EVE Search - Why add titans & carriers with the current lag of fleet battles?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Why add titans & carriers with the current lag of fleet battles?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
Moadyb	Posted - 2005.11.10 21:45:00 - [1] Its just something that confuses me. With all the lag surrounding fleet battles, why is CCP adding stuff that actually promotes and supports even bigger fleet battles (like titans and carriers)? Why add jump clones (basically to enable players to safely jump into fights without the penalty of paying for a clone or losing implants) that would result in even bigger fleets? Wouldnt it be more realistic to look into ways of either limiting these server cripling engagements or at least not promoting (or enabling mechanics) that will results in even bigger fleets? Just wondering... flame away PS. yes I am aware that they are 'working' on server lag issues, but ever since Exodus, lag has actually been getting worse. Also, I am getting the feeling that its a loosing battle with the kind of subscriber growth Eve is getting atm.
Gonada	Posted - 2005.11.10 21:51:00 - [2] apperantly you have not read the dev blog concerning their attempts to remove alot of the lag in RMR patch. -Baby can you dig your man-
EinaruS	Posted - 2005.11.10 21:55:00 - [3] I firmly believe that CCP will have fixed the bookmark, lag, stuff before that.. as naive as that may be
Winterblink	Posted - 2005.11.10 22:01:00 - [4] Because Titans have weapons that can destroy hundreds of battleships with a single shot, and walla! no more lag. winterblink warp drive active.http://winterblink.com/wda nature vraie.http://winterblink.com/env
Moadyb	Posted - 2005.11.10 22:02:00 - [5] Originally by: Gonada apperantly you have not read the dev blog concerning their attempts to remove alot of the lag in RMR patch. Actually I did, but as I said, with the subscriber growth I just can't see that 2% optimazatin here and 3% there is going to make a big difference if your growing around 50% per anum in total player base. Also, seeing that CCP has to resort to 'balancing' gameplay issues like Drones to address lag issues, I dont think that there is much headroom in actual net code optimization.
Ander	Posted - 2005.11.10 22:28:00 - [6] Actually. We'll come to a point when the bottleneck is the bandwidth available. EVE uses a packetformat which includes certain data sent to the client. Stuff in space, directions, events etc. Each packet can only hold so and so much. I havent taken a look so I dont know if the packets are UDP or TCP. But Im guessing UDP since you cant just have a lot of ACK's going back and forth. So instead continous UDP updates of relative positions of ships and such will go out to the client. PACKET \| ShipID does this and that... \| That's just fine and dandy, then consider you want 100 to go out. PACKET \| ShipID does this and that...ShipID does this and that...ShipID does this and that...ShipID does this and that...ShipID does this and that...ShipID does this and that...ShipID does this and that... \| Each packet can only have so and so much payload, which means it'll send several packets with info on the ships. Then considering you get stuck in a fleet battle, the server needs to send a LOT of data out to the clients. And each client might just have so and so much available bandwidth. Thus it'll only be able to update the stuff on ships so and so often when the amount of items in space increases. Of course, CCP has done stuff to lessen the amount of data required to be sent. Possibly drones only need to send out what thing it's heading for or circling. Not sending "exact" calculations on where in space a drone is. but leaves this for the client to calculate. Oh.. and this probably why EVE isnt and never will be a "free-control" space-sim. And it might not even be sending out updates on ships that doesnt "matter" too much for the player. First thing it excludes is the out-of-grid ships.. only data will be sent is stuff noticable on the scanner/overview. Jikes, I can keep going on and making a fricking looooong list. I'm sure CCP has been working a lot to decrease lag. Solving the serverside lag is one thing, but the actual playability for the player will also bottleneck at the bandwidth available along the route from server to player for a continous stream of data. So.. sometimes when your guns dont go on. This might just be to due to the amount of "update" info which need to be encapsulated into the payload in the packets going back and forth from the client. The turning on your guns packet has been sent to CCP-server. But the next update coming back telling your client they are indeed shooting is still queued.
Larshus Magrus	Posted - 2005.11.10 23:41:00 - [7] Quick tcpdump shows that most of the packets are tcp.. if not all of them. Don't think eve uses UDP much, if at all.
RedWyvern	Posted - 2005.11.11 02:09:00 - [8] Originally by: Winterblink Because Titans have weapons that can destroy hundreds of battleships with a single shot, and walla! no more lag. yep, for better or worse. Or, to put it another way, "CUZ I'M EXTREEEEEEEMMMEE!!11!" Loyalty, Integrity, Honour.
M3ta7h3ad	Posted - 2005.11.11 02:10:00 - [9] UDP is a now deprecated technology I would have thought. Its better to have ack packets than just send all the data and have complaints due to the fact that the client didnt recieve 50% of the packets. :\|
SengH	Posted - 2005.11.11 02:10:00 - [10] carrier user.. #@$%$#@% I just CTDed ... There goes 30 mil worth of drones @#^%$@^#@@^#
Ander	Posted - 2005.11.11 06:40:00 - [11] Originally by: M3ta7h3ad UDP is a now deprecated technology I would have thought. Its better to have ack packets than just send all the data and have complaints due to the fact that the client didnt recieve 50% of the packets. :\| deprecated technology? I think not. UDP is very vital for many network applications. Being able to send data quick with fast responce-times is essential for most games out there. Consider if you have to send ack's at the packets if you got 50% packetloss. In a best scenario if you have a "selective repeat" implementation you're still going to have to ack and retransmit all of those packages within that window before it timesout. That's ALOT of retransmissions if half of our packages are lost. 50% packageloss usually means that 50% of our acks will be lost aswell. But still, I would've thought CCP went with UDP for data to the client and TCP for data from client to server. Commands from client is usually less data than the stuff which server processes in the local grid.
Sentani	Posted - 2005.11.11 07:15:00 - [12] Originally by: Winterblink Because Titans have weapons that can destroy hundreds of battleships with a single shot, and walla! no more lag. would like to point out that 'hundreds' of BS exploding all at once migth accualy crash the server or something... 'hundreds' of kills would send even more 'hundreds' of kill mails... and the titan would probably lagg out from all the killmails... Ps. i know its a joke ____________ The cargo bay is overloaded and cannot be made to fit Expanded Cargohold I. It is currently only capable of fitting 8772.12 units and it is currently jammed full with 9558.33 units.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.11.11 09:44:00 - [13] Originally by: SengH carrier user.. #@$%$#@% I just CTDed ... There goes 30 mil worth of drones @#^%$@^#@@^# I would hope the pilots in the 'fighters' are smart enough to return to the carrier. I hope CCP agrees. ~Captain Cutie, HFS Event Horizon Biomass fears me. Sovereignty 2.0

Oveur	Posted - 2005.11.11 09:49:00 - [14] We use TCP. One BIG ship doesn't create more lag than a small ship. It's the same number of information handled. You might have problems with your computers performance if you have many Titans in one place tho Senior Producer EVE Online

gfldex	Posted - 2005.11.11 10:02:00 - [15] Originally by: Oveur One BIG ship doesn't create more lag than a small ship. It will because everybody and his mom will come to see when it dies. :) -- $ perl -n -e 'print "Stop blameing pirates! Oveur is the root of all evil!\n" if m/podkill\|lost my ship\|gank\|gate camp\|Verone/;'
Avon	Posted - 2005.11.11 10:04:00 - [16] Edited by: Avon on 11/11/2005 10:06:15 Is it true that Titans will come free in boxes of Protein Delicacies, replacing the Megathron plastic toy? Or that Quafe are running a "TXT YOUR CODE TO THIS NUMBER" competition, with the first prize being a carrier? ______________________________________________ The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
FireFoxx80	Posted - 2005.11.11 10:53:00 - [17] Originally by: Oveur We use TCP. One BIG ship doesn't create more lag than a small ship. It's the same number of information handled. You might have problems with your computers performance if you have many Titans in one place tho I guess it's the tradeoff of slightly-less throughput, against having to implement some sort of netcode to validate incoming data? 23? # Missile Tool # ex: P-TMC : USAC

Oveur	Posted - 2005.11.11 10:58:00 - [18] Originally by: Avon Edited by: Avon on 11/11/2005 10:06:15 Is it true that Titans will come free in boxes of Protein Delicacies, replacing the Megathron plastic toy? Or that Quafe are running a "TXT YOUR CODE TO THIS NUMBER" competition, with the first prize being a carrier? Wait, do I detect sarcasm here? I swear, I really do. Maybe it's just me though Senior Producer EVE Online

Avon	Posted - 2005.11.11 11:00:00 - [19] Originally by: Oveur Originally by: Avon Edited by: Avon on 11/11/2005 10:06:15 Is it true that Titans will come free in boxes of Protein Delicacies, replacing the Megathron plastic toy? Or that Quafe are running a "TXT YOUR CODE TO THIS NUMBER" competition, with the first prize being a carrier? Wait, do I detect sarcasm here? I swear, I really do. Maybe it's just me though Sarcasm? Me? I wouldn't know how! I just thought I'd start a little rumour, and then clear up on the market ;) ______________________________________________ The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Ander	Posted - 2005.11.11 12:09:00 - [20] Originally by: Oveur Originally by: Avon Edited by: Avon on 11/11/2005 10:06:15 Is it true that Titans will come free in boxes of Protein Delicacies, replacing the Megathron plastic toy? Or that Quafe are running a "TXT YOUR CODE TO THIS NUMBER" competition, with the first prize being a carrier? Wait, do I detect sarcasm here? I swear, I really do. Maybe it's just me though Oveur, please more packet details :) and more technical details in general for us network-geeks. Why TCP upstream to client? Is there something we can do on clientside, prioritize certain packet-types on the local network. When will CCP setup alternative proxies for those unlucky people with ISP's whose route to the CCP cluster is subpar? Heck.. I'd cry if I could see a published RFC-style document on all info which arent "tradesecrets".
Adam C	Posted - 2005.11.11 12:13:00 - [21] Originally by: Moadyb Its just something that confuses me. With all the lag surrounding fleet battles, why is CCP adding stuff that actually promotes and supports even bigger fleet battles (like titans and carriers)? Why add jump clones (basically to enable players to safely jump into fights without the penalty of paying for a clone or losing implants) that would result in even bigger fleets? Wouldnt it be more realistic to look into ways of either limiting these server cripling engagements or at least not promoting (or enabling mechanics) that will results in even bigger fleets? Just wondering... flame away PS. yes I am aware that they are 'working' on server lag issues, but ever since Exodus, lag has actually been getting worse. Also, I am getting the feeling that its a loosing battle with the kind of subscriber growth Eve is getting atm. That has to be the most short-sighted forum post, I have ever read!
Mangus Thermopyle	Posted - 2005.11.11 12:37:00 - [22] I am surprised that EVE used TCP to be honest. Sure, 'on paper' its better because you wont suffer packet loss, but the result is just that the network gets flooded with acks, resulting in packet collisions and packet resends. The result is very similar to packet loss, only worse. Ever wonder why you sometimes needs to wait for like 30 secs before your weapon starts fiering? Its because the packet containing the 'fire' command is sent, and when it dont reach the destination, a predetermined wait is done before next package is sent, and if its not acknowledged a longer wait and then a new package and so on. And for each package that is sent and not acknowledged, the wait period is increased. And this is all in the TCP protocol, and nothing that EVE or the devs at CCP can change. In other words, whenever you have several seconds of lag, its not actually network lag, its seconds of combined TCP wait and packet resend. If UDP was used instead, the server load and network load would be diminished, but if you suffer packet loss you would sometimes need to press the same button several times before it registered. You would never have 30 secs of lag you sometimes have in fleet battles today though. Lets look one year ahead: maybe we will have 30k online at the same time, and fleet battles with 150 ships vs 150 ships. Something serious needs to be done for EVE to be able to handle that. A few % in optimization wont help.
Avon	Posted - 2005.11.11 12:48:00 - [23] Edited by: Avon on 11/11/2005 12:48:05 TCP is the protocol of choice for data critical systems, which is exactly what Eve is. UDP may be fast, but reliable it ain't. ______________________________________________ The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Spy4Hire	Posted - 2005.11.11 12:55:00 - [24] Originally by: Oveur You might have problems with your computers performance if you have many Titans in one place tho Rest assured, this will happen as soon as Titans become player-available. And the first Titan blob will be fielded by a pirate faction with more ISK than anyone can account for... Add into that blob a fleet of dreads and carriers and T2 BS, HACs, ad nauseum... = client crash for pretty much anyone they target.
Magunus	Posted - 2005.11.11 13:05:00 - [25] Originally by: Mangus Thermopyle I am surprised that EVE used TCP to be honest. Sure, 'on paper' its better because you wont suffer packet loss, but the result is just that the network gets flooded with acks, resulting in packet collisions and packet resends. The result is very similar to packet loss, only worse. Ever wonder why you sometimes needs to wait for like 30 secs before your weapon starts fiering? Its because the packet containing the 'fire' command is sent, and when it dont reach the destination, a predetermined wait is done before next package is sent, and if its not acknowledged a longer wait and then a new package and so on. And for each package that is sent and not acknowledged, the wait period is increased. And this is all in the TCP protocol, and nothing that EVE or the devs at CCP can change. In other words, whenever you have several seconds of lag, its not actually network lag, its seconds of combined TCP wait and packet resend. If UDP was used instead, the server load and network load would be diminished, but if you suffer packet loss you would sometimes need to press the same button several times before it registered. You would never have 30 secs of lag you sometimes have in fleet battles today though. Lets look one year ahead: maybe we will have 30k online at the same time, and fleet battles with 150 ships vs 150 ships. Something serious needs to be done for EVE to be able to handle that. A few % in optimization wont help. But if they were using UDP, if the message was lost, your guns would never start firing because there was no ack requested, so the message would never be confirmed in the first place. With the rising prevalance of high speed home connections, TCP isn't as much of a hog as it used to be. Also, if the packet signalling the incoming warp of a dreadnaught was lost on it's way to your client, and he shot you dead, would you be complaining about lag? Most likely. --- In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'

Oveur	Posted - 2005.11.11 13:47:00 - [26] Originally by: Mangus Thermopyle I am surprised that EVE used TCP to be honest. Sure, 'on paper' its better because you wont suffer packet loss, but the result is just that the network gets flooded with acks, resulting in packet collisions and packet resends. The result is very similar to packet loss, only worse. Ever wonder why you sometimes needs to wait for like 30 secs before your weapon starts fiering? Its because the packet containing the 'fire' command is sent, and when it dont reach the destination, a predetermined wait is done before next package is sent, and if its not acknowledged a longer wait and then a new package and so on. And for each package that is sent and not acknowledged, the wait period is increased. And this is all in the TCP protocol, and nothing that EVE or the devs at CCP can change. In other words, whenever you have several seconds of lag, its not actually network lag, its seconds of combined TCP wait and packet resend. If UDP was used instead, the server load and network load would be diminished, but if you suffer packet loss you would sometimes need to press the same button several times before it registered. You would never have 30 secs of lag you sometimes have in fleet battles today though. Lets look one year ahead: maybe we will have 30k online at the same time, and fleet battles with 150 ships vs 150 ships. Something serious needs to be done for EVE to be able to handle that. A few % in optimization wont help. Senior Network Engineer David aka PapaSmurf at NetGames 2005 We tried UDP. It did not work due to a number of reason. Senior Producer EVE Online

arjun	Posted - 2005.11.11 14:00:00 - [27] Edited by: arjun on 11/11/2005 14:01:33 oveur , your oh so funny replies to serious questions are below par for a person working in your position. the titan or carrier will come with a support fleet of 50 or more ships. a fleet, which wants to destroy one will have to be fat too. there the lag comes in. within the last 10 days i was in 3 large fleetbattles in c9n. the lag was just horrible. have u ever taken part in a regular fleetbattle with 150 or more people in eve? have u? descriptions of the lag can bed found in various threads within this forum. why bring in ships which force the assemblance of even bigger fleets, when the lag issue isnt resolved?
James Lyrus	Posted - 2005.11.11 14:02:00 - [28] UDP and TCP are pretty similar. The major difference being that TCP is 'fault tolerant' where UDP is 'faster'. TCP requires a session negotiation handshake, and every packet recieved is acknowledged. It means that if some get 'lost' for whatever reason they can be retransmitted, (albeit at an overhead). UDP on the other hand, has no way of recording what's been 'lost' if anything. Now for some things, that's acceptable. (e.g. if you get a packet every second with current traffic on a router, it doesn't actually matter all that much if you miss a few). But for something like EVE, all the information transferred is pretty critical - you can't afford to have your client 'lose track' of where stuff is. So TCP is the way to go.
TheJay	Posted - 2005.11.11 14:05:00 - [29] Originally by: Oveur Originally by: Mangus Thermopyle I am surprised that EVE used TCP to be honest. Sure, 'on paper' its better because you wont suffer packet loss, but the result is just that the network gets flooded with acks, resulting in packet collisions and packet resends. The result is very similar to packet loss, only worse. Ever wonder why you sometimes needs to wait for like 30 secs before your weapon starts fiering? Its because the packet containing the 'fire' command is sent, and when it dont reach the destination, a predetermined wait is done before next package is sent, and if its not acknowledged a longer wait and then a new package and so on. And for each package that is sent and not acknowledged, the wait period is increased. And this is all in the TCP protocol, and nothing that EVE or the devs at CCP can change. In other words, whenever you have several seconds of lag, its not actually network lag, its seconds of combined TCP wait and packet resend. If UDP was used instead, the server load and network load would be diminished, but if you suffer packet loss you would sometimes need to press the same button several times before it registered. You would never have 30 secs of lag you sometimes have in fleet battles today though. Lets look one year ahead: maybe we will have 30k online at the same time, and fleet battles with 150 ships vs 150 ships. Something serious needs to be done for EVE to be able to handle that. A few % in optimization wont help. Senior Network Engineer David aka PapaSmurf at NetGames 2005 We tried UDP. It did not work due to a number of reason. Edit: As can be seen in a number of dev blogs, we are also adding hardware. The total optimizations we're doing are far more than a couple of %. 3 x 5% is 15% you know Thanks for the link Oveur, interesting reading
Ander	Posted - 2005.11.11 14:12:00 - [30] Originally by: Oveur Originally by: Mangus Thermopyle I am surprised that EVE used TCP to be honest. Sure, 'on paper' its better because you wont suffer packet loss, but the result is just that the network gets flooded with acks, resulting in packet collisions and packet resends. The result is very similar to packet loss, only worse. Ever wonder why you sometimes needs to wait for like 30 secs before your weapon starts fiering? Its because the packet containing the 'fire' command is sent, and when it dont reach the destination, a predetermined wait is done before next package is sent, and if its not acknowledged a longer wait and then a new package and so on. And for each package that is sent and not acknowledged, the wait period is increased. And this is all in the TCP protocol, and nothing that EVE or the devs at CCP can change. In other words, whenever you have several seconds of lag, its not actually network lag, its seconds of combined TCP wait and packet resend. If UDP was used instead, the server load and network load would be diminished, but if you suffer packet loss you would sometimes need to press the same button several times before it registered. You would never have 30 secs of lag you sometimes have in fleet battles today though. Lets look one year ahead: maybe we will have 30k online at the same time, and fleet battles with 150 ships vs 150 ships. Something serious needs to be done for EVE to be able to handle that. A few % in optimization wont help. Senior Network Engineer David aka PapaSmurf at NetGames 2005 We tried UDP. It did not work due to a number of reason. Edit: As can be seen in a number of dev blogs, we are also adding hardware. The total optimizations we're doing are far more than a couple of %. 3 x 5% is 15% you know Wouldnt it be possible to implement an ARQ such as go-back-n or selective repeat protocol over UDP in the cases where a fault-tolerant packagetransmission is required? Wouldnt it be possible to combine the speed of UDP aswell as the fault-tolerance of TCP then? UDP is as close raw data-transfer you can come in terms of package transmission. But it's possible and quite easy to implement an ARQ protocol over UDP aswell. So it could be used as a doubleheaded protocol, in some areas where you dont need fault-tolerace you can go with raw UDP.. and in others an ARQ-implementation. The purpose of using UDP instead of TCP would be avoiding retransmissions in cases where TCP would simply add overhead and lots of extra traffic where it isnt needed.
Rider Zane	Posted - 2005.11.11 14:19:00 - [31] Edited by: Rider Zane on 11/11/2005 14:23:36 Well i'd rather have TCP and lag than UDP and no lag. Why? because UDP in fleet battles would not work, imagine pressing shield boost and nothing happens? Imagine trying to turn off your shield booster and nothing happens? Imagine hitting to warp out and nothing happens!? In 100 vs 100 fleet battle on a sunday evening (worlds primetime for net usage) you are gonna loose a hell of a lot of packets. Worse still, UDP packets can arrive in any order depending on network path, latency etc. So wierd things could happen in a massive fleet fight. The solution is code optimizations and 64 bit monster yarrrdware to support those optimizations. Also users realising that they also have to eliminate things which contribute to thier client side lag.
Ander	Posted - 2005.11.11 14:32:00 - [32] Originally by: Rider Zane Edited by: Rider Zane on 11/11/2005 14:23:36 Well i'd rather have TCP and lag than UDP and no lag. Why? because UDP in fleet battles would not work, imagine pressing shield boost and nothing happens? Imagine trying to turn off your shield booster and nothing happens? Imagine hitting to warp out and nothing happens!? In 100 vs 100 fleet battle on a sunday evening (worlds primetime for net usage) you are gonna loose a hell of a lot of packets. Worse still, UDP packets can arrive in any order depending on network path, latency etc. So wierd things could happen in a massive fleet fight. The solution is code optimizations and 64 bit monster yarrrdware to support those optimizations. Also users realising that they also have to eliminate things which contribute to thier client side lag. This is why I proposed implementation of go-back-n or selective repeat over UDP. It'd be possible to optimize things which is NOT optimizable by packet defination in TCP while still retaining the functions of in-order packets and reliable transfer. Say that you implement an ARQ protocol such as selective repeat over UDP on Client -> server . This means your commands will be sent properly and kept getting sent until server ack is returned. But imagine that sending such things as relative directions of ships which would still be retransmitted over and over. Why should the server have to retransmit that lost directions when a new packet is issued shortly after with direction updates. This kind of info would be pretty conventient to have over raw UDP. But turn on the ARQ implementation on stuff that is crucial to be recieved. You see, even such things as damage dealt could be sent over UDP just fine. Cause if you have packetloss and server need to retransmit each damage dealt you're still going to be dead serverwise when those packets arrive acked and such. In that case a continous UDP update packet would been smoother and more sufficient.
Hllaxiu	Posted - 2005.11.11 14:32:00 - [33] Originally by: Oveur Edit: As can be seen in a number of dev blogs, we are also adding hardware. The total optimizations we're doing are far more than a couple of %. 3 x 5% is 15% you know But we're in eve! It must be a (1.05^3)^((1/3)^.25) = 1.11763799 increase!
Ander	Posted - 2005.11.11 14:35:00 - [34] Damn. That PDF which oveur posted was really interesting. I wish I'd been at that lecture. Is there no online video from the lecture or voice recording? Oh and another interesting item is the "EVE mobile" in the future of eve topic. Does this mean we'll see EVE going on J2ME or similar? Now THAT would be nifty.
gfldex	Posted - 2005.11.11 14:43:00 - [35] Originally by: Ander Say that you implement an ARQ protocol such as selective repeat over UDP on Client -> server . This means your commands will be sent properly and kept getting sent until server ack is returned. We already got such a wheel and it's called TCP. Btw. TCP is doing way more then just being reliant. UDP won't give you the option to lower outgoing traffic to reduce resends and resulting "noise" on the line. TCP is doing this quite well. Remember: Read _all_ related RFCs befor you make yourself a fool. :) -- $ perl -n -e 'print "Stop blameing pirates! Oveur is the root of all evil!\n" if m/podkill\|lost my ship\|gank\|gate camp\|Verone/;'
Ander	Posted - 2005.11.11 14:53:00 - [36] Edited by: Ander on 11/11/2005 14:53:44 Originally by: gfldex Originally by: Ander Say that you implement an ARQ protocol such as selective repeat over UDP on Client -> server . This means your commands will be sent properly and kept getting sent until server ack is returned. We already got such a wheel and it's called TCP. Btw. TCP is doing way more then just being reliant. UDP won't give you the option to lower outgoing traffic to reduce resends and resulting "noise" on the line. TCP is doing this quite well. Remember: Read _all_ related RFCs befor you make yourself a fool. :) I'm not saying that TCP is bad, but TCP still relies on ACK:ed packets. So there's still a lot of overhead in cases where such behavior of the protocol wouldnt be required. Thus is why I still wonder why CCP went ahead with TCP for all the traffic instead of portions which could well be run over UDP. I know very well how TCP works, but following the TCP "related" RFC's it's not impossible to mimic the behaviour of TCP over UDP which I've tried in a lab environment. Sure, some functions of TCP will be tough to mimic.. especially with the TCP flags portion for the lower layers of the networkmodel. But oh well. But still, I wonder why not UDP for some data and TCP for the "important data"?

Oveur	Posted - 2005.11.11 14:54:00 - [37] Originally by: Ander Damn. That PDF which oveur posted was really interesting. I wish I'd been at that lecture. Is there no online video from the lecture or voice recording? Oh and another interesting item is the "EVE mobile" in the future of eve topic. Does this mean we'll see EVE going on J2ME or similar? Now THAT would be nifty. The demo shown there is from a Windows Mobile device written in .Net using a SOAP interface to our cluster. Senior Producer EVE Online

Ander	Posted - 2005.11.11 14:56:00 - [38] Originally by: Oveur Originally by: Ander Damn. That PDF which oveur posted was really interesting. I wish I'd been at that lecture. Is there no online video from the lecture or voice recording? Oh and another interesting item is the "EVE mobile" in the future of eve topic. Does this mean we'll see EVE going on J2ME or similar? Now THAT would be nifty. The demo shown there is from a Windows Mobile device written in .Net using a SOAP interface to our cluster. Which demo are you refeering to? And do you think it's possible to get a sound recording of the lecture?

Oveur	Posted - 2005.11.11 14:59:00 - [39] Originally by: Ander Originally by: Oveur Originally by: Ander Damn. That PDF which oveur posted was really interesting. I wish I'd been at that lecture. Is there no online video from the lecture or voice recording? Oh and another interesting item is the "EVE mobile" in the future of eve topic. Does this mean we'll see EVE going on J2ME or similar? Now THAT would be nifty. The demo shown there is from a Windows Mobile device written in .Net using a SOAP interface to our cluster. Which demo are you refeering to? And do you think it's possible to get a sound recording of the lecture? The EVE Mobile demo. Senior Producer EVE Online

Ander	Posted - 2005.11.11 15:01:00 - [40] Originally by: Oveur Originally by: Ander Originally by: Oveur Originally by: Ander Damn. That PDF which oveur posted was really interesting. I wish I'd been at that lecture. Is there no online video from the lecture or voice recording? Oh and another interesting item is the "EVE mobile" in the future of eve topic. Does this mean we'll see EVE going on J2ME or similar? Now THAT would be nifty. The demo shown there is from a Windows Mobile device written in .Net using a SOAP interface to our cluster. Which demo are you refeering to? And do you think it's possible to get a sound recording of the lecture? The EVE Mobile demo. EVE Mobile demo? More info :) What are these secrets on which you speak of? Is it available to be seen somewhere?
Elissen	Posted - 2005.11.11 15:16:00 - [41] eve mobile photo from the FanFest ----- ICSC Member New: Jumpplanner tool - Plan your dreadnought travelroute!
hired goon	Posted - 2005.11.11 15:17:00 - [42] Why doesn't Eve use IPX/SPX? It's faster than UDP and TCP put together times ten squared to infinity no returns. -omg-
Xantina	Posted - 2005.11.11 15:24:00 - [43] But oooooh ... Titans... OvO (This station is now the ultimate power in the universe. I suggest we use it!)
Moadyb	Posted - 2005.11.11 16:19:00 - [44] Wow, as usual, the thread went off road pretty quickly. Now irrespective of TCP, UDP, @#$DF or whatever, I haven't read much regarding my concern, which is promoting bigger fleet battles thru the addition of carrier & titans. Which I think is rather counterproductive with the current server loads. Originally by: Oveur Edit: As can be seen in a number of dev blogs, we are also adding hardware. The total optimizations we're doing are far more than a couple of %. 3 x 5% is 15% you know Thats all very nice (I really mean that, not being sarcastic). But do you really think 15% or even 30% optimization is going to solve thinks like 5 mins module activation delays in fleet battles?
Elissen	Posted - 2005.11.11 16:29:00 - [45] Originally by: hired goon Why doesn't Eve use IPX/SPX? It's faster than UDP and TCP put together times ten squared to infinity no returns. The internet and IPX don't go very well together. I really have to dig into my memory, but I don't think IPX can be routed. EVE isn't a LAN game. Originally by: Moadyb ... Thats all very nice (I really mean that, not being sarcastic). But do you really think 15% or even 30% optimization is going to solve thinks like 5 mins module activation delays in fleet battles? lag on the serverside isn't something that works linear. It's not like add one ship to a scenario of 100 and everything slows down 1%. It's more exponentioally (I think). A improvement of 15% will probaly make a bigger difference then you might realize. A while back we added an oprimalization at a system at work that we expected to have a 1-2% preformance increase. It actually turned out that one subsystem executes 75% faster because of that ----- ICSC Member New: Jumpplanner tool - Plan your dreadnought travelroute!
Tar om	Posted - 2005.11.11 16:41:00 - [46] OMG you have JUST GOT TO implement/release that mobile client. I know you wouldn't want to PvP or run missions but just having access to station functions from your PocketPC device would be... fantastic. /me dribbles Name your price! -- We are the Octavian Vanguard www.octavianvanguard.net "The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions."
