Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Hanns Choibman
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 01:55:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Hanns Choibman on 29/07/2006 01:59:16 Can CCP make some kind of official anouncment that if you are in an 0.0 system with 300+ players that their game will simply not be playable at all
Or make some kind of recomendation that fleet battles do not work so if you want to be in an alliance you may as well quit.
Do CCP realise that their game opens up possibilities for things that it cannot handle.
Becasue I am a paying customer that plays by the rules and CCP's fine print basicaly states if our service can't handle it you are screwed in game.
Besides the original incident of the game clagging up so bad I lost my precious T2 Raven, I am now in a pod with 800 billion cargo contianers in my overview repeatedly blowing up and appering in the same spot. I can't access any menus in game not even ESC menu, re logging or anything, and 300 people in system are all stuffed.
A big banner or FAQ telling people to not to play with a group of friends larger than 10 in any system should be implemented soon I hope.
The irony of my sig is not lost on me now, I think I have reached a new level of understanding ----------------------------------------------
The D2 I win Button |
Idara
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 01:59:00 -
[2]
It's sad ain't it?
C'mon CCP, you know that this XZH crap has been going on for weeks, reinforce the node a little better.
|
Capacitor
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:05:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Capacitor on 29/07/2006 02:05:51 WHat happened?
|
Alvinas
GoonWaffe GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:06:00 -
[4]
Yeah, we broke XZH. Gangs have been locked for no less than 50 minutes.
|
Kronos1713
E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:06:00 -
[5]
2006.07.29 02:00:57 notify You cannot do that while warping.
Now multiply that by 10000, thats what you get when you try to do anything in XZH right now....lol
I Blame GOON...stupid 200 man fleets....
Im going to put a restraining order on GoonSwarm so that they cant come within 100 jumps of each others corps...that would solve the problem
|
Ishen Villone
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:06:00 -
[6]
response to a petition supposedly acknowledged that there was "some lag" in XZH.
45 minutes and counting...
|
Hanns Choibman
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:08:00 -
[7]
I'm sure CCP hates us paying them money ----------------------------------------------
The D2 I win Button |
Raivin
GoonWaffe GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:09:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Raivin on 29/07/2006 02:09:29
Originally by: Kronos1713 I Blame GOON...stupid 200 man fleets....
Im going to put a restraining order on GoonSwarm so that they cant come within 100 jumps of each others corps...that would solve the problem
Let's not do this. The lag screws both sides over. Both Alliances need to put aside the conflict for five seconds and let CCP know that this isn't what we paid for.
---
[img-elite sig showing my latest kill and a Machiavelli quote] |
multigl
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:09:00 -
[9]
at least all sides seem to be keeping their cool. We all just want to pew pew eachother, that's it.
|
Kronos1713
E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:12:00 -
[10]
I was just joking....
Ya, CCP needs to reinforce nodes that have 300+ people in the system lol
|
|
Zosh
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:13:00 -
[11]
Let's have 2600 people all cancel subscriptions at once maybe that'll finally get their attention!
|
Idara
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:13:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Ishen Villone response to a petition supposedly acknowledged that there was "some lag" in XZH.
45 minutes and counting...
Just a tit bit of lag?
|
Crivens
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:20:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Kronos1713 I was just joking....
Ya, CCP needs to reinforce nodes that have 300+ people in the system lol
Kronos you've been great in local today, thanks for joining in and playing :)
I'm sorry I didn't come to 1v1 your titan in the end :sad:
|
PanzerGrenadier
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:22:00 -
[14]
Sorry to all involved that combat could not happen. CCP really needs to get it together :\
|
Idara
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:23:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Kronos1713 I was just joking....
Ya, CCP needs to reinforce nodes that have 300+ people in the system lol
Nah, 300 people from difference alliances won't involve any shooting of each other or being on the same grid as each other.
|
Hanns Choibman
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:27:00 -
[16]
Hey D2 and Razor lets Ally and be friends and attack BOB.
That would be so funny I might actually keep playing this laggy game ----------------------------------------------
The D2 I win Button |
clone 1
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:33:00 -
[17]
We came for the pizza, found out there was no pizza and now we are stuck. The last time I saw a node reset like this was when jita was turned into a 0.0 on the test server.
|
Tranny
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:35:00 -
[18]
If ya don't want it to lag....don't go on the blob. You know it ain't gonna be pretty before you do it.
|
Hanns Choibman
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:41:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Tranny If ya don't want it to lag....don't go on the blob. You know it ain't gonna be pretty before you do it.
Both sides are a blob genius, Are we (both sides) not able to play with group of friends. ----------------------------------------------
The D2 I win Button |
Ishen Villone
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:42:00 -
[20]
You know, this situation puts a lot of perspective on this D2/GS conflict. Lot of excess hate generated and this is a little reminder that it's all just a game and we should find fun in it when we can and not take it so seriously.
Now lets all go suicide bomb Jita.
|
|
Oplem Brutarii
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:45:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Ishen Villone Now lets all go suicide bomb Jita.
Yes! Maybe after that we can take out CONCORD headquarters.
|
Tranny
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:46:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Hanns Choibman
Originally by: Tranny If ya don't want it to lag....don't go on the blob. You know it ain't gonna be pretty before you do it.
Both sides are a blob genius, Are we (both sides) not able to play with group of friends.
Of course you can, just don't come whining to the forums when you experience the lag you knew was coming.
|
Weirda
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:47:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Hanns Choibman Hey D2 and Razor lets Ally and be friends and attack BOB.
That would be so funny I might actually keep playing this laggy game
RECENT NEWS: Lag Brings Peace!
Frustrated by lag, the 'north' decides to unify against the rest of EvE. Both sides quoted as saying 'never knew how funny the other guys were until we were so lagged out that there was nothing to do but ***** jokes about it'. The lagÖ managed supress any and all smacktalk, and with only the funny bits coming through - pilots found new friends and a great hippy lovefest ensued!
__ Weirda Join QOTSA Now |
Perideous
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:48:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Perideous on 29/07/2006 02:48:45 This isn't normal lag, this is special, vintage, high-quality lag. The delay isn't measured in minutes anymore, its hours.
Lag : Bringing the World together.
|
Tonkin
Omega Corp
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:48:00 -
[25]
i want to play the game but i cant my ship wont move, lag clue has got me
will kill anythin for the right price |
Tonkin
Omega Corp
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:51:00 -
[26]
yea well worth 20 pound a month
will kill anythin for the right price |
Javi
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:52:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Zosh Let's have 2600 people all cancel subscriptions at once maybe that'll finally get their attention!
Ok, you and your friends first! --
-Everyone has a photographic memory, some people just don't have any film..
|
Vaugue
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:53:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Vaugue on 29/07/2006 02:54:14 This is the reason I quit the game to begin with a year ago. I cam back 2 months ago (to a supposed hardware upgrade) to check out if there was improvements. This doesn't seem to be the case.
For a company that advertises as a *Massive* *Multiplayer* online game.. you sure are pretty limited to playing it massively. Also for a company that takes mass fleet wars into their advertising it sure is bull ****.
I will be canceling again my 3 accounts (1 is already cancelled) the other 2 still have time from gtc's so I will only maintain my training in hopes again that maybe from a year or 2 from now we will be able to play the game the way its advertised.. massivley and multiplayer'd.
Edit : as for your 2600 cancelations.. you can change that number to 2597... ========================= Why use a forum to auction when you can sell it on Eve-Bay!
|
Crivens
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 02:54:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Tonkin yea well worth 20 pound a month
What? I pay about ú8.50 a month. (buy timecodes in US$ so the exchange rate works for you - goons helping allies :) )
|
Mi'zuro
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 03:08:00 -
[30]
YOU CANNOT DO THAT WHILE WARPING!!
|
|
Idara
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 03:10:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Mi'zuro YOU CANNOT DO THAT WHILE WARPING!!
HEY! You obviously hacked my account and stole my logs! I'm petitioning you!
|
Tonkin
Omega Corp
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 03:12:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Crivens
Originally by: Tonkin yea well worth 20 pound a month
What? I pay about ú8.50 a month. (buy timecodes in US$ so the exchange rate works for you - goons helping allies :) )
2 accounts bud
will kill anythin for the right price |
Argenton Sayvers
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 03:16:00 -
[33]
Nothing in eve should be free and easy. If you dont want lag, you better train Client Stabilization V and Spontaneous Node Reinforcement IV. I heard that GM connections is bugged right now.
|
Hanns Choibman
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 03:23:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Hanns Choibman on 29/07/2006 03:23:12 And still no offical response - Do CCP read their own forums? ----------------------------------------------
The D2 I win Button |
Tekka
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 03:28:00 -
[35]
Why would you need CCP to say it? We all know bad stuff happens when lots of people go to one system, yet people keep doing it.
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
|
|
Abdalion
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 03:32:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Hanns Choibman
And still no offical response - Do CCP read their own forums?
Yes they do, but they generally don't let people know that they are reading them. Moral of the story I just told is, don't expect an official CCP response because you posted a statement or question on the forums.
Another thing that makes sense to me is that the majority of CCP people who read the forums are most likely asleep as it is the middle of the night in Iceland, not to mention that its the weekend as well, which to me makes the chances of an "official" CCP reply close to nil.
Email [email protected] perhaps they can help, they never sleep and work weekends I hear. ___
|
|
Infinity Ziona
ISK LLC
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 03:41:00 -
[37]
I hate that I am missing 'the real game' in 0.0 right now.
|
Ryoko Hunter
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 03:41:00 -
[38]
lol. So many people are complaining, but when you think about it you guys are creating the problems yourselves and can easily circumvent them. Why has combat suddenly become a competition who can group the largest ammount of ships in a single system? Why not, if you must fight in large groups at all, fight over a series of systems? Or if that wont work to reduce lag and allow actual warfare, over a series of nodes? A competent commander could use this forced dispersal of forces to their advantage - ammassing in one place is not the only strategy that yields victories, even in eve.
Fleet battles between even the largest alliances are still possible, just get out of that rediculous mindset that numbers in system = win. Besides, if the enemy is dumb enough to ammass in one position (thusly draining resources from other positions), why don't you break your fleet up into a number of smaller fleets and attack them on all fronts? What is so important about XZH that you must deploy the largest force you can apparently ammass?
If you do it right, even if their massive "blob" were to attack each of these smaller fleets, by the time they actually got you out of their territory, the damage to their infrastructure would be extreme (Destroy their POS's to hurt them economically, sevre reinforcement lines so when you actually pop someone they don't come in an identical replacement ship 5 minutes later, and cause general mayham in their territory while avoiding their massive fleet altogether.)
And if the enemy resorts to the same tactics, not only is the problem solved, but it opens up a whole new system of war for you, one that doesn't involve "800 billion cargo containers" from 300 ships =).
Also, people claim that this isn't "M"MORPG if they can't send masses of players to the same point, but in almost any game that's as intensive as this one, if you group large numbers of players in a single area it will cause extreme lag. Imagine if a large % of the population of WoW all went to Durotar at the same time. Can you imagine the lag? It's the same thing here.
|
McDeth187
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 03:57:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Ryoko Hunter Stupid Words
You do realise you just asked us to eliminate the lag by not playing the game, right?
|
Ryoko Hunter
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 03:58:00 -
[40]
Originally by: McDeth187
Originally by: Ryoko Hunter Stupid Words
You do realise you just asked us to eliminate the lag by not playing the game, right?
...evidently there has been a misunderstanding. I suggested that you use different tactics, I never once even hinted that you should quit. Did you even read what I had to say?
|
|
Hanns Choibman
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 03:59:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Hanns Choibman on 29/07/2006 04:00:11
Originally by: Ryoko Hunter words
Somethings you don't understand is that;
1) Commanding lots of smaller fleets requires lots of fleet leaders, I agree this is a good idea but if the opposition has a bigger gang they can destroy each smaller gang and move on to the next one. Forcing players to use substandard tactics is not fun.
2) The one system we are fighting for is important to us becasue that is our first claim to conq space, if we were to spread out into systems with no strategic importance, there would no point and we may as well not even try
3) Our side was the side that had spent the time digging in and we are defending it. The game functionality is what is beating us, not our opposition.
Finally CCP have a lot of unhappy players and customers right now and those players are discussing "in character" terrorist attacks in Empire en mass as a protest and then they will lose customers and $30,000 a month if they are not carefull.
I know data centers and thats enough money to buy harware that can handle more information than they currently claim they can and fail at.
This is a customer service issue ----------------------------------------------
The D2 I win Button |
Ryoko Hunter
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 04:17:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Hanns Choibman Edited by: Hanns Choibman on 29/07/2006 04:00:11
Originally by: Ryoko Hunter words
Somethings you don't understand is that;
1) Commanding lots of smaller fleets requires lots of fleet leaders, I agree this is a good idea but if the opposition has a bigger gang they can destroy each smaller gang and move on to the next one. Forcing players to use substandard tactics is not fun.
This is the problematic mindset I was speaking of. Yes, a smaller gang will be defeated by a large one, but are you saying that you could not inflict any damage on the enemy in the time it would take for them to jump, system to system, POS to POS and eliminate each gang in turn? If they are moving in a large mass, they could only eliminate each gang one at a time, whereas you could be inflicting damage in a widespread area. And if you find a system of little or no strategic importance ignore it, bypass it, or just cut across it without wasting time there. "Blitzkrieg" (island-hop, storm through, whatever you would like to name this military strategy) to their important (or better, vulnerable) systems and hurt them in that fashion.
Quote: 2) The one system we are fighting for is important to us becasue that is our first claim to conq space, if we were to spread out into systems with no strategic importance, there would no point and we may as well not even try
You're saying that you refuse to give up a territory simply because it was the first one you successfully conquered? I'll just say that that is not a wise mindset for someone at war. You are giving far too much importance to the system - who cares where your incursion began if holding it means delaying or even failing in your incursion? Wars of conquest are best won by crippling your opponents ability to defend themselves, then invading, not fighting inch by inch, generating massive targets for which massive fleets would be usefull.
Quote: 3) Our side was the side that had spent the time digging in and we are defending it. The game functionality is what is beating us, not our opposition.
How much damage are you doing to the enemy by holding this territory? How much more could be done if you attacked others and simply abandoned this territory? Or better yet used the best delaying tactics you could employ to stop them from reinforcing other areas? I might be out of my depth, applying too many real world concepts to a game that defies the laws of real world warfare, but as I see it you are defending a target of little significance. There are other ways into their territory, so it is not as though this were normandy and you are forced to defend it or die.
Quote: Finally CCP have a lot of unhappy players and customers right now and those players are discussing "in character" terrorist attacks in Empire en mass as a protest and then they will lose customers and $30,000 a month if they are not carefull.
I know data centers and thats enough money to buy harware that can handle more information than they currently claim they can and fail at.
This is a customer service issue
It's my suggestion that you circumvent the issue instead of throwing in the towel. It's like the US surrendering to Japan because you didn't have enough land on an island to stuff the entirety of both armies on. I realize that this has angered you and I respect your feelings on the issue but I really hate to see people wanting to quit over something like this.
PS: I don't have any idea why each of my points seems to contain a WW2 reference. I suppose I ought not to have put it on the military channel in that moment of boredom earlier...
|
Argenton Sayvers
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 04:31:00 -
[43]
Ryoko Hunter, whatever you do in eve, i wish you that it stopps working for a full week. entirely. And i wish you that smart people who actually have no clue about what they are talking about will come in tell you to do something entirely else, because obviously, its your fault that it stopped working in the first place.
I actually dont wish you that - by the simple fact that it might be the same thing i am doing ;)
|
Fuk Mi
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 04:33:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Zosh Let's have 2600 people all cancel subscriptions at once maybe that'll finally get their attention!
and the other 200k people will laugh and be happy all the alliance people are gone and 0.0 is free again!
|
Torm Ilmater
Shadow Company Alektorophobia
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 04:38:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Zosh Let's have 2600 people all cancel subscriptions at once maybe that'll finally get their attention!
That might actually be a good idea as a demonstration to CCP that it is VERY serious. Cancel and then Resub immediately to show them that if it isn't fixed they'll have to deal with a few less subscribers. ::shrug:: Maybe that'd get some actual headway on the matter.
|
Ryoko Hunter
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 04:38:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Argenton Sayvers Ryoko Hunter, whatever you do in eve, i wish you that it stopps working for a full week. entirely. And i wish you that smart people who actually have no clue about what they are talking about will come in tell you to do something entirely else, because obviously, its your fault that it stopped working in the first place.
I actually dont wish you that - by the simple fact that it might be the same thing i am doing ;)
You've used "you" in too many places to make sense on the first reading, but I can get the gest of what you are saying.
If you bothered to read all of what I said, you might notice the quote "I might be out of my depth, applying too many real world concepts... ect". I did not, in any way shape or form, mean to sound as though I knew better than people with years of experience (and simply put: I don't), I simply suggested a possible work around and defended it with logical arguments. Are you really saying that someone with little experience should never make a suggestion? Often times it is those who are not hidebound in tradition and defacto procedures that come up with the most suitable inovations.
As a side note, I have a habit of letting my words run away with me, quite litterally, so if it seems that my feathers have been ruffled - they haven't, I just have a naturally defensive posting style, and I react to almost everything.
|
Hectic
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 04:55:00 -
[47]
People are you asking for CCP to give you a fix to the 'lag' problem?
If so, first sit and think about the current gaming industry. Are there any other games out there that can handle 400 people all directally interacting with eachother, in the same scene (grid) without any lag?
If you can fing a game please let me know and i'll subscribe so that I can indeed see this technical miracle at work.
The truth of the matter is that, current computer and server hardware, network software, and game interfaces cannot handle this kind of load. It is simply impossible. Therefore if you choose to engage in this sort of conflict in EVE, then you are basically signing the contract saying that yes, I am willing to add to the lag, and suffer from it myself. I myself have gone into situations where I knew lag would play a desciding factor in the outcome of the battle, and went forth with the intention not to complain when this happens.
Please just give CCP a break, your monthly fee (whatever the hell it is) cannot change the current state of industry.
TYVM,
RIP MGRL |
Hectic
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 04:59:00 -
[48]
Oh, and blackmail is bad mmkay! |
Torm Ilmater
Shadow Company Alektorophobia
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 05:03:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Torm Ilmater on 29/07/2006 05:04:53 Planetside seemed to handle itself pretty well in largescale battles with a couple hundred people and that was a FPS. Sure there was some lag but it wasn't too bad and was playable. Lag will always be around but the extent of the lag that can appear in EVE is just a tad excessive.
