Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
|
CCP Tanis
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 22:14:00 -
[1]
Howdy folks,
We are looking into the situation surrounding medium/large scale fleet battles, both in low-sec and also in 0.0. To get to the bottom of this we must run a series of mass-tests against both Dominion code and pre-dominion code.
These tests will begin Tuesday, January 5 at 5pm UTC. They are expected to last for about 2 hours, each. We need at least 100 pilots, preferably 500+à the more people who show up, the better. _________________________________ Test schedule:
Tuesday [January 5] @ 17:00 GMT (0.0 Fleet/Sov tests) Thursday [January 7] @ 17:00 GMT (Low-sec FacWar tests) _________________________________
How to connect to Singularity for this test:
- Make a copy of the current Tranquility (TQ) client
- Visit the Sisi patch page.
- Patch the copied client to the Singularity build
- Login to the singularity test server
- Join the in-game channel "MassTesting"
- Disable brackets | Read here if you're not sure how
- Listen for instructions and ask questions in-channel
What exactly is being tested?
Each test will require making 2 separate installs as we will be testing on 2 different servers! (patches will be made available for both ahead of time)
0.0 Fleet tests:
- We will begin by conducting a 'regular' Fleet fight on pre-dominion code
- After the first fight, we will move to the Dominion test server and then conduct 2 more tests: one 'standard' fleet fight, and then we will move everyone into test alliances and run a test of the Sov system
Low-sec FacWar tests:
- We will move players into appropriate militia corps
- We will then battle over control of a system in factional warfare
- During this test we will also test large-scale warp-in/jump-in lag.
What else should I know?
- You will want to bring a fleet-setup BS or smaller.
- You should pay attention to your FPS (use ctrl+f to view in-game)
- Anyone able to use multiple accounts is strongly encouraged to bring your alts!
- CCP staff and ISD will be on hand prior to the test to help move players to the starting location
- Feedback thread will be posted at the time of the test
- Use drones!
- Give weapon linking a try
- Spider tanks 4tw
____________________________ I break thingsÖ CCP Tanis - EVE Quality Assurance|EVE Live Team CCP Games |
|
Ruziel
Minmatar Twilight Military Industrial Complex
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 22:25:00 -
[2]
It should be noted that there is currently no TQ (120813) -> Sisi (121200) patch available.
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 22:30:00 -
[3]
Should do it next week rather than 2 weeks from now, every day is important. That's also like 9am/noon on tuesday for us US peeps, methinks I will not make it
GL to ridding EVE of lag in 2010!
Originally by: Jim Raynor EVE needs danger, EVE needs risks, EVE needs combat, even piracy, without these things, the game stagnates to a trivial game centering around bloating your wallet with no purpose. |
Blue Harrier
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 22:43:00 -
[4]
May I suggest one of the tests carried out on the Dominion code is a large scale warp in with and without using the æFleet FinderÆ logic code as this seems to correlate to some people reducing lag by not æfleeting upÆ to warp a large number into a system.
This code is also one of the major changes to fleet warfare introduced with Dominion
|
|
CCP Tanis
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 22:44:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Ruziel It should be noted that there is currently no TQ (120813) -> Sisi (121200) patch available.
One test will be using the current TQ build of the client, the other will require a special patch, which will be posted closer to the actual test-date.
____________________________ I break thingsÖ CCP Tanis - EVE Quality Assurance|EVE Live Team CCP Games |
|
thisisnotmikaldrey
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 23:49:00 -
[6]
Edited by: thisisnotmikaldrey on 23/12/2009 23:51:49 hey hey
ive noticed that the new fleet window generates lots of lag especially when the fleet window (member list) is open; broadcast window not so much.
ive also noticed that anything standing related generates lag. whether its looking up pilots info, opening the character sheet standings and when the overview has multiple standings (orange/neutral/reds) ive thought that maybe the client/server is trying to generate so much standing info in such a short ammount of time the client cant handle it.
i also generate lag when i flip chat channels. they have a delay and will lag me out in fleet fights so i tend to take off the blink from every channel and only keep fleet open.
dunno if any of thats usefull to you.
ps jump/travel lag sucks so hard my dyson get jealous. you might want to think about traveling a few systems with 200 people trying to jump all at once :/
|
Red Thunder
tr0pa de elite Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 23:57:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Red Thunder on 23/12/2009 23:59:36 you dont hunt the lag monster
it hunts you
/edit oh and if it makes any difference, in large fleets fights iv noticed theres a certain level of fighting at which the lag really kicks in, then once you drop below that it goes pretty much back to normal
|
Captian Conrad
Minmatar Empyrean Warriors
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 00:02:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Red Thunder Edited by: Red Thunder on 23/12/2009 23:59:36 you dont hunt the lag monster
it hunts you
...only in russia
|
Obsidian Hawk
Free Galactic Enterprises FREGE
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 00:24:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Obsidian Hawk on 24/12/2009 00:24:37 CCP Tanis -
In an effort to help you guys I offer this input.
#1 When testing you should make sure to put the battles along gates and have bubbles up. Like a couple of larges and some dictors. Most fleet warfare occurs along gates.
Remember people try to break gate camps with large blobs. Its an effort to provide realism.
Also, people should be jumping into the system, not everyone warping to a single beacon and then killing each other, sorry warping to a beacon is not realisitic pvp.
#2 One test should be at an online pos,
Even in high sec, when entering / leaving warp around a gate, or any activity near a gate, there seems to be a much higher latency on the end of a client.
This is with brackets off and most stuff turned off from the over view.
These are just some thoughts and what not from my experience in 0.0
|
Captian Conrad
Minmatar Empyrean Warriors
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 02:23:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Obsidian Hawk Its an effort to provide realism
This is about coding, not realism..the aim ladys and gents it to crash the server, then ccp can check da logs
|
|
Taedrin
Gallente The Green Cross DEFI4NT
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 04:16:00 -
[11]
Always ready for a rollback, eh? ---------- There is always a choice. The choice might not be easy, nor simple, nor the options be what you desire - but, nevertheless, the choice is there to be made. |
Obsidian Hawk
Free Galactic Enterprises FREGE
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 04:29:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Captian Conrad
Originally by: Obsidian Hawk Its an effort to provide realism
This is about coding, not realism..the aim ladys and gents it to crash the server, then ccp can check da logs
you are missing the point. most battles are going to take place on gates or pos towers. Not at organized areas on beacons. If you want to find where the problem is at, you need to re-create it with the most accurate pre-existing conditions.
As of late this is fleet wars of people trying to bread 200 man gate camps. So to do this, the fleet battle needs to be staged on the gate with fleet B jumping into system with fleet A waiting.
On an additional note, for the fleet battle hotdropping needs to be set up, as that is also a common thing that happens in fleet battles.
The more the battle on the test server is like a TQ one, the more information CCP will get.
You cant just expect everyone to jump to a beacon and duke it out. Fleet warfare doesnt work like that in EvE, nor does it provide all the data CCP needs. We need battles on gates and at pos towers.
|
ForceM
Gallente POS Builder Inc. Silent Requiem
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 09:44:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Obsidian Hawk
Originally by: Captian Conrad
Originally by: Obsidian Hawk Its an effort to provide realism
This is about coding, not realism..the aim ladys and gents it to crash the server, then ccp can check da logs
you are missing the point. most battles are going to take place on gates or pos towers. Not at organized areas on beacons. If you want to find where the problem is at, you need to re-create it with the most accurate pre-existing conditions.
As of late this is fleet wars of people trying to bread 200 man gate camps. So to do this, the fleet battle needs to be staged on the gate with fleet B jumping into system with fleet A waiting.
On an additional note, for the fleet battle hotdropping needs to be set up, as that is also a common thing that happens in fleet battles.
The more the battle on the test server is like a TQ one, the more information CCP will get.
You cant just expect everyone to jump to a beacon and duke it out. Fleet warfare doesnt work like that in EvE, nor does it provide all the data CCP needs. We need battles on gates and at pos towers.
Correct .. as for all we know the gates / tower codes might be part of the problem which causes the lagg -----
|
thisisnotmikaldrey
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 09:54:00 -
[14]
Originally by: ForceM
On an additional note, for the fleet battle hotdropping needs to be set up, as that is also a common thing that happens in fleet battles.
Fighters cause an immense amount of lag :''( fighter bombers on SISI do even more lag :'''''(
also confirming that carriers > dreads in terms of lag . .. and hot drops and cynos dont cause much lag per se but desync like buggery. after reading about ticks and times when clients sync i looked at hotdrops and noticed that they dont seem to have a session change and you go one system to another in a cynoflash. you lag out on land and often dont load the exit or entrance grid (undock lag ftl) forcing the client to sync during a cyno might reduce cap lag.
|
Fireblade Stu
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 10:23:00 -
[15]
Will a newbie Rifter setup be of much use to you in this testing at all?
|
Misaki Yuuko
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 12:58:00 -
[16]
Yes, any single number added will help recreate issues.
|
Iguanoid
Caldari The 5th Freedom Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 15:40:00 -
[17]
This is great to hear. Please remember NOT to reinforce the node that is being tested. --
|
Merbok
Gallente The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 17:06:00 -
[18]
I will try and be there. Thanks a ton for addressing this CCP. I have been in a few large fleet battles in geminate recently and I can't tell you how frustrating it is, it has gotten worse. Its a game wrecker.
Thank you! --------
|
Bobby Atlas
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 18:18:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 24/12/2009 18:18:12 So, in other words, we need to wait another 2 weeks for CCP to even begin testing these problems that everyone has reiterated exist since the patch deployment almost 3 weeks ago? Maybe it is just me but that is absolutely absurd.
