heartbeat would not have enough precedence over game functionality such as shooting a gun. This was jury-rigged live on Jan 28th and is making its way to a permanent fix this week. The fix that is being deployed is identical to the live-fix that was made on Jan 28th.
So, despite 'making people faint' comments this change was done in an extremely controlled manner and was not a case of 'keeping the node alive longer than it should have been'. If the node would have been allowed to die the results would have been extremely bad for everyone as the solarsystem would not have been properly persisted, and it would have come up on a different node, where it would immediately die again because of the population count and that would continue to cascade as long as there were more than ~1000 people fighting there leading to horrible gameplay for those involved and a possible destabilization of certain parts of the cluster.
The cluster cannot gracefully handle a 1600 person fleet fight right now but bouncing between dying nodes every 2 minutes with the solar system in an indeterminate state is not really any kind of a solution.
We will be deploying fixes this week and the next and are continuing to closely monitor fights as they occur. Please bear with us a little while longer.
Nice. So you simultaneously did and didn't keep the node alive. Please less quantum physics in yuor answers.
No you are totally mistaken. An utter crash would have been better than one that lets one side play and one side not.
|
Le Ming
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 12:40:00 -
[138]
Originally by: CCP Atlas We are deploying a fix to Tranquility this week (probably tomorrow) which identical to the methods used that fateful night in keeping the node up.
Am i the only one who is worried about that line? Does that, in other words, mean, that the behaviour of the DG node will become the default behaviour? So you now get killed in every huge battle, while being disconnected? Sorry if i misread it, but this is how i interpret it.
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 13:31:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Manks Girl I would like to ask CCP this.
If they experienced such problems as "paying gamers" what would their responses be to petitions that only get answered by copying and pasting customer service robots writing off any bugs that occured during big fleet fights.
I am a cap pilot that logged off at 23:15 died at 00:45. If the node was kept alive intentionally, it seems that the safety protocols of emergency warping when logging was turned off.
Can this finally be answered and confirmed? or is it going to be spin doctored again?
CCP realise your responses are directly related to people not renewing their subscriptions again.
YES CCP CAN YOU ANSWEAR THAT PLEASE.
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 14:00:00 -
[140]
you ppl act like timestamps were put there by the almighty himself. Did it occur to anyone that if the node was experiencing lag- maybe the killmail generation would be delayed? Or any of a thousand other things could be the problem.
You lost your ship because you undocked. HTFU. Its not a phrase for everyone but you.
|
|
Hannibell
Genco Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 14:04:00 -
[141]
Originally by: CCP Atlas ....snip.... A bug was introduced in the Dominion expansion where database calls were not scheduled 'fairly' so low level management functionality such as the heartbeat would not have enough precedence over game functionality such as shooting a gun...snip....by this I mean that the situation would not have been better if the node would have died...
Wrong. Flat out Wrong. The situation would have been Fair, with all parties scrambling to relog in (perhaps repeatedly however ALL in the same situation)
CCPs actions directly led to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZUx_7WSMY no fight, no battle, no engagement, but more than 100 pilots and ships dying MORE THAN AN HOUR, after they disconnected their clients from the game in disgust. (I can even provide receipts from my dinner out I finished prior to my ships destruction) and yet you claim 'lag affects all players equally in the interests of FAIRNESS we cannot... blah blah blah....
'cretins' doesnt even begin to describe your failure and fundamental lack of responsibility for the deaths of those ships... YES the system was lost, the battle long over, however without your meddling those ships would have fired logged off to fight another day.
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 14:37:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Ban Doga
Originally by: LaVista Vista I think it's great to see that it is being worked on.
If CCP working on it is "great" what would be just "okay" - Not working on it but saying "we know it exists"? Would not doing or saying anything then be a "bad" thing?
But keep in mind: The tests to sort this out started only a month ago. Don't get ahead of yourself and expect them to come up with fix right now. This is serious business and there is no magic wand or switch they can use to resolve this...
/sarcasm
dude, they are working on walking in stations too....
seriously do you think there is a chance that this will be fixed anytime in the next year or so? in the meantime, using exploits is apparently not just OK with CCP, but encouraged by them. they will even take huge steps to guarantee that the node stays up instead of crashing so that you can take advantage of them longer!
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 14:43:00 -
[143]
Originally by: CCP Atlas Edited by: CCP Atlas on 08/02/2010 12:33:58 Thank you all for your comments. I'll just make a brief comment about the concerns people have about the node being kept alive for the 1600 person fight that is mentioned in the blog.
We are deploying a fix to Tranquility this week (probably tomorrow) which identical to the methods used that fateful night in keeping the node up. The problem was that under great strain nodes were unable to contact the database to 'heartbeat' which is a way for them to tell the cluster that they are alive and kicking. A bug was introduced in the Dominion expansion where database calls were not scheduled 'fairly' so low level management functionality such as the heartbeat would not have enough precedence over game functionality such as shooting a gun. This was jury-rigged live on Jan 28th and is making its way to a permanent fix this week. The fix that is being deployed is identical to the live-fix that was made on Jan 28th.
So, despite 'making people faint' comments this change was done in an extremely controlled manner and was not simply a case of 'keeping the node alive longer than it should have been' (by this I mean that the situation would not have been better if the node would have died). If the node would have been allowed to die the results would have been extremely bad for everyone as the solarsystem would not have been properly persisted, and it would have come up on a different node, where it would immediately die again because of the population count and that would continue to cascade as long as there were more than ~1000 people fighting there leading to horrible gameplay for those involved and a possible destabilization of certain parts of the cluster.
The cluster cannot gracefully handle a 1600 person fleet fight right now but bouncing between dying nodes every 2 minutes with the solar system in an indeterminate state is not really any kind of a solution.
We will be deploying fixes this week and the next and are continuing to closely monitor fights as they occur. Please bear with us a little while longer.
Edited for clarification
so instead you decided to make the situation extremely bad for only 1000 of the people instead of the full 1600? how about you fix the actual non-grid load issue, a crashing node is much better than not being able to play... while your opponent can. all you did was hand an unbelievably lopsided victory to one side, and from what i saw of your testing last week you were doing nothing to address that problem. so basically sov warfare is still he who is on grid first wins, just now he will win bigger.
|
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 15:13:00 -
[144]
THIS:
Originally by: Batolemaeus Even if the cluster behaved like before dominion and even if you get fights up to 1.5k under control, your failure in game design will produce higher and higher numbers until the nodes break again.
|
Dratic
Reaper Industries Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 15:35:00 -
[145]
Good to see things are being looked at to get back to pre dominion numbers in fights. What i'd like to know is if there are any updates on stuff like HPC infiband to improve preformance, and ultimately using more than one CPU core for a system. 1600 just isn't enough as the game continues to grow. The removal of aoe titan doomsday really didn't make your job easier as the hordes can now enter and not get wiped on jump in (barring the enormous camp, lag node crash stuff).
|
Moriancumer
Amarr Hammer Of Light Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 19:36:00 -
[146]
Hello
I fail to understand your argument that by maintaining the server node instead of crashing it was a bad thing. If anything letting the node crash when we were able to save it would in fact have put those pilots whos commands were sent first not process at all and have everyone scrambling to log in, killing players who otherwise would not have died.
We will not be reimbursing any losses or interfering with the outcome of these battles. Server performance and load balancing are part of daily routine and will be commences if and when deemed necessary and have no impact on our current policy. The petition system is not a forum for debate, our stance on this matter is very clear and our decision on this matter is final.
Regards GM ****** EVE Online Customer Support Team
|
teji
Ars ex Discordia SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 20:14:00 -
[147]
Originally by: CCP Atlas If the node would have been allowed to die the results would have been extremely bad for everyone
You post about not picking sides and then blatantly pick sides. Don't ever change.
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 20:59:00 -
[148]
Originally by: Moriancumer Hello
I fail to understand your argument that by maintaining the server node instead of crashing it was a bad thing. If anything letting the node crash when we were able to save it would in fact have put those pilots whos commands were sent first not process at all and have everyone scrambling to log in, killing players who otherwise would not have died.
We will not be reimbursing any losses or interfering with the outcome of these battles. Server performance and load balancing are part of daily routine and will be commences if and when deemed necessary and have no impact on our current policy. The petition system is not a forum for debate, our stance on this matter is very clear and our decision on this matter is final.
Regards GM ****** EVE Online Customer Support Team
i would post to the GM-ISD complaint department about his reply. the problem being, CCP did in fact directly interfere with the outcome of the battle. the fact that they try and hide this just means when it does come out it will be worse for them.
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 21:19:00 -
[149]
oh and atlas, as others have stated, the problem with your solution is it doesnt even address the problem, and your "explanation" of what was happening wasnt even close to being accurate. i would strongly reconsider putting any solution that you employed in D-GTMI on live, because all that i saw from being involved in it was utter failure as one side was allowed to exploit a bug and the other is still paying the consequences for your poor decisions.
|
|
CCP Atlas
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 21:45:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Dratic Good to see things are being looked at to get back to pre dominion numbers in fights. What i'd like to know is if there are any updates on stuff like HPC infiband to improve preformance, and ultimately using more than one CPU core for a system. 1600 just isn't enough as the game continues to grow. The removal of aoe titan doomsday really didn't make your job easier as the hordes can now enter and not get wiped on jump in (barring the enormous camp, lag node crash stuff).
Low level optimizations and ways to better spread the load is actually something that is being actively worked on by our Core Cluster group and hopefully we will be able to push the boundaries further so that Eve can support the fleet fights of the future.
|
|
|
BlackHorizon
The Illuminati.
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 22:22:00 -
[151]
It seems there is a significant disconnect between CCP server caretakers and Customer Support, along with a fundamental disagreement of priorities between players and CCP management.
When game rules and game mechanics are no longer able to be logically consistent and function due to load (such as aggression timers, duplicate insurance payouts, ghost ships and other 'magical' exploits), logically, the node should not be allowed continue to function under those circumstances, yet from what I can read from CCP Atlas' posts, CCP forced the node to stay online.
lollerskates.
|
|
CCP Atlas
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 22:26:00 -
[152]
Originally by: BlackHorizon ...from what I can read from CCP Atlas' posts, CCP forced the node to stay online.
That is actually not what happened. A bug which caused nodes to die was fixed. It is as simple as that.
|
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 22:42:00 -
[153]
Edited by: Skaarl on 08/02/2010 22:46:35 Edited by: Skaarl on 08/02/2010 22:44:35
Originally by: CCP Atlas
Originally by: BlackHorizon ...from what I can read from CCP Atlas' posts, CCP forced the node to stay online.
That is actually not what happened. A bug which caused nodes to die was fixed. It is as simple as that.
nice walkback on your blog. "a bug was simply fixed" and "keeping the node alive using methods that make our system admins faint" arent even remotely similar tho. face it, you guys need to man up and replace the assests you caused to be lost by doing beta testing on the live server. or just admit that your a -a- agent. one or the other.
*edit* yes that last part is sarcasm
|
Raser Moonstrider
Woopatang
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 23:32:00 -
[154]
Edited by: Raser Moonstrider on 08/02/2010 23:34:46
Originally by: Skaarl Edited by: Skaarl on 08/02/2010 22:46:35 Edited by: Skaarl on 08/02/2010 22:44:35
Originally by: CCP Atlas
Originally by: BlackHorizon ...from what I can read from CCP Atlas' posts, CCP forced the node to stay online.
That is actually not what happened. A bug which caused nodes to die was fixed. It is as simple as that.
nice walkback on your blog. "a bug was simply fixed" and "keeping the node alive using methods that make our system admins faint" arent even remotely similar tho. face it, you guys need to man up and replace the assests you caused to be lost by doing beta testing on the live server. or just admit that your a -a- agent. one or the other.
*edit* yes that last part is sarcasm
That part that would make sys admins faint is that they did it live (as in there could have possibly been very bad secondary effects from the point of view of the admins). "Chaos" could have ensued, had one of the devs mistyped a line of code.
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 23:42:00 -
[155]
Originally by: CCP Atlas
Originally by: BlackHorizon ...from what I can read from CCP Atlas' posts, CCP forced the node to stay online.
That is actually not what happened. A bug which caused nodes to die was fixed. It is as simple as that.
When you say `fixed` (fixed, fixed) do you mean:
A) Fixed as in definitivly not a problem any longer, all sorted, nothing too see here.
B) Fixed as in we fixed the fire by removeing the batteries from the smoke alarm and now we dont have any fires.
C) Fixed as in we fixed the fight, as in we made sure one side had an advantage by enabling them to carry on turkey shooting instead of restarting the node and alowing a fairer chance to see who gets a golden ticket and can load the grid.
Sorry to ask but its a very ambigious term in relation to the problem you defined and indeed this single issue as it appears you using the term as a deifinative resolution to the problem as a whole yet this seems to contradicte everything people are saying who were there, so can see the confusion. If it wasn't a golden solution then it wouldn't be a fix but a bodge or duct-tape or a hack or many other terms, but not a fix. Indeed from what I understand to this fix it appears to be more of a bodge in much the same way you would have faster airport turnarounds by removing all the plane safty checks and the like.
Please feel free to be as open as possibel about the problem as we will only repect you more for it, but at least when you come to petitions in these situations, if the logs dont show a valid reson for the lose, like ew no agro on the ship and the client logged out 30 mins ago, then despite there being no logs to show a invalid loss, there aint logs to show a valid loss either now or indeed logs that dont sync up with login/logoff logs. If you were more fairer on judgements in these situations then people would be alot more paitent and polite; But when you say one thing then have another company representative say pretty much the oposite and then say that you actualy both agree whist at the same time say its fixed yet dont say its fixed and still have tests then you can see were I'm getting rather confused as to what you are saying as somebody else has already said the oposite of whatever you going to say before you have said it and then sometimes after your've said it.
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.02.08 23:51:00 -
[156]
Originally by: CCP Atlas
Originally by: BlackHorizon ...from what I can read from CCP Atlas' posts, CCP forced the node to stay online.
That is actually not what happened. A bug which caused nodes to die was fixed. It is as simple as that.
There seems to be some very subtle meaning to this "keeping a node alive". Apparently it's not even close to what everyone thinks it means...
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 00:02:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Raser Moonstrider Edited by: Raser Moonstrider on 08/02/2010 23:34:46
Originally by: Skaarl Edited by: Skaarl on 08/02/2010 22:46:35 Edited by: Skaarl on 08/02/2010 22:44:35
Originally by: CCP Atlas
Originally by: BlackHorizon ...from what I can read from CCP Atlas' posts, CCP forced the node to stay online.
That is actually not what happened. A bug which caused nodes to die was fixed. It is as simple as that.
nice walkback on your blog. "a bug was simply fixed" and "keeping the node alive using methods that make our system admins faint" arent even remotely similar tho. face it, you guys need to man up and replace the assests you caused to be lost by doing beta testing on the live server. or just admit that your a -a- agent. one or the other.
*edit* yes that last part is sarcasm
That part that would make sys admins faint is that they did it live (as in there could have possibly been very bad secondary effects from the point of view of the admins). "Chaos" could have ensued, had one of the devs mistyped a line of code.
chaos *DID* ensue, the whole part about ghost ships being killed 2 hours later is not a figment of our imagination...
|
Severion Atarkos
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 00:37:00 -
[158]
I still don't understand you ccp, you say that:
Our reimbursement policies are very strict and we can only reimburse if we are able to verify that a bug or server error caused the loss. We hope that you understand our position and that you will recover swiftly from the loss.
and
lag affects all sides equally
yet you have confirmed there is a problem with the servers, and this isn't typical lag that both sides experience, and still you say **** you to the playerbase that has been royally screwed by your ****** up servers.
There have been at least 2-3 BIG battles where one side lost a lot of ships they should not have lost... NC, PL, CVA prolly more. If it is confirmed that your server is screwed and the pilots loss cannot be pinned on agression etc, then I see no reason why they should not get reimbursed.
You don't like it when people get ****** off at you yet you treat your paying customers like **** when your game is failing and we are suffering from it.
|
Mankell Grenze
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 00:49:00 -
[159]
Edited by: Mankell Grenze on 09/02/2010 00:51:48 I'm seriously glad with what CCP atlas announced, so instead of the massive fights where the node just died and people could come back later on with most of their ships unharmed, now they'll be able to experience what I did and find their expensive ship blackscreened, unable to do anything at all for hours to then die to turkeyshooting.
I guess CVA, too, had that kind of courtesy where CCP would keep the node alive just so they'd all burn in a fire without being able to take a single enemy capital down.
Thanks for letting other people enjoy this part of the game.
|
Troubadour
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 00:56:00 -
[160]
It's a good thing you guys take full responsibility when a bug like this that should have been caught in testing makes it way to tranquility. Passing the buck onto the players and costing them almost half a trillion in isk for something that was caused by an oversight on CCP's part is not what this company is about.
|
|
Doof Hardcastle
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 00:58:00 -
[161]
Edited by: Doof Hardcastle on 09/02/2010 00:57:58 ccp should start doing dev blogs more like pop songs, with the subtext that actually sums up what the point of the devblog is in parentheses.
New Dev Blog: We Are Aware of the Problem --> New Dev Blog: We Are Aware of the Problem (But Fu ck You Fa ggots Who Got Ra ped By It)
|
Centra Spike
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 00:59:00 -
[162]
I'm just mad I launched a bomb on the cyno in and didn't get on any (friendly) titan mails.
|
Ander
Gallente Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 01:03:00 -
[163]
CCP - I'm sure the lag affected EVERYONE equally. Infact I'm so sure about it that I can safely point to the fact that NC lost 100 dreads and -A- took none in a battle with equal strenght numbers. *cough*
EVE PIRATE BattleDB.com |
Bobbechk
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 01:03:00 -
[164]
Edited by: Bobbechk on 09/02/2010 01:05:23
So wait... CCP wanted to get live information about what happens to a node when in this kind of strain, keep it alive to monitor it and caused us to loose multiple titans and other capitals...
...and doesn't reimburse?
seriously what
edit: guess my sig is outdated now, if i only could afford to make a new one for myself
|
Danthomir
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 01:14:00 -
[165]
Originally by: CCP Atlas (by this I mean that the situation would not have been better if the node would have died)
Wait - what? Let's do a quick comparison.
The node stayed up, and:
- vast majority of players that jumped in didn't load grid
- they then could not log out, since ships do not disappear in lag
- as a result, they lost everything to people who pre-loaded system hours ago, without firing a single shot or being able to do anything
If the node went down, then:
- it's not like the players who didn't load grid would miss anything
- but at least their ships would disappear on logout
- and a gigantic cap fleet wouldn't get eaten by a bug
That sounds quite a bit 'better', don't you think?
I realize that you're in a pretty ****ty position as far as PR goes, and don't really know for sure what happened. Since you can't trust the evidence of your own logs/ludicrous 100% efficiencies on killboards/youtube videos/forum posts/feedback from the one or two devs that were probably there...
But can you at least try not to say things that are blatantly wrong, while trying to hide them in walls of text?
|
Sexy McQueen
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 01:16:00 -
[166]
posting in a PL whine thread
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 01:19:00 -
[167]
Originally by: Zenst
Originally by: CCP Atlas
Originally by: BlackHorizon ...from what I can read from CCP Atlas' posts, CCP forced the node to stay online.
That is actually not what happened. A bug which caused nodes to die was fixed. It is as simple as that.
When you say `fixed` (fixed, fixed) do you mean:
Your dictionary-fu is strong, but not really applicable.
As mentioned in the dev post; they had a heartbeat timer that wasn't getting sent when it should have. The 'admin faint'-inducing stuff done on the live server was likely either generating fake heartbeats, disabling them for that node or applying untested patches without the usual QA.
So CVA got ****ed by a bug fix that will go live on the rest of the cluster tomorrow. Your anus'es got stretched cause you hoped to take advantage of a bug that would make the node crash yet somehow it didn't. And now you're all butthurt about it.
Where have I heard this before? Oh, yeah... think GS/PL did something similar in... err... what system was that again.
|
San Ti
Gallente The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 01:25:00 -
[168]
Originally by: CCP Atlas
Low level optimizations and ways to better spread the load is actually something that is being actively worked on by our Core Cluster group and hopefully we will be able to push the boundaries further so that Eve can support the fleet fights of the future.
I guess you say fleet fights of the future because EVE doesn't currently support fleet fights and hasn't since the Dominion 'upgrade'.
PS: this
Originally by: Batolemaeus Even if the cluster behaved like before dominion and even if you get fights up to 1.5k under control, your failure in game design will produce higher and higher numbers until the nodes break again.
|
Danthomir
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 01:32:00 -
[169]
What do you mean? Dominion is great for capital fights, AAA killed like 100 dreads and lost none just recently!
Dominion has made shot-for-shot attrition cap battles a thing of the past; now, the outcome depends on player skill and discipline!
|
Konoch
Caldari Azriel's Legion Free Worlds Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 01:42:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Danthomir
Originally by: CCP Atlas (by this I mean that the situation would not have been better if the node would have died)
Wait - what? Let's do a quick comparison.
The node stayed up, and:
- vast majority of players that jumped in didn't load grid
- they then could not log out, since ships do not disappear in lag
- as a result, they lost everything to people who pre-loaded system hours ago, without firing a single shot or being able to do anything
If the node went down, then:
- it's not like the players who didn't load grid would miss anything
- but at least their ships would disappear on logout
- and a gigantic cap fleet wouldn't get eaten by a bug
That sounds quite a bit 'better', don't you think?
I realize that you're in a pretty ****ty position as far as PR goes, and don't really know for sure what happened. Since you can't trust the evidence of your own logs/ludicrous 100% efficiencies on killboards/youtube videos/forum posts/feedback from the one or two devs that were probably there...
But can you at least try not to say things that are blatantly wrong, while trying to hide them in walls of text?
Key problem and the true crux of the dliema if i read this right: Had the node gone down it wouldnt have just gone BOOM it would have been a tennis match as the server code tried to keep the area alive. (assuming that as you say they had let it go.) Vollying the problem from one node to another locally and causing wider spread systemic damage to the adjoining systems if not the entire constelation and by extension the region and possibly the GAME ITSELF. Now i could be wrong on this and i might be misreading the technical aspects. Though i dont think i am. I truly sympathize with the people that suffered in this. But I'm sorry if you feel the need to throw 1000+ at a system to take it it says something very bad about your FC Fleet Makeup and intentions.
I have stated it before i will state it again and i will do it until CCP does something about this. What happened in D-G was a combination of bad fleet command (CVA) and BLATENT EXPLOITING (-A-) Pre loading systems like people have lately is nothing but a raw exploit attempt that borders on DDS level Internet attacks. Dont get me wrong. CCP is nowhere near blameless: The entire system concerning towers needs to be looked at. They're too strong and cost too damned much for starters. A Zero sec tower should be able to be taken out with 20 capitals and maybe 50 properly setup long range ships. At that point you send a 200 man fleet as defense and the other side comes back with maybe another 150 total of about 400-500 in system. People would blob less if taking these things out didnt require enough firepower to crack 30 planets for their destruction. Add in the server issues they're having lately because of the constant rise in population and they've got their hands full.
A large part of this problem is also in the hands of fleet commanders who always go to the more numbers card deciding to Zerg instead of using intelligent tactics. CVA supposedly had bad fleet communication which cost them dearly. And hell it wasnt even CVA or LFA who went full bore into that fight it was PXF who brought the soldiers. Intelligent fleet battles would dictate using a force so vast to hit multiple targets at once. Perform a systemic and multiphasic shock attack against multiple tower targets in multiple systems. This way if CVA does bring an overwhelming fleet odds are it cant reform to hit all the sights being hit. But NOOOOOOOO Everyone zergs like a goddamned starcraft player on PCP. The problem has two sides.
1. CCP has problems with server capacity at large numbers. 2. Players see this and exploit it to their advantage.
Cut out the second and the first would be a lot easier. Baring that i'd at least like to see SOMEWHAT intelligent fleet design. (4k limit.)
|
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 01:59:00 -
[171]
Originally by: CCP Atlas
Originally by: BlackHorizon ...from what I can read from CCP Atlas' posts, CCP forced the node to stay online.
That is actually not what happened. A bug which caused nodes to die was fixed. It is as simple as that.
Nice Backpedaling. ----------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
|
Lady Karma
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 02:46:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
So CVA got ****ed by a bug fix that will go live on the rest of the cluster tomorrow. Your anus'es got stretched cause you hoped to take advantage of a bug that would make the node crash yet somehow it didn't. And now you're all butthurt about it.
Where have I heard this before? Oh, yeah... think GS/PL did something similar in... err... what system was that again.
Ignoring your obvious bitterness, I think the strategy PL were attempting is something called fighting outnumbered ( I know it's an alien concept to most ) to do that they were relying on the ability of Titans to kill capitals in one shot, something that was promoted quite recently in err.. what trailer was that again.
Do you really think that crashing the node was the objective, gtfo.
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 02:48:00 -
[173]
Originally by: Batolemaeus
Originally by: CCP Atlas
Originally by: BlackHorizon ...from what I can read from CCP Atlas' posts, CCP forced the node to stay online.
That is actually not what happened. A bug which caused nodes to die was fixed. It is as simple as that.
Nice Backpedaling.
Backpedaling or not; those of us willing to read what CCP writes now know same fix will be deployed for the whole cluster.
No doubt next weekend someone is going to post a rage thread in CAOD about how the node didn't crash at 1600 players.
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 03:24:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Originally by: Batolemaeus
Originally by: CCP Atlas
Originally by: BlackHorizon ...from what I can read from CCP Atlas' posts, CCP forced the node to stay online.
That is actually not what happened. A bug which caused nodes to die was fixed. It is as simple as that.
Nice Backpedaling.
Backpedaling or not; those of us willing to read what CCP writes now know same fix will be deployed for the whole cluster.
No doubt next weekend someone is going to post a rage thread in CAOD about how the node didn't crash at 1600 players.
Oh I read it and whats more I fully understood it.
Allow me to explain for those that don't, very simply:
AS it stood before this `fix` though I'm going to call it bodge, the server would allow say 1300 in and more than that the node would die, not exact number but just for inistration purposes in this instance. This casued issues which was the server not handerling heartbeats as it was suffering and this would casue it to be bounced.
Now with this fix aka bodge they have basicly removed that limiter so the server will take as many as say hello to it with the only limiter being how it runs or in this case walks.
So we have a situation now were instead of say 400 out of the 1300 actualy being able to play the game we now have maybe 400 out of say 1600 who can play the game.
This is not a fix and is not the problem that needs to be fixed as its more the case of if a system lets somebody in then they should let them in on the basis that they can play in that system like all the other people and not descriminate on a who was here first basis.
So removing the traffic control limiters can be called a fix by certain types of people, when you look at the actual problem(s) and what the issues are you will realise that this is far from being a fix but a bodge that will only go and compound things further.
But I can see how some people who have just read the manual will actualy believe what it says instead of experiencing it and knowing the quirks and cavets.
I will saftly say that this bodge they have outline will not fix the issues that players are having concerns about and indeed will only exsacerbate them further. I hope i'm wrong and given how little techinical details ccp has given us its not impossible, though extremly improbably given what we have seen and read first person testomonies of events with this bodge in place. Given all the facts and my comprehension of whats in play here I'll sadly say it will only end in tears.
Besides this fix would only be needed if for some reason the whole traffic control system that would prevent people overloading a node was working, not seen that about for a bit, did that get fixed by disabling it and as such shift dirt ontot he heartbeats carpet, I can only speculate on that one.
Now moving the control units to the other side of the gate and as such forcing the combat into several systems instead of one, now that would of been deemed a fix in my books as it address the issue at hand and not a issue thats for all effect a red hearring dressed up in a placebo suit with a ribbon around it screaminging love me.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 03:38:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Zenst I will saftly say that this bodge they have outline will not fix the issues that players are having concerns about and indeed will only exsacerbate them further.
Finally someone who switched his brain on. \o/
To quote myself, because i cba to type it again:
Originally by: Batolemaeus
CCP created a system that required more people than before. CCP concentrated multiple goals into singular ones. Even if the cluster behaved like before dominion and even if you get fights up to 1.5k under control, your failure in game design will produce higher and higher numbers until the nodes break again.
|
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Amarr Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 04:36:00 -
[176]
haha.
CCPs treats its customers, like I only wish I could treat mine. Open wide, *****es, I got a present for you.
|
Serena Tiger
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 04:37:00 -
[177]
A bug ? Ok it can happens. But after what you admitted us, non reimbursing the capital ships lost in this issue is totally unforgivable.
I lost nothing in DG but i was here seeing what an alive node means...
My point : no reimbursement to screwed players = -2 account next month o/
Eve Online : 2009 Game of the year 2010 Shame of the year.
|
Hannibell
Genco Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 05:12:00 -
[178]
Edited by: Hannibell on 09/02/2010 05:12:51
Originally by: Serena Tiger A bug ? Ok it can happens. But after what you admitted us, non reimbursing the capital ships lost in this issue is totally unforgivable.
I lost nothing in DG but i was here seeing what an alive node means...
My point : no reimbursement to screwed players = -2 account next month o/
-3 more when current subscriptions run out if CCP stands by their "nothing we can do, in the interest of "fairness" *cough bull**** cough*" line.
Dying in battle, even in heavy lag? Fair. Dying an hour after log off, CCP admitting openly they meddled with the system during a LIVE BATTLE, and thereby broke every expected game mechanic regarding log off (which happened LONG before any Reds arrived) but still refusing to own up and take responsibility? Deplorable, unsupportable, and simply no longer worth my time to engage with...
CCP admit your culpability here, or continue to treat your customers like **** and lose them.
No you cant have my stuff.
|
evsNOTeve
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 05:59:00 -
[179]
doesnt matter what they do, ive already canceled my subs and sold some of my chars....heres to 20bill worth of officer fit suicide t1 frigs flown by a newb char :P
|
Prexir
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 06:26:00 -
[180]
Originally by: evsNOTeve doesnt matter what they do, ive already canceled my subs and sold some of my chars....heres to 20bill worth of officer fit suicide t1 frigs flown by a newb char :P
Great can I have the suff of all four of you????
|
|
evsNOTeve
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 06:56:00 -
[181]
Edited by: evsNOTeve on 09/02/2010 06:56:40 only if you kill my friggies
edit****i only had two subs, now none (not four)
|
Lykouleon
Trust Doesn't Rust Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 06:58:00 -
[182]
Originally by: Hannibell Dying an hour after log off, CCP admitting openly they meddled with the system during a LIVE BATTLE, and thereby broke every expected game mechanic regarding log off (which happened LONG before any Reds arrived) but still refusing to own up and take responsibility? Deplorable, unsupportable, and simply no longer worth my time to engage with...
Let me get this straight: 1) Your FC jumped you into the system, knowing FULL WELL what the consequences would be. 2) Your players knew FULL WELL what would happen from reading CAOD/SHC/previous experience 3) Your completely disregarding the facts that Atlas has outlined: that no game mechanics were affected during the fleet fight.
...and your expecting to be reimbursed like a whiny brat?
Get back to hello kitty online already...
Quote: CCP Mindstar > Sorry - I've completely messed all that up. lets try again
|
Bricrue
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 07:35:00 -
[183]
After all this going on I know people are quitting the game and all. Wouldn't it just make more sense not to have large battles? If the system is going to screw over one side why even bother... I know I'm not participating in any large battles because it's not cost effective. Why quite the game when you can just not participate in something the CCP is trying to use to sell the game on. |
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 07:41:00 -
[184]
Originally by: Lykouleon
3) Your completely disregarding the facts that Atlas has outlined: that no game mechanics were affected during the fleet fight.
Oh, so ships not despawning 15 minutes after being logged off is a feature now? |
Allen Ramses
Caldari Typo Corp
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 09:15:00 -
[185]
God damn.
I was going to post some more unrelated stuff about resource allocation, terribad FPS, crashing at warp, and the like but the turn of events that has taken place over the last few days makes me greatly concerned about how CCP is handling their problems. I'm not now, nor have I ever been, involved in 700v700 lolfap fights, but I am genuinely frightened about the course this issue is taking.
On January 28, CCP disabled safety protocols (emergency warp, despawn, inter-node synchronicity) to keep the node from dying. A few days later, CCP Atlas states that it was a fix for the bug that was causing the node to crash.
Based on the events that transpired on Jan 28, it is clear that several things happened that were out of the ordinary:
There was the massive fleet fight resulting in a total loss on one side. Ships were not despawning for several hours after having been logged off. Alts were active while ships were still being fired upon, also hours after the engagement. Killmails, insurance, and clones were not consistent with "normal" behavior. And most importantly... The node was indicating that its death was near, yet it was kept alive?
Seriously, what the **** is this?? I don't know how things are done in CCP, but I've always known that if something has destabilized and is about to fail, you damn well better let it fail before more damage can occur! The ONLY exception is in the case of an emergency... And since I doubt that cascading catastrophic DB corruption would be the probable outcome of a node crash, I can safely assume this measure was NOT APPROPRIATE!!
But wait, it gets better? The method used is their fix to the bug?? Oh my ****ing god, I can't believe it. You put a band-aid on an infected wound and said "all better"? Hell, why not give a guy who's in v-Fib some amphetamines to improve blood flow? Yeah, the guy will have a heart attack shortly after, but at least his blood flow didn't stop at the time? And you want to apply that to all v-Fib patients? It's just inexcusable.
Never before now have I been so disgusted with CCP. The way CCP handled the speed nerf, the missile rebalance, or even boot.ini is nothing in comparison to the kind of poor decision making on CCP's part.
Words cannot describe how much disappointment and despisement I have for CCP right now. I thought I had seen it all, and I honestly wish I had. This is... this is just... *vomit*..
____________ I'd make a forum signature that didn't suck, but I'm restricted by a character limit that does. |
San Ti
Gallente The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 09:44:00 -
[186]
CCP you can see that quite a lot of your paying customers are pretty upset with the way you are dealing with this situation.
You should seriously consider the strength of feeling on this.
Perhaps you got carried away with your last vid and have applied the "burn them all" statement as a management directive in response to legitimate player concerns and lines of argument? Seriously, does CEO Hilmar Veigar Petursson have BURN THEM ALL stuck up on the wall in his office? How about Chief Marketing Officer Ryan Dancey?
Do you want your next promo vid to feature empire ice mining and/or a bunch of people in Motsu running missions? I think not.
You try to attract new players to the game using 0.0 imagery and game-play, but you treat your paying customers who bring this part of the eve universe to life like dirt.
It's time you did the right thing by us.
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 09:48:00 -
[187]
Originally by: San Ti CCP you can see that quite a lot of your paying customers are pretty upset with the way you are dealing with this situation.
You should seriously consider the strength of feeling on this.
Perhaps you got carried away with your last vid and have applied the "burn them all" statement as a management directive in response to legitimate player concerns and lines of argument? Seriously, does CEO Hilmar Veigar Petursson have BURN THEM ALL stuck up on the wall in his office? How about Chief Marketing Officer Ryan Dancey?
Do you want your next promo vid to feature empire ice mining and/or a bunch of people in Motsu running missions? I think not.
You try to attract new players to the game using 0.0 imagery and game-play, but you treat your paying customers who bring this part of the eve universe to life like dirt.
It's time you did the right thing by us.
Yes ccp- replace all ships that are lost- and keep doing it forever. Im sure it will completely unbalance the game and make it worse then hello kitty but eh, as long as it makes the girls in null happy.
|
Ivan Zhuk
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 10:03:00 -
[188]
My favorite loss so far has been with my phobos (yeah it was stupid but f**k it i wanted to fly something like a pink dildo).
1) before battle i double check everything is set to not cycle.
2) during battle i throw up bubbles (who doesnt enjoy bubbles in space?)
3) cycle is over and it continues to run
4) I try to warp as this normally fixes it... i cant bubbles up
5) i check space but my bubble is not up
6) I turn on my MWD and go towards gate to jump 50km aint bad in a lag fest
7) i only get a small boost from MWD because bubble is up
8) I check space again no bubble
9) i click the "turn off the bubble" button... nothin happens
10) i slowly move 270 or so M/s to gate
11) 25km out i die \o/
12) I petition
13) CCP politely tells me to **** off it wasnt their fault \o/
14) I love CCP
|
Soll Narana
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 10:09:00 -
[189]
Quote: Edited by: CCP Atlas on 08/02/2010 12:33:58 Thank you all for your comments. I'll just make a brief comment about the concerns people have about the node being kept alive for the 1600 person fight that is mentioned in the blog.
We are deploying a fix to Tranquility this week (probably tomorrow) which identical to the methods used that fateful night in keeping the node up. The problem was that under great strain nodes were unable to contact the database to 'heartbeat' which is a way for them to tell the cluster that they are alive and kicking. A bug was introduced in the Dominion expansion where database calls were not scheduled 'fairly' so low level management functionality such as the heartbeat would not have enough precedence over game functionality such as shooting a gun. This was jury-rigged live on Jan 28th and is making its way to a permanent fix this week. The fix that is being deployed is identical to the live-fix that was made on Jan 28th.
So, despite 'making people faint' comments this change was done in an extremely controlled manner and was not simply a case of 'keeping the node alive longer than it should have been' (by this I mean that the situation would not have been better if the node would have died). If the node would have been allowed to die the results would have been extremely bad for everyone as the solarsystem would not have been properly persisted, and it would have come up on a different node, where it would immediately die again because of the population count and that would continue to cascade as long as there were more than ~1000 people fighting there leading to horrible gameplay for those involved and a possible destabilization of certain parts of the cluster.
The cluster cannot gracefully handle a 1600 person fleet fight right now but bouncing between dying nodes every 2 minutes with the solar system in an indeterminate state is not really any kind of a solution.
We will be deploying fixes this week and the next and are continuing to closely monitor fights as they occur. Please bear with us a little while longer
.
So basically your petition comments from GM Gruber, saying the lag is unforeseeable and we are unable to reimburse your loss is lies??? You hereby admit the server cannot handle 1600 players, without out you, CCP, manipulating the server protocolsà.
So from this, you are saying that the Equipment you use is not suitable for the job it is intended, you change the service levels for your client without proper notification or consultation. You advertise Dominion as MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER ONLINE BATTLES, with NEW SUPERCARRIERS and TITANS, that will dominate the battle field.
In the real world, I work within the Medical Engineering, and failure of a piece of equipment or service to do as it is advertised on the box, will 9/10 Kill someone. Although this is a drastic example, the rules applyàà If the product is not as advertised, they why would people buy it. I as a paying subscriber feel our rights have beenignored. Yes it is an internet game and I do not own any in game items, but I pay for the ablility to access the server when I want how I want during normal operating times. According to EVEONLINE NEWS pages, there was to be no interruption of service during this time. However I was unable to login and participate, thus I want compensation for this lost access without prior notification.
I am sure that if you guys lost your cable/satellite TV without prior notification you would be expecting a proper answer and compensation, as the customer is always right unless you can prove him wrongà. You cant prove us wrong, as you have openly admitted we are correct.
Quote: Low level optimizations and ways to better spread the load is actually something that is being actively worked on by our Core Cluster group and hopefully we will be able to push the boundaries further so that Eve can support the fleet fights of the future.[/quot
|
|
CCP Atlas
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 10:16:00 -
[190]
Originally by: Allen Ramses ... On January 28, CCP disabled safety protocols (emergency warp, despawn, inter-node synchronicity) to keep the node from dying. A few days later, CCP Atlas states that it was a fix for the bug that was causing the node to crash. ...
That's pretty far from what happened... A fix to a bug introduced in Dominion that caused nodes to die was deployed live. The only effect of that fix was that the node did not die but recovered eventually as it would have before the Dominion expansion.
If the node had been allowed to die due to this new bug the solar system would have ping-ponged around the cluster as long as people would have been logging on to it and fighting in these great numbers. That means that it would have come up on one node, the node would have died. It would then come up on another node and it would have died as well bringing down the other solar systems on those nodes which would get remapped. This, in turn, could have destabilized the whole cluster, so this was a pretty nasty bug and needed to be fixed then and there.
Eve has never been able to support anywhere close to 1600 person fleet fights and we have never claimed to support those numbers. Hopefully we are heading in that direction with some of the optimizations that are in the works but we're not there yet.
|
|
|
Le Ming
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 10:18:00 -
[191]
You know, i think we have reached the point at which systems are handed over to the enemy without any fight, due to the events that happened recently. When one side can afford to lose dozends of capitals due to bad servers and one side can't - at least not as often - the outcome is obvious. Do you rather risk your remaining capitals in a fight and risk to lose them all or do you stay out of fight and let the enemy simply take over the system, as happened to 9uy yesterday? It's really sad that it has come this far. :( It's not about tactics anymore at all. It's all about pure luck, exploiting and server conditions - this can't be real?!
|
Ivan Zhuk
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 10:20:00 -
[192]
Is changing the graphics in fleet fights an option?...
Like all allies are purple squares and all reds are red squares and neutrals are white square. Sure the graphics would suck but atleast the battles wouldnt
|
Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 10:25:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Soll Narana In the real world, I work within the Medical Engineering, and failure of a piece of equipment or service to do as it is advertised on the box, will 9/10 Kill someone. Although this is a drastic example, the rules applyàà If the product is not as advertised, they why would people buy it. I as a paying subscriber feel our rights have beenignored. Yes it is an internet game and I do not own any in game items, but I pay for the ablility to access the server when I want how I want during normal operating times. According to EVEONLINE NEWS pages, there was to be no interruption of service during this time. However I was unable to login and participate, thus I want compensation for this lost access without prior notification.
From the EULA, the conditions of which you agreed to before playing:
Quote: While CCP attempts to have the System available at most times, CCP does not guarantee that the System will always be available, or that the System will not become unavailable during Game play. The System may become unavailable for a number of reasons, including without limitation during the performance of maintenance to the System, for the implementation of new software, for emergency situations and due to equipment or telecommunications failures.
Bad luck.
/Ben
|
Allen Ramses
Caldari Typo Corp
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 10:37:00 -
[194]
Originally by: CCP Atlas
Originally by: Allen Ramses ... On January 28, CCP disabled safety protocols (emergency warp, despawn, inter-node synchronicity) to keep the node from dying. A few days later, CCP Atlas states that it was a fix for the bug that was causing the node to crash. ...
That's pretty far from what happened... A fix to a bug introduced in Dominion that caused nodes to die was deployed live. The only effect of that fix was that the node did not die but recovered eventually as it would have before the Dominion expansion.
If what you're saying is true, then the "corrected" code is more unreliable than it was before. Either you disabled several safety protocols, or your fix allowed several safety protocols to fail. There is no other way about it, period. The events leading to this scenario may be two different circumstances, but the end result and impact on the game are identical no matter what the catalyst. No matter how you choose to say it, the node was not synchronized with the cluster. That's it, end of story.
The thing that I (and probably most other players as well) find far more offensive than the incident itself is the decision to apply that code as a fix, when it clearly doesn't work.
____________ I'd make a forum signature that didn't suck, but I'm restricted by a character limit that does. |
Opus Dai
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 11:00:00 -
[195]
Originally by: CCP Atlas
Eve has never been able to support anywhere close to 1600 person fleet fights and we have never claimed to support those numbers.
So you agree then that the whole concept of "Dominion" aka "Blobinion" has been a mistake?
Not one of its aims have been achieved and has led directly to blobbier and bigger fights than ever before. Rather than give incentive for smaller alliances to take space, it has given incentives for smaller alliances to join a coalition and join the blobfest.
By systematically removing all other options what did the illustrious CCP Game Design team expect to happen?
Piracy has been nerfed for some years and nothing has been done to rectify it. High-Sec empire wars were nerfed, first with the Privateers and then, crucially, with the ridiculous agility buff.
So you've successfully funelled the majority of the games PvPers into Nullsec. Dominion saw the nerf of the AoE Titan weapon allowing large groups to travel to their destination in comparitive safety and confidence. You removed any form of strategy involving sovereignty conquest by removing kiteable and logistical factors such as POSs allowing everybody to turn up at the same time in the same place for the offically sanctioned battle and when they do you act surprised and say you never expected it?
Hypothetically, if I were to take a dump and place the faeces on a plate and call it "CCP S**t" I do believe it would outperform the current GM Team. Let's consider the following 2 examples:
1, Y-2: Pandemic-Legion lost 4 Titans and a number of capital ships during this "epic fight" thanks to CCPs bug. GMs were present in system actively doing important things. The Titans and Capitals sat in space for some time doing absolutely nothings. According to SHC and CAOD they were hit by a wave of bombs on jump in which triggered the bug locking those who hadn't completed the jump in a perpetual loop where they could neither load system or relog to clear it. Thus they were slaughtered for virtually no loss. The only survivors seem to be those that managed to load before the bug triggered. So, what were the GMs doing at the time? Well, it would seem that that answer is highly classified. What we do know is that GMs flatly refused to kill sessions on pilots that were hopelessly stuck - presumably this will be attributed to "fairness". So what could CCP S**t have done? Well, CCP S**t in this case could have performed exactly the same function as the GMs that were there. Do nothing. I'm assuming the GMs of course weren't fighting to keep the node alive as that hasn't been openly admitted yet. Interestingly, not one GM passed on any information or concerns about the games stability after this fight, presumably they must have thought what PL had willfully done was to jump into a very hostile system and then chosen a very bad time to all go afk, 3-4 hours later they were all dead. I'm pretty sure my imaginary construct, CCP S**t would have drawn the same conclusion. So we'll call this example a tie.
2, DG: CVA jump into hostile system after a little mucking around with the enemy and jumping out. This led them to a false sense of security into mistakenly believing they would be able to jump back in as the node was previously holding. Wrong. We lost 100+ caps for 0 kills. What were GMs doing? They were bravely and heroically handing this whitewash to the enemy by keeping the node open and alive so ships that could not load could be annihilated. Again they flatly refused to kill sessions. How could CCP S**t have improved things? Well, lack of functioning limbs and any form of cognitive process would mean CCP S**t would do nothing allowing the node to die thus saving an entire fleet of capital ships. This is a significant improvement over what the GMs actually did. 1-0 to CCP S**t
Consequently I do believe I've demonstrated rather eloquently that a pile of S**t is a better GM than what we have right now.
|
Soll Narana
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 11:23:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Ben Derindar
Originally by: Soll Narana In the real world, I work within the Medical Engineering, and failure of a piece of equipment or service to do as it is advertised on the box, will 9/10 Kill someone. Although this is a drastic example, the rules applyàà If the product is not as advertised, they why would people buy it. I as a paying subscriber feel our rights have beenignored. Yes it is an internet game and I do not own any in game items, but I pay for the ablility to access the server when I want how I want during normal operating times. According to EVEONLINE NEWS pages, there was to be no interruption of service during this time. However I was unable to login and participate, thus I want compensation for this lost access without prior notification.
From the EULA, the conditions of which you agreed to before playing:
Quote: While CCP attempts to have the System available at most times, CCP does not guarantee that the System will always be available, or that the System will not become unavailable during Game play. The System may become unavailable for a number of reasons, including without limitation during the performance of maintenance to the System, for the implementation of new software, for emergency situations and due to equipment or telecommunications failures.
Bad luck.
/Ben
I do believe this does not apply, no emergency , or anything listed.... new software... hmm maybe but then why did ccp not just close the server for 5 mins and then reboot, rather than letting 100= OF ITS LONG TERM PLAYERS LOOSE ABOVE ALL RESPECT FOR THE PEOPLE THEY PAY TO PROVIDE THERE ENTERTAINMENT.
YOU PAY A PROSTITUTE TO HAVE SEX, I PAY CCP TO PLAY EVE, TECHNICALLY I WAS UNABLE TO PLAY THUS I WILL SEEK COMPENSATION
|
Kanuo Ashkeron
Capital Construction Research
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 11:51:00 -
[197]
Originally by: CCP Atlas
Eve has never been able to support anywhere close to 1600 person fleet fights and we have never claimed to support those numbers. Hopefully we are heading in that direction with some of the optimizations that are in the works but we're not there yet.
Don¦t do that. I don¦t know how old you are. But can you remember the days with hard disks less than 1GB (probably you can remember the days of hard disks with like 10MB). Most of the time we were quite happy, then mp3 files were used and shared, and out of a sudden there was too less space for all the music. Luckily Seagate et al were not lazy, and gave us hard disks with 50-100 GB and we had plenty of space, however at the same time we started to save movies (not that anybody could watch all the movies he has stored now) and again, hard disk space was scarce. And this will continue to the end of days.
I hope you get the idea, the same will happen with the servers. Just adding performance wont solve the problem.
Camius had some nice ideas in the F&I forum and I added something similar. And as you (CCP) said: Game designers are cheaper then Programmers (on the other hand it might be a good idea to spend some money on a really designer).
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 11:52:00 -
[198]
I ALSO LIKE TO WHINE IN ALL CAPS!
Whats that phrase again? Dont fly what you cant afford to loose?
Ppl in null are supposed to be the experienced players. The ones who have their **** together. The ones who have succeeded against long odds.
Instead all i see is complete rubbish. Congratulations i now have less respect for anyone living in null.
|
Shaemell Buttleson
Euphoria Released
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 12:51:00 -
[199]
Originally by: CCP Atlas
Originally by: Allen Ramses ... On January 28, CCP disabled safety protocols (emergency warp, despawn, inter-node synchronicity) to keep the node from dying. A few days later, CCP Atlas states that it was a fix for the bug that was causing the node to crash. ...
Eve has never been able to support anywhere close to 1600 person fleet fights and we have never claimed to support those numbers. Hopefully we are heading in that direction with some of the optimizations that are in the works but we're not there yet.
Any chance you can stick your neck out and say how much you can comfortably support?
* Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. - CCP Ildoge
|
Fina Kelitan
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 13:00:00 -
[200]
Originally by: Allen Ramses
Originally by: CCP Atlas
Originally by: Allen Ramses ... On January 28, CCP disabled safety protocols (emergency warp, despawn, inter-node synchronicity) to keep the node from dying. A few days later, CCP Atlas states that it was a fix for the bug that was causing the node to crash. ...
That's pretty far from what happened... A fix to a bug introduced in Dominion that caused nodes to die was deployed live. The only effect of that fix was that the node did not die but recovered eventually as it would have before the Dominion expansion.
If what you're saying is true, then the "corrected" code is more unreliable than it was before. Either you disabled several safety protocols, or your fix allowed several safety protocols to fail. There is no other way about it, period. The events leading to this scenario may be two different circumstances, but the end result and impact on the game are identical no matter what the catalyst. No matter how you choose to say it, the node was not synchronized with the cluster. That's it, end of story.
The thing that I (and probably most other players as well) find far more offensive than the incident itself is the decision to apply that code as a fix, when it clearly doesn't work.
And you're assuming the fix stopped people e-warping and logging out etc. It did not. The node was so lagged that everything was happening hours late. Including ewarp. The bug and fix had nothing to do with this. Having 1600 people in one fight caused it.
Stop being so whiny.
- Experienced EVE player trying a new character |
|
Olex Grant
Galactic Shipyards Inc Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 13:08:00 -
[201]
Edited by: Olex Grant on 09/02/2010 13:08:40
Originally by: CCP Atlas Eve has never been able to support anywhere close to 1600 person fleet fights and we have never claimed to support those numbers.
If that is the case, the simple answer is to put a cap on the maximum number of players in any one given system. If that means that -A- (or whoever) gets 600 people into system first and therefore "fills" it, then so be it, that might hand them an arbitrary victory, but it would be no more or no less arbitrary than what occurred in D-GTMI.
Secondly, rethink your sovereignty mechanics, they force combatants into situations which your hardware (by your own admission) is unable to support. ______________________________________________
"Smite the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered."
|
Xikorita
Mob Thought Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 13:17:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Olex Grant Edited by: Olex Grant on 09/02/2010 13:08:40
Originally by: CCP Atlas Eve has never been able to support anywhere close to 1600 person fleet fights and we have never claimed to support those numbers.
If that is the case, the simple answer is to put a cap on the maximum number of players in any one given system. If that means that -A- (or whoever) gets 600 people into system first and therefore "fills" it, then so be it, that might hand them an arbitrary victory, but it would be no more or no less arbitrary than what occurred in D-GTMI.
Secondly, rethink your sovereignty mechanics, they force combatants into situations which your hardware (by your own admission) is unable to support.
Ah right, so to defend a system you would just have to have enough numbers logged and afk?
That isn't the answer.
|
Xeross155
Minmatar Ghosts of EMC
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 13:22:00 -
[203]
Thanks to dominion CCP is finally able to analyse such massive fights and make proper hardware/code adjustments/optimizations to be able to sustain them, as hardware is getting better and code is being optimized the capacity will continue to rise. --------------------------------------------- Xeross' ventures into EVE |
Manks Girl
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 13:23:00 -
[204]
Originally by: CCP Atlas
Originally by: Allen Ramses ... On January 28, CCP disabled safety protocols (emergency warp, despawn, inter-node synchronicity) to keep the node from dying. A few days later, CCP Atlas states that it was a fix for the bug that was causing the node to crash. ...
That's pretty far from what happened... A fix to a bug introduced in Dominion that caused nodes to die was deployed live. The only effect of that fix was that the node did not die but recovered eventually as it would have before the Dominion expansion.
If the node had been allowed to die due to this new bug the solar system would have ping-ponged around the cluster as long as people would have been logging on to it and fighting in these great numbers. That means that it would have come up on one node, the node would have died. It would then come up on another node and it would have died as well bringing down the other solar systems on those nodes which would get remapped. This, in turn, could have destabilized the whole cluster, so this was a pretty nasty bug and needed to be fixed then and there.
Eve has never been able to support anywhere close to 1600 person fleet fights and we have never claimed to support those numbers. Hopefully we are heading in that direction with some of the optimizations that are in the works but we're not there yet.
"On January 28, CCP disabled safety protocols (emergency warp, despawn, inter-node synchronicity) to keep the node from dying. A few days later, CCP Atlas states that it was a fix for the bug that was causing the node to crash"
Unbelievable that the paying subscribers entering the lagfest of the current Sov Warfare werent told and explained to that if u log off the emergency warp protocols wouldnt work. This is blatantly what happened. Not lagfest this was manipulated so the node wouldnt die.
How can CCP now say they are refusing to reimburse ships lost from logging off and dying 1.5-2hours later.
As i said before. CCP think about your responses. They are directly related to people not renewing their subscriptions.
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 13:32:00 -
[205]
Dear Atlas, you have still not explained why your "anatomy of a grid not loading" blog fails to come close to depict the problem players are experiencing. also if the "fix" you are putting in makes things like DG normal, well all i can say is good by 0.0 warfare. 1000 ibis will hold grid, and it becomes who can exploit first wins.
and lastly, saying that a KNOWN ISSUE AND BUG WASNT RESPONSIBLE FOR SHIPS DEATHS AND DENYING REIMBURSEMENT FOR IT IS TOTAL BULLSH*T.
|
Tarhim
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 13:34:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Manks Girl
"On January 28, CCP disabled safety protocols (emergency warp, despawn, inter-node synchronicity) to keep the node from dying. A few days later, CCP Atlas states that it was a fix for the bug that was causing the node to crash"
You are quoting someone's half-baked guess about what CCP did.
Quote:
Unbelievable that the paying subscribers entering the lagfest of the current Sov Warfare werent told and explained to that if u log off the emergency warp protocols wouldnt work. This is blatantly what happened.
And you know it how?
|
Shannae Darkehart
Amarr DK Fleet Systems Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 13:34:00 -
[207]
Apparently, whatever was done to fix it didn't work - the server has been down for what, an hour or so now? "Multiple node deaths" is cited as the cause on the log-in screen.
|
Allen Ramses
Caldari Typo Corp
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 13:35:00 -
[208]
Originally by: CCP Atlas Edited by: CCP Atlas on 08/02/2010 12:33:58 We are deploying a fix to Tranquility this week (probably tomorrow) which identical to the methods used that fateful night in keeping the node up.
Originally by: CCP Navigator Hello Capsuleers,
Tranquility is currently offline due to multiple node deaths following the start up after downtime. Our engineers are investigating the problem and hope to have a fix very soon. We apologize for any inconvenience and thank you for your patience while we resolve this issue.
I sincerely hope this is related. Not only because I would get to say I was right, but much more importantly, it would mean that there isn't yet another problem plaguing TQ.
But then again, I hope for CCP's sake that it's a coincidence.
____________ I'd make a forum signature that didn't suck, but I'm restricted by a character limit that does. |
Xikorita
Mob Thought Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 13:36:00 -
[209]
And considering the massive death of nodes after reboot today, the bug isn't solved, is it?^
BTW, the above poster is right about the emergency warp and reimbursments.
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 13:38:00 -
[210]
Originally by: CCP Atlas
Originally by: Allen Ramses ... On January 28, CCP disabled safety protocols (emergency warp, despawn, inter-node synchronicity) to keep the node from dying. A few days later, CCP Atlas states that it was a fix for the bug that was causing the node to crash. ...
That's pretty far from what happened... A fix to a bug introduced in Dominion that caused nodes to die was deployed live. The only effect of that fix was that the node did not die but recovered eventually as it would have before the Dominion expansion.
If the node had been allowed to die due to this new bug the solar system would have ping-ponged around the cluster as long as people would have been logging on to it and fighting in these great numbers. That means that it would have come up on one node, the node would have died. It would then come up on another node and it would have died as well bringing down the other solar systems on those nodes which would get remapped. This, in turn, could have destabilized the whole cluster, so this was a pretty nasty bug and needed to be fixed then and there.
Eve has never been able to support anywhere close to 1600 person fleet fights and we have never claimed to support those numbers. Hopefully we are heading in that direction with some of the optimizations that are in the works but we're not there yet.
and pingponging nodes would have effected all players involved equally, instead of a node which sorta is alive, allowing one side to execute commands while the other is gridlocked, ghost spawning hours after logging off and dying.
i dont know about anyone else, but i do not pay you to be a beta tester. this isnt the test server, and i was not volunteering my time for you to do deta tests on a jury rig fix. i was in DG for about 4 hours with all of this. i charge $20 USD per hour. you have my billing address. i will be waitin on my check.
your customer support people say that they will not become engaged in large fleet battles, yet you sir have done just that, and it has resulted in chaos. this is not a "standard" fight, and your solution did more than simply fix a bug. it created a multitude of problems, which you need to step up and take responsibility for.
|
|
Manks Girl
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 13:40:00 -
[211]
Originally by: Tarhim
Originally by: Manks Girl
"On January 28, CCP disabled safety protocols (emergency warp, despawn, inter-node synchronicity) to keep the node from dying. A few days later, CCP Atlas states that it was a fix for the bug that was causing the node to crash"
You are quoting someone's half-baked guess about what CCP did.
Quote:
Unbelievable that the paying subscribers entering the lagfest of the current Sov Warfare werent told and explained to that if u log off the emergency warp protocols wouldnt work. This is blatantly what happened.
And you know it how?
Because i lost a dread 1.5hours after logging as well as another 100+ people did, and this wasnt the first report. Also happened to PL.
|
Tarhim
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 14:02:00 -
[212]
Originally by: Manks Girl
Because i lost a dread 1.5hours after logging as well as another 100+ people did, and this wasnt the first report. Also happened to PL.
Actually only thing you can know for sure is that massive lag happened and affected outcome of battle. Because of this lag you can't really trust timestamps, too.
Any guesses if CCP-applied fix made matters worse or better, of if massive crash cascade would be more or less "objective" are just that, guessed.
Idea that fix amounted to direct meddling with important for players safety protocols doesn't really sit well with anything that CCP said and we can't exactly check if they are lying. However, if they'd want to lie why not go all the way and deny any interference with node?
I'd probably be pretty ****ed too if I lost capital ship and battle through no fault of my own, but that doesn't mean I'd drawn false conclusions.
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 14:11:00 -
[213]
Originally by: Tarhim
Originally by: Manks Girl
Because i lost a dread 1.5hours after logging as well as another 100+ people did, and this wasnt the first report. Also happened to PL.
Actually only thing you can know for sure is that massive lag happened and affected outcome of battle. Because of this lag you can't really trust timestamps, too.
Any guesses if CCP-applied fix made matters worse or better, of if massive crash cascade would be more or less "objective" are just that, guessed.
Idea that fix amounted to direct meddling with important for players safety protocols doesn't really sit well with anything that CCP said and we can't exactly check if they are lying. However, if they'd want to lie why not go all the way and deny any interference with node?
I'd probably be pretty ****ed too if I lost capital ship and battle through no fault of my own, but that doesn't mean I'd drawn false conclusions.
you have noticed that CCP atlas has been changing his blog and walking his comments back from "we took measures that would make a system admin faint" to "oh it was just a bug fix, we didnt actually do anything..."
they have admitted to doing things, they know they did things wrong and gave an advantage to the side who has also changed its story pretty steadily from the day it happened (we had no grid load or module lag to it was horrible for us too!), and CCP will have to admit that they made a mistake. they screwed things up; they need to man up and try to repair their reputation. they obviously don't know the consequences of their actions since they cant even get nodes stable with noone in them today.
add in the fact that there are still petitions open on this 11 days later with no replies, and the people who have gotten some sort of replies its been a canned response or a fairly snotty reply from a GM and you can understand why as customers we are ****ed.
oh, and the 1.5 hours later part? a cov ops ship watched the dreads show up on grid an hour after the logout was called if i remember. was yelling it out on vent and people were loggin in alts to try and get the ghosts to despawn. it wasnt just bad time stamps.
|
Manks Girl
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 14:27:00 -
[214]
Originally by: Tarhim
Originally by: Manks Girl
Because i lost a dread 1.5hours after logging as well as another 100+ people did, and this wasnt the first report. Also happened to PL.
Actually only thing you can know for sure is that massive lag happened and affected outcome of battle. Because of this lag you can't really trust timestamps, too.
Any guesses if CCP-applied fix made matters worse or better, of if massive crash cascade would be more or less "objective" are just that, guessed.
Idea that fix amounted to direct meddling with important for players safety protocols doesn't really sit well with anything that CCP said and we can't exactly check if they are lying. However, if they'd want to lie why not go all the way and deny any interference with node.
I'd probably be pretty ****ed too if I lost capital ship and battle through no fault of my own, but that doesn't mean I'd drawn false conclusions.
We have to come to some conclusions as CCP are back tracking everytime they mention anything. But using common sense and reading up on their previous tests and statements 2+2 = 4 surely.
All things being equal the simplest answer is normally the right one. Its obvious that there is a bug in the Node for big fleet engagements which has been admitted by CCP Atlas, however under their reimbursement policies "bugs" which pilots have no control over should be entitled and eligible for a reimbursement.
CCP cannot deny these people and myself reimbursement.
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 14:37:00 -
[215]
Originally by: Manks Girl
Originally by: Tarhim
Originally by: Manks Girl
Because i lost a dread 1.5hours after logging as well as another 100+ people did, and this wasnt the first report. Also happened to PL.
Actually only thing you can know for sure is that massive lag happened and affected outcome of battle. Because of this lag you can't really trust timestamps, too.
Any guesses if CCP-applied fix made matters worse or better, of if massive crash cascade would be more or less "objective" are just that, guessed.
Idea that fix amounted to direct meddling with important for players safety protocols doesn't really sit well with anything that CCP said and we can't exactly check if they are lying. However, if they'd want to lie why not go all the way and deny any interference with node.
I'd probably be pretty ****ed too if I lost capital ship and battle through no fault of my own, but that doesn't mean I'd drawn false conclusions.
We have to come to some conclusions as CCP are back tracking everytime they mention anything. But using common sense and reading up on their previous tests and statements 2+2 = 4 surely.
All things being equal the simplest answer is normally the right one. Its obvious that there is a bug in the Node for big fleet engagements which has been admitted by CCP Atlas, however under their reimbursement policies "bugs" which pilots have no control over should be entitled and eligible for a reimbursement.
CCP cannot deny these people and myself reimbursement.
sure they can. just like we as customers can deny them access to credit cards every month.
|
Hast
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 16:30:00 -
[216]
so glad I cancelled all of my accounts. I have been a player for six years now, pretty much to the day (4th of february iirc) but now I'm gone, for good.
Originally by: omeega PICTURE TOO BIG, KGB INCOMING HAVE FUN.
|
Jonas Trelonian
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 16:37:00 -
[217]
Better late than never - it "only" took two months for CCP to acknowledge these issues!
The majority of people raging in this thread (and others) are angry. And most of this anger is directed at CCP - not for broken game mechanics, but for consistently ignoring the players. Us. Your customers. The guys who pay your salaries at the end of the month.
After Dominion was released, people complained almost immediately that there were issues. CCP said nothing, merely issued patches that failed to fix said issues and introduced others. This is not the first time the playerbase has been subjected to such sloppy coding, but what annoys me most is that CCP failed to admit to this.
It is not a failure to admit that you ****ed up. It is, however, a failure to not learn something from such an experience - and CCP have continuously done this. Time after time, something breaks, we players ask for answers, and we get nothing. Do you think we're asking for information because we're bored? No, it's because we want to know what's going on - because we have a right to know!
CCP: Talk. To. Your. Players. And when you do something crazy like meddle with a node in the middle of a huge fleet fight - the result of which is a one-sided battle where many players died without even firing a shot - then you must be ready to reimburse players who justly believe that your game, and hence you, have failed them.
tl;dr: CCP, stop behaving like ****s.
|
Horrible Horris
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 16:38:00 -
[218]
People can deny them access to their credit card information every month, the reality of it is though that they won't. Why? Because they live in the vain hope that CCP will eventually deliver what they promise in fleet fights etc.
Admitedly some issues are unforseen, although the massive fleet engagements that are now becoming common place due to Titan and Sov changes changes was obvious
AOE Titan = Null : Bigger gangs (admittedly better fits available now) - Obvious Sov Changes, SBU's : Gate engagements - Obvious POS's : apparently no longer required in game mechanics as the new Sov fixes everything - wrong.... JB's, moon goo, &c. &c. - and it costs even more to have Sov now as you need pos's still
My main was in WI when this was first noticed, the first major fleet engagement after the Dominion patch - there was no where near the numbers on the 28th Jan, however it was pretty evident then that something was wrong. Yet WI got flamed for mentioning it, fail cascade, call it what you will, it was so obvious something was wrong, yet CCP refused to listen or even act on it. Since then so many alliances have spoken up about it (with obvious trolls of fail FCs &c from the fearless opposition) that CCP finally has had to listen.
It is such a shame that it has taken so long to: A) recognise that there is an issue B) actually begin to do something about it.
The recognition of the fact that there is a problem does not help those who have spent time and isk in bringing it to light (well those who have lost assets anyways), "our logs show nothing" is common place, ship reimbursement for major fleet battels will probably never happen due to this statement, although I did lose a drake to 48 damage - and I have the KM to prove it, yet apparently their logs do not show a problem... Maybe I should take off the large shield debuffer II
100 caps destroyed with no losses is the single biggest failure to date, no FC is that bad - even I am not that bad - and I don't FC - I would have taken at least something down!
As High Sec is unaffected by the changes to the Sov mechanics, there is little support from those living there, maybe it will take a bunch of alliances to neut each other to get into position and war dec in empire to show the rest of the community the unplayabe conditions that are becoming more and more apparent in null sec space
Their stance is disappointing and their failure to compensate those who pay to play the game when the failure is so apparent is equally disappoiniting. Personally I am thinking of moving on, I am tired of the promises that are given, the snazzy trailers showing high combat scenarios yet the delivery being less than acceptable, if not flawed.
Someone posted earlier that we don't pay to beta test, how very true, but CCP seem to rely on that and the player base to write useful documentation for them, hopefully one day they will realise that there is only so much people can endure, the stick and carrot will only work for a short while, then you just go to sleep.
Its a shame - but its only pixels, if only space ones
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 16:55:00 -
[219]
out of curiousity who were PL and WI fighting when this happened to them?
|
Mankell Grenze
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 17:05:00 -
[220]
Edited by: Mankell Grenze on 09/02/2010 17:12:13
Quote: out of curiosity who were PL and WI fighting when this happened to them?
*edited for really bad spelling...
CCP Developers.
*pretends dominion is all about capital fights *toys with the node during a battle *one side gets killed (3-4 times in different regions) and the other side takes no losses *pretends it was even for everyone *doesn't reimburse any fleet fights (can hardly call these a fleet fight when only one side gets to push buttons) *CCP atlas posts that there's a fix coming for the node bugs *CCP atlas backpedals a thousand times in a single thread *same ****, different day
Oh the joy of paying and having to read such posts/petitions, doesn't make you bitter does it.
|
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 17:09:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Mankell Grenze
Originally by: Skaarl Edited by: Skaarl on 09/02/2010 16:57:04 out of curiosity who were PL and WI fighting when this happened to them?
*edited for really bad spelling...
CCP Developers.
...
i *know* that, was curious what alliance(s)
the fact that we have all lost to the CCP dev team is a valid answer however.
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 17:19:00 -
[222]
What morons decided to stuff 1600 ppl into a system? What did you think was going to happen? Well guess what? It happened- deal with it.
For those who are saying theyre unsubbing. Thank god-i hope that means less whining.
To everyone else- yes you got a bad hand. Man up. Or accept your a 6 yr old girl and leave.
|
Severion Atarkos
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 17:23:00 -
[223]
Edited by: Severion Atarkos on 09/02/2010 17:24:43
Originally by: Skaarl
Originally by: Mankell Grenze
Originally by: Skaarl Edited by: Skaarl on 09/02/2010 16:57:04 out of curiosity who were PL and WI fighting when this happened to them?
*edited for really bad spelling...
CCP Developers.
...
i *know* that, was curious what alliance(s)
the fact that we have all lost to the CCP dev team is a valid answer however.
PL were fighting IT/pets/-A- etc, not sure about who WI were fighting.
I just don't understand how they can admit that there server is ******, but still will not reimburse the losses that were suffered from obvious server failures.
So they are pretty much saying "We don't care about you, yes the servers were broke and protocols were not working as intended and the battle was totally one sided and did not affect all sides equally but we won't reimburse you for our screwups and we just cannot understand why you the playerbase cannot accept this"
Well CCP like people have stated above, you could save whatever dignity you have left by doing the right thing and reimbursing the losses that insued from your bug. Rather then taking the route you are which will result eventually ruin your game.
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 17:26:00 -
[224]
Originally by: Severion Atarkos Edited by: Severion Atarkos on 09/02/2010 17:24:43
Originally by: Skaarl
Originally by: Mankell Grenze
Originally by: Skaarl Edited by: Skaarl on 09/02/2010 16:57:04 out of curiosity who were PL and WI fighting when this happened to them?
*edited for really bad spelling...
CCP Developers.
...
i *know* that, was curious what alliance(s)
the fact that we have all lost to the CCP dev team is a valid answer however.
PL were fighting IT/pets/-A- etc, not sure about who WI were fighting.
I just don't understand how they can admit that there server is ******, but still will not reimburse the losses that were suffered from obvious server failures.
So they are pretty much saying "We don't care about you, yes the servers were broke and protocols were not working as intended and the battle was totally one sided and did not affect all sides equally but we won't reimburse you for our screwups and we just cannot understand why you the playerbase cannot accept this"
Well CCP like people have stated above, you could save whatever dignity you have left by doing the right thing and reimbursing the losses that insued from your bug. Rather then taking the route you are which will result eventually ruin your game.
i think PL were fighting the same people. its amazing to me that -a- never suffers the negative effects in this, yet anyone who fights them does.
|
Jonas Trelonian
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 18:00:00 -
[225]
@Horrible Horris: I'm a hi-sec carebear (this is a forum alt if you hadn't already guessed ;) ) and although I am (mostly) unaffected by Dominion (except for the DB crashes and random disconnects), I'm not prepared to sit silent on the sidelines while CCP ****es off their paying players. If everyone sits back and does nothing, how long will it be before everyone in the game is affected by CCP's refusal to fix that which is obviously flawed?
Besides, a game that is broken in one aspect is still a broken game, and I don't like paying for things that are broken.
|
Xikorita
Mob Thought Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 18:05:00 -
[226]
I participated in some big fleet battles and had everything turned off. It seemed so fun if I could use my modules and all. Thankfully I left that kind of fight from the dominion trailer to small roams.
It is a shame that big fleets (im talking 200v200) doesn't work at all.
|
Imran
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 18:12:00 -
[227]
WTB shoe throw at next fan fest. __________________________________________ EwokPoacher: Why hate Gallente? Blackest Sheep: Because we are beautiful.
|
San Ti
Gallente The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 19:05:00 -
[228]
Originally by: CCP Atlas Eve has never been able to support anywhere close to 1600 person fleet fights and we have never claimed to support those numbers. Hopefully we are heading in that direction with some of the optimizations that are in the works but we're not there yet.
Originally by: Batolemaeus Even if the cluster behaved like before dominion and even if you get fights up to 1.5k under control, your failure in game design will produce higher and higher numbers until the nodes break again.
|
Camios
Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 21:11:00 -
[229]
Edited by: Camios on 09/02/2010 21:12:06
Originally by: Kanuo Ashkeron
Originally by: CCP Atlas
Eve has never been able to support anywhere close to 1600 person fleet fights and we have never claimed to support those numbers. Hopefully we are heading in that direction with some of the optimizations that are in the works but we're not there yet.
Don¦t do that. I don¦t know how old you are. But can you remember the days with hard disks less than 1GB (probably you can remember the days of hard disks with like 10MB). Most of the time we were quite happy, then mp3 files were used and shared, and out of a sudden there was too less space for all the music. Luckily Seagate et al were not lazy, and gave us hard disks with 50-100 GB and we had plenty of space, however at the same time we started to save movies (not that anybody could watch all the movies he has stored now) and again, hard disk space was scarce. And this will continue to the end of days.
I hope you get the idea, the same will happen with the servers. Just adding performance wont solve the problem.
Camius had some nice ideas in the F&I forum and I added something similar. And as you (CCP) said: Game designers are cheaper then Programmers (on the other hand it might be a good idea to spend some money on a really designer).
Hi 5 mate! Yes, I strongly believe that a change in gameplay mechanics is the only thing that will fix lag once for all. Here is my analysis and proposal on a possible final fix of lag by game design.
We strongly need a mechanic that advantages splitting forces between many solarsystem, while the current mechanic encourages focus fire.
|
Hannibell
Genco Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 21:23:00 -
[230]
Originally by: Lykouleon
3) Your completely disregarding the facts that Atlas has outlined: that no game mechanics were affected during the fleet fight.
What Fleet fight? There was never any Fleet fight at the SBU. All Capitals Logged BEFORE ANY REDS WERE EVEN ON GRID, and yet reappeared in 1s and 2s later (a fact confirmed by multiple pilots on multiple forums and even seen in several fraps) LONG after they had logged off.
I've been playing this game for 6 years, what happened in D-G violated every game mechanic with respect to log off in play, and then CCP ADMITS they were monkeying with the node settings all the while.
Calling it now... CCP Atlas is actually Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf
|
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 21:48:00 -
[231]
Originally by: Hannibell Edited by: Hannibell on 09/02/2010 21:26:06
Originally by: Lykouleon
3) Your completely disregarding the facts that Atlas has outlined: that no game mechanics were affected during the fleet fight.
What Fleet fight? There was never any Fleet fight at the SBU. All Capitals Logged BEFORE ANY REDS WERE EVEN ON GRID, and yet reappeared in small groups later (a fact confirmed by multiple pilots on multiple forums from both sides and even seen in several fraps) hours after they logged off to be slaughtered while not even in game. Apparently you dont understand the definition of the word 'fight' any better than CCP does.
I've been playing this game for 6 years, what happened in D-G violated every game mechanic with respect to log off in play, and then CCP ADMITS they were monkeying with the node settings all the while.
Calling it now... CCP Atlas is actually Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf
now now. its Comrade Atlas and dont you dare accuse him of handing victory after victory to -a-.
|
Gabriel Virtus
hirr
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 22:41:00 -
[232]
This is why I love CCP. You guys fail at some things, but the subtle comedy makes me love you. Please pay attention to the local window in the example eve screen:
Eve Player #1 > OMG, the lag is terrible!!! Eve Player #2 > Common, CCP is on it! Eve Player #3 > I can't jump in, LOL! But I still love CCP Eve Player #4 > I know CCP are doing everytthing they can to fix this Eve Player #5 > Yeah, CCP is pretty cool Eve Player #6 > If anyone can fix this lag, CCP can!
Besides a complete disregard to actual locals during these circumstances, I commend CCP's effort to in subliminal messenging and would like to admit that it has worked. Thanks for the efforts CCP
-GV
|
Mah Kraah
Minmatar Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 23:52:00 -
[233]
generaly the devs are right when saying that lag and loadissues are random. in the fight we talk about here, -a- entered system 3+h bevore the fight to avoid that system and grid load problem. " as if someone told them exactly how to play around the problems(accusing ccp of taking sides)" well we did 2 weeks of intensive tests in 49 with stressed out servers and several nodecrashes just a few days bevore that d-g fight, thats why we knew what to avoid. "the attacker know when he attack the defender dont know when to defend so defender is screwed" BS, the dominion sov system gives the defender 4 timers. he know 4 times in a row, more than a day ahead, exactly at what minute he has to defend and he has the luxory to screw up 3 times and if he does everything right at only one of the timers he has won already. cva knew 2 days in advance when to be in system and when to force -a-to jump into them. cva where even in system and had already loaded system and grid but jumped out of system to jump back in again, exactly that was the moment they removed the randomness from the problem: one party loaded one party not. not the code, not the dev in system , cva s decission made the problem a onesided one. jumping in 150 caps at once and jumping in the in-system support fleet to the same location resuts in many thousend database read and write acessrequests landing in a que on a cpu that is already far beyond 100% usage...... they had to load system and than grid while -a- had to load grid only and than started to shoot and added to the problem by doing so.
making ships apear in system and on grid only AFTER the client report that he has finished loading would solve half of the problem.
logged off ships died houres later: thats a fishy one. if a client is unresponsible the server warps a ship to save, the well known emergency warps we all experiance from time to time. same if he loose connection or logs off. i give it 15 min max excuseable time for server beeing slow, anything that died after that has to be reimbursed because reason for the ship loss was a server no longer acting as intended. even having to discuss with gm when it comes to 30m 40m 1h afterwards is a shame.
the server know when the client was sending last data and the server know when he decided that this ship is dead. if logs dont show such problems than the log creating mechanics need to be fixed, it costs ccp nothing to reimburse such obvious malfunction caused losses why not just doing it? at least than u reduce the dammage done to a pilot caused by things he has no influence on.
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 00:29:00 -
[234]
Edited by: Ban Doga on 10/02/2010 00:31:02
Originally by: Mah Kraah generaly the devs are right when saying that lag and loadissues are random. in the fight we talk about here, -a- entered system 3+h bevore the fight to avoid that system and grid load problem. " as if someone told them exactly how to play around the problems(accusing ccp of taking sides)" well we did 2 weeks of intensive tests in 49 with stressed out servers and several nodecrashes just a few days bevore that d-g fight, thats why we knew what to avoid. "the attacker know when he attack the defender dont know when to defend so defender is screwed" BS, the dominion sov system gives the defender 4 timers. he know 4 times in a row, more than a day ahead, exactly at what minute he has to defend and he has the luxory to screw up 3 times and if he does everything right at only one of the timers he has won already. cva knew 2 days in advance when to be in system and when to force -a-to jump into them. cva where even in system and had already loaded system and grid but jumped out of system to jump back in again, exactly that was the moment they removed the randomness from the problem: one party loaded one party not. not the code, not the dev in system , cva s decission made the problem a onesided one. jumping in 150 caps at once and jumping in the in-system support fleet to the same location resuts in many thousend database read and write acessrequests landing in a que on a cpu that is already far beyond 100% usage...... they had to load system and than grid while -a- had to load grid only and than started to shoot and added to the problem by doing so.
If it was truely random nothing they did before the battle should matter. That's the very definition of random: to be unpredictable. When what you say is true, then the results are somewhat predictable and thus NOT random - it would make that a kind of de facto game mechanics that certain actions cause certain problems in the node and that those problems are likely to strike pilots doing certain actions and likely render them helpless. Of course we could argue whether this would make it an exploit or not, but I doubt CCP will ever call it that.
But the actual point is that it is possible to create conditions in which players can be killed without them being able to do anything about it. You have to be very naive to think that this can be in the interest of any player. Because everybody/-thing in EVE tells you "There is someone who knows more / fights harder / learns faster / has more luck / etc. - If you can win today someone else can win tomorrow"
Oh and a CPU cannot really be far beyond 100% usage - not even a little bit...
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 04:34:00 -
[235]
Originally by: Skaarl you have noticed that CCP atlas has been changing his blog and walking his comments back from "we took measures that would make a system admin faint" to "oh it was just a bug fix, we didnt actually do anything..."
What makes system admins faint is the prospect of a cluster-wide crash due to a renegade node. They don't give rats ass about your Good Fights in a 1600+ fight.
But go ahead, be all butthurt and emoraging about losing a dread. Besides, where does CCP state that a ship that logs out on a lagged node is guaranteed to be gone after 15 minutes?
|
evsNOTeve
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 04:57:00 -
[236]
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab where does CCP state that a ship that logs out on a lagged node is guaranteed to be gone after 15 minutes?
here you go from the official evelopedia even (link is on the bar to the left here)
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 05:03:00 -
[237]
Originally by: evsNOTeve
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab where does CCP state that a ship that logs out on a lagged node is guaranteed to be gone after 15 minutes?
here you go from the official evelopedia even (link is on the bar to the left here)
Sorry, can't see anything about lagged nodes.
Perhaps you are confused, and think CCP has guaranteed game mechanics function without lag on overloaded servers. Kinda like how our guns are supposed to work immediately when we click the little gun icon thingie even with 1000 ships on grid.
|
evsNOTeve
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 05:18:00 -
[238]
Edited by: evsNOTeve on 10/02/2010 05:19:42 no but it doesnt say that it doesnt work on a lagged node either.....
are you really that dense? the 1min/15min timers have been in the game A LONG time, and it for sure should be one thing that works on a node, lagged or not (it helps the server to know that it doesn't have to worry about that ship anymore....)
***edit o and the gun thingie does work if you click it, just maybe not as fast as you would like...but ccp admitted that in the blog here........they've NEVER said that logging out mechanics would be affected as well
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 05:37:00 -
[239]
Originally by: evsNOTeve no but it doesnt say that it doesnt work on a lagged node either.....
are you really that dense? the 1min/15min timers have been in the game A LONG time, and it for sure should be one thing that works on a node, lagged or not (it helps the server to know that it doesn't have to worry about that ship anymore....)
Now you are projecting your own expectations on what you think _should_ happen, and making it the official rules.
CCP has never claimed that using the ship scanner doesn't work on a lagged node either...
Or that ejecting Exotic Dancers won't get lagged, or what ever.
|
evsNOTeve
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 06:19:00 -
[240]
yes, so? in this blog they admit certain things like guns cycling and interface items dont work, and therefore you shouldn't expect them to (at least now after the blog), but they did not say that logging out does not work, so we should expect that it works AS NORMAL until they tell us it doesn't
we're talking regular, essential, game mechanics here and i'm pretty sure the expectation is that they work as normal until we're told otherwise
in this particular case, ccp/gms refuse to admit that there is any sort of problem with logging out...
|
|
Tital
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 11:34:00 -
[241]
Umm, is logging a problem as I can't seem to get past the authentication stage. Have I not paid enough money? |
Silent Wispa
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 11:42:00 -
[242]
Originally by: Tital Umm, is logging a problem as I can't seem to get past the authentication stage. Have I not paid enough money?
It's currently downtime.
However, instead of trying to login, have you considered applying for a job as a CCP GM instead? you seem to have everything that is required.
|
Tarhim
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 13:07:00 -
[243]
Originally by: Skaarl
you have noticed that CCP atlas has been changing his blog and walking his comments back from "we took measures that would make a system admin faint" to "oh it was just a bug fix, we didnt actually do anything..."
I really think that they just keep trying to make things clear (and failing).
Quote:
add in the fact that there are still petitions open on this 11 days later with no replies, and the people who have gotten some sort of replies its been a canned response or a fairly snotty reply from a GM and you can understand why as customers we are ****ed.
Now, reimbursement is quite another issue. Canned "we do not interfere" response is not valid when there was interference and I think you should push for satifactory outcome (rollback, reimbursement, whatever). I wouldn't just attribute malice to CCP.
|
Silent Wispa
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 13:12:00 -
[244]
Originally by: Tarhim
Now, reimbursement is quite another issue. Canned "we do not interfere" response is not valid when there was interference and I think you should push for satifactory outcome (rollback, reimbursement, whatever). I wouldn't just attribute malice to CCP.
How about "We're not discussing this any further and we're closing your petition, if you talk about this to anyone you'll be banned" is that enough CCP malice for you?
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 14:29:00 -
[245]
Edited by: Zenst on 10/02/2010 14:31:11
Originally by: Silent Wispa
Originally by: Tarhim
Now, reimbursement is quite another issue. Canned "we do not interfere" response is not valid when there was interference and I think you should push for satifactory outcome (rollback, reimbursement, whatever). I wouldn't just attribute malice to CCP.
How about "We're not discussing this any further and we're closing your petition, if you talk about this to anyone you'll be banned" is that enough CCP malice for you?
Nthats breach of freedom of speach; Nlackmail wouldn't go far from that line of posturing. CCP wouldn't do that and like break the law now, have they?
I mean currently the way they define fleet fights its pretty much one of those situations were you can get a expensive ship that has a PLEX value which as such has a monetary value directly comparable to hard currency which you for all effect are force into gamberling if you can use it or not due to the whole, fuggling. Now isn't gamberling illegal in some places as well and having it being forced upon some people, would that not be bullying if not organised gamerling/crime.
I mean, CCP could be silly and take that apprach in petitions but I realy don't think even they would be silly as to threaten a customer emotionaly so they dont pursue monies they were forced to gamble with a node that by admission is randomly screwing people. I mean extorting monies out of people and making them stay silent so as to enable more money extortion from other people, thats not customer care, thats organised crime. So again, would CCP realy be that silly now, I ask you.
Or are they.....
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 14:39:00 -
[246]
Originally by: Zenst Edited by: Zenst on 10/02/2010 14:36:07 Edited by: Zenst on 10/02/2010 14:31:11
Originally by: Silent Wispa
Originally by: Tarhim
Now, reimbursement is quite another issue. Canned "we do not interfere" response is not valid when there was interference and I think you should push for satifactory outcome (rollback, reimbursement, whatever). I wouldn't just attribute malice to CCP.
How about "We're not discussing this any further and we're closing your petition, if you talk about this to anyone you'll be banned" is that enough CCP malice for you?
No that's breach of freedom of speach; Blackmail wouldn't go far from that line of posturing. CCP wouldn't do that and like break the law now, have they?
What brand of ****** are you anyway? Thats the stupidest ****ing thing ive ever heard. Go to a law library and pick up a ****ing book sometime. Dont want to do that? then let me sumarize. ITS THEIR GAME THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 14:58:00 -
[247]
Originally by: Future MutantLOL What brand of ****** are you anyway? Thats the stupidest ****ing thing ive ever heard. Go to a law library and pick up a ****ing book sometime. Dont want to do that? then let me sumarize. ITS THEIR GAME THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT[/quote
Who says they dont already. But didn't that approach to managment die off with Sadan Hussain
|
Silent Wispa
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 15:02:00 -
[248]
CCP ****ed up the game and caused the ridiculous whitewashes discussed in this thread
Originally by: Future Mutant then let me sumarize. ITS THEIR GAME THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT
CCP spawned BPOs for the use of a particular alliance
Originally by: Future Mutant then let me sumarize. ITS THEIR GAME THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT
CCP reimburse some fleet/supercap losses for some alliances yet refuse for other alliances
Originally by: Future Mutant then let me sumarize. ITS THEIR GAME THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT
CCP frequently censor people who expose serious flaws, yet strangely do not punish those who were exposed as cheaters at all - such as the infamous koogutsumen
Originally by: Future Mutant then let me sumarize. ITS THEIR GAME THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT
Thanks for the summary.
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 15:05:00 -
[249]
Originally by: Zenst
Originally by: Future MutantLOL What brand of ****** are you anyway? Thats the stupidest ****ing thing ive ever heard. Go to a law library and pick up a ****ing book sometime. Dont want to do that? then let me sumarize. ITS THEIR GAME THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT[/quote
Who says they dont already. But didn't that approach to managment die off with Sadan Hussain
Tell you what- next time your at a store take all your items to the counter and ***** for an hour straight. Be as belligerent as ppl are being here.
I have five on them giving you the boot well before the hours up.
To everyone who lost a ship under "suspect" circumstances- i understand. Id prolly be ****ed for a few mins too. But damn i mean get over it. They cant reimburse you w/o setting a precedent that makes all fleet fights pointless. Because anything over 500v500 gets fully reimbursed.
And thats on top of the ridiculous amount of time said reimbursements would take.
Tl/dr- yea it sucks, deal with it. Wish it was different but we have to live in reality not some fantasy land where each and every one of us is the most important customer ever.
|
Silent Wispa
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 15:12:00 -
[250]
Originally by: Future Mutant
To everyone who lost a ship under "suspect" circumstances- i understand. Id prolly be ****ed for a few mins too. But damn i mean get over it. They cant reimburse you w/o setting a precedent that makes all fleet fights pointless. Because anything over 500v500 gets fully reimbursed.
The reality is, fleet fights are completely unplayable.
Lose 1/2 trillion of ISK in ships to a BUG and laugh it off? Put another 1/2 trillion of ISK in ships in a similar situation the next day? No, no-one who has ever suffered CCP Customer support is ever going to laugh it off and cross their fingers hoping it won't happen again.
This is the fundamental reason why people here are saying CCP need to take another look at their fleet fight reimbursement policy. Because everything has been funneled into these situations where these ships are placed on the line, there's really no other choice. Stakes are now far too high to shrug off these losses and move on. CCP have no choice but to look at the other options to remedy this.
|
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 15:22:00 -
[251]
Edited by: Skaarl on 10/02/2010 15:24:23
Originally by: Silent Wispa
Originally by: Future Mutant
To everyone who lost a ship under "suspect" circumstances- i understand. Id prolly be ****ed for a few mins too. But damn i mean get over it. They cant reimburse you w/o setting a precedent that makes all fleet fights pointless. Because anything over 500v500 gets fully reimbursed.
The reality is, fleet fights are completely unplayable.
Lose 1/2 trillion of ISK in ships to a BUG and laugh it off? Put another 1/2 trillion of ISK in ships in a similar situation the next day? No, no-one who has ever suffered CCP Customer support is ever going to laugh it off and cross their fingers hoping it won't happen again.
This is the fundamental reason why people here are saying CCP need to take another look at their fleet fight reimbursement policy. Because everything has been funneled into these situations where these ships are placed on the line, there's really no other choice. Stakes are now far too high to shrug off these losses and move on. CCP have no choice but to look at the other options to remedy this.
thats just it,from mutants posts its obvious which side hes been on in any of these conflicts. there is 1 group which NEVER suffers from the bug, and ALWAYS exploits it (and i do mean exploit in the gaming meaning of the word. using a known and acknowledged game bug to gain an advantage.) instead of being punished for violating rules they get rewarded, and rewarded, and rewarded.
CCP's policy is to currently reward those who use exploits and punish those who don't. Add in the fact that even more abnormal things happened in the D-GTMI fight, and that CCP has said they were doing really crazy things (tho now they try and walk that back and deny they did) and you can imagine why people are so frustrated when they are getting word for word the exact same message. This goes beyond reimbursement for that single fight at this point.
and when the "fix" is what they did in DG, making exploiting the bug an even better option, its just going to make things worse. From what i saw on their lag testing days they are not even looking at the right problem.
|
Opus Dai
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 15:31:00 -
[252]
Originally by: Skaarl From what i saw on their lag testing days they are not even looking at the right problem.
Agreed, the bug where you don't load and will never load is reproduceable in Empire High sec.
Run 2 clients, set one on a long (30-50j) autopilot route and minimise the client - carry on with your normal stuff on the other client.
At some point the autopiloting character will autopilot into a system and not load, the symptoms are exactly those described in the devblog. You simply will never load. This indicates the bug has nothing to do with Fleet Fights at all, it's just the pressures of Fleet Fights make it statistically far more likely to happen. Various people have told me launching bombs early onto a cyno as people try to jump in is a sure fire way to trigger it if the node is under heavy load.
|
Serene Pity
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 15:33:00 -
[253]
Shame on CCP
I heard that "Fallen Earth" team have more respect for their customers.
0/ Eve ---------- t0 CCP
Account expires soon. I gave away 11b value of assets and character already.
Enjoy to be F...ed, enough for me. |
hepatitisDD
SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 15:34:00 -
[254]
CCP rolled out a buggy piece of **** when everyone who plays eve (including both sides of the north/south were all screaming that it was going to be a buggy piece of **** since there was no testing or q/a of any kind)...
Anyone was surprised by this?
|
hepatitisDD
SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 15:44:00 -
[255]
Also, If I'm attacking a system, why in gods name would I ever ask for a node reinforcement if I was a euro? All I have to do is login after downtime and pack the system with 300^H^H^H 150^H^H^H (hell I've seen this with an empty system) people and the defenders will never be able to cyno in.
|
Opus Dai
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 16:17:00 -
[256]
Originally by: hepatitisDD Also, If I'm attacking a system, why in gods name would I ever ask for a node reinforcement if I was a euro? All I have to do is login after downtime and pack the system with 300^H^H^H 150^H^H^H (hell I've seen this with an empty system) people and the defenders will never be able to cyno in.
Even better, tell everyone you put in a request to reinforce the node but don't to stop any other directors requesting it. As the fight approaches any spies or pilots with loose lips will relay the fact the node is reinforced to the enemy (lets presume for now the enemy did not know the particular system would be under attack so would not have been able to request reinforcement themselves)
Then act surprised when the enemy lag out as they jump in and you're forced to shoot fish in a barrel for several hours - sometimes having a module delay of a number of seconds between shots.
Repeat that a couple of times and suddenly the enemies will to fight, or to even continue paying for the game will most likely evaporate.
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 16:30:00 -
[257]
Originally by: hepatitisDD Also, If I'm attacking a system, why in gods name would I ever ask for a node reinforcement if I was a euro? All I have to do is login after downtime and pack the system with 300^H^H^H 150^H^H^H (hell I've seen this with an empty system) people and the defenders will never be able to cyno in.
Well said.
CCP for the love of sanity please seriously answear me why you can't:
1) Move the dam soverenty claim stuff to the opposing side of the gates and in one swoop move the whole one system to abuse them all into as many systems as there are gates. A simple and yet elegant change that would be a step in the right direction in fixing the issues you have laid upon our door.
2) Have the invulnerbility timer increased from 30 seconds to be the same number of seconds as the number of people in the system or something were its longer when there are larger numbers, at least for 0.0. systems that are not linked to low-sec. Again a simple change that will help appease current problems instead of compound them any further.
3) Have a full look into the whole petition reinbursment situation, add it so extra logging is there, even if it reduces the number of active players by 10% it would be far better that 10% less people were active in a system and at least fairly accounted for along with the other 50% who wouldn't have a chance than it is to have no fair accountability and as such lead to customers being treated unfairly, which arises when they are telling the truth and being deemed to not be. All effect being called a liar when its not true is not nice, nomatter how its laid out.
If you could just answear me those points, or even say you will look into it with a view to getting back to me, I'd be respecting you 100% more than I am currently. I'd also feel like you cared and listerned.
-- "When the pupil is ready the teacher will teach" --
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.02.11 00:35:00 -
[258]
Originally by: Zenst CCP for the love of sanity please seriously answear me why you can't:
1) Move the dam soverenty claim stuff to the opposing side of the gates and in one swoop move the whole one system to abuse them all into as many systems as there are gates. A simple and yet elegant change that would be a step in the right direction in fixing the issues you have laid upon our door.
Because when jumping into systems causes problems, forcing one side (and only one side) to jump in and out of systems is a terrible idea?
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.11 14:57:00 -
[259]
Originally by: Nobani
Originally by: Zenst CCP for the love of sanity please seriously answear me why you can't:
1) Move the dam soverenty claim stuff to the opposing side of the gates and in one swoop move the whole one system to abuse them all into as many systems as there are gates. A simple and yet elegant change that would be a step in the right direction in fixing the issues you have laid upon our door.
Because when jumping into systems causes problems, forcing one side (and only one side) to jump in and out of systems is a terrible idea?
What you rather have, one blobbed out brokem system were its a first come only served process or having that split into more than one system with more than one way into the systems in question. If the attackers have supperior numbers then that wont change, just the aspect that there spread a bit and as such battles can happen on many fronts. Basicly splits the blob up and by that definition reduces the impact of the first come only served solo system of assured doom.
WHY: Well prior to dominion you had moons were you would fight at away from gates so the focus was to have the moon and the gates covered instead of just the gates and indeed there were often several hotspot moons in question usualy. Now we just have fights moved to gates which impact anybody entering those systems. That combined with the changes to the introduced anti-blob weapon called the titan to a single target basher has meant that this whole aspect only became more exacerbated. Of course this isn;t a fix to the limits the nodes have or indeed the new shortcommings they have in handerling them; But it does move things in the direction of giving people more of a chance to avoid these shortcommings in a way that is both simple and easy to implement. Easier things are the more chance of happening and the better things can get. As it stands dominion has made a QWERTY keyboard out of the whole aspect of fleet fights and server handerling. By design the soverenty systems are the worst possible layout they could be and casueing problem which are known and being looked at yet at the same time being denied when it comes to admiting its impacting players with a defence angle akin to the chewbacca defence by CCP.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed GM-jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: (pulling down a diagram of Chewie) this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! (customer looks shocked)
Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!
But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case? (calmly) Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!
Look at me, I'm a DEV defending a game software company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember, when you're in that GM-jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed GM-jury, it does not make sense.
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must deny this petition! The defense rests."
|
Caoim Fearghul
Caldari Ammatar Free Corps Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.11 16:50:00 -
[260]
Quote: When dealing with testing for EVE, we must always keep one thought in the back of our heads: "how will this affect the game, the cluster, and the players?" Sure, we could test directly on TQ, add all sorts of debugging code, join in every fleet fight, etc, but at the end of the day, TQ is for players, not for testing. Adding debugging code would kill the server's performance and make laggy battles much worse. Sending testers into fleet fights could very well lead to cries of favoritism or æDEVH4x'. Neither of those results would be desired. We in QA feel, very strongly, that anything that would negatively impact the performance of the live servers or people's enjoyment of EVE should be avoided like the plague.
Sooo, once more, what the hell were you up to in D-G? Prodesse Non Nocere
|
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.11 17:25:00 -
[261]
Originally by: Caoim Fearghul
Quote: When dealing with testing for EVE, we must always keep one thought in the back of our heads: "how will this affect the game, the cluster, and the players?" Sure, we could test directly on TQ, add all sorts of debugging code, join in every fleet fight, etc, but at the end of the day, TQ is for players, not for testing. Adding debugging code would kill the server's performance and make laggy battles much worse. Sending testers into fleet fights could very well lead to cries of favoritism or æDEVH4x'. Neither of those results would be desired. We in QA feel, very strongly, that anything that would negatively impact the performance of the live servers or people's enjoyment of EVE should be avoided like the plague.
Sooo, once more, what the hell were you up to in D-G?
a bug fix man, just a bug fix! they werent handing another lopsided victory to the side that has repeatedly used known bugs to exploit the system. no sirree that wouldnt be right, nope nope nope.
of course instead of punishing people who have admitted to using an exploit in this thread they reward them time after time and punish those who play by the rules. but CCP takes no sides in sov warfare....
|
Juliette DuBois
|
Posted - 2010.02.12 13:47:00 -
[262]
Could be that CCP just wants people to stop fighting for Sov. It certainly doesn¦t look like nothing but waste of ingame resources to me at the moment. I'm sure it will "improve" further once we get bigger blobs of titans and supercarriers that will eventually obsolete dreads and carriers (except suicide triages). Once the lag gets bad enough it will be hell trying to break even one supercap with rof-nerfed guns.
|
ginlaan
|
Posted - 2010.02.12 16:36:00 -
[263]
I still want to know who they paid off in PCgamer to elect this hunk or crap game of the year.
Once subscriptions start to heavily fall i would be certain you would find a different canned response from this company and a fix to the problem quickly. Until that happens though they know they have the upper hand.
I have seen a few response's from the gm's to certain people who have stated they are leaving if they cant get this resolved. GM's stating they are sorry to see you leave etc...but they wont change the policy even though they are in systems manipulating the node. Those response's in there canned reply of why they wont reimburse show me that not enough are talking with there wallet and leaving. Of course vailed threats never work and they know this. Not many are willing to walk way from a highly skilled player so easily.
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.12 16:40:00 -
[264]
Originally by: Future Mutant Edited by: Future Mutant on 10/02/2010 15:06:12
Originally by: Zenst
Originally by: Future Mutant
What brand of ****** are you anyway? Thats the stupidest ****ing thing ive ever heard. Go to a law library and pick up a ****ing book sometime. Dont want to do that? then let me sumarize. ITS THEIR GAME THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT
Who says they dont already. But didn't that approach to managment die off with Sadan Hussain
Tell you what- next time your at a store take all your items to the counter and ***** for an hour straight. Be as belligerent as ppl are being here.
I have five on them giving you the boot well before the hours up.
To everyone who lost a ship under "suspect" circumstances- i understand. Id prolly be ****ed for a few mins too. But damn i mean get over it. They cant reimburse you w/o setting a precedent that makes all fleet fights pointless. Because anything over 500v500 gets fully reimbursed.
And thats on top of the ridiculous amount of time said reimbursements would take.
Tl/dr- yea it sucks, deal with it. Wish it was different but we have to live in reality not some fantasy land where each and every one of us is the most important customer ever.
hey genius... all fleet fights are currently pointless as they have NOTHING TO DO WITH FIGHTING and EVERYTHING TO DO WITH BUG EXPLOITING.
|
Manks Girl
|
Posted - 2010.02.12 17:33:00 -
[265]
Quite funny the people that are *****ing "CCP CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT" forget that we pay for a game to play not to be test guinea pigs and not to be spin doctored at any official response from the designers.
The people talking in this thread are the people that have been directly effected in the LAGFEST F*ck up of dominion sov warfare.. people used to play the game to control sov and enjoy the epic big cap fights that pursued.
This part of the game is now over.. we have to admit the mechanic is shagged and as a result people need to get their opinions across to the developers here than speak to the mindless morons on the petitions customer service desk.
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.02.12 18:12:00 -
[266]
Originally by: Manks Girl Quite funny the people that are *****ing "CCP CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT" forget that we pay for a game to play not to be test guinea pigs and not to be spin doctored at any official response from the designers.
The people talking in this thread are the people that have been directly effected in the LAGFEST F*ck up of dominion sov warfare.. people used to play the game to control sov and enjoy the epic big cap fights that pursued.
This part of the game is now over.. we have to admit the mechanic is shagged and as a result people need to get their opinions across to the developers here than speak to the mindless morons on the petitions customer service desk.
Calling their employees "mindless morons" is a nice touch. That might work when your bossing your mom around but irl- you arent worth the bother of having as a customer. To those who are not being insulting- not *****ing, moaning, threatening- this next part doesnt apply to you.
To those who are- you have a choice- to pay or not to pay. Pick one or the other- but please stop acting like your special. In the magical world you live in apparently technical limitations dont exist. If you honestly think you can do better, then by all means start your own mmorg.
Tl/dr- you can help with testing or not- neither answer requires a whine thread explaining your reasoning. You can continue playing- or not. Again, neither answer requires you to post your tantrums.
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.12 18:58:00 -
[267]
Originally by: Future Mutant
Originally by: Manks Girl Quite funny the people that are *****ing "CCP CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT" forget that we pay for a game to play not to be test guinea pigs and not to be spin doctored at any official response from the designers.
The people talking in this thread are the people that have been directly effected in the LAGFEST F*ck up of dominion sov warfare.. people used to play the game to control sov and enjoy the epic big cap fights that pursued.
This part of the game is now over.. we have to admit the mechanic is shagged and as a result people need to get their opinions across to the developers here than speak to the mindless morons on the petitions customer service desk.
Calling their employees "mindless morons" is a nice touch. That might work when your bossing your mom around but irl- you arent worth the bother of having as a customer. To those who are not being insulting- not *****ing, moaning, threatening- this next part doesnt apply to you.
To those who are- you have a choice- to pay or not to pay. Pick one or the other- but please stop acting like your special. In the magical world you live in apparently technical limitations dont exist. If you honestly think you can do better, then by all means start your own mmorg.
Tl/dr- you can help with testing or not- neither answer requires a whine thread explaining your reasoning. You can continue playing- or not. Again, neither answer requires you to post your tantrums.
you mean the customers who have repeatedly used a bug exploit to win fleet fights? i mean lets face it, the gridlock lag didn't effect the atlas fleet which jumped in, but did effect the cva fleet. ask yourself why?
and dont give me the "they waited an hour to load grid!" according to CCP if you dont load grid within 8 minutes you never will. explain how they were able to cyno into the middle of a fight, gain control of ships and warp out, while the other side which had tried to jump in to the same spot was not able to?
|
Lusulpher
Blackwater Syndicate Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.02.13 04:14:00 -
[268]
Originally by: Xtover
Originally by: Crimson11 Honestly, Move SBU's so that they are on the outside of a system rather than inside the system. That way attackers and defenders must be spread out. Solves alot of problems rather quickly too.
Simple
This idea has been mention several times now!
Crim
excellent idea, but what happens when you need to fight over the ihub?
Fix 1: Create at least 7 beacons for iHubs at ranges[warpable?] from each other. Putting 1 offline makes the hub vulnerable. Ensure that you have to hold all 7 beacons at once. The beacons have high resists, "low" HP. A 50man defense fleet can have RR boost them up in seconds, but it takes significant time/ammo to grind them down[2+mins] CONCENTRATED FIRE that prevents 200 attackers from being efficiently in 7 places at once. 7 is an odd number, harder to plan an attack that way. CCP needs to wrap their minds around Coverage instead of HPbuffer. If ****** had 1 bunker in Berlin that could not be nuked unless we had used 8 nukes at the same time to stop him from repairing it. Would that have help him keep Germany when we sent 4 different Army Divisions to his shipyards,oil fields, factories, and cities?
This is how we are playing EVE, and it's silly. We can't recon and strafe Shipyards at POSs, result: Capital stockpiles of Bismarcks. We can't hope to detect radio silent cloakers, result: No enforceable security. We can't build useful Docks and Sentries to guard our Civilians or offduty pilots, result: No want wants to live in nullsec,COnstant NAPping, CApital pilots multiboxing to keep their ONE ship safe from ANYONE.
This is how we are playing EVE, and it's silly.
2: Give all Sov structures racial resists. Say 80% to 3, but 20% to Kin/choosable, but relative for the region it's in. So attacking fleets bring a flavour of damage Defenders can expect to face off against. The attackers can also bring dow then building quicker as to play Guerrilla style, but not take home many player kills.
3: Also, extend the cloak on ships that jump into a contested system from 30secsonds to 2 mins. The reason these 800man fleets jump at once is because no one wants to deal with "staggering". If they jump squad by squad or warp that way, they will be primaried to death.
4: Also, if more ships are hitting a target, more of the loot is destroyed. this will hopefully promote WCs to target call and reduce module cycle time, as EVERYBODY does not fire exactly at the same damn time. Also, creates useful EHP for the targets, who won't just explode in the warptunnel, not realizing the calculations caused a desync.
5: Area effect DDs need to be rereleased. The damage needs to remove 30% of ehp from all ships present. Not just ruin gameplay[even though I like the original one better]. The old one kept people from hanging around on the same grid. Without that natural predator, we get silly amounts of useless people causing overview lag.
6: BEFORE a ship warps offgrid/jumps, make it invulnerable for 1-1.5 seconds, to end those damage calculations that might cause "ghost ships" and desyncs. Also promotes more grid tactics. Not just blob, RR, camp.
7:Quantum Rise also caused insane random lag in all sectors of EVE, what did you learn from that?
Simple fixes that will reduce Lag, and improve gameplay. tl;dr: "numbers creep" will not end until fundamental incentives are changed.
EVE Sovfare 10 yrs from now: "I remember when my epicFleet of 7000, jumped into that 2001man BoB^3 fleet in F-UCK. I nver loaded grid, 2000 of us did and got killed/podded by their 250man squad of Titans. it wer sooo ghay. Our 450 Titans would have alphaed their Titan squad!!! AT least we instapopped their hub when we finally seeeionchanged. No amount of reps could help. CCP needs to fix dis LAGZ NOAWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!! Diz was not even the biggest fight this month!!!!"
The whining and lag will return.
-Sincerely, ConstructiveCustomerPerson 7 |
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.02.13 05:41:00 -
[269]
Or maybe we can just stop being complete morons about it. Case and point- whose idea was a 1500+ fleet fight again?
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.02.13 06:22:00 -
[270]
Originally by: CCP Atlas Edited by: CCP Atlas on 08/02/2010 12:33:58 Thank you all for your comments. I'll just make a brief comment about the concerns people have about the node being kept alive for the 1600 person fight that is mentioned in the blog.
We are deploying a fix to Tranquility this week (probably tomorrow) which identical to the methods used that fateful night in keeping the node up.
...
We will be deploying fixes this week and the next and are continuing to closely monitor fights as they occur. Please bear with us a little while longer.
Did this really happen? Since it's saturday I assume there will be no more deployments this week.
This sounds like pure server-side patches so this could have happened silently without anyone noticing. But wouldn't someone (you?) post that patches are now working and improving the situation for all nodes and players??
|
|
Aralis
Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.13 15:26:00 -
[271]
Originally by: Future Mutant Or maybe we can just stop being complete morons about it. Case and point- whose idea was a 1500+ fleet fight again?
CCPs. Pay attention.
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.02.13 16:33:00 -
[272]
Originally by: Aralis
Originally by: Future Mutant Or maybe we can just stop being complete morons about it. Case and point- whose idea was a 1500+ fleet fight again?
CCPs. Pay attention.
I must have missed the ccp post saying "when you attack a system make sure you bring 800+ pilots- because this way you crash our node and can come ***** and moan at us in the forums"
If anyone can find that post feel free to link it.
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.02.13 19:22:00 -
[273]
Originally by: Future Mutant
Originally by: Aralis
Originally by: Future Mutant Or maybe we can just stop being complete morons about it. Case and point- whose idea was a 1500+ fleet fight again?
CCPs. Pay attention.
I must have missed the ccp post saying "when you attack a system make sure you bring 800+ pilots- because this way you crash our node and can come ***** and moan at us in the forums"
If anyone can find that post feel free to link it.
Maybe you can find the link where it says "no more than 1000 people per battle or our nodes will crash and you will lose ships that we won't reimburse..."
Much obliged
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.02.13 19:36:00 -
[274]
Originally by: Ban Doga
Maybe you can find the link where it says "no more than 1000 people per battle or our nodes will crash and you will lose ships that we won't reimburse..."
Much obliged
You really are so dense you need everything spelled out in one place? Its been mentioned several billion times that the servers cant handle huge amounts of ppl- hell even jita is capped around 1300. Thats 1300 ppl most of whom arent fighting. As for the "wont get remibursed" nonsense- if you really want to play a game where you cant take losses- those games exist.
The cluster cannot gracefully handle a 1600 person fleet fight right now
|
evsNOTeve
|
Posted - 2010.02.14 02:46:00 -
[275]
ok so if someone brings 800+ people to attack your space, just give up?
because that's basically what you are advocating...
|
Jonas Trelonian
|
Posted - 2010.02.14 10:10:00 -
[276]
Just ignore Future Mutant. He's obviously a troll, and a poor one at that.
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.02.14 14:58:00 -
[277]
Originally by: Future Mutant Edited by: Future Mutant on 13/02/2010 19:48:46
Originally by: Ban Doga
Maybe you can find the link where it says "no more than 1000 people per battle or our nodes will crash and you will lose ships that we won't reimburse..."
Much obliged
You really need everything spelled out in one place?
Did you read your last posting while writing it? Just in case you forgot...
Originally by: Future Mutant
I must have missed the ccp post saying "when you attack a system make sure you bring 800+ pilots- because this way you crash our node and can come ***** and moan at us in the forums"
Looks like you need everything spelled out in one place, too.
No idea why you expect people to follow some "guidelines" that aren't written down and not follow some other "guidelines" that aren't written down either. And when did we start to assume EVE is broken and cannot handle anything unless someone explicitly says "it's okay to do it"?
Originally by: Future Mutant
The cluster cannot gracefully handle a 1600 person fleet fight right now
You realize the linked posting is not even a week old and the problem exists for over 2 months. Time travel is still not a widely used technology... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.02.14 16:26:00 -
[278]
Under your definition then eve has been and always will be broken. It cant hold everyone in a single system- must be unplayable amirite?
Well wrong- it is playable. There are limits to everything and eve is no exception. It doesnt take a genius to figure out that under the current mechanics the defenders have a rather large advantage. That coupled with the node limitations greatly limits attacking- not defending as its been suggested.
It also doesnt take a rocket scientist to realize that if jita, the most heavily reinforced node, can only handle around 1300 pp then more then that actually fighting is prolly a bad idea.
If ccp somehow managed to get reinforced nodes to support 750 v 750 figts- one of you would find a way to break the node just so you can come back to the forum and complain about how bad things are.
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.02.14 21:45:00 -
[279]
Edited by: Ban Doga on 14/02/2010 21:45:51
Originally by: Future Mutant Under your definition then eve has been and always will be broken. It cant hold everyone in a single system- must be unplayable amirite?
Well wrong- it is playable. There are limits to everything and eve is no exception. It doesnt take a genius to figure out that under the current mechanics the defenders have a rather large advantage. That coupled with the node limitations greatly limits attacking- not defending as its been suggested.
It also doesnt take a rocket scientist to realize that if jita, the most heavily reinforced node, can only handle around 1300 pp then more then that actually fighting is prolly a bad idea.
If ccp somehow managed to get reinforced nodes to support 750 v 750 figts- one of you would find a way to break the node just so you can come back to the forum and complain about how bad things are.
I'm quite amazed about all the things you read into what I wrote. I never said EVE was broken.
I was asking when we started to asume it is broken, because your argumentation was "no one said 1500 people in a system will work - so of course it won't work". Now guess what: no one said 500 people in a system will work, not even 10 vs 10 is mentioned as "will work".
But somehow it is completely obvious - at least to you - that one is okay and the other is not. Why don't you tell us the magic number where okay becomes not okay - seems like you have a way of determining which number of people in a system is alright and which is not.
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.02.14 21:50:00 -
[280]
The magic number is.... x-1 with x being the amount of ppl in a system that borked the node.
Unless some idiot fired a bomb at the cyno and then its (y/3)* x^3
|
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.02.14 21:54:00 -
[281]
Originally by: Future Mutant The magic number is.... x-1 with x being the amount of ppl in a system that borked the node.
Unless some idiot fired a bomb at the cyno and then its (y/3)* x^3
You're making more and more sense with every post you add to this thread. Keep going...
|
Connor Banks
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2010.02.15 08:04:00 -
[282]
Edited by: Connor Banks on 15/02/2010 08:04:58
Originally by: Future Mutant
Originally by: Aralis
Originally by: Future Mutant Or maybe we can just stop being complete morons about it. Case and point- whose idea was a 1500+ fleet fight again?
CCPs. Pay attention.
I must have missed the ccp post saying "when you attack a system make sure you bring 800+ pilots- because this way you crash our node and can come ***** and moan at us in the forums"
If anyone can find that post feel free to link it.
Dominion trailer, anyone?!
|
Tarhim
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.02.15 09:30:00 -
[283]
Originally by: Connor Banks
Dominion trailer, anyone?!
Did anyone actually count ships in this trailer?
|
Tactikill
Caldari Allied Tactical Squadron
|
Posted - 2010.02.15 17:14:00 -
[284]
May have been mentioned.....until the issue is resolved, why not extend the post jump cloak timer to something like 5 min from 30 sec?
Would that allow enough time to load grid? Peeps can still decloak as soon as their grid loads. Autopiloting would still work the same. Yeah, gate camps might become more vulnerable as the cloaked ship would have 5 more minutes to get something organized.
But, not really much different from today where scouts/spies are everywhere anyway.
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.15 17:21:00 -
[285]
Edited by: Skaarl on 15/02/2010 17:25:26
Originally by: Tactikill May have been mentioned.....until the issue is resolved, why not extend the post jump cloak timer to something like 5 min from 30 sec?
Would that allow enough time to load grid? Peeps can still decloak as soon as their grid loads. Autopiloting would still work the same. Yeah, gate camps might become more vulnerable as the cloaked ship would have 5 more minutes to get something organized.
But, not really much different from today where scouts/spies are everywhere anyway.
well lets see. CCP claims if you dont load withing 8 minutes you never will. however, entire fleets are claiming to have waited 45 minutes or so to load grid. so either CCP is clueless or the entire atlas cap fleet from the DG fight is lying.
either way extending it to 5 minutes wont work. they need to fix the bug that puts all calls form incoming ships at a lower priority than dmg notifications. right now all you have to do is bomb a cyno, or a ****ton of drones on grid, and your opponent wont ever load in, and you get a nice easy turkey shoot. then again, according to CCP no bugs happened in D-GTMI so....
edit for clarification: i am not accusing atlas of lying.
|
Tharrn
Amarr Epitoth Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 11:40:00 -
[286]
Hey Future Troll, what's your solution then? A hardcap on systems? Or are you just fanboying? The game has been coded so that 'considerably moar people than enemy' = 'win'. The problem is thus the way CCP want people to play although they know it doesn't work.
The population has clearly outgrown the technology (again). The solution thus can't be to expect people to moronically limit themselves and thus possibly loose although they could have won - the solution must be to encourage a dispersal of the large blobby fleets into a number of smaller fleets. Ball is in CCP's court to come up with a sov system that does NOT revolve about blobbing and thus crashing the nodes.
-----
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 14:18:00 -
[287]
Originally by: Tharrn Hey Future Troll, what's your solution then? A hardcap on systems? Or are you just fanboying? The game has been coded so that 'considerably moar people than enemy' = 'win'. The problem is thus the way CCP want people to play although they know it doesn't work.
The population has clearly outgrown the technology (again). The solution thus can't be to expect people to moronically limit themselves and thus possibly loose although they could have won - the solution must be to encourage a dispersal of the large blobby fleets into a number of smaller fleets. Ball is in CCP's court to come up with a sov system that does NOT revolve about blobbing and thus crashing the nodes.
You think theres a solution? Go back to the oldest part of the forums- read about the epic lag during a 20 vs 20 fleet fight. This doesnt have a solution, its going to be around forever. Ccp fixes it for 750v750- ppl start *****ing 1kvs1k dont work. Ccp fixes it for 1kvs1k- ppl ***** cause 1.25kvs1.25k dont work.
As for the game mechanics force this argument- well duh. Any type of objective anyone can think up- can be achieved easier with twice the ppl. Its just the nature of gaming- theres no easy way around it.
|
MarcusMaximus Milius
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 17:45:00 -
[288]
To all the whiners and haters of this thread.
Throwing nasty words and sarcasm onto CCP is quite easy to do so. First off i understand your anger for losing your stuff after being kicked from the server. The pilots must not be punished for trying to play the game as it is meant to be played. I mean CCP does advertisments where they encourage people to participate in large fleet engagenments (for example watch butterfly effect:"... an epic battle between thousands of players..."). So I think reimbursing the players for their lost stuff,as long it is possible in any way, would be fair. Especially because only one side was effected. But (and it is a BIG BUT) I am so disappointed about the childish behavior of many players, who are not able to forgive mistakes that are made by CCP. Hey Guys these people up there in the ice are not perfect. And the task they are dedicated to is by far not an easy one. This project "eve online" is so complex, if there would not be any mistakes,it would be a miracle. Running and upgrading eve is literally like a surgery on the open brain. You got to manipulate it, but keep it working during and after the operation. And yes, sometimes a surgery goes wrong. But you can not always blame the doctor. I am personally amazed how CCP manages this universe. Being such a relatively small company and pushing something that big. I have never seen a company with such transparency, connection to its customers and the ongoing will to innovate and upgrade its product. I hope that CCP does not take every bad post about their work too serious, cause I think most of these people are quite unaware (or lets say unimaginary) of what is going on behind the scenes. Often someone uses the phrase "I am a paying customer" to make himself look important and set the gun on CCPs chest to create some more pressure in his "negotiation". But this is totally unnescessary, because CCP is well aware of that, otherwise they would probably not be talking to you. And do not forget. If you do not like what you see, do not buy it. So stop whining and try to bring some constructive criticism instead.
With best regards,
M.
PS: I hope that CCP will soon be able to put back more of its manpower for the work on eve online, cause right now I think their additional titles (e.g. World of Darkness) are consuming a great portion of that. From the view of the company it is more than logically to create more products to balance itself, but so far I like eve the most .
|
evsNOTeve
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 19:17:00 -
[289]
well, we've been keeping track of the petition responses on our forums, and reading them it is a lot easier to understand where all of the anger is coming from...
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 20:17:00 -
[290]
Originally by: evsNOTeve well, we've been keeping track of the petition responses on our forums, and reading them it is a lot easier to understand where all of the anger is coming from...
responses? dude theres only 1 response, and literally all that change are the names.
|
|
evsNOTeve
|
Posted - 2010.02.17 01:36:00 -
[291]
yes i know, im on the same forum as you are...
|
Tharrn
Amarr Epitoth Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.17 11:31:00 -
[292]
Originally by: Future Mutant
As for the game mechanics force this argument- well duh. Any type of objective anyone can think up- can be achieved easier with twice the ppl. Its just the nature of gaming- theres no easy way around it.
Unless you somehow force people to be in severall places at the same time. 1600/2 = 800. 1600/4=400. Take your complete blob to one spot and you win the battle but loose the strategic objective.
-----
|
Rufus Konstantin
|
Posted - 2010.02.17 11:45:00 -
[293]
Originally by: MarcusMaximus Milius To all the whiners and haters of this thread.
Throwing nasty words and sarcasm onto CCP is quite easy to do so. First off i ...... , otherwise they would probably not be talking to you. And do not forget. If you do not like what you see, do not buy it. So stop whining and try to bring some constructive criticism instead.
With best regards,
M.
PS: I hope that CCP will soon be able to put back more of its manpower for the work on eve online, cause right now I think their additional titles (e.g. World of Darkness) are consuming a great portion of that. From the view of the company it is more than logically to create more products to balance itself, but so far I like eve the most .
Are you ....? One argument against your comment is that we pay for the game. Would you like to drive a car with old probs or known issues? Would you like to life in a house without broken heating because the heating engineer works for a little nice young and not easyer Company Would you like to fly with a airplain without service or some broken windows
I think no... so i think CCP hace to do some more for better running system instead of prog new features for the diverting kiddyplayer
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.02.17 16:06:00 -
[294]
Originally by: Tharrn
Originally by: Future Mutant
As for the game mechanics force this argument- well duh. Any type of objective anyone can think up- can be achieved easier with twice the ppl. Its just the nature of gaming- theres no easy way around it.
Unless you somehow force people to be in severall places at the same time. 1600/2 = 800. 1600/4=400. Take your complete blob to one spot and you win the battle but loose the strategic objective.
That would somewhat work now. But what happens when the nap train rolls up and you have 6k players total? even divided by 4 thast 1500 each place. It would also have the effect of limiting defense/attack to "only" the largest alliances. And would simply reinforce the more is better argument.
|
MarcusMaximus Milius
|
Posted - 2010.02.17 20:22:00 -
[295]
Are you ....? One argument against your comment is that we pay for the game. Would you like to drive a car with old probs or known issues? Would you like to life in a house without broken heating because the heating engineer works for a little nice young and not easyer Company Would you like to fly with a airplain without service or some broken windows
I think no... so i think CCP hace to do some more for better running system instead of prog new features for the diverting kiddyplayer
CCP does the work of poineers, so failures are logically included. If you want something that is above everything else for a small amount of money and in no time, you have to face problems that are occuring during that journey. And I do not say they should not fix the problems (what they will), I just say give them time to do so and do not be mean to them. And personally I have to agree with you, that serious problems should be fixed, before new features become added.
M.
|
Lusulpher
Blackwater Syndicate Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 01:05:00 -
[296]
Originally by: Xtover
Originally by: Crimson11 That way attackers and defenders must be spread out. Solves alot of problems rather quickly too. Simple This idea has been mention several times now!
Crim
excellent idea, but what happens when you need to fight over the ihub?
Fix 1: Create at least 7 beacons for iHubs at ranges[warpable?] from each other. Putting 1 offline makes the hub vulnerable. Ensure that you have to hold all 7 beacons at once. The beacons have high resists, "low" HP. A 50man defense fleet can have RR boost them up in seconds, but it takes significant time/ammo to grind them down[2+mins] CONCENTRATED FIRE that prevents 200 attackers from being efficiently in 7 places at once. 7 is an odd number, harder to plan an attack that way. CCP needs to wrap their minds around Coverage instead of HPbuffer. If ****** had 1 bunker in Berlin that could not be nuked unless we had used 8 nukes at the same time to stop him from repairing it. Would that have help him keep Germany when we sent 4 different Army Divisions to his shipyards,oil fields, factories, and cities? This is how we are playing Sov, and it's silly.
We can't recon and strafe Shipyards at POSs, result: Capital stockpiles of Bismarcks. We can't hope to detect radio silent cloakers, result: No enforceable security. We can't build useful Docks and Sentries to guard our Civilians or offduty pilots, result: No want wants to live in nullsec,COnstant NAPping, CApital pilots multiboxing to keep their ONE ship safe from ANYONE. This is how we are playing Sov, and it's silly.
2: Give all Sov structures racial resists. Say 80% to 3, but 20% to Kin/choosable, but relative for the region it's in. So attacking fleets bring a flavour of damage Defenders can expect to face off against. The attackers can also bring down the building quicker as to play Guerrilla style, but not take home many player kills.
3: Extend the cloak on ships that jump into a contested system from 30secs-2 mins. The reason these 800man fleets jump at once is because no one wants to deal with "staggering". If they jump squad by squad or warp that way, they will be primaried to death.
4: Also, if more ships are hitting a target, more of the loot is destroyed. this will hopefully promote WingComms to target call and reduce module cycle time, as EVERYBODY does not fire exactly at the same damn time! Also, creates useful EHP for the targets, who won't just explode in the warptunnel, not realizing the calculations caused a desync.
5: Area effect DDs need to be rereleased. The damage needs to remove 30% of ehp from all ships present. Not just ruin gameplay[even though I like the original one better]. The old one kept people from hanging around on the same grid. Without that natural predator, we get silly amounts of useless people causing overview lag.
6: BEFORE a ship warps offgrid/jumps, make it invulnerable for 1-1.5 seconds, to end those damage calculations that might cause "ghost ships" and desyncs. Also promotes more grid tactics. Not just blob, RR, camp.
7:Quantum Rise also caused insane random lag in all sectors of EVE, what did you learn from that?
Simple fixes that will reduce Lag, and improve gameplay. tl;dr: "numbers creep" will not end until fundamental incentives are changed.
EVE Sovfare 10 yrs from now: "I remember when my epicFleet of 7000, jumped into that 2001man BoB^3 fleet in F-UCK. I nver loaded grid, 2000 of us did and got killed/podded by their 250man squad of Titans. it wer sooo ghay. Our 450 Titans would have alphaed their Titan squad!!! AT least we instapopped their hub when we finally seeeionchanged. No amount of reps could help. CCP needs to fix dis LAGZ NOAWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!! Diz was not even the biggest fight this month!!!!"
Sincerely, Constructive Customer Person 7 |
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 01:38:00 -
[297]
Edited by: Future Mutant on 18/02/2010 01:42:39 I honestly didnt see anything in all that bolded text that would be helpful in any way.
mentioning eve and throwing in ww2 references- funny but not helpful.
afk cloakers- its like you started with lag and then decided to throw in everything else that annoys you
dividing attackable structure into 7 parts- unless they are each on their own node- what does this change? Im sure having seven things to attack at once wont force larger and larger attack fleets.
mentioning dominion caused lag and then asking what did they learn? WTF are they supposed to learn? that coding is hard?
im fairly sure ive read that post before- at least add something useful before you post i again.
I liked this one the most-6: BEFORE a ship warps offgrid/jumps, make it invulnerable for 1-1.5 seconds,
because if im aligned and moving- ccp should know before i do when im going to jump.
|
Lusulpher
Blackwater Syndicate Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 02:12:00 -
[298]
Edited by: Lusulpher on 18/02/2010 02:15:39
Originally by: Future Mutant I honestly didnt see anything in all that bolded text that would be helpful in any way.
mentioning eve and throwing in ww2 references- funny but not helpful.
afk cloakers- its like you started with lag and then decided to throw in everything else that annoys you
dividing attackable structure into 7 parts- unless they are each on their own node- what does this change? Im sure having seven things to attack at once wont force larger and larger attack fleets.
mentioning dominion caused lag and then asking what did they learn? WTF are they supposed to learn? that coding is hard?
im fairly sure ive read that post before- at least add something useful before you post i again.
WW2 is the spectrum chosen for the combat designs/gameplay logic. But when it comes time for the analogy to scale to the endgame, CCP has left all the important parts out. Afk cloakers is just an example. Our stealth is like a U-boat diving. But with ineffective depth charges[smartbombs ranges lol] and No Sonar/Undersea Radar. Silly.
Titans are the nuclear option. Kill all combatants on grid, Or hit a vital bunker with a Tac. Silly, that CCP deleted the former option, as that's how you keep the Fear of Titans.
Then look at the Sov endgame, you colonize null however you can, pay all these bills and your gameplay CANNOT BE DIVERTED into MULTIPRONG ATTACKS. To unblob is to die. And jump bridges can mean a larger force can respond to multiprong attacks with few losses.[kickass BoB maneuvers to defend Delve and then hotdrop the other side of the map]
As learned from human history, wolfpacks/guerrilla is far more efficient than blob, because they can strike multiprong vs The Larger force.[Uboat fleets in US Atlantic] In EVE: show up with absurd amounts of players, fight over 1 point, then 1 other point, camp a choke point. Lag.
Really? How could someone miss The Big picture this badly, TWICE! Dominion was to decouple POS from Sov, they made a new SOV only POS and created gatepong. More vulnerable grids, whether public/temporary/diverse are needed to break that mentality.
7 beacons with racial resists, and ehp biased to the defender >>> than big fat EHP buffers to grind, no logic, just need MOAR DREADS. Maybe one day, 200 pilots will defend a vulnerability on a TCU and the 500 man team will realize they should recon the Sov structure choices, then fit ONE/All type of dps, FOR A REASON. And call multiple targets, in smaller Fleets, on smaller grids.
Also, turn on Friendly Fire and MOST of this goes away. And who is hurt by extending the jump-in timer all the way to 8mins? That's the tough question.
Correction: Vulnerable TCU spawns Sovbeacons at ALL Planets at once, all must be defended/captured at once. Now we have a roiling brawl with trick slings and bookmarks being important. Aka fun. And the clumsier alliance loses, most of the time.
QR caused some insane lag all over EVERYTHING, if CCP analyzed that, I'd like to see the write up, it was after a server "corification" after all...Dominion had corification aspects for when they add the rest of the Sov structures.
Glad this got your attention by the way, this last page ****ed me off. And no one got my earlier joke... tl;dr: ~~wolfpacks~~
-Creative Consumer Patron 7 |
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 08:10:00 -
[299]
Originally by: Future Mutant
mentioning qr caused lag and then asking what did they learn? WTF are they supposed to learn? that coding is hard?
[sarcasm] Of course not. They already know that. And you are absolutely right. There is nothing to learn from the problems you encountered in the past and the solutions you came up with.
Developing software is basically repeating the magic tantra of "it's difficult - bugs happen - we will fix all bugs that make it into the release" and then throwing in the occasional prayer that everything will work out fine.
There is no such thing as detecting problems you had to deal with in the past and developing strategies to avoid them. Everybody knows that bugs happen and there's nothing you can do but release the software and see what happens. Anybody who thinks you can simulate even a small fraction of what's happening on the production system on a test system is obviously not thinking straight. [/sarcasm]
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 12:56:00 -
[300]
If you want less bugs upon release of a patch- cross your fingers. Bugs happen. You can test for as many things as you can think of but infinity is a big number- good luck expecting perfection.
As for lag caused by fleet sizes being too large. I still dont see the answer being more objectives which to me would encourage larger fleets (on both sides)
A sane approach- is one no ones going to like. Eliminate blues. Eliminate standings towards each other altogether. Eliminate naps and alliances. Hard cap a limit of ships in a system. Is any of this a good idea? No. Would it reduce the number of lagged out fights? Yes
The one idea i liked- increase the cloak time after a ship jumps through a gate. It may or may not be possible. To me, a layman, i would think you would have to load grid before the cloak happens. Not loading grid= not cloaking. But honestly neither of us can say with certainty.
|
|
Tharrn
Amarr Epitoth Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 16:38:00 -
[301]
Hard caps on systems just mean whoever has more people who can be online earlier after downtime wins - not much better than the current Gridwars. There still wouldn't be a game (as the current way sov wars have to be fought is actually not within the game mechanics but 100% a metagame).
-----
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 17:19:00 -
[302]
Originally by: Future Mutant If you want less bugs upon release of a patch- cross your fingers. Bugs happen. You can test for as many things as you can think of but infinity is a big number- good luck expecting perfection.
Again you are explaining there is no way to get less bugs (crossing your fingers is really doing nothing) because there is no way to eliminate all bugs. There is a difference between those two.
It's the same with "learning from past problems". It cannot and will not prevent all future problems, but it can prevent having the same problems again and again and make it less likely to have similar problems.
No one demanded perfection. In fact you are the one using impossible perfection as an argument to justify introducing similar problems again and again.
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 17:44:00 -
[303]
Edited by: Future Mutant on 18/02/2010 17:44:32 Nothing would make me happier if ccp made the next expansion nothing more then fixing current issues and optimizing their software. Im not saying ccp shouldnt strive for less bugs- but who is to say they are not? What i am saying is bugs happen, they are literally impossible to weed out beforehand. And that doesnt mean you dont try- and you must fix what does crop up. But then again- thats exactly whats happening. They are trying to fix the problems.
On the second point- im not really trying to justify anything. Ive made arguments for and against things i thought would work/not work. Usually suggestions on all sides are a moot pt because we lack complete knowledge of the situation.
One thought ive had recently ill pose as a question mostly meant for ccp. Given the nature of server technology, and eve software that in many cases cannt utilize it, has there been any thoughts on a complete redo of server/client software? A complete rewrite with the ultimate goal of software that interacts as best as possible.
|
Celia Therone
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 18:52:00 -
[304]
Originally by: Lusulpher
Fix 1: Create at least 7 beacons for iHubs at ranges[warpable?] from each other. Putting 1 offline makes the hub vulnerable. Ensure that you have to hold all 7 beacons at once. The beacons have high resists, "low" HP. A 50man defense fleet can have RR boost them up in seconds, but it takes significant time/ammo to grind them down[2+mins] CONCENTRATED FIRE that prevents 200 attackers from being efficiently in 7 places at once. 7 is an odd number, harder to plan an attack that way. CCP needs to wrap their minds around Coverage instead of HPbuffer.
I see where you're going with this but wouldn't an attacker simply blob each beacon in turn, killing it with minimal casualties? Set up bubbles to catch defenders sneaking to reinforce the point and move on to the next one... Once you've defeated the defenders you automatically get to capture the hubs so you're just trying to provoke a battle anyway. If the defenders want to stop you they pretty much have to blob so back to square one minus a few cloaked pickets standing off each beacon spying.
I can't help but wonder if the whole sovereignty idea isn't a mistake. Remove it, let people anchor whatever they want. If they can't hold the space then they lose their investment. It's a cold, hard universe out there, does it really need arbitrary rules forced on it?
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.19 02:31:00 -
[305]
Originally by: Future Mutant
Nothing would make me happier if ccp made the next expansion nothing more then fixing current issues and optimizing their software.<SNIP>
I utterly and completely agree with you on this.
|
Lusulpher
Blackwater Syndicate Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.02.19 03:51:00 -
[306]
Originally by: Future Mutant If you want less bugs upon release of a patch- cross your fingers. Bugs happen. You can test for as many things as you can think of but infinity is a big number- good luck expecting perfection.
As for lag caused by fleet sizes being too large. I still dont see the answer being more objectives which to me would encourage larger fleets (on both sides)
A sane approach- is one no ones going to like. Eliminate blues. Eliminate standings towards each other altogether. Eliminate naps and alliances. Hard cap a limit of ships in a system. Is any of this a good idea? No. Would it reduce the number of lagged out fights? Yes
You sir, have impressive *********. I understand, crossfingers for finding ALL the bugs, but CCP has had bugs revealed on SiSi, and DO NOT notify anyone that they are aware of it/it's an exploit/they release writeups. EVE players just want to know that they have started on the research. That's it. We then go to the same laggy node* and know we get no reimbursements[like always ]. We will then keep an eye out for cheaters. But more of us CAN RECOGNIZE THE CHEAT. The SiSi players can do so.
*Grids have a limit that is messing with the servers[Goonfleet gridfu] Each player renders an overview based on all the ships that reach the overlapping grids, and it will burn a hole in a node with hundreds arrive and render more overlaps. It's all about how you enter the grid. MassjumpofCHARGEEEE!!! is not helping.
More objectives, in different grids, that have to be patrolled at the same time. A Defender can use a larger coalition to try and secure more, but they know that mistakes will happen on both sides while warping around. Lots of "smaller, better" fights on more grids, more server load distribution.
An Attacker can harass the weakest point in the chain with good Cov Ops pilots.[The Pacific WW2/VietCong] If they setup to blob on your first attack, start feigning movements...no more stale, camp-bubble-slaughters. Do not miss the point again, please. 1200 players shooting in system, but not on the Jita undock point.
Undoing standings would ruin the endgame immediately.Pre-Standings: Imagine Chess where the pawns were all a third colour and some of yours were enemy pawns. And you arrange this colour by mailing and MSN. Current Sov: And you had to paint them black everytime you wanted to move them, and you had waterpaint on their plastic husk. And it was raining, and they all wanted to be parked in your King space because they held the frontlines. Imagine 9000+ pawns. Treaties will stabilize/streamline EVE Sovfare, hopefully.
And the cap would be abused by Russian/mercenary "logoffski" tactics. Talentless *******s.
'Tactical' Cynoing needs to be nerfed. That removes the advantage from the unprepared coalition right there. If Caps had a day of downtime to use after going across the map. Caps you could actually prepare to destroy. And then they use small ships and your tactic is lost.[Airborne Drop,D-Day] That's how invasion is done.
9001. Over 9000... 7 |
Lusulpher
Blackwater Syndicate Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.02.20 08:14:00 -
[307]
Originally by: Celia Therone
Originally by: Lusulpher
Fix 1: Create at least 7 beacons for iHubs at ranges[warpable?] from each other. Putting 1 offline makes the hub vulnerable. Ensure that you have to hold all 7 beacons at once. The beacons have high resists, "low" HP. A 50man defense fleet can have RR boost them up in seconds, but it takes significant time/ammo to grind them down[2+mins] CONCENTRATED FIRE that prevents 200 attackers from being efficiently in 7 places at once. 7 is an odd number, harder to plan an attack that way. CCP needs to wrap their minds around Coverage instead of HPbuffer.
I see where you're going with this but wouldn't an attacker simply blob each beacon in turn, killing it with minimal casualties? Set up bubbles to catch defenders sneaking to reinforce the point and move on to the next one... Once you've defeated the defenders you automatically get to capture the hubs so you're just trying to provoke a battle anyway. If the defenders want to stop you they pretty much have to blob so back to square one minus a few cloaked pickets standing off each beacon spying.
I can't help but wonder if the whole sovereignty idea isn't a mistake. Remove it, let people anchor whatever they want. If they can't hold the space then they lose their investment. It's a cold, hard universe out there, does it really need arbitrary rules forced on it?
If they blob, the solution would be to add even more beacons, eventually it becomes impossible to blob each beacon, without having to redirect forces to the vulnerable one.
This is the entire point, if the Defender is organized they can warp in the correct squads/wings to fight off the attack. BUT, the Attacker can cause frustation/ by going on the offensive in several areas at once. They might lose a Wing but gain the system. Tradeoffs are Capitalist, right?
Defender can rep them up fast but has to be under fire, they can primary most of the bubblercraft/EWAR too, and can reship[home court advantage]. If they choose not to fight for the beacons the hub will fall withing the hour, no matter the size of the force. 20 guys at 20 beacons or fleets of 200 at 7, it all crumbles when it's abandoned. And besides the more aggravating you are at each beacon brawl, the more determined the attacker has to be to invade ALL YOUR SPACE.
That's what encourages blobs, invasion has become easy with Capitals. At the flick of a cyno, a ****train is summoned.
Attackers get to harass, but it's not a mindless primary system, they have to shoot beacon[s] AND find the rep ships, first.
Bombers and Recons will become more vital than Dreads. A squad of sniper ships will actually move to several beacons and pick off stragglers, this is ON BOTH SIDES.
This is complicated to write out, but it looks exactly like a war[aka "good fight"]. Lots of ambushes, frantic calls for help, decisions to let one force collapse, etc... 7 |
Opus Dai
|
Posted - 2010.02.23 03:00:00 -
[308]
11 pages later and it seems CCP aren't actually aware of the underlying problems Dominion has brought afterall
But at least they have a tight reimbursement policy where people aren't reimbursed despite it being not lag but a fault with the game. Except of course where rogue GMs have read the petition and thought "christ, that's hardly fair" and gone ahead and reimbursed. Fortunately these GMs have been given a formal warning for their behaviour and hopefully such isolated incidents will no longer happen.
btw CCP, just incase you hadn't noticed, nodes break whenever a 80 man gang passes through leaving the system laggy and gates buggy. I would state that this wasn't a regular occurrence pre-Dominion but your tactics are beginning to pay off and I'm sure most people are sick of stating the obvious while you steadfastly ignore it.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2010.02.23 07:54:00 -
[309]
Originally by: Opus Dai 11 pages later and it seems CCP aren't actually aware of the underlying problems Dominion has brought afterall
But at least they have a tight reimbursement policy where people aren't reimbursed despite it being not lag but a fault with the game. Except of course where rogue GMs have read the petition and thought "christ, that's hardly fair" and gone ahead and reimbursed. Fortunately these GMs have been given a formal warning for their behaviour and hopefully such isolated incidents will no longer happen.
btw CCP, just incase you hadn't noticed, nodes break whenever a 80 man gang passes through leaving the system laggy and gates buggy. I would state that this wasn't a regular occurrence pre-Dominion but your tactics are beginning to pay off and I'm sure most people are sick of stating the obvious while you steadfastly ignore it.
your main just lose a ship?
|
Katana Seiko
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.02.26 09:29:00 -
[310]
Well, I have programmed my server with something similar once. The "grid" request in that case was a "map" request, and since it timed out in some clients, I came up with a priority list in three types. Priority type one was "map", Priority 3 was "chat", Priority 2 everything else... Maybe you want to try something similar.. For testing lag issues at least. --- "Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign for a diseased mind." -Terry Pratchett |
|
Saralle Zhukov
Minmatar Win Tech Arcane Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.27 14:44:00 -
[311]
I finally figured it out CCP = AT&T!!!
"We don't care, We don't have to."
From an old Saturday Night Live episode.
----------------------------------- Kill them all God will know his own. |
Vogue
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.01 04:41:00 -
[312]
Combat fleet lag is widespread. But up norf we get lag jumping fleets of 100-255 through jump gates. 'Traffic control' is a regular feature. In five years of playing EVE this extra lag problem is new to me!
As other players have said i would gladly forfeit any future upgrades to EVE until the lag problem is fixed. I watched a fanfest video where a 'Excellence' ethos was touted. Just call it 'fix lag'!
In my own little way i am have a demonstration about lag. Until it is fixed i am only having a subscription for one of my three accounts.
|
Stratio
Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.03.01 19:23:00 -
[313]
As the client throws away server responses which are more than 8min old (Calls do time out), does the server bother fulfilling requests which have been waiting for more than 8min already? _____________________
For Tribe and Honour! |
Ruby Xenoshade
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 22:43:00 -
[314]
I got an idea. We can protest by logging in right after next downtime and all go to CL-85V (Curse) with our alts. Let's choke some nodes. Actually, I'll probably be sleeping, but you get the idea.
|
Aralis
Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.05 17:28:00 -
[315]
I look forward to the day you realise you totally screwed up the game with Dominion. In the meantime some traditional CCP denials telling us how much you've improved gameplay and increased the number of people in 0.0 should be good for a laugh.
|
Ouranos Kline
Aether Wynd Associated Exploration and Research
|
Posted - 2010.03.06 21:32:00 -
[316]
I don't know if this is germane to the issue, but I had the exact same thing happen to me today as described in CCP Atlas' dev blog when I was jumping into Jita. There were about 1200 people in the system, but that's about normal. I've never experienced this failure to load the system before, though. It happened exactly like CCP Atlas described. I checked the system monitor for the one outstanding network request and it was there. The only difference between today and other days was that today I had an info window open looking at the stats for a character in the system that I was leaving behind. And to my knowledge, that's about the only time I've ever been doing that that while jumping.
|
Lev Aeris
b.b.k Fidelas Constans
|
Posted - 2010.03.06 22:50:00 -
[317]
Had a fight with 300 in local yesterday. Lag was still enough of an issue to cause severe mod bugs / gun lag (ungroup guns and turn auto repeat off).
I'm sure plenty of folks can remember fights this big pre-dominion that worked. I've had grid load lag when jumping 30 man fleets into systems with only a handful already in local.
So you don't need 1000+ to break a system, it seems 300 is more than enough to break CCP's brilliantly engineerined software. |
Den Dugg
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 14:36:00 -
[318]
bs pure bs ur say u cant see all thats goinon in ur mmo
|
WaiKin Beldar
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 10:45:00 -
[319]
Originally by: Aralis I look forward to the day you realise you totally screwed up the game with Dominion. In the meantime some traditional CCP denials telling us how much you've improved gameplay and increased the number of people in 0.0 should be good for a laugh.
QFT.
It won't happen soon, and definitively we don't expect it must be publicly announced as "Best MMORPG of the year". But if CCP applies the same philosophy as it's been used till now, more or less will be in the way of introducing small changes, until the final product has evolved enough that all the actual problems (including the SOV Warfare and Lag)will be overwhelmed by the new ones
|
Opus Dai
|
Posted - 2010.04.10 12:00:00 -
[320]
I heard CCP Atlas was doing some rigorous testing in V-NL3K last night
How's that going?
Still aware of the problem? Good. See you in another couple of months then.
|
|
Ruby Xenoshade
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 22:10:00 -
[321]
I, too, wish to live in a region defended by the Great Wall of Lag.
|
TheLordofAllandNothing
Caldari NailorTech Industries RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:32:00 -
[322]
CCP have pretty much broken their netcode so badly that even a moderate fleet fight of 200 total participants exhibits ENORMOUS ****ing lag symptons, to the point of having to do the kind of things i did before dominion in fleet fights of 1,600 people to be able to shoot.
Small scale pvp you can even see some lag kicking in, auto-repeat should just be automatically turned off when your fleet number rises above 80.
_______________________ Fix rockets in '09 =( |
Axhind
Caldari Ars ex Discordia Here Be Dragons
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 01:33:00 -
[323]
How about CCP drops the expansion or two and you just rewrite the underlying code to handle graceful degradation? Sure there will be no broken new shiny but I'm sure that we can live with that.
That way you will not have to make lag hunting task force after every expansion that does nothing or very little to actually fix the problems (IIRC the last successful lag reduction was 2 patches ago and took several years to happen).
Cleaning up your code to make it degrade gracefully plus make it a bit more future proof might even enable new features without a lot of ugly hacks so please do that instead of whatever new shiny. We can live without planet interaction (or dust514 for that matter).
|
Jattzia
Gallente The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 03:36:00 -
[324]
ARE YOU CERTAIN YOU ARE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM????????
CCP NOT AWARE.
|
Meno Theaetetus
Wildly Inappropriate Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:44:00 -
[325]
Originally by: TheLordofAllandNothing CCP have pretty much broken their netcode so badly that even a moderate fleet fight of 200 total participants exhibits ENORMOUS ****ing lag symptons, to the point of having to do the kind of things i did before dominion in fleet fights of 1,600 people to be able to shoot.
Small scale pvp you can even see some lag kicking in, auto-repeat should just be automatically turned off when your fleet number rises above 80.
They just need to adjust the way things work, why not just get the server to presume the module is active until it receives instruction from the client to turn it off, you then cut out every 'module is still active message' every cycle.
Please resize signature to the maximum allowed size of 400 x 120 pixels and a maximum size of 24000 bytes. Navigator |
Dyzzy Dyvyl
|
Posted - 2010.05.04 20:44:00 -
[326]
personaly i think the lag is getting worse with the release of the new patch i thought the idea was progress. If so well done u have stoped nodes from crashing.. clap.. clap .. clap . Inturn you have created a form of lag unknown to any online game eve to have been created. the fact that we are paying u for the privlage of pretending to work on the issue when all you are interested in is. Finding new ways to either A) make life easyer for carebear and as such make life more expensive for players in 0.0 cos lets face it those high sec nublits dont even pay for time code they carebear there little hearts out. B) find new ways for ppl to lose ship or lose isk like reducing the payout for cap ships. C) add new things to the server when inturn they should be sorting out the problems that already exist. You think adding planet mining is going to take our attention away from the fact that your servers are clearly F**KED. anyone who wants to start a CCP page on facebook and make it clear to computer hackers who is a good target for capitalist B****DS the feel free i will sign up anyday
|
Yunii
Gallente Black Serpent Technologies R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 16:53:00 -
[327]
any progress? need more testing? hopefully not ignoring us.. ------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Arkanon I think this thread also illustrates perfectly that we neither censor nor do we try to silence our customers. |
Darth Vapour
|
Posted - 2010.06.05 10:33:00 -
[328]
Quote: We were finally able to reproduce this with a special fleet test on our Singularity test server on Jan 27th where over 400 people participated in helping us out. That was really fantastic to see and I would like to thank everyone who showed up.
So what progress has been made in the nearly 6 months since identifying the issue ? Players report things are getting worse rather then better.
|
mkmin
|
Posted - 2010.06.06 21:00:00 -
[329]
Originally by: Darth Vapour
Quote: We were finally able to reproduce this with a special fleet test on our Singularity test server on Jan 27th where over 400 people participated in helping us out. That was really fantastic to see and I would like to thank everyone who showed up.
So what progress has been made in the nearly 6 months since identifying the issue ? Players report things are getting worse rather then better.
They've made excellent progress. They nerfed the deep safes that were used to circumvent lag.
In seriousness, a dev interview said they've got a lag patch ready to deploy but they are waiting to make sure PI doesn't screw everything up first (lol or cry? Either way, I'm just gonna keep posting on the forums until my account expires.)
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.06.07 09:35:00 -
[330]
what interview?
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
|
Darth Vapour
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 12:01:00 -
[331]
Can't let this slip from the first page. Especially how things are getting more and more ridiculous with ships reappearing after being killed. No matter how much I would like to believe this is all a big troll it's perfectly possible for basically anything to happen in a big fight.
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 23:53:00 -
[332]
Reading the dev-blog again makes me think you were/are seriously trolling us.
You tell how you gained great understanding and insight and fixes are ready and will be deployed over the next weeks. Only that this was over 4 months ago and that there are still hilarious stories about whole fleets dieing to failed grids and suddenly re-appearing ships.
The situation is basically unchanged and the only thing you achieved with that blog is stretching your credibility (almost) beyond believe.
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.06.20 21:13:00 -
[333]
Originally by: CCP Fallout CCP Atlas' newest dev blog discusses our efforts to combat fleet lag, and shares some of the results of our investigations into the probable causes.
Please note: we are doing another test round on Singularity on Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 16:00 UTC. More information can be found in this thread.
It's been 5 months, and no improvement whatsoever.
We need a little bit more than your "awareness", bro.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
ViolenTUK
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.21 22:28:00 -
[334]
Eve online as a whole is extremely slow. Simple things like opening a regional market, undocking, warping to a distant point or jumping from one system to another. Even a small 80 man fleet passing through a system can take a minute to load. This is absolutely ridiculous. An 80 man gang jumping from one system to another should be instantaneous. There should be no delay at all. Hardly worth playing these days. Eve was always slow but today it is surprising that anyone plays at all.
|
Cinori Aluben
Minmatar Gladiators of Rage Honourable Templum of Alcedonia
|
Posted - 2010.06.22 19:55:00 -
[335]
Not sure if anyone has brought this up before, but I would like to contrast two quotes:
Originally by: "CCP Atlas, 2010.02.09 10:16:00" Eve has never been able to support anywhere close to 1600 person fleet fights and we have never claimed to support those numbers.
vs.
Originally by: "CCP Explorer, 2008.10.01 13:20:48" This Monday, 29 September,[2008] we saw a fleet battle with over 1100 pilots reported in local. Field reports indicate that the fight was quite responsive for the first 10 minutes but then the node "missed its heart beat" as we call it and was removed from the cluster by our cluster integrity watchdog routines. This again is another exciting problem as we can address that as well under our StacklessIO world and that will be the subject of the next blog.
REF: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=588
This is almost 2 years ago folks, and things were better then BY FAR than they are now. Has anyone looked back here perhaps??
|
Echo Watts
|
Posted - 2010.06.24 20:29:00 -
[336]
Easy
Quote #1: 1600 in fleet Quote #2: 1100 in local
Quote #1: never claimed to support 1600 Quote #2: performance went in the toilet after 10 minutes with 1100
They really aren't conflicting statements. To me it reflects a lack of progress in 2 years, more than anything else. |
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.06.24 21:08:00 -
[337]
Originally by: Echo Watts Easy
Quote #1: 1600 in fleet Quote #2: 1100 in local
Quote #1: never claimed to support 1600 Quote #2: performance went in the toilet after 10 minutes with 1100
They really aren't conflicting statements. To me it reflects a lack of progress in 2 years, more than anything else.
No, sorry but that's just not true. I can tell you from personal experience that 250 vs 250 was easily doable in Apocrypha. Every since Dominion, anything more than 25 vs 25 is a crap-shoot. When you have a gang of 20 jumping from one empty system to another, and you routinely get 2-3 minute gate timers and even disconnects then something is badly wrong. It did NOT used to be like that.
And the problems started immediately after Dominion. How is this even in dispute - there are a legion of posts dating in early december attesting to this.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Cinori Aluben
Minmatar Gladiators of Rage Honourable Templum of Alcedonia
|
Posted - 2010.06.24 21:28:00 -
[338]
Originally by: Echo Watts Easy
Quote #1: 1600 in fleet FLEET FIGHT, including both sides Quote #2: 1100 in local 69% is pretty close, esp considering on a Gaussian distribution of fleet fight sizes this would be more than 2 standard deviations from the mean easily... AND this was 2 years ago
Quote #1: never claimed to support 1600 Translation - don't try to start this size battle currently bc it'll never materialize Quote #2: performance went in the toilet after 10 minutes with 1100 But they were able to start the battle, and for 10min is was working! Nowadays it won't even start working, let along stop after it's already begun
They really aren't are significantly enough conflicting statements. To me it reflects a lack of progress in 2 years, more than anything else, and in fact a degradation backwards.
Corrected :)
|
Aineko Macx
|
Posted - 2010.06.25 18:24:00 -
[339]
Can any dev please give an update on any of the following issues which keep being thrown into the "lag" basket?: - The grid load issue - The excessive amount of traffic control - The client side performance issues associated with fleets - Actual server lag
That would be GREAT.
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.06.27 18:28:00 -
[340]
Originally by: Aineko Macx Can any dev please give an update on any of the following issues which keep being thrown into the "lag" basket?: - The grid load issue - The excessive amount of traffic control - The client side performance issues associated with fleets - Actual server lag
That would be GREAT.
Or, you know, any god damb information at all would be nice.
Because CCP are doing a remarkably good imitation of ignoring the issue.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
|
Tester128
|
Posted - 2010.07.01 19:47:00 -
[341]
Edited by: Tester128 on 01/07/2010 19:47:09 as of tyrannis 1.0.3 the lag threshold hit the new low - now the first signs of modules stopping responding are visible at about 90-100 ppl in local
|
Aineko Macx
|
Posted - 2010.07.02 13:11:00 -
[342]
Edited by: Aineko Macx on 02/07/2010 13:15:06 Since I learned that for CCP the existence of stuck guns/modules was little more than a rumor, let's add it to the list of "lag" issues. EDIT: Split into pre and post-Dominion issues.
General "lag" issues: - Stuck guns/modules - Actual server lag
Post-Dominion issues: - The grid load issue - The excessive amount of traffic control - The client side performance issues associated with fleets - Actual server lag (yes, again, as with Dominion it got worse)
|
Zoon Muidac
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.07.05 17:23:00 -
[343]
I dont think ccp get Eve.
Dev team are lucky to still have jobs imo.
|
Diomedes Calypso
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 18:10:00 -
[344]
Way too few reports outlining incremental improvements that you have made and steps you are cosidering to make sure that server problems when they do happen will be more neutral in their effect of player/sov game posistion
|
Darth Vapour
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 21:22:00 -
[345]
We are aware of the problem.......
and once we all are finished working on Incarna and DUST we'll get on fixing it. Unless we made Incarna and DUST just as badly, then we'll have to choose what to fix. If there is nothing new after that to focus on.
|
Ephemeral Waves
Silver Snake Enterprise
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 23:43:00 -
[346]
Originally by: CCP Fallout CCP Atlas' newest dev blog discusses our efforts to combat fleet lag, and shares some of the results of our investigations into the probable causes.
Please note: we are doing another test round on Singularity on Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 16:00 UTC. More information can be found in this thread.
So was this entire devblog just a bad joke? You've basically told the CSM "tough luck, hope you like walking in stations..."
I'd much rather be able to jump into an empty system with 30 of my friends without getting traffic control than having to worry about whatever horrible-game-breaking thing WiS will end up being.
|
Bel Arvardan
|
Posted - 2010.07.24 21:27:00 -
[347]
Edited by: Bel Arvardan on 24/07/2010 21:32:59 I somehow missed this dev blog when it came out and just read it for the first time, 5 minutes ago. It says: "...and we have some more permanent solutions in the pipes that will be deployed over the next few weeks."
Have they been deployed already?
Is Jon Bjarnason still working for CCP?
Quote: Imagine this: CCP is proud to releases next expansion, named "Stability" or "Refactorion", November 1st 2010. Changelog: - We fixed Fleet lag. - We removed the bounty system and a variety of other broken and obsolete game mechanics. - We introduce a complete rework of the UI, many different game features now share a common UI scheme. - We did nothing else. No new content, nothing. We have some new content in the pipe for 2011 though.
There is a guy named "whatever dude", he posted on KeMusTuGun and nailed it to the point: Lag is fixable at the expense of man hours. CCP will fix it if they are convinced that they will lose a significant amount of subscribers by NOT fixing it or the WIN a significant amount of new subscribers by fixing it. I think we can not convince them.
|
Nut Peasent
|
Posted - 2010.07.27 02:52:00 -
[348]
Well, I am new to this game (less than 2 weeks) and reading forum and seeing this when I login.
I think CPP made some progress, by manually halting battle and send everybody home ...
|
Monkey Saturday
Unknown Soldiers The Spire Collective
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 13:14:00 -
[349]
"We are aware of the problem".
Well duh, you have to be aware of something to actively ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist...
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page] |