| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mavil
   |
Posted - 2008.01.07 02:39:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Tobias Sjodin
Originally by: Selene Le'Cotiere
Originally by: MysticNZ
I highly doubt it. They have said no to this many, many times and repeatedly stated it would never happen.
And yet we have EVE-China...
With how many people on it? =]
It's like SiSi. :P
That's because they're all playing on our server, making money as they do so.
If it reaches a point where it will be split, can't you just move those playing from China? :)
|
Daan Sai
HAZCON Inc
Knights Of Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 03:16:00 -
[32]
This can be done without sharding, it is just harder. There are supercomputers out there with 8000+ cpus in them, more than all the systems in EvE. The problem is dynamic load balancing and how fine grained that is (ie system level, ship level etc). With a dynamic load sharing properly designed, as long as you have the total cpu needed, you can shift computing power into wherever the load lives. In adaptive mesh refinement fluid dynamics this is exactly what we do. If you got everyone into JITA, all the computing power would come to JITA too.
The key is the design level(s) where the balancing occurs and how load can be exchanged between nodes *in real time*. If CFD we don't run real time and can halt to rebalance at any time - eve would need to do this seamlessly in real time.
|
Zenst
Gallente
Omniscient Order
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 04:16:00 -
[33]
Oh just double the size of 0.0 space - add a small blob of low-sec/empire at far end of it (like 200 jumps from current low-sec) and you get a virtual sharding effect :).
Next.
|
Selene Le'Cotiere
Amarr
I-Omniscient-I
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 04:34:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Zenst
Oh just double the size of 0.0 space - add a small blob of low-sec/empire at far end of it (like 200 jumps from current low-sec) and you get a virtual sharding effect :).
Next.
I like that idea, but then it becomes prime "safe territory" for an alliance to lay claim to by controlling all access points to it.
I for see heavy fighting for that hunk of property. 
_________
"Some would call me a Demon. Others, a Vampire. But if the truth be told... I'm a daughter of the moon and a Goddess among men." |
kanojo1969
Friendship 7 Corporation
STYX.
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 06:09:00 -
[35]
Technological progress is exponential. Eve's playerbase growth is not. Ergo...in 18 - 24 months this will not be a problem, as long as they can afford to purchase state of the art gear.
The next cluster will not fix the problem, but the one after that should be golden. They just need to keep subscriber numbers up until then.
If you doubt this, I refer you to the internet circa 2000.
-------------------------------------------------
Sig Heil |
Igetshotalot
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS....
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 06:18:00 -
[36]
i think instancing batlefields of some sort will be a must in the futer to guarantee a lag free fight.. right now the cluster/servers just have to much trouble calculating even a 100 vs 100..
|
zalant
SUPER AWESOME COOL
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 06:44:00 -
[37]
We don't need a new "shard". |
Dr Slaughter
Rabies Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 09:21:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Selene Le'Cotiere
Despite CCP's attempts at trying to discourage blob warfare, it has shown time and again, when it comes to Fleet warfare, that numbers wins the day.
But.. they really haven't discouraged us have they, unless the discouragement the lag caused by fleet fights at POS?
Things that are likely to discourage people 'blobing' are going to be things that directly effect the effectiveness of the blob... i.e.
a. damage effecting more than one ship at a time if they're in close proximity of each other (bleed from lasers, wash and burst damage from explosions etc.),
b. sig. radius being effected (up or down, I don't really care) the more ships that are in a grid,
c. heat effects and system malfunctions etc.
Anyway they, CCP, know all of that, they probably haven't worked out a programatically elegant way of implementing those sorts of solutions and hence have been working on other stuff hoping it will be enough to keep people happy.
CCP this is not the nerf you are looking for...
|
Gaven Blands
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 09:43:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Selene Le'Cotiere
If the system can handle 1k ships per side... bring 1.5k.
So if they bring 15 people, and I bring 6, and it still lags up, can't launch drones, can't activate modules, etc etc, should I have brought 3 people instead of 6?
Is that the solution to lag? Is that the real solution?
--
Death of an insidious dictator
Birth of a new one
|
Gorefacer
Caldari
Resurrection
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 09:53:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Selene Le'Cotiere
Originally by: Gorefacer
Originally by: Naervic
I apologize that you misconstrued my "rhetoric" for saying that it cannot be done. I was simply pointing out that this problem will continue for as long as Eve continues to grow. CCP should try and expand their hardware and streamline their code, and I am all for that. But as history has already pointed out to us all, that there is always a red line and that players will push the system beyond that very quickly.
*snipped the rant section*
It's asinine to argue for no advancement on the basis that not everyone will think its enough.
If they fix it so that double the numbers are allowed without lagging, then great, now the game is better and double the numbers can cram into a system before the game breaks. The fact that this new limit will be reached in certain circumstances is irrelevant.
I don't think he is arguing against the advancement. Where the problem comes in, is the continuing cycle... fix it - break it.
Despite CCP's attempts at trying to discourage blob warfare, it has shown time and again, when it comes to Fleet warfare, that numbers wins the day.
Yes, in most circumstances people will be happy with the new performance, that is, until they keep pushing those upper boundaries that have been set. Leaving us back where we started.
Except that you aren't back where you started. Engagements of all sizes happen regularly. Just because the upper limit will be reached doesn't mean that more engagements will have less lag making overall gameplay better for all.
I agree that it might be a good idea for CCP to brainstorm on ways to change game mechanics that discourage pure number always being more effective to accomplish an objective. The issue isn't simple though, because the wrong changes may ruin the "sandbox" feel of the game and limit players which wouldn't help improve EVE at all.
This has no bearing on whether CCP should do what they can to reduce game lag.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
|
|
Amarria Black
Clan Anthraxx
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 09:57:00 -
[41]
Self-correcting problem. CCP does nothing, playerbase shrinks, existing hardware can meet new resource load.
|
Securion Wolfheart
Dark-Rising
The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 11:38:00 -
[42]
Theres nothing wrong with the hardware. Its good enough to simulate nuclear explosions on!
The problem is obviously in the software since the server cant have multiple shards processing a single system when its needed.
Better diagnostic software that can detect large fleets and dedicate more shards to the system they are in and the surrounding systems (to reduce jump-lag).
And for it all to work; the server software must be able to have more than one shard processing a single system.
Some people want to know: ôHow can you convince these people that they are wrong and you are right?ö My first thought is, ôWho cares?ö |
Mannakin
Caldari
Mercurialis Inc.
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 11:38:00 -
[43]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Im quite sure that Hellmar said at Fanfest, that they are looking into a true supercomputer architecture for eve.
To be precise, he said that in 2008, CCP will be working with IBM and Nvidia to make the most powerful supercomputer in Europe. That's what we have to look forward to.
|
Malcanis
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 11:47:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Selene Le'Cotiere
Originally by: Zenst
Oh just double the size of 0.0 space - add a small blob of low-sec/empire at far end of it (like 200 jumps from current low-sec) and you get a virtual sharding effect :).
Next.
I like that idea, but then it becomes prime "safe territory" for an alliance to lay claim to by controlling all access points to it.
I for see heavy fighting for that hunk of property.
And that's just one of the possible benefits!
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Vladimir Ilych
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 11:56:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Captain FletcherMiles
THEY ARE WORKING ON HAVING MULTIPLE NODES IN ONE SYSTEM.
THE DAY EVE GETS 2 SERVERS IS THE DAY EVE DIES,
This is what I have understood as well. They are working on a system where nodes can be dynamically assigned to a system when load increases.
If Eve shards (not counting China) I am out of here.
|
sesanti
Minmatar
Universal Exports
FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 12:10:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Vladimir Ilych
Originally by: Captain FletcherMiles
THEY ARE WORKING ON HAVING MULTIPLE NODES IN ONE SYSTEM.
THE DAY EVE GETS 2 SERVERS IS THE DAY EVE DIES,
This is what I have understood as well. They are working on a system where nodes can be dynamically assigned to a system when load increases.
If Eve shards (not counting China) I am out of here.
Define "SERVER"? What's so wrong with it? I believe they might be talking about doing this "behind the scenes". What I mean, you still have 1 universe (logically), however, internally, they will dynamically distribute the load between different nodes (processors - "computers" in a more simple yet not exact term).
For instance, you will be in Jita, and suddenly the load increases. Instead of having n processors handling Jita, the code will automatically add 2 more processors and will distribute the load. But there are not gonna be two shards for you to choose where to play in.
I bet that is what they are talking about.
Anyway, these are all assumptions as to what they might be about, and I don't like to guess as to what CCP is up to just by rumours in a thread, so ... where did you guys get this news from to start this thread? I would like to read it as well to see if they really want to "shard" EVE or they are just talking about internal code changes that are gonna be transparent for us.
_______________________________________________
The ShadowMaster -
<I am a guy... don't mind the portrait> |
Alz Shado
Ever Flow
Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 17:47:00 -
[47]
Ideally, what CCP should do is have several hot "Reinforced" clusters always in standby. Whenever a system increases it's load to more than 100 users above average, it should immediately and seamlessly be moved onto one of these Reinforced systems so that the act of bringing a fleet, and not the actual combat, is what triggers the reinforcement.
When one of these reinforced clusters is activated, several things happen:
1) In-space market transactions for that system go inactive. Station services continue to function, perhaps on a different node?
2) Traffic adviseries go into effect on the system map
3) Neighbooring modes go into "standby" mode, ready to be reinforced if the fleet moves -- a cyno should also put a node into Standby, especially if linked from a node already in Reinforced.
4) GMs and technical staff are alerted so that Node deaths and stuck petitions can be anticipated and dealt with in a timely fashion.
It's not necessary to separate the fleet op from the rest of the universe. With existing technology, the EVE cluster can manage these hotspots effectively in most cases. The system should be completely automatic and transparent -- there is NO excuse for the system not to be able to manage itself in a more efficient manner*.
* - unless you're a conspiracy theorist, in which case "convenient node death" = devhax
|
nether void
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 18:27:00 -
[48]
Ultimate fix.
Make low-sec safer: carebears will spread out more over high and low sec.
Make 0.0 dynamics favor allowing non-allies in to do business: carebears will spread out more over high, low, and no sec.
Right now 0.0 is the largest part of the galaxy, but holds the fewest pilots. Low sec is smaller, housing a bit more or the same number of pilots as no sec. High sec is the smallest or equal in size with low sec, yet houses easily two-thirds of all pilots. It's a simple problem with the ratio of star mass and usability. Make those areas more appealing to the majority of your playerbase, or make those areas accessable (and profitable) to the majority of your playerbase, and the population will spread out naturally.
There. I just fixed the Jita problem.
Although I didn't fix fleet battles. Sorry. lol
---------------------------
nethervoid - since '97 [UO|EQ|SB|SWG|PS|EVE|HZ|NWN|VG|WoW] |
Illyrinia
Caldari
Epiphyte Mining and Exploration
Combined Planetary Union
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 18:58:00 -
[49]
when walk in stations come out, there will be 2 servers handling 1, the eve world, and 2nd the stations. so lag should be reduced some when a player docks.
You are trying to post to a locked thread
CONCORD has been notified
|
Lance85
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 19:08:00 -
[50]
Normal eve, and a non-pvp version or least a non-pvp without consent version would be nice if there going to add more nodes.
-----------------------------------------------
Lance85
Freelancer, Mission Runner, Miner, Production Engineer.
Never Forget It Is MMORPG. |
|
|
sesanti
Minmatar
Universal Exports
FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 19:14:00 -
[51]
In your dreams, carebear!!!
En guardia! 
_______________________________________________
The ShadowMaster -
<I am a guy... don't mind the portrait> |
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 19:31:00 -
[52]
Lag may be losing CCP customers, but sharding would lose them a lot more. If EVE went sharded, I'd probably quit. The one shard thing is what makes EVE good. Without it, it's just a rather dull MMO.
------
Originally by: CCP Prism X
There's no such thing as playing too much EvE!
You all obviously need more accounts! |
Biolaja Tista
Gallente
Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 19:57:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Biolaja Tista
Why not go the way of Earth & Beyond, and have the different regions of New Eden separated into distinct, but still fully connected server clusters? It would be the same as things now with a single persistent world and all, but with more resources to adjucate to fleet battles.
|
nether void
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 23:04:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Lance85
Normal eve, and a non-pvp version or least a non-pvp without consent version would be nice if there going to add more nodes.
Never! We will not have another Trammel incident! Gah! Please don't make another Tram!
---------------------------
nethervoid - since '97 [UO|EQ|SB|SWG|PS|EVE|HZ|NWN|VG|WoW] |
Zareph
Minmatar
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 00:35:00 -
[55]
Originally by: kanojo1969
Technological progress is exponential. Eve's playerbase growth is not. Ergo...in 18 - 24 months this will not be a problem, as long as they can afford to purchase state of the art gear.
The next cluster will not fix the problem, but the one after that should be golden. They just need to keep subscriber numbers up until then.
If you doubt this, I refer you to the internet circa 2000.
I refer you to programming 101. and to processor roadmaps.
In 2000, we had what, 500MHz single core computers? Crank that speed to 3.6GHz in four years and yeah, you see instant improvement wihtout having to change a line of code.
However, you take that same code, and tell it to spread itself across four cores at 3.0 or 3.2 GHz and guess what. It ain't goin any faster.
That's the problem here. It's older code that needs a complete rehaul to be split up into independent workloads across mulitple machines. You can't hope for a faster computer to fix that. You need optimized code, that's what they said they have to do.
While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |