| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Sir Substance
Tactical Knightmare
27
   |
Posted - 2011.10.03 13:30:00 -
[31] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:it's a good idea, but would it not be a better idea to buy more hardware to allow the servers to deal with the load ? oh hang on that would drive the running costs up,, nope i guess not, how silly of me. 
During this years fanfest, CCP was bragging that intel had given them a pre-release core so secret they weren't allowed to tell us its name.
At the time, some of the people I was with speculated it might be based on the 3D construction Ivy Bridge core.
Its possible that there are computational constructs out there with more processing power then whatever classified monstrosity is currently at the heart of tranquility, but you can rest assured that even if you could persuade the world militaries to part with them, they'd be well into bankruptcy territory to buy.
When you balance the cost/performance ratio of more raw power against the cost/performance ratio of cleaning up their horrid codebase and implementing a few tricks while they are at it, only a financial dunce would choose to invest more money in the hardware.
|
Steve Ronuken
Cossette Moana
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 13:30:00 -
[32] - Quote
If TiDi was all that was being done with Lag, it'd be bad.
But it's not. It's just a way to make it fairer for everyone involved. In the real world, throwing more hardware at something to make it run better isn't a viable solution. You rapidly run into diminishing returns.
Aside from that, you'll always get bigger fleets, which break bigger servers. TiDi will work on better hardware just as well as on lesser. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
372
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 13:31:00 -
[33] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:it's a good idea, but would it not be a better idea to buy more hardware to allow the servers to deal with the load ? oh hang on that would drive the running costs up,, nope i guess not, how silly of me.
For the thousandth time, this is AS WELL AS the ongoing project to reduce lag, not INSTEAD OF.
Project A: increase the number of players who can fight before lag effects occur
Project B: reduce the gameplay effects of lag when it inevitably does occur because players always bring more. <-- this is TiDi
Let me know if you still don't understand this and I'll try and think of a way to explain it in even simpler terms.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Guy Grand
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 13:40:00 -
[34] - Quote
I must have been away from EVE too long, because I am finding it hard to believe that people can be this willfully dense. A few weeks back in the game ought to cure me of this disbelief. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
373
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 13:41:00 -
[35] - Quote
Juddas Priest wrote:How may players will really be effected by lag during 1000 ship fleet battles?
About 1000 or so, in the most direct sense.
But the old "what happens in nullsec has nothing to do with me" fallacy is still alive and well and as fallacious as ever.
Who do you think buys all those low-end minerals that new miners sell?
Who do you think consumes all that faction ammo and all those implants that hi-sec mission runners sell?
Where do you think the Technetium for your fancy new Marauder comes from?
And so on.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Slade Trillgon
Endless Possibilities Inc.
17
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 14:01:00 -
[36] - Quote
:Content
Thank you for the excellent explanation and humour Tippia!
Sir Substance wrote:
My only concern is how that will affect reenforcements. For example, a mostly American alliance being attacked during euro primetime might choose to spam missiles in an attempt to *** the server into lagging so much the battle draws out until the Americans can log on and carry the fight.
Is this ok?
:Mildly authoritative
"Nothing is fair in love and war"
If an alliance does not have the diplomatic fortitude to acquire reliable allies from varying time zones then thhey do not win the war or hold their territory.
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:it's a good idea, but would it not be a better idea to buy more hardware to allow the servers to deal with the load ? oh hang on that would drive the running costs up,, nope i guess not, how silly of me.
:Mild annoyance
You have not been around EVE for very long have you?
Slade
|
Sir Substance
Tactical Knightmare
27
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 14:12:00 -
[37] - Quote
Slade Trillgon wrote:Sir Substance wrote:
My only concern is how that will affect reenforcements. For example, a mostly American alliance being attacked during euro primetime might choose to spam missiles in an attempt to *** the server into lagging so much the battle draws out until the Americans can log on and carry the fight.
Is this ok?
:Mildly authoritative "Nothing is fair in love and war" If an alliance does not have the diplomatic fortitude to acquire reliable allies from varying time zones then thhey do not win the war or hold their territory.
I don't necessarily have a problem with it. I actually think its kinda cool. I'm just wondering if its been planned for, because so far I've heard nothing about how the non-dilated part of eve is going to interact with the dilated ones. I want to avoid hamfisted fixes further down the track. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
Galactic-Rangers
13
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 15:03:00 -
[38] - Quote
Sir Substance wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:it's a good idea, but would it not be a better idea to buy more hardware to allow the servers to deal with the load ? oh hang on that would drive the running costs up,, nope i guess not, how silly of me. During this years fanfest, CCP was bragging that intel had given them a pre-release core so secret they weren't allowed to tell us its name. At the time, some of the people I was with speculated it might be based on the 3D construction Ivy Bridge core. Its possible that there are computational constructs out there with more processing power then whatever classified monstrosity is currently at the heart of tranquility, but you can rest assured that even if you could persuade the world militaries to part with them, they'd be well into bankruptcy territory to buy. When you balance the cost/performance ratio of more raw power against the cost/performance ratio of cleaning up their horrid codebase and implementing a few tricks while they are at it, only a financial dunce would choose to invest more money in the hardware.
i was at fanfest my friend i am well aware of what's in the pipeline.
as far as the cost/performance statement, why promise what you can't deliver ?
i'm saying TiDi is a good idea, but more servers per node would be even better, but it's not going to happen because of the costs.
you did read my post before quoting me yea ? |
Hroya
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 15:12:00 -
[39] - Quote
This looks like one hell of a great feature.
It might requere some time to get used to but if it works as intended you will no longer see one sided fights where the attacker jumps into a crowded system and just gets blackscreened.
A question on about that feature though.
I might have missed it but does it only effects the system or the node ?
If it's the node, would that also slow down time in other systems attached to that node ?
Would create some funny moments i bet 
|
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
Galactic-Rangers
13
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 15:12:00 -
[40] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:it's a good idea, but would it not be a better idea to buy more hardware to allow the servers to deal with the load ? oh hang on that would drive the running costs up,, nope i guess not, how silly of me. For the thousandth time, this is AS WELL AS the ongoing project to reduce lag, not INSTEAD OF. Project A: increase the number of players who can fight before lag effects occur Project B: reduce the gameplay effects of lag when it inevitably does occur because players always bring more. <-- this is TiDi Let me know if you still don't understand this and I'll try and think of a way to explain it in even simpler terms.
i said it was a good idea, let me know when you understand what you've read. i'm sorry i can't say it any simpler than i did.
|
Lord Helghast
Intergalactic Syndicate
Nulli Secunda
35
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 16:22:00 -
[41] - Quote
they've already said that it would take such a large # of people actively trying to force TiDi that even without TiDi they would ahve worked lol... i mean honestly this is only for when the servers come to a crawl and cant cope we're talking when you start hitting 500v500 battles with bombing runs and drones and all kinsd of crap going on, .... its NOT there solution to lag, its there solution to overloaded battlefields and grids...
the war on lag will continue as they said before....
as for corps trying to exploit it, NO DUH, but honestly exploiting TiDi atleast everyone is one equal footing, right now you can exploit the situation just drop 500 people on grid at a gate and wait for the enemy to arrive, TADA no grid load and the first people on grid win by default....
TiDi balances things, its not 1 side thats lagged / getting things acknoleged by server... everyone gets acknoledged and everyone gets the same chances of performing there FC's orders. |
Ammzi
Imperial Guardians
Blazing Angels Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 16:22:00 -
[42] - Quote
Hroya wrote:This looks like one hell of a great feature. It might requere some time to get used to but if it works as intended you will no longer see one sided fights where the attacker jumps into a crowded system and just gets blackscreened. A question on about that feature though. I might have missed it but does it only effects the system or the node ? If it's the node, would that also slow down time in other systems attached to that node ? Would create some funny moments i bet
Only people on-grid. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
377
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 16:22:00 -
[43] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Hroya wrote:This looks like one hell of a great feature. It might requere some time to get used to but if it works as intended you will no longer see one sided fights where the attacker jumps into a crowded system and just gets blackscreened. A question on about that feature though. I might have missed it but does it only effects the system or the node ? If it's the node, would that also slow down time in other systems attached to that node ? Would create some funny moments i bet Only people on-grid.
Wrong. It affects the node.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
377
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 16:23:00 -
[44] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:Malcanis wrote:xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:it's a good idea, but would it not be a better idea to buy more hardware to allow the servers to deal with the load ? oh hang on that would drive the running costs up,, nope i guess not, how silly of me. For the thousandth time, this is AS WELL AS the ongoing project to reduce lag, not INSTEAD OF. Project A: increase the number of players who can fight before lag effects occur Project B: reduce the gameplay effects of lag when it inevitably does occur because players always bring more. <-- this is TiDi Let me know if you still don't understand this and I'll try and think of a way to explain it in even simpler terms. i said it was a good idea, let me know when you understand what you've read. i'm sorry i can't say it any simpler than i did.
Lag is a software problem, let me know when you've understood that.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Ammzi
Imperial Guardians
Blazing Angels Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 16:23:00 -
[45] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Juddas Priest wrote:How may players will really be effected by lag during 1000 ship fleet battles?
About 1000 or so, in the most direct sense. But the old "what happens in nullsec has nothing to do with me" fallacy is still alive and well and as fallacious as ever. Who do you think buys all those low-end minerals that new miners sell? Who do you think consumes all that faction ammo and all those implants that hi-sec mission runners sell? Where do you think the Technetium for your fancy new Marauder comes from? And so on.
Incursion runners of course?
Nothing spends ammo like a sleipnir on-shooting for 8 hours straight a day.
Ask those selling ammo in incursion areas ^^
|
Lord Helghast
Intergalactic Syndicate
Nulli Secunda
35
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 16:24:00 -
[46] - Quote
OH YA, and for the smart guy saying the client was still jumping and skipping, watch different videos with TiDi at up to 90% ... its not eve doing that jumping its people running there client with brackets enabled zoomed in during massive battles and crazy crap... that there PC can't handle rendering at 30 fps...
A nice solid PC on the other hand might handle that, check the test reports from the last masstest some guys with GTX5XX cards and i7's were seeing smooth 30+ FPS, while ZOOMED IN, thats UNHEARD OF in the past for these massive lagged battles. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
306
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 17:36:00 -
[47] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:it's a good idea, but would it not be a better idea to buy more hardware to allow the servers to deal with the load ? No, it would not be a better idea because it wouldn't solve the problem TiDi solves.
Quote:oh hang on that would drive the running costs up Not really, no.
GÇöGÇöGÇö
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex
Cosmic Consortium
118
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 23:32:00 -
[48] - Quote
Solstice Project wrote:Slowing the server down would mean to lower it's frequency,
like from 3 GHz to 2 GHz.
You didn't even read what I wrote, did you?
Solstice Project wrote:]That's a fact. It's just the way it is.
There's no sense in argueing about this.
Making a computer slower means making it slower.
I wasn't talking about the computer. I was talking about the server: i.e.: the software that is running on whatever hardware is available.
Solstice Project wrote:And using "server" as a synonym for "simulation" is pure nonsense.
A "server" is a server and a "simulation" is a simulation !
Does the Apache process care what hardware it's running on? Is the Apache process the web server, or the hardware? I don't see my hardware serving web sites, but I do see the Apache process serving web sites. When a client connects to an IP address to fetch a web page, it's talking to the Apache process.
If the hardware is actually the server, what happens when I run Apache and Samba and Postfix and Cyrus IMAPd on the same hardware? Is that hardware simultaneously all my servers? No, it's just a host running some software. The box doesn't care what software is running on it. The web server is the Apache process listening on address X. The file server is the Samba process listening on address Y. The mail transfer agent is the Postfix process listening on address Z. The box that all these servers are running on is only a host, it's not a server. If you're a hardware salesperson you'll advertise boxes as "servers" purely to provide some glossy-brochure differentiation between your "server" products and your "desktop" products since your "server" range has Fibre Channel connectivity while the "desktop" range has more USB ports and quieter fans. The labelling reflects the intended use: a box by itself is not a "server", it is a host.
The sol simulation is something that happens inside the server. The server runs on a host. Meaningless conflation of server and host into one term leads to confusion: if we shut down the mail server for maintenance, do you want me to stop the software, or turn off the hardware? If you refer to the host as the host and the server as the server, things become easier: "we need to shut the mail server down to fix some corruption in the on-disk store." "We need to shut down Marvin to replace a faulty disk, which will mean the mail server and IMAP server must be moved to a different host for the interim."
Solstice Project wrote:Time Dilation doesn't slow the server down and also doesn't speed the client up.
The only reason Time Dilation exists is because there are too many clients to handle at normal speed. From the perspective of the server, the clients are interacting too fast: "Hey! I can't handle that module activation, I haven't even finished handling your last module activation request! Slow down!" But the client won't slow down, so the server tries to handle more calculations per interval.
When the server can't handle the amount of processing that is required, it stops running lock-step at one second intervals and lets the "one second" processing take as much time as it needs. Thus "one second" on the server takes more than one second on the wall clock. The server is slowing down (from our perspective), but it is also speeding up (from the simulation's perspective).
Better hardware can allow the server to handle more clients before it has to slow time down in order to process all the requests and perform the necessary calculations.
You need to get over the confusion between software and hardware, and accept that when it takes the server longer than one second to process a "one second" cycle of the simulation, the server is slowing time down.
|
Fix Lag
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
49
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 23:36:00 -
[49] - Quote
sup guys heard this thread was about lag |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex
Cosmic Consortium
118
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 23:50:00 -
[50] - Quote
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:it's a good idea, but would it not be a better idea to buy more hardware to allow the servers to deal with the load ?
The "lag" that people are talking about in big fleet fights is where the combat simulation breaks. The server just can't process enough simulation elements, regardless of what hardware it's thrown on. So then crazy stuff starts happening: people get to fire infinite rounds from a turret weapon without having to reload the magazine, other people can't get modules to activate in the first place. Ships that are blown up stay on grid, long after the pilot has woken up in their medical clone. Weird stuff.
All that will happen if you double the processing power of the hardware is that you'll get double the number of people piling into a fight before the weird stuff starts happening.
So time dilation is attempting to address the issue by preventing the weird stuff from happening. It does this by removing the restriction on "one second" of simulation time taking one second of wall-clock time. So if you pile twice as many people on grid, you end up with "one second" of simulation time taking two seconds of wall-clock time (as an example). Weird stuff is held at bay: everyone can activate and deactivate modules, people don't get to fire infinite rounds without reloading, etc.
Can you see that these are two different paths to address the problem of "they keep adding ships to the fleet until it lags"?
Hardware path: add more processing power so the server can handle more ships on grid
Software path: do funky stuff on the server so the processing power we have can handle more ships on grid
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex
Cosmic Consortium
118
|
Posted - 2011.10.03 23:58:00 -
[51] - Quote
Fix Lag wrote:sup guys heard this thread was about lag
But are you fixed or "fixed"? I hope you're "fixed" since we don't want little lags running around ruining our day  |
Sir Substance
Tactical Knightmare
27
|
Posted - 2011.10.04 03:17:00 -
[52] - Quote
Fix Lag wrote:sup guys heard this thread was about lag
You'll have to start posting longer comments in more popular threads from now on. |
Voivod Rhahk'an Anstian
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2011.10.04 07:29:00 -
[53] - Quote
Whatever imaginative description they can come up to, TiDi is still pretty clear sign that CCP has actually lost their war against lag. Further slowing down already slow enough game? Yeah, right.
I'm just wondering what would happen if EVE had like twice as much of players logged each evening - would they have to introduce turn-based combat? |
Solstice Project
Cult of Personality
20
|
Posted - 2011.10.04 07:44:00 -
[54] - Quote
TL;DR.
Anyway, i see. Referring to the software as the "server" makes more sense.
And thx again for the explanation, but i know how it works already
and you're still using "the server is slowing down", which still is wrong anyway.
YOU don't get that part.
Writing stuff like this means people jump on, having no clue and repeating this.
Even if your intention is good, it's still crap.
There's no reason to believe the server is slowing down/speeding up, because that's not happening.
That's - at best - a simple explanation for all of those who do not get what's happening anyway
and then these misinformed people take this information and spread it around ... and that's bullshit.
I agree with most of what you wrote, because it's simply true and states the facts,
but the server is not slowing down. The server is slowing simulation time down, yes.
But the host is NOT slowing down. ^^
The software is NOT getting executed slower ! :)
If the server has lag, people know there are too many people on grid.
So, if they know there are too many people on grid,
they know the server* can't cope with what's going on ... it's too much.
Means, when people say "the server is slowing down" we get a hell lot of people having
no clue about what's really going on, just repeating stuff they've heard or read and didn't understand
and then go ***** around with their half-assed wisdom pretending to know what's happening
and claiming that THE SERVER IS SLOWING DOWN, WHICH HELPS LAG!
So, the server is slow already and is slowing down even more because that helps lag.
WOW, THAT MAKES SENSE ! :)
That's my whole point.
People are idiots. Look at who started this thread,
look at other threads about time dilation.
As an example for clarification of what i'm talking about:
in help-chat a noob came in and asked why some of the wrecks are yellow.
One guy answered "it means HANDS OFF" and i bitched at him because that's simply not true
and told the noob that, what he actually meant to say, is: "this wreck belongs to somebody else."
We had an argument for about 10 seconds ... *lol* ... he gave in when i told him that
his words will lead the noob to a totally different way of thinking,
which can affect the whole noobs life just because of the bias he creates with HANDS OFF !
(if bias is the right word to use here)
So ... the server is not slowing down.
Please stop educating people the wrong way.
Thx.
*actually, host would be more correct in this case, because it's the host who executes the code
and there's more code to execute per second than the host can cope with. |
Solstice Project
Cult of Personality
20
|
Posted - 2011.10.04 07:47:00 -
[55] - Quote
Voivod Rhahk'an Anstian wrote:Whatever imaginative description they can come up to, TiDi is still pretty clear sign that CCP has actually lost their war against lag. Further slowing down already slow enough game? Yeah, right.
I'm just wondering what would happen if EVE had like twice as much of players logged each evening - would they have to introduce turn-based combat?
Means you simply don't get it.
Also, nobody ever has won the war against lag.
Nobody. Ever. That's because one can't win this,
unless you get some kind of infinity-machine.
"Further slowing down already slow enough game?"
You just don't have enough clue about the context. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
310
|
Posted - 2011.10.04 08:56:00 -
[56] - Quote
Voivod Rhahk'an Anstian wrote:Whatever imaginative description they can come up to, TiDi is still pretty clear sign that CCP has actually lost their war against lag. How so? This is probably one of the most crippling blow to the effects of server overload to ever be implemented.
Quote:Further slowing down already slow enough game? Yeah, right. No.
Quote:I'm just wondering what would happen if EVE had like twice as much of players logged each evening - would they have to introduce turn-based combat? It already is, of a sort.
GÇöGÇöGÇö
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Solstice Project
Cult of Personality
20
|
Posted - 2011.10.04 09:26:00 -
[57] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Voivod Rhahk'an Anstian wrote:Whatever imaginative description they can come up to, TiDi is still pretty clear sign that CCP has actually lost their war against lag. How so? This is probably one of the most crippling blow to the effects of server overload to ever be implemented. Quote:Further slowing down already slow enough game? Yeah, right. No. Quote:I'm just wondering what would happen if EVE had like twice as much of players logged each evening - would they have to introduce turn-based combat? It already is, of a sort.
Abso-*******-lutely positive.
|
Baby ChuChu
Ice Cream Asylum
10
|
Posted - 2011.10.04 10:23:00 -
[58] - Quote
As a programmer, I find TiDi pretty darn interesting as well as impressive.
Yep.
I really don't have anything to add other than that haha. Only thing I can say is I wish more games would, or rather, should, make use of this. |
Solstice Project
Cult of Personality
20
|
Posted - 2011.10.04 10:42:00 -
[59] - Quote
nice pic, chuchu. ^^
Problem is, this only works for games where the player doesn't have direct control over it's entity (curser keys)
but would work for RTS (as example), altough i believe lag's not that of a problem with these. |
Bob Jan
Pandemonium Agenda LLC
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.04 12:39:00 -
[60] - Quote
Correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand the following happens.
First let me explain how a server handles stuff.
A host (eve online server) can only handle X amount of request and can only send X amount of information to the other players about those request. Request being the input of players (keyboard clicks and mouseclicks) and information being the collection of those request.
So If I press the (warp button) the server handles my 'request' sends information back to my pc and my pc handles that information, the host also sends information to all the other players in that area. So there is a constant input and output of the server that needs to be handeld by the server.
The sending of information by the host is handeld in so called 'packages' wich are bundels of information.
The sending of information by the client (us the players) is handeld by a single line of information (not a bundle)
What we call lag is mostly 'Loss'
Lets say the server can handle 1000 request every second.
The server can send 1000 bundles of information a second aswel.
Now when 5000 people do a request to the server at the same time the server can't handle the input anymore.
What happens is that the bundles that get send back to the clients (we the players) do not contain all the information that the 5000 people send to the server. Thats called choke.
Lets say I send a request to the server Request A and Request B. Request A is send back in information bundle 1.
But where is Request B? Request B could not be handled in bundle 1 and is send with bundle 2. This is choke.
The time it takes for your computer to talk with the server.
If you have 200ms that means it takes 200 miliseconds for your pc output to reach the server and then another 200ms for the server to respong again. That is a totel of 400ms (almost a half of a second, for shooters this is alot) You have a ping of 400.
No to my understanding TiDi doest not solve lag at all, it solves choke.
What is does is give the server more time to create the bundles of information (slowing down the server) so 5000 people punt in a request to the server. The server now takes 5 seconds instead of one second to build up the bundles of information and send it back.
Bob Jan |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |