www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Wintergrasp becomes a battleground
The changes announced for World of Warcraft with patch 3.2 continue to dominate MMO news. I'm not covering the various "Waaaaaah! Blizzard nerfed my class by making some spell 3.275% less effective" subjects, but I do report on what could be major changes to gameplay. And one of those is certainly that Blizzard caved in and gave up on their only successful venture into open world PvP content, and will now turn Wintergrasp into a 100 vs. 100 battleground. For the simple reason that Wintergrasp is too popular. Ironic, isn't it?
I like Wintergrasp, and for somebody not generally into PvP that is saying a lot. In particular I remember the first time I played it how much more fun Wintergrasp is than the WAR keep battles. In WAR only the gates of the keep can be broken, and siege engines are stationary and can only be set up at predefined locations. In Wintergrasp the keep walls are destructible, and siege engines move. Add daily quests, decent rewards, and opening a small raid dungeon for the winning side, and you have a recipe for massive success. Unfortunately it turns out that a massively multiplayer online game can't handle massive.
If 2 players meet, each of them needs to receive a data packet about the other player, for a total of 2 data packets. When 3 players meet, each of them needs a data packet of the 2 others, for a total of 6. When 200 players meet, each of them needs to see the 199 other, for a total of 39,800 data packets. In short, the amount of data rises proportionally to the square of the number of players on the same spot. Anything that makes several hundred players turn up at the same spot, be it a huge open world PvP battle or a PvE world event, causes at least massive lag, if not the server to crash. I'd say that things could be improved by making the data packets much smaller, for example by not sending all the details of everyone's equipment, but it appears that there are hard limits in any case with current technology.
So with patch 3.2, people can either be in Wintergrasp or queue up with a battlemaster, but at the start of the battle a maximum of 100 players for each side will be randomly determined, and the rest will be ejected from Wintergrasp. That won't change much for the battles at odd times, which weren't that full. But people who only play during prime time, and on the more populated side (usually Alliance), might not be able to get into Wintergrasp every evening any more. Effectively Wintergrasp becomes a battleground, only that it isn't instanced, there is only one copy of it. Makes you wonder if Blizzard will make multiple copies when they get lots of complaints from people being locked out.
I recently mentioned the Battle of Agincourt in a parody on PvP battles. That wasn't even a particularly large battle, but it would already be far too big to recreate online. Fact is that for the foreseeable future we will not see massively multiplayer online battles with thousands of participants. If a game promises you that war is everywhere, be aware that this is only in the form of small skirmishes. Massive clashes of big fantasy armies are currently technically impossible.
- posted by Tobold @ 8:07 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
From having been on 4 different servers since Wrath started, I can tell ya that this is probably a welcome change for a few servers. Two of those servers it was pretty even on the win ratio, one server was horde dominated, and the server I'm currently on is HEAVILY alliance dominated (300+ keep defends for alliance, vs. 7 keep defends for Horde). So, I support this decision, though everything you've said is true. It is just a tad ironic.
If 2 players meet, each of them needs to receive a data packet about the other player, for a total of 2 data packets. When 3 players meet, each of them needs a data packet of the 2 others, for a total of 6. When 200 players meet, each of them needs to see the 199 other, for a total of 39,800 data packets. In short, the amount of data rises proportionally to the square of the number of players on the same spot. Anything that makes several hundred players turn up at the same spot, be it a huge open world PvP battle or a PvE world event, causes at least massive lag, if not the server to crash.
I'm not an expert on the subject but I'm pretty sure that it's not working like that. The client (each player) only has direct contact with the server and not the other players. Because of that it's only the server that keeps track of where everyone is and what they are doing and sends that out to every client in the vicinity.
Of course if there are more people present then the server has to send more information out to every client, but I really doubt that the information sent is linear compared to the number of clients. The devs have probably implemented compression algorithms and such things to keep the bandwidth needed limited. It is in fact often said that MMO games use very little bandwidth and I'm pretty sure that's true even with many players present. With your description it sounds like the bandwidth is the bottleneck here, I'm not sure if that's really what you mean but I really don't think it is in any case. Well, at least if you're connected with any kind of broadband. ;) I guess that the connection that the server is on is limiting a bit but I doubt that is the real problem.
There are actually two bottlenecks as far as I can tell. Server power and client power. The server has to keep track of each and every thing that each player does and where they are. Apart from that also how each and every player looks and what they've got equipped and everything else that is related to the particular MMO, like loot tables and such things. Of course the server will be overloaded if too many people gather in the same spot (yes there are also several physical servers for each logical game server which is why it doesn't matter much if the population is spread out). This is what usually causes "lag", combined with the connection quality to the server.
The second bottleneck is the client. If the computer you are playing on can't cope with all the graphics information that is happening on screen you will also experience a sort of lag, but this time it's usually called "graphics lag".
I'm not sure if this is what you tried to say in a simpler way. Excuse me for the wall of text. :)
I'm not an expert on the subject but I'm pretty sure that it's not working like that. The client (each player) only has direct contact with the server and not the other players. Because of that it's only the server that keeps track of where everyone is and what they are doing and sends that out to every client in the vicinity.
Of course if there are more people present then the server has to send more information out to every client, but I really doubt that the information sent is linear compared to the number of clients. The devs have probably implemented compression algorithms and such things to keep the bandwidth needed limited. It is in fact often said that MMO games use very little bandwidth and I'm pretty sure that's true even with many players present. With your description it sounds like the bandwidth is the bottleneck here, I'm not sure if that's really what you mean but I really don't think it is in any case. Well, at least if you're connected with any kind of broadband. ;) I guess that the connection that the server is on is limiting a bit but I doubt that is the real problem.
There are actually two bottlenecks as far as I can tell. Server power and client power. The server has to keep track of each and every thing that each player does and where they are. Apart from that also how each and every player looks and what they've got equipped and everything else that is related to the particular MMO, like loot tables and such things. Of course the server will be overloaded if too many people gather in the same spot (yes there are also several physical servers for each logical game server which is why it doesn't matter much if the population is spread out). This is what usually causes "lag", combined with the connection quality to the server.
The second bottleneck is the client. If the computer you are playing on can't cope with all the graphics information that is happening on screen you will also experience a sort of lag, but this time it's usually called "graphics lag".
I'm not sure if this is what you tried to say in a simpler way. Excuse me for the wall of text. :)
"Of course the server will be overloaded if too many people gather in the same spot (yes there are also several physical servers for each logical game server which is why it doesn't matter much if the population is spread out). This is what usually causes "lag", combined with the connection quality to the server."
And that is the only real technical problem here. I am pretty sure Tobold talks about just this effect.
It is problematic and there isn't really a solution available.
Besides, there is also the balance problem which can only be solved with a 3 or more faction ansatz.
This, however, reduces the amount of people available for PvE. A modern MMO should probably try to solve this issue by not making a clear distinction between the factions and thus creating three or more factions for (Open)PvP, but only one faction for PvE.
And that is the only real technical problem here. I am pretty sure Tobold talks about just this effect.
It is problematic and there isn't really a solution available.
Besides, there is also the balance problem which can only be solved with a 3 or more faction ansatz.
This, however, reduces the amount of people available for PvE. A modern MMO should probably try to solve this issue by not making a clear distinction between the factions and thus creating three or more factions for (Open)PvP, but only one faction for PvE.
This is such a stupid, terrible solution to the problem.
What about high pop servers? There are bound to be people who aren't able to get into Wintergrasp for a whole week to complete their dailies.
Now you need RNG and good luck to do world pvp, and you might not get in with your friends or guildmates. Terrible on so many levels.
What about high pop servers? There are bound to be people who aren't able to get into Wintergrasp for a whole week to complete their dailies.
Now you need RNG and good luck to do world pvp, and you might not get in with your friends or guildmates. Terrible on so many levels.
What annoys me the most about this is why wasn't the potential problems with Wintergrasp flagged up during testing? If Wintergrasp had launched with the up coming changes it would still have been their best attempt at "open world" pvp (if a place with a queue system can still be called that) but coming now it's a huge step backwards. This second expansion in my eyes has deeply tarnished Blizzards reputation for polish, they haven't suddenly become a bad developer but they are no longer head and shoulders above the pack.
I guess it's too much to hope that all the other "fixes" to Wintergrasp which didn't work and haven't brought any benefits or added enjoyment to the place will be removed.
I guess it's too much to hope that all the other "fixes" to Wintergrasp which didn't work and haven't brought any benefits or added enjoyment to the place will be removed.
I'm not an expert on the subject but I'm pretty sure that it's not working like that. The client (each player) only has direct contact with the server and not the other players. Because of that it's only the server that keeps track of where everyone is and what they are doing and sends that out to every client in the vicinity.
Yes, but the server still has to send updates about every player to every player that can potentially be affected by the other players' actions, even if "affected" only means displaying the proper animation. Even if the server consolidates messages, causing each client exchange only one pair of messages with the server, you're still going to end up with something like this:
Client: My player did this.
Server: Ok, the result was this. BTW, Player 2 did that. Player 3 did this. Player 4 did.. ..and player 200 did that.
While that would only cause only 400 physical messages to be sent, that's still a whole lot of logical messages.
You're correct in that this is not really a bandwidth problem. It's a latency problem. The server needs to receive commands from every player in the vicinity, parse those commands, compute the results and send them back to all players, have the players' clients parse the logical messages and update the client's state accordingly. And all that needs to happen within a relatively strict time limit. That time limit depends on the type of game, but for twitch-based combat it's usually less than 100 milliseconds, with 200 being visibly laggy but still playable.
Yes, but the server still has to send updates about every player to every player that can potentially be affected by the other players' actions, even if "affected" only means displaying the proper animation. Even if the server consolidates messages, causing each client exchange only one pair of messages with the server, you're still going to end up with something like this:
Client: My player did this.
Server: Ok, the result was this. BTW, Player 2 did that. Player 3 did this. Player 4 did.. ..and player 200 did that.
While that would only cause only 400 physical messages to be sent, that's still a whole lot of logical messages.
You're correct in that this is not really a bandwidth problem. It's a latency problem. The server needs to receive commands from every player in the vicinity, parse those commands, compute the results and send them back to all players, have the players' clients parse the logical messages and update the client's state accordingly. And all that needs to happen within a relatively strict time limit. That time limit depends on the type of game, but for twitch-based combat it's usually less than 100 milliseconds, with 200 being visibly laggy but still playable.
Hirvox:
Yes, that's exactly what I mean.
I don't really agree that latency is the problem though. Well, it can be, but with the networks of today it becomes less and less of a problem. It is still a problem however that the servers can't keep up with the workload in situations where a lot of people gather in one spot. That and of course each client having to draw all those graphics at the same time.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean.
I don't really agree that latency is the problem though. Well, it can be, but with the networks of today it becomes less and less of a problem. It is still a problem however that the servers can't keep up with the workload in situations where a lot of people gather in one spot. That and of course each client having to draw all those graphics at the same time.
At least WoW does it 100x times better than the competitors.
Yesterday I had a massive battle in Wintergrasp. Alliance manged to defend against us, but my monitor was full of red text and massive vehicles driving through it.
My graphics card made it a smooth experice - and the card is 1.5years old.
Since my lag is always 200ms where I work (right now) I didn't experience a worse lag at all.
(It is an internet connection by radio transmissions - don't ask .. it's terrible, especially when it rains - but WoW is playable, if only as a healer or (worse) ranged dps)
Compare this performance to WAR or (god forbid) AoC and you know why WoW is #1 in the market.
Yesterday I had a massive battle in Wintergrasp. Alliance manged to defend against us, but my monitor was full of red text and massive vehicles driving through it.
My graphics card made it a smooth experice - and the card is 1.5years old.
Since my lag is always 200ms where I work (right now) I didn't experience a worse lag at all.
(It is an internet connection by radio transmissions - don't ask .. it's terrible, especially when it rains - but WoW is playable, if only as a healer or (worse) ranged dps)
Compare this performance to WAR or (god forbid) AoC and you know why WoW is #1 in the market.
"The fact is that for the foreseeable future we will not see massively multiplayer online battles with thousands of participants."
...unless you play EVE, in which case it happens relatively smoothly from time to time.
...unless you play EVE, in which case it happens relatively smoothly from time to time.
I don't really agree that latency is the problem though. Well, it can be, but with the networks of today it becomes less and less of a problem.
The problems stem from the fact that there are players from all over the country, and the world, that may play on any particular server. I played on a west coast server(I live on the east coast) with a latency time of 200+ms, and there were people in my guild from New Zealand, Australia, England, New York...ect with latencies exceeding 300-400ms.
The main issue here is that Blizzard initially did a piss poor job with advertising server locations when players originally signed up to play, so server co-location introduces a whole slew of latency related problems to the mix. A server cannot serve players with 300-400ms latency times as efficiently as it can players with ~60ms latency times. Mix the two, and you increase the burden on the server having to maintain the magical "happy medium" for everyone. Add packet loss to the mix, and it puts even more of a burden on the server due to having to send packet requests to the client when a packet is lost in transit.
The problems stem from the fact that there are players from all over the country, and the world, that may play on any particular server. I played on a west coast server(I live on the east coast) with a latency time of 200+ms, and there were people in my guild from New Zealand, Australia, England, New York...ect with latencies exceeding 300-400ms.
The main issue here is that Blizzard initially did a piss poor job with advertising server locations when players originally signed up to play, so server co-location introduces a whole slew of latency related problems to the mix. A server cannot serve players with 300-400ms latency times as efficiently as it can players with ~60ms latency times. Mix the two, and you increase the burden on the server having to maintain the magical "happy medium" for everyone. Add packet loss to the mix, and it puts even more of a burden on the server due to having to send packet requests to the client when a packet is lost in transit.
My best battles in Wintergrasp was between the official battles.
Very early on, right after WOTLK release, I made a fortune with Saronite and Titanium in Wintergrasp.
I had very intense open world battles for the ore, and I really had to fight for something - actually even better and more interesting than zerging during the battles. :)
I think this is still possible after the patch.
But still, the battleground solution is indeed crude. Only one instance means, as you mentioned, people are left out.
On the other hand access to the special dungeon is tied to having won there. 100 vs 100 generates a chance for the smaller faction on a heavily unbalanced server to win more often, but still.
It is an awkward solution, and a declaration that the design horribly failed.
Open World PvP should be revitalized in WOTLK. Think of the PvP quests in Grizzly Hills and so on. They really tried.
The pox it did. Open world PvP remains a dream. Especially when mounts sprout wings and just fly away. Great for people who do not want to participate in getting ganked by someone in pvp gear, sure.
On the other hand they found no proper solution to make people get off their mount and fight on ground. Halaa also does not really rock, and Wintergrasp was from the very beginning some kind of special battleground anyways.
I wonder if they will continue to bother with open world pvp in future at all, or if they have some new ideas already.
Very early on, right after WOTLK release, I made a fortune with Saronite and Titanium in Wintergrasp.
I had very intense open world battles for the ore, and I really had to fight for something - actually even better and more interesting than zerging during the battles. :)
I think this is still possible after the patch.
But still, the battleground solution is indeed crude. Only one instance means, as you mentioned, people are left out.
On the other hand access to the special dungeon is tied to having won there. 100 vs 100 generates a chance for the smaller faction on a heavily unbalanced server to win more often, but still.
It is an awkward solution, and a declaration that the design horribly failed.
Open World PvP should be revitalized in WOTLK. Think of the PvP quests in Grizzly Hills and so on. They really tried.
The pox it did. Open world PvP remains a dream. Especially when mounts sprout wings and just fly away. Great for people who do not want to participate in getting ganked by someone in pvp gear, sure.
On the other hand they found no proper solution to make people get off their mount and fight on ground. Halaa also does not really rock, and Wintergrasp was from the very beginning some kind of special battleground anyways.
I wonder if they will continue to bother with open world pvp in future at all, or if they have some new ideas already.
So much for rolling a raid in WG so that you can have some real chance of taking the bosses there.
Then again on Silver Hand it wasn't uncommon to see the horde with stupid amounts of tenacity. The highest I heard of was a Tuaren warrior with 250,000 HP. 60k HP casters are common.
And yeah, last I looked the alliance had 300+ successful defenses.
Then again on Silver Hand it wasn't uncommon to see the horde with stupid amounts of tenacity. The highest I heard of was a Tuaren warrior with 250,000 HP. 60k HP casters are common.
And yeah, last I looked the alliance had 300+ successful defenses.
# posted by 
: 23/6/09 14:34
: 23/6/09 14:34
Openworld PvP was eliminated from WoW with the introduction of resilence. I still oppose it.. after all those years.
It doesn't really solve any problem without creating one.
Today they have the problem that people die too fast AND that healing is too strong. absurd..
Just remove resilence from the game, triple all HP (and all PvE-mob damage) and the problem is solved.
As a sidenote they should increase mana cost of all healing spells and increase damageoutput by healers even more. This way healers are able to make their stand in (solo) PvP, but they do not live forever if they don't manage to kill the opponent, or flee. Healing should make you live longer, not forever
Oh - and remove all those MS from the game or tune them down to reasonable levels, like 10%. 50% or even 75% MS is *obviously* OP, especially in group combat. It is impossible to balance a 3:3 or 5:5 arena game if you don't know wether the healer can heal for 100%, 50% or 25%. That were similar to the task to balance a game for classes that do 100%, 50% or 25% dps/hps.
The separation of PvE and PvP was and still is a disruption in the *world*. I want to play *one* character; not two or even more. Make arena rewards comparable to end game rewards and there is no need to introduce special PvP equipment. Different ways to the same goal. That would have been the way to eliminate the classic-WoW-problem of BWL raids in Warsong.
I could go on forever. The unbundling of MMOs is the problem, not the solution. But it seems the world is deaf :(.
They just don't listen...
It doesn't really solve any problem without creating one.
Today they have the problem that people die too fast AND that healing is too strong. absurd..
Just remove resilence from the game, triple all HP (and all PvE-mob damage) and the problem is solved.
As a sidenote they should increase mana cost of all healing spells and increase damageoutput by healers even more. This way healers are able to make their stand in (solo) PvP, but they do not live forever if they don't manage to kill the opponent, or flee. Healing should make you live longer, not forever
Oh - and remove all those MS from the game or tune them down to reasonable levels, like 10%. 50% or even 75% MS is *obviously* OP, especially in group combat. It is impossible to balance a 3:3 or 5:5 arena game if you don't know wether the healer can heal for 100%, 50% or 25%. That were similar to the task to balance a game for classes that do 100%, 50% or 25% dps/hps.
The separation of PvE and PvP was and still is a disruption in the *world*. I want to play *one* character; not two or even more. Make arena rewards comparable to end game rewards and there is no need to introduce special PvP equipment. Different ways to the same goal. That would have been the way to eliminate the classic-WoW-problem of BWL raids in Warsong.
I could go on forever. The unbundling of MMOs is the problem, not the solution. But it seems the world is deaf :(.
They just don't listen...
When EVE can handle 1200v1200 battles, and even DarkFall can support over 100v100 at a time in an actual siege, there is no excuse the company with the most resources can't find a solution other than to take the easy way out. Especially with an engine as dated as WoW, and with combat mechanics as simple.
The fact that you, someone who follows the MMO space daily, buys the excuse that it's a matter of technology rather than effort, is somewhat sad.
The fact that you, someone who follows the MMO space daily, buys the excuse that it's a matter of technology rather than effort, is somewhat sad.
# posted by : 23/6/09 15:06
: 23/6/09 15:06
To explain my statement, that resilence killed Openworld PvP:
If people who like to PvP not only have the advantage of surprise in Open-World PvP, but also 800 resilence, while the one who is attacked doesn't necessarily have any resilence the Open-World PvP is meaningles and boring. Worse: This is obviously stupid for a PvP player to want!
The problem of ganking is always there in MMOs. Resilence made it even more serious. The possibility to fly away is not the real problem here. It is the solution for a problem that has been created with resilence.
That's one more reason (add it to the ones in the other comment and a few more I haven't written down here) to remove resilence and just increase HP and the damage all PvE monsters deal.
This automatically takes care of the too powerful healers without making people die in 3 GCDs.
The reason why resilence was introduced back in BC, was that PvP players didn't like to face BWL or NAXX equiped players in BGs. And they were right to dislike that. Resilence solved that problem, but created a million more. Blizzard could just have given the high end PvE stuff to successfull PvP players. Especially when they had arena were they could determine who is skilled and who is not. (Actually I also dislike the way arena was introduced, but that's another topic:).
Perhaps in the next MMO ... *becoming desperate*
If people who like to PvP not only have the advantage of surprise in Open-World PvP, but also 800 resilence, while the one who is attacked doesn't necessarily have any resilence the Open-World PvP is meaningles and boring. Worse: This is obviously stupid for a PvP player to want!
The problem of ganking is always there in MMOs. Resilence made it even more serious. The possibility to fly away is not the real problem here. It is the solution for a problem that has been created with resilence.
That's one more reason (add it to the ones in the other comment and a few more I haven't written down here) to remove resilence and just increase HP and the damage all PvE monsters deal.
This automatically takes care of the too powerful healers without making people die in 3 GCDs.
The reason why resilence was introduced back in BC, was that PvP players didn't like to face BWL or NAXX equiped players in BGs. And they were right to dislike that. Resilence solved that problem, but created a million more. Blizzard could just have given the high end PvE stuff to successfull PvP players. Especially when they had arena were they could determine who is skilled and who is not. (Actually I also dislike the way arena was introduced, but that's another topic:).
Perhaps in the next MMO ... *becoming desperate*
2.5 hours between battles with around .5 per battle, so 3 hours means 8 per day or at 100 per side that's 800 per day and 5600 per week. That's pretty much a maximum, though it might be slightly higher with fast battles. But that doesn't take into account losing 2-3 (or more) battles from Tuesday maintenance and also assumes 100v100 battles at 2 in the morning. If anyone is queuing more than once per week we're going to end up seeing a lot of people on high population servers unable to get in ever.
Maybe they could phase it into two battles, but using the same map, so you have the ability to queue twice as many people, but any given player only needs half the information. Though I suppose that would create the strange feeling of walls getting knocked down by an invisible enemy.
Maybe they could phase it into two battles, but using the same map, so you have the ability to queue twice as many people, but any given player only needs half the information. Though I suppose that would create the strange feeling of walls getting knocked down by an invisible enemy.
"unless you play EVE, in which case it happens relatively smoothly from time to time."
"When EVE can handle 1200v1200 battles"
It does not handle that "smoothly" It's generally a lag fest that leads to a ton of petitions afterwards where people bitch about dying to the lag to get their stuff back.
"When EVE can handle 1200v1200 battles"
It does not handle that "smoothly" It's generally a lag fest that leads to a ton of petitions afterwards where people bitch about dying to the lag to get their stuff back.
When EVE can handle 1200v1200 battles, and even DarkFall can support over 100v100 at a time in an actual siege, there is no excuse the company with the most resources can't find a solution other than to take the easy way out. Especially with an engine as dated as WoW, and with combat mechanics as simple.
The fact that you, someone who follows the MMO space daily, buys the excuse that it's a matter of technology rather than effort, is somewhat sad.
Not an excuse, WAR couldn't do it any better than WoW. EVE is an exception because it has a totally different server architecture. And last I heard you needed a written application to CCP to plan those big battles beforehand, so CCP just can add hardware capacity on a temporary basis for that battle.
The fact that you, someone who follows the MMO space daily, buys the excuse that it's a matter of technology rather than effort, is somewhat sad.
Not an excuse, WAR couldn't do it any better than WoW. EVE is an exception because it has a totally different server architecture. And last I heard you needed a written application to CCP to plan those big battles beforehand, so CCP just can add hardware capacity on a temporary basis for that battle.
I don't really agree that latency is the problem though.
In this case, latency isn't just about the network roundtrip. I consider it to be the total delay between performing an action on your local client and seeing the results of that action. A player isn't going to care whether it's the server software, the server hardware, the network, the client hardware or the client software causing the slowdown, it all adds up. If it's larger than the player's reaction time, it will feel laggy.
In this case, latency isn't just about the network roundtrip. I consider it to be the total delay between performing an action on your local client and seeing the results of that action. A player isn't going to care whether it's the server software, the server hardware, the network, the client hardware or the client software causing the slowdown, it all adds up. If it's larger than the player's reaction time, it will feel laggy.
Not an excuse, WAR couldn't do it any better than WoW. EVE is an exception because it has a totally different server architecture. And last I heard you needed a written application to CCP to plan those big battles beforehand, so CCP just can add hardware capacity on a temporary basis for that battle.
You conveniently disregarded the fact that darkfall regularly has battles with hundreds of players involved without instancing. Generally the limiting factor in these battles is client side lag for people with outdated machines.
Instancing is a terrible solution.
You conveniently disregarded the fact that darkfall regularly has battles with hundreds of players involved without instancing. Generally the limiting factor in these battles is client side lag for people with outdated machines.
Instancing is a terrible solution.
EvE is more tolerant to lag due to the slower pace of combat. You don't need <100ms response time to pull off that stunlock combo. In many big fleet battles it's enough to target an opponent every ten seconds or so and turn on your weapons and other modules. The inertia of most ships also negates the need to constantly micromanage your movements. It should not be directly compared to WoW, WAR and the like.
You conveniently disregarded the fact ...
No, I boycott that game on purpose, to avoid death threats by its rabid fans. And for all I read the accounts of how well things work or don't work in that game vary widely, between people who hate the game and those who see it with rose-tinted spectacles. There are no "facts" about that game, only heated arguments, which is why I prefer to avoid it.
No, I boycott that game on purpose, to avoid death threats by its rabid fans. And for all I read the accounts of how well things work or don't work in that game vary widely, between people who hate the game and those who see it with rose-tinted spectacles. There are no "facts" about that game, only heated arguments, which is why I prefer to avoid it.
Jita has 1000s of players in it at times, no need to email CCP. And the 1200v1200 is an extreme, EVE can handle 100v100 in it's sleep, just like WAR (Fort cap is 150v120 or so, and RvR fields are uncapped) and DF can.
Out of all the games listed, WoW has the lowest cap despite having the weakest graphics, older engine/server code, and BY FAR the most resources to address the issue. The decision to make WG an instance is simply a case of Blizzard being Blizzard and taking the easiest/cheapest way out, and once again putting PvP on the back burner as it has done since release.
Out of all the games listed, WoW has the lowest cap despite having the weakest graphics, older engine/server code, and BY FAR the most resources to address the issue. The decision to make WG an instance is simply a case of Blizzard being Blizzard and taking the easiest/cheapest way out, and once again putting PvP on the back burner as it has done since release.
# posted by : 23/6/09 16:22
: 23/6/09 16:22
Whe I played my WAR test month (24h/day) I concluded that massive battles in WAR always come with a considerable lag. Has this changed?
As far as I know WAR added a restriction to the number of participants in their keep battles already a while ago, same solution as WoW really. I hear reports ranging from "much better" to "still very laggy" about the success of that measure.
Jita has 1000s of players in it at times,
And it lags like hell .Well it did when I tried give eve another chance aug 2008. It was so bad you couldnt browse marketplace there (main reason to go to Jita first place).
I doubt things improved since then much since I remember it had horrible lag since early beta -and throughout every time I gave it another chance trials
On the other hand Planetside was relatively lag free and it was much more twitch intensive. So I seriously doubt there are any technical problems if a much smaller game 7 years ago could do it
I am net admin by trade and there is tons of stuff you could do to make it possible ,especially today ,when everyone has broadband, especially for low twitch game mechanics (such as in wow).
The biggest problem is indeed the synchronization between players wholee are 50 ms and the ones who are above 200ms .
For smooth gameplay you have to do some prediction and penalize laggers and do less updates for them - which is not a problem ,as every FPS does it (and BF2 custom servers support 128vs128 for example).
Blizzard though was never good tech wise though. Very polished yes - but they never invent anything, and always archaic in tech department .
They intentionally go with easy,old reliable solutions instead of innovating in any way.
And it lags like hell .Well it did when I tried give eve another chance aug 2008. It was so bad you couldnt browse marketplace there (main reason to go to Jita first place).
I doubt things improved since then much since I remember it had horrible lag since early beta -and throughout every time I gave it another chance trials
On the other hand Planetside was relatively lag free and it was much more twitch intensive. So I seriously doubt there are any technical problems if a much smaller game 7 years ago could do it
I am net admin by trade and there is tons of stuff you could do to make it possible ,especially today ,when everyone has broadband, especially for low twitch game mechanics (such as in wow).
The biggest problem is indeed the synchronization between players wholee are 50 ms and the ones who are above 200ms .
For smooth gameplay you have to do some prediction and penalize laggers and do less updates for them - which is not a problem ,as every FPS does it (and BF2 custom servers support 128vs128 for example).
Blizzard though was never good tech wise though. Very polished yes - but they never invent anything, and always archaic in tech department .
They intentionally go with easy,old reliable solutions instead of innovating in any way.
(reposted to correct errors)
Tobold: As far as I know WAR added a restriction to the number of participants in their keep battles already a while ago, same solution as WoW really. I hear reports ranging from "much better" to "still very laggy" about the success of that measure.
I would call it a success, however minor. I was in a very large WAR keep fight this Sunday night, around 300 attackers vs. about 250 defenders, and the adjusted strategy is to have "reinforcement waves" of large raid groups waiting immediately outside the fortress zone border where the population cap kicks in.
Every few minutes the reinforcements rush in and replace fallen comrades who have released corpse. The fallen then respawn and gather along the boundary line.
This of course leads to border skirmish fighting along the perimeter between the rival armies' reinforcments. So what we have is technically still a 300 vs. 200 fight, just spread out across a somewhat wider (5 minute horse ride) area.
Mythic has also implemented a loot-by-mail system so that players who release from the population-capped zone and get stuck along the perimeter still get to participate in the loot rolls.
So yes this is not a true solution to the problem, more of a "quick fix", but it HAS cut down on the lag and added an extra strategic dimension, however contrived, to fortress fights.
Tobold: As far as I know WAR added a restriction to the number of participants in their keep battles already a while ago, same solution as WoW really. I hear reports ranging from "much better" to "still very laggy" about the success of that measure.
I would call it a success, however minor. I was in a very large WAR keep fight this Sunday night, around 300 attackers vs. about 250 defenders, and the adjusted strategy is to have "reinforcement waves" of large raid groups waiting immediately outside the fortress zone border where the population cap kicks in.
Every few minutes the reinforcements rush in and replace fallen comrades who have released corpse. The fallen then respawn and gather along the boundary line.
This of course leads to border skirmish fighting along the perimeter between the rival armies' reinforcments. So what we have is technically still a 300 vs. 200 fight, just spread out across a somewhat wider (5 minute horse ride) area.
Mythic has also implemented a loot-by-mail system so that players who release from the population-capped zone and get stuck along the perimeter still get to participate in the loot rolls.
So yes this is not a true solution to the problem, more of a "quick fix", but it HAS cut down on the lag and added an extra strategic dimension, however contrived, to fortress fights.
Hello,
Let's try to figure out what happens when at a single spot, you have 40 players from each side engaging.
Everything that you see is already installed on your computer, armor, creatures, buildings and so on. So the only one thing that travels the Internet is players positioning, actions (animations) adn status.
The main problem here is that only this information is quite heavy to handle. On the example above, at every 100ms or so the server needs to send 79 records (many packets) to every single player.
I will check it later today when i get home usign Ethereal, but let's consider at least that each of these records have 10Kbytes. 10KB at every 100ms means 100KB per second. If you multiply for 79, it's 7900 KBps per second. And that's just for you. Another 79 players are receiving just the same amount. So every second just on that spot the server is sending 624100 KBps (near a 5Mbps connection).
When you get that lot of information, your desktop needs to process that information and your graphic card needs to draw it. If you have a cutting-edge system, with no anti-spy-virus-etc software, you may have less lag, but real users computers have to deal with all that. So it's liek wathing a youtube video on a slow link. the systems frozes for a while and literally drop some information, that's why you are at one place and at another monent, you are yards away and dead.
I would like to see one day a PvP where you have thousands at once, where guilds are part of armies, that train together and every 15 days or once a month you all gather together to fight. Imagine hundreds of druids, running in bear form, DK caloping thei mounts and a pack of hunter and mages dropping long range attacks, with siege engines... man, that will be a hell of a view.
I don't know how Blizz will make it. Probably we will need to lower graphics, take some mods out and other things to have at least 30 fps and really make the game enjoyable.
Perhaps Blizz should create systems that you have a strategy to follow and you get more points if you follow that strategy. Difine different objectives to different groups. This would avoid the natural movement of many people doing what they think it's good, not the best strategy. It does need to have a better disciplin and control, to reward people that work together and motivate those that are new to follow that way.
People have to realize that you have to gather vehicles together and focus fire, specially when you are inside. Vehicles on random formation are easy targets.
Well, these are my toughts. Will try to make a more detailed view of what happens when we lag... ;)
Let's try to figure out what happens when at a single spot, you have 40 players from each side engaging.
Everything that you see is already installed on your computer, armor, creatures, buildings and so on. So the only one thing that travels the Internet is players positioning, actions (animations) adn status.
The main problem here is that only this information is quite heavy to handle. On the example above, at every 100ms or so the server needs to send 79 records (many packets) to every single player.
I will check it later today when i get home usign Ethereal, but let's consider at least that each of these records have 10Kbytes. 10KB at every 100ms means 100KB per second. If you multiply for 79, it's 7900 KBps per second. And that's just for you. Another 79 players are receiving just the same amount. So every second just on that spot the server is sending 624100 KBps (near a 5Mbps connection).
When you get that lot of information, your desktop needs to process that information and your graphic card needs to draw it. If you have a cutting-edge system, with no anti-spy-virus-etc software, you may have less lag, but real users computers have to deal with all that. So it's liek wathing a youtube video on a slow link. the systems frozes for a while and literally drop some information, that's why you are at one place and at another monent, you are yards away and dead.
I would like to see one day a PvP where you have thousands at once, where guilds are part of armies, that train together and every 15 days or once a month you all gather together to fight. Imagine hundreds of druids, running in bear form, DK caloping thei mounts and a pack of hunter and mages dropping long range attacks, with siege engines... man, that will be a hell of a view.
I don't know how Blizz will make it. Probably we will need to lower graphics, take some mods out and other things to have at least 30 fps and really make the game enjoyable.
Perhaps Blizz should create systems that you have a strategy to follow and you get more points if you follow that strategy. Difine different objectives to different groups. This would avoid the natural movement of many people doing what they think it's good, not the best strategy. It does need to have a better disciplin and control, to reward people that work together and motivate those that are new to follow that way.
People have to realize that you have to gather vehicles together and focus fire, specially when you are inside. Vehicles on random formation are easy targets.
Well, these are my toughts. Will try to make a more detailed view of what happens when we lag... ;)
I don't look forward to this for medium/low pop servers. WG has never crashed my server, and all this will do is prevent Horde from ever taking WG (even though I play Alliance, this is a bad thing). If the Alliance cap is 100 and the Horde can never muster more than 30, they will never be able to get the super tenacity buffs that let them win in the first place. If the Alliance can't flood in and make it 300 to 30 or 50, then they'll lose more based simply on numbers instead of having ridiculous amounts of tenacity that let them win as it currently is.
They're really taking away the flavor that WG added, and as excited about WoW BG PvP as I've been lately, this is one that is really making me rethink what I want to do.
They're really taking away the flavor that WG added, and as excited about WoW BG PvP as I've been lately, this is one that is really making me rethink what I want to do.
For those that like more technical info, here's a link to a very good paper on the subject from Philipp Svoboda, Wolfgang Karner, Markus Rupp from the Institute of Communications and Radio-Frequency Engineering - Vienna University of Technology, Austria.
The difference in their study is that they don't look deep when a large number of players are playing together at the same place (they focus on the general behavior), the main issue that causes lag. I'll try to take a closer look on that subject.
Here's the link to the paper:
http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/pub-et_12119.pdf
The difference in their study is that they don't look deep when a large number of players are playing together at the same place (they focus on the general behavior), the main issue that causes lag. I'll try to take a closer look on that subject.
Here's the link to the paper:
http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/pub-et_12119.pdf
It's not a very good way to address the issue, IMO. They should probably have made it the first 100 people to queue up on either side rather than randomly picking 100 people who have queued up. If they display where people are in the queue then people can queue with their friends or form a raid before WG begins. Instead at prime time people will be trying to put together the raids while the battle is already started.
As far as the lag discussion goes, the issue has been around since UO. I've never seen a game handle more than a couple hundred people together in the same place well. DAoC had battles comparable to WG and it was exactly the same situation -- the server couldn't handle that many players at once and you'd have serious lag. WAR was the same way too when city sieges happened.
I'm sure Blizzard or anyone else with sufficient resources *could* create the client-server architecture and hardware to support 1000+ person battles, but unless your game is designed to only be about 1000+ person battles, why would anyone do it? The games would probably run into serious client-side lag and bandwidth issues past 500 people anyway.
As far as the lag discussion goes, the issue has been around since UO. I've never seen a game handle more than a couple hundred people together in the same place well. DAoC had battles comparable to WG and it was exactly the same situation -- the server couldn't handle that many players at once and you'd have serious lag. WAR was the same way too when city sieges happened.
I'm sure Blizzard or anyone else with sufficient resources *could* create the client-server architecture and hardware to support 1000+ person battles, but unless your game is designed to only be about 1000+ person battles, why would anyone do it? The games would probably run into serious client-side lag and bandwidth issues past 500 people anyway.
# posted by : 23/6/09 23:06
: 23/6/09 23:06
Maybe a solution to solve the problem is to cut the 3D world in areas and a group of servers is responsable for that area.
If the designer knows where are the areas that will have more battles, he can add more servers to that area or make the areas small, as you do when you design a mobile infrastructure.
So it's not a cluster of servers taking care of the whole BG, but a groups os servers for each square miles.
Still it doens't solve the client side, that is the weakest. The client will still need to receive all the data from the other users actions, and it could be quite heavy. And we have the least powered computers.
Maybe making the client mroe intelligent, able to detect multiple cores and running applications on dedicated cores... It's more like creating your own PC, or console. ;P
If the designer knows where are the areas that will have more battles, he can add more servers to that area or make the areas small, as you do when you design a mobile infrastructure.
So it's not a cluster of servers taking care of the whole BG, but a groups os servers for each square miles.
Still it doens't solve the client side, that is the weakest. The client will still need to receive all the data from the other users actions, and it could be quite heavy. And we have the least powered computers.
Maybe making the client mroe intelligent, able to detect multiple cores and running applications on dedicated cores... It's more like creating your own PC, or console. ;P
@Max, yes they did improve Jita, the market is now pretty snappy there, and the lag isn't too bad when you fly out.
It might still take 10 tries to dock every now and then though ;).
It might still take 10 tries to dock every now and then though ;).
Oh come on, WAR handles large PvP battles FAR better on it's worst days that WoW does on it's best days. I've played both on the same hardware (2-year old system, single video card, all effects at max) and Rarely do I get a lag bump or twitch with WAR, where WoW just craps out and leaves the party - it actually crashes the game. One of the many reasons I've left WoW permanently - there really is NO EXCUSE for how poorly their systems handle server load.
robert: Oh come on, WAR handles large PvP battles FAR better on it's worst days that WoW does on it's best days. I've played both on the same hardware (2-year old system, single video card, all effects at max) and Rarely do I get a lag bump or twitch with WAR, where WoW just craps out and leaves the party - it actually crashes the game. One of the many reasons I've left WoW permanently - there really is NO EXCUSE for how poorly their systems handle server load.
Agreed, WAR outdoor RvR is so much better than Wintergrasp. It's not even close.
As for hardware... I still haven't figured out why WAR is so much more stable/responsive in the big fights on my lower specced gaming laptop (dual core CPU, GeForce 8600) than on my desktop (quad core, GeForce 9600). It's gotta be something weird, like the network card, RAM, antivirus, etc...
The epic fights are what keep me subscribing to WAR but the problems on my desktop help me understand why so many other subscribers left.
Agreed, WAR outdoor RvR is so much better than Wintergrasp. It's not even close.
As for hardware... I still haven't figured out why WAR is so much more stable/responsive in the big fights on my lower specced gaming laptop (dual core CPU, GeForce 8600) than on my desktop (quad core, GeForce 9600). It's gotta be something weird, like the network card, RAM, antivirus, etc...
The epic fights are what keep me subscribing to WAR but the problems on my desktop help me understand why so many other subscribers left.
I just read that paper Alvaro referenced... They use tcp in WoW... wow ... - I mean omg WTF! lol
I guess they were too worried about reliability of the connection for all kind of clients, but by going TCP route they killed any kind of scalable performance
Cliffs: Udp just sends streams of data ,doesnt care if packet arrived or not ,doesnt retransmit lost ones. Highly efficient -all FPS use it
TCP - different beast , track packet arrival time, sends confirmations of received packets , MTU , etc - many issues if you want pure performance, main one -ITS SLOW. Its reliable so most apps not needing performance use it, but for MMO/FPS its junk
I guess they were too worried about reliability of the connection for all kind of clients, but by going TCP route they killed any kind of scalable performance
Cliffs: Udp just sends streams of data ,doesnt care if packet arrived or not ,doesnt retransmit lost ones. Highly efficient -all FPS use it
TCP - different beast , track packet arrival time, sends confirmations of received packets , MTU , etc - many issues if you want pure performance, main one -ITS SLOW. Its reliable so most apps not needing performance use it, but for MMO/FPS its junk
Alvaro - the problem with your proposal is the boundary issue. You could split a battleground so it's handled by multiple servers geographically, but if you move across the boundary between areas the servers cover, it takes a few seconds to get you switched from one to the other. So I'd randomly hit a 5-second speed bump when running along in the BG if you crossed the line, and wouldn't be able to see anyone on the other side of the line. You'd have to design a battleground around this dynamic.
Generally, when WoW switches you from one server to another, it throws up the loading screen. Common examples are switching continents or entering instances.
Generally, when WoW switches you from one server to another, it throws up the loading screen. Common examples are switching continents or entering instances.
In cóntrast to what has been written here:
I am on a volume-restricted internet access at the moment. I can only transfer 10GB a month.
therefore I use a meter to track who much GB WoW uses.
It uses about 100MB per 10 hours.
That is
10MB/hour or
171kb/min or
2,84kb/s.
And that is for full time mass PvP or raids.
I am on a volume-restricted internet access at the moment. I can only transfer 10GB a month.
therefore I use a meter to track who much GB WoW uses.
It uses about 100MB per 10 hours.
That is
10MB/hour or
171kb/min or
2,84kb/s.
And that is for full time mass PvP or raids.
How does EVE work? Can you:
"heal" / "shield" another ship?
"block" another ship from being hit?
"cc" a particular ship and rendering it temporarily useless?
"ram" a ship from it's projected path?
I've found that I didn't have to activate many actions in the tutorial - most things are on auto - flight as well as combat - both WOW and WAR are very crazy when you are in the middle of fighting and there's a lot of button mashing - you are targeting new enemies, activating skills, and running erratically
If my views are relatively on target - then there's far less data being sent in EVE, and it isn't a fair comparison.
Anyway, we're on a decently balanced server and I'd say we regularly have 150a vs 100h WG battles. Both sides have defended roughly 50% of the time.
I've not had issues with WG on our server.
"heal" / "shield" another ship?
"block" another ship from being hit?
"cc" a particular ship and rendering it temporarily useless?
"ram" a ship from it's projected path?
I've found that I didn't have to activate many actions in the tutorial - most things are on auto - flight as well as combat - both WOW and WAR are very crazy when you are in the middle of fighting and there's a lot of button mashing - you are targeting new enemies, activating skills, and running erratically
If my views are relatively on target - then there's far less data being sent in EVE, and it isn't a fair comparison.
Anyway, we're on a decently balanced server and I'd say we regularly have 150a vs 100h WG battles. Both sides have defended roughly 50% of the time.
I've not had issues with WG on our server.
How does EVE work? Can you:
"heal" / "shield" another ship?
"block" another ship from being hit?
"cc" a particular ship and rendering it temporarily useless?
"ram" a ship from it's projected path?
- Heal, yes. Shield? Hmmm, not so sure if there's a mechanic like that on the top of my head.
- Block? Not sure what you mean.
- CC, absolutely. Electronic warfare has a lot of fancy toys for stuff like that.
- Ram, yes. There is collision detection in EVE.
Don't even try to compare the action going on in large scale EVE PvP fights with the tutorial. The tutorial is slow, PvP in EVE can be incredibly fast and intense. It can be pure madness.
"heal" / "shield" another ship?
"block" another ship from being hit?
"cc" a particular ship and rendering it temporarily useless?
"ram" a ship from it's projected path?
- Heal, yes. Shield? Hmmm, not so sure if there's a mechanic like that on the top of my head.
- Block? Not sure what you mean.
- CC, absolutely. Electronic warfare has a lot of fancy toys for stuff like that.
- Ram, yes. There is collision detection in EVE.
Don't even try to compare the action going on in large scale EVE PvP fights with the tutorial. The tutorial is slow, PvP in EVE can be incredibly fast and intense. It can be pure madness.
# posted by : 24/6/09 11:27
: 24/6/09 11:27
Zachary,
Taking again the exemple of mobile technology, when you move with your phone around, every BTS (antenna) that are in range sees you, but you get attached to the one with the highest quality of signal.
If the servers do that in the same fashion, all nearby servers will see what's going on on their boudaries and when you switch, they already know you were coming and the process just start on the other server.
It's like having a server that knows where everyone is and keeps saying to the borders ones the position of the users that are near crossing position.
Regarding the better and the worse, I think it's always a dead end discussion, so it should be avoided. That said, Blizzard having vastly more users (that pay) makes it the better option around. I think it's a fair price for what you got. Have it's flaws, definately. Tobold and a lot of the readers could enumerate them. But as a rule of nature (Darwin), it's not the most intelligent or the strongest that survives, but the one that better adapts to the environment. In this case the environment is the user base/market and Blizzard is doing a hell of a job for more then 4 years.
I'm a fan from Blizzard. I bought a mug, the special edition book and some shirts from Jinks. Unfortunately i don't live in the US to apply for a job there. If you look at all of their games, they are usually nicelly done and sell a lot. Blizzard knows their market. Better then anyone else, as it was not the first MMO on the market.
But again, what's better for me could not be the best for you. You have to analyze is on a cold way, no passion. WoW is the game for the masses, because the masses like it.
Blizzard do things I don't like, like turning the game too easy, because I like to be challenged.
But in the end, it's all about money. WoW is too big to only be played by a couple of hardcore gamers. It would have to be a tottaly different game.
There's no such thing as a game for all. And no game is the the best for everyone.
Taking again the exemple of mobile technology, when you move with your phone around, every BTS (antenna) that are in range sees you, but you get attached to the one with the highest quality of signal.
If the servers do that in the same fashion, all nearby servers will see what's going on on their boudaries and when you switch, they already know you were coming and the process just start on the other server.
It's like having a server that knows where everyone is and keeps saying to the borders ones the position of the users that are near crossing position.
Regarding the better and the worse, I think it's always a dead end discussion, so it should be avoided. That said, Blizzard having vastly more users (that pay) makes it the better option around. I think it's a fair price for what you got. Have it's flaws, definately. Tobold and a lot of the readers could enumerate them. But as a rule of nature (Darwin), it's not the most intelligent or the strongest that survives, but the one that better adapts to the environment. In this case the environment is the user base/market and Blizzard is doing a hell of a job for more then 4 years.
I'm a fan from Blizzard. I bought a mug, the special edition book and some shirts from Jinks. Unfortunately i don't live in the US to apply for a job there. If you look at all of their games, they are usually nicelly done and sell a lot. Blizzard knows their market. Better then anyone else, as it was not the first MMO on the market.
But again, what's better for me could not be the best for you. You have to analyze is on a cold way, no passion. WoW is the game for the masses, because the masses like it.
Blizzard do things I don't like, like turning the game too easy, because I like to be challenged.
But in the end, it's all about money. WoW is too big to only be played by a couple of hardcore gamers. It would have to be a tottaly different game.
There's no such thing as a game for all. And no game is the the best for everyone.
Deleted a bunch of comments from one poster, including my replies, after being pestered by him with mails proving Goodwin's Law is still valid.
I don't know on what server you are playing, but according to the Warcraft Realms census, Alliance outnumbers Horde 53:47 overall on all servers together.
Post a Comment
<< Home
