EVE Search - If you were CCP, what would you do to reduce lag?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

If you were CCP, what would you do to reduce lag?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Miklas Laces A.N.A.R.C.H.I.C.A	Posted - 2007.04.02 14:41:00 - [31] What they're already doing I hope: remove the need for 1500 people to be in a single solar system.
Soporo Caldari	Posted - 2007.04.02 15:09:00 - [32] I would STOP MAKING HUGE ASS SHIPS AND STRUCTURES THAT REQUIRE BLOBS TO HANDLE THEM. The mere rumor of a Titan = zomg lets blob up. Do something about POS spam and idiotic POS warfare. Kill every GSC that hasnt been accesed in 3 months, add a timer. Add 3 times more space to EVE, Empire, LowSec, and 0.0. Boost LowSec. I would sensibly and evenly sprinkle MORE Stations throughout that have MUCH BETTER SERVICES. Spread out agents MUCH MORE EVENLY. You think this is bad? Just wait till we get another few thousand players.
Lord Slater Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2007.04.02 16:02:00 - [33] I would give my BoD friends even more dev powers and send them to Jita to Cull the MIssion runner/belt miner herd. ----------------------------------------------- YYAARRHH HAHAHA IM THE HAPPY PIRATE
Hesed Amarr Hamartia.	Posted - 2007.04.02 16:08:00 - [34] Lower HP, make warpouts take a couple minutes and reduce all ships to 1 gun. - Good. + - Bad.
Esurnir Amarr Bears Inc FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.04.02 16:38:00 - [35] Originally by: Lord Slater I would give my BoD friends even more dev powers and send them to Jita to Cull the MIssion runner/belt miner herd. Which belt ? ---- Quote: Thou shall pew pew. Book of Revelation 12, 51
SeigneurDesMysteres	Posted - 2007.04.02 17:33:00 - [36] Make more high quality lvl 4 agents and then move them into the lowest populated empire regions then at least people would disperse.
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.04.02 17:37:00 - [37] Find (fund ?) a way to have a node/system supported by two cpu's instead of the current maximum of one. Many of the nodes don't work near full strain I bet> having the ability to buff one to twice the current max strength would make a large difference. Bsides that, I'm still waiting for that "no models or any effects at all" setting for uber-lag emergencies to be made available. I know it's not pretty, but any fight at a pos currently lags to hell and back. At least let us remove pos's from the actual view and reduce the modules to overview icons when required. [center] Old blog
Wadaya Caldari Trailerpark Industries	Posted - 2007.04.02 17:55:00 - [38] Delete the accounts of all players who do not know the difference between lose and loose. After that we can negotiate terms for Lucy Liu and her Dominatrix team. Wad
Lucius Ventrue Minmatar Resurrection R i s e	Posted - 2007.04.02 18:11:00 - [39] take some profits and invest in quantum processor design, be the first MMO to use the technology Fleet Commander (V) Fear maxed leadership bonuses! Kill Profile http://eve-rise.coldpoetry.com/killboard/?a=pilot_detail&
Malcolm Gerwulf	Posted - 2007.04.02 18:11:00 - [40] Best way to reduce lag: Create more universes (realms). As a very new player I was surprised to see there is only 1 server to play on, Tranquility. The test server doesn't count in my opinion. As you can tell I played WoW and I very much enjoyed the thrill of starting a new character on a new realm before people have had a chance to take the economy to the endgame. Now I realize that there are fundamental differences between the EVE skill system/economy and other MMOs, but I have thought this through and I personally believe that at least 1 additional fresh server would be a good thing for the game. Splitting the playerbase between servers would certainly reduce the overall lag in my estimation, however there would still be massive fleet battles that would bog down the hardware. The new server would not have all the baggage of remnants from previous patches, and the ISK/Character sellers would not be present initally. Just some random thoughts, take it or leave it. I'll say again that I understand that EVE is fundamentally different and I can see why they have lumped everything together in one server. 30,000 simultaneous players is impressive for any server cluster.
Dread Operative SniggWaffe Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.04.02 18:13:00 - [41] Edited by: Dread Operative on 02/04/2007 18:10:27 5000 wonderful systems of 0.0 space. Gets rid of Concord and sentry guns and all that security stuff.
Galk Gallente Autumn Tactics All the things she said	Posted - 2007.04.02 18:17:00 - [42] Entering the spirt of the majority of the replies. 'I were ccp' Tbh i wouldn't deviate all that much from what they actualy do. Continue to play people with promises and initiatives....when it starts to get sticky... either announce new hardware.... or go into the big group hug testing session again.... and ofcourse continuing with positive comments.... recordbreakers.. 30* k online only at 50% capacity ect... huge 1000 player fleet ect ect.... In a set closed community... most of which desiring to continue with their adiction...initiatives.. promises.. new hardware ect... positive interaction from the developers.. is exactly what i would do in there situation. As for a constructive feasible fix to all problems... i don't have an answer... only a reasonable opinion. Add everything together.... 1000 player fights... one server network banded together often holding 30 times that. Ask yourself why other developers don't aim for that sort of structure. ______
Kurlieu Gallente The Ore House	Posted - 2007.04.02 18:26:00 - [43] I'd try moving all the trading/buying/selling data to a separate set of servers not associated with combat/ship info. My main is a trader/industrialist and it takes forever to get data. Yes, my system is the latest and greatest, btw. I also think I'd move the voice channel elsewhere or get rid of it all together. I realize it represents a revenue stream, but I won't go past my 30 day voice trial unless things improve. Obviously they need to look at the code. In some other MMORPGs (been playing EQ for 7+ years) you have the option of turning off all the explosions and colored lights etc. That might help. I suppose it could be set that it turns off automatically after 50 players are reached. I think large fleet engagements (500+) need to be kept in game at the expense of some other "frills".
OberFuhrer Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.04.02 18:31:00 - [44] I loved being out in 0.0 and engaging in massive fleet battles, but two main reasons pulled me away from that: 1. Real life issues and I would not have a lot of time at all to play. 2. Lag inevitably caused by doing the thing I loved: fleet battles and knowing it was not going to get fixed anytime soon. #1 was the main one, but I also realized that if #2 wouldn't get fixed, then was even the point? CCP wants more people to play this game because it's their product(or is it a service? maybe both ) and they bring in $$$ selling it. So like any normal business, more customers = more $$$. I think CCP realizes the problem but what I'm not sure of is if they realize they will have to take the long hard road to fix this if they wish to bring in more customers AND offer a superior product/service. That "long hard road" I spoke of is having to entirely re-code Eve altogether. Many here say "Build a new patch" or "Add more powerful servers" in order to fix the problem. That won't work. The underlying code and database structure was not designed to handle this many people lag-free. It may have been CCP didn't anticipate this many people signing up or their coders just didn't think far enough ahead or may have been drunk. Who knows. Right now there's two ways of trying to fix this: 1. Throw more powerful hardware at it. I think we've all seen how well this works. 2. Bite the bullet and start coding a new Eve that can handle 100,000+ players online simultaneously. #2 is your only real solution. No it will not be easy. This will take maybe 2-3 years to accomplish. But I think we can safely say that running on Windows/SoL in this manner, for this type of clustering needed on a MSSQL database structure is NOT going to get it. Now I'm not a mmorpg programmer and one mmo may work great on one platform and not so well on another, but I think it's safe to say Eve does not run well on this platform. For the amount and level of complexity involved I'd suggest an Oracle cluster on OpenMosix or AIX. As I said, fleet battles I loved and I think most everyone who PvPs does too if they just didn't have that damn lag. Could you imagine a 500v500 battle lag free? WOW that would be awesome! In order to accomplish that, start by scrapping the current system of blocking. Whether it's pulling up a market order, clicking someone's bio, activating a weapon, that's essentially blocking. When a call goes out like that to the Eve server the client waits for content to be generated (the response). So nothing can be done really until it's finished. Ever notice you can't close that market window either until it's done? heh... Instead of that one idea would be to just send the first few bits of metadata and stream in the rest without blocking other operations. CCP is still using essentially a 'star' structure for the cluster. I don't think so. A cluster doesn't really seem to be accurate at this point I think because if it were you could offload system processing to certain segments and introduce new content on other segments only the devs were using at that point. This is one reason for the daily downtime, but you can also notice that CCP can only introduce new content during downtime. If you can't dynamically allocate resources as they are needed, such as by player load and not by systems/regions, there's little hope for the future. So as I said, the foundation of the Eve core has already been built and to start again will be a monumental effort. So do you either bite the bullet now and try again or wait a couple years until we get lag such what's in Motsu/Saila/Jita or any 0.0 system with a few hundred people in all systems in Eve?
Miranda Ceres	Posted - 2007.04.02 18:48:00 - [45] The ability for systems to span more than one physical system perhaps? Or perhaps introduce a certain number of hardware systems that are a lot more powerful than the standard hardware nodes. As I understand it, they're dual processor opterons at the moment... perhaps some dual processor, quad core core 2 duo machines which busy systems (or systems that are expected to be busy) can be placed on, all to themselves.
Miranda Ceres	Posted - 2007.04.02 18:48:00 - [46] The ability for systems to span more than one physical system perhaps? Or perhaps introduce a certain number of hardware systems that are a lot more powerful than the standard hardware nodes. As I understand it, they're dual processor opterons at the moment... perhaps some dual processor, quad core core 2 duo machines which busy systems (or systems that are expected to be busy) can be placed on, all to themselves.
Jollyreaper Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2007.04.02 18:56:00 - [47] I would say that warp drives cause eddies in space-time. If too many ships are blobbed together, you incrase the chance of artificially inducing the creation of a black hole. No more than 100 friggies or 10 dreads in a blob, balance out the exact ratios to make for fair combat. So as not to totally punk players, maybe not make the hole destroy the ships but just fling them out of warp all across the system, maybe into adjoining systems and reduce server load. If combined with the declared warzone idea (when big blob comes to attack defended system, GM declares warzone rules that evacuate non-blob ships and admits ships into combat proportional to the size of the blob. If attacker has 2000 ships and defender has 1000, then the fight is 200 vs 100 with new ships admitted from blob as combatants are killed.) Is this an ideal solution. No. But until CCP can support unlimited blobs...
Jollyreaper Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2007.04.02 18:56:00 - [48] Edited by: Jollyreaper on 02/04/2007 19:01:55 I would say that warp drives cause eddies in space-time. If too many ships are blobbed together, you increase the chance of artificially inducing the creation of a black hole. No more than 100 friggies or 10 dreads in a blob, balance out the exact ratios to make for fair combat. So as not to totally punk players, maybe not make the hole destroy the ships but just fling them out of warp all across the system, maybe into adjoining systems and reduce server load. If combined with the declared warzone idea (when big blob comes to attack defended system, GM declares warzone rules that evacuate non-blob ships and admits ships into combat proportional to the size of the blob. If attacker has 2000 ships and defender has 1000, then the fight is 200 vs 100 with new ships admitted from blob as combatants are killed.) Is this an ideal solution. No. But until CCP can support unlimited blobs...
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2007.04.02 19:56:00 - [49] Originally by: Roy Batty68 Turn off automatic market refresh. Less queries = less server load. Start chipping away at the small things that add up. For less load also kill the map, let people compile this info themselves. Also Known As
Wataru Amnesia Amarr Trifecta	Posted - 2007.04.02 19:58:00 - [50] Edited by: Wataru Amnesia on 02/04/2007 20:02:31 Possible Hardware for eve-cluster-nodes: Put 12 PS3 together, install Gentoo, compile 5 months until the perfect database-cluster-crossplattform-network-server is finished and then watch how 3000 ships can fly in space with almost no lag at all on that node. You can also take the new Sun-Blades with the Cell-CPU¦s, just make sure that you do no longer support the old x86 stupidity of political warfare and the WTO:-) I really would love to have their Blade-Centers:-), but it is not the best hardware for such a big Database-query based Game-Engine. Also the SSD¦s are nice and expensive, but noone can tell me that a well setuped SAS-Storage is slower in the overall Data-Bandwhich and i would say it is even cheaper then SSD¦s. Another example: People who know the powers of a new Apple Quadro-Xeon-Server could probable set up the whole eve-management system on one single server. With a nice 10GB-Fibre-Storage behind it for static data and the alrdy in place Blade-Centers as Clients of the new Management-Server the Overall Performance of Eve will be dramatically raised. There are many ways to raise the performance on the Hardware-side. Of Course a reprogramming of the whole system is also always a way to reach new goals ¦nd Game-engines which will work much better. Good luck on your upcoming Network/Hardware Decisions ccp and send out some Counselors to ask the big old Wise Joveans about the ultimative Database-Server:-)
Jimer Lins Gallente Sanctuary	Posted - 2007.04.02 20:40:00 - [51] Originally by: Phelan Lore Make Jita 0.0 O_O o_O O_o >_< Actually... that would be really funny if Jita became 0.0 for say, 10 minutes a day? We could call it "10 minutes hate". OK, I've had too much coffee.
Mroe Bree Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2007.04.02 21:13:00 - [52] As has been pointed out before, the problem is not the code or optimization. It's the combinatorial explosion of data from N players having to be processed and delivered to M other players. If there is one player generating 100 bytes of traffic to go back and forth, 2 players will cause 400. 3 will generate 800. Etc. Basically since you have to send the actions of each player to each and every other player participating in the battle, never mind process the server end of it, you will very quickly overwhelm the current state of the art in terms of computing, throughput and other limitations in very short order once you go from tens of people in a battle to thousands. The solution is not necessarily just code optimizations. Even if you improve the server performance an order of magnitude it'll only take another few hundred additional players to put you right back into the same amount of computation/bandwith utilization as you had before. The solution is re-designing the current megablob-requiring battle mechanics like POSes and Titans. The devs have mentioned this already -- they wish to design goals which can be accomplished by smaller teams of just you and a couple of buddies, not just a megablob. The megablob may also be possible if fleet mechanics change to something like fleet ships combining into one supership. Aggregation is a way to deal with combinatorial explosions. Anyway. The devs are working on it. Give em time.
Barbarellas Daughter Lonely Barbarella	Posted - 2007.04.02 22:30:00 - [53] Introduce reinforced mode for nodes! If a node hits 500 players: - fleets wont give bonuses anymore - market is turned off (sucks to be jita ) - all NPCs, roids, cans removed on this node - "show info" on a pilot doesnt work anymore - P&P/bookmarks disabled (no strategical BMs for blobs) - damage will only be calculated every 5 seconds additional ideas: - if you enter a node with 500+ pilots, you have to pay ISK for every minute you stay on the node - every pilot on a 500+ node receives (number of players - 500) hitpoints per second - make the node consume strontium clathrates which the DEVs will have to haul to the node in order to keep it alive
Misanth	Posted - 2007.04.02 23:46:00 - [54] Edited by: Misanth on 02/04/2007 23:44:44 1) Introduce Mobile Jump Drives. 2) Make capital ships be constructed in pieces. 3) Give a 5min converted aggression timer on log-on and log-off. ------------------------- 1 - Only for t2 ships cruiser- and bs-size tho. (HAC, Recon, Cmd Ship, and future BC/Battleships). This would make small skirmish groups alot more viable warfare; and yet the biggest ships would still need cyno, while the cyno frigs still need to use warpgates. Make cyno only viable for certain shiptypes. Covert Ops already got a bonus on it, not totally off track imho. Say t2 frigs. 2 - This allows for more widespread shipyards, less risk you lose that Titan or Mothership or whatnot that you are building, in a single attack. I.e. less need for a massive offensive/defensive fleet, and an option for simultaneously/joint attacks on several at the same time (i.e. spread out fleets). 3 - I.e. logging off will make your ship/pod visible on radar for 5mins after you log off. Logging in a station or POS would ofc make you 'safe' from this. Logging-on-traps gets more and more common tho, with people having intel of incoming attacks they just log off a fleet a certain point and -boom- log them in all at once when they want to defend. Give all people that log in a 5min timer where they cannot attack (or interact with POSes) but they can be attacked. This will make logging in stations and POSes alot more attractive again as well as making these traps crap for combat. They might lag you but you can shoot them down while they just sit there (and they can't log off without having their ship around). Can probably get a couple of more ideas, but that's the first ones I'd like to see.
Eralus	Posted - 2007.04.03 00:12:00 - [55] This isn't a software optimization problem. This is a software design problem. - Segregate software functions. Anything market/contract/mail/skill training/petition/etc related should be done on separate computers from flying around and shooting. In fact, it should all be done through an HTTP interface and the client's HTTP interface should go directly from the client to the web server. - Segregate priorty vs. non-priority functions. Things like talking on local should be separated onto different servers than combat, and should update X times per second instead of real time (That's close to real time, but not all the time.) They should also only happen after combat is done. - Make the battle computation scalable by a quantity smaller than a system. A grid would be a good start. The fact that a system can't be handled by more than one node is the fundamental problem. - Reduce communication. When 600 ships get in the same spot, don't 'inform' every ship of every other ship's actions. If I activate a smartbomb, figure out which ships are nearby and compute the effect for them, and ignore the rest. But, these are fundamental design changes. Since EVE wasn't built to work this way, I don't know that it's practical to change it. _____ Lifewire is a big, ugly, mean... carebear.
Aphotic Raven Gallente E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.04.03 00:41:00 - [56] Get rid of POS's... they are choking the life out of this game. Im not sure what you would replace them with though.. so hats off to CCP if they can figure out a nice medium... a quick fix might be getting rid of POS SOV and making them less of an impregnable fortress to small gangs... even a gang of 30~ with close range Bs's takes AGES to kill a small pos... and unless its housing valuable jewels then you're destroying less than a bil in assets... and dont start me on **in stront -_- Originally by:** Dr Cupid Let me tell you all that I'm really enjoying eve-beta, and can't wait for the real game to come out!
Thread Winner Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.04.03 01:11:00 - [57] Apply Huge Magnets to the servers
Kylar Renpurs	Posted - 2007.04.03 01:26:00 - [58] I'd bring in deteriorating cans,, give them a lifetime of 2 months or so,, so at least the abandoned ones would get deleted (i know a few of my stashes in 0.0 are still floating around after hasty exits). Prolly nerf the amount of eyecandy in missions too.
Del Narveux Obsidian Angels Enterprises	Posted - 2007.04.03 01:38:00 - [59] 1. Make decent ore spawn in caldari/minnie space. Theres tons of untouched belts in those areas that arent being used, and lots in the south crowded with miners, and all of that = lag. 2. Fewer but stronger, this applies to both roids and especially misison NPCs. Seriously 10000000000 frigates for a lowly level 2 mission is seriously messed up. So, make them fewer in number, but stronger and better rewards etc to compensate. Obviously this needs to be done in such a way that people who dont have uber skills dont get nerfed, but this is trivial (e.g. easy and hard mission options, or something). 3. Nerf voice chat. It lags, and no one uses it anyway. 4. Add a few more complexes, and move the agents around a bit more. Its not that theres not enough empire space, its that resources arent spread out very well. Seriously theres hundreds of empty 0.5-0.6 systems, move some of the stuff away from 'omgblob ore/npc/mission hub' constellations into less utilized areas. Add more regions if necessary, but I doubt it is...point is lots of low-load nodes will run quicker than a few overcrowded ones. Warp to 0km and jumpclones means travel isnt such a big problem anymore. _________________ [SAK] Alumnus--And Proud Of It! -- aka Cpt Bogus Is that my torped sig cloaking your base? Originally by: Wrangler Well, at least we have forum PvP..
Andargor theWise Collateral Damage Unlimited Insomnia.	Posted - 2007.04.03 03:24:00 - [60] I usually find negative comments about others distasteful, but frankly I'm getting tired of the same repetitive inane comments made by people who really have no idea what a project like Eve entails. I will save you reading the junk twice, and just highlight the nuggets instead of quoting. To whit, a summary of comments from probable future Darwin Award winners (i.e. NOT realistic): * Devs must stop playing the game (lol, how do you make a product that you don't know or use?) * Having "better" developers hired (c'mon...) * Taking some of the content people and moving them to the department responsible for fixing bugs (apple, meet orange) * Getting rid/calling upon the help/ostracizing players that use "dev hax" (lol) * Putting artificial caps on system population (solves the symptom temporarily, but induces a host of other complication when players use the mechanic to their advantage) * Putting in "better" hardware/bigger nodes (AFAIK, and that's saying much, CCP's cluster is top-of-the-line) * Putting in more nodes (will not fix 1500-pilot gang in 1 system) * Changing the OS (means rewrite, and that's not an option) * Getting rid of missions/pirates/rats/low-sec/high-sec (Eve is a sandbox that caters to many gameplay styles that need to be balanced, so live with it) * More servers (shards, sorry, not going to happen; it won't be Eve) Now, to those suggestions players have made which actually make sense. I again will provide condense summaries: * Change the player's behavior by favoring certain actions and discouraging others (e.g. anti-blob weapons, better fleet control, Interbus, agents, etc.) * Optimizing the code for faster execution, use performance profiling * Optimizing the UI to reduce the amount of server-side processing by either performing tasks locally, or minimizing the steps required to accomplish a task * Have redundant content disappear or be forcibly removed (e.g. anchored cans) * Optimize the client-server communications to eliminate unnecessary transactions (which translate into lag when you multiply by latency) * Optimize the cluster architecture (proxy/app servers/DB) * Investigate peer-to-peer mechanisms with distributed processing a la S.E.T.I (take advantage of player's processing power, at the cost of integrity checking; a hybrid model could be envisaged where non-lag critical computations could be pushed out to the clients, while freeing the cluster for real-time operations) * Turn off some features when a system is particularly loaded to avoid unnecessary calculations I'll throw in a few of my ideas (maybe not original), so you can freely insult me about them: * Restructure the one-system/one-node mapping, which is wasteful on resources and has an inherent performance cap at the processor level. Have the entire cluster server the entire needs of all connected players by truly distributing processing to all nodes. There is an inter-node communications overhead between the "supervisor" and "child" processes, but it would easily be balanced by a far more efficient aggregate use of nodes. Hardware upgrades would truly be directly reflected in a performance gain for all. * Investigate in WOC (WAN Optimization Controller) code, also called "network accelerator" code. I was skeptical about the efficiency of this, but recent lab tests have shown me this is a very viable technology, and possibly the future of high-performance networking. - Got grief? Revelations MySQL Database

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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