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 : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : last (15)

Author Topic

BronYAurStomp
Perkone
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:30:00 - [241]
 

How is that a bad thing, to enable larger and larger battles?

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:32:00 - [242]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
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.

You're using the WORST possible collision detection algorithm.
With a good micro-grid architecture behind it, you'd only need to do collition detection to the drones immediately near you.

For an entire grid, I'd expect a good collition detection architecture to have a complexity of n^1.05 or less.....
Originally by: Goumindong
This is roughly the same number of calcs that players produce.

For collisions, yes, but you're completely ignoring that players send commands to the server, which are most likely a LOT heavier (and I wouldn't be surprised if the factor was 10x-100x) because they require network communication, that the drone AI (which only kicks in when it needs a new target).
Also you're ignoring that a drone has 1 (one!) weapon system for the server to keep track of, and 1 (one!) target for it. A Battleship has 7/8 weapon systems, up to 7 targets, plus modules.

---

So, in conclusion, your figures are extremely inaccurate (unless CCP really HAS implemented the worst possible collision detection algorithm).

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:36:00 - [243]
 

Originally by: Kerfira

You're using the WORST possible collision detection algorithm.
With a good micro-grid architecture behind it, you'd only need to do collition detection to the drones immediately near you.

For an entire grid, I'd expect a good collition detection architecture to have a complexity of n^1.05 or less.....




You clearly have never fought against a carrier. Its not called a "fighter swarm" for nothing. Its a big fing blob of fighters that all all bunched up within a couple kilometers of space.

dan 1
GoonFleet
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:38:00 - [244]
 

signed

Mika 1
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:40:00 - [245]
 

signed (dan's mom)

Slick McDurper
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:44:00 - [246]
 

signed (dan's dad)

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:45:00 - [247]
 

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

The problem is that it is just a minor part of what is causing lag that it'll not do any good. Blobs will just grow larger.
Originally by: Vladimir Tinakin
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.

My personal favorite is a smartbomb-like module like this (might need a few modifications):

Mounted on battleship, can be activated by player or activates if battleship is destroyed. Player activation destroys ship.
If less than 100 ships on grid: No effect (except maybe a little 'pop' sound...)
100-149 ships: 300-3000 damage, radius 50-100km
150-100 ships: 3000-20000 damage, radius 100-150km
200-249 ships: 20000-60000 damage, radius 150-200km
250+ ships: WTFPWN all BS, radius 250km.


The ship numbers could be adjusted up as the server becomes able to handle more ships on grid.

In essence, I've taken the titan DD and removed the two things most people complained over about that:
1. Used to kill small groups of players
2. Only big boys had it

It would so strongly DISCOURAGE blobbing that the problem would completely disappear....
People bringing out a 100 man blob could have it decimated by a 50 man blob...
People bringing a 250 man blob could have it destroyed by a single BS....

PS: I'll read on tomorrow... Bedtime....

Kalralahr
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:45:00 - [248]
 

Edited by: Kalralahr on 08/09/2007 23:46:09
signed (dan's creepystalker)

Lot of theorycrafting and blind guessing in this thread. Fighters are breaking things and it's a reproducible problem. The devs can deal with the specifics.

BronYAurStomp
Perkone
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:50:00 - [249]
 

How is having a single bs be able to wipe out 250 players a good idea?

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:54:00 - [250]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
You clearly have never fought against a carrier. Its not called a "fighter swarm" for nothing. Its a big fing blob of fighters that all all bunched up within a couple kilometers of space.

I have fought carriers, but what does that have to do with it?
Your example was using 20 carriers. Clearly they're not all putting all their fighters within the same micro-grid. Rolling Eyes

If they're spread evenly in 2 microgrids, then at worst we're talking about a complexity of 2*((n/2)^2).
If in 10, a complexity of 10*((n/10)^2)
If in 100, a complexity of 100*(n/100)^2)

If each microgrid is 10x10x10km, and the fight is in a 50x50x50km cube, that's 125 microgrids.
They fighters'll of.c. not be completely evenly spread, but in general you'd have only maybe 10-20 on the same micro-grid.

Collision detection is a problem that can be quite effectively minimalised without reducing numbers, and is in any case just a very small part of the problem.

Player commands is THE big part that needs to be reduced to solve the lag problem. Everything else is just a little piece of band-aid doing very little.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:55:00 - [251]
 

Originally by: Kalralahr
Lot of theorycrafting and blind guessing in this thread. Fighters are breaking things and it's a reproducible problem. The devs can deal with the specifics.

Lot of theorycrafting and blind guessing in this post.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:57:00 - [252]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 08/09/2007 23:58:07
Originally by: BronYAurStomp
How is having a single bs be able to wipe out 250 players a good idea?

Those 250 players are causing lag which we all agree we don't like.
Discouraging that by making it easy to kill them will cause them to split up (or they'll die)...

And the problem of lag is very much solved!

PS: Now I really AM going to bed....

Churuya
Posted - 2007.09.09 00:39:00 - [253]
 

Edited by: Churuya on 09/09/2007 00:44:09
/signed. And by signed, I mean DO IT.

Orangir
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.09 00:46:00 - [254]
 

Edited by: Orangir on 09/09/2007 00:47:39
Originally by: Kerfira
Ehhh, who at CCP said that?
Provide a reference or stfu...

Just because Goons continue to claim so, doesn't make it so....


CCP doesn't need to state how every aspect of the game works. We can infer from the way drones behave that they are treated just as a player's ship is.


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.

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)


You don't understand a thing about the way MMO servers work, and it shows. The majority of server lag in EVE comes from the need to judge the flight paths of all ships on a grid and report the movement to every individual client. When you have 400 people on a grid, the server needs to provide the position of 400 entities to each of the 400 clients, this is a massive load and is the fundamental reason a blob causes lag. Add in 1000 fighters who's position also needs to be reported to each individual client, and you've got a dead node. Turrets and modules have nothing to do with this, as they add a relatively small load on the server because their status is not being updated in real time, but rather every few seconds.




Originally by: Kerfira
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????


Again, you have no understanding of what causes server load. No matter how fast a player can spam double click, the updating of ship locations in real time will require much much much more server processing time. Flight paths need to be calculated, collisions need to be detected, and transversal determined for not only each ship, but every drone and fighter that also happens to be on grid. And, as has been said over and over and over again, all of this is calculated in real time - tens of times per second. There's a reason most MMOs don't detect for collision, one of them being the massive amount of calculations it requires and the need for much more robust player position calculations.



Quote:
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....


And of course, some blatant politicalization to cap off your post. Only BoB could find some way to construe reducing lag as a bad thing.

Sedyna
Posted - 2007.09.09 01:17:00 - [255]
 

Edited by: Sedyna on 09/09/2007 01:20:48
I just cannot believe there is someone arguing against a, by all appearances, simple to implement fix (or band-aid) to lag.

I seriously doubt that the server calculates much for a turret. IF we go by what the player guide on turret tracking does, thats all that is required.

On the other hand, drones require all of the above from turrets, travel, collision, each drones HP (sheild/armor/hull), AI (next target, MWD on/off, orbit speed/distance, insane factor) and reporting back (sheild/armor/hull/status) to the player. So to whomever said drones=turrets for calculations your very dead wrong.

Oh and you can argue for micro-grids all you want, I seriously doubt that CCP uses them. Wouldn't that cause lag for objects moving in and out of those "micro-grids" in the form of hand-offs between grids?

Anyway as for the idea
/signed

BTW there is a simple test. gather maybe 50 vs. 50 with only normal drones and no ship fielding above 5. Then try 50 vs 50 with 20-30 carriers/motherships launching 15-25 fighters a piece. Would the difference in lag be tiny as Kerfira suggest, or vast like everyone else thinks?

James Duar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.09.09 02:02:00 - [256]
 

From this thread I think it can be generally agreed that there's no good reason for drones to be doing collision calculations currently.

While it would have some minor issues with combat around large objects in space, the net effect would be fairly minor and the potential lag improvements huge if they were simply turned off as collidables.

Suprala Psarian
Posted - 2007.09.09 02:43:00 - [257]
 

All of you people arguing about the root cause of fighter lag are wasting your time. None of us know WHY they cause lag. We just know they DO cause lag.

I don't really care what maths CCP makes up to fix fighter lag, as long as they fix it good and proper.Evil or Very Mad

Aisar
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.09 04:45:00 - [258]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
Edited by: Kerfira on 08/09/2007 23:58:07
Originally by: BronYAurStomp
How is having a single bs be able to wipe out 250 players a good idea?

Those 250 players are causing lag which we all agree we don't like.
Discouraging that by making it easy to kill them will cause them to split up (or they'll die)...

And the problem of lag is very much solved!

PS: Now I really AM going to bed....


You're right, alliances with a high number of paying customers shouldn't be allowed to use these people in battles. CCP should totally cater to their high sp paying customers, because their money is worth more than paying customers that can't field anything more than a frigate (and if you think this isn't, then there is no helping you).

JPthe2
Posted - 2007.09.09 05:25:00 - [259]
 

/signed

Dagam
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.09 05:47:00 - [260]
 

Edited by: Dagam on 09/09/2007 05:55:04
Fighters cause as much lag as drones, probably more because they have to report to both the person assigned fighters and the carrier they belong to. The RMR expansion reduced max drones from 15 to 5 because of how much lag they were causing. Ergo, doing the same for fighters would reduce lag. If you still doubt it, read the dev blog on the reason for drone reduction.
Originally by: Tuxford

This whole project is also not about "nerfing" drones. This is about reducing server lag and at the end give you a more joyful experience while playing.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.09.09 08:34:00 - [261]
 

Originally by: Aisar
Originally by: Kerfira
Edited by: Kerfira on 08/09/2007 23:58:07
Originally by: BronYAurStomp
How is having a single bs be able to wipe out 250 players a good idea?

Those 250 players are causing lag which we all agree we don't like.
Discouraging that by making it easy to kill them will cause them to split up (or they'll die)...

And the problem of lag is very much solved!

PS: Now I really AM going to bed....


You're right, alliances with a high number of paying customers shouldn't be allowed to use these people in battles. CCP should totally cater to their high sp paying customers, because their money is worth more than paying customers that can't field anything more than a frigate (and if you think this isn't, then there is no helping you).

There's absolutely nothing with my suggestion that prevents you from using all your members.

It'd just prevent you from using them in a huge lag-blob.
You AND whoever you're fighting would be discouraged from using more than 50 people in each group, so you'd BOTH have to split your forces, attack/defend multiple targets, and we'd get all the smaller lag-free battles that we all claim we want....

It would of.c. be much better IF CCP could make the servers support 1000 vs. 1000 battles, but that's IHMO unlikely to happen.
So unless CCP has a rabbit up their sleeve, my suggestion makes eminently good sense.
I don't really see how your alliance can argue against it either.... After all, you all HATE lag with a vengeance!!!
If the best solution (removing lag completely) can't be done, why are you arguing against a solution that would work?

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.09.09 08:43:00 - [262]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 09/09/2007 08:44:51
Originally by: Orangir
The majority of server lag in EVE comes from the need to judge the flight paths of all ships on a grid and report the movement to every individual client.

If CCP has coded this properly, they don't need to calculate flight paths continously. It is enough that the flight path is calculated at it's beginning, and clients informed about that (the clients can then).
In all probability, that is what happens since it fits very nicely with the way the overview behaves when you desync.
Originally by: Orangir
Again, you have no understanding of what causes server load. No matter how fast a player can spam double click, the updating of ship locations in real time will require much much much more server processing time.

And yet, if there are 500 players on grid being idle, even if they have drones out, the server is only sluggish. Only when these players start DOING something the server lag-freezes.

Clearly shows YOU is the one who doesn't know about what causes server load. You deliberately ignore reality to fit a truth you want....
Originally by: Orangir
And, as has been said over and over and over again, all of this is calculated in real time - tens of times per second.

I know you've said it a lot of times. That doesn't make it the truth.....
Originally by: Orangir
Quote:
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....


And of course, some blatant politicalization to cap off your post. Only BoB could find some way to construe reducing lag as a bad thing.

Oops, me thinks me hit a very sensitive little nerve there LaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing
Don't like it when someone calls your hipocricy, do you? Twisted Evil

Orangir
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.09 08:53:00 - [263]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
If the best solution (removing lag completely) can't be done, why are you arguing against a solution that would work?


Because your solution is a hamfisted one that would break more things than it fixes. By forcing gangs to conform to some arbitrary size limit you're inherently giving the advantage to alliances such as BoB and MC who have pilots with ridiculous levels of SP, but have fewer members. Forcing alliances to only bring a gang of 50 to a fight removes an entire tactical element of the game that can't be solved by simply saying "Well your excess members can go attack something else". There will always be key focal points that are several orders of magnitude more important than anything else at that time, and your suggestion would (probably intentionally) make alliances with a few high SP characters completely dominate those that may completely outnumber and outmaneuver them, simply because it would be impossible to achieve any strategic victories. Not to mention that with the way POS warfare works, a defender would be able to easily cover every point by simply timing POSes to come out at different times.

Implementing your idea would break alliance warfare more than tripling the amount of lag fighters create would.

Orangir
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.09 09:16:00 - [264]
 

Edited by: Orangir on 09/09/2007 09:17:05
Edited by: Orangir on 09/09/2007 09:16:36
Originally by: Kerfira
If CCP has coded this properly, they don't need to calculate flight paths continously. It is enough that the flight path is calculated at it's beginning, and clients informed about that (the clients can then).
In all probability, that is what happens since it fits very nicely with the way the overview behaves when you desync.


That's not how any MMO, or hell, most multiplayer games in general work. The server keeps tabs on what entity is where continuously and distributes this information to every client. If it didn't do so there would be no integrity as to the position of entities and clients could potentially alter their data in malicious ways. Additionally, the server has the final say as to who is where rather than the client, further proving that calculations are done server-side. The only time the client may do any path prediction of a foreign entity is when it doesn't receive an update from the server as to where that entity may be. I don't even think EVE does that much; from my experiences when the node chokes all ships will stop moving until an update is received from the server. I'd love to hear your experiences, but you apparently haven't been in any major conflicts as your character doesn't return any results on any killboard I've checked. If you'd like to post on your main though, that'd be grand.

Quote:
And yet, if there are 500 players on grid being idle, even if they have drones out, the server is only sluggish. Only when these players start DOING something the server lag-freezes.

Clearly shows YOU is the one who doesn't know about what causes server load. You deliberately ignore reality to fit a truth you want....


This is a ridiculous point as there's never been a situation in which 500 people have sat around idle with their drones and fighters all deployed on Tranq for you to judge from, ever. And as a goon you can sure as hell bet that I've been in bigger blobs than you've ever seen. In fact, it's actually common practice for our FCs to pod anyone who has drones out while we're idling on a gate because, you've guessed it, they cause lag. If you want to blatantly lie in some perverse attempt to support the presence of lag go on right ahead though, it only strengthens the positions of those of us who want it fixed.

bitters
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.09.09 09:26:00 - [265]
 

I agree with this request.

SunglassesInSpace
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.09 09:42:00 - [266]
 

something really does have to be done about drone lag. I bet one thing that would help a lot would be removing collisions for drones and fighters, just like they did for wrecks and cans.

Furthermore, Kerfira clearly doesn't understand how coding works.

Popychacz
Constructive Influence
Posted - 2007.09.09 10:12:00 - [267]
 

Would be so much fun if dev reading this petition used CAODCleaner;-)

/NOT signed.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.09.09 11:04:00 - [268]
 

Originally by: Orangir
...The server keeps tabs on what entity is where continuously and distributes this information to every client.

Ehhh, No....

That is the most stupid way to do it, since it means that you continually have to check the same matters over and over again, even if there are no changes.

When normally happens is that when an action is received from the player, the consequences of that action is checked against the current status, and an interaction timer set for when the next interaction(s) are to happen (for example a gun firing, or a collision happening), and the data about the action stored for use by other actions, and sent to clients to present.

The server will then not need to do continuous checking like:
Does object A hit object B. No. <Wait 100 ms>
Does object A hit object B. No. <Wait 100 ms>
Does object A hit object B. No. <Wait 100 ms>
...which is a surefire way of lagging ANY server architecture to hell...

You're taking the MOST inefficient way of coding an MMO and making it the pure truth, just so it fits your (invalid) argument. Rolling Eyes
Originally by: Orangir
.....If it didn't do so there would be no integrity as to the position of entities and clients could potentially alter their data in malicious ways.

Ehhh, No again...

The client altering data would not matter since the server still make the calculation about whether a weapon hits or not, and how much it hits for. The client can not influence that.
Positions, speed etc. are kept at the server, and the client only transmits actions, like "change heading to this, speed that", or "shoot at this", the server then calculates the effects of that.

Changing data in the client would only screw up what the client represents to its user, thus being a moot point.
Originally by: Orangir
I'd love to hear your experiences, but you apparently haven't been in any major conflicts as your character doesn't return any results on any killboard I've checked. If you'd like to post on your main though, that'd be grand.

Oooh. You're down to "You're using an alt so your arguments are false!".... sorry that you're running out of real arguments (not that it stops you from posting lies though, but of.c. I understand you want to deflect attention from your lag-blobs)...

I HAVE been in 500 people fights, and I HAVE been in at least 4-500 people doing-nothing lag-blobs (yours as a matter of fact) WITH drones out.

The 4-500 people doing nothing even with drones out are playable (maybe 1-5 seconds lag, module or movement), the 500 (or 2-300 too for that matter) fights are not (like 10+ minutes module/movement lag).

Everyone who's been in these situations know thats the fact. Some alliances like to lie about it of.c. to deflect attention away from THEIR use of lag-blobs to make them immune to attacks, but that doesn't change anything.
Originally by: Orangir
In fact, it's actually common practice for our FCs to pod anyone who has drones out while we're idling on a gate because, you've guessed it, they cause lag.

THAT, is an OUTRIGHT lie right there. You have drones out all the time (well, at least you did a month or so ago) whenever you're wielding your lag-blob!

I especially remember one time when you have 350 or so people sitting at a POS coming out of reinforced (and yes, you DID have your drones out), and the system was perfectly playable UNTIL you started shooting with your ships when all went to hell.
That example proved that flight-path calculation is not a big deal, but that player actions and weapon calculations IS.

As I said, desperate attempt to deflect attention from your use of lag-blobs to gain effective immunity from attacks. The game need a counter to THAT (to simply discourage people from doing it), and the lag problem will solve itself.
Reducing a small part of the lag equation won't solve anything (but of.c. you don't REALLY want lag to be solved, do you....).

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.09.09 11:12:00 - [269]
 

Originally by: Orangir
Originally by: Kerfira
If the best solution (removing lag completely) can't be done, why are you arguing against a solution that would work?


Because your solution is a hamfisted one that would break more things than it fixes. By forcing gangs to conform to some arbitrary size limit you're inherently giving the advantage to alliances such as BoB and MC who have pilots with ridiculous levels of SP, but have fewer members.

So your argument is basically that EVE should be about who can gather the biggest lag-blob to lag out the node and opponent????
.... and EVE not being a game of skill, skills (those two are different, btw), tactical and strategic abilities, guts and effort?

Funny, I thought that was the concept of the game....

Welcome to Goon-Lag-Blob online, I suppose....

---

My solution doesn't BREAK anything, it simply removes one thing that already IS broken (the lag-blob).
The server can't handle lag-blobs, we all know it, but some people use them anyway since it is an 'I-Win' button even bigger than titans ever were.

Instead of wishing the server could handle big lag-blobs, the game mechanics should take into account that it can't, and heavily discourage gameplay that uses it.
Lag-problem solved.

That POS warfare needs a serious kick in the butt is a completely other matter.....

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.09.09 11:17:00 - [270]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 09/09/2007 11:30:35
Originally by: SunglassesInSpace
I bet one thing that would help a lot would be removing collisions for drones and fighters, just like they did for wrecks and cans.

IF collision detection is actually an issue, this would be the most logical solution. Should be quite easy to implement too.....
Originally by: SunglassesInSpace
Furthermore, Kerfira clearly doesn't understand how coding works.

14 years as a software engineer, and 4 years creating and running a MUD LaughingLaughingLaughing

Yes, just because I don't buy goons misrepresentations of facts (and their attempt to deflect attention from their use of lag-blobs) CLEARLY means I don't know how coding works.


Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : 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