These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] Review the old Mission Load Balancing (Dominion, Dec 2009)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Quincy Archer
Domi Militiaeque
#1 - 2012-07-10 10:20:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Quincy Archer
Mission Load Balancing was introduced in Dominion (Decenber 2009) as part of CCP's effort to reduce EVE's PvE lag.
Edit: For the uninitiated, what do Mission Load Balancing do?
Before, it was the time when mission agents have Quality rating attached where the higher the Quality, the better the rewards, LP and NPC bounties. High Quality agents were few and far. Naturally, players flocked to them and thus system lag is very normal.
Jita was born this way.
CCP introduced the band-aid solution then to combat the lag, in an attempt to disperse players to complete missions in neighbouring systems instead of everyone in the same system where their agent is.

Since then CCP have made lots of improvements to combat lags, notably:
1. Various codes improvements.
2. The missiles coding changes: http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=1922, http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=2286
3. Removal of mission agents' Quality: http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=2316

Old CSM discussion: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Spreading_Out_Missionrunners_(CSM)

Now, after all the improvements introduced, do we still need the old band-aid Mission Load Balancing (MLB)?
Since the introduction of MLB, there is no dev blogs nor patch notes mentioning changes to or removal of MLB.

My issue with MLB is that almost always of the time I'm sent to neighbouring systems to complete my missions (level 3 and 4).
Another major issue I have with it is hi-sec agents sometimes attempt to send me to neighbouring lo-sec systems, which I'll decline the mission without a second thoughts. 2 strikes of offered lo-sec missions, it's time to log off from EVE.
Edit: These two issues are currently still happening. What I would really like to see is reduced missioning in neighbouring systems, and complete stop to attempts of sending us to lo-sec. I believe whoever are bold to do lo-sec missions would have already settled in lo-sec systems, instead of pestering hi-sec agents.

Here I strongly suggest to CCP to review the 2 years old band-aid Mission Load Balancing.
By the wisdom of CCP, do MLB still have it's place in EVE?
Are the PvE we're experiencing, for better or worse, are still the effort by MLB?
Are the lo-sec misions offered by hi-sec agents give significant better rewards for the risk of losing multi-million PvE ships? If it's possible, please check how many lo-sec missions offered by hi-sec agents declined by players.
Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#2 - 2012-07-12 07:54:14 UTC
Quincy Archer wrote:
My issue with MLB is that almost always of the time I'm sent to neighbouring systems to complete my missions (level 3 and 4).
Another major issue I have with it is hi-sec agents sometimes attempt to send me to neighbouring lo-sec systems, which I'll decline the mission without a second thoughts. 2 strikes of offered lo-sec missions, it's time to log off from EVE.

...

Are the lo-sec misions offered by hi-sec agents give significant better rewards for the risk of losing multi-million PvE ships?

Working just as it was intended to.

WAH, my easy isk generation with limited risk isn't big enough, WAH

Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2012-07-12 08:20:59 UTC
I see no reason to undo an improvement.
Quincy Archer
Domi Militiaeque
#4 - 2012-07-12 09:37:40 UTC
Lykouleon wrote:
Working just as it was intended to.

WAH, my easy isk generation with limited risk isn't big enough, WAH
+1
It is working just as intended by CCP. What I'm asking CCP is to review this old server load balancing technique whether it's still needed now after server load improvements implemented, or at least don't send me to lo-sec.

I don't deny it's the only ISK making past time I have in EVE with limited time that I had.
In fact, I could always move to another system that smack right in the middle of lots of hi-sec systems, thus greatly reduce the chances of getting sent to lo-sec.

Takeshi Yamato wrote:
I see no reason to undo an improvement.
+1
It was an improvement that was needed 2+ years ago.

There were always a chance to get lo-sec missions, MLB increased that chance as a side effect.
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#5 - 2012-07-12 10:34:49 UTC
Working as intended. The goal was not to reduce server load, the goal was to spread out mission runners.
Quincy Archer
Domi Militiaeque
#6 - 2012-07-12 12:24:30 UTC
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
Working as intended. The goal was not to reduce server load, the goal was to spread out mission runners.


http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Tyrannis_Patch_Notes
Quote:
Agents & Missions

•The load balancing mechanism for missions in Dominion incorrectly prioritized high-load systems over low-load systems when selecting the location for mission objectives. Agents now prefer to send players to less loaded systems.


http://eve.mmobird.com/category/131360.html (2010.06.11)
Quote:
Greetings,

When level 5 missions were first introduced back in 2007, it was intended that these missions take place only in low- and null-sec systems. Because of a longstanding bug in our mission distribution system, however, some agents would occasionally offer these missions in high-security systems instead of low-sec or 0.0 only. This issue was corrected in Tyrannis as part of a larger fix to distribution, as listed in the patch notes here: http://www.eveonline.com/updates/patchnotes.asp?patchlogID=205#fixes � �The load balancing mechanism for missions in Dominion incorrectly prioritized high-load systems over low-load systems when selecting the location for mission objectives. Agents now prefer to send players to less loaded systems.�

However, while that particular distribution bug was fixed, agents may still occasionally send you to a 0.5 system for a level 5 mission. This quirk is being looked into; once it has been resolved, level 5 missions always occur in low- or null-sec systems.

Finally, we are aware of the problems players are currently facing with level 1-4 mission distribution as a result of the aforementioned load balancing fix. While all missions are intended to have a chance of occurring in a nearby low-/null-security system, we are aware of the disproportionate rate at which this is now occurring. The matter is being examined. This is a separate issue from that noted above, and it has no bearing on the intended low-/null-sec system restriction of level 5 missions.

CCP Molock and GM Nythanos


http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Spreading_Out_Missionrunners_(CSM)
Quote:
One of the frequently stated intentions is to spread out players in high security space, and prevent large clusters of mission-runners to occupy a system.

Unfortunately, CCP's approach has been to add more agents for overused corps/factions. This gives these corporations an advantage over others, causing more players to flock to systems with agents beloning to these factions.

Recently, CCP has changed the automated load-balancing system, but this only makes more agents useless as agents have a very strong preference to send players to low-sec systems now. This again has an opposite effect, it drives players back to existing mission hubs in deep high-sec.

In my opinion, the correct approach to this problem is to make other corporations more attractive for mission running and balancing the agent distribution between the factions.
Note that this is a year before the removal of agents' Quality and amalgamated agent divisions, which in my humble opinion finally spread out mission runners instead of congregating onto highest Quality agents and agents who offered the most combat missions.
2011.05.16 agents made easy: http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=2316
FireT
Venom Pointe Industries
#7 - 2012-07-13 17:51:11 UTC
Quincy Archer wrote:
What I would really like to see is reduced missioning in neighbouring systems, and complete stop to attempts of sending us to lo-sec. I believe whoever are bold to do lo-sec missions would have already settled in lo-sec systems, instead of pestering hi-sec agents.


Wow, this just proved you are the ultimate Eve couch potato. Congrats, eat more potato chips.

1) You are too lazy to fly into a different system and instead want them in a single system? Congrats, you just gave ninja salvaging such an easy fish in the barrel that even I am tempted to that to you.

2) Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagzilla strikes again. If everyone missions in the same system that sytem might be a weeeeeeeee laggy. Don't you think? Different systems distribute the player base.

3) Yes low sec missions are annoying for high sec mission givers. Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut hey, you could actually not complain and not do missions near low sec. I bet, if you really really really really really oh so really look hard you might find other mission givers from that same NPC corp.

I dooooooooooooo love intentionally misspelling things with long vowels.
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2012-07-16 19:10:05 UTC
CCP stopped lowsec lvl5 agents giving highsec missions. Yet highsec lvl4 agents still give lowsec missions.