Shitty lag is crying now eh?
You’re on a forum - people …express.
Cloud computing is just a fancy word for ‘someone else’s server’. A big benefit of cloud computing is how you only pay as you use, so you can easily scale up using more compute power or storage when you need it.
However, CCP has some of the best servers for the job already, and scaling up of the current workload of a single EVE solar system by distributing it across multiple servers isn’t feasible with the way EVE combat works, or I’m pretty sure they would have done so already by dedicating more nodes to a single about-to-be overloaded solar system.
I don’t see how cloud computing would take away the load of the main gameplay of EVE online, apart from perhaps side jobs like the skill window or chat server.
Isn’t the chat server already running in the cloud?
1 Like
Youre right - they dipped their feet in AWS so all cloud must suck. I guess I’ll come back in a few years.
Cloud can solve many problems, but I do not think it can solve the technical server limitations of EVE.
2 Likes
It’s one of the things in EVE that isn’t latency bound because it doesn’t matter if chat is “half a second late”, so that can be outsourced/cloud just fine. The actual server being cloud based would add to much latency to each step we’d be back to 2006 levels of server performance and fleet sizes.
You’re wrong.
CDN, load balancing, regional distribution of workloads , technologies like 200gbps interconnects, cloud gpus and tpus and technologies like kubernetes are all solutions.
Feel free to step out of the stone ages.
Yes. I’ve been working in AWS and Azure for a couple years.
I still think EVE’s problem in large fights may not be solved by ‘going to the cloud’, if EVE combat cannot split the main workload across multiple servers. The thing ‘going to the cloud’ could offer is a big server, but CCP already has that.
1 Like
my bad - i was going for
Aisha Katalen
have a great day.
Even Aisha 
I remember it, and it was an option, but that wasn’t itself a guaranteed thing, distributed computing always increases latency and you have to account for data loss during transfer and how that affects the simulation
Migrating things to the cloud doesn’t solve things
Neither do you apparently, the server is already a “cloud computer” because its not local, what you’re referring to is distributed computing, and that always adds latency, even at light speed there is a delay added to every data transmission that has to leave a computer
You seem to be throwing around buzzwords and thinking that they are magical solutions to physical problems
3 Likes
Yes, and we’ve all experienced how stable that connection is. Perhaps it taught ccp that negotiating service level agreements is part of doing business in earnest.
In other words, one can’t design foolproof systems that still allow the highest degree of freedom for our level of sufficiently talented fools. Perhaps CCP could advertize “No matter how smart we build our systems, our players find ways to break them. Are you up for the challenge ?” I’m confident it has crossed their minds at some point, lol.
Even at numbers that can be handled by the servers - admittedly with TiDi because there is no other technological solution - the game would still be single-shard, and the space battles would still be massive and epic. Demanding that CCP provides better technology so we can cram more pilots into a single system, with the added effect to establish a new world record, that’s not realistic.
It’s thanks to TiDi that these battles can even take place ! Every EvE player bar the newest hisec dweller has either heard or experienced TiDi. It’s not a fun element, it’s a dire necessity, and we all know it. Can’t deal with it, don’t join the battle. You know there will be TiDi, and at those numbers you know there is a very high chance the server will soil its pants and “vomit out a set of random endpoints”. No one can claim ignorance…
How about a resounding NO ?
And here follow words like “sandbox”, “freedom of player choice”, “potential for abuse and unfairness”. I’d rather lose a ship due to a server crash caused by too many idiots piling onto it by our collective choice (!) than to have my choice (and everyone else’s) curtailed by hardcaps, rules and limitations.
“WARNING: Enter at your own risk.” That’s the translation of 10% TiDi + numbers in local. No surprises there.
In this context, being pissed-off is a consequence of free choice. That we even have free choice in this game is completely to the credit of CCP. And we should keep it that way - while CCP continues to look for better solutions that support that level of freedom. That’s what I support, and bear the consequences for.
The more interesting question in this whole phenomenon is “why do these battles continue to grow in size, given that the PCU is lower than in 2008”.
3 Likes
Few reasons:
-
Just because the PCU isn’t as high as it used to be doesn’t mean there aren’t ton of omega accounts being used, they’re just not used all at the same time, all the time. Many of them are used for specific stuff and only login when needed.
-
They do because they must, as said earlier it’s done on purpose. If you know the server can handle X amount of players in a (pre)battle then the defending side wants to bring as close to X numbers as possible, which then the aggressor side must match (because if they don’t it’s an automatic loss) and then hope and pray the server holds… somewhat.
It doesn’t matter what the max is (unless it’s some silly completely theoretical number), power groups want to and HAVE to get to that max. It’s not solved by increasing that max, not really, this is solved by making power groups have less power projection. On the technical front CCP can increase raw “server power” but I’d say that better code and lower latency is far more important in that regard.
2 Likes
Just don’t go to these “events”.
Limit yourself.
3 Likes
make this game like any other arena-game? ok, but then i’m out
That could be the new shooter ccp london is working on lol
LOL sounds frustrating
Well, perhaps we can agree to disagree on this one. I personally feel it would be better for EVE to have large battles (just not as large as now) that end up with a maximum of, say, 75% TiDi, and have a confident expectation of being reasonably responsive and not crashing or otherwise screwing up.
In fact I think that if the situation existed where people were aware that in this area, they can successfully fight ad-hoc battles up to 400 x 400, and in this other region the nodes can handle up to 800 x 800, and if you reserve a node for battle it can handle up to 1500 x 1500 with decent results. There would in fact be no reason that a reinforced node couldn’t be scheduled for no-limits battles and let the TiDi and the crashes go where they will.
Working within constraints offers certain strategic choices. Always being faced with N+1 everywhere isn’t necessarily good for the game, nor the ultimate expression of “freedom”.
However I’m fine with leaving it there as I’m sure some people feel EVE is best served by “may the biggest fleet who gets there first win”.
This dumb mindset has only created big news stories to draw in new player and coerce old players to return, both under false pretences. It has never resulted in enjoyable gameplay, be that because of tidi, of mexican standoffs, of no form up from one side or other similar reasons. It is time to get rid of this dumb mindset and fix the underlying issues.
So the issue with this is that in order to do that you would have to, in some way, arbitrarily set hard limits on the number of participants and the number of drones and missiles etc that could be used, you can 100% guarantee that the playerbase would game the ever loving hell out of that and work out exactly what number of things to bring to render the other fleet from being able to get reinforcements or match their numbers
There isn’t a way to do this which would be fair to all parties involved, hence why its not done and likely never will be done
And what would those underlying issues be exactly?
Because no matter the objective players are going to send everything they can at each of them, even if you require them to go and shoot things in 4 different systems in order to finally be able to shoot the main thing, you still end up with the battle at the main thing happening, not sure how you plan to avoid that exactly
1 Like
No one’s stopping you from complaining.
They are trying to teach you the difference between a complaint (valid or otherwise) and actual cconstructive criticism.
It’s NOT an easy fix - if it were it would have been done already.
–Gadget took FOUR days to get this response through…
1 Like
Mommy and Daddy are fighting again…