| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (66)

Posted: Oct 30th 2010 6:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
i don´t know any other game, ever that had this much players in the same space and i play this kind of games for over a decade now.

That´s really freaking impressive, any other game servers would simply crashed long before.

Makes me want to resub asap...
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2010 10:30PM paterah said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why yes impressive.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2010 6:24PM axler said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
also, go check if really true, and then rename this to the largest fight in an online game :)

Posted: Oct 30th 2010 6:35PM Psychotic Storm said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Are you looking sideshow of today's battle?

No this is today's battle.

Sorry 10 min LAG between clicks is not acceptable no mater the players, the system clearly shows it cannot support it, regardless it didn't crash.

Posted: Oct 30th 2010 6:49PM axler said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Yes but seeing how 1000 players would previously crash the node, this is a huge improvement. the 3k players had unacceptable 10 min lag, I completely agree, but lag started getting worse once the number started climbing over 2k. twice as many players could fight, where as before half of that would crash the node.

fighting the lag is an ongoing process, since even if you did make it support 3k, sooner or later people would bring 4k :)
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2010 6:45PM ultimateq said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Cool stuff. I watched the livestream some. I have to go take care of chores.

Posted: Oct 30th 2010 7:22PM Irem said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I love EVE just for stuff like this.

Posted: Oct 30th 2010 8:03PM Pingles said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wonder how many Dark Age of Camelot had when they would crash the frontier zones in Relic Raids.

I just remember seeing people as far as the eye could see.

Posted: Oct 30th 2010 8:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
CCP can't just turn off the fight because there are too many players. No hardware in the world can handle a fight like this without lag, so things get slow.

Posted: Oct 30th 2010 9:11PM rhorle said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
The technology today can easily handle commands from 3000 people. The one thing I hate in defense of eve is saying oh its the tech what do you expect.

the fact that the whole point of EveO is combat like this, sovereignty, and it is met with 10 min lag per command is a fatal flaw of the game. It oversteps itself and people just accept it. When they shouldn't.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2010 10:37PM axler said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"The technology today can easily handle commands from 3000 people. The one thing I hate in defense of eve is saying oh its the tech what do you expect. "

how do you know that? I am very interested in large scale simulations. problem is there is a lot to simulate here. one player shoots another, this has to be delivered to all the other 3k clients. and nothing else can be done until this is finished. it is a linear process, which means it cannot be done on multiple cores.

now try to imagine when 3k people are shooting each-other. from the dev blogs I know ccp has some very fancy hardware so that leads me to think the problems are in the code. which seems to be correct since they just made a push to "fix lag", did a lot of bug testing, and as a result, twice as many players can kill eachother. I still think more can be done, and since they have a dedicated lag team more will be done, but eventually lag will never be fixed. you could let 5k people fight it out, and players would just bring 6k people and lag the server again. you could introduce mechanics which limit the number of players being able to fight, but that is against the very nature of eve.

"the fact that the whole point of EveO is combat like this, sovereignty,"
done two years in 0.0 with blobs, spies and drama and I am not going back. you will find a lot of people don't like 0.0 warfare and engage in other forms of pvp. Saying that its the main point of eve could not be more wrong.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2010 10:37PM Dblade said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Most games simply can't handle large amounts of people. In Aion you had to turn off all player models to handle fort battles, and 10 minute lag + you might as well make it a turn-based game for all the strategy you could have, let alone all the players whose pc would melt under that many models onscreen.

They probably are going to need to start capping limits on systems because I can't imagine that to be any kind of fun play. You might as well just make one list of names fight another list of names.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2010 10:56PM Pingles said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
This isn't just handling 3000 clients.

It's tracking weapons, position, acceleration, for each and then cross-checking each to see who they are interacting with.

The calculations grow exponentially.

I think many folks here are comparing apples and oranges.
Reply

Posted: Oct 31st 2010 5:21AM jh3141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Axler: "one player shoots another, this has to be delivered to all the other 3k clients. and nothing else can be done until this is finished. "

Why?

Seriously, and I'm asking this as a developer who's spent a not inconsiderable amount of time pondering how he would write an MMO: why do events like this need to be processed in a linear order? Why can two events that don't have intersecting effects (e.g. player A shoots player B and player C shoots player D) not be processed concurrently? And if they can, why would handling 3,000 players be an issue for modern hardware (I'm sure CCP has a 32- or 64- core monster they can throw at a situation like this)?
Reply

Posted: Oct 31st 2010 7:53AM axler said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@jimmo

lets say we have 3k people. by stretching it a little, in the example you mentioned it could be done, because players A, B and C,D are not interacting. But you cant guarantee that they will not start interacting. If they start, it becomes linear again.

and a lot of not interacting events are run on different processors in eve. while the fight is laging, you can go to planetary interaction, and work there with no lag, since that is on a different server. you can check the market, since that too is on a different server. two players in the next solar system are also fighting with no leg, since that system is on a different node.

while this fight was going on, the lag was only present in that solar system. in other regions across eve, players were fighting like they normally do, with no lag, since different systems run on different cores (those with little traffic share a core).

so in a way, while in the 3k player fight player A was shooting player B, player C was shooting player D on a different processors, but only because he was in a different solar system, and unable to interact with B and C.

the moment those players have the chance to interact with one another, the process becomes linear, because one action is dependant on the previous, and all players must be aware of all other players conditions, for healing pourpuses, or so that dead players cant keep shooting :)

that said, even in the same fight, perhaps certain things could be handled by different cores, but mostly the problem remains linear. if one player shoots another, before anyone else can shoot him, or he can shoot, the server must figure out how much damage he got and if he died. if it was done on different cores that player could keep on shooting, whilst being dead.

another interesting concept is that we never ever trust players PCs with anything. everything is done server side, because people might cheat. but if you could manage security enough, to trust players with the calculations, and only send back the results, you could speed things up a lot. because people have fast processors at home and could easily do their calculations very fast.
the question would then become weather it would steel be faster, because you would need to encode data at client side, and decode it at server side, and that might take even longer then what is being done now.
not to mention someone could crack your code and simply send the server anything he wanted, which would now, blindly believe him.
seeing how it has not yet been done, it makes me think it is a bad idea :)
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2010 9:49PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Indeed, servers like http daemons and proxies can handle much more strenuous conditions than eve's servers. CCP needs to hire more linux kernel hackers.

For example, opentracker (used by most large BitTorrent trackers) can handle tens of thousands of requests per second. Right now, a single one of The Pirate Bay's tracker is handling 28000 requests/sec on your average hardware.

Posted: Oct 30th 2010 10:59PM axler said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
you have no idea what you are talking about.

that server "lags", except you don't notice that lag as you don't care how often trackers update. your torrent client could be asking the server for information once every half an hour, but put that in gaming turns, and that's a shitload of lag.

but in a way I agree, since they have some top end hardware, the next bottleneck is the code. what happened today shows that, since by fixing some parts they doubled the number of people that can play with no lag. If you bring even more it lags out, but people will never stop bringing more.

personally I don't see what's so fascinating about big fleet battles, but some seem to enjoy it.

Reply

Posted: Nov 4th 2010 11:56AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Handling an HTTP request is a trivially easy task compared to simulating missile fire. It should not be surprising that computers can do thousands more trivially easy tasks per second than more difficult ones.
Reply

Posted: Oct 30th 2010 10:24PM foofad said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Since you seem to know so much about the technology I invite you to explain exactly what they're doing wrong, and precisely what sort of measures they should be doing - with references to real-world applications of your suggestion/s showing them working in the wold.

Posted: Oct 30th 2010 10:25PM foofad said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That was supposed to be a reply to rhorle.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW