These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#261 - 2013-12-18 09:05:00 UTC
Tippia wrote:

BiB should help with the spikes that happen as people jump in, warp to grids, and explode, but something else will be needed for the kind of on-going effects of a prolonged fight. Granted, some of that might just be deferred “brain set-up” processing that continuously slow down the node, but that really comes down to what the source for the strain is.

You are missing an event there.

Refitting a ship.

Every time one of those carriers in the blob takes off a module, the brain needs to recalculate. When the new module is placed, it has to do so again. I've been wondering if some first steps towards that have been taken and that is affecting the stability in these fights.
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#262 - 2013-12-18 09:53:48 UTC
Seems to me that the best way to avoid node-crashing is for CCP to rework sov-mechanics, so that instead of two huge blobs laying into each other, we could have a system where several different objectives need to be secured within a single constellation at the same time. This would hopefully serve to split the enormous blobs and the resulting server load and horrible TIDI.

Too bad a sov-rework is never likely to happen though.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Pipa Porto
#263 - 2013-12-18 10:01:10 UTC
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
we could have a system where several different objectives need to be secured within a single constellation at the same time.


The problem with this is as follows:

The attackers need to successfully attack two things. The defenders only need to successfully defend one thing.
The defenders pile into one system, the attackers send one guy to take care of the other thing and pile right in after the defenders.

Congratulations, you've successfully reduced the load by one pilot.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#264 - 2013-12-18 11:40:40 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
we could have a system where several different objectives need to be secured within a single constellation at the same time.


The problem with this is as follows:

The attackers need to successfully attack two things. The defenders only need to successfully defend one thing.
The defenders pile into one system, the attackers send one guy to take care of the other thing and pile right in after the defenders.

Congratulations, you've successfully reduced the load by one pilot.


Op success Big smile

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#265 - 2013-12-18 14:49:07 UTC
For every server tick, the node has to account for almost just as many conditions for EACH drone as it does EACH ship.

It has to account for pilot skills, module effects, fleet bonuses, motion, action taken, action received (damage). Now pilots themselves usually have a few more modules running that don't affect drones, but for the most part its likely a nearly even cpu load between the pilot and each drone.

So if each pilot is taking up the cpu load of a minimum 5 pilots (and this doesn't count any abandoned drones), how is this good for the node?

People keep trying to downplay the affects of drones on the node, I think it should be the opposite.
Rab See
Stellar Dynamics
#266 - 2013-12-19 11:54:03 UTC
So looking at the issues, notably number of tracked objects, and how this 'explodes' on drone release by players - carriers and supers even worse ...

One possibility - remove the drone numbers from carriers - make it drone damage/hitpoints etc to work up to the same damage application. Doesnt help much unless supers and carriers are prevalent, but might just squeeze more from the current system.

Secondly - like grouped guns, have grouped drones. You drone cluster turns into one larger drone 'cloud' .... and hits, tanks, moves accordingly. One object rather than 5 ...

Or rewrite everything such that a ship and its drones become a single damage applying entity - meh - not like.
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#267 - 2013-12-19 20:54:16 UTC
A personal attack post has been removed.

Forum rule 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

ISD Tyrozan

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

@ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#268 - 2013-12-19 20:58:57 UTC
A spam post has been removed.

Forum rule 12. Spamming is prohibited.

ISD Tyrozan

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

@ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#269 - 2013-12-19 21:55:01 UTC
A post consisting of moderation discussion has been removed.

Forum rule 11. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.

ISD Tyrozan

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

@ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#270 - 2013-12-19 21:58:12 UTC
Just close this stupid thread already.

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#271 - 2013-12-19 22:11:25 UTC
Rab See wrote:
One possibility - remove the drone numbers from carriers - make it drone damage/hitpoints etc to work up to the same damage application. Doesnt help much unless supers and carriers are prevalent, but might just squeeze more from the current system.

Yeah, no one uses massive blobs of supercarriers and carriers nowadays that's impossible...

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#272 - 2013-12-19 22:11:41 UTC
A trolling post was removed.

Forum rule 5. Trolling is prohibited.

ISD Tyrozan

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

@ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#273 - 2013-12-19 22:16:10 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Rab See wrote:
So looking at the issues, notably number of tracked objects, and how this 'explodes' on drone release by players - carriers and supers even worse ...

One possibility - remove the drone numbers from carriers - make it drone damage/hitpoints etc to work up to the same damage application. Doesnt help much unless supers and carriers are prevalent, but might just squeeze more from the current system.

Secondly - like grouped guns, have grouped drones. You drone cluster turns into one larger drone 'cloud' .... and hits, tanks, moves accordingly. One object rather than 5 ...

Or rewrite everything such that a ship and its drones become a single damage applying entity - meh - not like.

Gun groups only share simultaneous ammo switching and activation/deactivation. The chance to hit and damage is still calculated for each gun individually and then summed for the total volley.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#274 - 2013-12-19 22:37:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Frostys Virpio
Pipa Porto wrote:
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
we could have a system where several different objectives need to be secured within a single constellation at the same time.


The problem with this is as follows:

The attackers need to successfully attack two things. The defenders only need to successfully defend one thing.
The defenders pile into one system, the attackers send one guy to take care of the other thing and pile right in after the defenders.

Congratulations, you've successfully reduced the load by one pilot.


The capability of the defensive side to commit in chain to many different point is what bring this massive blob requirement because if the attack can't win system A, they won't win system B either. There need to be a way to lock committed force from also intervening in system B just like an armored division would not be able to plug 2 breaches in a defensive line. They have to commit to one and other force will need to be used to plug the other one. Defending a site with 200 carrier should mean those 200 carrier are there for quite some time and the same for the offensive side. Then each side has to decide what goes where and you can't just out-blob the other side in a site and then go system to system putting your weight in every battle.

The defensive would have to think how many eggs to put in the first basket to be sure it might be able to reply if other baskets happens.

EDIT : The attacking side should be tied to the same force commitement rules too.
Brendan Anneto
Gladiators of Rage
Fraternity.
#275 - 2013-12-19 23:49:10 UTC
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
CCP has stated time and time again that the game in its current state cannot handle large number of players in system.
This has been known for years. We know there is never going to be a fix for the fact that the hardware/software can't handle the amount of stress that we the players can put on it. So instead of letting the players have control over whether or not to crash your node why not make a simple change to the game that keeps the node from crashing?
Limit the number of pilots to one system to 1000 players. Yes limit the number of players! It will create content. It will keep the server from crashing. No more tidi. You will see a different type of Null sec.
This idea is not new. Jita for example only what max of 2000 players on its super Node before traffic control kicks in. CCP regain control of your game and just simply limit the number of players to any one system to X to keep it up and running.
Thank you have a nice day!

Well how about you just ban nullsec fights like 6vdt-h. Ban setting records and remove all large player PVP in Nullsec. Mabye that would make a difference

I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your terror comes, When your terror comes like a storm, And your destruction comes like a whirlwind, When distress and anguish come upon you.   Proverbs 1:26-27
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#276 - 2013-12-20 00:04:32 UTC
Brendan Anneto wrote:
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:
CCP has stated time and time again that the game in its current state cannot handle large number of players in system.
This has been known for years. We know there is never going to be a fix for the fact that the hardware/software can't handle the amount of stress that we the players can put on it. So instead of letting the players have control over whether or not to crash your node why not make a simple change to the game that keeps the node from crashing?
Limit the number of pilots to one system to 1000 players. Yes limit the number of players! It will create content. It will keep the server from crashing. No more tidi. You will see a different type of Null sec.
This idea is not new. Jita for example only what max of 2000 players on its super Node before traffic control kicks in. CCP regain control of your game and just simply limit the number of players to any one system to X to keep it up and running.
Thank you have a nice day!

Well how about you just ban nullsec fights like 6vdt-h. Ban setting records and remove all large player PVP in Nullsec. Mabye that would make a difference

Break all coalitions, using out of game communications also an exploit

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Pipa Porto
#277 - 2013-12-20 03:07:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Frostys Virpio wrote:
The capability of the defensive side to commit in chain to many different point is what bring this massive blob requirement because if the attack can't win system A, they won't win system B either. There need to be a way to lock committed force from also intervening in system B just like an armored division would not be able to plug 2 breaches in a defensive line. They have to commit to one and other force will need to be used to plug the other one. Defending a site with 200 carrier should mean those 200 carrier are there for quite some time and the same for the offensive side. Then each side has to decide what goes where and you can't just out-blob the other side in a site and then go system to system putting your weight in every battle.

The defensive would have to think how many eggs to put in the first basket to be sure it might be able to reply if other baskets happens.

EDIT : The attacking side should be tied to the same force commitement rules too.



Ok, so how do you tie down a defensive force that ends up not being faced with an attacking force? Also, how do you make it fun for the people being so tied?


RL ties forces down by various physical limitations, and makes it fun for them by the simple expedient of not being shot at being inherently more fun than being shot at.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#278 - 2013-12-20 04:13:40 UTC
Add very painful jumping animations that are also TiDied

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#279 - 2013-12-20 04:16:39 UTC
Vald Tegor wrote:
You are missing an event there.

Refitting a ship.

Every time one of those carriers in the blob takes off a module, the brain needs to recalculate. When the new module is placed, it has to do so again. I've been wondering if some first steps towards that have been taken and that is affecting the stability in these fights.

Ah, fair point. Question is if it happens often enough for it to have such a huge impact. The again, it's a tactic that has gained some popularity and more widespread use over time, especially now that depots have opened people's eyes for its uses even on a small/individual scale. At any rate, it's still limited to reducing load for one particular kind of event -- granted, one that has a huge impact -- and which is a point event rather than a continuous thing. I'm not saying it won't help, just that it will only help in specific instances.

...it will certainly improve Jita, though, since that's practically all brain-calculation load.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#280 - 2013-12-20 05:05:37 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
The capability of the defensive side to commit in chain to many different point is what bring this massive blob requirement because if the attack can't win system A, they won't win system B either. There need to be a way to lock committed force from also intervening in system B just like an armored division would not be able to plug 2 breaches in a defensive line. They have to commit to one and other force will need to be used to plug the other one. Defending a site with 200 carrier should mean those 200 carrier are there for quite some time and the same for the offensive side. Then each side has to decide what goes where and you can't just out-blob the other side in a site and then go system to system putting your weight in every battle.

The defensive would have to think how many eggs to put in the first basket to be sure it might be able to reply if other baskets happens.

EDIT : The attacking side should be tied to the same force commitement rules too.



Ok, so how do you tie down a defensive force that ends up not being faced with an attacking force? Also, how do you make it fun for the people being so tied?


RL ties forces down by various physical limitations, and makes it fun for them by the simple expedient of not being shot at being inherently more fun than being shot at.


It's not gonna be fun to be trapped but as long as committing your forces is meaningless on a strategical point, all the fight will end up being a gigantic TiDi hell because the best strat will always be to mass all you can on the focal point of the fight.

This kind of change is of course only to be persued if people want to change the way it currently work. If people are more happy with 10% tidi fights, then there is no point to change the system.