These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Looking for a CCP response: Causing lag by Blue-ing (abandoning) wrecks in Incursions

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Miss Kerr
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2012-02-21 22:55:13 UTC
Anya Ohaya wrote:
Thread might get more attention from a GM if the title and OP mentioned deliberately causing lag. CCP isn't going to care about the ownership of wrecks.


Thanks for the tip. Title edited.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#22 - 2012-02-21 23:40:10 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Interesting. I would think that if there was an event that caused that large a spike then TiDi would kick in, allowing plenty of time to do whatever.


Perhaps TiDi relies on monitoring the sol simulation, while abandoning wrecks is a direct database call which means that the TiDi engine has no opportunity to realise that something is wrong. Sometimes database calls can get messy, to the point that the lag happens before things like "iterate through the wrecks to abandon them" won't help. CCP Veritas or CCP PrizmX (is he still around?) could fill us in on the details.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#23 - 2012-02-22 00:27:51 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Bluing during combat is most often done with harm in mind. And has gotten people banned.

Cite your source, this sounds like bull to me.

Also thanks to OP for giving me another weapon I hadn't thought of for my incursion bait alt.
Jita Alt666
#24 - 2012-02-22 01:24:47 UTC
A little client side lag could see a fleet member attempting to remove wreck from overview (because things are getting too cluttered in the site) and hitting abandon all wrecks nearby.

Proving or disproving that is the reason why the wrecks were abandoned will be pretty difficult.

The obvious solution is a reworking of the code behind the abandoning mechanism.
Miss Kerr
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2012-02-22 05:45:33 UTC
Can anyone from CCP answer this.
Tarsus Zateki
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2012-02-22 05:55:15 UTC
Wrecks and cans floating in space cause negligible latency hits. You'd have to leave hundreds of them lying around before there was any impact and it would be entirely client side. If your PC can handle an incursion it can handle rendering some wrecks. Remove wreck brackets and you'll be in even better shape.

This ranks up there with the continued idiocy that spamming chat channels in game causes lag.

You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world.
Grideris
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2012-02-22 06:33:04 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Interesting. I would think that if there was an event that caused that large a spike then TiDi would kick in, allowing plenty of time to do whatever.


Perhaps TiDi relies on monitoring the sol simulation, while abandoning wrecks is a direct database call which means that the TiDi engine has no opportunity to realise that something is wrong. Sometimes database calls can get messy, to the point that the lag happens before things like "iterate through the wrecks to abandon them" won't help. CCP Veritas or CCP PrizmX (is he still around?) could fill us in on the details.


Actually I think it has more to do with the fact that AFAIK TiDi is not active on any Highsec nodes.

And I don't know who CCP PrizmX is, but I'm pretty sure that CCP Prism X is still around.

http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com -** the** blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#28 - 2012-02-22 06:39:23 UTC
Tarsus Zateki wrote:
Remove wreck brackets and you'll be in even better shape.


The lag is not client side. You have a field with a hundred wrecks, a hundred pilots on grid, suddenly the server has to send 10k updates to clients "oh BTW, this wreck has changed ownership".

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#29 - 2012-02-22 14:37:46 UTC
Grideris wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Interesting. I would think that if there was an event that caused that large a spike then TiDi would kick in, allowing plenty of time to do whatever.


Perhaps TiDi relies on monitoring the sol simulation, while abandoning wrecks is a direct database call which means that the TiDi engine has no opportunity to realise that something is wrong. Sometimes database calls can get messy, to the point that the lag happens before things like "iterate through the wrecks to abandon them" won't help. CCP Veritas or CCP PrizmX (is he still around?) could fill us in on the details.


Actually I think it has more to do with the fact that AFAIK TiDi is not active on any Highsec nodes.

And I don't know who CCP PrizmX is, but I'm pretty sure that CCP Prism X is still around.


Respectfullly, I don't think that is correct. TiDi, to the best of my knowledge, is fully operational on all nodes now.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Miss Kerr
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2012-02-22 17:42:52 UTC
Well thats another good question...is TiDi operational on all nodes? Is TiDi operational in high sec?
And most importantly (the original reason this thread was started)...Is causing lag by abandoning wrecks a ban-able offence
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#31 - 2012-02-22 21:05:13 UTC
Miss Kerr wrote:
Well thats another good question...is TiDi operational on all nodes? Is TiDi operational in high sec?
And most importantly (the original reason this thread was started)...Is causing lag by abandoning wrecks a ban-able offence

Doing anything for the purpose of lagging competitors/enemies/etc out is a bannable offence. The issue lies in detecting whether it was meant to lag you out, and the person is a horrible person who should be banned, or it wasn't meant to lag you out, but it did because you have a ****** computer/connection/CCP Tuxford/etc.

A parallel is spamming gates or bubbles with cans. This can have a legit purpose: preventing cloaking. CCP has confirmed that putting out cans in space is a valid gameplay mechanic for prevenging people from cloaking. However, CCP has also indicated that spamming an obnoxious number of cans is lag-play, and can get you banned. There is no actual "number" of cans that they ban for; it varies case by case, as people petition.

I suspect this is the same deal here. If it happens to you, petition the issue and try to get reimbursed and the person abandoning the cans punished. It would be nice if CCP could confirm that this is the proper course of action in this thread, but it might not happen.

Regardless, if you don't petition they won't help you anyway. So do it!

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#32 - 2012-02-22 21:36:02 UTC
Abandoning of wrecks&cans should show up in fleet histories so apropriate punishment can be dealt out by the fleet!
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#33 - 2012-02-22 21:42:53 UTC
Tarsus Zateki wrote:
Wrecks and cans floating in space cause negligible latency hits. You'd have to leave hundreds of them lying around before there was any impact and it would be entirely client side. If your PC can handle an incursion it can handle rendering some wrecks. Remove wreck brackets and you'll be in even better shape.

This ranks up there with the continued idiocy that spamming chat channels in game causes lag.


You are ignorant of the mechanics of abandoning wrecks in large PvE sites its not causing lag on the client side in the TCRC & MoM sites you can get hundreds of these wrecks that can create 10-20 seconds of lag which is enough to kill any logi and almost any non shiney BS ( during a lirsautton alpha this server side lag CAN even kill super tanked shinies )
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#34 - 2012-02-22 21:46:17 UTC
To my knowledge Time Dilation has NEVER taken effect in any HQ site not even the contested MOM(Kundalini Manifest) sites which can field close to 160 player ships hundreds of wrecks and 20-50 NPCs
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#35 - 2012-02-22 21:49:16 UTC
You could always abandon them as you go so you dont end up with a massive pandoras box.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2012-02-22 21:49:17 UTC
Tarsus Zateki wrote:
Wrecks and cans floating in space cause negligible latency hits. You'd have to leave hundreds of them lying around before there was any impact and it would be entirely client side. If your PC can handle an incursion it can handle rendering some wrecks. Remove wreck brackets and you'll be in even better shape.

This ranks up there with the continued idiocy that spamming chat channels in game causes lag.




think of death by a thousand papercuts.

that's what this issue seems like. For every little thing that occours in the grid, the server has to send that update to all the clients in that grid.

that means, like somebody said before, if you abandon a single wreck in a grid with 100 people, that update must be sent to those 100 people.

do this to 100 wrecks, and you need to do 100x100 updates, and since this is something that is totally related to DB updates, (and we all know that DB is one of the places in EVE that is quite... frail, lag-wise), you get hit by massive DB lag.


if I understood what the OP said, this is an evolution from the old "drop a gazzilion of BM's in a can" exploit.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
Miss Kerr
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2012-02-22 21:57:32 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Abandoning of wrecks&cans should show up in fleet histories so apropriate punishment can be dealt out by the fleet!


It does not show up in the fleet history, therefore making find the culprit impossible.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#38 - 2012-02-22 22:31:25 UTC
Wrecks do not have to be blue to be salvaged. Looted without aggression, yes.

I have seen things lag out from abandoning a field of wrecks, not just in incursion sites either.

But when I do it, it's to be be nice. Cool


Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Miss Kerr
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2012-02-23 00:10:48 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Wrecks do not have to be blue to be salvaged.


Correct...

Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Looted without aggression, yes.


No...looting will give you aggression.

I think I will try and pose this question in a petition. See if CCP responds that way...i'll keep everyone posted if I get a reply
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#40 - 2012-02-23 00:43:35 UTC
Although you do not need to blue wrecks to salvage them with a alt, you do need to blue then so the alt can tractor them.

Still, doing it during the fight, rather than after the fight looks to be non-kosher.

I do like the idea of fleets protecting themselves from this effect by abandoning the wrecks as they go.

In the long term if CCP could make the wrecks go blue at the rate of one per tick that would remove the lag issue. It would take two minutes for 120 wrecks to go blue, but so what? You cannot get to them that fast.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction