| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gunship
   |
Posted - 2005.01.24 07:27:00 -
[1]
CanÆt something be done technically to stop the mayhem that happened in VV-V last night?
Example, if there are more than 50 pilots in the battle (in a grid) do some of the following:
Reduce graphics to squares.
Simplify damage calculations or whatever can be done to lower the strain on peoples PCÆs (perhaps with consideration for that peoples PCÆs have very different specifications), you may have a dual 3Ghz monster, but is it your mates or enemys 450Mhz PIII (minimum requirement from the boxed manual) that holds you down?
Increase CPU, node capacity, whatever is possible.
Would an increase in minimum requirements for fleet battles (only) be the way forward? So if you where to engage in a 50 pilot in 1 grid, the game would check your system and kick you off (unharmed of cause, with an explaining text) if you donÆt have a 2GHz CPU and broadband access. The node could then send information at a higher bandwidth etc.
Last night left a lot of people very unhappy customers, many of us love the game especially for the chance to do large fleet battles against real people, otherwise I could just as well play a single player game. Many pilots did many jumps to come and fight, waited for hours to engage only to be so very disappointed.
When we did the big 300 player battle in U-Q on the test server we did not have the problems we had last night, so what was different?
Just for the record I do not wish to win battles because I unfairly lagged an opponent to death, I want to win in a fair fight with everyone involved being able to activate there modules etc. Somehow I donÆt think IÆm alone in this view.
Now other threads have focused on who won etc, please donÆt post that here, keep it un-personal and technical please.
Moved from Corporations, Alliances & Organisations forum -zhuge
CCP Petition! |
AvanCade
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 07:34:00 -
[2]
Problem is, your 50people are just a small part of the 10k that are online total. Test server was prolly reinforced in U-Q.
But i totally agree with you, however fleetbattles in TPAR (60+ in grid) go rather fine.
|
Gunship
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 07:38:00 -
[3]
I noticed 222 players in local at some point.
We also had 5-6 medium and small mobile warp disruptors on the gate to M2.
CCP Petition! |
C4w3
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 07:40:00 -
[4]
What Gunny said!!!!
"If all the heroes are standing together around a strange device and begin to taunt me, I will pull out a conventional one. |
w0rmy
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 09:10:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Gunship
Simplify damage calculations or whatever can be done to lower the strain on peoples PCÆs (perhaps with consideration for that peoples PCÆs have very different specifications), you may have a dual 3Ghz monster, but is it your mates or enemys 450Mhz PIII (minimum requirement from the boxed manual) that holds you down?
Im guessing here, but id be guessing damage calculations are done server side to remove the ability to 'hack' it. I doubt client specs would impact this.
I also severely doubt 1 clients lower PC specs could impact anyone elses experience, as I dont see where any client to client communication is going on.
|
Chowdown
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 09:14:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Chowdown on 24/01/2005 09:15:03
I appreciate how annoying it is when you have the massive build up to a fleet engagement and then it breaks down due to server issues. I must also say that the people who have recently raised issue with these problems are not the type to moan, if these guys say there is a problem then it will be fairly servre.
However I must say that my experince of fleet engagement, bar losing my ship last night, have been excellent recently and I have been very pleased with how eve has performed. The most we ever see in local is 150, 200+ thats just craziness. 
New Shinra Kill system, please be patient were still ironing out the finer points!! |
Lallante
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 09:28:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Lallante on 24/01/2005 09:28:23
All the 100 - 150 ship fleet battles Ive been in recently (a fair few) have been totally lacking in Lag. Probably because we are in a PCS system.
This at least shows that CCP CAN Put enough resources towards a system to make Huge fleets playable. If this balancing could be made dynamic (or even just by arrangement/petition) then the problem could be worked around
Lall - THE Vocal Minority -
ShinRa
|
JimmySav
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 10:56:00 -
[8]
Edited by: JimmySav on 24/01/2005 10:56:10
Originally by: Lallante
If this balancing could be made dynamic (or even just by arrangement/petition) then the problem could be worked around
hey thats a good idea, Lall. why not have a dynamic reserve that could used by fleet commnaders petition...(ie u send in petition saying 100+ fleet engagement immeninent in HED GP for example) they dedicate resources there, and hey presto..less lag....
after petition, GMs note if the fleet battle took place, and the size of it, and will "Mark" the petitioner.....so their future petitions are given credence or ignored as 'crying wolf'. Clearly of both opposing fleet commanders pettion at same time.... well its an almost certain battle!
Mind you this is based on my total lack of knowledge of how easy (or indeed possible) it is to dynamically allocate resources.....
null
Jim'll Fix it For You. ( and you and you!)
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 10:59:00 -
[9]
It would be interesting to hear if the lag-free battles contained drones.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Chowdown
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 11:03:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
It would be interesting to hear if the lag-free battles contained drones.
We only use drones if we have too, IMO they have ruined to many good fights.
New Shinra Kill system, please be patient were still ironing out the finer points!! |
Urni
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 11:07:00 -
[11]
Its interesting to note that every thread about the node drop last night has been locked.
You dont think its the old head in the sand, hope it goes away tactic do you? Well we know it happens but cant do anything about it, so we will kill all the threads that talk about this valid point and then all the newbs will think the game is great and subscribe for a lot longer.
Or am i just cynical?
The lack of info from the devs on this is disgraceful, its them that have forced blobbing as the main tactic in Alliance warfare, so if they cant do anything about the servers (and I think Lallante's suggestion holds some merit) then they have to nerf blobbing.
The annoying thing is for those involved if dynamic allocation of resources is possible, why wasnt anyone monitoring the server load at the busiest time of the week and for the love of God why did it take so long to fix afterwards, in fact i believe there are some that still cant get on?
Shocking state of affairs, I sometimes wonder if CCP forget its us that pay them.
Ps, Had to use an alt as my other account is banned for raising these concerns.
|
Pelias
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 11:18:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Pelias on 24/01/2005 11:20:02
Yup, CCP should appoint one GM for that duty.
With they way Blob Battles are arranged now, it wouldn't be a problem for any of sides to petition their desired system. You can limit it to alliance leaders or alliance reps (compiling a list for given GM would be a second).
Simply, Thol sends a message that he's going to sit at VV->M2 gate till he rots and fight whatver JQA cames in, GM sets allocate resources and message both JQA and SPURM about it.
If it's impossible to allocate resources when servers are online, I would like to see creation of official battleground systems. It's nothing to be ashamed of CCP - all other PvP mmos are already going this way (GW or Matrix:Online).
Give us list of official battleground systems, where we can wage our biggest fights (updated daily).
Nominating solarystems is easy - add new petition type, and simply count petitions with the same name. Alliances, corps and eve organizations will take care of rest. You should also check this forum, all bigger battles are reported.
|
Lallante
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 11:22:00 -
[13]
Alternatively, designate one obvious system in each region a resource rich system, and then fleetcommanders can "try" to fight in there most (not to say they cant ALSO fight everywhere else, but they could at least AIM for there.
Lall - THE Vocal Minority -
ShinRa
|
Free Soul
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 11:29:00 -
[14]
The last fleet battles I've been go pretty well until ravens start firing up torps. Maybe the client lacks some kind of directx rendering optimization? 
BTW, drones didn't had a noticeable impact on lag. 
The Exodus client is far more scalable and shows higher performance than the Castor's one. Hope a little more tweaking will wipe the remaining lag out... |
Pelias
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 11:29:00 -
[15]
LaLL:
Exacly what I'm saying. Though creating battleground system for each region could be too much for that poor CCP beggars, thus vote system:P
Neverthless, a daily updated list of battleground systems (with appr. max_ppl_online) is a must.
As I said, every new mmorpg that supports GvG goes that way. It also won't influence noob/new players in any way, heck - they might not even know such system exist. It'll, however make lives of harcore PvPers a heaven.
|
Pelias
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 11:34:00 -
[16]
Free Soul:
We're not talking about client machine lag here.
If you have a problem wit hit,here's the solution:
Buy 3+gh Athlon 64. Overclock it to 4+ gh level. You'll have playable fps rates even on GF3Ti.
|
Aneu Angellus
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 11:40:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Lallante
Alternatively, designate one obvious system in each region a resource rich system, and then fleetcommanders can "try" to fight in there most (not to say they cant ALSO fight everywhere else, but they could at least AIM for there.
I do actually like that idea, re-inforce certain nodes etc... would work i think
Alternativley sort the OVERVIEW/CHAT WINDOW out...
Yesterday, i was in a fleet battle with the overview open and chat open, nothing would load... i warped away, closed overview and chat window.
I warped back and everything loaded within 15s, i opend overview nothing showed, tried to lock someone with overview open, took about 2min, closed overview, locked someone within 20s... guns worked as soon as i activated them.
May be coincidence, but i doubt it very much.
Aneu
________________
Aneu Angellus
Vengeance Of The Fallen - WolfPack Military Captain
|
theRaptor
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 12:04:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Free Soul
The Exodus client is far more scalable and shows higher performance than the Castor's one. Hope a little more tweaking will wipe the remaining lag out...
No, the EXODUS client just does not link FPS to information from the server. My client runs at a pretty solid 40-50 FPS constantly, even when I have low to no connection to the server (extreme lag that has lasted over a minute, and a few times when my ADSL has dropped out). High FPS do you no good when you have to wait 30 plus seconds for modules to activate.
--------------------------------------------------
|
TFU 2
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 12:38:00 -
[19]
Edited by: TFU 2 on 24/01/2005 12:38:46
Yep u can dynamically allocate resourcess and in my opinon it would also be feasable to get the system to predict fleet movement. i.e a flag goes up to say right we have 100 pilots in space in reblier, 100 in vv-vcr. We should start allocating for that path between them and u can then also predict which fleet is the attacking fleet by its movement and reinforce the defending system.
I assume the Devs do this sort of stuff, or maybe ccp is a group of 14yr old visual basic programmers.
|
Pelias
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 12:43:00 -
[20]
They can't allocate resources dynamically. They admitted that.
Tbh, they know how to design MMO game as much as we do.
I just hope that stupid pride won't stop them from addmitting that they server architecture suck and from implementing my simple, yet workable solution.
|
Lomong
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 13:48:00 -
[21]
I think that the major problem is that it's a cluster for an application that is 'talkative'(Unlike normal DB apps), i.e passing lots of messages between threads/processes, and doing a lot of cache updates and network traffic. Such applications don't perform very well on clusters, and don't scale well either. Unfortunately, the shared memory type machines that would enable the application to scale better costs a lot. It's purely a question of keeping down the costs to increase the profit. However, with such a system architecture, dynamic allocation would more or less become a non-issue, it would merely require some sa***uards to make sure that some threads don't hog all processing power.
Disclaimer:
I freelance as a programmer writing code for clusters and supercomputers, specializing in CFD and TD simulations and FFT-heavy signal processing and also with system design, giving me some experience. I'm not very pedagogic, so if you want a far better explanation, contact for example NSC(National Supercomputer Center) in Sweden, or any of the supercomputing centers near where you live. Someone there should be able to give you a decent rundown on issues like these.
|
Loka
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 14:15:00 -
[22]
At least i would hope to get an answer from the developer of this game.
I mean admitting, that they cant get rid off the lag yet, would stop their customer to continue playing this game.
Probably some hints, like close your Overview when you jump in or remove columns to reduce traffic or reduce graphic or something else. I mean there must be ways to reduce lag clientside.
But they say nothing, no hints no livesign nothing.
_____________________________________
Dead or Alive
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 14:16:00 -
[23]
best Idea so far are Battleground systems
only there CCP gives you chance to fight out blob wars
Battleground Systems are in every region and make some kind of "King of the Hill" marker too
so you can claim that Region when you won the fight
Wanna fly with me?
|
Gunship
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 19:11:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Gunship on 24/01/2005 19:11:57
I like the idea of battlegrounds - sounds good.
Also from another forum it was suggested to "black out" a system, when a big force jumps in until all have loaded. Perhaps if could be arranged to allocate more CPU/resource to that system at the same time?
ohh and btw, thanks to all for keeping it clean.
CCP Petition! |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 19:23:00 -
[25]
I like Battlegrounds more
make them systems you can enter from varius other systems or beeing able to get moved by GMs there
Wanna fly with me?
|
Ortu Konsinni
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 19:40:00 -
[26]
I left the fight after ~10 minutes of hell, and managed to fire ~15 missiles total at 2 or 3 different targets. I left (jumped through the gate) with ~40 structure hp and I don't know what ever hit me.
In other words: this was totally silly.
|
Amataras
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 20:13:00 -
[27]
ive always wondered: EvE is supposedly playable on a 56k, i think i may have heard someone once suggest that if it was optimised for DSL and up it would run smoother. Is this right at all?
--------------
The Eve Diplomacy Table
|
Pelias
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 20:38:00 -
[28]
EVE is playable on 33k modem. Tested.
But please, don't hijack the thread. IT's about serverside lag. Not connection lg, or client machine lag.
|
0subzero0
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 20:58:00 -
[29]
NAFRI: sure the battleground is a great idea for fun adn games, but most blob wars, well recently anyway, occur for station control and other important things taht have such a fleet defending it. Asking openents to move out to fight a battle would make no sens since we all know theres always someone looking for the quick advantage.
---------------------------------------------
Yea thats right, I went there
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination. |
Orb Lati
|
Posted - 2005.01.24 21:36:00 -
[30]
If you want to have a battleground system you want to have some sort insentive to actually hold that system of space.
Perhaps place in it some sort of region scanner/becon where the alliance who holds it can mask thier members movement from other players and the only way to hold it is to keep that area of space clear of enemy for several hours (likewise to capture it)
At the moment most battles are held at choke points (or stations) of which there can be many within in a region.
"We Worship Strength, because it is through strength that all other values are made possible" |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |