CCP Apologizes for HED-GP Performance

Avatar
I'm really not as angry because they gave me 3 fedos, a 100mn mwd and t1 salvager at xmas.
Avatar
Once you loaded every thing worked all be it slowly. Took me about 10 min to get my drones to shoot my target DD timers ranged from 1hour 20 min to 2 hours. Turrets worked as well otherwise we would not have lost any dreads or carriers.
Avatar
Thats because we could not switch hardeners on.
Avatar
I had a blast not before the fight or during the fight but after the fight watching CFC cry about how we hacked, CCP screwed them ect ect. Made it all worth it to see the continued stream of tears that shall support me for weeks.I also managed to do a few loads of laundry have lunch watch some TV so not all was lost while we destroyed over 300 dreads.
Avatar
So people should just stop playing eve, problem solved.
Avatar
Reading Comprehension 101: Bacca is saying that the article is not moaning.
Avatar
Those Dread pilots shouldn't have dressed so provocatively... Rape was inevitable. When player generated content oversteps the bounds of what's profitable for us to deploy, it's a hazard to our business model of providing player generated content.
Avatar
Yep, last time there was a fight in grid this size CFC held the field first and TEST charged in anyway. No one knew at the time that 4000 people is around what a system cap was and only about two third of TEST's fleets hit the field at once. They lost due to bugs and numbers issues while the CFC got the most press and a crushing victory. Stop complaining, get there first.
Avatar
How dare the CFC try to fight ships in this internet spaceship fighting game.
Avatar
May not be fun but it sure as hell worked =] and since when did the cfc promote fun, I remember mittins preaching "NO FUN ALLOWED" in there last few wars.
Avatar
DD's are affected by Tidi, not sure where you got that? More the Dreads who were stuck in server limbo for hours, all the while they were on grid almost the entire time.
Avatar
Or at least RUS/CFC dreads amirite
Avatar
Here is a better idea: All the people who have no professional experience in software development stop talking about threading.It's impossible to just "stop using" a single-threaded server architecture. You would have to completely rebuild the foundations of your core architecture which could literally take years of development time. It's also impossible to just put your existing application into the cloud without re-engineering it. Even if you could do that, chances are it's not going to magically make your problems go away as those are caused of your software architecture.In the end it's business decision on CCP's side. Expending the necessary development resources to solve this means that those resources will be missing somewhere else. Given the likely herculean size of this task it would mean solving a problem that at most occurs once a month at the expense of issues that objectively have a much bigger impact.
Avatar
HED-GP was coming from a mile away and is the exact reason as to why I quit this game for the forseeable future in November. If you think HED-GP is telling of a hardware issue you have not been paying attention these past eight years. CCP's game design is the problem. The "Centralization" of sov warfare and long/multiple reinforcement timers are deliberately designed to enocurage blobbing on this scale when the server hardware obviously can't handle it. This is only further compounded by massively overpowered supercapitals and gigantic hitpoint pools of said ships and the structures they spend most of their existance grinding down.TiDi was little more than buying time, it's not going to solve the underlying problem. There is no way to suprise attack anyone anymore because 48 hours later before the first system falls the defender will have half the galaxy on the doorstep on both sides before all hell breaks loose.These two factors won't go away without 6 hour reinforcement timers and 5 mil HP Titans with lower cost. Sov systems further away from a regions "core" should be easier to conquer than a central hub for example without outlying systems cutting it off.
Avatar
DUDES MY DOOMSDAY OWNED DAT MOROS&REV SHIT. HITTING F1 ONCE EVER 3 HOURS SO MUCH "FUN".
Avatar
CCP working on better capacity for large scale battles is awesome. That said, obviously the architecture isn't robust enough to sustain them beyond a certain threshold (today). The solution is to develop and test not to make claims about supporting said battles and then apologize. CCP needs to be realistic about what they can and cannot provide - this is just another example of over-promising.
Avatar
Has the apology taken away that stinging sensation from the collective CFC/RURUS tear filled eyes yet?
Avatar
I'm seriously thinking of unsubbing all 3 accounts until CCP fixes the lag issues. I don;t cre how long it takes or how expensive it is, just do it already.
Avatar
MLYP :v:
Avatar
Dude, at least we had a good thought on how to establish whilst still having room for an escalation. You have absolutely no idea on what you are talking about.
Avatar
smugging about turkey shots. PL 2014 but you were always a coward and valued easy kills over skill. next time when our 700 dreads are first on field, you will just stand down and throw out the "didnt want that system anyways"actually HED-GP finally unveiled the 100%winning strategy for every important timer. We will just faceplant our 50k coalition 24h earlier in a system and win the game.
Avatar
I guess next time when our 700dreads are first on field, we will just say the same thing to you when you try to jump stuff into system. But I guess you will rather stand down before.
Avatar
That is the point of your coallition, you don't have 700 dreads on the field hours before hand. You guys seem to act totally brainless.
Avatar
If my IT development and deployment took this long I would be fired. I can only assume that they don't have nearly the funding I do. This is likely because of bullshit side projects like world of darkness.
Avatar
They've had a team working on lag for over 3 years. When TiDi turned out to be a Band-Aid temporary solution that was "good enough" to buy they a few more years of server performance, that team stopped working on the lag problem. And CCP fired CCP Warlock in 2011 whose job it was to tackle the problem head-on and come up with a real plan to deal with it.
Avatar
Its like a sandbox. But 300 kids try to play in it at once.
Avatar
Agree completely. Part of fighting is also knowing and controling the nvironment in which you fight and a big part of this in the bigger fights is the server strain and the TIDI that you have to take into account. This is something the CFC has not been able to do.
Avatar
"it's refreshing to see CCP openly acknowledging the problems which overshadowed the battle and vowing to do better in the future."CCP didn't acknowledge shit. They said sorry yet acknowledged nothing. Feel free to keep giving the free pass for the fact that they encourage fleet fights and market the game as massive space battles, without doing what they need to in order to make the game functional in that regard. TiDi was a Band-Aid for battles that took place in 2009. This game cannot support fleet fights over 1,500 ships if drones are also involved. I have a fix: when a system goes into TiDi for more than 15 minutes in real time, all drones in the solar system are deleted and no new drones can be deployed. I bet we wouldn't see fleet comps designed to invoke TiDi and lag put out any longer.If CCP is going to continue encouraging massive space battles and taking credit when the server doesn't die because of one, they need to put their development krona and time into strengthening the game's ability to handle them on a more regular basis. Or they should just come out and acknowledge the fact that the system can't handle it and tell everyone "don't do it because our technology and code can't support it." Just be honest CCP: your ass can't cover the checks your marketing mouths keep writing and that it is unlikely to change because you're too busy building new deployable horseshit.Oh, and when they can't do something because it would be arbitrary, I wonder if it was arbitrary when they shut down the CFC staging system at the same time the CFC was forming? I'm not saying they did it on purpose or that it would have resulted in a different outcome. It wouldn't have. But it was fucking stupid. The staging system didn't need to be reinforced at that point. But HED sure as fuck needed it. Could you imagine if they had shut down HED at that time for a quick server remap after those guys had taken the time to be there early and set up their Laghammer fleet in advance? They would have rightly had a gripe about how arbitrary some things are.
Avatar
well thats constructive. Getting on grid first should NEVER effect the outcome of the battle it should give them the advantage of putting up defensive bubbles etc. but nothing more.Invulnerability until fully loaded for everyone. that would solve alot still there would be artefacts like jumping and nothing happens etc.and there should be a jump queue timer that if a jump takes more then 20m? then you should get an option to abort jump and reappear back where you started from. to counter the 6h warp lag tunnels of death.besides in Fountain in that battle test had not enough ppl to even have a fair fight with CFC im sorry but CFC held the system with numbers Test fleets had no chance and thats a fact. and when CFC dropped the caps to finish it off and Test decided to warp back to the fight not flee i got soulcrushing lags me to (and i was on grid). its All about numbers and when the Soulcrushing lag happens there should be a Safe loggoff button. for sanity ... if you get soulcrushing lag bad stuff happens on the server and ppl should be able to Safely loggoff
Avatar
Brain in Box will only allow people to get into the node quicker. It does nothing to solve lag on the node. That's TiDi and it can only go so far.Even if CCP makes a few adjustments, again it can only go so far to supporting large battles.How do you solve lag? By creating mechanics that spread battles across several systems. The following is my idea. It still needs fleshing out, but I feel it is moving in the right direction.---------------------Instead of sov being focused at the system level, it should be focused at the constellation level. iHub-type structures should be spread out over a constellation. Systems aren't taken, but constellations are. And the iHubs have to come down across a constellation within a similar time frame.This would spread out battles across multiple systems (and hopefully multiple nodes), which would help to reduce the effects of lag and TiDi. Instead of 3000+ people in a single system, you'd have 3000 people across a constellation. Every system in a constellation would have to be mapped to different nodes, of course.The problem is too many people in single systems. You want to spread people out without implementing artificial caps. And moving sov to a constellation level would/should accomplish this.Yeah, it would take more coordination, but the large nullsec blocs are capable of that sort of organization.-------------------------------Obviously the fleshing out part would involve not incentivising the defender from just piling into a single system to protect a single constellation iHub. One idea I'm floating would be all constellation iHub strengths are based on all iHubs being active. If one iHub goes down, the strength/HP of the rest drops by some percentage (1/N+1, where N = number of systems/iHubs in the constellation). Thus, there is incentive to defend all iHubs, just as there is incentive to attack them all.Anyhow, still needs more fleshing out ... but game mechanics that encourage battles to spread across a constellation seems like the only way to ensure that large battles can happen, but that they don't happen in a single system. As battles and coalitions get larger, CCPs servers can't keep up. This gives increased longevity to the game.
Avatar
I know how mutch job multithreading an old singlethreading program can beBut belive me when im saying dedicating a small group of programmers to on side track trying to do this for a year or two is not impossible.
Avatar
Been playing this game about a year. It has become apparent to me that EVE players LOVE to bitch and complain incessantly. Bitch about every single thing... Deployables that no use is seen for? Bitch and complain, rather than just not use them yourself. Node crash? Bitch and complain, rather than adjust tactics, etc. so that you can have battles without crashing the node. Its a game you have to adjust to, so freaking adjust already! If 4000 ships will crash a node, then don't have 4000 ship battles. Adapt and overcome people! I swear CCP could give us all a birthday cake with a bar of gold buried inside it and 7000 players would be bitching that the cake wasn't the flavor they like. Gimme a break. Seems like every single news item is guaranteed to be followed by 10,000 whiny-ass comments. Bunch a freaking whiny, annoying nerds....
Avatar
If you take a close look at the reimbursement policy you can see that it clearly states that there is no reimbursement for large fleet fights. Taking this further a mail saying so was sent to everybody who filed a petition to get their ships replaced and TheMitanni likely saw these mails and heard about this and probably read it himself. So.... Since he so obviously left out the part about the Reimbursement Policy for large fleet fights, I am going to take a ventured guess to say that this is a crafted piece of Propaganda. Nice work Mitanni.
Avatar
Still stuck in the jump tunnel CCP, apologies not accepted!
Avatar
Its much more interesting to bitch and moan about Eve than it is to actually play it.You're doing it wrong.
Avatar
How many devs does it take to code a piece of software like this? 1? could 2 get it done faster? Is there an upper limit to where diminishing returns on time occurs? If so, what number is that? Because just saying "throwing more devs at a project won't get it done faster" is just an assumption. So is the opposite, but somewhere in between lies the real truth. Just too many people say it won't work. I bet if there was just 1 guy doing it that 2 would speed it up. The question is: are the lag devs just trying to fix things in order to cope or are they doing something to ensure future growth?
Avatar
Turkey shoots are way more fun than that and that's saying something. At least in a turkey shoot your gun actually cycles. Over the course of 10 hours I was able to shoot about a dozen salvos. I would much rather have a fight than a turkey shoot if given the option. I'm not angry with CCP though. I really had expected the server to die as soon as the dreads started jumping in. I'm pretty baffled that it didn't.
Avatar
ohhhhhh...... Well that explains it then. I spend too much time actually playing, lol.Seriously, constructive ideas to CCP are great, the idea behind the CSM is great, but nerds crying over every single thing, not so much.Maybe, just a thought, CCP finds capsuleer tears to be fucking delicious.
Avatar
Come back when you understand a little more about the game and concept of n+1. It maye take more than a year of playing though. If 1500 people can enter a system to attack or defend an objective and the other side can't, you basically create a situation where one side can guarantee victory. It may be a valid tactic, but it shouldn't be a "working as intended" game mechanic.
Avatar
But see advertisements for it all over the place! Even Apple has one!
Avatar
When NC. loses a nyx due to a bug in a 'large player engagement' (there were lots of people there), CCP reimburses it.When NC.'s enemy loses their cap ships due to a 'large player engagement', too bad so sad.Clearly, someone is playing favourites.
Avatar
Avatar
You do that. Will make their obliterating your backfield a walk in the park.
Avatar
What would be a "constructive idea" from the player base beyond "make it right and fix yo shit." Many ideas have been given to them to change the gameplay that encourages fights like this in the first place to actually taking a couple of years with no new content to work on a full code re-write to get it current with today's tech. But this is a comment section. Therefore constructive ideas don't need to include rewriting their code for them. Paying customers bitch when things go wrong. Hell, non-payers bitch when things don't go their way. Service providers, especially those being paid for their service, either listen or they don't. Welcome to the real world.
Avatar
I sympathize but NC didnt make a tactical decision that put strain on the server leading to their own loss... That was a reproduced game bug.
Avatar
Does it really count as an apology when nothing is ever done to correct the situation and it keeps happening. Sorry I keep punching you in the face man!
Avatar
So is Soul Crushing lag, Super TiDi and node crashes. All bugs that can be reproduced.
Avatar
Yeah, it really wasn't that 'only the DD was working', it's that the DD had enough oomph to only need to work once to have an effect. In the future, you'll likely see more of the 'get assets into system in advance' being done. Heck, you may well wind up with assets on defensive picket up to a day before the timer.Also, the word you're looking for it 'albeit', not 'all be it'.
Avatar
Bunch of freaking whiny, annoying nerds.................which you are one of.
Avatar
They knew that something like was likely to happen. If they were smart, they would have tried to crash the shit out of the node with Domies, and jumped those dreads with BL all around the rear areas smashing the shit out of towers, dropping sub's and generally acting like J.E.B. Stewart on roids. Instead they did something stupid. Shit happens, burn Jita until CCP agrees to recode and otherwise move on.
Avatar
Of course not. But the players keep giving CCP a pass every time they do apologize. They apologize for lag. They apologize for shitty live events. They apologize for shit being released months late. They fix nothing, because they've learned that a simple apology is easier than devoting man-hours to a problem.
Avatar
Sorry does not mean apology! I feel so sorry having to bring such simple fact to the attention of TMC editor, reportedly a real life lawyer!
Avatar
1. Improve nullsec belts' PvE value (rats, ore) over high/low (truesec, farms & fields)2. Turn Titans into mobile hard-to-catch stations (the Shadoo-solution)3. Turn Supercarriers into mobile stations (Grath's Shadoo-extension)4. Greatly improve Tech II / III performance to Tech I subcaps (risk-reward re-rebalance)5. Deal with insurance (the SirMolle special, part of the risk-reward rebalance)6. Shift the balance of resources between hulls and modules (Garmon's more drops approach).7. Little things: Try to unfuck most of the stupid changes done in the past 5-6 years (gate-splitting nerfs to bubble/logi, logi- and ew buffs to Tech I subcaps, BC3, normalized damage types (projectile buff), ddamps, Falcon nerfs, damp buff, missile nerfs, BC rig buffs, probing buffs, scram buffs, decloaking buffs etc. etc.). Almost all of them made the game worse by making it less diverse.That's the core of the game fixed, so Infrastructure is no longer dominant for system control and economy.After that we can look at options to deal with the terrible infrastructure mechanics themselves, without hinging the entire core gameplay on that bet again (let's not repeat Dominion and have a system that looks better at first, yet never was good enough and ultimately ended up becomming worse.
Avatar
I can not believe you guys still think this is CCP's fault.
Avatar
So after the mess of HED-GP, I doubt I will be taking another expensive ship to anymore of these huge fleet fights. I wouldn't mind losing a expensive ship in a fight if I was actually able to fight. But to lose it with out being even able to do anything while I was stuck in a warp tunnel. That's just a waste of my time. I know CCP think that TiDi is much better then the black screen we used to get. But its not its just a different version of the same shit from the past. I would much prefer they focus there development team on fixing the lag problem for the large fleet fights, then bringing us a deployable like the ESS.
Avatar
Please link the sandbox mmo you have made, thanks.
Avatar
They are doing their jobs but every time they make it so the servers can handle the current number of people we try to put in one system we stuff more and more people into the system to the point of breaking it again.
Avatar
It's not a bug, it's a system limitation. A bug a error in the system code, the "soul crushing lag" is a design error.The server software can't scale process among multiple cpu's, which has to do with the way the python is being used, this would require a lot of rework to fix. Worst case scenario would be to rewrite most of the server side software, without using the current code written in python.If CCP acknowledge the problem as a reimbursable bug, more or less every large fleet fight would end with the losing side claim lag as the cause of defeat and would demand reimbursement.CFC got shafted hard, and it was not fair, but the real problem is that the system was designed to do act like it did, it was not an error or bug, it simply could not handle the work load.
Avatar
Hed-gp was a reproducable bug to. I'm sure if we do it again in same way, with same ships and same numbers we will get severe lag and weird glitches again.If CCP can't fix the software or hardware to allow this kind of fights then they need to nerf the crap out of the doctrines that cause it so people chose other options.Drone assist removed, carriers made fighters only. Sentry tracking and range reduced. Majority of probles solved. Then the fights will be determined by who bring the best combination of doctrines and use them best, rather then who get on field first with the most capitals. Give back a reason to use subcaps, let carriers stick to support roles like repairing things, moving ships and applying damage to other capitals.
Avatar
You are living up to your name.
Avatar
They did not reimburse our fighterbombers that we lost when the server crashed so if you really think they are playing favorites you are truly clueless. The nyx was a bug not a system being overloaded by thousands of players.
Avatar
Very hypercritical.CFC AKA Boat intentionally crashed the node to save their dreads in the Dy- fight a few weeks ago, then the node survives however struggles and it negatively affects them in the HED-GP fight.Can't have it both ways.abuse the server to crash it to save their fleet one week, cry to CCP because the server assisted in their deaths the next.
Avatar
An invul timer would have been nice that's for sure, or some option to turn back.At 6VDT though TEST had about 2200ish people ready to jump into system whereas the CFC had about 2700ish (don't quote me on exact numbers I honestly forget). Only about 1300 were able to bridge in though since the CFC held the field and the system capped around 4000. Kudos to the CFC for being in system first and also replacing every tower in system.Kind of like what PL did in HED. Sure, there's a problem and it needs fixing, but what the CFC should have learned from winning at 6VDT was how important holding the field is in the current meta. It was a bad idea to jump and anyone from the TEST side now in the CFC (lookin at you ENL-I) should have seen the writing on the wall and screamed for caps to not jump in or at the least make room in system by taking 1 or 2 domi fleets out of system. It's the new meta, coalitions have to get with it until CCP does something about it.
Avatar
"outrageous oversimplification" .....
Avatar
Really dissapointing but as you learn to expect from CCP :(
Avatar
You know god damn well why HED was lag to shit. Who dafuq drops 700 capitals on the same grid with 1,000 domi's. Let's face you beaten by you own tactics nothing more.
Avatar
Ok, let's take for a moment the idea that this isn't a 'bug' - that this is not, in fact, an unintended and deleterious consequence of CCP's code not being properly written. That would mean that this is the intended result: that fights at the high end of the spectrum are rapidly becoming once again completely untenable.Now let's look at the fact that CCP used both Asakai and 6VDT as promotional materials. That they have, in fact, advertised having the largest fights in online gaming history, and that the fights are only getting bigger. They've advertised this as 'we give you what you can't get anywhere else'.Well, at this point, there's a case to be made that they don't. That all of the hype over Asakai and 6VDT (which were both heavy lag + soul-crushing tidi, but everything worked, even if it took forever) was smoke and mirrors.For just a moment, think in terms of 'I run CCP' and ask yourself which you want to claim this was: a bug, or fraudulent advertizing?
Avatar
Since you sound so upset over it, perhaps you should.
Avatar
Heres the thing, people have said it before, but I'll say it againThe more ccp does to improve performance (be it upgraded hardware, more efficient coding, or whatever else), it wont make any difference, cause Eve players will just escalate moreArtificial caps on number of pilots in system wont work either, cause what if the first mover gets like 70%+ of the quota.What CCP needs to do, is place greater emphasis on smaller engagements, (e.g. instead of 2000 x 2000 maybe 1000 x 1000). This can be done with ship bonus's, changes to the fleet system & fleet bonus's, and by changing the current grinding nature of sov
Avatar
You will do what Mittani tells you. So go rat, buy another dread and sacrifice to the n3 Gods.
Avatar
You reached a whole new level of bittervet
Avatar
Really disappointed as usual. we pay we play they do nothing :(
Avatar
It has nothing to do with the quality of the code, EvE uses stackless python which can't use multiple cpu, no matter how you write the code.Read the following if you don't believe me;http://stackoverflow.com/quest...http://www.stackless.com/piper...I don't think this is something that is going to change anything seem.
Avatar
I played for about 4 years and in that time we went from soul crushing lag with 1000+ players in system, to soul crushing lag with 4000+ players. CCP has made progress against the lag monster.The problem in this instance is that players have learned to fill the gap. We'll always fill the gap. If CCP snapped its fingers and tomorrow was able to accommodate 20,000 players in a single system, we’d find away to crash the node by cramming it with 20,001 players.
Avatar
It's like you guys all have "fetal alcohol syndrome". Next time don't drop 700+ caps on the same grid with 1,000 domi's + our shit.
Avatar
If nerds would pick their battles and bitch about selected items, that's fine, but no, in EVE its constant bitching about everything.
Avatar
And I'd posit that the choice of stackless python directly affects the quality of the resultant code. It'd be even worse if they'd tried writing EVE in freakin' TinyMU* softcode, for example.Just because the system needs a massive overhaul on the back end doesn't mean it's not functioning improperly. It just means that the improper function isn't the result of typos.
Avatar
Possibly modification to your idea: iHubs form a sovereigny network, and, as you say, as each comes down, the strength of the rest drops, but once a certain percentage of the total fails, the network itself fails. So, you know you have to keep any x iHubs alive to defend, or destroy any x iHubs in a constellation to successfully destroy SOV. That way they can't just pile in to save a specific iHub.Time could be a factor as well: the iHubs have to fall within a certain amount of time to trigger a SOV change, encouraging attackers to split their forces, and/or once a certain threshhold is reached for damaged/destroyed iHubs, it slowly degrades towards failure, encouraging defenders to split forces between defending against attacking ships and repping operations.Just spitballing.
Avatar
You could make a good case for saying that the real idiots are the people who keep complaining about the game but keep paying their subscription.CCP is a business. They don't care if you complain, they don't care if you threaten to unsub, they do care if you actually stop giving them money.
Avatar
Limiting a node to a number of ships will never work. A team will stack the node prior. and with the ever changing nature of power blocks within eve limiting the node to X amount of pilots per block will not work and would create more load on the servers.Power blocks/alliances just need to learn to work with server limits. N3 didnt launch all of their FB and didnt jump in all their supers/titans. the only explanation i have for CFC to drop everything on grid is for the intention to crash the node and reset sov.
Avatar
blame is not on CCP for one battle here or there. Blame falls when that becomes the status quo and expectations are poorly managed. If you're content with the game as it is from a playability perspective, like avoiding fights because the game can't handle them, then obviously you would find all this unimportant. But I can't imagine that PL or N3, or anyone else who reportedly want "gudfites" using mass numbers of players would want the game to become a series of fight not taken because of server stability.
Avatar
I think all nullsec blocs, big and small, should call a temporary ceasefire and work together to perma burn Jita and every other trade hub until CCP speaks out on their intentions for playability. It's a pipedream, but they only begin to get it when their hisec cash cow is put in jeopardy. That is obvious from their "apology" being empty of any and all comments about where they see the future of the game in regard to how their servers handle mass numbers of players, drones and other things the server needs to track.
Avatar
The problem with this approach is CCP will then say: "OK, the problem is fixed" and never do anything about the lag issues.
Avatar
Ke$ha's pretty awesome.
Avatar
They have the funding, CCP is just a "family company" with and thus inefficient as fuck.In all areas, not just server software development.
Avatar
Lol, neither of those are apologies, those are called standard corporate responses. It's like in retail if you don't have what they want to buy, you say I'm sorry we can't help you with this particular item, we'll try and get it in stock as soon as possible, is there something else I can help you with? You're neither sorry, or likely to try to get the item in stock, but it's an expected response so you spit it out.
Avatar
no matter what CCP does to improve server stability, it's a losing battle. what happens once 4k+ battles run (relatively) smoothly? right, the blocs will shitpile 5k oder 6k players, and the same thing starts over and over again
Avatar
CCP has done a considerable amount and they have supplied gamers the ability to take part in such large scale conflicts. Losing those dreads due to an infrastructure failure in their behalf is sad, but it comes with the territory.
Avatar
I am having a hard time turning back on the game since the battle. I feel cheated. First they (CCP) put our (CFC) deployment system on the same node as HED then when the battle starts the game does not allow us to shoot back or activate defensive mods. It is hard to not blame an employee of CCP for trying to screw us. (ME) I want to log on and play just to prove to whoever did the deed that they failed but it is hard after seeing this type of response from CCP. I play everyday looking forward to this type of battle and to have it stolen from me because of this type of failure on the company side is just too much. I am done for a while. CCP can expect to lose 2 more accounts. You know I didn't even lose my ship I made it out okay somehow. It isn't about the ship or the lose of the battle it is the fact i feel screwed by CCP for the loss of the best possible battle in the history of eve. there will never be another one like it.
Avatar
Stop crying over this and deal with it!!!
Avatar
"Sorry you don't get to play today, we're only going to let so many people into this fight that's going to be awesome and lots of fun."
Avatar
Pure bullshit, they'll just send them "apologies" to get you off their necks. Proper hypocritical customer support work done, nothing to see here.
Avatar
Well as we all have seen lately, TiDi doesn't reduce lag.It's a shitty workaround that eventually stacks on top of the lag to make the game not only unplayable (as it was with lags before) but also consumes hours on hours in this unplayable condition. Good job indeed.So there you go, that's your flaw and the tip is to fix this. Go on then, get to it.
Avatar
now how about all those crys from CFC that ccp had replaced there ships..... spin neone????
Avatar
please link another sandbox mmo that can handle 4000 people in one place without breaking the entire game
Avatar
.
Avatar
as iv just said they fix it for 4000 people then u will just get an even bigger dogpile to brak it more
Avatar
because the super wasnt due to people dogpiling in when they knew server was at max it was due to a code fault
Avatar
can i haz ur stuffz?????
Avatar
can u show me a fix or even a game that can cope with that many players in one place at once to even make a starting point from???
Avatar
cfc slogan were not here to ruin the game just ur game ..... well it was there game that got ruined by there actions and now ther crying
Avatar
not as much as 1500 subs and then a dogpile of 700 dreads the 700 dreads and maybe 2-300 subs to start with woulda got some of the job done and wen some shits cleared off field bring more in
Avatar
if it did stay stable at 4000 goons would drop even more just to break shit
Avatar
TIDI is not cosmetic at all, if you were arsed to read the dev blogs regarding tidi you would know this. I've been here from the start, on and off, and again you saying that CCP has done nothing about lag is as far from the truth as it can get.Where I WILL criticize CCP is from the game design innovation front. Sov needs iterating, right now. We need a proper expansion with content. We need modular POSes and farms and fields. These are the things that will bring people back and give CCP the financial boost it needs to sort lag again.
Avatar
That's a dumb argument, as it denies any need for progress, in general.
Avatar
They didn't fail. Your leaders knew the limitations, chose to ignore them, and you all paid the price.
Avatar
no it isnt it just means any progress ccp make it will just get pushed back to broke as it always does... please show me another game that can cope with 4000 people in one place and doesnt break
Avatar
Your logic is flawed. The fact that there are no other games that are performing well with 4000 players in one place - does not mean at all that this game shouldn't be fixed to perform well with 4000 players in one place. Very simple, really, not fixing existing faults/issues because the product might fail in the future is dumb. Clearly you have zero experience in the field.
Avatar
there is no other game or benchmark for a start to build a sytem that could accept that many people therefore progress is bound to be slow when working on something like that
Avatar
You have to remember, CCP logs are North of the Wall, and Jon Snow was put in charge of this part of the game. And Jon Snow...
Avatar
Burn jita doesn't exactly seem like a pass...Neither does the forum threads after that terrible live event
Avatar
Wait for it.... ccp mintchip will sort this out.....
Avatar
Your persistence with being wrong is impressive. I haven't said anything about being slow, I've said about malfunctioning.TiDi right now malfunctions up to the point it lags out as well. I don't care about being slower, as long as it properly functions, e.g. keeping proper track of client-server comms for all involved, be it slower by ten times. It also doesn't interact well with systems that have no TiDi, and the mechanics there is simply incomplete. I don't see why would you argue against requests to fix faulty features in a product, unless you directly profit from it. Any company that values their customers AND fears competition wouldn't release raw, faulty features to the end user. CCP simply has no competition, so they actually can listen to the likes of you and do nothing.
Avatar
tidi worked upto a point and held stable fights but now sheer numbers surpass tidi and break it again if ccp could stable tidi to say 50% @ 4000 players then more players will dogpile into system and break it again seein as there is no hard cap on numbers.... carry on with ur invalid argument if u had a solution then your point would actually mean something but seeing as u have no solution and neither does any other game developer then this is how it has to be
Avatar
That's called demand and supply. When i develop a product that is restricted performance wise, I make sure to annotate and warn (and in most cases - block) the ability of the user to reach these restrictions and have a poor experience as a consequence. This is what's called "good practice" in the industry. If i fail to achieve that, I'll make sure to come open about it, explaining and fixing the issues as quick as I can, before developing other features for the product. This is again - good practice. CCP wants the game and these battle to become more massive, that's where their income comes from, hence they have the motive to further expand the capabilities. I am not looking for flawless performance 24/7, that would be naive. I am looking for clear messages such as: " We know we have a problem, we are on it" or "We know we have a problem - don't get into mass fights since we can't fix this". Instead there's usual "server works fine" bullshit every time. Simply because they have no competition. You'll get the point when(if) you get to work in developing.
Avatar
Number of devs optimal for project can be found by trying and measuring performance. And after 10 years working on the game, CCP should have a good idea of how many people is needed to work on the server optimization.My main point was that getting new content can be done at the same time as working on improving performance. Nothing wrong about that.And your last question is a good one, I am actually curious about it myself. We can only hope that CCP are doing something bigger than local optimizations of code.
Avatar
Know exactly how you feel we'll never know if PL's wrecking ball would have stood up to 800+ dreads and eventually supers shooting at them. HED-GP will go down in history for me not as the "I was there moment" but " I wish i wasn't there".
Avatar
I see people here not blaming CCP and pinning this on CFC because of them dropping more numbers into an overloaded system, but what none of you seem to realize that the reason this is CCP's fault is because all any alliance needs to do is drop a large group of fleets in a given system that they need to hold for strategic reasons, to prevent a hostile fleet from engaging. If you have 1600 friendlies in a system, the hostile force needs at least an equal amount to counter.This is an exploit, and it needs to be addressed.
Avatar
Lmao in a system already overloaded you want to jump more ships in and cry when it goes pear shaped. Fucking CFC cry me a river.
Avatar
This highlights why lag isn't actually the problem. It's Sov. We need a reason to split up, instead of dogpile.
Avatar
Maybe is there is a big fight they have to put the server in simple mode, removing all non essential information. Like for example the shadow of the titan that is going to DD me
Avatar
You seem to lack some basic understanding of how the game works if you think the server cares about a Titan's shadow...
Avatar
thats all client sided calculations, the part the server does is tell you if you died from it or not
Avatar
I'm pretty sure all eyecandy is computed client-side.What CCP really needs to do is rewrite the backend to utilize all the cores they have in the server farm.
Avatar
It's easy to say sorry but they won't do anything about it ... it's always the same talk from CCP
Avatar
The GenEVE-A Convention. I like this.
Avatar
You have not been playing long enough to understand highsec never might sov mechanics & fleet comps... stop you're shit posting!
Avatar
Implementing a solution that will fail in the future is equally as dumb. Go on and talk about your "experience in the field".So how many people should the game be able to handle on one grid for you to be fixed? 2000? 5000? All of them?
Avatar
Today I learnt that computers have agency. No wait, they do not. You are just a moron making a stupid rape analogy.
Avatar
EVE is playing the best it has ever played, just two years ago it was a struggle to load 1000 people in system, now we can get 4000, all this hate for CCP is pathetic, it strikes me as spoilt children moaning because they got beaten.You little boys need to grow up.
Avatar
You are retarded in so many ways it hurts. Please stop talking.
Avatar
I don't know about you, but when a game is not capable of supporting one of its key selling points, in this case grand emergent gameplay, that tends to be a problem.
Avatar
This is the utter truth. The whole story behind the fight shows the CFC/rusrus lead piling poor decisions and blaming CCP when their poorly chosen zerg fleet gets hammered by an optimal prepared and more adequate "task force".
Avatar
What you said is right. Not implementing a solution at all is even dumber. I'd like to think there's a solution that will require developing as well as re-designing various aspects of the mechanics.The only ones who can say "we can't solve this issue, and won't be ably to supply for the future needs" are CCP, not random shitlords such as yourself. And saying so will probably hurt them. Hence their policy of not fixing shit, and not admitting to issues at all. Solely because there's no competition.I wouldn't know where i wan't to put the cap on people, I think the only way to avoid being capped out in the future (i mean if they even fix the current cap) is working on such mechanics that will discorauge gatherings of players above the cap number. That on it's own is a serious problem, one that i don't take lightly ( not even sure i can offer my own version of the solution) but it has to be done.
Avatar
Much obliged for your clear and sound *opinion*
Avatar
They way I see it is they should introduce longer skillQ solely for the purpose of a one day shutdown in which they could do all mumbo jumbo HW upgrades they need.
Avatar
Name me one other game that comes close to the sheer size of battles that EVE can put on? How is it not capable? EVE did fine before 4k people in a system and fine with just 1k people for years, we have always pushed the nodes to their limit and now is no different, people have always moaned about lag/tidi and nothing will change that, people will simply log in more alts or have bigger coalitions in fights if they can get more toons in a system.Its just a shame this game has descended into a simple numbers game rather then actual player skill.
Avatar
If CCP's technology can no lobger support the game mechanics, then they need to chnage those mechanics.Specifically sov neds to be totally reworked to discourage 4000 man blob fights that the severs can't handle.
Avatar
Bloody I-phone keypad :(
Avatar
CCP advertises a specific product when it comes to Eve, that of the emergent sandbox. Whatever other games happen to support is irrelevant as it is a matter of what experience CCP has promised to deliver in EVE. As it stands CCP's hardware isn't capable of supporting the sandbox in the peak of play, meaning they have to either expand their infrastructure, or redesign the sandbox to reduce the pressure. Which they will choose, if they do anything at all is unknown, but based on their past performance I suspect they will attempt to do as they have done with other "difficult" problems and just sweep it under the rug for later down the line.
Avatar
That is one way to spin it I suppose.There is a very good reason why the dreads lost in HED where not reimbursable, you can call it CCP sticking by their policy, but there is also reason behind that policy. So you may spin it like its a personal apology from ccp to the losers of that battle, for some sort of fault on CCPs end, But you can also take it to mean that its a pretty standard thing to do, its just good marketing policy because apologies are free.From my perspective its like saying, "well, we are sorry that there are limitations to the technology." I would much rather that they say straight out, "look, you cant expect server resources to be limitless, next time maybe you should factor it into you decision-making process, that mass jumping a fleet into a loaded system will result in problems because the load is so much higher when jumping." Instead of just giving a standard apology that while being a good marketing move it is not something you can build on.More transparency and less tiptoeing please.
Avatar
The hardware's not the issue. The software is. And that, they can implement changes on during downtime - once those changes get made. Unfortunately, making those changes is a rather extensive undertaking that more or less means re-writing the entire game.
Avatar
The hardware, by all indications, can handle it just fine. Keep in mind that CCP's said that the other cores in the dedicated supernode are being used for heat dissipation when one of these massive tidi-fests happen. If the software were up to snuff, it would be the workload being shared out, and heat dissipation wouldn't even be an issue.
Avatar
"The logs show nothing, Jon Snow"?
Avatar
I think there is an unwillingness to change the game mechanics for precisely the reasons that Two Step describe in his article. The huge battles are a publicity treasure chest when they happen. We owe it to the game to press CCP on the matter of the game mechanics which lead to these battle so the server-infrastructure can keep up with the scale of the battle and not allways be 10 steps behind. However I think the majority of players unfortunately subscribe to the very unrealistic and shortsighted "GET BETTER SERVERS" wiewpoint.
Avatar
*raises my hand*Here's my predictions:Shit will happen.Babies will be born.People will die.Lather, rinse, repeat.
Avatar
Mechanics that actually encouraged an active fortification of a front, with elements spread out through a number of systems in position to attack/defend/counterattack in response to enemy movements would be wonderful, really. Unfortunately, force projection capability undermines that - and removing force projection capabilities would only penalize the smaller organizations in the game; the ones who aren't actually triggering these scenarios in the first place.
Avatar
If Ford makes a promise that their car will get you to your destination, and you say that you want to go to the moon, is Ford breaking their promise, or do you just have completely unrealistic expectations?Use a little common sense; there will always be limitations. When you push past those limits, things break. To expect otherwise is fantasy.
Avatar
name one other game that depends on the sheer size of battles to attract new players and keep the current player base. if CCP decided to, say, impose hard limits on the amount of players in a system (perhaps some few hundred or so as is common in other MMOs), player numbers would start plummeting within weeks and the game would probably cease to exist within a year or so.
Avatar
They had 900, you brought 3000... you exceeded a 1:3 numerical advantage. In what way did you attempt a "gudfite"?Dear Leader mentioned some double-digit number of Dreads to volley Slows, yet you decided to bring 700. He was actually onto something, though instead you choose to execute in some elaborate fashion of retarded overkill.I hear you though, it must have been their drones that was the problem again ;).
Avatar
Can anyone defend what happened in HED on its own merits rather than 1. Comparing the past 2. Comparing to other games?
Avatar
Check the back end, usually slips in there.
Avatar
Guild Wars 2, MAG, Planetside 2.
Avatar
Pretty sure you're smoking crack or talking out of your arse. Did you look the game up at all? Read about times prior to tidi when 2000 people would crash a node at best? Hundreds of threads complaining of modules not cycling, grids not loading, ships simply being lost and other issues?They dont simply sell the game off of its battles scales, they do it off the fact that you as the individual can affect the whole game, they tend to have advertisements that show off you the player could become something huge, hero or villain etc. I mean just look at the last couple of ads they released, not size but depth was what they advertised.
Avatar
You mean how coca cola shows that if you binge on nothing but it and dont take care of yourself you will become a human slug?
Avatar
You all need to stop speaking without knowing what you're talking about. I facepalmed myself a dozen times reading the comments of this article. The hardware exists and is relatively cheap, most of those spaceship battles seem to be N body interactions (bumping as an example) and they can definitely run for a while on a single high end computing GPU considering some persons are capable of simulating really high end physics and pretty complex with millions of interactions to be computed, all smoothly. There's even been a lot of work put onto making tools that can be integrated rather easily without rewritting everything but I'm guessing CCP killed it by demultiplicating layers in their source codes (such tools are OpenMP and MPI). There's even tools that manage dynamic scheduling together with it that (for system and node assignement for example, and some even use histories to learn by themselves what's the most performant patterns & whatnot). And I might add that for having seen a few high end physics codes (nuclear, weather simulations, ...) there are many ways to couple physics and computing kernels together with "traditional" portable layered object code, coming out with something rather maintainable and intelligently made.Secondly if the problem is about the database AFAIK there exists distributed databases some even have even pretty high performances and you could probably make it so values are spread accross servers with minimal tweaking (but yet again I don't know CCP's architecture, but I see how you could do this).Also some nerds actually work in this field (and I'm one of those), the field being High Performance Computing and being on the rise since a couple of years and I'm sure CCP could find a couple of those rather easily.As last words I would indeed say this is CCP's fault it is unacceptable that past a point a side has to say "well fuck it no way we can get on grid without crashing this up and getting raped". If they don't plan on improving their code they should at least come up with a "small" AI giving pop-ups to anyone trying to get on grid to a big fight when its recognized side already has say, 1000 persons there.o7.
Avatar
I hope this makes CCP think about doing more work on core game mechanics.Even series of small but systematic changes could make devs ready for the big stuff in longer timeframe.I hope CCP's ceo has the balls to make it happen.
Avatar
"We hope to have some crunchy server-based data for our readers should that develop."Yeah. Wanna see CCP's "graph porn" with that CFC cyno spike of 700 dreads.....
Avatar
It's funny. When CFC dunked on TEST in 6V, it was considered being beat by your betters. Now that it happened to CFC, it's a turkey shoot... funny how everything always comes up milhouse huh?Also, they've been apologizing since before fountain. I'd rather see a post about the plans to either remove the need for 6 year old soccer tactics in nulsec, or the plans to buy that computer that plays jeopardy. I still don't know why people ven play in TIDI
Avatar
Name another game that says it can? If your car claims to get 60mpg, and you only get 40mpg, stop whining is not a reasonable response to the complaint
Avatar
or there would be battles in 5 systems simultaneously instead of 1.terrain causes dynamic battles.
Avatar
Why jump in? To see whether the servers could handle it.They couldn't. And now we all know.
Avatar
Over nine-thousand.(I feel dirty just typing that... damn DBZ)
Avatar
Of course I realize it - making EVE multithreaded would require an overhaul of pretty much the entire codebase. It would be a monumental undertaking - and one I suspect is quietly, frantically, being worked on as best they can in the background. Certainly there's an expectation that newly-coded systems (the new exploration systems, scanning reworks, etc etc) developed in the last two years should be written in such a way that at the very least, they aren't making the problem worse by themselves needing to be rewritten later. (ie: they're modular and self-contained chunks that are being called up by the python backbone, but aren't themselves written in stackless python.)
Avatar
Yes, because CCP's single-threaded software cares what your home configuration looks like.
Avatar
I see a lot of people comparing 6VDT to HED, saying, hey the node was just fine, we had 4000 ppl, there were dreads and slowcats as well!!!!!!First things first, on 6vdt CFC cyno'ed in, offgrid on multiple cynos, not on top of an overloaded grid.Secondly there were at most i will say 200 caps in systemThirdly there were megas and whatever n3+ test had. NOT 1500x5 wardens 500x10 Bouncers and 20x150 Fighter bombers.HED and 6VDT are not comparable, you know what is? Y-2 and HED, where PL never loaded grid just like you did, but they had the excuse that it has never been done before. You dont have any excuse, and if you dont learn by history you are doomed to repeat it."B-but the servers are bad and its ccp's fault for not allowing us to play the game we want"No, the servers are fine, they worked fine while you had 7-8 Domi fleets on grid shooting at things. Then you go full DERP and cyno in ongrid, gj.
Avatar
I dunno, that'd make it a game of 'take 1 system in the constellation, then defend your beachhead until everything you never shot crashes'.Maybe instead, IHUBs have lower base resists, and get a bonus of 0.25 * % of the constellation you hold/have IHUB'd? So if you hold the entire constellation, and have an IHUB in every system, they've got +25% resists above their normal (lower) amount.It would mean a tradeoff between max defense and having a JB into a constellation owned by another Alliance, but I think it's a more workable solution than 'Take out the IHUB in 1 system. Hold system for 1440 minutes, watch all the IHUBs across the Constellation crash.'
Avatar
what's the point in fighting in any other system than the one the timer is in?
Avatar
none of the three are as dependent on high player counts during one particular battle as EVE. frankly, all three barely even classify for what i would call large scale battles.
Avatar
No, it doesn't amount to the same thing. A hardware issue is a matter of adding more hardware (distributing the processes across more cores in a cluster, for example). Basically just a 'throw money at it, gimme fix NOW' scenario where the company can say 'we thought we had this, we'll get it better!'The software issue is one they know about - one they have known about for years. They've known the single-threading limitation of stackless python was going to cripple EVE's scalability since the chipmakers first started putting out processors that ran more cores, instead of just higher clock speeds.They've already had years to work on the back end - years when they knew this was coming.
Avatar
Saying it would be better if CCP changed the environment is like saying it would be better if Tanks could fly. The environment is part of a good fight and manipulating that environment is a big part of winning that good fight. I am not going to sit here and bash the FC that jumped in those ships because although it may have been a mistake he may not of known what would happen but hopefully he learned something from this loss.
Avatar
Eve does not depend on large battles to sell itself. The vast majority of it's transient population never do more than play alone in a high sec asteroid belt. These large battles are fought by the same group of people, not an ever-rotating roster. Again with the 'Eve would die in no time if it weren't for......' - Eve has been around for a decade, thru good and bad. It's not going to fold up overnight because a couple whiners don't get their way. What we want are GOOD fights. Bigger isn't always better, and there comes a point of diminishing returns. Eventually you get Soul Crushing TiDi, glitchy nodes, and die to game bugs more than enemy fire. THAT is not what sells Eve.
Avatar
"Any losses of any kind resulting from a large-scale player engagement are not covered by this reimbursement policy."Found within http://community.eveonline.com...And I used to have an account it just wont let me login. As for you I would reccomend looking into a persons arguement before trying to bash their credit, otherwise you just look stupid. v0v
Avatar
Amen. Goons seem to have this belief that CCP should make them immune to realistic constraints that they know are there before something like this happens. When the enemy lags out and gets annihilated the CFC spews smug self importance for the next month. When the CFC lags out and gets annihilated however, it's buckets of tears and BS accusations that CCP is the negligent party. You want to solve the problem CFC? Grow a brain and stop relying 100% on numbers. You are terrible at this game, and people who are bad at internet spaceships get theirs blown up. No surprise there.
Avatar
nicely put
Avatar
They didnt exactly "fill" the system, N3/PL had less than a thousand ships on the field. That is NOT enough to gain an advantage by pushing server capacity. CFC/Rus had over 2500 ships, so who exactly filled the server? I think someone needs to stop playing the victim here. Its getting pretty sad. They lost, because the FCs made countless mistakes, Im not saying it wont be a matter of numbers next time, but this time arguing that N3/PL won the system by pushing the server capacity is extremely dumb, because someone else did that for them.
Avatar
Instanced PvP anyone? The Star Citizen proposed instancing is looking very good...and it's not even out yet.
Avatar
Why? why would a hard cap on player in a system be a problem?? I say limit the number of people you can put in a system. that will force better fights
Avatar
Yea it will be for the people in the system.... and now you can take your space ship to the other system they own that they cannot defend right now because they are too busy in the first system... now there are two fights instead of just one super laggy one
Avatar
oh dear lord... I was saying the consequences are the same in either case. It can't easily be fixed!Throw money at the servers! and then what? the extra capacity gets used up and you end up in the same situation, they tried that already remember? we used to have 1500 ship battles that were even more shit than now, and now people want more capacity again.So the software solution would require a full reprogramming in a language that supports multithreading right? Good luck with that, how do you think it will turn out when no new expansions come out for a couple of years because the dev teams are fully occupied. There is a reason why it has not been done yet, expansions = subscriptions. Locking up that much resources to fix the lag in some extreme situation that only affects a minority WOULD KILL THE GAME. Caps for emphasis. Of course they have known about it for years, but they chose a course of action that was better for the game overall.Both ridiculously unrealistic options and no one has a time machine either they can use to go back and tell the devs, "HEY, dont use python!".Fixing the game design FIRST, is a lot more realistic.
Avatar
Opp, we are sorry we F-ed up and it cost you 100's of dreads and a station system, by allowing only one side to actually shoot. But no we won't give you back the ships or system, have a nice day. Signed CCP :)
Avatar
Wow, do you all REALLY believe this was a CCP fuckup??!??! If so, I'd really hate to be your therapist, because your grasp on reality is unbelievably skewed.
Avatar
So you guys fill one system with more players than most games have on one server and you're bitching about the node being negatively impacted? Push things to their limits and these things happens, get over it.
Avatar
To be fair, CCP didn't cost anyone a station system. -A- cost -A- a station system.
Avatar
Yes, I know they already tried throwing money at it. That was rather my point: if it was just a hardware issue, that would continue to be an option. It's not.As for a full recode taking years with no expansions - I disagree. It would certainly take years, but that doesn't need to be the only thing being worked on in those years. Let's take a look at things that wouldn't need the attention of the actual primary code team that could be worked into an expansion:New ships / ship re-balancing.New art assets.Additional regions of space.In addition, there's more than just the primary code team that can work on development and update of systems - all a secondary team would need to do is make sure that an updated coded system returns data to the main code backbone in the same format as the old one, and that entirely new systems are built in such a way as to be able to interface with the current code, and able to be easily altered to fit newer code. Both of these things can be achieved by having the new/updated system coded for the new code, and for now hand off its data to a translation function that makes it all pretty for the current code.If you read most of my other comments, you might notice that I strongly suspect this is already in-progress. Brain-in-a-box is a part of it - one that will almost certainly be largely modular, so the 'we're dealing with character skills' section of the 'go through all of X for this ship and give me final numbers to use' code can be filed off, and replacement chunks of 'we're dealing with system effects' or 'we're dealing with module alterations' or 'we're dealing with fleet boosts' bolted on.But you definitely don't have to shut down other development while you're working on the recode behind the scenes. What you do have to do is actually start working on it, and tell your players that you are. Responsiveness and transparency earn a lot of karma.
Avatar
First line is incorrect.RUS / CFC were the defending forces
Avatar
if only the client side or the internet connection was the issue (hint: it's not)
Avatar
I bet you're on the PL side in all of this.
Avatar
Honestly 6vtd working?The lag was imho to big there i was there for 5-6h and the lag when the caps entered was horrificEve would benefit fr.o.m. Fights over both several grids and systems but Its a big change to sov and even if i think sov mec. Should change to a true bortom up approach
Avatar
It is their fault. CCP promises these fights and doesn't put a max player cap on their nodes. You can hardly blame alliance leaders for using the game as intended. What are they supposed to do? Send in fleets that can only lose so the server wouldn't crash/lag? If you blame anyone but CCP, the sky is indeed a different colour in your world.Take a football game, if I let 100.000 fans into a stadium with a capacity of 50.000 and the stadium collapses, I and no1 else will be blamed for this. It is no different here..
Avatar
With a known cap. Agreements could be made limiting fleet sizes to keep battles fun and fair. A mechanic one side abuses, another side can just as easily abuse, killing the game for both sides. Agreements would be necessary, absolute and in every ones advantage. You can still outscale your enemy by attacking multiple systems over a wider front and thus spreading your weight between different nodes.The way things are done right now, putting all in 1 system, playing under terrible lag and TiDi, is no fun and above all it kills EVE tactically for players of all ranks.Choices are these:1. Leave things as they are and recode EVE so it can handle these amounts of players2. A player cap and make more starport connections between null regions in EVE so battles can be spread.3. Some measure unknown to me, don't claim to have all the answers..One thing I know. If null dies, eventually all of EVE will die because of lack of an endgame for those dedicated enough.Some say if the big blocks would die, eventually Null would be recolonized by those now in low and high. It would take a long time to achieve the same level of organization as the current blocks tho and players in high and low might follow the tide and quit as well. Ain't much of a gambler so would prefer CCP finds a solution honestly. A solution allowing for growth means investments will have to be made by CCP. Time for them to make a choice as well, continue their marriage with EVE or keep up the flings and lose her forever.
Avatar
They want more money again? Did the lease on their Ferrari expire again? What do you know about where your money goes to? I'll known they will be claiming ownership over something they did not finance if this isn't the biggest scam in gaming history. Don't advertise unproven games you twat.
Avatar
Good point. Made it as well in different thread. Problem is all these solutions are patented and it would cost a fortune to license it for an established game/company. Our money is not being reinvested so I am afraid devs hands are tied by boardroom smuggs. Why do you think so many devs are leaving CCP these days? No1 leaves a cool job in a gaming company unless they are incredibly frustrated, I can tell you that. CCP has just grown old and lost the vitality of its early days.
Avatar
Bad apology for the HED-GP fight where one side lost many dreads while caught in warp-tunnel to the other side. No reimbursement from CCP, but they should had. Many russians lost dreads which they probably won't get reimbursed by their own.Failing subscription numbers: http://themittani.com/features...Some of the loosers of this fight, will definately stop playing eve.Conclusion: Looks like there is a link between their customer policy and the falling numbers of subscribers. Lets see, what CCP will do about that.
Avatar
No, those solutions aren't patented, I must say companies operating clusters don't have much money to put into software either, and most run with totally free software. Most of what you need to buy is the hardware and preferably setting up an Infiniband network...At least OpenCL, OpenMP, MPI and whatnot are free as they are languages allowing performant execution on clusters in parallel. Even most tools possessing scheduling and so on are free, such as StarPU. Some aren't as OpenACC but it isn't a major loss to not use it, there are MANY alternatives to everything.It only comes down to, no, CCP doesn't know at all what they're doing. No, CCP doesn't at all have the best hardware and software already and aren't doing they best to improve. Because with the tools available now, some existing clusters on this planet could easily support spaceship battles with billions of persons if the persons programming it know what they're doing, I am certain. And I'm of course not asking CCP to allow that much, just to move their ass and hire one or two supercomputing professionals as they OBVIOUSLY need some. They could hire an economist why not a couple of those when they're at least as critical for the game ?
Avatar
CCP should just deny petitions, but award losers custom in-game T-shirts that say "I lost a ship at HED-GP but all I got was this lousy T-shirt". Eventually, collectors would make them actually worth something.It'd be a good general practice. :D
Avatar
play solo or small gang

The HED-GP engagement was the largest battle in Eve Online history since 6VDT and Asakai, and an extraordinarily rare occurrence: a bloc-level conflict where both sides were prepared and eager to escalate to a supercapital fight. The 12+ hour battle was a disaster for the attacking RUS/CFC side, with players unable to use their ships for hours at a time, leading to a one-sided turkey shoot of disconnected and helpless ships rather than an epic confrontation. However, veteran CSM representative Two Step described CCP as the 'real loser' of that engagement. 

In emails which CCP sent to players filing reimbursement petitions related to the HED-GP fight, the company offered apologies for the HED-GP situation, while simultaneously denying compensation - as per the standard CCP reimbursement policy for fleet fights

We are sorry that your experience of the battle was not to your expectations and our expert development team will continue work on making such engagements more enjoyable in the future. 

In an email sent to the leaders of the player factions involved in the battle, CCP Customer Support offered a further apology:

We are sincerely sorry for the inconvenience this fleet fight has caused to everyone involved and we ask for your understanding concerning this decision.

While these apologies are unlikely to remove the sting from those players negatively impacted by HED-GP, it's refreshing to see CCP openly acknowledging the problems which overshadowed the battle and vowing to do better in the future. 

TMC has emailed CCP with a request for further data on the HED-GP battle from 'lag guru' CCP Veritas, and we hope to have some crunchy server-based data for our readers should that develop. 

Goonswarm Federation CEO, Space Tyrant. Likes yoga, Alaskan Malamutes, bacon, and delegation.