Just one of the coolest "we're working on stuff" status updates I've ever seen. I haven't played eve online in near 20 years, but this makes me think I might have another go.
I rebooted my 2006 character last weekend and have been having a blast
EVE Online moves to Python 3
221–229 of 229 posts
Re: EVE Online moves to Python 3
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
EVE is on the list with Dwarf Fortress for me. I'm interested in it. I absolutely see the appeal of them, and wish I had played them instead of WoW back when I was 20. But today? Ain't nobody got time for that.
As someone who really no life fit and played WoW, Dwarf Fortress, and EVE in my 20s, you didn’t miss much. My most momentous EVE achievement was betraying my online “friends” who had mostly stopped playing, blowing up all their expensive ships for the insurance payout, then like a true space pirate losing all my ill gotten gains playing Space Poker. EVE (and other MMOs) had their moment and the ideas of MMOs with a p…
Eve online holdem? Amazing. Was a banker there for a bit while I was working as a poker dealer IRL at night. Won a fully fitted mom in a game, lost it in another:D
Re: EVE Online moves to Python 3
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't like how EVE is run, and the pay-to-win mechanics added over the years to entice the whales. I'm looking at the problem with the eyes of a prospective game dev, and saying that there should be more games focused on free market economy, which is often just a half-arsed mechanic on the side, not the core game.
Problem with EVE is that they did not have a solution for the problem of resource accumulation from the start. It was mitigated to some degree by great wars of old, and then wormhole space, but then they a) sold out to koreans with their interesting approach to MMOs, and b) merged the chinese shard. This did not help at all. Now.. Py3 is nice, and I guess that move signals that at last they pay attention to engine in…
While I broadly disagree with much of this, I have been advocating for years that expanding the universe would indeed dispel much of the issues with the power disparity between groups, as well as encourage more involved logistics and stuff like that.
Maybe one day :)
Re: EVE Online moves to Python 3
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rewriting it in Rust isn't automatically faster and more importantly Eve's gameplay is constantly being iterated on and Rust has proven to be bad for that. Moreover, most of Eve's bottleneck isn't single server speed, it's mostly network IO and database queries and latency. The big TiDi skirnishes in particular are slow due to this.
Could I see your sources for how Rust is slower for iterations? I've been working in JS, Python, C#, TS, and F# for about ten years. I'd guess F# and TS are tied for me for prototyping speed. I have to wonder how much the "common knowledge" that strongly typed languages are slower for prototyping is driven by unfamiliarity with the tool.
I didn't say anything about strongly typed languages being bad for prototyping. I specifically said Rust is bad for prototyping speed. Lots of high profile cases of Rust being abandoned (Witchbrook comes to mind as an example).
There have been lots of posts here about Rust being not the nirvana it's claimed to be for such projects. This one comes to mind https://loglog.games/blog/leaving-rust-gamedev/
I say this as a big fan of Rust. I use it for CLIs, microservice development and more. The borrow checker, traits, enums, etc. are amazing for maintainability, reliability and speed. Fast iteration where you'll want to completely redo a system at the drop of a hat? Rust is a royal pain in the behind.
Largely, proponents of Rust who push it for game development have their minds stuck in the solutions space and forget about the problem space. The fact that Rust was even proposed to fix Eve here is a huge example of solutions focused thinking (bad bad bad) because is misunderstands that Eve was never bottlenecked on processing speed of its physics or business logic.
Re: EVE Online moves to Python 3
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem with EVE is that they did not have a solution for the problem of resource accumulation from the start. It was mitigated to some degree by great wars of old, and then wormhole space, but then they a) sold out to koreans with their interesting approach to MMOs, and b) merged the chinese shard. This did not help at all. Now.. Py3 is nice, and I guess that move signals that at last they pay attention to engine in…
While I broadly disagree with much of this, I have been advocating for years that expanding the universe would indeed dispel much of the issues with the power disparity between groups, as well as encourage more involved logistics and stuff like that. Maybe one day :)
Well, yes. One day. To the point I have another eve without much of known issues sketched in my notebook, which is ofc nothing.
Can you please tell of what you disagree with?
Re: EVE Online moves to Python 3
#226Re: EVE Online moves to Python 3
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
TiDi is a huge problem in big skirmishes, to the point where people actively avoid large group fights: https://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Time_dilation The server isn't fast enough and it ends up slowing the game down to 10% speed as a workaround.
Rewriting it in Rust isn't automatically faster and more importantly Eve's gameplay is constantly being iterated on and Rust has proven to be bad for that. Moreover, most of Eve's bottleneck isn't single server speed, it's mostly network IO and database queries and latency. The big TiDi skirnishes in particular are slow due to this.
On the iteration: I'm not sure that's the case anymore? Sure new content is added but it's largely within existing systems. The game is closing in on 25 years old at this point.
I've no insight into what specifically their bottleneck is. The database doesn't sound like it'd be a factor, though, since the slowdowns are isolated to single nodes handling the area with players and don't effect others.
Re: EVE Online moves to Python 3
#228Re: EVE Online moves to Python 3
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am always amused by "it's bad because it's bad at things it wasn't designed to be good at" rationalizations.
There are things that are quite good for other than what they were designed for. I find it interesting when someone mentions that X is bad for something it was not designed for, as much as I am interested when someone mentions that X is good even if it was not designed for something.
There is a huge difference between "X is good/bad at something it was not designed for" and "X is bad because it's bad at something it was not designed for".