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.11.11 17:04:00 - [47] Originally by: Elissen Originally by: hired goon Why doesn't Eve use IPX/SPX? It's faster than UDP and TCP put together times ten squared to infinity no returns. The internet and IPX don't go very well together. I really have to dig into my memory, but I don't think IPX can be routed. EVE isn't a LAN game. Actually, back in the day I played Descent II over the net (IPX/SPX) with a third party program called Khan97 (I think). It worked great. So its possible, but no idea how it would scale up to Eve. ~Captain Cutie, HFS Event Horizon Biomass fears me. Sovereignty 2.0
Ander	Posted - 2005.11.11 17:10:00 - [48] Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Originally by: Elissen Originally by: hired goon Why doesn't Eve use IPX/SPX? It's faster than UDP and TCP put together times ten squared to infinity no returns. The internet and IPX don't go very well together. I really have to dig into my memory, but I don't think IPX can be routed. EVE isn't a LAN game. Actually, back in the day I played Descent II over the net (IPX/SPX) with a third party program called Khan97 (I think). It worked great. So its possible, but no idea how it would scale up to Eve. Khan97 encapsulated the IPX packets over TCP and provided a "virtual" lan between nodes. So it'd actually be BAD, very BAD with eve ;)
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.11.11 17:11:00 - [49] Originally by: Ander Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Originally by: Elissen Originally by: hired goon Why doesn't Eve use IPX/SPX? It's faster than UDP and TCP put together times ten squared to infinity no returns. The internet and IPX don't go very well together. I really have to dig into my memory, but I don't think IPX can be routed. EVE isn't a LAN game. Actually, back in the day I played Descent II over the net (IPX/SPX) with a third party program called Khan97 (I think). It worked great. So its possible, but no idea how it would scale up to Eve. Khan97 encapsulated the IPX packets over TCP and provided a "virtual" lan between nodes. So it'd actually be BAD, very BAD with eve ;) Ah, well I never got into the mechanics of it :p ~Captain Cutie, HFS Event Horizon Biomass fears me. Sovereignty 2.0
James Lyrus	Posted - 2005.11.11 17:53:00 - [50] Originally by: Tar om OMG you have JUST GOT TO implement/release that mobile client. I know you wouldn't want to PvP or run missions but just having access to station functions from your PocketPC device would be... fantastic. /me dribbles Name your price! NO!. DON'T RELEASE IT. I WOULD DO NO MORE WORK EVER.
Gaelron	Posted - 2005.11.11 19:07:00 - [51] Originally by: James Lyrus Originally by: Tar om OMG you have JUST GOT TO implement/release that mobile client. I know you wouldn't want to PvP or run missions but just having access to station functions from your PocketPC device would be... fantastic. /me dribbles Name your price! NO!. DON'T RELEASE IT. I WOULD DO NO MORE WORK EVER. Quoted for truth.....but really checking your skills from a mobile device would be great!!!
Lee N	Posted - 2005.11.11 19:30:00 - [52] EVE Mobile.. I wants it.
Dr Tetrahydrocannabinol	Posted - 2005.11.11 19:55:00 - [53] Originally by: Winterblink Because Titans have weapons that can destroy hundreds of battleships with a single shot, and walla! no more lag. ohhhhhhh so thats the sekrit lag removing tool that they have been planning all this time --------------------------------------------- Oveur > CUZ IM EXTREEEEEEEEEEEEEEME!!!! [TheKiller8 - Uh what? - Flash Video]
Embattle	Posted - 2005.11.11 20:29:00 - [54] They are romoving lag so that the titan can use lag cannons ----------- I would have a sig but it might break a arm, leg or even worse a rule.
Taketa De	Posted - 2005.11.11 20:36:00 - [55] Edited by: Taketa De on 11/11/2005 20:36:20 If I could log in over my cell phone or PDA (non windows mobile tho... java client would be nice ) just to change skills... well that would be more then enough for me. Eidt: On second thought, add in markets and assets too and it would be beyond good.
Swedish Bob	Posted - 2005.11.11 20:48:00 - [56] Looking at that paper I'm actually suprised that CCP manages to run the game on a 200Mb connection. I would have thought they would have had at least a 1000Mb connection.
Locke DieDrake	Posted - 2005.11.11 21:07:00 - [57] Am I the only one that thinks it's funny when ametures try and suggest fixes for hopelessly complicated system that they couldn't hope to understand? I don't mean to flame anyone. Because a few of you seem to actually know what you are talking about. But on the flip side of that, even though you know something about networks, you couldn't possibly know how eve works. And even though I don't know either, I can safely say it's alot more complicated than you think. And, I have faith that the devs know what they are doing. If they didn't, eve would not be here today. So sit back, and let CCP work. I think it's likely that they can solve the problems to our satisfaction. OH, and just for the record, large ships don't create lag, nor do large ships mean bigger fleets. It's not so much the 5 titans causing lag as the 100 cruisers.
Ante	Posted - 2005.11.11 21:13:00 - [58] Originally by: Embattle They are romoving lag so that the titan can use lag cannons So that's how they take out a hundred battleships at once...
Batar Fireheart	Posted - 2005.11.12 01:10:00 - [59] Please excuse this ignorant question.. I am no whiz when it comes to packets but find it quite interesting. Is it possible to cross utilize both tcp and udp? for example: use tcp for more important commands ( primary) and udp for less important commands ( secondary ) or would this not work? "MAY YOUR WALLET BE FULL OF ISK AND YOUR CANNONS BLESSED"

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.