Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
   |
Posted - 2008.03.05 21:04:00 -
[92]
 Originally by: Pan Crastus
You misunderstood me. I wrote elsewhere that CCP is 2-3 years behind with performance and of course I know the lag from 2006 etc. (my main was in the famous battle of XZH where D2 lost 8 dreads to GS ;-P). I meant that EVE was fine regarding the population density and its effects on the game in general. Some people are arguing here that sharding EVE so that 20k people are playing on 1 server concurrently will break the game because population will be too low / markets broken, well, in 2006 there were no problems with these population levels gameplay-wise (but yes, lag-wise there were).
In 2006 the game was also significantly different to how it is today. Yes, it would still work as a game, but it wouldn't be the same game we're playing today. Splitting back into two would effectively set the eve community back 2 years in development terms
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Because nowdays lag affects nearly everyone and not only fleet battles.
I play 3+ hours a day, at peak times, flying all over the place, and have not experienced any lag. Heck, I even just passed through Jita without any noticeable difficulties.
Originally by: Pan Crastus
So how many people do you think would be in Jita if EVE had 2 shards with half the current population on each? q.e.d.
As many as the node would sustain. This should be clear from the history of the major trade hubs (Yulai and the highway in general in the olden days, more recently Jita and the missioning hubs) - the number of people in them has scaled with the ability of the node to support them, not with the number of players.
There's more than enough players avoiding Jita currently who would flood back to it if the lag cleared up.
Originally by: Pan Crastus
It will help because EVE doesn't scale well. 1000 people on 2 nodes do not work as well as 500 on 1.
Only because with 1000 on 2 nodes, the 1000 can all try and cram onto one of the 2 nodes and crash it. As long as the population remains spread out, the two cases are entirely equal in performance terms. But that's true as soon as you go above one node in any situation. To avoid your "not scaling well" you'd have to shard into at least 80 servers to ensure that no server contained more than 500 players, and thus could not cripple a single node by crowding up.
In actual fact, having more nodes in a single server is beneficial overall, because a fleet battle takes out a smaller proportion of the total universe. It also gives more flexibility when load balancing volatile load systems vs stable load systems.
Originally by: Pan Crastus
They can do that, but the problem is that they're not. It's not something that will come any time soon and lag requires a solution now (or rather, 2 years ago). Sharding is possible now, as is purchasing new hardware.
Yes, they are doing that. No, it's not an instant process. But neither is sharding.
To purchase, test and commission a second TQ would involve months of lead time. You can't just pop down to PC World and buy a rig like TQ. Not to mention the game design time that would be required to ensure that a new shard would bootstrap properly under the current TQ rules (which bear only a passing likeness to the rules that were in place when TQ bootstrapped the first time). The China server experienced a taste of the problems that would be faced here.
-------
There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |