EVE Search - Does anyone really believe something can be done about lag?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Does anyone really believe something can be done about 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)
Cor Aidan KNIGHT'S OF THE ROUND ROOM ReZZerecteD AlckemisTs	Posted - 2008.07.27 22:58:00 - [31] Originally by: Gnulpie Oh yes, it is a theory and that theory is correct only under exactly defined assumptions. And one assumption is that everyone on the grid needs to communicate with everyone else. .... Imagine for example that there are groups and people would communicate to groups and only actively communicate with people inside exactly one group at a time while from the other groups only the group status is transmitted. ... Theories are only valid under certain assumptions. Tweak the assumptions and you will get new possibilites. I agree that theories are subject to the assumptions. However, in the alternatives you propose, there are also assumptions which must be addressed: How much information are you getting about those groups? If you are getting information about every ship in the group, then your costs are still quadratic (while the number of packets might decrease, the size of the packets still has to be large enough to convey all the information). If you are getting limited information, then you are getting "lag" because you are having information available at a slower rate. The only way to get around the issue is to either allow fewer people to interact, or to perform strange distortions so that you can only interact with people at certain times.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2008.07.27 23:20:00 - [32] Edited by: Gnulpie on 27/07/2008 23:21:56 Originally by: Cor Aidan How much information are you getting about those groups? If you are getting information about every ship in the group, then your costs are still quadratic That is a question of how you organise those groups I suppose. I have no theory ready so I cannot answer if you save anything by just grouping but giving out information about every single pilot. But my guess is that you do not nearly save enough by just grouping. Originally by: Cor Aidan If you are getting limited information, then you are getting "lag" because you are having information available at a slower rate. Care to explain that? Why would I get lag if information which I don't need anyway isn't transmitted? Most of the information isn't necessary anyway! Originally by: Cor Aidan The only way to get around the issue is to either allow fewer people to interact, or to perform strange distortions so that you can only interact with people at certain times. That is the tricky part. To throw away information in such a way that you won't notice the missing information. I don't have a finished theory - if I would have I would have a patent on it already and would be really rich. All I say is that there can be ways around seemingly unbreakable barriers. And groups can be of course also 'groups' in space aka subgrids. But even if I would have a working theory and having such a theory implemented into a running system, that are two very different things
Hieronimus Rex	Posted - 2008.07.27 23:21:00 - [33] Originally by: kyoukoku Originally by: Dirk Magnum Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 27/07/2008 02:25:28 If I had to make a wager about which was more likely: 1. God exists 2. CCP can reduce the lag in Eve I would totally go with option two tbh. ^^This! Originally by: Stab Wounds use the lag against your enemies Look @ me I'm an abandoned T1 light drone in space causing lag.... Originally by: Artemis Rose Go to low sec, stay out of the really crazy hotspots. OMG all your lag troubles are gone. QUIT USING THE INTERNET. OMG TEH LAG IZ GONE!1!1one! Originally by: Gnulpie Originally by: Joakim Wasyl I don't follow the, double the people quadrouple the procesing power bit. I only have 8 guns, so I can only affect 8 other people on the grid surely no matter how many you add ? It's not like we are all interacting (where you would get some kind of exponential increase). Yes you are. You get position data from them all the time, speed, status. All that sort of stuff. Not to mention drones and fighters. And with your mere presence you affect ALL the other people also. Doesn't matter if you shoot at them or what not. They also get all your speed, position etc. That's why the current mechanics are really badly scaling for large groups. I think he's saying that they aren't really interacting in the sense that they don't really need all of that information about other ships and what they're doing.
Cor Aidan KNIGHT'S OF THE ROUND ROOM ReZZerecteD AlckemisTs	Posted - 2008.07.28 00:01:00 - [34] Originally by: Gnulpie That is the tricky part. To throw away information in such a way that you won't notice the missing information. I don't have a finished theory - if I would have I would have a patent on it already and would be really rich. All I say is that there can be ways around seemingly unbreakable barriers. And groups can be of course also 'groups' in space aka subgrids. This is exactly the problem - and it still can't beat the quadratic issue, just delay it a little bit. Even if all you transmitted was ship ID, position, and active modules, you would still need to quadruple that information every time you doubled the number of participants.
Lividicus Caldari Villains By Necessity	Posted - 2008.07.28 00:18:00 - [35] Infiniband should increase individual system computing power by a MASSIVE amount. One reason is the emerging server technologies that will be out by the time this is implemented (4 and 6 core Nehalem Processors on triple channel DDR3, 12 cores per blade if they stick with IBM bladecenters). The other reason is the threading of the code should allow multiple cores to handle multiple grids within the same system. This will certainly eliminate lag in heavy missioning areas and will improve fleet battles but not to the same degree. While it is quite the hurdle my only criticism is that theyve had multicore servers for about 1200 days now and only started the infiniband project in the last year.
Theo Samaritan Gallente Eve-Academy	Posted - 2008.07.28 00:58:00 - [36] Am I the only one who remembers jump queues into busy systems? It helped lag, but people complained and they removed it =/ ________________________ Lord WarATron: "To do the Abaddon Hadoken, you need to do the following manover with the joypad. ↓ .... ↓→ .... → + ●
Beltantis Torrence	Posted - 2008.07.28 01:36:00 - [37] Originally by: Hieronimus Rex Edited by: Hieronimus Rex on 26/07/2008 02:16:44 Other than simply pack more people into the system before it lags.... For example... Right now Jita has its own node and can pack 700 or so people in with a fair bit of lag. This means that when there are 700 people the 701st person is contemplating entering Jita but chooses not to because of lag concerns (often I am such a person on Sunday afternoons). If 700 people could be in Jita on Sunday with no lag, there would probably be more people in Jita, say 1500 (myself included), until it lagged again. Same idea with fleet battles... the 201st person considering going on a fleet op might choose not to because of lag worries. If CCP attempts to combat lag blobs will only get bigger. Of course plenty of "ohlol it's lagging in Motsu, Jita, and fleet battles" threads are simply trolls or idoits, but presumably there is a nonzero number of threads posted by people who really actually believe CCP can do something about lag. I'm looking for their input. For one, I love how the numbers in these threads come up. In a fleet fight with 100 people in it the lag makes it almost unplayable. Lets even say, 1000. Are you suggesting its impossible to make the server not lag when dealing with a thousand entities? How many hits per minute do you think Google gets? Its not impossible and its not even particularly hard. What's hard is shoving a square peg into a round hole, which is pretty much what CCP is doing. You can't take a design that is not meant to faciliate large numbers of transactions, slap it onto expensive hardware and expect it to perform well. Other MMO's use instances because they don't want to make design decisions based on performance considerations. CCP doesn't use instances and it also doesn't make performance conscious design choices. The combination means its going to grind to a halt when anyone actually tries to undertake fleet battles and all the other stuff that is advertised as features of this game.
Beltantis Torrence	Posted - 2008.07.28 01:58:00 - [38] Originally by: Cor Aidan You can never win against lag. *Every time you double the number of people you want to interact in an area, you have to quadruple* the computing power and communications bandwidth.** There is no theoretical way to eliminate this problem, let alone an actual technical solution. Multithreaded capability has nothing to do with it. In fact, you will eventually reach the point where no matter how good the CCP server node is, you just can't get enough information over your personal network connection to handle all the information. Eh, that's not even close to being true. All systems have a performance profile. That profile determines how well they scale. The basic idea behind a well performing distributed system is to keep efficiency high. That is to say, use all available resources on all machines evenly. In order to achieve that you need to do a few things : 1) You need to make it so that you can delegate work to other computers ie - cloud computing, elastic computing, clustering, etc. This has to do purely with load distribution, meaning if you have 5 servers that have 1-2 people in local they can help do some of the calculations for the servers that have 500 people in local. There's no point in having your total system utilization to be around 10% while three or four servers are 100% utilized. 2) You need to optimize the speed in which you can turn around transactions. That is to say, use caching where appropriate, lookup tables, fast languages like C/C++, etc. This all centers around the concept of throughput, which is where multithreading and multi-core processing come in because they're able to do more work over the same amount of time than a single core system can accomodate. The problem with an MMO is that, unlike Google or YouTube you're not dealing with a vast amount of single transactions - rather you're dealing with a lot of related transactions. In other words you can't do "one player per node", because they need to synchronize with each other. That's the caveat and the way you get around that caveat is by making sure that each of those transactions are a trivial effort for the server they're on, which is why people harp on the language decision and the multicore piece of this. CCP's priority wasn't the same as say, YouTube's. YouTube is built around the necessity of being fast. Eve is built around the necessity of providing functionality. Now that Eve has the functionality, it needs to be redesigned to make the most out of the infrastructure costs they have to support the largest amount of players that they can. And you know, I'm ok with them saying that they're moving in that direction - but I'd like to see a consistent expression from the playerbase that playing the game with as little server-side lag as possible is a high priority. The fan boys speaking from pure ignorance on what is 'technically possible' or not are somewhat mind boggling. If you don't know if its possible or not, why would you comment? Similarly, why wouldn't you want the game to be running smoothly to be a high priority? I really like whats in the game right now but I don't want to be lagging to hell when I try to enjoy that content.