A few seconds of module delay, acceptable (for me at least), staring at a frozen screen (or worse one that's not frozen just totally unresponsive for 10, 20, 30 minutes)...not acceptable. Seems to make sense to me.
|
Kree Jaffa
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 05:05:00 -
[50]
Distributing your fleet into multiple systems will just allow you to get picked off.
On another note, what sort of voodoo magic is CCP using on serenity? Last I knew their target capacity is over double TQs. Plus the CN get together in groups larger than what we do here. So how are they managing to pull things off without that cluster going down in flames?
|
|
Hanns Choibman
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 05:13:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Hectic People are you asking for CCP to give you a fix to the 'lag' problem?
If so, first sit and think about the current gaming industry. Are there any other games out there that can handle 400 people all directally interacting with eachother, in the same scene (grid) without any lag?
If you can fing a game please let me know and i'll subscribe so that I can indeed see this technical miracle at work.
The truth of the matter is that, current computer and server hardware, network software, and game interfaces cannot handle this kind of load. It is simply impossible. Therefore if you choose to engage in this sort of conflict in EVE, then you are basically signing the contract saying that yes, I am willing to add to the lag, and suffer from it myself. I myself have gone into situations where I knew lag would play a desciding factor in the outcome of the battle, and went forth with the intention not to complain when this happens.
Please just give CCP a break, your monthly fee (whatever the hell it is) cannot change the current state of industry.
TYVM,
If thats what you want to believe then what does it matter, lag is a managable/playable issue but this was something worse. The whole system went haywire for about 2 hours, in a critical conflict.
But hey you are the captian of what is possible and impossible so thanks for your exciting input. ----------------------------------------------
The D2 I win Button |
turnschuh
Eye of God
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 05:13:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Hectic People are you asking for CCP to give you a fix to the 'lag' problem?
If so, first sit and think about the current gaming industry. Are there any other games out there that can handle 400 people all directally interacting with eachother, in the same scene (grid) without any lag?
Planetside? I had battles with easly 400 people, sure there was lag but maybe 600-800ms not 40minutes :p
|
Torm Ilmater
Shadow Company Alektorophobia
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 05:18:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Hectic Oh, and blackmail is bad mmkay!
I wouldn't see it as blackmail but more of a valid capitalist response to the percieved or actual deficiency of a product that the EVE player continues to 'invest' money in via their subscription fee. While I'm not advocating everyone quit and go play Sudoku, a good way to express displeasure and make sure that those feelings are noted is to express those feelings with your wallet, even if it's just in a demonstration where you cancel/resub almost immediately. EVE developers are usually quite close to the pulse of their subscribers so it shouldn't be needed but it would show them that it's gone to a point past just complaining on the forums and a few funny sigs.
|
Swedish Bob
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 05:24:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Hectic Oh, and blackmail is bad mmkay!
I'd hardly call it blackmail. Speaking with your wallet is one of the few things companies understand.
I believe lineage 2 manages to do several hundred players fighting on the same node. Especially during castle sieges. I think the biggest error is trying to cram 300 players on a small slice of a single machine. This games seems to have broken or non-existent load balancing. It should be moving the slices the other nodes occupy off the machine if there are 300 people fighting in one system. That doesn't seem to happen without Dev Magic(tm) happening.
Plenty of ways the lag could be solved, but really CCP has been focusing on where it can get more money. There are far more carebears maining in empire. So I'm not expecting things to really improve anytime soon despite promises to the contrary. Hell we can't even copy BMs with any reasonable speed yet.
|
Torm Ilmater
Shadow Company Alektorophobia
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 05:32:00 -
[55]
Think there are a few other games out there that I could name as well but I haven't seen how well they handle situations this large so I won't bring them up. The truth is that the almost total lack of a system of load balancing that a game like EVE should have is fairly unacceptable. Should EVE continue to grow that'll just become even more apparent. It's not that it's "impossible" to put that many ppl together it's just that as EVE is currently coded (from what I understand) it's just damn near impossible. Gamers accept lag as unavoidable but the game should be made so that it is still playable (and most importantly, enjoyable) with whatever lag it is likely to experience.
|
Lord XSiV
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 05:32:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Abdalion
Originally by: Hanns Choibman
And still no offical response - Do CCP read their own forums?
Yes they do, but they generally don't let people know that they are reading them. Moral of the story I just told is, don't expect an official CCP response because you posted a statement or question on the forums.
Another thing that makes sense to me is that the majority of CCP people who read the forums are most likely asleep as it is the middle of the night in Iceland, not to mention that its the weekend as well, which to me makes the chances of an "official" CCP reply close to nil.
Email [email protected] perhaps they can help, they never sleep and work weekends I hear.
So basically what you are saying is that CCP people have a social life.
Good for them. When CCP grows to over 1k employees, then we should really complain. But while they are still around the 100 mark, cut them some slack. Blizzard has way more issues and way more people to deal with them but they still take a lot of time to resovle.
|
Argenton Sayvers
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 05:32:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Argenton Sayvers on 29/07/2006 05:33:08 The problem is not that the current hardware doesnt handle 400 people in one "scene". I can play chess perfectly fine with just 2. The problem is that i have not seen a single change or design concept that would make it a smart idea to split into gangs of 1-5 and roam backwater systems meeting the enemies gangs of 1-5 and have fun firefights) instead of both parties blobing up in one to protect their 50 dreads sieging and counter-sieging the 89 POS that have been put up at every moon.
Maybe the new contract system is going to fix this in the way that alliances will need all the paid account slots they can get to keep the logistical functionality they currently have (training up rank 14 skills that allow you to place +1 contract per level ;) ), and there simply wont be enough pvp accounts left to cause node death.
|
Weirda
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 06:26:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Weirda on 29/07/2006 06:30:21 maybe they were just sharing a node with one of those bookmark escrow spammers copying their wares for the weekend...
Originally by: ouveur blog 286 Since we're talking about examples, lets not forget bookmarks. We've seen a lot of speculation that they possibly can't be a server load. Well, they sure are. Copying a couple of hundred bookmarks takes serious CPU time on SOL and SQL servers, so take this as a hint. If you're doing thousands, you might be killing a couple of pour soul in combat somewhere.
__ Weirda Join QOTSA Now |
Avon
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 07:23:00 -
[59]
Is it just me that is enjoying the irony of the Goons moaning about this?
As to them cancelling their 2600 accounts .. don't tease.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
|
MysticNZ
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 07:46:00 -
[60]
Wish you all the best :) Sadly I cannot play this weekend -=====-
|
|
Hanns Choibman
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 08:18:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Avon Is it just me that is enjoying the irony of the Goons moaning about this?
As to them cancelling their 2600 accounts .. don't tease.
Well I'm glad you are enjoying yourself, what did I ever do to **** you off? ----------------------------------------------
The D2 I win Button |
Baldour Ngarr
Artemis Rising
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 08:40:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Kree Jaffa Distributing your fleet into multiple systems will just allow you to get picked off.
Not if you learn how to play properly, it won't. ________________________________________________
"I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked." |
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 09:43:00 -
[63]
What the hell did you guys do to the server last night?
No, seriously. Something really screwed up and abnormal has happened in XZH. There's now ~140 in local and it's still utterly broken. This is not normal "lots of players" lag, it's something else. Either people still in system are generating ridiculous lag by doing something they shouldn't be doing, something's seriously wrong with the server (memory leak or something), or something's seriously abnormal with the system itself, and by "system" I mean all the non-player-ship objects in the system. I've been in much bigger battles than this for protracted periods before (hi D7-ZAC!) without anything approaching this kind of lag. So... what's going on, guys?
|
Peter Armstrong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 09:51:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Zosh Let's have 2600 people all cancel subscriptions at once maybe that'll finally get their attention!
QFT
|
McDeth187
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 10:01:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Avon Is it just me that is enjoying the irony of the Goons moaning about this?
As to them cancelling their 2600 accounts .. don't tease.
Oh god they don't make a big enough roll eyes smiley for this worthless trash post. Go away little forum *****, Goons aren't the only ones effected by this, or maybe you missed the D2 and Rzr guys complaining about the lag too.
|
Pesadel0
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 10:02:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Peter Armstrong
Originally by: Zosh Let's have 2600 people all cancel subscriptions at once maybe that'll finally get their attention!
QFT
Can i Have your stuffs?
|
Quarantine
Federation of Synthetic Persons YouWhat
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 10:04:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Baldour Ngarr
Originally by: Kree Jaffa Distributing your fleet into multiple systems will just allow you to get picked off.
Not if you learn how to play properly, it won't.
Please, teach us how to play properly.
|
Avon
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 10:21:00 -
[68]
Originally by: McDeth187
Originally by: Avon Is it just me that is enjoying the irony of the Goons moaning about this?
As to them cancelling their 2600 accounts .. don't tease.
Oh god they don't make a big enough roll eyes smiley for this worthless trash post. Go away little forum *****, Goons aren't the only ones effected by this, or maybe you missed the D2 and Rzr guys complaining about the lag too.
I said it was ironic, not that it was their fault, or only they suffered. You know what irony is, right? It isn't a flame, and if you take it as such maybe I accidentally hit a nerve? In which case I am so very, very, sorry.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
|
Montague Snyde
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 11:14:00 -
[69]
U know I find it ironic, u've all been given a succinct method of Blitzkrieg which worked rather well in WW2 and you've all called the guy who wrote it a jerk. Pay attention BLITZKRIEG works!!!
|
Miss Overlord
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 11:22:00 -
[70]
well a few points after dt yesterday there were other issues - it smacks of the memory leak a few months back being thursday CCP prolly did a hotfix or something or maybe RA and the coalation went at it or other than d2 and GS and BOB that there were other lag points that were popping up (ASCN moving around in their 250 man gang anyone) or the TBB MC and other spots as well as jita
Lets see guys tho how much u can max out the servers as CCP have said the more extreme lag they can genrate the more they learn and the directions they can point ongoing fixes and development efforts to counter lag issues.
|
|
Khes
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 11:46:00 -
[71]
I very much doubt CCP will respond. I belive we will never see an officiall statement on EVE's capacity of handling fleet-battles and where the boundrys are.
|
Bratwurst0r
Cataclysm Enterprises Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 12:22:00 -
[72]
the problem is not 2 groups fighting for a system with 200ppl each.
its the CONCEPT of POS-WAREFARE in Eve that is broken atm. Dont design a game for something the hardware/softare can not handle.
Since we need capital fleets, so expensive that you dont risk to loose them (it will get worse with titans and stuff), since you need 100+ ppl to kill large towers, since you need 50+ towers to secure a system, you FORCE ppl to blobb to secure assets worth 10+ BILLIONS in EACH fight.
So what...thats the problem of EVE right now....maybe ccp shoud start changing some pos-warefare designs to suit small fighting groups of lets say 50-100ppl at maximum.
Otherwise this game of "get the bigger blobb" will go on and on, the game getting unplayable every time.
|
Lazuran
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 12:42:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Bratwurst0r the problem is not 2 groups fighting for a system with 200ppl each.
its the CONCEPT of POS-WAREFARE in Eve that is broken atm. Dont design a game for something the hardware/softare can not handle.
Both are broken, IMHO. But the point is, fleet battles are a natural part of the game and they will happen anyway, so the hardware must be able to handle it.
CCP should hire a good systems analyst who can optimize things a bit so the downward spiral begins at ~1000 players in a system instead of 300. There's always room for improvement. :-/
|
Havelcek
Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 14:08:00 -
[74]
Its not just XZH....the game is not designed or capable of supporting more than a hundred people in system if there is combat going on. Everyone knows it, CCP has no solution. End of story.
|
Lorth
Synchro.
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 14:30:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Lorth on 29/07/2006 14:32:08
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: McDeth187
Originally by: Avon Is it just me that is enjoying the irony of the Goons moaning about this?
As to them cancelling their 2600 accounts .. don't tease.
Oh god they don't make a big enough roll eyes smiley for this worthless trash post. Go away little forum *****, Goons aren't the only ones effected by this, or maybe you missed the D2 and Rzr guys complaining about the lag too.
I said it was ironic, not that it was their fault, or only they suffered. You know what irony is, right? It isn't a flame, and if you take it as such maybe I accidentally hit a nerve? In which case I am so very, very, sorry.
I'm going to have to aggree with Avon here. Even the OP, Hanns Choibman, has a signature that hints to the very same thing, in a not so subtle smack attack against them.
------------- Recruit me |
Gramtar
GoonWaffe GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 14:47:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Bratwurst0r the problem is not 2 groups fighting for a system with 200ppl each.
its the CONCEPT of POS-WAREFARE in Eve that is broken atm. Dont design a game for something the hardware/softare can not handle.
Since we need capital fleets, so expensive that you dont risk to loose them (it will get worse with titans and stuff), since you need 100+ ppl to kill large towers, since you need 50+ towers to secure a system, you FORCE ppl to blobb to secure assets worth 10+ BILLIONS in EACH fight.
So what...thats the problem of EVE right now....maybe ccp shoud start changing some pos-warefare designs to suit small fighting groups of lets say 50-100ppl at maximum.
Otherwise this game of "get the bigger blobb" will go on and on, the game getting unplayable every time.
I agree. What's the point of systems with 80 moons when you have results like last night?.
I also have sincere doubts about CCP's support availability during non-euro peak hours, since nothing was done (reboot) last night when hundreds of people were filing stuck petitions in one system that was quite obviously broken. You can't market a 24/7 game today with 12/5 support and retain customers.
These are my personal views and do not represent my Corporation or Alliance |
Argenton Sayvers
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 14:59:00 -
[77]
Maybe its really time for ritualized combat?
I sincerly doubt that CCP is working on either improving the servers, or reducing the need to blob. If anything, they are working on ways to let even more things be dependant on timesink skills, "improving" the servers like they did with the font, and introducing even bigger player structures that have so many HP that the 400 man in the system will just be the dread pilotes needed to take it down in a realistical timeframe.
Carebear example: many missions have decorations composed of hundreds (maybe thousands, its too lagy to count them) small wall segments. Needless to say, the client locks up for 30-120s when you warp in or press alt.
|
Blacklight
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 15:00:00 -
[78]
Nothing new here to be honest, it's been like this since forever and didn't really change much with the new hardware. Although I have to say Cloud Ring does seem to be bad for lag, of course that could just be perception but we seemed to have a lot less when fighting in 9CG with very similar numbers.
Eve Blacklight Style
|
Hephaesteus
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 15:57:00 -
[79]
The lag in Eve is ridiculous atm.
Maybe sharding is the answer? -----------------------------------------------
Knowing all, when all is unknown.
|
Ryoko Hunter
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 16:54:00 -
[80]
lol. I had a radically stupid idea, which is more like a blob tax, but it might actually solve the problem.
Why not institute a Guild of Warefare? In which you could register an intended incursion in a specific node, and a specialized server would then take control of the node so that that specific node/system/grid can handle more players at once? I realize, of course, that given the way the nodes work, the activation of the node would require a downtime, so any request for a mass-warefare activation could only be filled during downtime, and because it's only one server, only one node could be "buffed". If each of your 2600 accounts make a one time donation of 5-10 bucks, such a dedicated warefare server could be purchased and easily handle the strain.
Actually I'm suprised more proffessional companies don't have a donation area. I'm sure there are plenty of enthusiasts who would donate to make Eve better. I suppose it looks rather unproffessional, but as someone who has played on too many smaller, free MMORPG's I'm actually more accustomed to seeing a donation box than not.
|
|
Bluestealth
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 17:45:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Bluestealth on 29/07/2006 17:45:06
Originally by: Ryoko Hunter
Blah
You lost at eve, go home.
|
Ryoko Hunter
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 17:53:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Bluestealth Edited by: Bluestealth on 29/07/2006 17:45:06
Originally by: Ryoko Hunter
Blah
You lost at eve, go home.
You do realize that it takes more effort to replace a quote with stupid text than it does to just quote it?
|
Idara
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 18:08:00 -
[83]
FFS CCP it's happening again. The lag in XZH is intolerable already.
REINFORCE THE NODE PLEASE.
|
Bluestealth
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 18:11:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Ryoko Hunter
Originally by: Bluestealth Edited by: Bluestealth on 29/07/2006 17:45:06
Originally by: Ryoko Hunter
Blah
You lost at eve, go home.
You do realize that it takes more effort to replace a quote with stupid text than it does to just quote it?
Yes but then more people might read it, and it would waste more space on this thread.
|
Demitri Klashnikov
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 18:55:00 -
[85]
Ididn't want to get involved in this but I can't help myself
Goons accuse Bob of trying to drive from the game, and scream OMG HAXPLOITS!!! when bobs stated aim is to drive them from 0.0 (acceptable in game mechanic)
then encourage peole to cancel accounts? (unacceptable out of game tactics to encourage people to quit)
I believ goons were 'active' in SWG, that didnt lag did it??? yeah right!
I have been a victim of loss to lag, but its a syptem of all mmo's and one you need to manage -----------------------------------------------
|
Bratwurst0r
Cataclysm Enterprises Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 19:11:00 -
[86]
yes, lag is part of all mmorpgs....BUT...the designers of a game are responsible to make things happen with XY-ppl able to do it.
you cant put in the game more and more things that need more and more ppl. i think here is where ccp is doing wrong.
sure, it would be nice...but if you cant play it, its worth nothing.
fleets of 10 titans/motherships and 100 dreads/carriers + 500 support BS/ships.....its a great vision...BUT...its worth nothing if you cant play it because of the lag.
so...in the end...i blame the game designers for bringing EVE to the point where 400ppl are necessary but not playable.
|
PeeWee Pee
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 19:22:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Hephaesteus The lag in Eve is ridiculous atm.
Maybe sharding is the answer?
stfu dude, go play your stoopid CoX super hero
|
Hephaesteus
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 19:44:00 -
[88]
Originally by: PeeWee Pee
Originally by: Hephaesteus The lag in Eve is ridiculous atm.
Maybe sharding is the answer?
stfu dude, go play your stoopid CoX super hero
Where is your suggestion then **** face. Dont tell me to shut up if you haven't got a suggestion of your own *****. -----------------------------------------------
Knowing all, when all is unknown.
|
Demitri Klashnikov
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 20:04:00 -
[89]
Wow constructive, well thought out posts. Well done guys. -----------------------------------------------
|
Hephaesteus
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 20:26:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Demitri Klashnikov Wow constructive, well thought out posts. Well done guys.
Thank you for noticing -----------------------------------------------
Knowing all, when all is unknown.
|
|
dasdsadsadsacyx
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 20:41:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Bratwurst0r yes, lag is part of all mmorpgs....BUT...the designers of a game are responsible to make things happen with XY-ppl able to do it.
you cant put in the game more and more things that need more and more ppl. i think here is where ccp is doing wrong.
sure, it would be nice...but if you cant play it, its worth nothing.
fleets of 10 titans/motherships and 100 dreads/carriers + 500 support BS/ships.....its a great vision...BUT...its worth nothing if you cant play it because of the lag.
so...in the end...i blame the game designers for bringing EVE to the point where 400ppl are necessary but not playable.
Yes, time for CCP to recognize that their concept is broken. The point is that even increasing the current server farm wont help as one system can be only on one server at a time - also total increase in processing power is not linear but rather logarithmic with respect to new servers.
Very difficult to change that, but POS warfare is definitely broken.
|
Degaal Valen
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 21:57:00 -
[92]
this problem can only be solved by more python code
|
Perideous
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 22:21:00 -
[93]
Well, you have to understand, this was not lag in the traditional sense, where modules activate after a period of time, like 7-10 minutes in the most extreme cases. Lag of that sense has been going on throughout the entire campaign, and from what i can gather, its a pretty much well accepted consequence of fleet battles. But this was different.
This was a system wide freezing for hours, where people entering the game never exited the login warp (for hours) and people who MWDed something like 26000km off grid (for hours). -Both- sides experienced it, as you can tell from the response from the Razor, iron and d2 guys.
and sharding? not possible. Just because CCP have based the concept of the game on a non-sharded galaxy and it just would not be eve otherwise.
tl;dr? 1) Not lag , the game froze. 2) sharding won't help because it removes the uniqueness of eve.
|
Nafri
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 22:45:00 -
[94]
I would say POSes are one reason of this
Before it was only necessary to defeat the enemy fleet.
Now you must blob the enemy fleet away so that your dreads are kinda safe, or they ctd cause of lag -.-
From Dusk till Dawn Sig removed, e-mail us if you'd like to know why. -ReverendM ([email protected]) |
Grayton
GoonWaffe GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 23:12:00 -
[95]
I said it in the Corp & Alliance thread and I'll say it here, too.
I'd rather that Kali got delayed for 6 months (or longer if necessary) so that the Devs could sit down and rewrite the entire networking code of the game to optimize it to it's full extent. New content is great, but it's worthless if you can't use it in game. Whether we like it or not, this game IS being designed with "bigger and better" in mind. Bigger fleets, better ships, more people fighting each other. The problem is, the current code and servers, as they are, just can't handle it right now. As what happens with any MMO, months and months and months of code are just piled ontop of older code since you can't normally take the time to optimize properly.
The only way we'll ever see a fix for this is if CCP rewrites the network code, changes the way load balancing works (so that it can be done on the fly), and finds a way to deal with the bookmark problem (like it or not, Instas ARE a large cause of a lot of the problems in this game, and with the growth of the game increasing, they're just causing more and more problems. I don't want to turn this into an insta debate, I'm just saying that they are one of the fundamental code problems of the game).
|
Deakin Frost
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 23:47:00 -
[96]
There's only so much you can do with current day processing power. The work needed to be done by the servers increases exponentially with the player count. There's only so much you can improve.
What they could do, if they didn't already, is modularize the game code and split the different jobs across multiple servers if necessary. For once, navigation and pew pew could be split. Damage is chance based, small update lag between the navigation process and the weapon control process is therefore negligible. Other processes could be consolidated and offloaded. Like system scanning, these results aren't accurate anymore either, since it takes quite a while before you get a list since one of the recent patches. Thus one or more server processes could go collect informations from the navigation processes and be queried by the client when system scans are done.
Basically strip unnecessary stuff out of the sol servers and consolidate it elsewhere, then break up critical jobs into seperate parts and make them location agnostic (location as in which server it runs on).
|
Khes
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 01:35:00 -
[97]
We are all aware of that there is a problem. Are we not? But it is still quiet from CCP. It worries me but in a way, Im not that surpriced. The way I see it, there are two scenarios:
1. CCP are aware of the problem but they are not responding becuause the have no solution and dont know what to say other then usuall "We are constantly working on enhancing the server performance". But it the problem IS STILL THERE.
2. CCP are not aware of the problem and continuing to build features and content that encourage large fleeet battles.
These both scenarios is pretty much scaring me. Perhaps Im generalizing a great deal but these are my two cents at the moment.
Personaly I belive in a combination of the two scenarios. They know about the problem but they just cant fix it, and they continue to build features/content that encourage large fleet battles because thats what their general plan is and the direction they want EVE to develop. They continue to develop the game, without having any solid solution to support it.
But hey, Im a bit drunk at the moment, and Im just rambeling, so what do I know..
|
Rabbitgod
Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 01:57:00 -
[98]
Edited by: Rabbitgod on 30/07/2006 02:02:51
Quote: I am now in a pod with 800 billion cargo contianers in my overview
Wow I'm surprised you even have them on it your overview. It's pretty common prectice to remove them from your overview.
On other notes, the server can handle 300ppl in system, I was there when EC- was in the 900's took my mods a second or two to turn on but other than that it was fine. I had more problems with the 20 some odd warp bubbles we had up causing my FPS to drop.
Stay as far zoomed out as you can, turn off effects, turn off sound, play at a lower rez when in big fleets.
Hmmm just read more of the posts on the subject. When this kinda thing happens their is something wrong on CCP's end. However this kind of thing doesnt happen every fleet battle. That doesn't mean CCP should get off the hook at all but it does mean you need to cut back on the drama a bit.
---{24th member of the 23}---
|
Mi'zuro
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 02:02:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Rabbitgod
On other notes, the server can handle 300ppl in system
YOU CANNOT DO THAT WHILE WARPING!
|
Rabbitgod
Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 02:06:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Rabbitgod on 30/07/2006 02:07:09
Originally by: Mi'zuro
Originally by: Rabbitgod
On other notes, the server can handle 300ppl in system
YOU CANNOT DO THAT WHILE WARPING!
Why would you put more load on the server by spamming it's with a command like that? If all 300ppl were doing what your were doing it no wonder the poor little hamster had a heart attack.
edit: typo
---{24th member of the 23}---
|
|
Wanmeili
GoonWaffe GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 02:31:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Rabbitgod Edited by: Rabbitgod on 30/07/2006 02:07:09
Originally by: Mi'zuro
Originally by: Rabbitgod
On other notes, the server can handle 300ppl in system
YOU CANNOT DO THAT WHILE WARPING!
Why would you put more load on the server by spamming it's with a command like that? If all 300ppl were doing what your were doing it no wonder the poor little hamster had a heart attack.
edit: typo
Actually, it started spamming that command line FOR us, which was really bizarre. After I got podded in the fight, I sat around logged in for about half an hour before I ctrl-q'd and restarted.
When I logged back in, it just said "YOU CANNOT DO THAT WHILE WARPING" over and over again. I wasn't even doing anything.
|
nahtoh
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 04:44:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Avon Is it just me that is enjoying the irony of the Goons moaning about this?
As to them cancelling their 2600 accounts .. don't tease.
No its not ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 07:50:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Torm Ilmater Edited by: Torm Ilmater on 29/07/2006 05:05:07 Planetside seemed to handle itself pretty well in largescale battles with a couple hundred people and that was a FPS. Sure there was some lag but it wasn't too bad and was playable. Lag will always be around but the extent of the lag that can appear in EVE is just a tad excessive.
A few seconds of module delay, acceptable (for me at least), staring at a frozen screen (or worse one that's not frozen just totally unresponsive for 10, 20, 30 minutes)...not acceptable. Seems to make sense to me.
Planetside isn't quite as CPU intensive as EVE or most other MMOs.
Look at text-MUDs. Materia Magica, Aardwolf, and Achaea all usually have 400-600 people on at peak times, and lag simply doesn't exist on them. You can have 200 people fighting in the same room on a MUD, and you won't lag at all (your mud-clinet will probably crash from the overload of text though).
Limits are defined in part by the game itself. EVE is not a basic FPS, nor is it some 10+ year old text-RPG. Also, If anyone's every played Ragnarok Online. Just TRY to imagine 400 people all sitting in a town in the same area. Hell I used to walk around cities because it'd take 5 minutes to navigate the town square because of 50, MAYBE 100 people being there. Stick 400 there and you'd never enter that town ever again.
It is odd that if you guys have been fighting for days that ccp hasn't reinforced the node for area just yet.
But when you have a 700localjita, resources get scarce I guess.
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 07:52:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Swedish Bob Plenty of ways the lag could be solved, but really CCP has been focusing on where it can get more money. There are far more carebears maining in empire. So I'm not expecting things to really improve anytime soon despite promises to the contrary. Hell we can't even copy BMs with any reasonable speed yet.
Please list some of the ways. CCP would probably pay you very well if you've got the magic touch/answers like you claim.
|
Nicholas Barker
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 09:16:00 -
[105]
Edited by: Nicholas Barker on 30/07/2006 09:16:57 we're not *****ing about the lag, we're *****ing about the fact that game mechanics mean we have to dive head first into a sea of **** to survive in 0.0, if we avoided these conflicts you could move 200 people into a system, and we'd all have to leave because we just wanted to avoid the lag. We'd lose all the stuff in our stations, all of our pos, to prevent this we're forced to endure the lag because sombody ON ***** decided pos, dreads, and other capital ships were fun.
tbh my idea of a massive battle now is people moving up on an enemy in lots of 30 man groups from different directions / entry points into regions, and being met by hostile 30 man groups and we all duke it out in a region wide battle, not 100 vs 100 battle pushed into a crappy 500x500x500 grid.
I've logged mid battle because i couldn't lock people, i've sat while teamspeak was full of people shouting "I can't see anybody at all". The best battle i was in was that 2 hour battle at 3am against fix in fat when we were trying to put that pos up, had 10 seconds module lag, hell? yes! But atleast they turned on after awhile.
and incase you didn't spot my main point, the game mechanics mean that in order to survive we have to sit in these lag fests, otherwise the whole game is pointless and i might aswell mine veld in jita! -----------------
Where'd me pod go? |
Miss Overlord
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 09:32:00 -
[106]
mmmm ok everyone off to jita for some veld mining and mission running - lts push it to its theoretical limit of 1500 in local before she goes kaboom.
|
G Dabak
Magellanic Itg GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 10:55:00 -
[107]
There is something to it beyond just sheer numbers. I have been in some pretty large battles that weren't laggy at all, but as time went on in XZH the number of people it took to hit critical mass got lower and lower.
Horrible lag when huge fleets collide outside a POS with dreads and everything, yeah, I get that. I agree with everyone saying it shouln't be necessary but it makes sense at least. But when a fight with 50 people total is causing 45 second lag, something is broken.
|
Miss Overlord
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 11:08:00 -
[108]
everything is fine youre fighting in the wrong spot head down to delve with youre gank squads goonfleet - as u know the devs give more server node resources to the south take the fleet battle to BOB HQ and u will be lag free even with 1500 in local.
|
Lazuran
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 11:20:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Wanmeili
When I logged back in, it just said "YOU CANNOT DO THAT WHILE WARPING" over and over again. I wasn't even doing anything.
That is really strange - I actually saw this message yesterday while moving around in empire on AP (just watching, without entering any commands). Somehow this happens regularly without any user interaction:
[ 2006.07.29 20:21:01 ] (notify) Autopilot warping to Rens stargate [ 2006.07.29 20:21:01 ] (notify) You cannot do that while warping. [ 2006.07.29 20:21:43 ] (notify) Speed changed to 406 m/s [ 2006.07.29 20:21:43 ] (notify) Autopilot approaching stargate [ 2006.07.29 20:22:22 ] (notify) Autopilot jumping to Rens [ 2006.07.29 20:22:23 ] (None) Jumping to Stargate (Frarn) in Rens solarsystem
[ 2006.07.29 20:32:10 ] (notify) Autopilot warping to Pator stargate [ 2006.07.29 20:32:12 ] (notify) You cannot do that while warping. [ 2006.07.29 20:32:55 ] (notify) Speed changed to 406 m/s [ 2006.07.29 20:32:56 ] (notify) Autopilot approaching stargate [ 2006.07.29 20:33:33 ] (notify) Autopilot jumping to Pator [ 2006.07.29 20:33:35 ] (None) Jumping to Stargate (Onga) in Pator solarsystem
Looks like a bug to me, perhaps the client is erroneously sending commands to the server.
|
Tachy
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 11:22:00 -
[110]
There can be technical problems when you got 70 servers working in a cluster.
Imagine a hdd acting up on a raid system, a connector gone bad, BoB hacking into it, memory driver not working at full efficiency. That kind of stuff happens, you know. --*=*=*--
Even with nougat, you can have a perfect moment. |
|
Miss Overlord
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 11:23:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Miss Overlord everything is fine youre fighting in the wrong spot head down to delve with youre gank squads goonfleet - as u know the devs give more server node resources to the south take the fleet battle to BOB HQ and u will be lag free even with 1500 in local.
Goons + fighting in the south namley delve = lag free experience for all.
|
PeeWee Pee
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 15:40:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Khes We are all aware of that there is a problem. Are we not? But it is still quiet from CCP. It worries me but in a way, Im not that surpriced. The way I see it, there are two scenarios:
1. CCP are aware of the problem but they are not responding becuause the have no solution and dont know what to say other then usuall "We are constantly working on enhancing the server performance". But it the problem IS STILL THERE.
stfu whiner. you didnt complain when you win. deal with it darwinism ftw!
Quote:
2. CCP are not aware of the problem and continuing to build features and content that encourage large fleeet battles.
what game are you playing? i see no problems. game will lag like any other. eve has very little lag compare to others. best is learn to deal with it.
Quote:
Personaly I belive in a combination of the two scenarios. They know about the problem but they just cant fix it, and they continue to build features/content that encourage large fleet battles because thats what their general plan is and the direction they want EVE to develop. They continue to develop the game, without having any solid solution to support it.
can i have your stuff?
|
deadEd
Catalyst Reaction
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 18:47:00 -
[113]
Edited by: deadEd on 30/07/2006 18:47:27 double post, remove plz
|
deadEd
Catalyst Reaction
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 18:47:00 -
[114]
Originally by: PeeWee Pee what game are you playing? i see no problems. game will lag like any other. eve has very little lag compare to others. best is learn to deal with it.
Have you ever been in a large fleet battle? I'm not even talking a several hundred vs several hundred, just a pretty large one. Frustration in that case is defined by warping into combat and hoping that this time other enemies will load before you crash out...if you can even activate modules and maybe shoot something, great! Far too often though it was just warp off, nothing will load, so you just try to reconnect and hope that maybe you don't come back in a pod.
I don't care how difficult it is to fix, telling people to 'shut up and deal' with that kind of thing is as wrong an answer as can be. Thankfully it's only some random person saying this.
|
Stahlregen
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 19:00:00 -
[115]
Even the day after, when we were withdrawing. 140 in local, maybe only 90 actualy fighting. I was getting horrendous lag to the point of timing out TWICE when trying to leave the system.
I dont care about fixing the lag because i think i already know that is impossible. Like dozens already before me i am just calling for a change to the way inter-alliance combat works.
Also would you mouth breathers that havent even seen outside a 0.4 or your 10-man-empire-corp, let alone have the slightest clue how 0.0 warfare works shut up.
|
|
Oveur
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 20:40:00 -
[116]
We've been following TQ this evening, Sundays are always the best for profiling. What I immediately notice for example about XZH-4X is that it's sharing a node with the following constellations right now:
8BO-IH, 8ET-D1, DITJ-X, GN-ACS, Ohvarainen, Prelle, Sasen, Tasen
And it's at 93% CPU. Yesterday at about 21:30 it was sharing the node with the following constellations:
51ZT-6, 59H-0G, Ancbeu, IYOO-M, Nadire, Prelle, Subi, Wield
And then it was at 78% CPU. What this tells me is that the load in XZH is too sporadic over the course of the last weeks, that the load balancing system still doesn't decide to put the solar system to a node by itself.
The nodes in question always had more than 500 people on them, the addition of 100s more than it's predicted load averages over the last weeks on evenings simply means the node won't handle it.
This situation simply means there is more reason to release the Dragon code branch to Tranquility. The Dragon branch is the one running on Serenity today and handled up to 40.000 simultaneous users, has a lot of optimizations and improvements to load balancing.
It has better ways to predict load of systems based on usage, hopefully it will result in XZH and other systems which have such sporadic load (as opposed to Jitas continuous 500+) get better predicted allocations.
However, I emphasize, a node needs more load than a couple of hours of 300 pilots one day a week to get any serious escalation in load factor, so this isn't going to solve the very sporadic battles, but should help systems which get regular fleet battle usage.
It is currently in testing on Singularity. If you want to help us get Dragon out faster, please join us on Singularity and submit bug reports.
Senior Producer EVE Online
|
|
Portrait Swap
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 20:42:00 -
[117]
Oveur i know this is de-railing but can you check the sticky about credit card issues its been almost 2days already.. -------------- >> FIX The CC's issues the site is having << -------------- |
Idara
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 20:45:00 -
[118]
Would join SiSi if the server was up.
Also, I wasn't there for the earlier weeks, but XZH seemed to have a fairly constant large number of people in it.
|
HappyKitten
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 21:02:00 -
[119]
Are you saying that at the moment, it is impossible for you to manually direct resources to XZH or that you are choosing not to?
|
Blind Man
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 21:04:00 -
[120]
i thought i read before that you are supposed to tell the gm's beforehand if a large fleet battle was going to happen...
KILLROCK'S FORUM ASSISTANT
|
|
|
Oveur
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 21:06:00 -
[121]
Originally by: HappyKitten Are you saying that at the moment, it is impossible for you to manually direct resources to XZH or that you are choosing not to?
It is not possible, it requires a downtime to do it without possible harm to other Constellations.
Senior Producer EVE Online
|
|
Azaeren
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 21:07:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Oveur We've been following TQ this evening, Sundays are always the best for profiling. What I immediately notice for example about XZH-4X is that it's sharing a node with the following constellations right now:
8BO-IH, 8ET-D1, DITJ-X, GN-ACS, Ohvarainen, Prelle, Sasen, Tasen
And it's at 93% CPU. Yesterday at about 21:30 it was sharing the node with the following constellations:
51ZT-6, 59H-0G, Ancbeu, IYOO-M, Nadire, Prelle, Subi, Wield
And then it was at 78% CPU. What this tells me is that the load in XZH is too sporadic over the course of the last weeks, that the load balancing system still doesn't decide to put the solar system to a node by itself.
The nodes in question always had more than 500 people on them, the addition of 100s more than it's predicted load averages over the last weeks on evenings simply means the node won't handle it.
This situation simply means there is more reason to release the Dragon code branch to Tranquility. The Dragon branch is the one running on Serenity today and handled up to 40.000 simultaneous users, has a lot of optimizations and improvements to load balancing.
It has better ways to predict load of systems based on usage, hopefully it will result in XZH and other systems which have such sporadic load (as opposed to Jitas continuous 500+) get better predicted allocations.
However, I emphasize, a node needs more load than a couple of hours of 300 pilots one day a week to get any serious escalation in load factor, so this isn't going to solve the very sporadic battles, but should help systems which get regular fleet battle usage.
It is currently in testing on Singularity. If you want to help us get Dragon out faster, please join us on Singularity and submit bug reports.
So, since you just admitted to the server being crap and unable to handle medium/large scale pvp as advertised, the thousands of ships that have been destroyed in that cluster are going to be returned right??
Oh wait, every time someone petitions for lag we get told "there is no lag or problems in our logs". ____________________________________________________
Now accepting donations for capital ship skillbooks :X |
HappyKitten
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 21:08:00 -
[123]
Edited by: HappyKitten on 30/07/2006 21:09:01
Originally by: Oveur
Originally by: HappyKitten Are you saying that at the moment, it is impossible for you to manually direct resources to XZH or that you are choosing not to?
It is not possible, it requires a downtime to do it without possible harm to other Constellations.
OK, that makes sense. If you were appraised of a situation about to kick off (like in XZH for example) a couple of days in advance, would you consider shifting about resources manually (only as a temporary fix until dragon ofc) if the fleets involved were big enough?
edit: I mean shift resources from DT to DT.
|
|
Oveur
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 21:10:00 -
[124]
Originally by: HappyKitten Edited by: HappyKitten on 30/07/2006 21:09:01
Originally by: Oveur
Originally by: HappyKitten Are you saying that at the moment, it is impossible for you to manually direct resources to XZH or that you are choosing not to?
It is not possible, it requires a downtime to do it without possible harm to other Constellations.
OK, that makes sense. If you were appraised of a situation about to kick off (like in XZH for example) a couple of days in advance, would you consider shifting about resources manually (only as a temporary fix until dragon ofc) if the fleets involved were big enough?
edit: I mean shift resources from DT to DT.
No, as I explained earlier, that is also risky, especially in the current TQ code base.
Senior Producer EVE Online
|
|
HappyKitten
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 21:11:00 -
[125]
OK.
Think I'll avoid blobwars for now
|
dasdsadsadsacyx
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 21:36:00 -
[126]
Edited by: dasdsadsadsacyx on 30/07/2006 21:36:47
Originally by: Oveur However, I emphasize, a node needs more load than a couple of hours of 300 pilots one day a week to get any serious escalation in load factor, so this isn't going to solve the very sporadic battles, but should help systems which get regular fleet battle usage.
Excuse me, XZH has very sporadic battles?
There have been fights going on all the time the past weeks - of course the average number of pilots in space does not compare to other systems with agent running and stuff, but there are a lot of peak battles where no lag is crucial. You just cant average that out over a week.
Systems wont get much more "regular fleet battle usage" than this one, so if this is your answer it means fleet battles are screwed and will remain so.
Time to introduce some game mechanics that will force people to spread their fleets out more evenly, for example by constellation sovereignty.
|
Neslo
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 21:45:00 -
[127]
Originally by: dasdsadsadsacyx Edited by: dasdsadsadsacyx on 30/07/2006 21:36:47
Originally by: Oveur However, I emphasize, a node needs more load than a couple of hours of 300 pilots one day a week to get any serious escalation in load factor, so this isn't going to solve the very sporadic battles, but should help systems which get regular fleet battle usage.
Excuse me, XZH has very sporadic battles?
There have been fights going on all the time the past weeks - of course the average number of pilots in space does not compare to other systems with agent running and stuff, but there are a lot of peak battles where no lag is crucial. You just cant average that out over a week.
Systems wont get much more "regular fleet battle usage" than this one, so if this is your answer it means fleet battles are screwed and will remain so.
Time to introduce some game mechanics that will force people to spread their fleets out more evenly, for example by constellation sovereignty.
The answer can be found in the OTHER Gold barred post:
Quote: This situation simply means there is more reason to release the Dragon code branch to Tranquility. The Dragon branch is the one running on Serenity today and handled up to 40.000 simultaneous users, has a lot of optimizations and improvements to load balancing.
From Ashes to Ashes... From Dust to Dust....
|
Smagd
Encina Technologies Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 22:20:00 -
[128]
Originally by: HappyKitten OK.
Think I'll avoid blobwars for now
Or you keep hundreds of alts sitting in the system you want to soften up for battle field a week in advance
--
When I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally. |
Xgkkp
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 22:37:00 -
[129]
Can the GM's be made aware of the problems? It seems that many people, on petitioning about lag (for instance when the system locked for multiple hours) get told that there is nothing wrong with the server. In the incident the other day, someone claims to have gotten told that the system was just 'A little laggy' when nobody could move without having to log out every time they changed grids, for four hours.
|
Joerd Toastius
Octavian Vanguard
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 22:48:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Oveur However, I emphasize, a node needs more load than a couple of hours of 300 pilots one day a week to get any serious escalation in load factor, so this isn't going to solve the very sporadic battles, but should help systems which get regular fleet battle usage.
It's not just 300 a couple of hours one day though - it's been consistently busy all week, and consistently very busy (2-300 pilots for at least 6-8 hours a day, probably) all weekend, but meh, I guess.
One thing I would suggest in a very "I feel like talking" kind of way is that future loadbalancing algorithms look at more than just "average player count", particularly for when EU alliances are fighting each other, and at more than the previous day. For example, checking peak use over say the last 3-5 days, or better still both the last 3-5 actual days and the last 3-5 "same" days (eg last 3-5 Saturdays on a Saturday) would make fleet battles a lot smoother.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Alliances don't want low average lag, they want low lag when they decide to launch an actual attack :P Nobody minds half a second of lag when there's no hostiles within ten jumps, but milliseconds count in a fleet action. If a system's averaging fairly low load (and ideally this would be CPU load not just player count - I imagine there are some actions that produce more load than others with the same player count) but peaking very high in a predictably regular way, then it makes sense (to me) to assign more resources to that system even if there are other systems which have a higher average load but no noticable peaks.
Hopefully with that kind of calculation applied to the current situation in XZH, the algorithm would say something like "Gee, the average load in XZH hasn't been all too high, but knock me over with a feather if it hasn't been rammed right against the hardware limits at some point every night this week. Golly, I think I'd better give it some more power", rather than just going "meh, low average" and leaving everyone sitting in space twiddling their thumbs for four hours :)
|
|
breaky1
Black Lance Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 00:14:00 -
[131]
Thanks very much for the info Oveur, I'm glad to hear you're working on it and we appreciate the update!
(props for the sig go to Bavarian Punk, whose rockin' sig inspired mine!) |
Dinique
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 00:28:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Oveur
Originally by: HappyKitten Edited by: HappyKitten on 30/07/2006 21:09:01
Originally by: Oveur
Originally by: HappyKitten Are you saying that at the moment, it is impossible for you to manually direct resources to XZH or that you are choosing not to?
It is not possible, it requires a downtime to do it without possible harm to other Constellations.
OK, that makes sense. If you were appraised of a situation about to kick off (like in XZH for example) a couple of days in advance, would you consider shifting about resources manually (only as a temporary fix until dragon ofc) if the fleets involved were big enough?
edit: I mean shift resources from DT to DT.
No, as I explained earlier, that is also risky, especially in the current TQ code base.
Well what we need right now is a workable way for you guys to do this manually, the current load balancing seems to work well for everything EXCEPT this kind of situation in XZH.
For all practical purposes, you are asking all big alliances to put off hostilities until you release your new codebase, because as it stands now, Alliance level warfare isnt really possible. _____
There's so many different worlds So many different suns And we have just one world But we live in different ones
|
Tyrrax Thorrk
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 01:13:00 -
[133]
Edited by: Tyrrax Thorrk on 31/07/2006 01:14:08
From what Oveur's saying here (Thanks tons for sharing! Much appreciated!) I'd say that XZH isn't going to get any preferential treatment over any other system. I dunno if they're willing or able to adjust the load balancing thing in its current state to improve XZH performance, but sounds like it's not going to reliably handle the pressure on it until this dragon code gets put in, which I assume is in one of the Kali releases?
So yea, large fleets suck just like they always have. Maybe someday
|
Eternal Fury
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 01:24:00 -
[134]
I'm not one who is affected by these massive fleet battles, as I'm in a small corp, that's not in an alliance...
But shouldn't the idea of load balanceing be that it helps keep things going when they peak?
Not 3 days after they've peaked.
From the way the DEV posts in this thread sound, a system will only get extra resources if it has a high number of players in it for days on end.
What happens if there is a running fleet battle, that lasts 9hrs and is 300vs300. where the battle starts in one system and then everyone moves to another system.. then another and another..
Shouldn't load balanceing happen on the fly, as opposed to over a few days?
what's the sence of giveing a system max resources 3 days after the big fleet battle?
I sure hope the new code balance's on the fly, and not over days... that would defeat the purpose of LOAD balanceing....
Brotherhood of Light. Small Corp, Big Fun. Wanna join? |
Sessho Seki
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 04:55:00 -
[135]
People, what is so bloody hard to comprehend about this?
Oveur has done a simply stellar job explaining the situation:
Lots of people in a system not allocated to handle lots of people equals lots of latency.
The reason resources aren’t allocated for ANY battle, event, or what have you no matter how big or publicized, is that shifting resources to a system that might have a few hundred people for one day hardly offsets what its conventional population of a tiny fraction of that during the week.
Six days of very low population is still more than even one whole day (down time to down time) of many hundred people, regardless of the reason they are there. Moving resources to a system that does not need them in the day-to-day operations is merely cutting the throat of another system/constellation just to give a potentially unstable and harmful boost to the first system, which only winds up hurting both the system hopefully getting the boost as it will be unstable trying to balance resources it isn’t intended to have, and the system(s) loosing resources end up being slower and unstable because they are trying to find resources that have been taken away.
And all for what? A temporarily event which the FAR larger population of EVE doesn’t give a rat’s red rump about, and most people won’t even know occurred unless by some miracle it gets a tiny headline burb in the login screen, which even more people will simply pass by without a second thought like a newspaper stand.
In the end, Spock had it right, the good of the many outweigh the good of the few, or the one.
|
dasdsadsadsacyx
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 05:52:00 -
[136]
Edited by: dasdsadsadsacyx on 31/07/2006 05:53:49
Originally by: Sessho Seki People, what is so bloody hard to comprehend about this?
Oveur has done a simply stellar job explaining the situation:
Lots of people in a system not allocated to handle lots of people equals lots of latency.
The reason resources arenĆt allocated for ANY battle, event, or what have you no matter how big or publicized, is that shifting resources to a system that might have a few hundred people for one day hardly offsets what its conventional population of a tiny fraction of that during the week.
Six days of very low population is still more than even one whole day (down time to down time) of many hundred people, regardless of the reason they are there. Moving resources to a system that does not need them in the day-to-day operations is merely cutting the throat of another system/constellation just to give a potentially unstable and harmful boost to the first system, which only winds up hurting both the system hopefully getting the boost as it will be unstable trying to balance resources it isnĆt intended to have, and the system(s) loosing resources end up being slower and unstable because they are trying to find resources that have been taken away.
And all for what? A temporarily event which the FAR larger population of EVE doesnĆt give a ratĆs red rump about, and most people wonĆt even know occurred unless by some miracle it gets a tiny headline burb in the login screen, which even more people will simply pass by without a second thought like a newspaper stand.
In the end, Spock had it right, the good of the many outweigh the good of the few, or the one.
Sorry, but this logic is flawed beyond comparison.
We have dozens of fleet battles per week going on, with thousands of people simply working to provide logistics, pos construction and intelligence just to prepare these fights - and by the nature of pos warfare, you wont get much more intense fighting system than XZH in the last week with its dozens of moons.
So this isnt the good of the many outweighing the few - this is a flawed system that both promotes bigger and bigger fleet battles by introducing stuff like pos warfare, and at the same time is not able to deliver it. The "many" arent in this game to carebear in empire, they are there to fight for their own peace of land in 0.0 and neglecting them is not wise.
And the large majority of fleet battles doesnt happen in giant systems like XZH but more sporadic in other ones, so even the Dragon code will be of no help here.
|
Tachy
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 06:11:00 -
[137]
I like how Oveur tells you to go crash the Goons on SiSi.
@Oveur: Welcome back from your holidays! --*=*=*--
Even with nougat, you can have a perfect moment. |
Sessho Seki
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 07:38:00 -
[138]
Originally by: dasdsadsadsacyx Sorry, but this logic is flawed beyond comparison.
We have dozens of fleet battles per week going on, with thousands of people simply working to provide logistics, pos construction and intelligence just to prepare these fights - and by the nature of pos warfare, you wont get much more intense fighting system than XZH in the last week with its dozens of moons.
So this isnt the good of the many outweighing the few - this is a flawed system that both promotes bigger and bigger fleet battles by introducing stuff like pos warfare, and at the same time is not able to deliver it. The "many" arent in this game to carebear in empire, they are there to fight for their own peace of land in 0.0 and neglecting them is not wise.
And the large majority of fleet battles doesnt happen in giant systems like XZH but more sporadic in other ones, so even the Dragon code will be of no help here.
Ok, so you’re going to say my logic is flawed by countering it with “bovine fecal matter”? (if you are unsure what that is, ask for adult supervision before reading on)
Pick a system, ANY system from Jita to deepest darkest Jove space where no one but devs get to go.
Now there is a general census of population flow through systems that is monitored and recorded for use in lode balancing. The developers know that day-to-day Jita is going to need lots of load, as opposed to deepest darkest 0.0 systems where 3 people might go through in a week.
Frankly, I and the vast majority of this game, don’t give a rip if the coming of the apocalypse is scheduled for system “somewhere out there”, because if that system doesn’t have any reasonable amount of traffic, then it’s simply not getting the daily resources dedicated to it, regardless if there is going to be a fleet battle there some time on some day, most especially when for the rest of the week it’s going to revert back to a low population area.
You may as well say, because you want to get to work faster, then all highways in your area should be routed specifically around your city, town, neighborhood, and even to your driveway just so you can have the most expedient resource available. That’s all great and wonderful, but the world doesn’t revolve around you, and neither does EVE. The biggest alliance there ever was is still in the vast minority compared to the number of players that are separate from their influence, and very likely have nothing to do with that alliances’ goings on.
To say that for any reason, the entirety of the game’s system resources should be dynamic depending not on the larger population, but based solely on where a fleet battle is going on is so far beyond asinine as to defy proper description and it’s actually difficult to properly give such idiocy a proper insult to fit the magnitude of just how stupid it is. On a given day with 20,000 players on round about peak, let’s just say there are a DOZEN HUGE engagements, like 300v300 fleet battles going on in random places in EVE at some time that day (simultaneously or otherwise), that’s 600 some odd people per engagement, and if there are 12 of them every single day of the week, that’s 7,200 people daily in such large battles.
Compared to the remaining 12,800 people, that 7,200 is not only a stark minority, but you are literally suggesting that the entire game should be allocated around the minority in the off chance that they MIGHT choose to have a big battle, and VERY potentially in a place that’s simply not allocated with the resources to handle such a fight, not because the fight wouldn’t use the resources, but because the system simply isn’t allocated the daily resources to handle large populations, particularly when fighting.
How about this, IF you want more resources, I’m sure CCP would be all too happy to accept donations of more RAMSAN(s) and BladeCenters to add into the cluster, just ask Oveur for the delivery address.
|
Miss Overlord
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 08:11:00 -
[139]
guys keep the large fleet battles going as ovuer said they were able via the dragon patch in china come up with some optimisations all it involves now is the entire player base to get the patches and get onto the test server during dt (perhaps goonfleet commanders could arrange this within their alliance)
get on there get the bug reports in and the load up to allow CCP to come up with solutions instead of youre short term thinking oh it doesnt work whine whine whine.
Be part of the solution these things take a while to imrpove.
If not go where the server resources are at (ASCN and BOB space)
|
Gariuys
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 08:19:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Dinique
Originally by: Oveur
Originally by: HappyKitten Edited by: HappyKitten on 30/07/2006 21:09:01
Originally by: Oveur
Originally by: HappyKitten Are you saying that at the moment, it is impossible for you to manually direct resources to XZH or that you are choosing not to?
It is not possible, it requires a downtime to do it without possible harm to other Constellations.
OK, that makes sense. If you were appraised of a situation about to kick off (like in XZH for example) a couple of days in advance, would you consider shifting about resources manually (only as a temporary fix until dragon ofc) if the fleets involved were big enough?
edit: I mean shift resources from DT to DT.
No, as I explained earlier, that is also risky, especially in the current TQ code base.
Well what we need right now is a workable way for you guys to do this manually, the current load balancing seems to work well for everything EXCEPT this kind of situation in XZH.
For all practical purposes, you are asking all big alliances to put off hostilities until you release your new codebase, because as it stands now, Alliance level warfare isnt really possible.
Yes it should all stop now, cause people haven't fought large battles beyond the thing in XZH for the past years....
|
|
Dinique
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 08:57:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Gariuys
Yes it should all stop now, cause people haven't fought large battles beyond the thing in XZH for the past years....
Thats not the point, nor what I am saying. If you have ever been in large engagements you'd know they suck because of lag. They are literally unplayable.
Big Alliance warfare necessarily escelates to these sized engagements, and is pretty much what conquerable 0.0 is a about. Its a big part of this game that no one can really enjoy at all.
And to they hypersensitive, overexcited Sessho Seki over there, no one asked that ALL the resources should be handed over to one group of people. Just some resources reballanced properly to accomodate alliance warfare. Which would mean one node dedicated to the particular system. That doesnt mean the rest of EVE gets screwed, take the resources from the systems where those 600 players are NOT.
The analogy you described is so completely off-base its actually kinda funny -- no one was asking for that. IF there isn't servers available to be dedicated to situations like these, if it really is a resource shortage on the hardware side that would need resources taken away from other busy systems, then additional servers need to be purchased. We pay for this game, alliance warfare is part of this game, so I don't think thats unreasonable. _____
There's so many different worlds So many different suns And we have just one world But we live in different ones
|
Avon
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 09:01:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Dinique [ And to they hypersensitive, overexcited Sessho Seki over there, no one asked that ALL the resources should be handed over to one group of people. Just some resources reballanced properly to accomodate alliance warfare. Which would mean one node dedicated to the particular system. That doesnt mean the rest of EVE gets screwed, take the resources from the systems where those 600 players are NOT.
Oveur listed the attached nodes. All of those systems would then be sharing different nodes, but the whole server cluster would have one less node to balance over. The people in those other systems would experience worse gameplay, and it would have a knock-on effect.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
|
Gariuys
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 09:03:00 -
[143]
Load balancing can't be done on the fly... so that's pretty much impossible.
And yes huge fleetbattles can be lag fests... but that's what you get for blobbing. They can be quite a lot of fun as well though. Not at the 100s lvl though, that's just plain no fun.
|
houba
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 09:05:00 -
[144]
So, if I understood good, for the moment it is impossible do to a "more power to XZH tchekky (?)" thing without switching the servers off. Settings need to be changed within a DT. But, if loadbalancing could be arranged "live" what would be the major difficulty on implementing an idea like this :
- Every 15 minutes or so, every node checks major gang member's destination within his allocated constellations. (major gang for me is minimum 40). And if a lot of people (40+) are logged off within a system.
- The nodes discuss with each other to find out if : 1) Two major gang's are about to meet in a system within their waypoint list. 2) One or more major gang's are about to arrive in a system which contains another major gang or in a system with many ppl logged off.
- If 1) or 2) are checked correct, the node sucks cpu % from nodes in which there is 2 people trying to mine crockite in velators, and ensure at least a Jita sized cpu load power to the meeting system and their waypoint systems on their route.
If this could be done, all that a FC has to do to have a nice fight is to make set the same destination of all his gang members at least 15 minutes before the fight. This kind of solution is cheap bandwidth wise, and could avoid having a whole server allocated to calculate the mining yield of the previous 2 velators.
just an idea ...
|
Gariuys
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 09:08:00 -
[145]
Originally by: houba So, if I understood good, for the moment it is impossible do to a "more power to XZH tchekky (?)" thing without switching the servers off. Settings need to be changed within a DT. But, if loadbalancing could be arranged "live" what would be the major difficulty on implementing an idea like this :
- Every 15 minutes or so, every node checks major gang member's destination within his allocated constellations. (major gang for me is minimum 40). And if a lot of people (40+) are logged off within a system.
- The nodes discuss with each other to find out if : 1) Two major gang's are about to meet in a system within their waypoint list. 2) One or more major gang's are about to arrive in a system which contains another major gang or in a system with many ppl logged off.
- If 1) or 2) are checked correct, the node sucks cpu % from nodes in which there is 2 people trying to mine crockite in velators, and ensure at least a Jita sized cpu load power to the meeting system and their waypoint systems on their route.
If this could be done, all that a FC has to do to have a nice fight is to make set the same destination of all his gang members at least 15 minutes before the fight. This kind of solution is cheap bandwidth wise, and could avoid having a whole server allocated to calculate the mining yield of the previous 2 velators.
just an idea ...
And that's 2 lost stuff petitions cause Chelm spawned and owned the velators due to lag... a crashed market in the other node that only had 2 people mining, but 50 docked trading etc.... it ain't that simple...
|
houba
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 09:21:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Gariuys
Originally by: houba
stuff
reply
It is of course understood the sucked calculating power / bandwidth will not put any harm in the gameplay of the less used systems. For instance, leaving them with 25% of the cpu load instead of the 1% they actually use when the demand is made.
|
Gariuys
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 09:24:00 -
[147]
Originally by: houba
Originally by: Gariuys
Originally by: houba
stuff
reply
It is of course understood the sucked calculating power / bandwidth will not put any harm in the gameplay of the less used systems. For instance, leaving them with 25% of the cpu load instead of the 1% they actually use when the demand is made.
And from where would they get that? a 300vs300 battle takes a full node ( and even then... ) which means several systems need to be reassigned, which could push other nodes over the limit. Or maybe it's me, but if it was that simple, they would have done it already... Waitng for the new code branche is probably a hot idae anyway. ;-)
|
Hanns Choibman
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 10:01:00 -
[148]
Thanks to the Dev for addressing the problem.
I am glad to hear there is code on the way to being implemented that will help these situations.
I would just like to say from a positive perspective that if this kind of thing is handled well by the devs and their development. They will be making eve a game that is what it claims to be. A game like no other.
Where you can be invloved in a fleet battle that rivals that of what is seen in movies such as Star Wars or shows like Battlestar Galactica.
Your players just want to experience this.
Regardless of weather game design (POS wars) is good or not and people should use smaller gang tactics is irrelevant, in the nature that if you can give us a game that handles large scale engagments in 0.0 space that isn't already settled (and log term populated) by established alliances, you will be bringing the Eve experience to a fantastic level.
I love this game, but the whole XZH experience really feels like a waste of 3 weeks of my gamming life and the 3 months previous I spent time making ISK to join in with my friends.
I would never mind losing a ship to enemies in a stright up battle, but to have it bug out and explode and make no logical sense of why and have it rubbed in your face for 4-5 hours is a bit harsh. Especially when you are really invloved with the circumstances.
Finally;
Many valid points are raised here in amongst the arguing. I hope the Devs take them seriously and still have passion for the game as we do. We don't expect you to fix lag, only prevent the experience form going to a frozen bugged illogical mess for hours on end. |
Asnar
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 10:31:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Dinique
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Dinique [ And to they hypersensitive, overexcited Sessho Seki over there, no one asked that ALL the resources should be handed over to one group of people. Just some resources reballanced properly to accomodate alliance warfare. Which would mean one node dedicated to the particular system. That doesnt mean the rest of EVE gets screwed, take the resources from the systems where those 600 players are NOT.
Oveur listed the attached nodes. All of those systems would then be sharing different nodes, but the whole server cluster would have one less node to balance over. The people in those other systems would experience worse gameplay, and it would have a knock-on effect.
Hence my suggestion that in that case, a few additional nodes be acquired to be used specifically in cases such as these?
How many engagements on this scale is ongoing at the same time in EVE currently? 2 or 3 perhaps as a maximum? 3 Servers that exist for this purpose could make big alliance warfare so much more fun, in that case.
Nodes that during 95% of the time havenothing to do... not exactly a good way too spend your cash IMO And how exactly do you adapt to potentially getting killed by everybody you kill? -Nero Scuro If I miss you, it will be because my tracking is a little off. - Grey Area |
Michuh
Vortex. Maelstrom Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 10:35:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Azaeren
So, since you just admitted to the server being crap and unable to handle medium/large scale pvp as advertised, the thousands of ships that have been destroyed in that cluster are going to be returned right??
Thats rather funny.. Wake up man will you..
Maelstrom Recruitment
|
|
Asnar
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 10:36:00 -
[151]
Originally by: Hanns Choibman Thanks to the Dev for addressing the problem.
I am glad to hear there is code on the way to being implemented that will help these situations.
I would just like to say from a positive perspective that if this kind of thing is handled well by the devs and their development. They will be making eve a game that is what it claims to be. A game like no other.
Where you can be invloved in a fleet battle that rivals that of what is seen in movies such as Star Wars or shows like Battlestar Galactica.
Your players just want to experience this.
Regardless of weather game design (POS wars) is good or not and people should use smaller gang tactics is irrelevant, in the nature that if you can give us a game that handles large scale engagments in 0.0 space that isn't already settled (and log term populated) by established alliances, you will be bringing the Eve experience to a fantastic level.
I love this game, but the whole XZH experience really feels like a waste of 3 weeks of my gamming life and the 3 months previous I spent time making ISK to join in with my friends.
I would never mind losing a ship to enemies in a stright up battle, but to have it bug out and explode and make no logical sense of why and have it rubbed in your face for 4-5 hours is a bit harsh. Especially when you are really invloved with the circumstances.
Finally;
Many valid points are raised here in amongst the arguing. I hope the Devs take them seriously and still have passion for the game as we do. We don't expect you to fix lag, only prevent the experience form going to a frozen bugged illogical mess for hours on end.
Don't pretend to know what the players want to experience, most don't give a rats ass about huge fleet battles... ( in empire... or just plain hate for fleet combat that involves skill from 1 individual only )
And it's already a game like no other... making the servers handle the goonswarm isn't needed for that. And how exactly do you adapt to potentially getting killed by everybody you kill? -Nero Scuro If I miss you, it will be because my tracking is a little off. - Grey Area |
Hanns Choibman
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 11:14:00 -
[152]
Edited by: Hanns Choibman on 31/07/2006 11:27:10 Edited by: Hanns Choibman on 31/07/2006 11:26:40
Originally by: Asnar Pent up aggression
There are lots of people that like fleet warfare not just Goonswarm.
LOL, Do you read your posts after you post them? Did you read the thread title?
Ok maybe you just wanted to get stuck into someone a little bit, thats ok, becasue it's all about you now, and we've come to accept that, and you are dealing with it, so I guess you're right and we can all move on.
EDIT: Today I learn what "feeding the trolls" means
----------------------------------------------
|
Asnar
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 11:21:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Hanns Choibman
Originally by: Asnar Pent up aggression
There are lots of people that like fleet warfare not just Goonswarm.
LOL, Do you read your posts after you post them? Did you read the thread title?
Ok maybe you just wanted to get stuck into someone a little bit, thats ok, becasue it's all about you now, and we've come to accept that, and you are dealing with it, so I guess you're right and we can all move on.
No I just have a strong disliking for people claiming that all of EVE is just waiting for their bright idea. Which in this case especialy is flat out not true. It would be nice to be possible, but you know what, I've been around long enough to remember the days when 50vs50 would cause the same problems, when that was made possible, it took a whole day before people started complaining that with 100vs100 the node crashed, Doesn't matter, maybe at 1500vs1500 then people will stop complaining... but then they'd start complaining about grid size cause half their fleet is on another grid.... etc. etc. etc.
Solution is making fleets smaller again, not stretching the limit of how many pilots you can cram into one grid. And how exactly do you adapt to potentially getting killed by everybody you kill? -Nero Scuro If I miss you, it will be because my tracking is a little off. - Grey Area |
Dinique
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 12:10:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Asnar
Originally by: Hanns Choibman
Originally by: Asnar Pent up aggression
There are lots of people that like fleet warfare not just Goonswarm.
LOL, Do you read your posts after you post them? Did you read the thread title?
Ok maybe you just wanted to get stuck into someone a little bit, thats ok, becasue it's all about you now, and we've come to accept that, and you are dealing with it, so I guess you're right and we can all move on.
No I just have a strong disliking for people claiming that all of EVE is just waiting for their bright idea. Which in this case especialy is flat out not true. It would be nice to be possible, but you know what, I've been around long enough to remember the days when 50vs50 would cause the same problems, when that was made possible, it took a whole day before people started complaining that with 100vs100 the node crashed, Doesn't matter, maybe at 1500vs1500 then people will stop complaining... but then they'd start complaining about grid size cause half their fleet is on another grid.... etc. etc. etc.
Solution is making fleets smaller again, not stretching the limit of how many pilots you can cram into one grid.
This is the part where you suggest that next time an alliance goes to war, they get together with their opponent at a friendly gathering and agree to only use 20 pilots each, right?
You know what, your bright idea is what all of EVE has been waiting for. _____
There's so many different worlds So many different suns And we have just one world But we live in different ones
|
Asnar
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 12:13:00 -
[155]
Originally by: Dinique
Originally by: Asnar
Originally by: Hanns Choibman
Originally by: Asnar Pent up aggression
There are lots of people that like fleet warfare not just Goonswarm.
LOL, Do you read your posts after you post them? Did you read the thread title?
Ok maybe you just wanted to get stuck into someone a little bit, thats ok, becasue it's all about you now, and we've come to accept that, and you are dealing with it, so I guess you're right and we can all move on.
No I just have a strong disliking for people claiming that all of EVE is just waiting for their bright idea. Which in this case especialy is flat out not true. It would be nice to be possible, but you know what, I've been around long enough to remember the days when 50vs50 would cause the same problems, when that was made possible, it took a whole day before people started complaining that with 100vs100 the node crashed, Doesn't matter, maybe at 1500vs1500 then people will stop complaining... but then they'd start complaining about grid size cause half their fleet is on another grid.... etc. etc. etc.
Solution is making fleets smaller again, not stretching the limit of how many pilots you can cram into one grid.
This is the part where you suggest that next time an alliance goes to war, they get together with their opponent at a friendly gathering and agree to only use 20 pilots each, right?
You know what, your bright idea is what all of EVE has been waiting for.
Lol nope, wouldn't exactly work... although if you really want to fight instead of try to crash a node, you could agree to bring no more then 150 pilots a side, but that's unrealistic, even odds, who would want to bring even odds to a fight... And how exactly do you adapt to potentially getting killed by everybody you kill? -Nero Scuro If I miss you, it will be because my tracking is a little off. - Grey Area |
Kaylana Syi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 12:15:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Zosh Let's have 2600 people all cancel subscriptions at once maybe that'll finally get their attention!
I'd settle just for Remedial cancelling his.
Team Minmatar Carriers need Clone Vats
|
Garia666
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 12:30:00 -
[157]
CCP has the fastest hardware around no clue on what more they should do to fix a problem like this.
Hehe mabe an idea to do it like the old day`s
pick the best fighter of each side and let them finish the battle. Winner takes it all
^^
Its a good day for the crow`s
|
Havelcek
Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 12:42:00 -
[158]
So let me see if I understand this.
The game can't and won't ever be able to handle dynamic fleet-scale battles because by definition those DYNAMIC fleet battles might not occur in systems that have had any traffic in the past few days or weeks. So any attempt to say, attack the POSes, in the DOZENS of systems in 0.0 that rarely get traffic but are needed for sovereignty will always get the same result = "Sorry, no server for you, this traffic is too dynamic".
This is the biggest bunch of malarkey that I've ever heard on these forums, and that's saying something in itself. Every one of us has been in fleet-scale battles in systems where there is always tons of traffic and its still HORRIBLY BROKEN. Why do you guys think you get so many petitions all the time due to these lag bugs? Do you think they are all happening in no-load systems out at the end of space? No!
I think I understand now.
|
Rutta
GoonWaffe GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 12:50:00 -
[159]
Originally by: Asnar
Lol nope, wouldn't exactly work... although if you really want to fight instead of try to crash a node, you could agree to bring no more then 150 pilots a side, but that's unrealistic, even odds, who would want to bring even odds to a fight...
Don't cry because we roll 200 deep and you don't.
|
Matthew
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 13:03:00 -
[160]
Originally by: Dinique
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Dinique [ And to they hypersensitive, overexcited Sessho Seki over there, no one asked that ALL the resources should be handed over to one group of people. Just some resources reballanced properly to accomodate alliance warfare. Which would mean one node dedicated to the particular system. That doesnt mean the rest of EVE gets screwed, take the resources from the systems where those 600 players are NOT.
Oveur listed the attached nodes. All of those systems would then be sharing different nodes, but the whole server cluster would have one less node to balance over. The people in those other systems would experience worse gameplay, and it would have a knock-on effect.
Hence my suggestion that in that case, a few additional nodes be acquired to be used specifically in cases such as these?
How many engagements on this scale is ongoing at the same time in EVE currently? 2 or 3 perhaps as a maximum? 3 Servers that exist for this purpose could make big alliance warfare so much more fun, in that case.
But if you're going to invest in more nodes, why hold them back for these rare uses rather than put them in the main group to provide a global improvement?
And of course even if you did have these "on-call" nodes, you'd need a way of knowing which systems were going to be the battlegrounds, with at least one DT's notice. And you'd need it so that the server code stays sane when you manually rebalanced (which, reading between the lines of Oveur's post, it doesn't right now).
One of the big problems with fleet battles is the n-squared scaling issue (if you are in a grid with n people, the server needs to compute and inform of your interaction with n people. But everyone there needs that so there are n^2 interactions). This means that a 10v10 battle would be of the "scale" 400. A 150v150 battle would be 90000. So although there are only 15 times more people involved, the server load is likely to be of the order of 225 times larger.
This has two consequences:
1) Increasing the amount of power avaliable to a fleet battle will have diminishing returns to the number of players that can participate. So having 100% of the node will not let you have twice as many players as if you were sharing and only got 50% of it. If you can cope with 50 vs 50 (10000 load) with 50% of the node, getting the whole node would only let you cope with 70 players per side. (NB: numbers to provide example of principle only, not to reflect actual server capability).
2) Dedicating power to a fleet battle is a very inefficient use of server resources. Taking the example above, 50% of the node could support a 50v50 somewhere, powering 100 players. Devoting it instead to reinforce a larger battle means that that 50% is now only supporting 40 players (those players over and above what the 50% was already coping with). If you instead consider that the majority sharing the node could be in groups of 5v5 (load 100), the capacity you're using to support 40 extra players in the fleet battle could be used to support 1000 players in small groups elsewhere.
I suspect this is the reason Oveur has refused manual fleet battle balancing - for it to have any effect, it requires those in the fleet battle to be given disproportionately large amounts of server power. Balancing for 1 more person in a fleet battle doesn't mean taking 1 person's worth of capacity from elsewhere - it could mean taking 10 or 100 times that. CCP have a responsibility to load-balance for the whole population, not just one battle.
This also means that the argument of moving capacity to the fleet battle by "take[ing] the resources from the systems where those 600 players are NOT." doesn't work. If they only moved the resources those people had been taking in smaller groups, it would have negligable effect on the fleet battle. (600 in one place is 360000, in 60 groups of 10 is only 6000). ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
|
Draedies De'sheriam
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 13:06:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Havelcek So let me see if I understand this.
The game can't and won't ever be able to handle dynamic fleet-scale battles because by definition those DYNAMIC fleet battles might not occur in systems that have had any traffic in the past few days or weeks. So any attempt to say, attack the POSes, in the DOZENS of systems in 0.0 that rarely get traffic but are needed for sovereignty will always get the same result = "Sorry, no server for you, this traffic is too dynamic".
This is the biggest bunch of malarkey that I've ever heard on these forums, and that's saying something in itself. Every one of us has been in fleet-scale battles in systems where there is always tons of traffic and its still HORRIBLY BROKEN. Why do you guys think you get so many petitions all the time due to these lag bugs? Do you think they are all happening in no-load systems out at the end of space? No!
I think I understand now.
Did you actualy read the posts from Oveur? It does not seem so. From what it looks like, the current TQ code base, cannot now, nor will ever be able to do the balancing right. Perhaps, just maybe, thats why he mentioned the Dragon code on sisi, as being much better at it. Damn, it would be nice if reading comprehension was a requirment for the internet.
|
Havelcek
Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 13:21:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Draedies De'sheriam Did you actualy read the posts from Oveur? It does not seem so. From what it looks like, the current TQ code base, cannot now, nor will ever be able to do the balancing right. Perhaps, just maybe, thats why he mentioned the Dragon code on sisi, as being much better at it. Damn, it would be nice if reading comprehension was a requirment for the internet.
Yes I did read Oveur's post and all the Dragon code is going to do is "hopefully" do better load balancing, which we've been hearing in every optimization patch and server upgrade to date. WTS more promises.
|
Lazuran
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 13:27:00 -
[163]
Originally by: Matthew One of the big problems with fleet battles is the n-squared scaling issue (if you are in a grid with n people, the server needs to compute and inform of your interaction with n people. But everyone there needs that so there are n^2 interactions). This means that a 10v10 battle would be of the "scale" 400. A 150v150 battle would be 90000. So although there are only 15 times more people involved, the server load is likely to be of the order of 225 times larger.
In theory, yes. In practice I hope that CCP has taken care to optimize this a bit so that not every player has to be informed of everyone else's actions always.
Quote:
I suspect this is the reason Oveur has refused manual fleet battle balancing - for it to have any effect, it requires those in the fleet battle to be given disproportionately large amounts of server power. Balancing for 1 more person in a fleet battle doesn't mean taking 1 person's worth of capacity from elsewhere - it could mean taking 10 or 100 times that. CCP have a responsibility to load-balance for the whole population, not just one battle.
There's a simple solution to this: they need to reserve a couple of nodes exclusively for large fleet battles and make sure everyone else has enough node power without those extra nodes.
The number of nodes for fleet battles can be limited - not too many happen at the same time. Noone will be affected disproportionally.
If they don't take care of these lag issues in a reasonable manner, it will take 90% of the fun away for many players. But perhaps they care more about money farmers in empire ...
|
Dinique
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 13:44:00 -
[164]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Dinique
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Dinique [ And to they hypersensitive, overexcited Sessho Seki over there, no one asked that ALL the resources should be handed over to one group of people. Just some resources reballanced properly to accomodate alliance warfare. Which would mean one node dedicated to the particular system. That doesnt mean the rest of EVE gets screwed, take the resources from the systems where those 600 players are NOT.
Oveur listed the attached nodes. All of those systems would then be sharing different nodes, but the whole server cluster would have one less node to balance over. The people in those other systems would experience worse gameplay, and it would have a knock-on effect.
Hence my suggestion that in that case, a few additional nodes be acquired to be used specifically in cases such as these?
How many engagements on this scale is ongoing at the same time in EVE currently? 2 or 3 perhaps as a maximum? 3 Servers that exist for this purpose could make big alliance warfare so much more fun, in that case.
But if you're going to invest in more nodes, why hold them back for these rare uses rather than put them in the main group to provide a global improvement?
And of course even if you did have these "on-call" nodes, you'd need a way of knowing which systems were going to be the battlegrounds, with at least one DT's notice. And you'd need it so that the server code stays sane when you manually rebalanced (which, reading between the lines of Oveur's post, it doesn't right now).
Please read the rest of the thread first. Globally in this game, there mostly aren't major lag problems. In Fleet Battles we do have major lag issues. Fleet battles aren't really rare either. As for WHY you would want this: To resolve/improve the major, game-breaking lag issues in fleet battles. I thought I said that already?
And petitions were written about the coming huge fleet ops in XZH as early as 5 days before it did happen, so letting CCP know in advance is hardly the problem in this case. _____
There's so many different worlds So many different suns And we have just one world But we live in different ones
|
dasdsadsadsacyx
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 14:00:00 -
[165]
Edited by: dasdsadsadsacyx on 31/07/2006 14:01:16
Originally by: Sessho Seki
To say that for any reason, the entirety of the gameĆs system resources should be dynamic depending not on the larger population, but based solely on where a fleet battle is going on is so far beyond asinine as to defy proper description and itĆs actually difficult to properly give such idiocy a proper insult to fit the magnitude of just how stupid it is. On a given day with 20,000 players on round about peak, letĆs just say there are a DOZEN HUGE engagements, like 300v300 fleet battles going on in random places in EVE at some time that day (simultaneously or otherwise), thatĆs 600 some odd people per engagement, and if there are 12 of them every single day of the week, thatĆs 7,200 people daily in such large battles.
Compared to the remaining 12,800 people, that 7,200 is not only a stark minority, but you are literally suggesting that the entire game should be allocated around the minority in the off chance that they MIGHT choose to have a big battle, and VERY potentially in a place thatĆs simply not allocated with the resources to handle such a fight, not because the fight wouldnĆt use the resources, but because the system simply isnĆt allocated the daily resources to handle large populations, particularly when fighting.
Ok, first of all nice to see that the "FAR larger" population suddenly has become 35%, although I clearly give you that this number is still too high if you are looking for people who are actively participating in battle.
However, at least half of the actively playing and paying population have a [b]great interest[/b} in fleet battles - combat against opposing alliance is the primary purpose of 0.0.
Especially when we have about 60000 people organized in alliances alone, which pre-dominantly are 0.0 based entities - not to speak of the many small resident corporations that occupy their space. Basically, the VAST majority of people who are not simply trial accounts (10-15%) but have played and plan to play EvE for longer have an interest in 0.0. combat.
That means you miss the broader context. A battle like XZH is what thousands of players have worked for - be it as miners, traders in empire, researchers, scouts etc. The actual number of ~500 at peak does not account for those people who work for this goal during other time zones and with non-PvP profession, and those who had a high stake in its outcome, basically almost the whole North in this case.
That these battles can be settled satisfactorily is crucial, and an 8 hour blackout combined with awful lag during the rest of the day is a serious threat to enjoying the game. Actually, it is well worth it for 0.0 residents to have laggy conditions in the set-up to these battles and during mining and agent missions if only the battles itself can be remotely called so.
So what is the point? The load balancing system needs to account for the fact that fleet battles are much more important than having a fluid mining operation, or mass agent whoring in empire. It needs to weight these events correctly, and prior information of the devs by alliance leaders is one way to do that.
Players dont do fleet battles to be able to do carebear stuff like agent running, they do carebear stuff to be able to do fleet battles.
So the conclusion?
a) reintroduce the information system, so that alliance can inform CCP of planned fleet battles - if that has to bought with more lag for people in other systems, go ahead.
b) more importantly: design combsat in a way that there is an actual incentive to spread out forces. Right now, all you want is to have more and more people in one system. This needs to stop. One way of doing this is introduce constellation and regional sovereignty, and nerfing the importance of system sovereignty. Correctly designed, occupying and defending several systems and attacking on multiple can become more efficient than blobbing in one space with this system.
|
Matthew
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 14:01:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Lazuran
Originally by: Matthew One of the big problems with fleet battles is the n-squared scaling issue (if you are in a grid with n people, the server needs to compute and inform of your interaction with n people. But everyone there needs that so there are n^2 interactions). This means that a 10v10 battle would be of the "scale" 400. A 150v150 battle would be 90000. So although there are only 15 times more people involved, the server load is likely to be of the order of 225 times larger.
In theory, yes. In practice I hope that CCP has taken care to optimize this a bit so that not every player has to be informed of everyone else's actions always.
Yes, there will be a level of optimization, and I suspect that that new clever tricks along these lines form a lot of the optimisations we've had, and will continue to have.
The grids are the most obvious example of this - if you're in a different grid, people don't see you, so they don't count in your n. Unfortunately, fleet battles are largely around having everyone in one, or a couple of grids. The whole point of a large fleet is to bring it to bear at the same place at the same time - by definition a large number of players all trying to influence each other at the same place at the same time. There's only so much of that you can cut down without effectively carving the battlefield in half with a grid boundary.
Incidentally, that's why the lag eases up when everyone's lagged out and emergency warped - the emergency warps generally leaves the force scattered over many grids, pulling the load back down to x*(n/x)^2 instead of n^2. And why it comes back again as soon as you try and regroup.
Originally by: Lazuran
Quote:
I suspect this is the reason Oveur has refused manual fleet battle balancing - for it to have any effect, it requires those in the fleet battle to be given disproportionately large amounts of server power. Balancing for 1 more person in a fleet battle doesn't mean taking 1 person's worth of capacity from elsewhere - it could mean taking 10 or 100 times that. CCP have a responsibility to load-balance for the whole population, not just one battle.
There's a simple solution to this: they need to reserve a couple of nodes exclusively for large fleet battles and make sure everyone else has enough node power without those extra nodes.
The number of nodes for fleet battles can be limited - not too many happen at the same time. Noone will be affected disproportionally.
That would require even more investment in hardware than the massive spend they've already made recently. There is a limit to how much our subs will pay for. Bear in mind an extra node is not just a few grand for the hardware and initial setup, there's running costs (electricity, cooling, datacentre space, 24/7 support contracts), which are significant ongoing costs. There's also the issue that as a clustered system grows, it requires more power diverted to cluster management - there will be a limit to the number of nodes that can be reasonably run.
You would still have to take care of the problems of moving the affected systems to those fleet nodes. Which basically means one of two things:
1) WoW-like battleground systems. 2) Planning where you want your fleet battle at least 24 hours in advance, and hope that the enemy fleet don't intercept yours 1 jump away from that.
And even if you did manage to overcome all those hurdles, a dedicated node will still not support the size of battles some here are attempting. There's a point at which the effort is simply better used elsewhere.
Originally by: Lazuran If they don't take care of these lag issues in a reasonable manner, it will take 90% of the fun away for many players. But perhaps they care more about money farmers in empire ...
Why does everyone assume something not being done is because they won't do it? Ever thought it may be because they can't? Oveur is not God in RL. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
dasdsadsadsacyx
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 14:13:00 -
[167]
Edited by: dasdsadsadsacyx on 31/07/2006 14:14:14 Edited by: dasdsadsadsacyx on 31/07/2006 14:13:18
Originally by: Matthew
You would still have to take care of the problems of moving the affected systems to those fleet nodes. Which basically means one of two things:
1) WoW-like battleground systems. 2) Planning where you want your fleet battle at least 24 hours in advance, and hope that the enemy fleet don't intercept yours 1 jump away from that.
And even if you did manage to overcome all those hurdles, a dedicated node will still not support the size of battles some here are attempting. There's a point at which the effort is simply better used elsewhere.
Yeah but it is a bit disappointing to say "ok we at CCP designed this combat system in a way that massing more people in one system is better, but we cant provide the server capacity, so it doesnt work".
I think we need a third solution, which might be constellation or regional sovereignty. Basically, an incentive to spread out forces is the only way this problem can be dealt with.
As you pointed out correctly, the problem grows faster than servers could ever hope to match, especially if we account for that "people will always bring higher numbers" if possible.
I think I am going to do a seperate post on who regional sovereignty should work, but here a short outline.
But basically, the idea is that all sovereignty based benefits like less fuel consumption, secure stations or possibly stuff like higher log out timer and quicker scanning of enemies should be linked to who controls a whole region.
Add to this the introduction of a single claiming unit per system, for example built at the sun, with rather low hitpoints, and sufficiently enough chokepoints to prevent blocking of a whole region.
This will allow several seperate squads to gain control of the whole region more quickly than one blob moving from system to system. Making damage dealt to the claiming units logarithmic might further help to give an advantage to smaller strike units.
Still needs some improvements, but a better solution than the ugly instances and the uncertainty of planned load balancing.
|
Matthew
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 14:18:00 -
[168]
Originally by: Dinique Please read the rest of the thread first. Globally in this game, there mostly aren't major lag problems. In Fleet Battles we do have major lag issues. Fleet battles aren't really rare either. As for WHY you would want this: To resolve/improve the major, game-breaking lag issues in fleet battles. I thought I said that already?
There may not be global lag problems at the moment, but if the Devs started stripping out nodes to support fleet battles, there soon would be.
Originally by: Dinique And petitions were written about the coming huge fleet ops in XZH as early as 5 days before it did happen, so letting CCP know in advance is hardly the problem in this case.
And what if your foes had chosen to pull a surprise and ambush you one jump over? War is rarely predictable, and diverting to one system and having the battle occur in another one would make things even worse.
Then there's the fact that giving an entire node to XZH is still unlikely to be sufficient to support what people are trying to do there at the moment, and I doubt there is anything they could buy to plug in as a "super-node" that would cope either. So that dedicated node may not even make much noticable difference to the fleet battle, but it's absence would be noticable in terms of non-fleet global load.
Originally by: dasdsadsadsacyx Yeah but it is a bit disappointing to say "ok we at CCP designed this combat system in a way that massing more people in one system is better, but we cant provide the server capacity, so it doesnt work".
I think we need a third solution, which might be constellation or regional sovereignty. Basically, an incentive to spread out forces is the only way this problem can be dealt with.
I seem to remember a couple of posts (Hammer and Oveur I think) about various changes to sovereignty, player defence structures etc that come under the "factional warfare" heading in Kali2. Not much detail yet, but might be some of the things you have in mind. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Hanns Choibman
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 14:47:00 -
[169]
I'm wondering if the software/hardware runs, using parrallel processing.
When each player enters a bunch of command such as move, activate, stop, warp etc.
Instead of commands 1 - 5000 being entered into the cpu in a line of order
Breaking it up into threads such as 4 threads here;
a) 1-2000 b) 2001 - 3000 c) 3001 - 4000 d) 4001 - 5000
Where the time taken to get from 1 - 2000 is less than the time taken to get from 1 - 5000.
It seems in the game, the server was backed up for hours due to the x^players computations and 4 hours later it is trying to work out commands given an hour ago when you are in a different place. Commands must error or something due to them getting lost or becoming irrelevant (memory leaks?)
Does the hardware support multiple thread processing? Is the software making use of this more efficient way of processing?
I imagine the software coding would be far more complex to manage multiple threads all interacting with each other.
Also I assume the servers are built with Dual Core, Dual AMD cpu's (correct me if I'm wrong) that are 64 bit capable. Which is twice as fat as 32 bit. Becasue the clients are running 32 bit, does the server need to do the same?
The question I now have for the devs is; Is the software making use of the multiple cores and full 64 bit data stream? Also how refined is the code and how much redundant code is hanging around in there?
"You cannot do that while warping" seems pretty redundant to me. Althought I am not coder so I don't assume to know what is important in the finer elements of the code. ----------------------------------------------
|
Argenton Sayvers
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 15:05:00 -
[170]
Edited by: Argenton Sayvers on 31/07/2006 15:10:04 It is fun to see the comments in this thread. I think that lag of 1 second is unacceptable, yet there are people who think 8 hours of total breakdown is perfectly fine.
Maybe everyone who posts this rubbish should suffer 8h of total blackout during their favorite TV event. And when they complain that they cant watch superbowl / world cup finals / season finale of your favorite show / whatever - people would insult you, tell you its all your fault, and ask you to go betatest the new system that will maybe work a bit better.
As for the topic of load balancing. I think the developers should look in the mirror, take a deep breath, admit that even though it it may be possible to have servers making lagless massive battles a reality, it will not happen during EvEs livespan. If you compare the current situation (its either bad lag at best - or total meltdown at worst) with the proposed changes (new codebranch), its difficult to believe that a partiallly updated code can lead to total results. Neither 10% nor 50% improvemt would be enough to make fleet battles fun. Maybe not even 200%. Something that should have had much bigger effects (new servers) didnt lead to any real improvements at all (or those improvements got soacked up by the huge influx of players). A Revelation is needed.
It is telling about the nature of the typical MMORPG player that there are still people who didnt cancel their accounts after 1h of those "fun" battles of the weekend, and never looked back. Eve is worse then a drug, but you cannot push it too far.
As for a free and easy hotfix - tell your GMs to show some respect for the customer. Create an automatical search feature that scans all GM responses for remarks like "our logs dont show ..." or "there was no / a little / barely any lag in ...". Three strikes, and he can find himself a new job.
A redesign of 0.0 warfar is probably order, so that the best tactics lead to situations that are in line whith what the servers are capable of doing. Oh and Oveur - and the other devs, dont let the pessimistic nature of my comments lead you astray - not posting, or not caring at all, would have more devastating results ;)
|
|
Dinique
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 15:33:00 -
[171]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Dinique And petitions were written about the coming huge fleet ops in XZH as early as 5 days before it did happen, so letting CCP know in advance is hardly the problem in this case.
And what if your foes had chosen to pull a surprise and ambush you one jump over? War is rarely predictable, and diverting to one system and having the battle occur in another one would make things even worse.
It was going to be a POS slugfest in XZH, we were already in system and so were they. So no. If they attempted ambush in the next system it would have easy since we could just ignore them.
This wasnt the fleets marching down on eachother situation you seem to imagine. _____
There's so many different worlds So many different suns And we have just one world But we live in different ones
|
Misses Gap
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 15:36:00 -
[172]
What about the EVE-Server in China ?
Rumour has it that 100k and more player will be online at once.
Even if the wars wont be done by blobbing parties, which I doubt, at least the startsystems will be crowded with many hundred of players..
How is this going to be handled ?
Or is CCP able to invest so much more there than here ?
Just wondering.
|
Matthew
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 15:36:00 -
[173]
Originally by: Argenton Sayvers Edited by: Argenton Sayvers on 31/07/2006 15:10:04 It is fun to see the comments in this thread. I think that lag of 1 second is unacceptable, yet there are people who think 8 hours of total breakdown is perfectly fine.
Maybe everyone who posts this rubbish should suffer 8h of total blackout during their favorite TV event. And when they complain that they cant watch superbowl / world cup finals / season finale of your favorite show / whatever - people would insult you, tell you its all your fault, and ask you to go betatest the new system that will maybe work a bit better.
Your analogy is flawed in one very important way. Coverage of a TV event is something that is easily within current technology, it's known and is routinely achieved. A breakdown would be due to accident, mechanical failure or incompetence. Having 600 players trying to fight at the same place at the same time in an online game is not easily within current technology, and possibly is not within it at all. It's not routinely achieved, if achieved at all. It breaks down not because of incompetence, accident or mechanical failure, but because you have pushed to, and beyond, the limit of what the technology can handle. The closest TV analogy I can think of is taking a normal TV set to the moon and then complaining that the reception isn't very good.
Originally by: Argenton Sayvers As for the topic of load balancing. I think the developers should look in the mirror, take a deep breath, admit that even though it it may be possible to have servers making lagless massive battles a reality, it will not happen during EvEs livespan.
How massive is "massive"? I remember when having 8 players in the same game area at once was groundbreaking. Then it was 16, then 32. Surely 50 people in one battle is a fairly big battle? The problem with "massive" is that it changes based on expectations. The problem is that in Eve, the expectation always seems to be one step beyond what can be currently achievable.
Can you show me any other game today that will handle more players than Eve, when they try and all be in the same place at the same time, fully visible to each other and interacting with each other?
Originally by: Argenton Sayvers It is telling about the nature of the typical MMORPG player that there are still people who didnt cancel their accounts after 1h of those "fun" battles of the weekend, and never looked back. Eve is worse then a drug, but you cannot push it too far.
Maybe they stay because there is more to eve than blob battles? ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Matthew
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 15:40:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Dinique
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Dinique And petitions were written about the coming huge fleet ops in XZH as early as 5 days before it did happen, so letting CCP know in advance is hardly the problem in this case.
And what if your foes had chosen to pull a surprise and ambush you one jump over? War is rarely predictable, and diverting to one system and having the battle occur in another one would make things even worse.
It was going to be a POS slugfest in XZH, we were already in system and so were they. So no. If they attempted ambush in the next system it would have easy since we could just ignore them.
This wasnt the fleets marching down on eachother situation you seem to imagine.
Fair enough, but my comments about te effectiveness of manual node reassignment still stand. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Dinique
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 15:42:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Dinique Please read the rest of the thread first. Globally in this game, there mostly aren't major lag problems. In Fleet Battles we do have major lag issues. Fleet battles aren't really rare either. As for WHY you would want this: To resolve/improve the major, game-breaking lag issues in fleet battles. I thought I said that already?
There may not be global lag problems at the moment, but if the Devs started stripping out nodes to support fleet battles, there soon would be.
Please stick with the same point, you are going completely out of context. There is no point in arguin with you if you are going to mix and match arguments as they seem to fit for you.
That was in context of extra dedicated nodes for fleet battles vs adding them to the pool for global improvement. Hence, there would be no stripping out of nodes if it was done as I suggested, hence no newly created lag problems.
And as much as you seem to want to argue "for" CCP and defend them and "against" fleet battles, there is no escaping that fleet battles are a fact of 0.0 alliance life. It needs to be supported. The game's mechanics necessitates it.
This isn't an attack against CCP, you don't need to defend them. All we ask is that everything possible is done to support fleet battles as well as possible. Lag in fleet battles IS acceptable to me, to a certain degree. 45 Minutes of limbo is most definitely not what I file under "acceptable". _____
There's so many different worlds So many different suns And we have just one world But we live in different ones
|
Mighty Mistress
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 15:42:00 -
[176]
I cant imagine how CCP are going to sort out a single server for the whole of china. I'd be much happier if it were split up into 2 or maybe more games since there are so many players.
Over here its not too much of an issue, and even with 2 or 3 servers running it will still be fairly unique compared to the likes of most other mmos with 10+ servers each. EVE is one of the very few games where recognition is shared throughout and not restrained to the local server dwellers
|
Havelcek
Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 16:41:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Dinique Please stick with the same point, you are going completely out of context. There is no point in arguin with you if you are going to mix and match arguments as they seem to fit for you.
That was in context of extra dedicated nodes for fleet battles vs adding them to the pool for global improvement. Hence, there would be no stripping out of nodes if it was done as I suggested, hence no newly created lag problems.
And as much as you seem to want to argue "for" CCP and defend them and "against" fleet battles, there is no escaping that fleet battles are a fact of 0.0 alliance life. It needs to be supported. The game's mechanics necessitates it.
This isn't an attack against CCP, you don't need to defend them. All we ask is that everything possible is done to support fleet battles as well as possible. Lag in fleet battles IS acceptable to me, to a certain degree. 45 Minutes of limbo is most definitely not what I file under "acceptable".
Exactly. The problem here is that CCP continues to push the playerbase towards new functionality and game mechanics that the servers don't support. Half the folks in this thread have never seiged a POS so I can forgive them their complete lack of information.
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 17:11:00 -
[178]
Originally by: Misses Gap What about the EVE-Server in China ?
Rumour has it that 100k and more player will be online at once.
Even if the wars wont be done by blobbing parties, which I doubt, at least the startsystems will be crowded with many hundred of players..
How is this going to be handled ?
Or is CCP able to invest so much more there than here ?
Just wondering.
CCP has nothing to do with the server that runs the serentity code. If people would read fact and not hearsay, they'd know CCP said the game is being run by another company (and from how it's described, it sounds like it's leased, with TomB and a few others giving them a voice of experience).
|
Reithan
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 17:19:00 -
[179]
I think the most helpful fix here would be to simply find a way to make the nodes "hot-swappable".
Make is so that a downtime ISN"T required for node reassignment.
I can think of a couple 'theoretical' ways to accomplish that, but with no foreknowledge of CCP's architecture and whatnot, they'd all be worthless.
But anyway, if they could accomplish dynamic, on-the-fly node reassignment, I think 90% of these problems would dissolve overnight.
|
Gibmundur
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 17:21:00 -
[180]
Remove poses from eve, remove capital ships from eve, reinstate the fun station taking without having to throw up poses.
|
|
Jacob Majestic
ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 17:35:00 -
[181]
One of the real problems is that the algorithmic complexity for handling events on a single grid are O(n^2) if you insist on each client being perfectly informed. End of story. Polynomial complexity is tractable when n is small but it gets as hard as a brick wall when n starts getting larger (300 or 500, for instance).
I wonder how well people would accept an optimization which means that in large engagements their clients are no longer completely informed -- i.e. they get some constant-time update of system status in a batch rather than in a realtime manner.
|
Matthew
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.31 18:11:00 -
[182]
Originally by: Dinique That was in context of extra dedicated nodes for fleet battles vs adding them to the pool for global improvement. Hence, there would be no stripping out of nodes if it was done as I suggested, hence no newly created lag problems.
Fair enough, I'll bring in another pair of points that makes it relevant then: playerbase growth and money. CCP can only afford to aquire hardware at a certain rate. The playerbase is growing at a certain rate. Therefore They will need extra/upgraded nodes to satisfy demand in the future. We've already seen the horrific global performance issues that can occur when server hardware growth fails to keep up with player numbers. Buying new nodes now might jeapoardise the future investments to keep up with that growth. Or it may mean that they can fleet-battle specialise extra nodes now, but when the playerbase grows again, they are taken back for the greater good. Which is hardly a long-term solution. CCP's resources are limited, and whatever way you look at it, doing one thing means that they won't be able to do something else.
Originally by: Dinique And as much as you seem to want to argue "for" CCP and defend them and "against" fleet battles, there is no escaping that fleet battles are a fact of 0.0 alliance life. It needs to be supported. The game's mechanics necessitates it.
This isn't an attack against CCP, you don't need to defend them. All we ask is that everything possible is done to support fleet battles as well as possible. Lag in fleet battles IS acceptable to me, to a certain degree. 45 Minutes of limbo is most definitely not what I file under "acceptable".
The problem is that while 45 Minutes of limbo may not be what you call "acceptable", it may well be what "support fleet battles as well as possible" means in the context of current technology with the numbers you are throwing at it. The Devs love Eve, many of them seem unhealthily devoted to it. But there are limits to what they can do. Yes, they might get them a bit better right now with massive hardware investment, manual tweaks etc. But that money and effort would have to come off some other part of Eve operations. Maybe it would be one less programmer, which meant that they couldn't implement the kali2 changes to corps, factions sov etc that could be used to alleviate blobbing?
CCP have to manage a lot of competing issues, problems and objectives, fleet battles being just one. And brute-forcing the technology isn't always the best way to achieve the desired effect.
Originally by: Reithan I think the most helpful fix here would be to simply find a way to make the nodes "hot-swappable".
Make is so that a downtime ISN"T required for node reassignment.
I can think of a couple 'theoretical' ways to accomplish that, but with no foreknowledge of CCP's architecture and whatnot, they'd all be worthless.
But anyway, if they could accomplish dynamic, on-the-fly node reassignment, I think 90% of these problems would dissolve overnight.
If it was that easy, maybe they'd have done it already
While theoretically possible, the programmer man-hours required to implement would likely be so massive it would cripple other development. And even if they started now, I doubt we'd see any results from it for at least 8 months. Then there's the issue that you'd need masses of spare capacity to handle the handover without a break. And it still wouldn't solve the problem of fleet battles that overloaded a dedicated node - which would be most of the ones of the size this thread is discussing. So it would be a massive time investment for only a small gain. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
TOGAKURE Daisuke
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 06:49:00 -
[183]
Well, the parties going to clash over could fix this themselves easily.
According to the devpost, the balancing system takes averages, so just make sure that the systems where you're going to fight gets pretty decent average days before the match. You surely have been telling that the clash was inevitable?
Just agree that there will be posturing party for a few days before, everybody getting to the system in their playtime and doing fancy fly-byes of enemy ships (without major escalation) until the weekend. Show some tail, make noise, smack :D
Hell, maybe you could even get TV out there :D Seems to work that way in RL too.
Now the node has already been balanced to at least 300-400 people average and you can commence your battle the next day. Fun ensues.
|
McDeth187
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 07:01:00 -
[184]
Originally by: TOGAKURE Daisuke Well, the parties going to clash over could fix this themselves easily.
According to the devpost, the balancing system takes averages, so just make sure that the systems where you're going to fight gets pretty decent average days before the match. You surely have been telling that the clash was inevitable?
Just agree that there will be posturing party for a few days before, everybody getting to the system in their playtime and doing fancy fly-byes of enemy ships (without major escalation) until the weekend. Show some tail, make noise, smack :D
Hell, maybe you could even get TV out there :D Seems to work that way in RL too.
Now the node has already been balanced to at least 300-400 people average and you can commence your battle the next day. Fun ensues.
Before the fleet battle that crashed XZH, XZH and the surrounding systems regularly had 100-200 players on daily. It still crashed.
|
Matthew
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 07:42:00 -
[185]
Originally by: McDeth187 Before the fleet battle that crashed XZH, XZH and the surrounding systems regularly had 100-200 players on daily. It still crashed.
Was that 100-200 players 23/7, or just over the peak period?
Also bear in mind that just having 200 people logged in afk sitting in station or at a safe isn't really going to help much - they'll be generating almost no load like that, so won't be making a large impression on the load balancing. You'd actually have to have them do stuff that would generate the same sort of load as a fleet battle, consistently, for the majority of the day, for several days beforehand, if you're going to seriously influence the loadbalancer. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Nafri
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 07:46:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: McDeth187 Before the fleet battle that crashed XZH, XZH and the surrounding systems regularly had 100-200 players on daily. It still crashed.
Was that 100-200 players 23/7, or just over the peak period?
Also bear in mind that just having 200 people logged in afk sitting in station or at a safe isn't really going to help much - they'll be generating almost no load like that, so won't be making a large impression on the load balancing. You'd actually have to have them do stuff that would generate the same sort of load as a fleet battle, consistently, for the majority of the day, for several days beforehand, if you're going to seriously influence the loadbalancer.
100-200 people the whole time, we had fleetbattles in the morning, in the night and at the afternoon
From Dusk till Dawn Sig removed, e-mail us if you'd like to know why. -ReverendM ([email protected]) |
Caleb Paine
Itchy Trigger Finger Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 07:50:00 -
[187]
I don't get this, you get 300 people close together, you all target eachother, shoot eachother, bump into eachother all strengthen eachother due to command bonuses and you suddenly all start to run almost all your modules at exactly the same time. Each and everyone of you will have crapola videolag due to using your Vic20 as main PC using a teltron 1200 modem, more lag from your side comes from the 180GB pron you have, the 39485735 viruses, even more spyware oh and the 200MB theme you use for windows isn't helping either.
What part of "300 is just too much to handle" don't you understand?
----------------- Death smiles at us all, all a man can do is smile back.
|
Miss Overlord
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 07:58:00 -
[188]
ah well keep it coming look at the other systems it was sharing a node with might wanna crowd them in as well
|
Matthew
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 08:09:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Nafri 100-200 people the whole time, we had fleetbattles in the morning, in the night and at the afternoon
Mm, well if the 100-200 were fairly quiet outside the fleet battles, that probably wouldn't influence things hugely, especially if that had come from people pulling back from the other systems in the constellation (oveur's post tends to suggest load is balanced at a constellation level in the first instance). Each battle I assume was 2-3 hours in length? So you were only at high load for 6-8 hours of the day, so the balancer probably averages that peak load down over the whole 23 hour daily uptime. It probably also takes a view over at least a full week to stop it fluctuating too much. Oveur also mentions that Sunday's are best for profiling, so it's possible the loadbalancer is biased in that direction too. Oveur mentioned the Dragon codebranch having much better loadbalancing in these sporadic load situations, so they have been working on it.
Incidentally, does anyone have an impression of general activity levels in the constellations Oveur listed in his post? Prelle is the only constellation common to both lists, so something has been shifting, though I don't know enough about the constellations in question to know whether that shift is to have XZH share with lower-traffic constellations or not.
There is of course another problem with the loadbalancing - lag inevitably applies it's own load limit by preventing people doing as much as they would otherwise do. So the fleet battles won't be generating the full load for the loadbalancer to see, which further complicates matters. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Ramblin Man
Empyreum
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 08:44:00 -
[190]
*amazed that people are arguing over how much traffic was in the system pre-lag*
Originally by: Oveur We have an automatic system. The system currently breaks under X condition.
Originally by: Rabble X condition didn't happen! Y condition did! Ergo, there shouldn't have been lag! So why was there lag?!
*tries to approach a method of reasoning whereas further delving into this line of conversation might even graze a useful conclusion*
Notes: All quotes paraphrased. Also, 1M ISK for the first sufficiently amusing, properly constructed, and genuine argumentum ad hominem.
|
|
Devious
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 10:20:00 -
[191]
Edited by: Devious on 01/08/2006 10:20:46 The offical Response will be , CCP do not respond to questions or Flames of this nature....thats all i see, whenever there is a big problem , they stay quiet. i guess its because they know it is an issue and there is nothing appart from going out and buying more ramsans that they can do.just be nice to see a Dev respond with a real answer.
|
Caleb Paine
Itchy Trigger Finger Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 10:27:00 -
[192]
If met with unreasonable demands, or people coming up with answers of their own which clearly demonstrate they have no idea what they're talking about... I'd stay quiet too. The only proper answer they could give is "300 people shooting at eachother, take a wild guess what happens!".
And they'd be right.
----------------- Death smiles at us all, all a man can do is smile back.
|
Gariuys
Evil Strangers Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 10:28:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Devious Edited by: Devious on 01/08/2006 10:20:46 The offical Response will be , CCP do not respond to questions or Flames of this nature....thats all i see, whenever there is a big problem , they stay quiet. i guess its because they know it is an issue and there is nothing appart from going out and buying more ramsans that they can do.just be nice to see a Dev respond with a real answer.
Read the damn thread... there's gold bars at this post for a reason.
|
rig0r
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 10:56:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Gibmundur Remove poses from eve, remove capital ships from eve, reinstate the fun station taking without having to throw up poses.
WHAT HE SAID.
And fix the fricking forums. I can't post a reply without re-logging in 3 times.
Eve on Linux |
ParMizaN
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 16:29:00 -
[195]
Spamming a thread will get you nowhere, CCP know the problem, and you know it too. Stop making the biggest fleets possible and spamming bubbles or whatever. Speak with your opponent and sort out something which will reduce the lag a bit.
sig edited for lack of pink really PINK -eris |
Drelkarion
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 17:05:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Hanns Choibman Edited by: Hanns Choibman on 29/07/2006 01:59:16 Can CCP make some kind of official anouncment that if you are in an 0.0 system with 300+ players that their game will simply not be playable at all
Or make some kind of recomendation that fleet battles do not work so if you want to be in an alliance you may as well quit.
Do CCP realise that their game opens up possibilities for things that it cannot handle.
Becasue I am a paying customer that plays by the rules and CCP's fine print basicaly states if our service can't handle it you are screwed in game.
Besides the original incident of the game clagging up so bad I lost my precious T2 Raven, I am now in a pod with 800 billion cargo contianers in my overview repeatedly blowing up and appering in the same spot. I can't access any menus in game not even ESC menu, re logging or anything, and 300 people in system are all stuffed.
A big banner or FAQ telling people to not to play with a group of friends larger than 10 in any system should be implemented soon I hope.
The irony of my sig is not lost on me now, I think I have reached a new level of understanding
Hi, I see you have no idea WTF you are talking about. I have a major suggestion: Stop whining right now. This game barely lags compared to many other MMO's. If you want to see some real lag, play World of Warcraft. Blizzard has made 100+ servers (there's usually between 1000 to 10000 people a server...the main EVE server has almost a total of like 150,000) to try and fix the lag problem, and it still lags like crazy. See, EVE Online has two servers (and one of them is just a test server), and this game doesn't lag at all in comparison to WoW.
So please, don't tell me this game lags when you have the joy of having a game that doesn't lag every second of battle no matter how good your computer is. In fact, in WOw when you walk into a city it lags every second you are there.
I came from World of Warcraft after playing it for a year. You have it much, much, better than the players of WoW, or most other MMO's.
|
Locke DieDrake
Port Royal Independent Kontractors Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 17:25:00 -
[197]
I think the bottom line that many people have missed is that there is a limit on the amount of ships and fighting that can happen in any one system.
Even if that system is on it's own node all by it's lonesome.
I don't know exactly what that limit is. But from my experiance. Anything larger than 200 players in active combat is going to get laggy, and once you double that number, it's going to be downright unplayable.
And I say this while running a 4000+ x2 2 gb of ram and an SLI'd 6600gt256 (x2) So this is not on my end. I also have tier 3 comcast cable and ping the server at less than 30ms.
What needs to happen, based on the above information, is that CCP needs to find a way to make it playable at those numbers. Or build in a game mechanic that stops people from blobbing. It's an either or propisition. Because from this point forward, it only gets worse. ___________________________________________ The deeper you stick it in your vein, the deeper the thoughts there's no more pain. ___________________________________________ |
Sarmaul
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 17:32:00 -
[198]
For those *****ing about goonfleet blobbing, in "ye olde days" the servers could quite happily handle these massive fleet fights.
TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS - In Rust We Trust - |
Pesadel0
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 18:32:00 -
[199]
Originally by: Sarmaul For those *****ing about goonfleet blobbing, in "ye olde days" the servers could quite happily handle these massive fleet fights.
They could?I don't think so..Even if CCP manages to keep 300 users fighting without lag the next week people will bring 600 and then they will moan on the forums (rightfully so) and then CCP will make 600 lagger free and ...then .. ops :)
|
Skilo
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 19:45:00 -
[200]
Goons fleets will be a "problem" solved without CCP help
Let CCP solve real "problems" in Eve!
|
|
Sarmaul
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 19:51:00 -
[201]
Originally by: rig0r
Originally by: Gibmundur Remove poses from eve, remove capital ships from eve, reinstate the fun station taking without having to throw up poses.
WHAT HE SAID.
And fix the fricking forums. I can't post a reply without re-logging in 3 times.
/signed and /signed
TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS - In Rust We Trust - |
mechtech
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 20:07:00 -
[202]
We need load balancing!! after kali, put all the programmers capable to do it on load balancing, I think most of us would love to see working fleet battles before even more content comes in.
|
Tehyarec
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 20:49:00 -
[203]
In a perfect (or at least a lot better) world we'd either have the power of the whole current cluster per each solar system, or immediate seamless load balancing so performance would scale according to number of people in the system, with no wait, no hiccups, etc.
Unfortunately, as well all know, the world ain't perfect
Silverleaf Foundation Website & Shop |
PeeWee Pee
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 21:12:00 -
[204]
Originally by: rig0r
Originally by: Gibmundur Remove poses from eve, remove capital ships from eve, reinstate the fun station taking without having to throw up poses.
WHAT HE SAID.
And fix the fricking forums. I can't post a reply without re-logging in 3 times.
meh... blobbing for life. zomg lost.. nerf nerf nerf! if it broke, fix it ccp!
let da whorus commence singing.
|
Dinique
Caldari Black Lance Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 07:43:00 -
[205]
Originally by: ParMizaN Spamming a thread will get you nowhere, CCP know the problem, and you know it too. Stop making the biggest fleets possible and spamming bubbles or whatever. Speak with your opponent and sort out something which will reduce the lag a bit.
Are you serious?
Take a moment, if you will, and consider how well THAT would work.
If you really are serious, you need a reality check. Dusk till Dawn Twilight to Starlight
|
Sorela
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 14:29:00 -
[206]
First off I think CCP and Oveur should get some kudo's for releasing that kind of technical info. Most game companies would go into spasms at the thought of telling people what's going on.
My questions for CCP are:
1) Do you have an on-the-fly system being coded currently or at least in the planning stages? 2) If one isn't being planned how about a game mechanic that lets the server anticipate large battles. Like maybe shadowbane style POS bane circles or something.
|
Anglyson
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 16:08:00 -
[207]
Originally by: mechtech We need load balancing!! after kali, put all the programmers capable to do it on load balancing, I think most of us would love to see working fleet battles before even more content comes in.
from past experience, load balancing doesn't work seems to lag out systems with just one character in them (personal experience)
|
Anglyson
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 16:12:00 -
[208]
Originally by: ParMizaN Spamming a thread will get you nowhere, CCP know the problem, and you know it too. Stop making the biggest fleets possible and spamming bubbles or whatever. Speak with your opponent and sort out something which will reduce the lag a bit.
wth diplomacy? please no!!! ships/modules don't get destroyed the whole economy collapses, specially my personal one
|
Swedish Bob
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 16:37:00 -
[209]
Originally by: Dinique
Are you serious?
Take a moment, if you will, and consider how well THAT would work.
If you really are serious, you need a reality check.
I say my good sir. Why don't we settle this in a civilized manner. Shall we say rifters after noon tea?
|
PeeWee Pee
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:33:00 -
[210]
Originally by: Anglyson
Originally by: mechtech We need load balancing!! after kali, put all the programmers capable to do it on load balancing, I think most of us would love to see working fleet battles before even more content comes in.
from past experience, load balancing doesn't work seems to lag out systems with just one character in them (personal experience)
dude load balance works and you know it sucker. shall we sayz let load be balanced by total skill points of all playas in da system. the system with the highest skill point total gets da more nodes. problem solved. case closed. end of story.
you wont have your 1 man laggy system if they joz do dis. |
|
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:48:00 -
[211]
Originally by: Anglyson how does Jita handle 500+ characters at once i know they aren't all shooting at each other but there are plenty of modules running (cargo/ship scanners apparently) and a whole lot of targeting
It's because of the n-squared issue. 500 people in the same grid gives a load factor of 500*500 = 250,000. 500 people in 10 groups of 50, each group in a different grid, gives a load factor of 50*50*10 = 25000.
The number of players in a system is actually a very poor indicator of how much load that system is generating - it depends far more on how those players are grouped together, and what they are doing. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Testicular Testes
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:49:00 -
[212]
Originally by: Asnar
Originally by: Dinique
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Dinique [ And to they hypersensitive, overexcited Sessho Seki over there, no one asked that ALL the resources should be handed over to one group of people. Just some resources reballanced properly to accomodate alliance warfare. Which would mean one node dedicated to the particular system. That doesnt mean the rest of EVE gets screwed, take the resources from the systems where those 600 players are NOT.
Oveur listed the attached nodes. All of those systems would then be sharing different nodes, but the whole server cluster would have one less node to balance over. The people in those other systems would experience worse gameplay, and it would have a knock-on effect.
Hence my suggestion that in that case, a few additional nodes be acquired to be used specifically in cases such as these?
How many engagements on this scale is ongoing at the same time in EVE currently? 2 or 3 perhaps as a maximum? 3 Servers that exist for this purpose could make big alliance warfare so much more fun, in that case.
Nodes that during 95% of the time havenothing to do... not exactly a good way too spend your cash IMO
Making customers happy is a great investment. Of course it needs to work before a risk like that is taken ;)
The real question is - ETA on Dragon ? (Aka Unicode drama build)
|
Indomitus Rex
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:00:00 -
[213]
Edited by: Indomitus Rex on 02/08/2006 21:01:23 I don't really know why any of you expect CCP to fix this problem. The only people that get affected by such horrid lag are the people involved in huge fleet battles in 0.0. Correct? So, CCP knows that people who are participating in huge 0.0 fleet battles are already committed to the game and their characters and won't quit anyway, regardless of the lag.
So, now the question is, shoul CCP fix the lag issue for a small portion of the overall player base for a small portion of the gameplay? Of course not. This would inevitably cost them money if they really wanted to fix it for good by purchasing more servers, etc. Instead, CCP can continue to pump out new content and goodies and whatnot and attract more people to the game while keeping everyone already in the game playing. . .and it doesn't add to their overhead.
So until a majority of the subscribers become involved in major 0.0 fleet battles with crippling lag, CCP isn't going to go out of their way to fix it thoroughly. This is one reason why attempting to push players out to 0.0 through empire nerfs, etc. is IMHO a bad idea. Once all these people get out to 0.0 and into alliances and into these fleet battles the lag will just get worse. Deutschland. |
Miss Overlord
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:15:00 -
[214]
keep htose fleett battles coming guys its affecting the game overall - this will lead to improvements
|
Sirkill
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:53:00 -
[215]
Problam is CCP have fixxed this problem in the past. It used to be impossible to have 50 V 50. Then came the server upgrades, what happened?
Alliences just increased the size of their fleets to fill the server capacity.
And it will happen again, if CCP let 150 V 150 be possible people will push the numbers up to 250, which will be laggy.
The allience fleet are a gas that expands to fill the avliable volume
|
Tristan Acoma
Caldari The Eleventh Commandment
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 22:51:00 -
[216]
Originally by: Sirkill Problam is CCP have fixxed this problem in the past. It used to be impossible to have 50 V 50. Then came the server upgrades, what happened?
Alliences just increased the size of their fleets to fill the server capacity.
And it will happen again, if CCP let 150 V 150 be possible people will push the numbers up to 250, which will be laggy.
The allience fleet are a gas that expands to fill the avliable volume
Unless, of course, they expand capacity to the point that they have no more ships left to throw into the fight.
Who here wants to see a 8,000 v 8,000 ship battle?
\Tristan sticks his hand up in the air \\slashies!
|
PeeWee Pee
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 22:57:00 -
[217]
Originally by: Tristan Acoma
Unless, of course, they expand capacity to the point that they have no more ships left to throw into the fight.
Who here wants to see a 8,000 v 8,000 ship battle?
me dude. who wouldnt want to see that n00b. all dose ships to be sold and insurance to be collected.
|
Ezok Lyrad
Minmatar SANDMADI EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION KOMPANY
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 23:03:00 -
[218]
Originally by: Hanns Choibman Edited by: Hanns Choibman on 29/07/2006 01:59:16 Can CCP make some kind of official anouncment that if you are in an 0.0 system with 300+ players that their game will simply not be playable at all
Or make some kind of recomendation that fleet battles do not work so if you want to be in an alliance you may as well quit.
Do CCP realise that their game opens up possibilities for things that it cannot handle.
Becasue I am a paying customer that plays by the rules and CCP's fine print basicaly states if our service can't handle it you are screwed in game.
Besides the original incident of the game clagging up so bad I lost my precious T2 Raven, I am now in a pod with 800 billion cargo contianers in my overview repeatedly blowing up and appering in the same spot. I can't access any menus in game not even ESC menu, re logging or anything, and 300 people in system are all stuffed.
A big banner or FAQ telling people to not to play with a group of friends larger than 10 in any system should be implemented soon I hope.
The irony of my sig is not lost on me now, I think I have reached a new level of understanding
*********************************************************
********************************************************* |
Miss Overlord
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 02:01:00 -
[219]
Originally by: Tristan Acoma
Originally by: Sirkill Problam is CCP have fixxed this problem in the past. It used to be impossible to have 50 V 50. Then came the server upgrades, what happened?
Alliences just increased the size of their fleets to fill the server capacity.
And it will happen again, if CCP let 150 V 150 be possible people will push the numbers up to 250, which will be laggy.
The allience fleet are a gas that expands to fill the avliable volume
Unless, of course, they expand capacity to the point that they have no more ships left to throw into the fight.
Who here wants to see a 8,000 v 8,000 ship battle?
\Tristan sticks his hand up in the air \\slashies!
now that sounds interewting mmmmm
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 06:37:00 -
[220]
Originally by: Tristan Acoma Who here wants to see a 8,000 v 8,000 ship battle?
you mean a 16,000 person insta-pop fest?
nothanks. I doubt fleet fights are fun even right now.
how fun can it be knowing that you could go in with a dread in siege mode, capital booster/reps, and officer hardeners, and still die instantly to the focus fire from the enemy fleet?
|
|
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 07:51:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Tristan Acoma Who here wants to see a 8,000 v 8,000 ship battle?
Even if the server could handle it, I'd be impressed if there was a home PC out there that even stood a chance of actually rendering that scene in something that could be described as frames per second, rather than seconds per frame. Fleet command would also be a nightmare - there's no way you could pick your targets effectively from a list of 8000, it would have to reduce down to marching down the list by range/alphabetically/ship size etc.
Also, consider the physical logistics of this. 16000 players fighting together is going to get very crowded. Assuming everyone will be trying to stay within 200km of everyone else, the most optimal packing would give a spacing of about 10km between ships. But the chances of getting 16000 players co-ordinated like that is very slim, especially when they'll be going at each other rather than cooperating. Probably wouldn't need bubbles, the bumping would effectively scramble everyone.
It would be an impressive achievement, but I doubt it would actually be much fun. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Gariuys
Evil Strangers Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 08:00:00 -
[222]
Originally by: Dinique
Originally by: ParMizaN Spamming a thread will get you nowhere, CCP know the problem, and you know it too. Stop making the biggest fleets possible and spamming bubbles or whatever. Speak with your opponent and sort out something which will reduce the lag a bit.
Are you serious?
Take a moment, if you will, and consider how well THAT would work.
If you really are serious, you need a reality check.
Works better then taking fleets you know the server can't handle and then *****ing on the forums when it doesn't handle them.
|
Nina Mires
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 21:07:00 -
[223]
With the amount of people buy GTC's for real money i'm sure you can all chip in for another IBM blade (one without ide laptop hard-drives) so you can have a node for yourself.
Nina ---------
|
Laendra
|
Posted - 2006.08.09 11:15:00 -
[224]
I would hope that future optimizations of the load balancing code would include the ability to efficiently and effectively indicate a number of systems that are known ahead of time to be major fleet battle sites, and seamlessly dedicate resources on the days indicated by the alliance leaderships. This single bit of code would eliminate a TON of issues related to fleet battles and make the game more playable and more enjoyable for everyone involved (except those that use exploits/game mechanics to purposely INCREASE the lag in the target system to make it harder on the other side), as I am sure that nobody likes to lose their ship because they were blown up before they ever loaded up after warping/jumping into a location...(isn't there a way to make someone invulnerable/untargetable until they load up???) ------------------- |
FireFoxx80
Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.08.09 13:19:00 -
[225]
Edited by: FireFoxx80 on 09/08/2006 13:22:00
Originally by: Oveur However, I emphasize, a node needs more load than a couple of hours of 300 pilots one day a week to get any serious escalation in load factor, so this isn't going to solve the very sporadic battles, but should help systems which get regular fleet battle usage.
So having battles in predictable places, or having our fleets hanging around in the same systems; will gradually cause the cluster to assign more resources to us?
Edit: Actually the geeks amongst us would love to see the average loads for the systems... say over the previous 12 months? You could probably publish the data as Kali1 hits, the new 8 regions are likely to shift 0.0 balances somewhat, so the data would no longer be tactical.
|
coldplasma
|
Posted - 2006.08.09 14:08:00 -
[226]
lol I think it's quite funny how all of the noobs and traders are clustered around the one dreaded system, Jita.
As far as the Goons are concerned, the only thing I have to say is that is it's kind of ironic that the people who run around regularly with huge unneccessary fleets, are now complaining about the amount of people in local systems. ____________________________
See you in 0.0 kids... |
Boonaki
Caldari Suffoco Noctis Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2006.08.09 14:59:00 -
[227]
Originally by: Nina Mires With the amount of people buy GTC's for real money i'm sure you can all chip in for another IBM blade (one without ide laptop hard-drives) so you can have a node for yourself.
Nina
You know, I'd buy my own node if CCP gave me the chance. Pick a system I'm going to be in. Tell them I want the resources of said node applied to that system.
Imagine an alliance fund raiser, everyone donating $5.00 extra to CCP for their own nodes that the resources would be dictated by the fleet commanders.
I know it would never work, the fleet commander with the deep pocketed people would always win as the agressor.
Fear the Ibis of doom! |
Kylania
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.08.09 15:05:00 -
[228]
Originally by: FireFoxx80 Actually the geeks amongst us would love to see the average loads for the systems... say over the previous 12 months?
I'm guessing that those numbers wouldn't be as bad as you think they will be. A few hours, even dozens of hours, of heavy load over the course of 12 months is nothing. Just at the time it sure seems like it is! -- Lil Miner Newbie Skills Roadmap | Visual Building Guide (Both work in game too!) |
FireFoxx80
Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.08.09 15:21:00 -
[229]
Originally by: Kylania
Originally by: FireFoxx80 Actually the geeks amongst us would love to see the average loads for the systems... say over the previous 12 months?
I'm guessing that those numbers wouldn't be as bad as you think they will be. A few hours, even dozens of hours, of heavy load over the course of 12 months is nothing. Just at the time it sure seems like it is!
Yup (23 * 365) / (fleet-battles-time).
|
Nedia
|
Posted - 2006.08.09 16:46:00 -
[230]
we have focus attacks because we have a cool overview where its really easy select your target, if overview doesnt exist then will be impossible do focus attacks ^^
|
|
Butter Dog
ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.08.09 17:04:00 -
[231]
Originally by: Nedia we have focus attacks because we have a cool overview where its really easy select your target, if overview doesnt exist then will be impossible do focus attacks ^^
That does not really make sense.
Any targetting system which enables you to target one player, regardless of the mechanism used, will enable everyone else to target the same player. Focused fire won't reduce.
Diminishing return on focused fire, a 'stacking penalty' for targetting if you will, is a far more attractive option which WILL result in a huge change to fleets. Perhaps we will develop more sophisticated tactics than sitting at 160km popping single ships as fast as possible. Which everyone knows is boring an unrewarding PvP.
|
Cindy Marco
Solar Storm Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.08.09 19:08:00 -
[232]
Originally by: Tristan Acoma
Originally by: Sirkill Problam is CCP have fixxed this problem in the past. It used to be impossible to have 50 V 50. Then came the server upgrades, what happened?
Alliences just increased the size of their fleets to fill the server capacity.
And it will happen again, if CCP let 150 V 150 be possible people will push the numbers up to 250, which will be laggy.
The allience fleet are a gas that expands to fill the avliable volume
Unless, of course, they expand capacity to the point that they have no more ships left to throw into the fight.
Who here wants to see a 8,000 v 8,000 ship battle?
\Tristan sticks his hand up in the air \\slashies!
I wonder if CCP will sell the Tickets, I want to be able to say I was there, when Tranquility caught on fire.
|
Shamad Conde
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2006.08.09 19:59:00 -
[233]
Originally by: Butter Dog
Originally by: Nedia we have focus attacks because we have a cool overview where its really easy select your target, if overview doesnt exist then will be impossible do focus attacks ^^
That does not really make sense.
Any targetting system which enables you to target one player, regardless of the mechanism used, will enable everyone else to target the same player. Focused fire won't reduce.
Diminishing return on focused fire, a 'stacking penalty' for targetting if you will, is a far more attractive option which WILL result in a huge change to fleets. Perhaps we will develop more sophisticated tactics than sitting at 160km popping single ships as fast as possible. Which everyone knows is boring an unrewarding PvP.
If you bring diminishing returns into targetting you will simply force ppl to warp in snipe 1-2 targets and warp out again. Problem solved. Less fun, less battle, no thanks.
There is no easy way to solve the focused fire issue simply because it is wanted player interaction. Otherwise we could simply make a system similar to autopilot (battlepilot B) which you push and lean back.
Eve always should be about skill, coordination and experience. Even in huge fleetbattles not every bit of information is explained lenghly (i.e. jamming targets for 10+ scorps). Most huge fights has a few names called and thats it, lets not mystify it.
|
Jotan Veer
Wings of Turul Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.08.11 11:52:00 -
[234]
Originally by: Oveur
However, I emphasize, a node needs more load than a couple of hours of 300 pilots one day a week to get any serious escalation in load factor, so this isn't going to solve the very sporadic battles, but should help systems which get regular fleet battle usage.
How about adding more triggers than just pilot count? Like dreads starting to shoot a POS or 20+ capital ships jumping into the same system is a pretty good indication that there is a siege going on.
If it takes 300 pilots to basically live in a system for days to get the servers' load balancing thingy to take notice then you will make the surprise capital ship attacks impossible, or at least very costly and ineffective.
|
Lazuran
|
Posted - 2006.08.14 18:40:00 -
[235]
Originally by: Nedia we have focus attacks because we have a cool overview where its really easy select your target, if overview doesnt exist then will be impossible do focus attacks ^^
Wrong, they could just add an /assist command ;-) (= target whatever the gang mate I've currently selected is targeting, for those who haven't played WoW)
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |