open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: ing Lag: Module Lag - Why Not All Bugfixes Are A Good
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7

Author Topic

Caius Sivaris
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2010.08.24 16:39:00 - [121]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur
Edited by: CCP Oveur on 24/08/2010 10:07:51
Originally by: Caius Sivaris
Hum, so this blog is basically admission that you started working on a bug that has been crippling and well known for years last June...

Quality first **** yeah.


No. What you might have missed in previous blogs and might not be as clear here is, that as big as this sounds, we have months of investigation, implementing fixes and testing left in the war against lag. This was a big low hanging fruit we saw. Like a pineapple. The size of the moon.

The next 100 fixes and improvements won't be that big, in fact they will most likely be the opposite where the gravity of the sun, the moon affect the dolphins capability to navigate but in a subtle way so that they miss the pineapple.

I hope that made sense.


I'm actually reading all dev blogs. TBH I enjoyed throughly this one, it shows someone with the right skill set being assigned to a problem, tackling it and making obvious progress. Very good so far. (can he do the overview next, so tired of ghosts and flashy red stations....)

What bothers me immensely is that it took the CSM showing you a video for the specific problem (weapon cycling issues, not lag in general in all its manifestation) being worked on. The workaround for this specific bug (manual weapon cycling) has been discussed openly on forums since at least 2008, so the hint was right there. I would however bet good isks that the issue never made it to a dev because the bug reports were relentlessly filtered, because yes, a reproduction case was hard to impossible to find.

The bug hunters discarding bug report are shielding the devs from the truth and doing the game a disservice. I'm afraid it's the balls of destiny being discovered by a player, discarded and rediscovered independently by a dev all over again.

Axemaster
Posted - 2010.08.24 16:53:00 - [122]
 

Edited by: Axemaster on 24/08/2010 17:49:36
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: Axemaster
My bad, I meant post 56. Embarassed


Right-o. I let that one go 'cause I honestly don't know much of the inner workings of the physics simulation. It's also fairly low load on the profiles I've seen, and so long as it stays that way I'll remain ignorant of it.

I'm a big fan of spending time looking at the biggest problems, not the most interesting ones. I certainly didn't set out at this aiming to get to know the inner workings of Dogma, but it's proven itself to be the biggest problem, so that's exactly what I'm doing.


Fair enough, I figured that was probably the reason you passed it over. I'd bet the way the engine works, is it really has just one main equation; a one dimensional equation dictating the speed (scalar) of a ship approaching a target speed. All you'd have to do is input the current speed of the ship, and the target speed (plus variables for mass, inertia modifier, ship max speed etc.), and the equation would predict the future speed curve.

Do that 1D equation in all three dimensions and you'd have a simple predictive equation for the vector velocity of the ship. To find the magnitude, just pop on the 3D equation for the hypotenuse (actually, you'd have to backtrack that part in writing the equation, since the hypotenuse is actually the max velocity, making the 1D speed maximum dynamic).

So that works for the "approach" command. To do "orbit", just approach the tangent of a sphere around the target, and update it every second or so (this is evident especially in the orbits of drones).

Now that you can predict velocities, all you have to do to find the position of a ship is integrate the velocity equation and add any change to the last recorded position vector. So in other words, you can fully describe the dynamics in an analytic manner. I strongly suspect that that's exactly how Dogma works, which is good and efficient.

Collisions in Eve are a bit odd though. They seem to use a sphere with a "force gradient" around the ship, meaning that when ships are colliding, they are updating their equations repeatedly as they slip through each other's collision spheres. Evidence for this comes from the way ships sometimes bounce around inside a station, actually picking up speed (which is impossible without a "force gradient" or similar). That's not efficient at all, and is both unnecessarily complex and a waste of server resources.

Instead, ships should have a collision sphere that is somewhat smaller, or perhaps even in a shape that fits closely around the ship (like an oval). When two such shapes intersect, they would exchange momentum based on a vector normal to the colliding edges of the spheres. That momentum transfer (which could easily be based purely on simple 1D collision physics applied to 3D) would set the new target velocity, via the earlier velocity equation. The "depth" of the collision could be represented by a scalar modification to the mass/inertia of the ship by some percentage, meaning that deeper collisions would produce a more rapid change in direction and speed.

By that means, you could basically run a collision with a single calculation, which makes it simple and easy to understand, and of course more efficient. You could even make the collisions partially inelastic depending on the angle of attack, simulating the "crunching" as opposed to "bouncing".

Hope this helps your thinking when you play with Dogma!

EDIT: Upon further thought it seems that the depth and inelastic qualities of a collision would be simulated best by using energy equations, treating the collision sphere as a "force field" with a 1/r^2 dependence. That way, the entire mechanics of the collision could be calculated in advance in a more simplistic way.

Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente
The Crane Family
Posted - 2010.08.24 16:57:00 - [123]
 

Edited by: Bartholomeus Crane on 24/08/2010 16:58:46
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
Big callout of Oveur

Oveur's busy dreaming of dolphins and unicorns at the moment (or whatever it is Producers do Smile), but I can say from my side of things that I have no complains so far about support for the work I want to be doing here. We've got a good team formed with a clear mandate, some good tools and more on the way, and the hardware we need to run with it.


Well, that is certainly good to hear, because it seems you and the rest of the team are (finally, belatedly, eventually, whatever adverb you wish to apply here) getting things together and building up some momentum.

With the long long lists from the CSM and elsewhere, and the role the core teams clearly have to play in addressing a lot of those issues; I want to be sure that you keep that good team together, preferably grow it when possible/efficient, and keep getting the support you need to get the necessary tools, hardware, and most precious of all, time to strive for the excellence on the technical side EVE needs and is currently (in places) missing.

It is that medium- to long-term commitment I'm after, and the only guarantee I see working is if the quy responsible (who is next in line for a reply) makes a clear and public promise (we, the players, can and will be keeping him to) to do so.

Anyway, good blog, the situation sounds painfully familiar, but keep at it, eventually things will fall into place ...

Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.08.24 17:16:00 - [124]
 

Originally by: Caius Sivaris

What bothers me immensely is that it took the CSM showing you a video for the specific problem (weapon cycling issues, not lag in general in all its manifestation) being worked on. The workaround for this specific bug (manual weapon cycling) has been discussed openly on forums since at least 2008, so the hint was right there. I would however bet good isks that the issue never made it to a dev because the bug reports were relentlessly filtered, because yes, a reproduction case was hard to impossible to find.

The bug hunters discarding bug report are shielding the devs from the truth and doing the game a disservice. I'm afraid it's the balls of destiny being discovered by a player, discarded and rediscovered independently by a dev all over again.


This is a very good point. While I'm sure many BHs do a lot of good unthankful work, the general (and my personal) experience when submitting bug reports, especially of the "low hanging fruit" variety is very discouraging. Hell, I'm trying to help CCP fix their product for free and I get to go through a ton of hoops only to get my issue either added in to an age- old pile or it's "working as intended" (or "irreproduceable" like hinted here)

Also, enable inserting multiple spaces (for speed-search with copypasting) in to the contract item type field as well as the bookmark generation name field! (Just my personal "working as intended" pet peeve/ very bad bugreporting experience Crying or Very sad )

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2010.08.24 17:29:00 - [125]
 

Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: Axemaster
My bad, I meant post 56. Embarassed

Right-o. I let that one go 'cause I honestly don't know much of the inner workings of the physics simulation. It's also fairly low load on the profiles I've seen, and so long as it stays that way I'll remain ignorant of it.

I'm a big fan of spending time looking at the biggest problems, not the most interesting ones. I certainly didn't set out at this aiming to get to know the inner workings of Dogma, but it's proven itself to be the biggest problem, so that's exactly what I'm doing.

How many more services are there in the code for which can be said the same?!? ConfusedEmbarassedNeutralRolling Eyesugh

Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente
The Crane Family
Posted - 2010.08.24 17:34:00 - [126]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
Oveur, leaving all the dolphins and unicorns aside.
Never. I'm also not that fat.

Well, the weight thrown around was mentioned purely metaphysically ofcourse. I guess.
Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
It is clear that you now have a couple of techies working for you who know what they are talking about and know how to use and develop proper tools and fix things (eventually)
Let's be fair and not confuse the competence of my team with my incompetence in getting communicated what they are doing and why.

Well, I grant you that, but from my point of view, it also took them quite some convincing to 'do-it-another-way', as it where. That, and your self-acknowledged lack of technical understanding of the issues involved, gives pause to worry. This is not an issue that allows for a wandering eye. What is needed is someone responsible to fully grab the bull by the horns are ride it headlong off a cliff. OK, not the best mixed metaphor here, but you know what I mean, and guess what: you are it ...
Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
Serious business.

I did an earlier reply on the 18 months and what changed in recent times and later on commitment to EVE, both of which should be turned into a blog as they are excellent examples of where my statements on strategy and commitment should be put forth in a more visible manner.

The short answer till then is the boys and gals in the team working on lag specifically have a clear mandate and resources available to them till they are done. This is in addition to the "20% allocation" of the other teams both fixing lag, fixing bugs and refactoring.

Short answer for long term vision of EVE shorter than "world domination" is that EVE will continue to have one of the largest development teams in the industry on it till it dies. It has to date and it will continue to have that.

In numbers? CCP is reaching 600 people because we hired new teams for our new games instead of moving them away from EVE which is the common thing to do in our industry.

I'm sure you'll probably ask why they aren't all working on EVE. We have tried and the diminishing returns are staggering and we believe in Dunbar's number. This is the reason why we have compartmentalized core technology and game teams into scrum teams, to counter that.

That's it for now, I need to continue my eternal struggle of death by meetings. Blog will come but you will have read most of it's content right now, par perhaps more details on the game vision.

Yes, there have been many statements in the forums, and through dev blogs, on a great many issues in the past few weeks. On :18months:, commitment to EVE, mandates, resources, focus, 80-20 percent rules; but each separate titbit of information, and there have been many, leads also to speculation, interpretation, and general hubbub, which then has to be reacted upon. That's fine in itself. It certainly is a lot better than the corporate messaging going on previously. But what is missing is the one vision statement to tie it all together. Which like a nice carpet, really ties the room together.

And that's what management is supposed to do (beyond death-by-meeting): tie things together into a long-term vision. It's not an easy thing to do, because it means stepping back from the daily stream of disasters that also need to be solved, but it is equally vital, perhaps even more so.

A nice long blog on how CCP sees EVE in the future, what is needed for that, how to get there, how everything done now fits into that (Carbon, Dust, Incarna, whatever), and lots of promises on how you're going to do it. Is that the blog you're intending to write? If so: will read ...

Dubyou Bush
Posted - 2010.08.24 17:34:00 - [127]
 

I see you erased my post. Okay, well let me put it in different words. Stop talking about it and fix lag. These blog posts are'nt going to do anything if we don't see any results. You've had months, my friends are all going afk and it sucks. The second someone comes up with a comparable PVP mmo you guys are going to get blown out of the water. Results, or shut up - that's my opinion.

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2010.08.24 17:52:00 - [128]
 

Originally by: Dubyou Bush
I see you erased my post. Okay, well let me put it in different words. Stop talking about it and fix lag. These blog posts are'nt going to do anything if we don't see any results. You've had months, my friends are all going afk and it sucks. The second someone comes up with a comparable PVP mmo you guys are going to get blown out of the water. Results, or shut up - that's my opinion.


Rolling Eyes

Axemaster
Posted - 2010.08.24 18:21:00 - [129]
 

Originally by: Dubyou Bush
I see you erased my post. Okay, well let me put it in different words. Stop talking about it and fix lag. These blog posts are'nt going to do anything if we don't see any results. You've had months, my friends are all going afk and it sucks. The second someone comes up with a comparable PVP mmo you guys are going to get blown out of the water. Results, or shut up - that's my opinion.


RAWR

Whatever Dood
Posted - 2010.08.24 18:28:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: Dubyou Bush
I see you erased my post. Okay, well let me put it in different words. Stop talking about it and fix lag. These blog posts are'nt going to do anything if we don't see any results. You've had months, my friends are all going afk and it sucks. The second someone comes up with a comparable PVP mmo you guys are going to get blown out of the water. Results, or shut up - that's my opinion.


I bolded the parts that are wrong.

Freyya
Advanced Planetary Exports
Intergalactic Exports Group
Posted - 2010.08.24 19:07:00 - [131]
 

Normally i'm not one to press anything but I was really wondering about my previous question and still hoping on an answer that will elevate me a bit more to the knowledge you lot possess. Like from the depths of hell as in ; AARRGH, My brain is on fire...wtf are they talking about and am i on the right track asking a question that will at least help move me up a notch in Dante's Inferno?
104 Pretty please with Oveur in even tighter spandex riding a unicorn alongside some dolphins graciously swirling through the river of life dominating the world?
(It appears to be the magic combination of summoning a dev to respond so what the hell)

Whatever Dood
Posted - 2010.08.24 19:24:00 - [132]
 

Originally by: Freyya
Normally i'm not one to press anything but I was really wondering about my previous question and still hoping on an answer that will elevate me a bit more to the knowledge you lot possess. Like from the depths of hell as in ; AARRGH, My brain is on fire...wtf are they talking about and am i on the right track asking a question that will at least help move me up a notch in Dante's Inferno?

If you don't mind a non-CCP dev taking a crack at it, the pertinent section you're looking for an answer to is...
Originally by: Freyya
Would it however be workable to run each process that a client needs for updates as to speed, location, assets, damage, drones etc. etc. etc. etc. on a dedicated cpu/cluster/node/blade? Or is that actually the same effort it would take to rewrite the entire basecode....

What we're talking about here is decomposing the "location" or fleet-fight load-balancing unit (LBU), which is a process, into multiple threads. (They've already said that's in the works, and I agree with Warlock that a precondition is to finish the dynamic LBU reallocation work before attacking the fleet-fight concurrency problem.)

Anyway. All the processing you're referring to is very fine grain. It would involve communication between threads at a high frequency, so would probably be best handled on a single node, with the threads running concurrently on multiple cores. This is so that the threads handling speed, damage, drones, whatever etc. can communicate to each other through shared memory, which is very fast compared to cross-node (ie, over LAN) communication.

Exactly how the processing is broken up depends on current processing flow, which is an interesting problem. But, regardless, the solution is to decompose the load into schedulable processing blocks and fire them off on separate cores, not nodes, blades, cpus, etc. (Exactly how is again, very interesting.)

It's probably reasonable to exhaust all conventional optimization opportunities AND finish dynamic node reallocation support before attacking this.


CCP Veritas

Posted - 2010.08.24 19:31:00 - [133]
 

Originally by: Freyya
Pretty please with Oveur in even tighter spandex riding a unicorn alongside some dolphins graciously swirling through the river of life dominating the world?


Please, please, no more spandex.

Also, what Mr. Dood said. If he didn't clear it up, please refine your question a bit - I kept thinking about my mom and hoping she's taking her calcium supplements.

CCP Oveur

Posted - 2010.08.24 20:10:00 - [134]
 

Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
:18months:

Yes, I intend on write about that.

Ps. Thank you for the kind words on scrapheap.

Tiruriku
Posted - 2010.08.24 20:25:00 - [135]
 

Thanks CCP:

Like most people I could easily write a 'Top 10 Things I'd Change If I Was An Eve Developer' which probably exists on some 'under consideration' plan somewhere and, until recently, I definitely felt as if less and less attention was being spent on the core issues.

I've been playing EVE for over a year (and reading each dev blog) and the posts from the past two weeks represent what appears to be a new side of CCP. I find both the technical information, as well as the processes you use, to be quite interesting. As a developer I know these are very difficult issues to solve but I'm fully convinced now that it is definitely being worked on and CCP is highly motivated to fix them.

Let me also say that it is rare to see any company be so forthcoming with their process and game architecture and I'm finding it quite fascinating. Coworkers who don't play EVE have read them and found them interesting. I very much hope entries like these continue because it reinforces the fact that you are committed to quality far more than simply saying you are committed to quality. Well done.

Whatever Dood
Posted - 2010.08.24 20:31:00 - [136]
 

Originally by: Tiruriku
Let me also say that it is rare to see any company be so forthcoming with their process and game architecture and I'm finding it quite fascinating. Coworkers who don't play EVE have read them and found them interesting.


The amount of information provided by CCP into their process is borderline surreal. This is NOT normal. (I can't actually think of any recent parallel.)

Master Akira
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.08.24 20:36:00 - [137]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
:18months:

Yes, I intend on write about that.



Please do!

I have read blogs about technical stuff, about bugs, about balance and gameplay issues, about new shinies... but never have read one of longterm plans, of where do YOU want the game to be in the future...

I have only read somewhere something about a masterplan written on a napkin about tech 5 and world domination.

Originally by: CCP Oveur
Ps. Thank you for the kind words on scrapheap.


Lol. <Insert notsureifserious.jpg image here>

CCP Atropos

Posted - 2010.08.24 21:12:00 - [138]
 

Originally by: Freyya
Normally i'm not one to press anything but I was really wondering about my previous question and still hoping on an answer that will elevate me a bit more to the knowledge you lot possess. Like from the depths of hell as in ; AARRGH, My brain is on fire...wtf are they talking about and am i on the right track asking a question that will at least help move me up a notch in Dante's Inferno?
104 Pretty please with Oveur in even tighter spandex riding a unicorn alongside some dolphins graciously swirling through the river of life dominating the world?
(It appears to be the magic combination of summoning a dev to respond so what the hell)

If I might clarify your analogy; we're not fixing up a broken femur, as you suggested, rather we're replacing them with the provided titanium specimens where relevant. Most of the code is perfectly fine; as CCP Veritas mentioned elsewhere, there are places where improvements can be made, and redesigns are needed, and we won't be shying away from those, but there's no need to recode a service just because you think you might get better performance. It's all about systematic research and testing, no more shots in the dark.

CCP Atropos

Posted - 2010.08.24 21:18:00 - [139]
 

Originally by: Caius Sivaris
What bothers me immensely is that it took the CSM showing you a video for the specific problem (weapon cycling issues, not lag in general in all its manifestation) being worked on. The workaround for this specific bug (manual weapon cycling) has been discussed openly on forums since at least 2008, so the hint was right there. I would however bet good isks that the issue never made it to a dev because the bug reports were relentlessly filtered, because yes, a reproduction case was hard to impossible to find.

The bug hunters discarding bug report are shielding the devs from the truth and doing the game a disservice. I'm afraid it's the balls of destiny being discovered by a player, discarded and rediscovered independently by a dev all over again.

You would be surprised at how many bug reports have nothing more for reproduction steps than "just hold a fleet fight and have some guys jump through a gate". I've seen people posting on the forums claiming that they've just submitted a bug report with pages of information on how a bug occurs and the cure for world hunger, only to look at the bug report and find it contains nothing more than the example I gave above.

The CSM's video however works wonderfully; it clearly shows a bunch of things, with a wealth of client activity and the effects that are seen when a particular bug presents itself, including all the little things that people forget to mention in bug reports that are crucial to fixing the problem! I would even go as far as to suggest all bug reports have handy videos attached detailing the ingame effect of a bug; they've proven immensely useful.

That said, we're always after more people bug reporting, simply so we can track how prevalent a problem is.

Amida Ta
German Mining and Manufacture Corp.
Posted - 2010.08.24 21:19:00 - [140]
 

Originally by: Hawk TT

For those interested in the Python GIL (Global Interpetter Lock) drawbacks and in Python cooperative-multitasking:
David Beazley's - Understanding Python GIL - PyCon 2010

This is David Beazley's presentation @ PyCon 2010...who the f**k is David Beazley?!?! Evil or Very Mad - OK, Google him ConfusedSmile
The presentation is fun, it's informative, it shows how Python behaves on multiple-CPU cores (BAAAAD!) etc.


Thanks for sharing the link!
I mean everybody knows that Python has VERY bad performance implications. But that one is utterly hilarious. So 16 processors = 16 times slower *g*

Freyya
Advanced Planetary Exports
Intergalactic Exports Group
Posted - 2010.08.24 22:10:00 - [141]
 

The replies are most satisfying yes. I might have even almost escaped hell on those..Sorry about the Mother/calcium thingy and even more sorry about the spandex but it served it's purpose well might i say Twisted Evil I probably won't be sleeping much tonight..

As to the limits this GIL thingy apparantly imply; How far are you tied down by the design fundementals of Python/stackless or not in regards to multiple cores? Are you pretty much tied to the definitions it provides or can you rewrite the core code parts of Python to stomp away the stupid things it makes you do? As to avoiding the whole spaghetti workarounds and such...
Remember; i'm not afraid to implement the mental image of a certain exec prod. wearing a certain diabolical fabric used to conceal (or show in this case) the appropriate body parts. I might even step it up a notch or 2..

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2010.08.24 22:35:00 - [142]
 

Loved the blog, Veritas. This really was awesome!

Caius Sivaris
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2010.08.24 23:12:00 - [143]
 

Originally by: CCP Atropos
Originally by: Caius Sivaris
What bothers me immensely is that it took the CSM showing you a video for the specific problem (weapon cycling issues, not lag in general in all its manifestation) being worked on. The workaround for this specific bug (manual weapon cycling) has been discussed openly on forums since at least 2008, so the hint was right there. I would however bet good isks that the issue never made it to a dev because the bug reports were relentlessly filtered, because yes, a reproduction case was hard to impossible to find.

The bug hunters discarding bug report are shielding the devs from the truth and doing the game a disservice. I'm afraid it's the balls of destiny being discovered by a player, discarded and rediscovered independently by a dev all over again.

You would be surprised at how many bug reports have nothing more for reproduction steps than "just hold a fleet fight and have some guys jump through a gate". I've seen people posting on the forums claiming that they've just submitted a bug report with pages of information on how a bug occurs and the cure for world hunger, only to look at the bug report and find it contains nothing more than the example I gave above.

The CSM's video however works wonderfully; it clearly shows a bunch of things, with a wealth of client activity and the effects that are seen when a particular bug presents itself, including all the little things that people forget to mention in bug reports that are crucial to fixing the problem! I would even go as far as to suggest all bug reports have handy videos attached detailing the ingame effect of a bug; they've proven immensely useful.



I dealt with a lot of crappy report, and likely have been guilty of them myself. Such is life. The issue I take with the way bug hunters filter bug reports is that without perfect reproduction steps a bug is just discarded (or it's the impression given, is it actually true?), when IMHO they should be filed under a "non reproducible" category.

The interest is twofold. The first one is that the sheer amount of them gives good hints about the prevalence of a problem, which avoid the "we didn't knew" that never goes well with the player base (thinking of the hidden station guns timer for example, that affected 99% of anyone ever getting a GCC in lowsec). The second effect is is building a body of evidence that may eventually lead to reproducible steps. The union of enough incomplete reproducible steps of the same problem converge toward full reproducible steps.

Quote:
That said, we're always after more people bug reporting, simply so we can track how prevalent a problem is.


So we agree on that one, but do devs actually get to see a bug report that was filtered? Actually explaining in depth how bug hunting works may actually motivate people which don't bother anymore. As of now, people getting their bug filtered get the impression they bothered for nothing. If it's different, it would be smart to say so.

Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.08.24 23:12:00 - [144]
 

Originally by: CCP Atropos
That said, we're always after more people bug reporting, simply so we can track how prevalent a problem is.

Mm, and then we do submit bug reports and they are ignored for weeks, 99206 for example.

Speaking of bugs, I noticed a few days ago that an old drone bug that was fixed a year or so ago has returned as can be seen in 99632.

Denidil
Gallente
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.08.24 23:33:00 - [145]
 

COOPERATIVE MULTITASKING?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?!

is this 1995? omgfcking gawd.. the fact that windows still used cooperative in 1995 was inexcusable, but the server cluster for eve is using it in 2010?

FIRE WHOEVER DECIDED THAT EVE SHOULD BE USING COOPERATIVE MULTITASKING. NOW

Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente
The Crane Family
Posted - 2010.08.25 00:38:00 - [146]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
:18months:

Yes, I intend on write about that.

Good, because I doubt that you're very happy to have that remain out there as the grand vision for the EVE of the future ...
Originally by: CCP Oveur
Ps. Thank you for the kind words on scrapheap.

No hiding for the wicked either it seems ...

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2010.08.25 01:21:00 - [147]
 

Edited by: Bomberlocks on 25/08/2010 01:23:49
Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
:18months:

Yes, I intend on write about that.

Ps. Thank you for the kind words on scrapheap.
SHC is pretty much no holds barred, and while there is an immense amount of utter crap there, it has the redeeming quality that people say what they mean without having to try to get past forum censors and word filters. Additionally, the rampant elitism there, while painful a good deal of the time, has the effect of filtering out a lot of the uninformed rubbish that gets posted here. If you really post insightful stuff, people will listen.

For a long time, we had the impression that no one at CCP was listening.

P.S. Ban '10s

I'm Down
Posted - 2010.08.25 03:15:00 - [148]
 

Edited by: I''m Down on 25/08/2010 03:32:57
Edited by: I''m Down on 25/08/2010 03:18:02
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: Cedori
Since you noted that drones seemed to push the server over the edge, wouldn't it be a possible optimization step to "group" drones as guns are grouped?


Just because they pushed load over the edge doesn't mean they're a lot of load themselves. Think of it this way, if drones add 10% CPU and player modules add 95% CPU, having folks start all modules and then launch drones would make it feel like drones are a lot of load, since having them out pushed the server over 100% CPU. However, any time spent addressing their 10% would be considerably better spent addressing the 95% elsewhere.


10% or really any number might not sound like a lot to you, but to us players, it sounds like a huge number that's way more important to cut down than some stupid walking is stations or Dust concept sounds like... That's 10% more room for other areas to **** up.

Truth be told, Drones are too prevalent in this game anyways. 90% of the ships that have drone bays only have them because some ******ed developer couldn't think of a better way to balance the ship. There are drone ships and there are non-drone ships. Non drone ships shouldn't have drones... but most have some sort of bay for some unknown reason, I mean look at the rook/falcon FFS.

I'd watch your comments when you say drone load isn't important, it's very Important IMO at 10% or 5% or any %. It's not like you're going to cut down the other 90% by a huge margin either. So if you can remove 9 out of 10 from drones, why not do it. Yes I realize that's probably not the accurate number, but point stands.


Quote:
What bothers me immensely is that it took the CSM showing you a video for the specific problem (weapon cycling issues, not lag in general in all its manifestation) being worked on. The workaround for this specific bug (manual weapon cycling) has been discussed openly on forums since at least 2008, so the hint was right there.


No ****... What bothers me most is if your developers played the game, almost every FC in game now knows and tells his fleets just how to counter lag. That means you see it happening, and player fixes and work arounds, which is exactly what you got from the CSM.... so WTF, are you guys just not playing at all. Me thinks the Wrath of Goons v. BoB spooked you guys into all being empire miners or something.

Actually Playing the game, particularly in large 0.0 alliances can educate the developers so ****ing much, and it's so very obvious either it's not happening, or the right people aren't doing it, or they really are just that dumb. Maybe you should actually do a blog on that.

Its So GD frustrating to us players that it's the obvious stuff that's getting commented on like it's some 3rd world off the charts crap that never got reported on in the news so nobody knows it going on bull.

Denidil
Gallente
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.08.25 03:35:00 - [149]
 

Originally by: I'm Down
...


you understand nothing about software development and clearly cannot understand the words coming out of Veritas' mouth.

kindly STFU.

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2010.08.25 03:58:00 - [150]
 

What I find surprising about these blogs is that they had to be written in the first place.

What has been lined out is simply a brief glimpse into the methodology of any company in the gaming industry (although CCP has several unique, and stellar concepts that outclass their competition).

For some reason the EVE forum community feels it is their right to have the senior management and development team come and personally hold their hand, explaining every last detail of what they are doing and why (which any idiot should already have a general grasp of), and then argue with them in a egocentric attempt to show them the "right way to do it".

Rolling Eyes

Throw in a liberal helping of "we know you said this, but we all agree you really meant that" nonsense and you end up with the most myopic, rabble rousing, self centered collection of misfits it has been my displeasure to interact with.

The only positive thing to come out of this sorry mess is that I was pleasantly surprised that CCP took you seriously enough to give you more insight into their development process than any other gaming company (or any type of software company) has to my knowledge. Of course, they were met with condescension and general idiocy but hey, that appears to be the norm on these boards.

Now if you can raise the general level of response to something higher than you would expect from your average 13 year old muppet you might actually deserve the respect you have been given.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only