Sal Alo Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.07.28 03:13:00 - [39] Lag doesn't exist, it is just a mass-media invention!
BackseatShortbus Can't Tie My Shoes	Posted - 2008.07.28 03:15:00 - [40] I want to believe... All backseat of the bus and @#$%
Pride NL Slacker Industries	Posted - 2008.07.28 04:29:00 - [41] CCP is commercial and lag vs lagfree is cost vs reward. And I think at this point cost is more important then reward, especially when you see 35000+ players login each night. Exuro Mortis - The 2nd Coming
Slade Hoo Amarr xPlaguex	Posted - 2008.07.28 04:38:00 - [42] Edited by: Slade Hoo on 28/07/2008 04:38:50 managing 1000 clients in a single system while each will perform actions that will influence others....its hard to make this go smooth on todays technology. but lag isnt only there in mission hubs and huge 0.0 fleet fights. In happens as well in low populated lowsec (where i live). I sometimes have even more lag in my home system with 10 in local than in jita with 400+. Yesterday we had a nice (non-capital) fight with 25 people involved that got ruined by lag. That kind of lag where you got a minute of module activation, desyncs and all that stuff...with a local count of <30. This kind of lag only appears because CCP hasn't the server ressources to supply all solar systems/constellations/whatever. This can easily be fixed by adding additional server ressources.
Zeba Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.07.28 04:57:00 - [43] Originally by: Slade Hoo but lag isnt only there in mission hubs and huge 0.0 fleet fights. In happens as well in low populated lowsec (where i live). I sometimes have even more lag in my home system with 10 in local than in jita with 400+. Yesterday we had a nice (non-capital) fight with 25 people involved that got ruined by lag. That kind of lag where you got a minute of module activation, desyncs and all that stuff...with a local count of <30. This kind of lag only appears because CCP hasn't the server ressources to supply all solar systems/constellations/whatever. This can easily be fixed by adding additional server ressources. Correct. But all the financial capital has went into the infiniband/supercomputer thingy. Adding moar current tech servers now would only waste money better spent on the next evolution of Eves server hardware. I'd rather wait 6 months to a year for the new shiney stuff than add another 6 months to a year because they decided to spend it on a stop gap measure now. inappropriate signature. ~WeatherMan
Pan Crastus Anti-Metagaming League	Posted - 2008.07.28 05:41:00 - [44] Originally by: Pride NL CCP is commercial and lag vs lagfree is cost vs reward. And I think at this point cost is more important then reward, especially when you see 35000+ players login each night. That's rather short-sighted, since EVE could easily have double the players right now if lag wasn't so bad. How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
R McGunne	Posted - 2008.07.28 06:40:00 - [45] There are 4 primary reasons for lag, and 2 of them you can do something about. 1) The server sends your PC info regarding the actions/positions of all ships on your grid. By tweaking your own internet connection, like using a faster connection with more bandwidth, you can get that info faster. Network problems like congestion at your ISP will make your lag worse. When you are for example rubber banding the cause is probably your connection. 2) Your PC can increase/decrease your perception of lag. The PC runs the eve client and a multitude of other programs. The amount of CPU power, memory, internal bandwidth, and video subsystem, are all factors. Tweaking your PC to assign more CPU power and memory, tweaking your video settings, getting faster disk access, these can all make a difference. The other reasons are mostly server side, which we can do nothing about except whine at CCP. There are some guides posted on these forums to help setting up - use them.
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2008.07.28 07:08:00 - [46] Originally by: Beltantis Torrence For one, I love how the numbers in these threads come up. In a fleet fight with 100 people in it the lag makes it almost unplayable. Lets even say, 1000. Are you suggesting its impossible to make the server not lag when dealing with a thousand entities? How many hits per minute do you think Google gets? Google only deals with one-to-one queries. If Google had to send copies of queries and the results to everyone and if the arrival of results spawned a new query it would die within minutes. That is the problem we are talking about. If I fire my weapons then everyone in the grid needs to be told about it. Furthermore everyone in the grid needs to be told about the effect of the strike. And it won't just be me firing. 5 people firing results in 25 exchanges of information. Google's load is probably fairly linear. 100 people using it is probably 10 times worse than 10 people using it. But Eve (and any MMORPG) has an exponential loading. 5 people = 25 transactions per fire. 10 people = 100 transactions per fire. Double the number of people, quadruple the amount of work. The best thing CCP can do to address is lag is deter people from blobbing up. -- (Sarcastic mission running veteran, 4+ years) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
MenanceWhite Amarr Red Light Navy	Posted - 2008.07.28 07:11:00 - [47] Think of the bugs that could be happening - Person A does a guristas 10/10 complex Person Bs hauler in Jita suddenly instapops as if it's taken a WTFBOOM guristas citadel torp. --- Originally by: Torfi There's alot. That can be done. With.. corpses Originally by: Oveur
Terribad Gallente Trident Enterprises Elitist Cowards	Posted - 2008.07.28 08:01:00 - [48] Originally by: Andrue 5 people = 25 transactions per fire. 10 people = 100 transactions per fire. Unless I'm missing something, this isn't a freaking mesh network, it's client-server. Server / \| \ A B C For each player you add, you have to make two extra transactions per tick.
TimGascoigne	Posted - 2008.07.28 08:17:00 - [49] Originally by: Hieronimus Rex Same idea with fleet battles... the 201st person considering going on a fleet op might choose not to because of lag worries. If CCP attempts to combat lag blobs will only get bigger. I would like to hear one instance of an FC telling good PvPers not to join the fleet because he feels it might be a technical hurdle on the cluster. I mean for a good start the number of people in a fight is not dictated by you but dictated by how many the enemy fields also beyond this people are generally more worried about losing their ships to insufficient numbers then latency. Massive blobs will never be dictated by technical concern but via the need for such numbers.
Pan Crastus Anti-Metagaming League	Posted - 2008.07.28 08:36:00 - [50] Originally by: TimGascoigne Originally by: Hieronimus Rex Same idea with fleet battles... the 201st person considering going on a fleet op might choose not to because of lag worries. If CCP attempts to combat lag blobs will only get bigger. I would like to hear one instance of an FC telling good PvPers not to join the fleet because he feels it might be a technical hurdle on the cluster. I mean for a good start the number of people in a fight is not dictated by you but dictated by how many the enemy fields also beyond this people are generally more worried about losing their ships to insufficient numbers then latency. Massive blobs will never be dictated by technical concern but via the need for such numbers. In case you haven't heard of / seen 0.0 warfare (very likely according to your statement), lag is always taken into account in large fights and many engagements do not happen at all and strategic decisions are made (e.g. "we won't defend system X") because people don't want to jump into lagged systems. FCs always try to be on the non-lagged side (make the enemy jump / warp to you) unless there's absolutely no choice. This is the sorry state of EVE today. How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
Lily Cole	Posted - 2008.07.28 08:43:00 - [51] Allegedly they have a whole development team writing ambulation, at zero cost to Eve players, except for the GTC prive rise... pffft. Anyway, if they've got free resources, they could write EVE2, with none of the wappy crappy that makes Eve run like sludge. Instead they are writing another game nothing to do with eve. Instead of boosting Eve. or making Eve2. So when you want to think to yourself about CCP's priority and love list, and that of their new american paymasters, make sure you put Eve, and it's pathetic 200K subscribers firmly filed firmly under "B". That's why your stuff will never be fixed. It's a niche product that doesn't deserve any attention, it just needs advertising everywhere like crazy until it reaches crack point, folds in on itself, the original devs pat themselves on the back for "having achieved the impossible life's dream" and then we all go over to WoW and realise how much more fun it is.
TimGascoigne	Posted - 2008.07.28 08:50:00 - [52] I have been in so many 0.0 fleets I can't keep count. But what I can remember is the great order " everybody deploy drones" beening used time and time again to the detriment of the enemy. For a good start I was at the fight in sv5- just a few days ago. The lag was so ridiculous I actually recruited somebody into the corp whilst waiting for the grid to load. nobody seems to give a flying ---- about how much lag might occur just that defeat is averted and AAA are denied victory. I don't see any evidence of you understanding my last statement "it is the enemy who decide how many turn up" because they bring an unknown number!!! If we all had a crystal ball which told us how many people were necessary to have a good chance against the enemy we would use them. Unfortunately in the real world we have no idea how many people we will need therefore an FC will bring as many as possible. such is the way people think. Oh btw unlike NPC's people are afraid of losing thus numbers.
MenanceWhite Amarr Red Light Navy	Posted - 2008.07.28 08:51:00 - [53] Originally by: Terribad Originally by: Andrue 5 people = 25 transactions per fire. 10 people = 100 transactions per fire. Unless I'm missing something, this isn't a freaking mesh network, it's client-server. Server / \| \ A B C For each player you add, you have to make two extra transactions per tick. 2 players: A -> Server what A does Server -> A aknowledges what A does Server -> A what B does B -> Server what B does Server -> aknowledges what B does Server -> A what B does So we're at 2 gets and 4 sends. 4 players: A -> Server what A does Server -> aknowledges what A does Server -> A what B does Server -> A what C does Server -> A what D does B -> Server what B does Server -> aknowledges what B does Server -> B what A does Server -> B what C does Server -> B what D does C -> Server what C does Server -> aknowledges what C does Server -> C what A does Server -> C what B does Server -> C what D does D -> Server what D does Server -> aknowledges what D does Server -> D what A does Server -> D what B does Server -> D what C does 4 gets and 16 sents. How exactly are you thinking, sure it's +2 transactions per person, HOWEVER the sizes of the packets would still increase. --- Originally by: Torfi There's alot. That can be done. With.. corpses Originally by: Oveur
Angela Toren Amarr Toren Shipyards	Posted - 2008.07.28 09:13:00 - [54] Edited by: Angela Toren on 28/07/2008 09:15:26 Originally by: Hieronimus Rex but presumably there is a nonzero number of threads posted by people who really actually believe CCP can do something about lag. I'm looking for their input. CCP know what they have to do but don't want to do it ....and that's re-write EVE in something other than Python, and write it this time with the aim to support 64bit multicore cpu's on modern mutiprocessor servers. If they do that then say hello to relatively lag-free large scale fleet battles and you will also be able to cram at least 4x more people in Jita than you can now. _______ Oh Mindy...
Kai Zion The Zion Accounts	Posted - 2008.07.28 10:51:00 - [55] What's easier? Tackling all these technical issues or redesigning gameplay so that blobs become undesirable (i.e. diminishing returns the more people you bring into an engagement and various other theoretical solutions)? I always think they're tackling it from the wrong end, myself.
Kern Hotha	Posted - 2008.07.28 11:14:00 - [56] Originally by: Kai Zion What's easier? Tackling all these technical issues or redesigning gameplay so that blobs become undesirable (i.e. diminishing returns the more people you bring into an engagement and various other theoretical solutions)? I always think they're tackling it from the wrong end, myself. I agree. Throwing hardware at the problem will just encourage certain groups to gather together in even larger swarms. It seems like a zero-sum situation.
McDonALTs	Posted - 2008.07.28 11:28:00 - [57] Edited by: McDonALTs on 28/07/2008 11:30:21 Originally by: MenanceWhite D -> Server what D does Server -> aknowledges what D does Server -> D what A does Server -> D what B does Server -> D what C does 4 gets and 16 sents. How exactly are you thinking, sure it's +2 transactions per person, HOWEVER the sizes of the packets would still increase. Incorrect. 4 People Server sends state to 4 people each tick Persons A,B,C,D send state back to server each tick Total states = 8. 100 People Server Sends State to 100 people each tick Persons 1-100 send state back to server each tick Total states = 200 Issue with eve IS NOT DATA transfer. You can fight vs 100 NPC lvl4 on a 36k modem and it still runs perfectly fine. The problem with eve is the time it takes the server to update each tick. It cannot therefore it either slows down each tick or skips sending states to people (i.e the "not loading grid scenario") Back to point, you miss the key question - How long till CCP put together somthing that can handle what players want?
Lui Kai Perkone	Posted - 2008.07.28 11:29:00 - [58] Lag will only be gone when server is capable of supporting every concurrent player on the same grid - until then people will just load up a node until it lags out anyway. ---------------- Ambulation Answers
bloomich Caldari In Siders	Posted - 2008.07.28 11:56:00 - [59] Edited by: bloomich on 28/07/2008 11:58:02 Originally by: Lui Kai Lag will only be gone when server is capable of supporting every concurrent player on the same grid - until then people will just load up a node until it lags out anyway. Until then, there is only one question that makes any sense 1. How far are CCP towards reducing or eliminating lag from eve? Are we still at the brainstorming stage? Design stage? Are we looking at 5 Years? 10 years? 1 year? Every day we get Armchair experts give technical reasons for and against. But the real question is not how powerful the drill is, but rather, when are we planning to make a hole.
FDUSPYZOR Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.28 11:58:00 - [60] It's not lag it's Spacial Anomolies. The only people that can do anything about it is the players by not all congregating in the same system. Or maybe CCP could seed some new Agents to alleviate places like Motsu and Dodixie. But for ,some unknown reason, they won't. So No. CCP can't fix lag and don't seem to want to.

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.