Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Yeager on August 15, 2002, 09:46:10 PM
-
So I'll say it again: The lag warping in the AcesHigh MA during peak usage (400+) is really becoming a major disappointment to myself. The only thing that keeps me coming back for more and more of this all too predictable frustration is my love of the topic.
Im aware that more bandwidth is supposed to be "On The Way" but this lag situation is really becoming troubling. Please try to get a handle on it ASAP.
Im becoming increasingly concerned with the absence of simple, decent gameplay.
-
I've been logging off due to unplayable warping lately too. Hope there's a solution on the way.
-
Had to log prematurely yesterday afternoon (PST) due to warping, this with only 275 online.
:(
-
When there are 50 or so planes in the same area as a carrier and an enemy airfield I notice it. How does AH compare to other flight sims in this regrad? Is it a problem with AH or just a problem with the current state of technology in general. It seems to be much better than AW when things get crowded, at least as I recall.
Charon
-
"When there are 50 or so planes in the same area as a carrier and an enemy airfield I notice it. How does AH compare to other flight sims in this regrad? Is it a problem with AH or just a problem with the current state of technology in general. It seems to be much better than AW when things get crowded, at least as I recall. "
AW was designed so you never had those massive 50-plane lag-inducing furballs, because the AW developers realized that such massive battles CAUSE a lot of lag problems. Most AW arenas were limited to 150 players, and the larger ones (up to 250) were designed so there wouldn't be any single point of player congregation. In scenarios these problems often became very apparent, just as they are in AH.
The 50-plane netlag-inducing furballs will remain as long as AH permits 400+ in one arena. Making the arena bigger will NOT solve this problem.
J_A_B
-
AW was designed so you never had those massive 50-plane lag-inducing furballs, because the AW developers realized that such massive battles CAUSE a lot of lag problems. Most AW arenas were limited to 150 players, and the larger ones (up to 250) were designed so there wouldn't be any single point of player congregation. In scenarios these problems often became very apparent, just as they are in AH.
Unfortunately, that was why they had to move away from the neutral/center maps with the move to gamestorm. That really was an excellent model that combined both furball and strat (or at least base capture), but it would have overwhelmed the server with gamestorm numbers. I belive they were limited to perhaps 60 aircraft in one sector, as I recall. Ahh, going to the atoll on the few period when the SVGA PAC setup was popular and seeing some action, or fighting around the lake in the FR ETO.
The attempt to correct it was the Big Pork, which drove me out of AW with all the milkrunning. I think you point out that there is a similar situation with the Big Pizza cookie. I no longer play when that map is in rotation because it brings back too many memories of chasing people around trying to find a fair fight.
The result, IMO, has to be a big map that spreads people out, yet utlimately forces groups together at various locations in controlled numbers. Kinda hard to think of how that can be applied. I believe you have championed multiple arenas (going by suspect memory here). Have to give that some thought, but you could have many of the same issues even with multiple arenas.
Charon
-
"I believe you have championed multiple arenas "
Yeah, I've always supported the idea of having multiple arenas that are each limited to sunstantially fewer than the current AH MA. It'd eliminate the huge 50+ plane furballs and allow AH to have more variety all in one fell swoop :) As the Pizza map shows, having a huge map (the pizza map is roughly the size of Texas!) doesn't fix the core problem and introduces some new problems.
There probably ARE other solutions to this problem, but the multiple arena concept has already proven itself.
J_A_B
-
J_A_B,
Sometimes I'm a little slow. Maybe you could help me out.
What is the essiential difference between:
1. Limiting a player population for a map of a given size
and
2. Increasing the map size for a given player population
?
If we split up the current player population (~450) into 3 150 player maps, what is to keep the players in each of those maps from congregating into 3 50 plane furballs?
Regards,
Wab
-
AKWabbit.. look it AW... 3 50 plane furballs didn't happen... not sure all the reasons why... (long front lines?)
SKurj
-
AKWabbit.. look it AW... 3 50 plane furballs didn't happen...
Well they may or may not have happened. However, can you explain to me why limiting the population to 150 players would be the controlling factor? And can you explain to me why putting 150 players into a smaller map is any different than putting 450 players into a larger map? Assuming either has the same ratio of players per active airfield. Are far as being able to regulate the size of furballs?
And "just because" isn't an acceptable answer. ;)
Regards,
Wab
-
"If we split up the current player population (~450) into 3 150 player maps, what is to keep the players in each of those maps from congregating into 3 50 plane furballs? "
A good question, and one which the the answer isn't very apparent to until you see BOTH systems in action. This is something that'd be easier to witness in action or explain in person, than explain on an internet BB. However, since you seem genuinely interested, I'll do my best.
In the case of the 150 player map, in order to have a 50-plane furball you need fully 1/3 of the entire map's player base in one area. On a 450-player map, you only need 1/9 of the player base in a fight to create such a fight. So just from that standpoint alone it's more likely that such fights will develop in a more populated map.
But there's more to it than just numbers. Most players tend to go where the action is. The result of this tendency is the total number of fights does NOT increase proportionally as you increase player base; more players will make the available fights more crowded instead. I've noticed that when there's 450 players online in AH, there's only slightly more "hot spots" than there are 200 online. The difference is instead of around 20 guys fighting for a base with maybe around 12 in the middle at any given time, you end up with maybe 60 guys fighting for a base and 30-40 slugging out in the middle, with the associated lag and warps.
As a result, increasing map size does not create enough extra fights and lead to more even distrubtion of the player base; instead you just end up with literally hundreds of miles of wasted space.
In a small, 150-player map (or any other smaller number, up to about 200 IMO), the fights that develop will tend to remain smaller in scale and hence lag and such won't be as much of a problem. There will also be, proportionally, less empty area in a small map than a large one.
Another important issue is scaling the terrain to your player base. Base distances affect the density of battles, more than number of bases or map size does. One problem with the AH arenas is the base distances; these distances on a map like NDISLES are fine for 300 players but IMO a bit too far for 150-200, and considerably too far for when there's -100 online. When there's 400+, they're actually too CLOSE together, further increasing the density of the big fights. While it may be possible to shut down "fringe" bases during off-peak hours to cope with milkrunning on the PIZZA map (as HiTech suggested doing), it is NOT possible for the base distances to constantly change. An advantage of having a smaller max player base is you can better scale your terrain for the number of people who will use it.
You probably COULD scale a terrain to operate well with 500 players and no overcrowding, but it'd have two big problems. First, flight times to and from the fights would have to be very long (to keep density down), which will alienate most players. Second, during off-peak hours the bases would be so far apart as to prohibit good sustained fights from developing at all--I cannot think of a way to enforce a "MINIMUM" player population, only a MAX.
As I said, there IS more than one solution to this problem; multiple arenas is NOT the only way to go. You can, for example, create "zones" inside the single arena with a max population limit (AW actually had such zones although they rarely came into effect because the players usually sorted themselves out naturally); such zones would by nature prevent the population from congregating all in a few areas. A "zone" works by preventing people from taking off from bases inside a full "zone"--obviously the flaw is if zones are too full for too long, players will start to get angry. They're a good backup system to prevent local overcroeding, but IMO not a permanent fix.
I am a proponent of multiple arenas instead of the other solutions because of the obvious advantage of having 3 or 4 arenas versus 1 in that you can do different things with the different arenas; as long as the basic setups remain similar each will draw players. Variety is a GOOD thing :)
Does this help?
J_A_B
-
In the case of the 150 player map, in order to have a 50-plane furball you need fully 1/3 of the entire map's player base in one area. On a 450-player map, you only need 1/9 of the player base in a fight to create such a fight. So just from that standpoint alone it's more likely that such fights will develop in a more populated map.
Well, thats a reasonable argument. I'm not sure its true, but its reasonable and well argured.
I haven't flown the CT much, but when I did (1st BoB?) I didn't see things spread out across the map. I saw everyone in the arena gathered into a big, never-ending furball right over the channel. The few times I have poped into the CT it seems everyone just picks a pair of near fields and furballs between them. Maybe I haven't been in there enough times to get a proper sample, but what I've seen so far in there doesn't support your theory. If limiting an arena to 150 players has the effect of spreading out the fight, then an arena with 20-30 players ought to be REALLY spread out. To me it seems to have the the opposite effect often. If there are few players, I'm DEFINITELY going to go where everyone else seems to be going because there seems to be less of a chance to find a fight elswhere.
There is certainly nothing that PREVENTS the players in a 150 player sized arena from clumping into a couple of large furballs. If they didn't in AW, I suspect it had more to do with the players simply choosing NOT to. Obviously if they chose to clump together, that can be just as easy in a 150 player small arena as a 450 player large arena. Didn't AW announce WHICH field was under attack in a text msg? I bet that has a lot more to do with it. When someone tries to sneak a field, if you got a system text message "A124 is now under attack!" you'd much more likely to run over to A124 to check it out than if you just got an anonymous "base under attack...". Which base? Where? I see a bunch of flashing bases. Which one just started?
Limiting an arena to 150 player might have some effect on bandwidth usage, but I don't think that it has any more effect of spreading out the fights than putting 450 player into a large arena. Basically, I'm not sure that either is an effective method of influencing player distrobution in and of itself.
I'm not AGIANST multiple arenas. I kinda like the idea of the variety. I just don't think that smaller, less populated arenas will be anymore evenly distrobuted than larger, more populated ones.
I think most people are going to gravitate to the nearest "big" fight that they can see on the radar.
I think maintaining a reasonable Player/Airfield ratio is part of it. I think giving players more targeted information of fields under attack would help balance out the milk-running in the less dense map. The old maps seemed to best at around 300 players(IMHO).
With around 70 fields thats about 4.28 Player per Field density(no that doesn't mean every field only had 4 people flying from it). The Desert map with around 450 players and 255 fields has aratio of around 1.76 Players per Field. So yeah, the desert map is prolly too big for the current number of players IMO. With the current number of players we'd be better off with around 100 fields. Maybe as high as 150 if you got exact info (i.e. "Base X is now under attack!") about a remote base coming under attack so someone can immediately up and defend without trying to decipher which base it is.
I could be wrong.
BTW, I like the zone population limit idea. On the other hand I don't agree with increasing the distance between fields. Irregardless of the player numbers, there is a limited amount of time I want to travel to the fight before getting bored (whether its a big furball or small one). So I think that irregardless of density, transit time to action should remain constant. I think HTC has the optimium inter-field distance pretty well pegged at 20-35 miles.
IMHO.
Regards,
Wab
-
Similar Link:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=61639
-
I don't have more time (gotta go to work in a sec), but I'll try to remember to respond tomorrow sometime. We're on the same page here Wab :)
J_A_B
-
BoB in the CT is not a reasonable comparison... the bob map has only one area in which there is a short flight time between bases. So of course the mob converges there..
Well said J_A_B +)
SKurj
-
Originally posted by SKurj
BoB in the CT is not a reasonable comparison... the bob map has only one area in which there is a short flight time between bases. So of course the mob converges there..
Well said J_A_B +)
SKurj
and it's rare you'll see more than 30-50 (max, usually around 10-30)... which is why there are few warps and stuff...
as ooJABoo <--- :p , so windily put it, it's not the size, it's the local population density that creates problems.
-
Better bandwidth is needed and anyone with a poor connection .ie. <350 ping should have a warning to relog or buy a DECENT modem :D
hell i ended up buying ADSL PURELY for the better connection to AH yet we have to suffer these people who have terrible connections causing untold frustration for those of us trying to shoot the basts' down! :). 56k is capable of decent speeds as even my old 56k had well below 300 ping. ADSL is @130 even from the UK.
you got cheap 56k? BAN EM I SAY or force them to buy a new modem, the latest ones have much improved speed and they are not expensive.
I am also of the opinion that 500+ is just too many unless its in an organised event like a scenario.
think about it if there were 2 arenas each with 300 players as the limit you would soon fill both and if each have their own route/pipeline (whatever they call it) it should take us back to the old days of DECENT gameplay , not this crappy warp fest we see when numbers exceed 400.
somewhere along the way HTC has dropped its standards from what us (beta days) players came to expect from them.Its not our fault we expect it because to be honest thats exactly what atracted me to AH in the first place.
It had the best connections id seen and had a hard learning curve which challenged us.Id tried WB and others and turned them off after a few minutes seeing warping everywhere.
Now AH seems to be fading a bit.Heading toward the normal run of the mill game servers (unacceptable in my opinion :()
Ill wait a while longer but surely by now if you offer to pay for a better service from whoever supplies you they provide it because it makes a profit?? I cant see how its taken so long to get a T1 (or whatever) line installed. what is the delay?
-
Need smaller arenas..
-
Originally posted by SKurj
AKWabbit.. look it AW... 3 50 plane furballs didn't happen... not sure all the reasons why... (long front lines?)
SKurj
This was latterly controlled by a "zone limit"............it meant that once "x" planes were airborne from a certain field then no more could take off until one got shot down or landed.
The Zone limit was an arena setup variable............it could also be linked to (in AW's case) fuel attrition at a field.............such that as fuel was depleted fewer planes could be air borne from that field.
The actual Zone limit could be attributed to each field individually although there was a global command.
In this way the 50 plane uber mission was not possible unless planned to launch from multiple fields.......... the attrition link made base defence difficult but equally enabled the reduction of a n attcking airfields zone strength capability. Few AW player ever seemed to realise this.
-
It seems to be much better than AW when things get crowded, at least as I recall.
Charon [/B][/QUOTE]
All the online flight Sim servers have their up and down sides...
As for me, since Dec 7 2001, I have seen nothing as much fun as AirWarrior RR PAC was on a crowded friday night..............
CHECKERS
aka AW `Cucas Squad ` Chkrs
-
1 thing from AW to prevent from massive furballs over a field was that the fields were limited in the ammount of planes who was able to start there.
Means if 20 or so planes startet from 1 field it was closed untill 1 of these planes got shot down.
U had to come from a differnt field. In the meantime of ur approach severel others got shot down and the furball was "naturally" limited in his size
-
One way to increase bandwith=return to $30/mo:D
-
Originally posted by hazed-
Better bandwidth is needed and anyone with a poor connection .ie. <350 ping should have a warning to relog or buy a DECENT modem :D
This is SO true. If you're limited to using a dial-up connect then the best thing is to get a good modem. I used a cheap PCI modem for a year in AH and when I finaly switched to an external serial modem my ping average droped from 240ms down to 160ms and is now rock steady.
Other than when my ISP or the net has a burp I don't have the major problems that a lot of people are having <2 CTD's and 1 lockup in 2 months> and a minor amount of warping that I attribute to the other players connect not server warps.
-
Originally posted by hazed-
you got cheap 56k? BAN EM I SAY or force them to buy a new modem, the latest ones have much improved speed and they are not expensive.
What about us folks that have NO other option but 56K dialup? I do not have CABLE, DSL, ISDN or WIRELESS options in my area. There is 2-way satellite, but the latency with satellite is even worse than dialup!
It's weird. I'm near St Louis, but i'm not close enough for CABLE or DSL and I'm not far enough away for the rural wireless carriers to reach me.
I wish I had some high speed option....
Terror
-
Flay bombers... be happy :)