These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A Permanent fix to a long standing problem: Node crashing

First post
Author
Serenity2010
Premature Evacuation
Odin's Call
#101 - 2013-12-16 20:15:45 UTC
People should be banned for ideas like this ...
Pipa Porto
#102 - 2013-12-16 20:20:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Ivain Freir wrote:
Onictus wrote:

http://www.jeffknupp.com/blog/2012/03/31/pythons-hardest-problem/

Its not hardware CCP has some of the best enterprise level server hardware on the market. But remember the code it 10 years old, so there are some things that are best not screwed with.


Thanks for the link. Python falled a big step in my opinion :(

The saddest thing is that I have some workaround in minds, but they have probably be tried

(And who is the one who choosed python to build a server vs C++, and windows vs linux ?)


It's not just a matter of "oh the code is old." It's not a trivial problem to successfully run fast simulations on the scale EVE does.

Trying to put operations whose results have to be assembled in exactly the right order every time in real time onto different threads causes problems. Namely that they either get assembled in the wrong order sometimes, or the main process has to wait for one of the other threads (for one of any number of reasons).

Large scale simulation aint easy. That's why most sane people do large scale simulations slowly, and just take a nap until the results are ready.
CCP, being known for their achievable goal setting, decided that it was more interesting to make sure everything happens fast enough that we think we're playing a spaceship video game rather than the 1 second per round play-by-post submarine simulation we're actually playing. Of course, the pretty GUI skin doesn't hurt that illusion.


Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
If by keeping 1000k players in one system


Incidentally, I think the OP's proposal of a million character cap on each system is perfectly reasonable. At least for now.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Pew Terror
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#103 - 2013-12-16 20:23:05 UTC
0/10
"Idea" obviously debunked in the 2nd post, OP keeps drooling on.
OP needs to accept thinking isnt his thing and find someone to tell him when to press F1.
Victoria Sin
Doomheim
#104 - 2013-12-16 20:24:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Victoria Sin
Pipa Porto wrote:

Trying to put operations whose results have to be assembled in exactly the right order every time in real time onto different threads causes problems. Namely that they either get assembled in the wrong order sometimes, or the main process has to wait for one of the other threads (for one of any number of reasons).


I don't think it's that hard if you partition your sets correctly. The issue is you have to build your architecture around doing it. But more importantly, you shouldn't be doing each operation with a python script.

More to the point, if you can do a particle simulation like this with half a million points, in real-time, I don't see why you can't design an architecture to execute a game update for that many players in real-time. It's a 3 step process: (1) You queue operations bounded by a given time, you feed those operations in a useful form either to compute data structures, (2) You execute compute shaders to process the data, (3) You take your results and break them out into a suitable form for serialisation (database) and transmission (network).
Leigh Akiga
Kuhri Innovations
#105 - 2013-12-16 20:27:04 UTC
Red Teufel wrote:
ccp didn't think that an alliance would field that many caps with drones in a single system.


Well when people cluster a bunch of battleships in a nice tidy little ball- someone comes along with a wing of bombers and its Hiroshima up in there. Thats why we need capital-class bombers.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#106 - 2013-12-16 20:33:39 UTC
Victoria Sin wrote:
I don't think it's that hard if you partition your sets correctly. The issue is you have to build your architecture around doing it. But more importantly, you shouldn't be doing each operation with a python script.
The problem is that we're dealing with a several-thousand-will non-deterministic system that requires a lot of dynamism in how those sets are set up, and it's not hard to imagine a situation where the set-up takes more time than it saves to distribute the final workload among the sets.
Pipa Porto
#107 - 2013-12-16 20:40:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Victoria Sin wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:

Trying to put operations whose results have to be assembled in exactly the right order every time in real time onto different threads causes problems. Namely that they either get assembled in the wrong order sometimes, or the main process has to wait for one of the other threads (for one of any number of reasons).


I don't think it's that hard if you partition your sets correctly. The issue is you have to build your architecture around doing it. But more importantly, you shouldn't be doing each operation with a python script.

More to the point, if you can do a particle simulation like this with half a million points, in real-time, I don't see why you can't design an architecture to execute a game update for that many players in real-time. It's a 3 step process: (1) You queue operations bounded by a given time, you feed those operations in a useful form either to compute data structures, (2) You execute compute shaders to process the data, (3) You take your results and break them out into a suitable form for serialisation (database) and transmission (network).


In particle simulations, each particle is generally identical. And not interacting with every other particle in the simulation (what's your range to every other particle on the field or in D-scan range?). And not changing its behavior every update (Active modules, navigation inputs, etc). And not spawning more particles at random times (Missiles, Drones, Wrecks, Oh My!). And not changing its state every update (Shield, Armor, Capacitor, etc). And not worried about packaging up all that information and propagating the information appropriately (who can see what and when?).

I'm judging difficulty by looking at the number of other companies doing real time multi-user simulations on the scale of EVE's fights. That I know of, that's a big old doughnut (though a new contender would make me happy).

Without being hip deep in a project, I've always liked the "Who's doing it better" test as a sanity check on "Oh, that doesn't sound hard."

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Victoria Sin
Doomheim
#108 - 2013-12-16 20:43:38 UTC
Tippia wrote:
The problem is that we're dealing with a several-thousand-will non-deterministic system that requires a lot of dynamism in how those sets are set up, and it's not hard to imagine a situation where the set-up takes more time than it saves to distribute the final workload among the sets.


It's no different to actual physical simulation. You split it into broad phase and narrow phase. How you do that depends on your rule set. The spatial subdivision (for collision checks) is obvious of course, but there are other classifications you could hash. Regardless, it's not an intractable problem or even all that hard to do, it's just that you have to have built your architecture around doing it and I don't think CCP have.


Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#109 - 2013-12-16 20:46:46 UTC
Who benefits from the node crashing/laggy largest scale fights ? If you answer that question you will start to see that the only people that really want to keep the current state of Null/Sov laggy/node crashing/ meta gaming up and going.

Its only by thinking about the other 90% of EVE that you will start to understand that the Zerg/ mega alliance / Sov holding / epic 5000k vs 5000k fleet / Titian on Titan battles don't or will never work.

Open up Null for more players non Zerg / PvP minded players.

Limiting the number of players to a node/system will bring about more fights.

If you want your system fine stay logged in with your alts and camp it 24/7 np while the rest of us go take xyz

You will see more people leaving HS/Low going after SOV.

There will be fights with out lag/ crash

Jita Already has a player Cap


Again Who benefits from the large Alliance/corps ?

Renter income is too powerful for this idea to work I think but I still stand by my idea To fix the game with one simple solution. Put a limit on the number of players in one system.
The only ones that will be affected by this will be the ones that cause the Lag/crashes

Pipa Porto
#110 - 2013-12-16 20:50:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
Who benefits from the node crashing/laggy largest scale fights ? If you answer that question you will start to see that the only people that really want to keep the current state of Null/Sov laggy/node crashing/ meta gaming up and going.

Its only by thinking about the other 90% of EVE that you will start to understand that the Zerg/ mega alliance / Sov holding / epic 5000k vs 5000k fleet / Titian on Titan battles don't or will never work.

Open up Null for more players non Zerg / PvP minded players.

Limiting the number of players to a node/system will bring about more fights.

If you want your system fine stay logged in with your alts and camp it 24/7 np while the rest of us go take xyz

You will see more people leaving HS/Low going after SOV.

There will be fights with out lag/ crash

Jita Already has a player Cap


Again Who benefits from the large Alliance/corps ?

Renter income is too powerful for this idea to work I think but I still stand by my idea To fix the game with one simple solution. Put a limit on the number of players in one system.
The only ones that will be affected by this will be the ones that cause the Lag/crashes



Copying the Pasta doesn't make it less spammy. Why don't you try actually addressing the fact that your proposal would guarantee a risk-free defensive victory every time?


Even if I can only muster an 800 man defensive fleet, your 1000 player cap proposal has guaranteed me a 4 to 1 advantage over the attackers. Just. For. Showing. Up.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#111 - 2013-12-16 20:52:43 UTC
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
Who benefits from the node crashing/laggy largest scale fights ?
No-one. That explains why the rest of you assertions aren't getting any traction and why everyone is laughing uproariously at your idea to make the whole thing even worse by adding in mechanically enforced imbalance on top.

Quote:
Its only by thinking about the other 90% of EVE that you will start to understand that the Zerg/ mega alliance / Sov holding / epic 5000k vs 5000k fleet / Titian on Titan battles don't or will never work.
As luck would have it, those fights never actually happen… in fact, I'm not even sure the Sol proxies can handle that many people logged in at once.

Quote:
Open up Null for more players non Zerg / PvP minded players.
How do you propose to do that? And no, giving established large coalitions an unassailable position simply due to their size won't do it — in fact, it will do the exact opposite.

Quote:
Jita Already has a player Cap
Jita is not a fleet fight.

So, again:
• In what way is nullsec broken?
• How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null?
• How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players?
• Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null?
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#112 - 2013-12-16 21:05:29 UTC
Null Sec in its current state only benefits the select few at the top. Renter income is the only real reason why to fight to keep null / Sov going. There is no other group in the game that will tell you that fighting in Tidi/ node crashing fleet fights is ok. Its not..


CCP will not ever rewrite any sort of Code to fix tidi / node crashing. It can't be done sorry

By limiting the number of pilots to a system will make it so if you want that system camp it 24/7.

There are only a few people in the game that have any sort of benefit to any fight over 500 vs 500 anyway. Why do it ? because you have the toys too.

The longer CCP allows this type of game play to go on the worse it will get. People are not ganing less SP.

You see many many non zergy, node crashing/ laggy groups with EVE either renting in Null or wondering about how they too could gain SOV.


The days of Mega / Zerg fleet fights are dead the game can not handle it.


Again who is it that benefits from the mega Zerg / client crashing fights ?

What would be more fun 1000 different people with SOV or just 3 groups that casue the game to break in so many ways
Qweasdy
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#113 - 2013-12-16 21:09:14 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
300 carriers letting out drones puts about the same cpu load on the node as 1500 people in local, that is assuming the carriers field only 5 drones each with none being abandoned.

assuming the enemy fleet brings in a similar drone fleet (domis or whatever), 600 people now output the same cpu load as 3000.

If you have 1800 pilots in local fielding at least 5 drones each, guess how much load is put on the node? OVER 9000!!!!


[Citation needed]

Really gets on my nerves when people say stuff like that so I'm taking some hints from wikipedia here.

This is a terrible thread. As such, it's locked. - CCP Falcon

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#114 - 2013-12-16 21:17:31 UTC
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
Null Sec in its current state only benefits the select few at the top.
How so? And how does limiting the presence in null to only those who can lock up a system in any way help resolve this supposed problem?

Quote:
CCP will not ever rewrite any sort of Code to fix tidi / node crashing. It can't be done sorry
What do you base this on?

Quote:
By limiting the number of pilots to a system will make it so if you want that system camp it 24/7.
And what on earth makes you think that this is a good idea? It only means that it will be impossible to attack the incumbents in null, which doesn't seem to solve any of the problems you're seeing — only inflate them and make them systemic.

Quote:
The days of Mega / Zerg fleet fights are dead the game can not handle it.
How do you explain the fact that they happen on a regular basis, then?

So, again:
• In what way is nullsec broken?
• How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null?
• How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players?
• Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null?
• What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)?
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#115 - 2013-12-16 21:19:01 UTC
I say Shake it up to the Core!

If you can't fix the Null/ game crashing fleet fights then whats next ?


Ok whats to stop the next fight from crashing again? ( leave it up to the renter empires to meta game for us ) Staged fights ?

Is that what were reduced to now having the same select few tell us when and where to fight ? Oh nvm thats null :)

All of the large fleet fights in Null/ Low Sec have been staged from the start ?
when there not staged is when you see the node crashing.

Open up Null to everyone keep it real . The zerg does not work for large fights.
Sure it keeps your rental empire going but its not good for the game.

Do you see the game getting less laggy / node crashing as time goes on ?
Qweasdy
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#116 - 2013-12-16 21:27:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Qweasdy
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
Null Sec in its current state only benefits the select few at the top. Renter income is the only real reason why to fight to keep null / Sov going. There is no other group in the game that will tell you that fighting in Tidi/ node crashing fleet fights is ok. Its not..


CCP will not ever rewrite any sort of Code to fix tidi / node crashing. It can't be done sorry

By limiting the number of pilots to a system will make it so if you want that system camp it 24/7.

There are only a few people in the game that have any sort of benefit to any fight over 500 vs 500 anyway. Why do it ? because you have the toys too.

The longer CCP allows this type of game play to go on the worse it will get. People are not ganing less SP.

You see many many non zergy, node crashing/ laggy groups with EVE either renting in Null or wondering about how they too could gain SOV.


The days of Mega / Zerg fleet fights are dead the game can not handle it.


Again who is it that benefits from the mega Zerg / client crashing fights ?

What would be more fun 1000 different people with SOV or just 3 groups that casue the game to break in so many ways


Let me Break this down nice and simple for you, if it helps you can read it slowly and out loud...

Currently:
PL Titan gets tackled, pings start going out, fleets start forming. CFC is first on the scene jumping in with 250 megathrons, a bomber fleet and an overflow fleet, random lollygaggers/km whores galore, local is at 600.

PL brings their support fleet in, local is now fast approaching 900, N3 is on their way still 2 titan bridges out with a 200 man slowcat fleet + support fleet to save the titan.

CFC sees them coming and orders supers to log on, N3/PL respond in kind.

Slows arrive in system, CFC supers drop on them, N3/PL counterdrop. Gudfites are had, supers get blobbed, some supers die and then the node follows soon after.

Fight is over, people gradually log back on and get out of system/die to gatecamps etc etc. Fight was resolved as fairly as possible on a node that couldn't handle the fight.


With a 1000 player cap:
PL Titan gets tackled, pings start going out, fleets start forming. CFC is first on the scene jumping in with 250 megathrons, a bomber fleet and an overflow fleet, random lollygaggers/km whores galore, local is at 600.

PL brings their support fleet in, local is now fast approaching 900, N3 is on their way still 2 titan bridges out with a 200 man slowcat fleet + support fleet to save the titan.

CFC sees them coming and orders supers to log on, N3/PL see what's about to happen and scramble to do the same.

CFC drops 100 supers on field to lock the system, local is now at 1000.

Titan is screwed.

N3/PL go home rather than welp 250 at a time to the 700 CFC in system.

This is a terrible thread. As such, it's locked. - CCP Falcon

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#117 - 2013-12-16 21:29:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
I say Shake it up to the Core!
How do you propose to do that in a good way (and no, giving established parties an unassailable hold on all of null is not a good way)?

Quote:
All of the large fleet fights in Null/ Low Sec have been staged from the start ?
None of them are staged, really, unless you're talking about the CCP-led community events (which have far bigger problems than node crashes, and which would be made impossible by your idea of locking everyone out).

Quote:
Open up Null to everyone keep it real . The zerg does not work for large fights.
It seems to be working remarkably well for the most part. Beyond that, how do you propose to open up null to everyone? (Again, no, giving established parties an unassailable hold on all of null does not open up anything).

So, again:
• In what way is nullsec broken?
• How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null?
• How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight?
• How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players?
• Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null?
• What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)?
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#118 - 2013-12-16 21:38:52 UTC

Truthfully, I think TiDi generally goes the wrong direction.

When time slows down in game, it gives pilots tons of RL time to organize more people and move them to the fight. This creates 1000v1000 battles, which is good publicity, but will always be abused and pushed to the point that the system breaks (node crashes, slow-ass game play, etc).

Instead, if it is possible, speed up time instead of slow it down. As time speeds up, the time to escalate a fight diminishes. This rewards players pre-positioned to escallate. This also is self-correcting, as faster time means more people die which means less pilots on the field which results in less demand on the server.

Unfortunately, this would be extremely non-trivial to optimize. Speeding up the server adds load on the server now with the intention that the server's load will lesson as things come to a conclusion faster. There also might be some exploits this creates (suddenly you can increase your fleets dps by bringing so many people). I don't know if this is at all possible, but it is a conter-intuitive approach that might result in better overall gameplay.

Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#119 - 2013-12-16 21:58:11 UTC
On any given day there are more ships blown up in Low sec / High sec. Day in and day out.

Who is it really that benefits from having SOV ? The pvp'ers in there Capital ships ? Not really more hot drops happen in low sec.

The major rental alliances making tons of isk ? off the back of the avg. joe looking for fun fights ? <----


Why join an alliance or corp that can... Crash the game during a pvp event ? To say you can't crash a node is pretty silly tbh. It can happen pretty easy.

Null is broken / Smaller pvp fights in Eve are the most fun anyone will ever have unless you limit the number of players to a system so they might be able to enjoy there Capital ships w/o having to crash the game.

When do you think that you will see Titans used again in a large scale battle ? w/o the node crashing.
When will you see 200+ Carriers vs 200+ Dreads w/o the node crashing ?

Eve hands down does the best at open world pvp. No other game can come near it.
Love it but it can be better CCP just needs to man up. Break up the Zerg / limit the number of players per node.

If Null was really about pvp then you would not see so many more high sec/ low sec kills per day than all of Null.



Qweasdy
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#120 - 2013-12-16 22:00:27 UTC
Confirming troll and/or just dumb, he's not even listening and just repeating the same garbage.

This is a terrible thread. As such, it's locked. - CCP Falcon