This is just like the desync issues all over again, weeks of silence, finally acknowledgment of the issue with some testing next we will see couple of patches with "this should fix it" then 14 months of CCP doing nothing about it and it being a status quo in eve that desyncs are part-in-parcel of fleet engagements, followed finally by CCP actually getting there head out of there ass and somewhat-fixing it.
|
Ikathis sihtaki
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 18:21:00 -
[20]
Looking back, about teh time that the lag got REAL bad, was when they changed it from gang to fleet. When they started changing the way the fleet bonuses work, dropping it in warp, etc, so now it has to recalculate everytime all the bonuses for every gang member in the fleet.
that is when i recall lag getting real bad. |
|
kyrieee
Psykotic Meat Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 18:21:00 -
[21]
About time
I'll be there. Make sure you have fleets jump through gates onto crowded grids because those have been the worst situations on TQ
|
Ikathis sihtaki
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 18:28:00 -
[22]
STUPID FORUMS.
Anyway, for the 3rd attempt at this, this time I will cut and paste...
I noticed the Lag to become increasingly worst when they changed it from gang, to fleet. Then they changed it to drop fleet bonuses when booster is in warp. So now everytime fleet warps, fleet gates, fleet undocks, etc it has to figure out WTF every ships new stats are. Maybe a way to address this, is to go back to leaving bonuses from booster on ALL the time, not turning on and off everytime the fleet booster does something.
Now we cut and paste so I don't have to retype this for 4th time. Everytime it changes weeeee.
|
Nikodiemus
Caldari Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 18:37:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Bobby Atlas Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 24/12/2009 18:18:12 So, in other words, we need to wait another 2 weeks for CCP to even begin testing these problems that everyone has reiterated exist since the patch deployment almost 3 weeks ago? Maybe it is just me but that is absolutely absurd.
This is just like the desync issues all over again, weeks of silence, finally acknowledgment of the issue with some testing next we will see couple of patches with "this should fix it" then 14 months of CCP doing nothing about it and it being a status quo in eve that desyncs are part-in-parcel of fleet engagements, followed finally by CCP actually getting there head out of there ass and somewhat-fixing it.
I agree. CCP how dare you take action to fix a problem a few weeks after it was acknowledged. Get out your time machines and speed this up, you have them right?
Seriously though considering the lag//grid loading was unplayable in the last k25 skirmish on a what ccp Warlock claimed to be a triple reinforced node with only about 500-600 in system something is seriously wrong. I am glad you guys acknowledged the areas having the most problems, sent out someone to check on it (even though he needed to stay a bit longer...) and are going at the problem. \0/
|
Ikathis sihtaki
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 20:23:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Bobby Atlas Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 24/12/2009 18:18:12 So, in other words, we need to wait another 2 weeks for CCP to even begin testing these problems that everyone has reiterated exist since the patch deployment almost 3 weeks ago? Maybe it is just me but that is absolutely absurd.
This is just like the desync issues all over again, weeks of silence, finally acknowledgment of the issue with some testing next we will see couple of patches with "this should fix it" then 14 months of CCP doing nothing about it and it being a status quo in eve that desyncs are part-in-parcel of fleet engagements, followed finally by CCP actually getting there head out of there ass and somewhat-fixing it.
SHaddup. They been tryin to beat the lag outta the game for how long now? You all act like this is new thing. Alter play style till it gets fixed (which we know is impossible), or move the fleet in early and log out for the next day engagement. I dunno. Maybe if folk would guit tryin to squeeze a bowling ball into a tennis ball launcher.. |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 20:36:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Razin on 24/12/2009 20:41:17 Edited by: Razin on 24/12/2009 20:38:50
Originally by: Ikathis sihtaki
Originally by: Bobby Atlas Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 24/12/2009 18:18:12 So, in other words, we need to wait another 2 weeks for CCP to even begin testing these problems that everyone has reiterated exist since the patch deployment almost 3 weeks ago? Maybe it is just me but that is absolutely absurd.
This is just like the desync issues all over again, weeks of silence, finally acknowledgment of the issue with some testing next we will see couple of patches with "this should fix it" then 14 months of CCP doing nothing about it and it being a status quo in eve that desyncs are part-in-parcel of fleet engagements, followed finally by CCP actually getting there head out of there ass and somewhat-fixing it.
SHaddup. They been tryin to beat the lag outta the game for how long now? You all act like this is new thing. Alter play style till it gets fixed (which we know is impossible), or move the fleet in early and log out for the next day engagement. I dunno. Maybe if folk would guit tryin to squeeze a bowling ball into a tennis ball launcher..
You don't know wtf you are talking about. This is some kind of new lag that showed up after Dominion went live. 100-300 in local/on grid was ok before, now it's almost like 1000 in local pre-Dominion.
P.S. And I'm also unhappy about this testing not even starting for another two weeks.
P.P.S. Is CCP going to finally try to fix TURRET LAG in fleet battles?? This has been happening for what seems like years!! ...
|
Ikathis sihtaki
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 20:45:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Razin Edited by: Razin on 24/12/2009 20:38:50
Originally by: Ikathis sihtaki
Originally by: Bobby Atlas Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 24/12/2009 18:18:12 So, in other words, we need to wait another 2 weeks for CCP to even begin testing these problems that everyone has reiterated exist since the patch deployment almost 3 weeks ago? Maybe it is just me but that is absolutely absurd.
This is just like the desync issues all over again, weeks of silence, finally acknowledgment of the issue with some testing next we will see couple of patches with "this should fix it" then 14 months of CCP doing nothing about it and it being a status quo in eve that desyncs are part-in-parcel of fleet engagements, followed finally by CCP actually getting there head out of there ass and somewhat-fixing it.
SHaddup. They been tryin to beat the lag outta the game for how long now? You all act like this is new thing. Alter play style till it gets fixed (which we know is impossible), or move the fleet in early and log out for the next day engagement. I dunno. Maybe if folk would guit tryin to squeeze a bowling ball into a tennis ball launcher..
You don't know wtf you are talking about. This is some kind of new lag that showed up after Dominion went live. 100-300 in local/on grid was ok before, now it's almost like 1000 in local pre-Dominion.
P.S. And I'm also unhappy about this testing not even starting for another two weeks.
Huh, guess i don't know what i am talking abbout, only been in several engagements since the upgrade, where there were over 100+ in local at least 90 of them on grid, and no lag. Little desynching, ships showing farther then they should be on overview but whatever, i dunno what i am sayin i guess. I coulud be like the you and just whine and cry about it even though we all know ccp is going to move at their own speed cuz guess what, that is what a business does, moves at its own speed that it can cope with. Remember they are business, they have procedure and what not they follow. but anyway, lets all run to the forumz and scream and shout and whine and yell like the children sitting behind me. No wonder ccp sits back and laughs at all you dumb folk. |
Bobby Atlas
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 20:50:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 24/12/2009 20:54:56 pre-dominion you could have an engagement in an unreinforced node with upward of 400-500 people and not have much in the way of issues other than couple of seconds of module lag. Post-dominion, even on reinforced nodes, 200-300 man battles are almost unplayable let alone 500-600 man battles which previously on a reinforced node you could easily get 800-1200 people with relatively no issue.
A perfect example is the other day atlas used a system to midpoint our 200 man support fleet through with a titan bridge, the minute we did this that system completely failed - our entire fleet got stuck in the system for nearly an hour with a complete inability to get out or do anything. There was no fighting in this system, nothing - just using it as a mid point to move our fleet.
P.S: I think everyone accepts that module lag is part-in-parcel of large fleet fights but the symptoms of a module getting stuck for 5-10 or more minutes cause you did not use manual fire psudo-techniques properly is just ******ed. Example, manual fire gun, if you click to deactivate gun/module before it has complete 2 full cycles then the gun becomes locked and unusable for 5-10 minutes or more; if you do it properly though, wait for module to cycle twice before clicking to deactivate, then you can fire again instantly with no issue. We should not have to use these kind of psudo-mechanics in fleet engagements, it quite frankly is broken beyond belief.
|
Seth Ruin
Minmatar Ominous Corp Cult of War
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 01:33:00 -
[28]
I'll be there with my alts.
|
Dregek
Pilots Of Honour Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 06:59:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Ikathis sihtaki
Huh, guess i don't know what i am talking about, only been in several engagements since the upgrade, where there were over 100+ in local at least 90 of them on grid, and no lag.
90 on grid LOL this isn't lame ass faction warfare this is 4 or 5 alliances consisting of fleets which can run into 400 or 500 people on "each" side, where they are nearly all on the same grid with each other. 90man battles to 0.0 people is two roaming gangs fighting. This lag is some of the worst in almost a year, f*ck i was in 49-u when local went to 1400 people and lag wasnt this bad.
Go do some real LARGE scale warfare and say the lag isnt bad then
|
KosmikZA
The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 07:44:00 -
[30]
Keep in mind guys, I suspect ccp is going to be adding exception based code to the server to try and catch the problems and that is probably what is going to take the two weeks prior to test.
Dying on gate jump in before grid load is no fun Definately take gates and pos's into consideration and you need a lot more than a hundred. Thousand would be a better number.
|
|
Depili
Blood Works Inc. Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 10:09:00 -
[31]
Yeah, the worst issues seem to be when jumping in to a gatecamp with bubbles on the gate. Usually then the grid takes ages to load (if it loads at all).
The bubbles prevent the e-warp to a safe off-grid from the gate that happens if you don't load the grid in X minutes...
You definedly need to test scenarios where a 150+ fleet is jumping in to 150+ fleet with drones and bubbles out at the other side of the gate.
|
Lord EmBra
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 14:32:00 -
[32]
Great that this is being tested, As many other have said, have fleet A jump into a fleet B via a stargate, fleet B should have drones out, bubbles up, the lot.
Also pay attention to module cycle time and how they increase extremely much.
|
ElfeGER
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 14:35:00 -
[33]
hmm still no scripted clients by CCP?
|
HIghlord Diamond
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 15:08:00 -
[34]
I know it would probably be admitting failure for CCP, but couldn't they return to the pre-dominion code until this infamous lag monster is dealt with? Maybe keep the pirate arcs, new planets, stars, new faction BS but return to the old sov? That way we could even ruled out the new capital ships changes as source of the lag? It's all good and well that you guys want to release 2 expansions a year, but I've been lurking around these forums for a few days now and it seems to me like everyone that lives in 0.0 has to downsize their fleet and use new tactics because of a performance issue, when they aren't quitting the game or starting endless and pointless flame wars on the forums to burn off the frustration or abusing this game breaking lag to conquer new territory.
It would be better to return to old, reliable code that keep this going for weeks or even months me think. And an official apology to your player base would help.
|
Lijhal
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 15:52:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Lijhal on 25/12/2009 15:55:24 you want to fight the lag ? here are 2 (maybe 3) solutions!
1) stop pumping server resources into jita for all those 4-4 huggers who are playing 0.01 isk wars and scam the daylong jita local ... just pointless
2) why do we have dmg modifiers with 9 diggits behind the comma ? i mean, whats the reason to have a 9,234856219875 dmg modifier onto my pulse lasers ? wouldnt 9,24 do the same ? your game is all about math, so lets reduce server calculations a lot by changing dmg modifiers into "real" numbers .. imagine the calculations a server have to do if 1000 ppl are hiting one target with those numbers....
3) change the dynamic grid meachnic into a static one! no more grid FU
your 0.0 player base is suffering under it ... give us more resourcces and no, i dont want to write a large fleet fight formula to get a response .... nuff said anymore
my 0.01 isk
|
Nostradamous
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 17:07:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Bobby Atlas Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 24/12/2009 18:18:12 So, in other words, we need to wait another 2 weeks for CCP to even begin testing these problems that everyone has reiterated exist since the patch deployment almost 3 weeks ago? Maybe it is just me but that is absolutely absurd.
This is just like the desync issues all over again, weeks of silence, finally acknowledgment of the issue with some testing next we will see couple of patches with "this should fix it" then 14 months of CCP doing nothing about it and it being a status quo in eve that desyncs are part-in-parcel of fleet engagements, followed finally by CCP actually getting there head out of there ass and somewhat-fixing it.
I agree, but with this all finally coming about around Christmas/new years, i cant talk too much Sh*t about them taking 2 weeks before the tests begin. Everyone wants to spend the holidays with family. luv u bobby
|
Vultaras
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 18:02:00 -
[37]
I think it's time CPP to buy new double power server and and of course redo something in EVE code....
|
Bibbleibble
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 20:56:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Vultaras I think it's time CPP to buy new double power server and and of course redo something in EVE code....
Now normally, not being a massive fleet fight player, I'd stay out of this thread and similar, but comments like this just annoy me.
CCP already has pretty much the best server equipment that you can get. I'm fairly certain (and can vaguely recall someone saying something about it...) that they have the most powerful computer cluster in the world dedicated to gaming, and this same computer cluster probably reaches the same level of processing power as many 'supercomputers'.
It is not as simple as 'OMG CCP U SUK!!!! CCP buy better hardware!!!!' as if it was, and they had the money, they would. There is no real reason why they wouldn't, and posts saying that they should buy better hardware ignore the vast majority of the reasons why lag is happening.
Anyhow, back on topic, I would suggest, like many other players here, that you do the testing in realistic situations. That means not starting with both fleets loaded on grid, and having them start firing on each other, but having one ready (i.e. already on grid, drones out etc...) and then having the other warp/jump in. That would seem to be where the worst problem is (the grid-loading bug), and then have a look at other sources of lag.
As I said, I'm almost totally free of any involvement in large fleet fights, but it seems to me, if you can't even load the grid, that is far worse than all but the worst module lag/whatever else.
|
DS S
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 20:57:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Vultaras I think it's time CPP to buy new double power server and and of course redo something in EVE code....
i laugh at guys like you, just last year, ccp put jita on its own server, and it still lags with 1200 people in loca;. 1200 is even the max, and its on its own FLASH server
|
CommmanderInChief
Unorganised Crime
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 21:40:00 -
[40]
Originally by: DS S
Originally by: Vultaras I think it's time CPP to buy new double power server and and of course redo something in EVE code....
i laugh at guys like you, just last year, ccp put jita on its own server, and it still lags with 1200 people in loca;. 1200 is even the max, and its on its own FLASH server
e To be honest you can never have too many servers/ram. However its more than likely now? that its down to code..and tbh can python cope with what ccp can achieve realistically? if not then its never gonna be ok..anyway will do my best to be there!!
|
|
Atic Lanti
Silver Snake Enterprise Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 22:00:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Atic Lanti on 25/12/2009 22:00:04
Originally by: Ikathis sihtaki
Huh, guess i don't know what i am talking abbout, only been in several engagements since the upgrade, where there were over 100+ in local at least 90 of them on grid, and no lag. Little desynching, ships showing farther then they should be on overview but whatever, i dunno what i am sayin i guess. I coulud be like the you and just whine and cry about it even though we all know ccp is going to move at their own speed cuz guess what, that is what a business does, moves at its own speed that it can cope with. Remember they are business, they have procedure and what not they follow. but anyway, lets all run to the forumz and scream and shout and whine and yell like the children sitting behind me. No wonder ccp sits back and laughs at all you dumb folk.
Did I sell you that broken bluray player the other week? No wonder I haven't heard from you.
What are you on? If the forums aren't the best way to give feedback and have your customers screaming and whining like babies, I don't know what is. And you really think CCP sits back and laughs at people giving feedback? I don't know which is dumber? You thinking they do that and you still pay for the game or the one's paying for the game and believing that they do actually care about the communitys feedback?
I think it's CCP laughing at dummiecustomers like you. No offense. |
Meatypopsicle
|
Posted - 2009.12.26 01:56:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Meatypopsicle on 26/12/2009 01:56:07
Originally by: Ikathis sihtaki
Huh, guess i don't know what i am talking abbout
Correct - STFU and you might learn something. 90 people is nothing. 300+ is something.
|
Boomershoot
Caldari Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.12.26 03:35:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Boomershoot on 26/12/2009 03:35:20
Originally by: Lijhal 2) why do we have dmg modifiers with 9 diggits behind the comma ? i mean, whats the reason to have a 9,234856219875 dmg modifier onto my pulse lasers ? wouldnt 9,24 do the same ? your game is all about math, so lets reduce server calculations a lot by changing dmg modifiers into "real" numbers .. imagine the calculations a server have to do if 1000 ppl are hiting one target with those numbers....
This made my day, CCP is currently facepalming as we speak.
****ING TYPOS~
|
Tony Ridalli
Gallente Gladiators of Rage Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.12.26 07:31:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Ikathis sihtaki Huh, guess i don't know what i am talking abbout, only been in several engagements since the upgrade, where there were over 100+ in local at least 90 of them on grid, and no lag. Little desynching, ships showing farther then they should be on overview but whatever, i dunno what i am sayin i guess. I coulud be like the you and just whine and cry about it even though we all know ccp is going to move at their own speed cuz guess what, that is what a business does, moves at its own speed that it can cope with. Remember they are business, they have procedure and what not they follow. but anyway, lets all run to the forumz and scream and shout and whine and yell like the children sitting behind me. No wonder ccp sits back and laughs at all you dumb folk.
Yes, you don't know what you're talking about, but thanks for the troll.
From my perspective, it seems you're the one who's forgotten it's a business. Know what that makes me? A paying customer. It is my right to ***** and complain, loudly if necessary, when the product I'm paying for does not meet even conservative expectations. A good business moves as fast as it possibly can to satisfy its customers, not on its own time, especially when its sold a broken product. Companies have suffered class-action lawsuits brought on by their customers over this kind of shoddy service.
|
thisisnotmikaldrey
|
Posted - 2009.12.26 10:53:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Boomershoot Edited by: Boomershoot on 26/12/2009 03:35:20
Originally by: Lijhal 2) why do we have dmg modifiers with 9 diggits behind the comma ? i mean, whats the reason to have a 9,234856219875 dmg modifier onto my pulse lasers ? wouldnt 9,24 do the same ? your game is all about math, so lets reduce server calculations a lot by changing dmg modifiers into "real" numbers .. imagine the calculations a server have to do if 1000 ppl are hiting one target with those numbers....
This made my day, CCP is currently facepalming as we speak.
****ING TYPOS~
i know bugger all about how much lag that code generates but this has always weirded me out but i gues its to to with how everything stacks and how your standings etc just never get to +10
IF they looked at the excessive number generation id also look at how standings are applied and take alliance standings as simply -10 -5 0 +5 +10 (hate/dislike/dont care/admire/love) or something on those lines .. . ive never userstood the reasons for generation the standings on a sliding scale when effectivly theres is only 5 varients.
also i would force corps to have alliance standings overrule are priority and even consider them not generating corp sttandings and have them all neutral and use alliance only. its a nightmare seeing mixed standings even when under the same badge :/ could also solve pos shooty shooty errors.
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2009.12.26 13:50:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Ban Doga on 26/12/2009 13:50:45
Originally by: thisisnotmikaldrey
Originally by: Boomershoot Edited by: Boomershoot on 26/12/2009 03:35:20
Originally by: Lijhal 2) why do we have dmg modifiers with 9 diggits behind the comma ? i mean, whats the reason to have a 9,234856219875 dmg modifier onto my pulse lasers ? wouldnt 9,24 do the same ? your game is all about math, so lets reduce server calculations a lot by changing dmg modifiers into "real" numbers .. imagine the calculations a server have to do if 1000 ppl are hiting one target with those numbers....
This made my day, CCP is currently facepalming as we speak.
****ING TYPOS~
i know bugger all about how much lag that code generates but this has always weirded me out but i gues its to to with how everything stacks and how your standings etc just never get to +10
IF they looked at the excessive number generation id also look at how standings are applied and take alliance standings as simply -10 -5 0 +5 +10 (hate/dislike/dont care/admire/love) or something on those lines .. . ive never userstood the reasons for generation the standings on a sliding scale when effectivly theres is only 5 varients.
also i would force corps to have alliance standings overrule are priority and even consider them not generating corp sttandings and have them all neutral and use alliance only. its a nightmare seeing mixed standings even when under the same badge :/ could also solve pos shooty shooty errors.
Your standing can and will become 10.0 (even without skill bonuses).
And there are more than just 5 variants. E.g. anchoring a POS in highsec needs 10x the faction standing of the system you want to anchor in. So your -10 -5 0 +5 +10 would require this to be changed.
|
Faerrus
|
Posted - 2009.12.26 14:48:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Faerrus on 26/12/2009 14:48:52
Originally by: Meatypopsicle
Correct - STFU and you might learn something. 90 people is nothing. 300+ is something.
lol 300+ is nothing either, in geminate we are seeing regular 700+ fights, CCP warlok was in system the last fight (K25) when the node was 'triple reinforced' and was running fine, unfortunatly he left jsut as the Atlas capital fleet jumped in then it all went to ****, i agree that the tests have to be run in a fight like conditions not on a beacon in clear space, get a ****caged pos up and a bubbled gates with 50+ caps cyno'ing into a pre existing fight of 400 v 400 and you'll experiance the lag.
~Orkasm
Edit: Fail alt :|
|
thisisnotmikaldrey
|
Posted - 2009.12.26 15:03:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Ban Doga Your standing can and will become 10.0 (even without skill bonuses).
And there are more than just 5 variants. E.g. anchoring a POS in highsec needs 10x the faction standing of the system you want to anchor in. So your -10 -5 0 +5 +10 would require this to be changed.
let me clarify . .
you dont actually get +10 it will show +10 but its 9.9999999999 and the +10 is actually rounding as the standings only actually show 10.00 (2x decimal places.)
anchoring a pos in empire does indeed require the respective status +7/0.7 etc.
PERSONAL / CORP / ALLIANCE standings which display on the overview as .. RED, Orange, Neutral, Light blue, BLUE which is only 5 seperate states but you can manually set standings to be anwhere between -10 and +10 but the overview will only ever difrenciate between the 5 seperate colours. if the MANUAL standings system was streamlined for simplicity then thats what i was wondering where streamlined standings code would help.
every time since dominion whenever i open my charsheet standings page or show info on an alliance/corp and view the standings info i will pretty much 100% generate a lag spike.
npc standings still require all decimal places as you also have to consider the agent intergration but MANUALLY SET ones dont need this.
|
Boomershoot
Caldari Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.12.26 16:36:00 -
[49]
Originally by: thisisnotmikaldrey
Originally by: Boomershoot Edited by: Boomershoot on 26/12/2009 03:35:20
Originally by: Lijhal 2) why do we have dmg modifiers with 9 diggits behind the comma ? i mean, whats the reason to have a 9,234856219875 dmg modifier onto my pulse lasers ? wouldnt 9,24 do the same ? your game is all about math, so lets reduce server calculations a lot by changing dmg modifiers into "real" numbers .. imagine the calculations a server have to do if 1000 ppl are hiting one target with those numbers....
This made my day, CCP is currently facepalming as we speak.
****ING TYPOS~
i know bugger all about how much lag that code generates but this has always weirded me out but i gues its to to with how everything stacks and how your standings etc just never get to +10
IF they looked at the excessive number generation id also look at how standings are applied and take alliance standings as simply -10 -5 0 +5 +10 (hate/dislike/dont care/admire/love) or something on those lines .. . ive never userstood the reasons for generation the standings on a sliding scale when effectivly theres is only 5 varients.
also i would force corps to have alliance standings overrule are priority and even consider them not generating corp sttandings and have them all neutral and use alliance only. its a nightmare seeing mixed standings even when under the same badge :/ could also solve pos shooty shooty errors.
Sorry, i didn't make it clear.
Floating Point Calculations are the least issue here. stop crying about 8 decimal digits numbers.
|
Hakaru Ishiwara
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2009.12.26 17:32:00 -
[50]
Some great points above in terms of generating proper test cases. In summary:
1) Create proper main-fleet numbers *as well as* secondary fleets either a few systems out of the main battle location AND w/in a titan bridge away. Those numbers should be as stated above, i.e., well in excess of 300 ships and closer to 900 - 1000 pilots.
2) Set-up a scenario with gate-camps and large numbers sitting on-grid @ both sides of a gate. One side is designated as 'team lemming.' The other side designated as team 'camp fire.' The system into which the lemmings jump should have at least 300 in local if not twice that amount for a truthful test.
3) Large-scale mobile warp disruption bubble installations are nasty frame-rate killers. As stated above, true combat scenarios involve these performance nightmares (bubbles) set-up on or around player owned stations or gates.
4) Within one of the large-scale fights, create one or more set-piece stealth bombing runs with enough launched bombs to chew threw typical fleet BS tanks. These things have been creating effects similar to the former AoE doomsday kills where ships and pods sit in a limbo not knowing if they are alive or dead until either several minutes post-death or the client is restarted.
5) Test the performance of clients / ships that are in the test system, but not on-grid at whatever fight is taking place. In other words, if a fight is happening at a gate, record the metrics associated with a ship sitting at a planet or safe spot in-system. Frame-rates be damned, a navigation-related command in a highly populated system can require 10 - 60 seconds to actually take effect despite a UI and menu trees which appear to be responding properly.
6) Run a secondary test where American (north and south) and other non-European players can participate. Internet-based latency surely must play a part in large-scale events and how the node(s) manage the load.
|
|
Doctor Penguin
Amarr Sacred Templars Black Swan.
|
Posted - 2009.12.26 23:45:00 -
[51]
Can I make a suggestion?
Names of Alliances for testing - Pirates and Ninjas. Just because it would be funny.
|
Steph1975
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 00:07:00 -
[52]
Im so happy that you try to do something against the lag on test server.... but what about try to fix the lag on game server ?
this night I saw 700 fleet member destroyed by 450 reds.... it's happened in Y8R-XZ... none of them was able to open the fire... the problem is not lag, but selective lag. the score 700 vs 7, woaw, so indredible that I can not believe that it wasn't done intentionaly....
AND WHAT ARE YOU DOING AGAINST THAT ?
now I have maybe a solution to play a MMPORG; play WOW
best regard
|
Etien Aldragoran
DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 00:24:00 -
[53]
When are you going to learn that just because you have a bunch of random people doing random things in a system it's not representative of large scale 0.0 combat? Having a random empire newbie show up on a grid and shoot whatever's in range doesn't stress the server the same as 250 people trying to lock a battleship and get shots off before the alpha strike takes it off (I'm looking at you inaccurate killmail numbers since pre-Revelations).
Also, why hasn't CCP ever logged one of the big TQ fights? They're literally what you're after and you know exactly when they're going to happen. If it adds more CPU usage to the node, it's not like we'll know the difference between the node flat out ****ting itself and you guys running a utility to monitor the whole thing. Lag is lag and I've never seen CCP make a statement explaining why a certain fight was laggy so it's not like we're going to catch you not giving us the best available.
|
Marc Folk
Caldari Deliverers of Pain Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 03:36:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Etien Aldragoran blaaa
have you ever scaled large clusters for more than 1000 people? it's hard to decide such a large test... you'll nerver be able to log a large fleet fight if you ar e not aware of it cause nobody fills the fleet fight formular... i'll be ther for testing :) ---------------------------------------------------------------
|
Raider Zero
Minmatar Princeps Corp Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 08:19:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Raider Zero on 27/12/2009 08:20:31
Quote:
CCP:
What exactly is being tested?
0.0 Fleet tests:
* We will begin by conducting a 'regular' Fleet fight on pre-dominion code (Patched client)
* After the first fight, we will move to the Dominion test (non-patched) server and then conduct 2 more tests: one 'standard' fleet fight, and then we will move everyone into test alliances and run a test of the Sov system
DON T WASTE UR AND OUR TIME LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT NOTHING HAS TO DEAL WITH DOMINION CODE.
I HAD THE SAME LAG AND BUGS ISSUES FROM TPAR ASSAULT (PREDOMINION) THAN GEMINATE ASSAULT
I DID NOT HAVE THE SAME LAG AND BUG ISSUES FROM SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER GOON AND COMPANY OFFENSIVE IN DETORID.
I M 99% SURE THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG IN THE LAST PREDOMINION PATCHES. Sig removed, lacks Eve-related content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] -Targoviste |
ElfeGER
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 10:24:00 -
[56]
this is more for server side lag as bad fps can be checked on live fights or with spawned stuff
Dominion removed AOE dd which leads to blobs again = more players on grid = more server load
testing fleets is also a bit to general and may be split it up like: - 500 ppl at a gate jumping to next system = time it takes on an idle node to finish 95% of the jumps - 500 ppl at a gate in 2 fleets with boosters set jumping to next system = time it takes on an idle node to finish 95% of the jumps
warp in tests to a grid 250 ppl on grid - time it takes to load for ppl on grid and warping in warp in tests to a grid 250 ppl on grid with drones deployed - time it takes to load for ppl on grid and warping in (aka lot's of grid updates with new objects - gangwarps vs. 250 ppl warping on their own?)
last but not least pew pew 250 ppl vs. 250 ppl 500 ppl vs. 1 target
if those components are known you can add up and see that jumping/bridging into a fight is a very bad thing for the server side as all 3 things happen at the same time
weapon linking vs. stuck modules = request/submit logs
|
FellRaven
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 10:35:00 -
[57]
Every time a new release goes in Lag is re-introduced, the players complain it takes CCP about 2 months to respond and issues are fixed one by one and the game is stabilized to the pre-release level.
So if you want to find the lag monster look back to what you have re-introduced that you had previously removed. Things that have historically caused lag are Titans (Single Titan can lag a whole node why?) Fighters! We all know drones cause lag but fighters are even worse also bombs and missiles may also be an issue.
And my personal favourite "Thread-less Processing" or what ever you call it. Which from a players perspective seems to mean that player A can play in an almost lag free environment while player B looks at a blank or frozen screen for 20-30 minutes before finally waking up in a new clone. Do you see the problem with this?
|
Yusuke Cor
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 11:03:00 -
[58]
Why don't hey get CCP employees to play on test server? Like all of them, including that nice cleaning lady. Family members as bonus. Hell, they might get few more subscriptions and care more
|
Ol' Delsai
Caldari Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 11:31:00 -
[59]
I think that before trying to fix the "lag monster", CCP should try to fix client/server synchronisation.
The server should not be able to apply damage on a ship if the client has not loaded the grid.
How could it happen that the server has enough ressources to calculate damages, apply it to the ship and even destroy it, when, in the same time, it has not enough ressources to upload data to the client.
This is actually the most frustrating behaviour of Eve, jumping in a system , not loading the grid, seing an empty space and in a same time receiving damage notification and in the end your loss mail
From my point of view, it should be very very easy to develop the most simplest binary test to check, before doing anything to a ship, if it's client has actually loaded the grid or not ...
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 12:39:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Ol' Delsai I think that before trying to fix the "lag monster", CCP should try to fix client/server synchronisation.
...
From my point of view, it should be very very easy to develop the most simplest binary test to check, before doing anything to a ship, if it's client has actually loaded the grid or not ...
There is one rule in MMO development which is an absolute: never trust the client.
The client can't be trusted. If you let the client decide if code on the server is executed or not you are deep into sh!t of the worst possible sort.
Besides, maybe it was not so clever to remove gridwide doomsday? I always argued that doomsday helped a lot to reduce lag, but lol, who listens to me anyway. |
|
Hakaru Ishiwara
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 13:54:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Marc Folk
Originally by: Etien Aldragoran blaaa
have you ever scaled large clusters for more than 1000 people? it's hard to decide such a large test... you'll never be able to log a large fleet fight if you ar e not aware of it cause nobody fills the fleet fight form... i'll be their for testing :)
And what if CCP had their logging triggered by something as simple as system population numbers, cyno fields or some other indicator that something big is happening or about to take place? CCP already captures all of this data and publishes it out to the players via the star map.
Of course, the question must be asked: where on earth is CCP QA with their automated testing scripts and resulting logs to ferret the results from changed code with the dominion patch? I can only assume that EVE must be a complex beast to understand and subsequently develop a comprehensive testing regimen, but the concepts of "QA" and "Testing" are not new to the development world even if they are seemingly foreign to the "Agile" methodology.
|
Doc Fury
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 17:38:00 -
[62]
So CCP, how's that Infiniband upgrade working out for you?
The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'no.' |
fuxinos
Caldari Guys 0f Sarcasm
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 19:30:00 -
[63]
Originally by: CCP Tanis
Low-sec FacWar tests:
|
Dregek
Pilots Of Honour Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 22:36:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Dregek on 27/12/2009 22:38:05
Originally by: Raider Zero
DON T WASTE UR AND OUR TIME LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT NOTHING HAS TO DEAL WITH DOMINION CODE.
I HAD THE SAME LAG AND BUGS ISSUES FROM TPAR ASSAULT (PREDOMINION) THAN GEMINATE ASSAULT
I DID NOT HAVE THE SAME LAG AND BUG ISSUES FROM SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER GOON AND COMPANY OFFENSIVE IN DETORID.
I M 99% SURE THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG IN THE LAST PREDOMINION PATCHES.
Could you be more ret@rded, firstly writing in capitals doesn't make you stand out it makes you look like a dumb whining 12yr old & they are testing both pre/post dominion code if it shows up in the pre code then they look back further so stfu and be constructive next time
edit: also maybe it was just you! because i didn't have it and people i know didn't have it when we helped IT take pnq
|
Your Host
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 03:22:00 -
[65]
I'm willing to bet isk that the new lag is from the loot logger.
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 03:39:00 -
[66]
Probably should also make sure the fleet tests are done with Loot Logging turned both on and off.
|
Doorsdown
Minmatar hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 04:43:00 -
[67]
i have noticed huge lag even being generated by shifting wing and squad commanders around. Not to say that the sol cause but the new fleet app seems to be at least one of the problems.
|
Ardetia
The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 11:03:00 -
[68]
All the things introduced in dominion obviously contributed to this problem is, CCP isnt telling us where the fault is, is it CLIENTSIDE or SERVERSIDE ??
CCP coders never had the guts to join 0.0 alliances in battle just to get rid of the problem or maybe theyre not allowed however, considering just how _____ up fleet battles are right now, i dont see why they shouldnt make an exception
i say put them in fleets and let them log in for hours on end to empty grid, and eventually respawn in station
The Flying Tigers are recruiting! |
LUKEC
Destructive Influence IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 11:16:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Ardetia All the things introduced in dominion obviously contributed to this problem is, CCP isnt telling us where the fault is, is it CLIENTSIDE or SERVERSIDE ??
CCP coders never had the guts to join 0.0 alliances in battle just to get rid of the problem or maybe theyre not allowed however, considering just how _____ up fleet battles are right now, i dont see why they shouldnt make an exception
i say put them in fleets and let them log in for hours on end to empty grid, and eventually respawn in station
That's not nearly horrid enough. Let them mine their ships first, then go fight fleet battles (though recently, it's been okish to me)..
Why don't you make new gallente titan event or something like that ?
|
Urraka
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 11:58:00 -
[70]
Originally by: CCP Tanis Howdy folks, Test schedule:
Tuesday [January 5] @ 17:00 GMT (0.0 Fleet/Sov tests) Thursday [January 7] @ 17:00 GMT (Low-sec FacWar tests) _________________________________
Considering a good majority of EVE players actually have a semi sort of life and do go to work. Wouldn't a slighty later hour be appropriate? 17:00 GMT that's the time most people get off work in EU and lunchtime in Major parts of the Mid and East coast US.
|
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 14:05:00 -
[71]
I bet 3 isk it is related to fleet finder :)
|
Aenachreon
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 19:47:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Seishi Maru I bet 3 isk it is related to fleet finder :)
The very first fleet engagement I was in after Dominion, I joined a large fleet while docked and was promptly lagged out with the fleet window open. Once I closed that, everything was fine.
|
Sawyer LaFleur
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 04:43:00 -
[73]
Its got to be a top priority for you guys to be able to get some sort of client server conversation going on to keep a ship from uncloaking or appearing on grid after a jump, warp, station exit or other state change or to at least allow you to postmortem the situation adeuately.
I think we're also owed a reporting of numbers of ships which were non responding in a sytem at given times and have some broad info shared if the outages had any geographical or operating system, or game settings corelations.
Nothing exact, but share what you do know and what you're working on to bread confidence.
|
SeismicForce
Terra Incognita Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 10:18:00 -
[74]
CCP should completly remove the fleet function (if possible, or just the bonus) for the tests. I suspect a lot of lag comes from the calculations required when jumping into a system, as every bonus each pilot gets, has to be calculated per squad, then per wing, then per fleet. If a bonus-giving member crashes then the whole lot must be recalculated. Just my 2 isk.
Originally by: Allisie In a recent interview, a dev mentioned that ships and skills cause lag and will be removed in EVE 2.
|
CyberGh0st
Minmatar Ara Veritas
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 13:39:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Lijhal Edited by: Lijhal on 25/12/2009 15:55:24 you want to fight the lag ? here are 2 (maybe 3) solutions!
1) stop pumping server resources into jita for all those 4-4 huggers who are playing 0.01 isk wars and scam the daylong jita local ... just pointless
That remark was the dumbest one I've read today :p
And because you probably won't be able to figure it out on your own :
1. It is pretty logical to reinforce Jita, because the load is permanent. 2. It is only one system, so the actual hardware that goes in there is peanuts in comparison with the complete cluster. 3. Reinforcing and improving Jita gives CCP valuable live information and experience to improve other systems.
For the trolls : I haven't been in Jita for months.
http://www.mmodata.net Favorite MMO's : DAoC SI-Era / SWG Pre-CU-NGE |
Hakaru Ishiwara
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 14:12:00 -
[76]
Originally by: SeismicForce CCP should completly remove the fleet function (if possible, or just the bonus) for the tests. I suspect a lot of lag comes from the calculations required when jumping into a system, as every bonus each pilot gets, has to be calculated per squad, then per wing, then per fleet. If a bonus-giving member crashes then the whole lot must be recalculated. Just my 2 isk.
Oh, but wouldn't it be in CCP's best interest if that infernal fleet window is open? Damn thing causes a 75 - 90% "FPS" decrease in my client every time there is an update to the fleet personnel. Let's not make this test easy for our CCP QA friends.
For testing purposes, the window is open and displaying the hierarchical fleet view. Even with all wings minimized, this local client performance hit takes place. If the "history" (aka broadcast) tab is selected, then this performance hit disappears.
|
Zeerover
DeadSpace Exploration and Investigations
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 22:04:00 -
[77]
Originally by: thisisnotmikaldrey
Originally by: Ban Doga Your standing can and will become 10.0 (even without skill bonuses).
And there are more than just 5 variants. E.g. anchoring a POS in highsec needs 10x the faction standing of the system you want to anchor in. So your -10 -5 0 +5 +10 would require this to be changed.
let me clarify . .
you dont actually get +10 it will show +10 but its 9.9999999999 and the +10 is actually rounding as the standings only actually show 10.00 (2x decimal places.)
Dev Link or stop attempting to clarify something you don't know about:)
When you reach multiple 10.0 standings you'll notice that they're not ordered in numerical order, but rather alphabetical order, since the game considers all the standings equal, and this alphabetical order includes everyone hard coded 10.0 starter agent.
|
Praetor Novak
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.12.30 00:57:00 -
[78]
In addition to the usual lag reducing steps I've noticed that keeping a streamlined overview, closing as many chat windows as possible and closing the fleet window helps this new Dominion lag monster.
|
Hakaru Ishiwara
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2009.12.30 18:02:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Praetor Novak In addition to the usual lag reducing steps I've noticed that keeping a streamlined overview, closing as many chat windows as possible and closing the fleet window helps this new Dominion lag monster.
Good points.
The irony here is that in order for the game to be playable in larger-scale fights, the game must be pared down to its basic elements with the removal of most graphical effects, useful overview columns, chat windows that may provide additional intel beyond what is stated on voice communications and a fleet window that also now houses fleet member broadcasts.
And with Apocrypha's removal of the ability to right click in space and align / warp-to a celestial or bookmark from the system map (without actually clicking the celestial in the map), we can not even feasibly fight using the map view as a last-resort lag reduction method.
What a pickle.
|
SFX Bladerunner
Minmatar Black Serpent Technologies R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 17:15:00 -
[80]
I will try to be there with 2 accounts. my plane lands around 6:30am (GMT+1) on tuesday so should be enough time for me to get back home and get set up.
What I would like to know though is:
Will CCP assign some sort of FC's to the (I assume) 2 fleets fighting eachother or will we be able to 'select' our own FCs?
I think fighting without FCs would be silly because everyone would just shoot whoever they deem a good target (pick a hostile ship thats nicely in your optimal and can be taken down by yourself). If you want to recreate lag issues properly I think proper target calling is in order (and thus making everyone in fleet A shoot a few primaries and vice versa.
Might seem a bit over-the-top but who knows. It's more realistical and it might just help CCP find+solve the problem __________________________________________________
History is much like an endless waltz, the three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.. |
|
Kaurapa
|
Posted - 2010.01.03 03:41:00 -
[81]
So after making us pay for a terrible system that they lauded as being a break through - CCP now want us to help fix it for them.
Give me 1 plex for each character I bring and I'll be there.
|
zythyl
Gallente ANZAC ALLIANCE IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.03 05:27:00 -
[82]
Edited by: zythyl on 03/01/2010 05:29:15
Originally by: Kaurapa So after making us pay for a terrible system that they lauded as being a break through - CCP now want us to help fix it for them.
Give me 1 plex for each character I bring and I'll be there.
How about stop turding around and help make the game better?
By your logic, patches are a way of CCP saying: "Hey look at our revolutionary system. Now wait while we fix it, mkays? Might take a while... I dunno... maybe five freaking years?"
EVE is always being worked on, always upgrading, improving over time. The devs said there will only ever be one EVE. And they intend to make it last "TILL THE END OF TIME". I for one will be sending all my accounts. The lag is, I admit pretty bad. But that's just because *some people* decide it's a good idea to warp into a 600popped node without informing CCP.
|
Kaurapa
|
Posted - 2010.01.03 05:43:00 -
[83]
Originally by: zythyl
EVE is always being worked on, always upgrading, improving over time. The devs said there will only ever be one EVE. And they intend to make it last "TILL THE END OF TIME". I for one will be sending all my accounts. The lag is, I admit pretty bad. But that's just because *some people* decide it's a good idea to warp into a 600popped node without informing CCP.
Great advertising by a ccp employee?
Re your "some people" comment: CCP were informed. Cant reinforce nodes until DT under present systems. So the timers created by CCP for use on TCUs mean that to stop a corp/alliance from gaining sov you have to fight with out reinforcing the node.
The mistake that "some people" made was being too stupid to realise what they were attempting to do had been done by others less than 2 weeks ago. No surprise the results are the same.
|
Obsidian Hawk
Free Galactic Enterprises FREGE
|
Posted - 2010.01.03 07:59:00 -
[84]
I still hope CCP tanis takes my thoughts into consideration
The fleet battle tests need to take place at a gate and a pos tower. NOT a random beacon
We need to have hot drops.
We need ccp in titans shooting other capitals.
We need to have a bubble party too. Everything and everything that goes into a fleet battle needs to happen.
|
ceaon
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.01.03 17:32:00 -
[85]
do we get any free subscription days for helping CCP whit this thing ? helping for the sake of common good is not very profitable |
Ol' Delsai
Caldari Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2010.01.03 18:04:00 -
[86]
Edited by: Ol'' Delsai on 03/01/2010 18:07:44 Edited by: Ol'' Delsai on 03/01/2010 18:06:10 Since it was lost in an ocean of trolls , here's some facts/solutions to the current lag monster issue that happens wether or not the node is reinforced ... It seems to be a grid issue, not a node issue
This should be reproduced during the test on sisi ...
Thanks to Jarnis McPieksu who originally posted this on CAOD
Quote: Dear EVE players who haven't figured this out yet, here is a...
Guide to Dominion Grid Load Lag
Post-Dominion, we got a new bug. NC experienced it first-hand a couple of times and lost a pile of ships to it. Through repeated attempts at bashing a skull to a wall, a solution was eventually found. Many fleet battleships died bringing you this information.
If you try to enter system (not just warp to a grid, enter a new system) on a grid that has too many other ships on it, you will end up in a bugged state - grid will not load for you but your ship appears there and will most likely get shot - "too many" is a number that is somewhere between 200-300 ships. You also will be unable to log back in, so CTRL+Q is not really helpful.
Key points;
- It does not matter how many people are in system. It does not matter if the system is reinforced or not. The one and only thing that matters is how many people are on the grid you are using to enter the system. - The number matters at the moment you try to load the new system and grid and even blues count.
Hence, if you try to jump through a gate, if the other side has a large fleet, you will most likely get completely hosed. However, a mass jump can also cause everything to break for a part of your fleet simply because they enter the system only after the gate grid has already "too many" friendly ships. Cue "first 100-200 people got thru fine, rest are lagged out on load, and look, reds are now arriving on grid and... *welp*".
If you cyno in, same is true for the grid where the cyno is.
Hence, for the love of all that is holy etc., do not light multiple cynos on a single grid and do not try to squeeze more than 200 ships through at once (number of ships jumping in + number of ships already on grid).
The way to combat the problem is to stagger the entry, use multiple grids, clear out ships from the grid as soon as they land to reduce problems for anyone still jumping in and preferably use cynos that are so far away from any hostiles that they cannot land on the cyno grid in time with a blob and break your entry before you are through and have warped off the cyno grid.
After you have properly entered the system, then everything works just like pre-dominion. 700-800 ships, while laggy, is playable. 1000+ could work on a reinforced node. Entering grids full of ships in that same system, while they may take a while - 10-20 seconds is not unheard of - will work. Cue fun mega bash without one side winning with a lame turkey shoot.
Until CCP can fix their code, hope this helps.
|
Tzujeih
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2010.01.03 19:25:00 -
[87]
Your inability to adequately simulate player connections is not encouraging.
|
Your Host
|
Posted - 2010.01.03 23:26:00 -
[88]
plz sticky this thread in all the forums, not just general! and give it that pretty pink outline so people will notice it. and maybe put it in the client at our login screens. maybe even put it in the news. SPAM SPAM SPAM!
I'm tired of this 'Spatial Distortion'
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 09:18:00 -
[89]
100 or even 500+ is not fleet battle testing now is it :(.
Seriously - why havnt CCP written a test harness to test this stuff out, do it once, record peoples action were you can then reply them to the server - thats how other people test server/client systems for robustness. WHen testing a http server do they get several hundred people to conenct to that web server, dont think so. How about you drag yoruselfs into the 90's on that at least.
Also until you start sorting out the whole log area you can expect little empathy for such testing. How hard would it be to have a client version of logs thats encrypted with a public key that only CCP can decrypt with a private key, that would be easy fix to the whole we cant except client log area and avoid the bull of outr log show nothing, yet at same time they dont show a valid action that leads to the end result you reaising the ruddy petition for.
So in summry:
Sort out a test harness that can test this or you will get what we pay for kind of results given the huge efforts needed in setting up test clients that then get updated the next day forcing you to do it all again. Whilst at it perhaps drag your bug system into reality as currently its about as useful as a shared notepad file that nobody else can read even when they have to write to it (sorry hope i didn;t devuldge inner working there, just observant).
Sort out client logs you can use - disraputed computing is not just processing offloading you know, think about it. Not exactly effort to do this in a simple/secure way.
If you did that instead of breaking things every ruddy time and then crying help then you only indicate that the live server is unable to log things at a level you can fix things with.
Also explain what the issue is - is it one big process loop thats spawns threads with a half-life that means most timeout before actioning once a certain level of users get in a system. Its a resource issue and were is that bottleneck - I/O thread starvation, beyond sloppy code were non the wiser.
Help us to help you and then when we do help, sort these very very simple things out I have outlined: test harness(record/replay clients) and trusted client logs, realy isn't major issue and I'd say a good programmer could knock up these in a very very short time, honestly.
|
Sargine West
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 10:36:00 -
[90]
I just tried to finish 2 clients for tomorrows testing but run into a few issues.
Any new info on the Multiplicity patch for tomorrows testing, i'm afraid there is currently none, so i cant patch. Also SISI is running a different version than the TQ build, is this going change?
|
|
|
CCP Tanis
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 13:38:00 -
[91]
FYI: We have had to change the test setup a bit: we have moved the warp/jump-in tests into the 0.0 fleet tests and have moved the FW test to be only tentative at the moment, pending server-side tools we must implement before we can get the proper data from this test.
Please read the OP for a proper overview
____________________________ I break thingsÖ CCP Tanis - EVE Quality Assurance|EVE Live Team CCP Games |
|
Your Host
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 14:28:00 -
[92]
Originally by: CCP Tanis:
Please read the OP for a proper overview[/quote
My mom says I'm a little bit special.. whats this 'OP' you speak of?
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 16:45:00 -
[93]
"original post" ----------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
|
ElfeGER
Versatech Co. Rogue Elements.
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 18:03:00 -
[94]
If I remember correctly, lag starts already when you travel with a fleet of 250ppl (individual at max speed + warp to 0 or instas) (that was 2007 or so)
|
Sengsara
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 18:36:00 -
[95]
Edited by: Sengsara on 04/01/2010 18:37:02 It could be related to the collision fix that was implemented before dominion.*
(I can't find the dev blog, but it must be somewhere)
--> imagine a server calculating the collisions of +300 ships in the same +-15km radius
*I don't recall HUGE fights after that (as everybody was waiting for the new sov changes). |
Vuk Lau
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 20:37:00 -
[96]
Originally by: CCP Tanis
Originally by: Ruziel It should be noted that there is currently no TQ (120813) -> Sisi (121200) patch available.
One test will be using the current TQ build of the client, the other will require a special patch, which will be posted closer to the actual test-date.
Closer as 15 min prior to test?
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 21:18:00 -
[97]
Originally by: CCP Tanis
...
How to connect to the Test Servers for this test: Each test will require making 2 separate installs as we will be testing on 2 different servers! (patches will be made available for both ahead of time)
- Make 2 copies of the current Tranquility (TQ) client
- One test will not require a patch (it will use the TQ build)
- We will provide a link to a special patch for these tests in the coming days.
...
I can see no link to this special patch you mentioned.
Even if I can leave the office early enough to be home by the time the test starts I would still need to find the patch, download and apply it.
Guess you don't need that many people for this test...
|
Quesa
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.04 22:32:00 -
[98]
So if I read this right, I'll need one client that has the latest Sisi update and another that will be re-patched to pre-dominion code? So, I'll in-fact need 2 new client installs?
|
Tzujeih
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 02:28:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Sengsara Edited by: Sengsara on 04/01/2010 18:37:02 It could be related to the collision fix that was implemented before dominion.*
(I can't find the dev blog, but it must be somewhere)
--> imagine a server calculating the collisions of +300 ships in the same +-15km radius
*I don't recall HUGE fights after that (as everybody was waiting for the new sov changes).
Thats probably what it is to be honest. I remember the desynch was caused by collision calculations.
Time to eject 1000 ships ontop of a gate, CCP.
|
Kaylee Juuna
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 03:17:00 -
[100]
17:00 GMT is between 9AM and 12PM in the US (depending on time zone). You guys are going to be missing a fair chunk of the population.
|
|
Fyrr Deerdan
Caldari Epsilon Lyr Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 04:57:00 -
[101]
Great news to hear that this test will be taking place.
However, if you want to get a maximum # of users, why not do it at times where you may also get US TZ folks ?
Fyrr Deerdan - Capsuleer of all trades Va falloir que je check ta...
|
Jarnis McPieksu
Insidious Existence RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 09:30:00 -
[102]
Edited by: Jarnis McPieksu on 05/01/2010 09:30:35 After another night of fighting, I'm even more certain that only two factors apply;
1. How many ships are jumping into system at once 2. How many ships exist on the target grid - note that this goes up as a fleet jumps, possibly causing problems for part of the fleet while part gets through ok.
Numbers in the system is irrelevant, system reinforcement is not important (I guess RFed system is harder to kill, but the difference is not major)
- If you stagger out the people jumping in (ensuring that a batch gets to load grid before new batch jumps in), you can combat this. - If you spread people between several grids when jumping in (multiple cynos, multiple titans), you can combat this. - If you ensure that the target grid is clear (no massive red blob on it), you can get through more people at once. - If you are a moron and light multiple cynos on a single grid to bridge multiple full (256 pilot) fleets, with everyone hitting titan bridge/capital ship jump drive at the same moment on TS command, you are dead as a doorknob and turkey shoot will ensue. If you happen to have a large red fleet on grid, even one full fleet (256 ships) can break the grid for the new arrivals if eveyone jumps simultaneously.
Warp onto a grid, even a grid with massive amounts of people, works just like pre-Dominion. The only real issue in mass fights is the fact that guns like to get stuck and you have to resort to auto-repeat off and manual deactivation to get any kind of rate-of-fire out of them.
|
Zaiyo Modi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 09:43:00 -
[103]
Download TQ to Singularity Patch = 404 error (http://www.eveonline.com/patches/patches.asp?s=singularity&test=&system=win)
The requested URL /test/evepremiumpatch120813-121200_test.exe was not found on this server.
What is happening? Is there a patch available or not?
|
Imperian
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 10:32:00 -
[104]
bump
RAWR |
Krutoj
Caldari The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 10:36:00 -
[105]
bump I would like to ask CCP to be a bit more clear on the patchs/clients, we are no mind readers
|
|
CCP Tanis
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 10:39:00 -
[106]
FYI: The test patch is now available here.
Full link for those who need it: http://cdn1.eveonline.com/test/fleet/evepremiumpatch120813-101786_test_m.exe
To be very clear:
You will need to do the following:
1. Make TWO copies of your TQ client 2. Use the above patch to update ONE of the clients ONLY 3. The second client does NOT need to be patched at all!
To be extra clear; you should NOT be using the Sisi patch at all for this test series.
____________________________ I break thingsÖ CCP Tanis - EVE Quality Assurance|EVE Live Team CCP Games |
|
Zaiyo Modi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 11:21:00 -
[107]
If I start one of the copied clients (un-patched), having added the /server:singularity flag, why do I get a incompatible release message?
Originally by: CCP Tanis To be extra clear; you should NOT be using the Sisi patch at all for this test series.
What does that mean?
|
Tuttomenui II
Gallente BUDAPIG LTD
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 12:14:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Zaiyo Modi Edited by: Zaiyo Modi on 05/01/2010 11:55:44
If I start one of the copied clients (un-patched), having added the /server:singularity flag, why do I get a incompatible release message?
My target for the copied but unpatched client looks like this: "D:\Program Files (x86)\CCP\EVE_TEST\eve.exe" /server:singularity
Originally by: CCP Tanis To be extra clear; you should NOT be using the Sisi patch at all for this test series.
What does that mean?
My assumption is that they will roll back the sisi server as they have said that the sisi server will be used to test the current TQ build so I've had a sisi install for a few days thats not patched.
I hope they did a recent mirror so i can take part. my account was inactive before the 18th of December.
!ALL YOUR ROOKIES ARE BELONG TO ME! |
Zaiyo Modi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 12:25:00 -
[109]
I suppose, ccp will use one server for each copied client. One being the "multiplicity" test-server, version 101786 (patched).
And then, they will also use the "singularity" test-server, but that one seem to be at version, 121200, which would perhaps explain the "incompatible version" message.
Eh, so, I guess they will do a rollback on the singularity test-server, to get it back to version 120813, which would equal the tranquility server.
|
Vint Rotach
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 14:38:00 -
[110]
Mac testing?
Is it worth ( or even possible) being involved in the testing from a Mac?
I gather I might be compatible with one set of tests (as its using the existing TQ build). But looks like that patcher is exe windows only.
Any info for us MacOS folks would be appreciated. vint
|
|
|
CCP Atropos
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 15:51:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Vint Rotach Mac testing?
Is it worth ( or even possible) being involved in the testing from a Mac?
I gather I might be compatible with one set of tests (as its using the existing TQ build). But looks like that patcher is exe windows only.
Any info for us MacOS folks would be appreciated. vint
Mac | Win | Win Fallback
Software Engineer Core Engineering |
|
Jarnis McPieksu
Insidious Existence RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 16:15:00 -
[112]
Singularity ("unpatched test client, just copy of TQ with the singularity server parameter") is now compatible and accepting people. Time to pile on the server.
|
Camios
Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 16:36:00 -
[113]
Edited by: Camios on 05/01/2010 16:37:03 I can't log in. Wrong user/pwd while I am sure that I used the correct ones.
(i'm talking about the first server test that is multiplicity)
|
Tuttomenui II
Gallente BUDAPIG LTD
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 16:52:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Tuttomenui II on 05/01/2010 16:55:31 Edited by: Tuttomenui II on 05/01/2010 16:53:57 Sorry Cant make it, I'm all ready to go, but neither server has a fresh mirror so i cant join. I was really looking forward to this to.
Originally by: Camios Edited by: Camios on 05/01/2010 16:37:03 I can't log in. Wrong user/pwd while I am sure that I used the correct ones.
(i'm talking about the first server test that is multiplicity)
What he said ^^^.
With me i think its because I just reactivated my account after 2 months of inactivity on the 18th or so of December
!ALL YOUR ROOKIES ARE BELONG TO ME! |
Optimism
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 16:52:00 -
[115]
I cant login to test because I dont think I ever copied myself over or whatever is needed, my other account can login but its like 5mill sp less than it should.
|
Anarius Faust
Quality Control.
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 17:03:00 -
[116]
Just to clarify:
First test: /server:87.237.38.51 - client patched with patch posted in OP Second test: /server:singularity - unmodified copy of your TQ client (if you installed the Sisi patch before, make a new copy)
Mirrors are pretty old, so you might use an old password if you changed it.
|
Dierdra Vaal
Caldari Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 17:21:00 -
[117]
Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 05/01/2010 17:22:28 this feel so old school :D Director of Education :: EVE University
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 19:22:00 -
[118]
Not sure but check out this bug:
If you delete a squad/wing that drops the fleet capacity below those who just hit join right before you did, the fleet window bugs out.
Not sure if it is related but whatever.
|
Letifer Deus
Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 19:27:00 -
[119]
being us tz i sadly couldn't make it for the test, but I certainly am curious to see the results. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!" |
Shaak Ti
Big Guns Inc. Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 19:49:00 -
[120]
At the moment, the battle is like 50 vs 50 plus a bunch of sleepers and unplayable...
|
|
Hakaru Ishiwara
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 21:12:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Shaak Ti At the moment, the battle is like 50 vs 50 plus a bunch of sleepers and unplayable...
You are joking, right? Did the sleepers hot drop onto the same grid? Were there tech 3 large mobile warp disruption bubbles on the field? Did the sleepers unveil a new tech 3 POS around which the fight took place?
Plan B?
|
Ivan Shenovich
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 23:04:00 -
[122]
Can we get a test on a weekend so we can get a proper fleet turnout? 1700GMT is hard for a working American or western Euro to make on a weekday.
|
Ferroto Baggins
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 23:33:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Lijhal
2) why do we have dmg modifiers with 9 diggits behind the comma ? i mean, whats the reason to have a 9,234856219875 dmg modifier onto my pulse lasers ? wouldnt 9,24 do the same ? your game is all about math, so lets reduce server calculations a lot by changing dmg modifiers into "real" numbers .. imagine the calculations a server have to do if 1000 ppl are hiting one target with those numbers....
I'd go further and say just use whole numbers
|
Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.01.06 07:15:00 -
[124]
Let me begin by saying that i was unable to come to the testing. But, from talking with my corp and alliance mates, and from examining your testing procedure, you did not have enough numbers to simulate or create the Evil Grid Lag of Death.
You need, minimum, 500 players, in two fleets (300 in one, 200 in the other). You need at least a single, seasoned 0.0 FC for each side. We know how to whip people into fleet, get them organized, and move our fleets how it happens in the real world.
If you really, honestly want to recreate this bug, you need to convo the leaders of a couple major alliances and get them to pull CTAs. Have the Alliance leaders pick two FC's, split the fleets up, and presto..you have your toys to move how you want, when you want, and you only need to talk to two people to move the fleets.
Now, how do you get this to happen..since any respectable 0.0 alliance can't leave their space for 2 hours..Any enemy will jump on it. So, to get the 0.0 numbers (we do want to help you, but we can't post CTA's for it without getting our space owned..thus we can't come) You're going to need to do something drastic..either get both sides of a conflict (like gem) to come to the party, and reverse any damage done by "rouge" fleets while the testing is going on, or something.
Otherwise you're not accomplishing anything. 0.0 Fleet FC's know how to fight brutal and hard. Find a way to let us come and show you. Convo me in game if you have a desire to chat..
|
Hekktor Zarkon
Decadence. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.06 09:50:00 -
[125]
why would they need 500ppl on the test server to get a clue what causes the lag on dominion build in comparisation to apocrypha code?
I think they did exactly what they needed - run 2 almost identical situations, one on apo one on domi and check the DIFFERENCE in the collected traffic data..
and yes, there WAS a difference, so the chances are high that they can track down what causes the lag in dominion code...
-;= |
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.01.06 17:47:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Hekktor Zarkon why would they need 500ppl on the test server to get a clue what causes the lag on dominion build in comparisation to apocrypha code?
I think they did exactly what they needed - run 2 almost identical situations, one on apo one on domi and check the DIFFERENCE in the collected traffic data..
and yes, there WAS a difference, so the chances are high that they can track down what causes the lag in dominion code...
Because some people think the grid loading bug (iow. responsive client but no grid) is different than the lag we had in this test. So getting more people to get this grid loading trouble could/would show a different problem.
|
Obsidian Hawk
Free Galactic Enterprises FREGE
|
Posted - 2010.01.06 23:03:00 -
[127]
Originally by: CCP Tanis Howdy folks,
If you participated in this testing, please take a moment to stop by our feedback tread and tell us what you think!
I spy with my little eye a spelling error :P
*gives tanis a beer*
|
Imhotep Khem
Minmatar Doom Guard Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 01:22:00 -
[128]
Why not have a test client. One that CCP can send commands to, and that will automatically connect to and load the server at a time of CCPs choosing. I know there are security issues. I know CCP needs the distributed power of all the clients to load the server. Just trying to think of a better way to get testing than asking and hoping. _________ If your not dyin' your not tryin'. |
Arronicus
Phantom Squad Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 18:30:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Ferroto Baggins
Originally by: Lijhal
2) why do we have dmg modifiers with 9 diggits behind the comma ? i mean, whats the reason to have a 9,234856219875 dmg modifier onto my pulse lasers ? wouldnt 9,24 do the same ? your game is all about math, so lets reduce server calculations a lot by changing dmg modifiers into "real" numbers .. imagine the calculations a server have to do if 1000 ppl are hiting one target with those numbers....
I'd go further and say just use whole numbers
Using whole numbers would be a crushing blow to the game as a whole. Why? Because the decimal places are always the difference between levels of named, faction, officer, and even t2 mods. People pay 500k isk more for an extra 0.1, or 200million more for an extra 0.4
I also highly doubt that it makes any real difference on processor speed to calculate the difference between 9.234856219875, and 9.24 (Despite the fact that 9.2348 rounds DOWN to 9.23, not up to 9.24)
|
Sarajo
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 19:54:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Arronicus I also highly doubt that it makes any real difference on processor speed to calculate the difference between 9.234856219875, and 9.24 (Despite the fact that 9.2348 rounds DOWN to 9.23, not up to 9.24)
Because I'm a nerd i did this:
9.234856219875 9.23485621988 9.2348562199 9.234856220 9.23485622 9.2348562 9.234856 9.23486 9.2349 9.235 9.24
You were wrong.
|
|
Nobani
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 23:51:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Ferroto Baggins
Originally by: Lijhal
2) why do we have dmg modifiers with 9 diggits behind the comma ? i mean, whats the reason to have a 9,234856219875 dmg modifier onto my pulse lasers ? wouldnt 9,24 do the same ? your game is all about math, so lets reduce server calculations a lot by changing dmg modifiers into "real" numbers .. imagine the calculations a server have to do if 1000 ppl are hiting one target with those numbers....
I'd go further and say just use whole numbers
9.23 and 9.23485619875 are both real numbers. Moreover, they both take the exact same length of time to do any calculations with on a computer. Going to integers may save some calculation time, but my intuition is that any savings is low compared with the overhead of doing calculations in Python. I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong with appropriate benchmarks.
|
Seth Ruin
Minmatar Ominous Corp Cult of War
|
Posted - 2010.01.08 09:07:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Sarajo
Originally by: Arronicus I also highly doubt that it makes any real difference on processor speed to calculate the difference between 9.234856219875, and 9.24 (Despite the fact that 9.2348 rounds DOWN to 9.23, not up to 9.24)
Because I'm a nerd i did this:
9.234856219875 9.23485621988 9.2348562199 9.234856220 9.23485622 9.2348562 9.234856 9.23486 9.2349 9.235 9.24
You were wrong.
lolwut?
|
Percy Soars
|
Posted - 2010.01.08 11:16:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Sarajo
Because I'm a nerd i did this:
9.234856219875 9.23485621988 9.2348562199 9.234856220 9.23485622 9.2348562 9.234856 9.23486 9.2349 9.235 9.24
You were wrong.
Lol, judging from that you are not a nerd.
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 06:10:00 -
[134]
(Almost) a week has passed since the first test took place and the second test was cancelled.
Are there any updates on this issue yet? Any idea if the second test will be conducted and when?
|
FellRaven
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 19:00:00 -
[135]
Having spent a considerable amount of time setting up for this test and participating a little feedback would be nice.
I note that the Lag has not improved any.
ps. I agree with previous comments here that the test was poorly organised and inadequate for the task.
|
Drazi1
Minmatar The Knights Templar R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 21:29:00 -
[136]
I suggest we boycott EVE untill CCP decides to sort this rubbish out. After all we are customers of ccp
|
Psycho Tripper
Urban Malice
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 21:47:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Sarajo
Because I'm a nerd i did this:
9.234856219875 9.23485621988 9.2348562199 9.234856220 9.23485622 9.2348562 9.234856 9.23486 9.2349 9.235 9.24
You were wrong.
Yeah, because that's how rounding works.
|
FellRaven
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 22:01:00 -
[138]
Just been in the massive lag fest in K25, had to change fleet half way through and guess what, leaving fleet leaves the lag behind.
CCP care to come clean?#
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.01.19 08:12:00 -
[139]
(Almost) two weeks have passed since the first test took place and the second test was cancelled.
Are there any updates on this issue yet? Any idea if the second test will be conducted and when?
I saw that there is no patch available for SISI right now and a dev posted this is because of testing an RC. Does this mean there will be a new release on TQ soonÖ? Will that release address the performance issue?
|
Hyperforce99
Gallente GoldTech Mischievous Industrial Logistics Ltd.
|
Posted - 2010.01.19 08:27:00 -
[140]
Originally by: FellRaven Just been in the massive lag fest in K25, had to change fleet half way through and guess what, leaving fleet leaves the lag behind.
CCP care to come clean?#
so, are you saying lag might be because of the fleet tool? --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/ |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |