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

Reader Comments (66)

Posted: Oct 31st 2010 4:26PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
LXQ2-T - Ships destroyed in the last 24 hours : 2187... Ouch :))

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 5:16AM Critical Mass said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
How did IT/BOB get back in Delve?!?

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 5:32PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report

Hmmm... how to deal with the lag monster.

The problem basically is even with the most powerful computer, at some point you hit a wall in terms of fast memory (RAM) addressing multiple processor cores with all the exponential calculations per ship to all the other ships.

According to witness accounts, this lag was reasonable, less than a second or so, up to about 1,600 ships... after that, the scratch data for the calculations needs to cached to hard drive until the processor cores can catch up... eventually resulting in lag times of a few minutes while everyone is spamming their firing buttons.

In this instance, NC had 1,200 ships in system for the assault, then RA responded by bringing in another 1,000 ships to defend their territory. NC had the advantage, with less lag at the outset since they were already in position and didn't need to load grid.

So, the most elegant solution would be to set time intervals of how many ships each side can have in system. Let's say for every 200 alliance ships, you have a 15 minute cooldown til the next 200 can enter. This gives each side time to get in position until the next 200 arrive. It would also encourage those 200 to quickly engage the enemy 200 before the next interval.

So, while no hard cap would be imposed, it would change the dynamics of fleet fights enough that perhaps more ships would be destroyed before the next wave of 200 arrive.

For game lore, just say something like that's all the gates or hyperspace fabric will support... blah, blah, blah.

At least until they have a system node running 64 cores and 256 gigs of ram. Nomnomnom.

Posted: Nov 2nd 2010 11:32PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The problem is that these fights are rarely just one alliance against another. there may be one core alliance defending and a coalition of four or five alliances attacking. That means they get 200 defenders and the opposition gets 800-1000? Sorry, no go.

The fact is that any imposed limitation will be exploitable. EVE players are bright. I can't think of anything better than the current situation. there will always be a point where the hardware or software will suffer under the strain. I remember bad lag at a few hundred a couple years ago. Now those battles come off without a hitch. It's a thing of beauty. everybody is making a big deal about an event that is a) rare in EVE b) constantly improving and c) unheard of in any other game. Honestly, there is absolutely no problem here. None. Nowadays most players will never see a moment of lag in their EVE careers. the EVE haters crack me up.

Posted: Nov 7th 2010 4:04AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Eve is a time bomb waiting to go off. Server melt down is right. What needs to happen at this point is a major system server upgrade. You need scalability in a game like this which is very limited. There is going to come a point where there are just to many players and is going to need to be downsized to make it run more smoothly. Now of coarse if everyone had a bleeding fast PC and an T3 or OC3 line then yea maybe it would run better. Although at current most people don't have those kind of bank accounts to afford that. Currently Korea has the fastest Broadband Service in the world at the moment. I heard they will be upgrading to a Gigaflop here soon. We really need to start taking that sort of approach here back home before ambitious games like Eve and others will really ever start to see their full potential. .

Posted: Nov 17th 2010 6:17AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Im no programmer or such but I was wondering.. Ive heard people talk about linear actions that cant be processed by more then 1 CPU. But im just wondering if you have more then 1 min lag.. coudnt you split up the linear strain of requests into multiple parts between different servers? as long as they are done in time and can reintegrate their calculations atleast you could limit the lag to about 30 sec or less even. In other words: when its already this bad with lag arent the requests send by clients to the server already queing up? and if they are cant you split them up?
Its probably impossible but I was just thinking out loud hehe.
Also Id personally just put a cap on systems. Sure its less fun since its limited but imho its better then no solution to the lag.

Also it would stimulate players to attack from different directions which would be strategically intresting.

Featured Stories

WoW Archivist: A Glyphmas story

Posted on Dec 21st 2014 12:00PM

One Shots: Top 10 best player screenshots of 2014

Posted on Dec 21st 2014 10:00AM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW