open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked PETITION: Reduce fighter spam lag!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (15)

Author Topic

Himo Amasacia
Minmatar
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.09.08 19:17:00 - [211]
 

Another little thing since I'm on the subject. Last year drones were "nerfed" so you could only have 5 in the air at once. ****ed a lot of people off, bit mostly drone users accepted it because they could see the benefits. Less lag, drones easier to deal with, etc. Then CCP decided to come out with ships that allow you to control more and more drones with your carrier skill.. Oooh ooh and lets have one that can control 3 per carrier skill! That wont make the server melt!!!!! And fighters from 20 people in carriers will be easy to deal with for a properly set up fleet! Really!

Carriers, the blob that drop blobs.

Ok, rest is new.

As for the auto-targetting issue, yes for goodness sake disable the auto-targetting. Not only would it actually provide an instant fix for the "spawn CPU lag unaffected ally" issue, but 1000s of drone using mission runners would immediately and passionately kiss you. And it would reduce server strain for the reason that the drones would not be running around selecting targets, so those routines would be scrapped. Less process running = more cpu power to run the battle. Its not rocket science. As a drone user I know autotargetting is a pain in the neck generally. No-one will really complain if it went, and it serves no it serves no purpose really, par possible the "response to someone jamming you" issue, but that only works if you are not jammed or attacked before the drones are launched.

In any case mark me down as a signed.

phillie blunt
Live And Let Die
Posted - 2007.09.08 19:18:00 - [212]
 

Originally by: thoth foc

The flaw in you logic is that, you would have us believe that changing fighters, will improve node performance during fleet fights, it wont, it will simply increase the size of the blobs until the same situation is reached again, (as has been proved by the last drone nerf). If you wish to reduce the lag, the change that is required is to reduce concentration of ppl needed/allowed.


^^^^ he is correct

Phryne Tsume
Posted - 2007.09.08 19:32:00 - [213]
 

/signed

Yggdrassill Yeltsin
The Greater Goon
Clockwork Pineapple
Posted - 2007.09.08 19:34:00 - [214]
 

Originally by: phillie blunt
Originally by: thoth foc

The flaw in you logic is that, you would have us believe that changing fighters, will improve node performance during fleet fights, it wont, it will simply increase the size of the blobs until the same situation is reached again, (as has been proved by the last drone nerf). If you wish to reduce the lag, the change that is required is to reduce concentration of ppl needed/allowed.


^^^^ he is correct


If you reduce the hundreds of fighters carriers drop, alliances will bring hundreds more people?

That's stupid. Why not deal with the fighter lag issue now and continue to deal with the player lag issue as it comes up? The whole point of the OP is that carrier and MS drones create lag on a scale ridiculously higher and faster than just a bunch of players.

Zhongchao84
Posted - 2007.09.08 19:36:00 - [215]
 

signed

Dawnfiend
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.08 19:50:00 - [216]
 

Signed.

20-minute lag to load a grid only to find I've been blown up by 200 fighters makes this game pretty worthless to me, and I want to quit just a little bit more every time it happens.

Lokopalas
Posted - 2007.09.08 19:56:00 - [217]
 

signed

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.09.08 20:15:00 - [218]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 08/09/2007 20:16:35
Originally by: CSFFlame

5 drones require 125 times more server calculations than just one. (5^3 / 1)
15 drones require 27 times more server calculations than five. (15^3 / 5^3)
25 drones require 125 times more server calculations than five, and 15,625 times more calculations than a single drone.

The OP is completely wrong on this one (where the hell did he get that n^3 nonsense from), and if that is the basis of his argument, the argument is basically null and void.

A drone/fighter (referenced collectively as 'drone' from now) requires a certain amount of server CPU. It needs that for flight-path calculation and shooting information.
2 drones require 2 times the CPU of 1 drones!
5 drones require 5 times the CPU of 1 drones!
.....etc.

This is so, because there are NO interaction between drones. They don't need to know about each other (unless they're shooting each other), i.e. drone A doesn't need to tell drone B that "I'm here, doing this".
In that aspect, they're little different from any gun mounted on a ship. The information about them is a static piece, unless a player action changes it.

So, if we try to count the different pieces of information needing to be calculated and sent to other ships on grid.

Take a gun BS for example (Raven is worse since it also has missiles in flight):
7 or 8 pieces of firing information for its guns
10 pieces of information for its drones
1 piece of flight-path information
? pieces of effect information
? pieces of targeting information
Total: 19 + ? + ?

Now, take a carrier:
~2 pieces of firing information for its remote reppers (of whichever type)
18 pieces of information for its fighters (assuming he can control 9)
1 piece of flight-path information
? pieces of effect information
? pieces of targeting information
Total: 21 + ? + ?

And a mommyship:
~3 pieces of firing information for its remote reppers (of whichever type)
40 pieces of information for its fighters (assuming he can control 20)
1 piece of flight-path information
? pieces of effect information
? pieces of targeting information
Total: 44 + ? + ?

So, a BS and a carrier has approximately the same amount of information pieces to be processed/sent.
A mommyship has a little more than double that (fair IMHO considering its cost).

So, the ships in themselves are pretty equal in their use of processing/networking power, which brings up the issue: Why do battles lag?

What causes battle lag is the amount of player actions on the node!!!

If there are like 500 people on a node, NOT in battle, the node might be a bit sluggish but people can move around etc. with relatively little lag. Whether they have drones out or not doesn't matter greatly.

However, if 2-300 of them decides to fight, the node instantly goes into overload. This is because every one of them suddenly starts to send commands to to server, and THAT is the heavy processing and network activity that causes the battle lag. This WILL happen whether drones are out or not.

If CCP want to implement something that eliminates battlelag, it has to be something that encourage a reduction the number of ships in fights.
Reducing the number of drones will have minimal effect as they're not particularly CPU or network heavy compared to the other weapon types.

What will have an effect on lag is if blob'ing IN GENERAL is discouraged...

No matter whether there are drones or not on the field, any battle with more than ~200 people in it will be a lagfest. The number of people and their actions is the cause though, not the relatively small resource consumption of the drones!

Bein Glorious
SAKUMA DROP
ANAHEIM ELECTRONICS Alliance
Posted - 2007.09.08 20:27:00 - [219]
 

I think the bottom line is that CCP could easily reduce a lot of extraneous server load if they got down to it and considered a 15/25 -> 5 deflation and kept everything else carrier related the exact same.

It's a call for attention to a big issue that might be getting neglected.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.09.08 21:09:00 - [220]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 08/09/2007 21:08:58
Originally by: Bein Glorious
I think the bottom line is that CCP could easily reduce a lot of extraneous server load if they got down to it and considered a 15/25 -> 5 deflation and kept everything else carrier related the exact same.

It's a call for attention to a big issue that might be getting neglected.

It could warrant attention of.c., but it is a minuscule issue compared to the extraneous server load caused by some alliances bringing 450+ to a fight....

As demonstrated above, drones are a very minor contributor. A drone is just another weapon system! The only difference in server resource consumption is that it has flight-path information too.

The thing that cause lag is when player actions cause a change in some status on the server that needs to be calculated and communicated to players on grid.
Whether that is a status change for a drone or a gun is indistinguishable....

Bringing one extra ship to a 200 ship battle probably causes more lag than launching 50 drones.... This is because the ship cause an EXPONENTIAL increase in information exchange, where the fighter only causes a LINEAR increase.


Moon Kitten
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2007.09.08 21:20:00 - [221]
 

Edited by: Moon Kitten on 08/09/2007 21:23:27
Edited by: Moon Kitten on 08/09/2007 21:20:47
Neither of you know how much increased load drones or players cause to the server unless you happen to be a developer. Regardless I hope CCP looks into all potential ways to reduce lag including changing drone and fighter mechanics which they already have done at least once.

Bein Glorious
SAKUMA DROP
ANAHEIM ELECTRONICS Alliance
Posted - 2007.09.08 21:30:00 - [222]
 

Originally by: Kerfira

...


Would you agree that reducing server lag by reducing fighter counts is a good idea, at least until a more ideal design becomes feasible in which "blobbing" becomes unnecessary?

Postmaster Generale
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.08 21:44:00 - [223]
 

Kerfira, your analogy of drones:weapons is flawed because the drones are entities in space just like ships, and their actions need to be updated on all the players' clients just like another ship in combat would. Also, in EVE the clients are just terminals, the server is doing all the calculations, and those calculations are exactly the same for fighters and player ships, except the fighters are even worse because the server has to run their AI rather than waiting for player input.

Someone said it before but it needs to be said again: fighters affect the server just like players. A system with 200 in local shouldn't be straining the server, but if those 200 have 500 fighters the server will be screaming just as if there were 700 players in local.

Jumping into a system like that with any size fleet is suicide, and jumping in with a large fleet is insane because of the enormous losses for no gain. Therefore, when one side does this, no matter who it is, it makes fighting impossible. This is not a nerf to anyone, we just want to see NPC combatants step aside so that more players can use the server.

Postmaster Generale
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.08 21:45:00 - [224]
 

Edited by: Postmaster Generale on 08/09/2007 21:45:53
edit: i pres butan to fast

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.09.08 22:01:00 - [225]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 08/09/2007 22:16:38
Originally by: Postmaster Generale
Kerfira, your analogy of drones:weapons is flawed because the drones are entities in space just like ships, and their actions need to be updated on all the players' clients just like another ship in combat would.

So does every weapon mount since each client need to know who it is shooting at. The only difference is the flight information.

A drone circling and shooting a target should use exactly as many resources as a gun shooting a target, since there are no status change involved.
Clients will have received the information:
"Drone X is shooting target Y" exactly like "Turret X is shooting target Y"
which is what they'll display until a status change occurs. No extra lag from drones
Originally by: Postmaster Generale
Also, in EVE the clients are just terminals, the server is doing all the calculations, and those calculations are exactly the same for fighters and player ships, except the fighters are even worse because the server has to run their AI rather than waiting for player input.

So you're claiming that the ONE calculation that a drone at rare instances has to do (which target to attack after its current target is gone), is on par with handling the multitude of module activations, course correction, targeting attempts, and other player button spam etc. by a ship?

That's not how it works....
Originally by: Postmaster Generale
Someone said it before but it needs to be said again: fighters affect the server just like players. A system with 200 in local shouldn't be straining the server, but if those 200 have 500 fighters the server will be screaming just as if there were 700 players in local.

'Someone' was wrong!

There is NO way a single drone, with no equipment or cargo load, and a very simple AI algorithm for choosing a new target is anywhere near the magnitude of a player controlled ship with regard to server resource use.

---

Player actions cause the large majority of lag, not weapon modules.....
Discourage blobbing, and you'll see an effect on lag.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.09.08 22:15:00 - [226]
 

Originally by: Bein Glorious
Originally by: Kerfira

...


Would you agree that reducing server lag by reducing fighter counts is a good idea, at least until a more ideal design becomes feasible in which "blobbing" becomes unnecessary?

I would see it as a non-solution to a problem caused by something entirely different.
I don't see it having any real effect....

Blobbing is to a large degree caused by two things:
1. Recent utterly stupid design decisions by CCP with regard to POS warfare.
2. The fact that assembling a lag-blob is an 'I-Win' button.

If you have a 200 vs. 200 scenario, the party that warps/jumps in WILL loose!!
The explanation for that is very simple. The ones already on-grid will have already loaded the ships there, so only needs updates on the ships coming in, while the ships coming in will first have to load the entire grid, THEN get the updates.
Once the first ships are in, the ones on-grid will start getting updates, will start targeting and shooting, and at THIS point the server goes to hell!!! This is before the people coming in has loaded, but the people on-grid are already targeting and shooting.

The only solution to THAT problem is not a reduction of a small part of the lag equation since the far larger part of the equation is the player actions, but the introduction of game mechanics or features that strongly discourage the blobbing that makes those masses of player actions have the lag effect they do.

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2007.09.08 22:18:00 - [227]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
The OP is completely wrong on this one (where the hell did he get that n^3 nonsense from), and if that is the basis of his argument, the argument is basically null and void.

A drone/fighter (referenced collectively as 'drone' from now) requires a certain amount of server CPU. It needs that for flight-path calculation and shooting information.
2 drones require 2 times the CPU of 1 drones!
5 drones require 5 times the CPU of 1 drones!
.....etc.

This is so, because there are NO interaction between drones. They don't need to know about each other (unless they're shooting each other), i.e. drone A doesn't need to tell drone B that "I'm here, doing this".


I think I made an estimate of that order a while back (for ships, not drones specifically) in another thread, but I can't find it. Although drones don't usually interact with each other in all the same ways that players do, they can still occasionally collide with one another, especially when deployed in large numbers. I would speculate that an n^2 estimate would probably be better for drones. Of course, it's possible that large amounts of unnecessary information are being taken into account when computing drone behaviour.

The basis of the n^3 estimate for player-controlled ships was that as well as everyone receiving more information about everyone else, the density of ships tends to increase as more people pile on to the same grid and more collisions/short ranged AoE effects take place.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.09.08 22:29:00 - [228]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 08/09/2007 22:30:30
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
I would speculate that an n^2 estimate would probably be better for drones. Of course, it's possible that large amounts of unnecessary information are being taken into account when computing drone behaviour.

The basis of the n^3 estimate for player-controlled ships was that as well as everyone receiving more information about everyone else, the density of ships tends to increase as more people pile on to the same grid and more collisions/short ranged AoE effects take place.

Nobody here of.c. knows how the code in behind it is. If it is normal IT industry quality, that's bad Laughing

However, the way I'd implement collition detection for a grid would be to impose a 'micro-grid' on it, so you only needed to check for collisions between objects on those micro-grids.
This would reduce the complexity to somewhere between n^1 and n^2. Where between 1 and 2 it would be would depend on the size of the micro-grids and a lot of other factors...

A complexity of n^3 for ships (even with drones at n^2) would just enforce my argument tbh. The blob is at the core of the problem, not the weapons used....

Orangir
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.08 22:41:00 - [229]
 

Edited by: Orangir on 08/09/2007 22:41:28
Originally by: Kerfira
So does every weapon mount since each client need to know who it is shooting at. The only difference is the flight information.

A drone circling and shooting a target should use exactly as many resources as a gun shooting a target, since there are no status change involved.
Clients will have received the information:
"Drone X is shooting target Y" exactly like "Turret X is shooting target Y"
which is what they'll display until a status change occurs. No extra lag from drones


A drone or fighter requires much more server processing time than a gun turret does because a drone or fighter is essentially considered a full fledged player combatant. Collisions are calculated, damage equations are calculated, and transversal equations are calculated (to mention just a few). All of these are calculated server side as to maintain integrity, and when you have 200 people fighting 200 other people with 500 fighters deployed on each side, you effectively have 1400 enemy ships fighting on a single grid. Reducing the amount of fighters deployed by a factor of 5 would reduce that to 600, which, while still bad, is something the servers can hopefully handle after Rev 3.

Anyone saying that reducing the amount of deployable fighters isn't going to fix anything is automatically retorted by the fact that CCP reduced the amount of deployable drones you could launch awhile ago, and the results were very noticeable. This isn't asking for a nerf of carriers and motherships, for all we care you could make them more powerful, but either the fighter blob has to go or the auto-aggressing capabilities need to go because it is crippling large scale capital warfare.

Vladimir Tinakin
Caldari
Wife Aggro Productions
Posted - 2007.09.08 22:49:00 - [230]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
Edited by: Kerfira on 08/09/2007 22:30:30
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
I would speculate that an n^2 estimate would probably be better for drones. Of course, it's possible that large amounts of unnecessary information are being taken into account when computing drone behaviour.

The basis of the n^3 estimate for player-controlled ships was that as well as everyone receiving more information about everyone else, the density of ships tends to increase as more people pile on to the same grid and more collisions/short ranged AoE effects take place.

Nobody here of.c. knows how the code in behind it is. If it is normal IT industry quality, that's bad Laughing

However, the way I'd implement collition detection for a grid would be to impose a 'micro-grid' on it, so you only needed to check for collisions between objects on those micro-grids.
This would reduce the complexity to somewhere between n^1 and n^2. Where between 1 and 2 it would be would depend on the size of the micro-grids and a lot of other factors...

A complexity of n^3 for ships (even with drones at n^2) would just enforce my argument tbh. The blob is at the core of the problem, not the weapons used....




While true to an extent, its a lot easier to apply a sizeable "Bandaid" to the problem via addressing drones.

Solving the "Blob" problem is an exercise in countering human nature. People will bring to the table as much firepower as they can muster, and when talking about alliances of 1000s of people this can very easily amount to blobs of several hundred.

The trick is discouraging the effects of blobs without nerfing everything else. The limited lock number on a ship might work; I could see a few ways to exploit that immediately however. Even focus-fire limits would just result in a breakup of the fleet to multiple independant wings--so you'd still have the same number of people in local, just more targets being selected.

Its a difficult problem to solve, and one that would take a lot of deliberation--and one that I think has already had a lot of deliberation spent on it to no avail as yet.

Fighters/drones, on the other hand, csn be addressed much more easily to provide some breathing room for possible solutions to the blob issue.

Bein Glorious
SAKUMA DROP
ANAHEIM ELECTRONICS Alliance
Posted - 2007.09.08 22:50:00 - [231]
 

Originally by: Kerfira

I would see it as a non-solution to a problem caused by something entirely different.
I don't see it having any real effect....

Blobbing is to a large degree caused by two things:
1. Recent utterly stupid design decisions by CCP with regard to POS warfare.
2. The fact that assembling a lag-blob is an 'I-Win' button.

If you have a 200 vs. 200 scenario, the party that warps/jumps in WILL loose!!
The explanation for that is very simple. The ones already on-grid will have already loaded the ships there, so only needs updates on the ships coming in, while the ships coming in will first have to load the entire grid, THEN get the updates.
Once the first ships are in, the ones on-grid will start getting updates, will start targeting and shooting, and at THIS point the server goes to hell!!! This is before the people coming in has loaded, but the people on-grid are already targeting and shooting.

The only solution to THAT problem is not a reduction of a small part of the lag equation since the far larger part of the equation is the player actions, but the introduction of game mechanics or features that strongly discourage the blobbing that makes those masses of player actions have the lag effect they do.



Your description of jumpin lag is pretty accurate though with some discrepancies, but is it not true that fighters, or any interactable object, also make it take longer to load the grid? Not only that, but the force jumping in obviously cannot use fighters of their because they are coming through a gate. The issue with fighters and lag is centered almost entirely - but not fully - on the fact that jumping into an enemy gatecamp using more fighters than the server can handle introduces unnecessary difficulties for the attackers. Not just because they create lag, but also because fighters auto-aggro and continue to kill enemy forces as if they had a perfect connection with the server.

As for your description of jump/warp in lag: yes, that is how it is sometimes, but I've been in many fights before where neither the attacker nor the defenders' grids loaded significantly faster than the attackers'. For example, in 1V-, an enemy force warped in on us at a moon where a POS was being anchored, and I literally did not see anything for over thirty minutes. And even then, it was only one or two ships. At one point I somehow started taking damage from some missile (a stray FoF cruise missile? I really do not know) and miraculously warped out after a few minutes.

My point being, while there are situations that in players-only fights the group that jumps or warps in has the lag disadvantage, it is still players shooting players, not NPCs shooting players. The advancing group may fight a partially uphill battle with lag, but over time, the sides become equal because both sides become equally lagged. It doesn't happen all the time, I admit, but saying that the jumping in forces always get screwed just isn't true.

And at the end of the day, deflating fighter counts reduces lag and keeps everything else the exact same. It couldn't hurt.

Ar'tee
DarkStar 1
Posted - 2007.09.08 22:52:00 - [232]
 

Quote:

Since the number of interactions with the server is a value of n^3 [where n=number of drones in space]



Wait, I must be missing something here.

Obviously that's your problem right there.

I don't see why you need to propose making carriers and motherships utterly useless, instead of getting CCP to fix their totally broken code?

Also, how do you know that this is the formula for the number of interactions, as I don't see the reasoning behind this. (may have missed something there). But anyway, if that formula is correct, there is code that needs to be fixed - not ships that have to be nerfed.

Bein Glorious
SAKUMA DROP
ANAHEIM ELECTRONICS Alliance
Posted - 2007.09.08 22:56:00 - [233]
 

Originally by: Ar'tee
Quote:

Since the number of interactions with the server is a value of n^3 [where n=number of drones in space]



Wait, I must be missing something here.

Obviously that's your problem right there.

I don't see why you need to propose making carriers and motherships utterly useless, instead of getting CCP to fix their totally broken code?

Also, how do you know that this is the formula for the number of interactions, as I don't see the reasoning behind this. (may have missed something there). But anyway, if that formula is correct, there is code that needs to be fixed - not ships that have to be nerfed.


Nothing is being nerfed since the petition is to keep carriers the exact same but less laggy, and hopefully CCP can both reduce lag by deflating fighters and also fixing the code. Pardon me for saying so, but I'm not really sure what you are complaining about...?

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:07:00 - [234]
 

Originally by: Orangir
.....essentially considered a full fledged player combatant.

Ehhh, who at CCP said that?
Provide a reference or stfu...

Just because Goons continue to claim so, doesn't make it so....
Originally by: Orangir
Collisions are calculated, damage equations are calculated, and transversal equations are calculated (to mention just a few).

Collisions are extra compared to a turret, but thats the ONLY thing extra. A drone is calculation wise as ONE turret which can move independently.

A battleship has 7 or 8 turrets, PLUS modules, making it like 10 times (at least) as 'heavy' for the server to handle (and this is BEFORE calculating in the effects of player actions).
Originally by: Orangir
...when you have 200 people fighting 200 other people with 500 fighters deployed on each side, you effectively have 1400 enemy ships fighting on a single grid.

Nope, more like 210 vs. 210... MAYBE 220 vs. 220....

---

A drone might go something like this in a laggy battle:
1. Target destroyed
2. Select new target
3. Fly to target
4. Start shooting

A player will do like this:
1. <20 mouseclicks=10 commands> Align... ffs.. align <20 more mouseclicks=10 more server commands>
2. <20 targeting command> Target all in sight .... ffs. why don't they target <another 20 targeting commands>
3. Shoot... ffs. he's out of range... change ammo... ffs, ammo not changing... retry
4. ..someone shooting me.... Align-warp-align-warp <another 50 command>

So, for the drone, 4 internal actions (not requiring networking) to do by the server. For the ships maybe 50+ PLAYER ACTIONS (requiring networking) to act on, not to mention the fact that a ship has 7/8 times the weapons firing.

By all reasonable calculation (and without access to CCP's source code), the effect of 1 drone on the server in a laggy battle is MAYBE 5% of a player.

So, since there is far more to be gained lag-fighting wise by nerfing blobs in some way, how come you're not advocating that instead????

---

I see a lot of Goon hipocricy here tbh....
"Goons and co. encounter something that lags the game (not caused by them)"
"They want it removed ASAP..."
"Their own lag-blob of.c. MUST stay as it is...."

Strongly discourage blobbing, and you solve both problems.
Since you're SOOOOOO much against lag, you should all sign up. Right? Right?... Right?

....guess not....

BronYAurStomp
Perkone
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:17:00 - [235]
 

Edited by: BronYAurStomp on 08/09/2007 23:25:48
Huh?
Originally by: Kerfira

Collisions are extra compared to a turret, but thats the ONLY thing extra. A drone is calculation wise as ONE turret which can move independently.



Ehhh, who at CCP said that?
Provide a reference or stfu...


Originally by: Kerfira

A battleship has 7 or 8 turrets, PLUS modules, making it like 10 times (at least) as 'heavy' for the server to handle (and this is BEFORE calculating in the effects of player actions).




Ehhh, who at CCP said that?
Provide a reference or stfu...


Originally by: Kerfira

Originally by: Orangir
...when you have 200 people fighting 200 other people with 500 fighters deployed on each side, you effectively have 1400 enemy ships fighting on a single grid.

Nope, more like 210 vs. 210... MAYBE 220 vs. 220....




Ehhh, who at CCP said that?
Provide a reference or stfu...



---
Originally by: Kerfira

A drone might go something like this in a laggy battle:
1. Target destroyed
2. Select new target
3. Fly to target
4. Start shooting




Ehhh, who at CCP said that?
Provide a reference or stfu...


Originally by: Kerfira

So, for the drone, 4 internal actions (not requiring networking) to do by the server. For the ships maybe 50+ PLAYER ACTIONS (requiring networking) to act on, not to mention the fact that a ship has 7/8 times the weapons firing.




Ehhh, who at CCP said that?
Provide a reference or stfu...


Originally by: Kerfira

By all reasonable calculation (and without access to CCP's source code), the effect of 1 drone on the server in a laggy battle is MAYBE 5% of a player.




Ehhh, who at CCP said that?
Provide a reference or stfu...


---



oh /signed

Ar'tee
DarkStar 1
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:18:00 - [236]
 

Originally by: Bein Glorious

Nothing is being nerfed since the petition is to keep carriers the exact same



Not exactly the same, I see a long list of changes - some of which will undoubtedly have funny unforeseen side effects as usual, and in any case will take a lot of CCP's time to implement.

Quote:

but less laggy, and hopefully CCP can both reduce lag by deflating fighters and also fixing the code. Pardon me for saying so, but I'm not really sure what you are complaining about...?


I'm simply not in favor of making random game changes to address symptoms (rather than causes) of what is obviously broken game code.

I'll admit I didn't bother to read all the details, but the proposed solution seems to be: make carriers have 3x less fighters and make up for that by giving bonuses. Thus addressing the current symptom by making lots of changes (=work, for CCP).

Then in 3 months there will be a fight with 3x more carriers on the field than what is considered normal today (as more people will get ready to fly cap ships), and you'll have the exact same problem once more - except you're out a lot of time writing code to address some symptoms instead of the cause.

My suggestion would be to make fighters non-colliding objects. At least, if that is what causes "interactions" (I'm not sure it is). Or just change whatever else in the game that fixes the *cause*, which is (at least if the OP has stated the correct formula) some game algorithm taking O(n^3) time to run.

I agree with the idea of this petition though, CCP should *make it a priority to fix [the cause of] this problem*.

an internet
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:19:00 - [237]
 

No, the real issue is collision detection. Its the same reason that making it possible to fly through corpses and wrecks reduced so much lag.

What happens is this - the server must check that no object is in contact with another object.

2 objects, you only have to check once for both objects.

3 objects, object a has to check for object b and c, object c has to check for b, 3 checks

4 objects, a has to check for b, c, and d, b has to check for c and d. C has to check for d. Thats 6 checks.

This creates lag because it's a (n-1)! algorithm. Reducing the number of drones on grid makes this much, much, easier.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:22:00 - [238]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 08/09/2007 23:34:26
The formula is n^2, the OP made a slight error. Well, more correctly, the formula is xn^2 + 2zn. Where x is the number of typical updated informations and calculations, and Z is the number of specific actions that need to be shown. But the specific actions really dont matter as battles get larger.

This however does not mean that the problem isnt large, it is.

Basically each object that must be interacted with much check at the very least collision/position and tracking. As well, each individual object that takes an action must send that action to all applicable targets.

Such 10 drones must figure collision, position, and tracking for all 10 drones. 300 calcs. As well each drone must send and recieve its actions and orders to any aplicable drones, so 10 drones produce 320 calcs. This is the minimum.

This is roughly the same number of calcs that players produce.

O.K. so now we have 100 drones, that is 30200 calculations. 94 times more calculations for 10 times more drones. O.K. now lets have 200 drones. Twice the numbers, 4 times the calculations.

20 Carriers produce 240 drones at 12 drones apiece. 260 total objects.

After the reduction 20 carriers would produce 100 drones at 5 drones apiece, 120 total objects.

This is 4.65 less work the server has to do to figure the battle.

If you cut the number of drones in half, you reduce server work by a factor of 4.65.

If you further make drones intangible and/or make changes in order to make drones behave as a "unit" these reductions in work get even greater.

If the server can do less work, send out less information, and in general be more efficient at no loss in effectiveness for carriers, then it absolutly ought to do so. Its that simple. I cannot see how anyone could argue against allowing larger battles. At the absolute worse battles get more massive and impressive and are just as laggy. At the absolute best a big capital fight performs like a medium sized skirmish

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:24:00 - [239]
 

Originally by: Bein Glorious
.....but is it not true that fighters, or any interactable object, also make it take longer to load the grid?

True to an extent, but not much more than turrets.... When you load a grid, you get information about items there, AND information about ships AND THEIR FITTINGS and current status.
Information about a drone is basically a type, movement information and firing status.
Information about a turret is a type, and firing status.
Information about a ship is type, name, pilot, turrets, modules, cargo (unless they fixed that), movement information, module effect.

In the grand scheme of things, they're just another weapon system.
Originally by: Bein Glorious
Not only that, but the force jumping in obviously cannot use fighters of their because they are coming through a gate.

They can't use weapons of their own either until they've targeted.
Targeted... launched... same thing. The disadvantage of attacking....
Originally by: Bein Glorious
The issue with fighters and lag is centered almost entirely - but not fully - on the fact that jumping into an enemy gatecamp using more fighters than the server can handle introduces unnecessary difficulties for the attackers.

"The issue with lag-blobbing is centered almost entirely - but not fully - on the fact that jumping into an enemy gatecamp with more ships than the server can handle introduces unnecessary difficulties for the attackers."
Originally by: Bein Glorious
because fighters auto-aggro and continue to kill enemy forces as if they had a perfect connection with the server.

Afaik drones/fighters only auto-aggro once you're aggro on their controller....
Guns continue to shoot too, and you can set your ship for auto-lock. That way you only need to activate your guns and wait for them to fire.

Not exactly the same, but close enough.
Originally by: Bein Glorious
....I literally did not see anything for over thirty minutes. And even then, it was only one or two ships.

That's a desync... not lag...
Originally by: Bein Glorious
And at the end of the day, deflating fighter counts reduces lag and keeps everything else the exact same. It couldn't hurt.

Doesn't do much good either. When correcting a problem, the CORE of it needs to be adressed. Not a small 5% part of the problem.

Every single time CCP has tried to improve the game so lag is less of a factor, people just bring more and more and more until the game is lagged again.
The CORE of the problem has to be adressed and that is twofold:
1. Game features encouraging blobbing
2. No game features discouraging blobbing

Bein Glorious
SAKUMA DROP
ANAHEIM ELECTRONICS Alliance
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:29:00 - [240]
 

Originally by: Ar'tee

Not exactly the same, I see a long list of changes - some of which will undoubtedly have funny unforeseen side effects as usual, and in any case will take a lot of CCP's time to implement.


I would say that it would probably be easier, though still somewhat difficult, to deflate fighter counts than it is to go through thousands of lines of code to optimize, but that is just my inference.

Originally by: Ar'tee
I'll admit I didn't bother to read all the details, but the proposed solution seems to be: make carriers have 3x less fighters and make up for that by giving bonuses. Thus addressing the current symptom by making lots of changes (=work, for CCP).

Then in 3 months there will be a fight with 3x more carriers on the field than what is considered normal today (as more people will get ready to fly cap ships), and you'll have the exact same problem once more - except you're out a lot of time writing code to address some symptoms instead of the cause.


That's not necessarily true; in three months, Revelations 3 will be out, with the code optimizations hopefully along with it. Right now, or at the very least very soon, we could have less lag as well if they decreased fighter counts, even if it was, as some suggest, merely a stop-gap until the needed code optimization.

Originally by: Ar'tee
My suggestion would be to make fighters non-colliding objects. At least, if that is what causes "interactions" (I'm not sure it is).


That's a good idea, too. Would have been nice if they made drones noclip a year ago when there was a bug where they were bugged and would hit your ship and not return to the bay and just be stupid ugh

Originally by: Ar'tee
I agree with the idea of this petition though, CCP should *make it a priority to fix [the cause of] this problem*.


yeah pretty much Smile


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (15)

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