Live data from Hacker News

How the EVE Online Servers Deal with a 3,000 Person Battle

penny-arcade.com

41–50 of 135 posts

Re: How the EVE Online Servers Deal with a 3,000 Person Battle

#41
post #20
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be the point of having all this cool stuff if no one else even gets to see it and you don't get to use it?

If you spent six months grinding the ISK to buy and outfit a carrier, how willing would you be to take it into a battle where any of a hundred things could destroy it, including server lag or a random disconnection?

I would invert the causality. Why would I spend six months outfitting a carrier if I had no intention of using it in combat or even flying it anywhere where other people would see it?

Re: How the EVE Online Servers Deal with a 3,000 Person Battle

#42
post #8

The report of the battle they link to ( http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/01/28/eve-online-battle-asakai/ ) is even more fascinating to me. You spend hours and hours of effort in order to get a ship, and one way of thinking about them is as the time spent to earn them compressed into 3d form. Unlike (most) other MMO's, battles actually destroy things. So in that youtube clip, you're watching years and years of effort getti…

Funnily enough, losing a ship doesn't really make me feel like I've just wasted hours and hours in that way. The real "investment" isn't the time converted into money through ingame activities, be it generating money through fighting NPC pirates or playing the market, it's the time you spent getting into a position where your characters can effectively make money for you, and that isn't so easily taken away from you again.

I don't really think about a pvp ship much differently than about ammunition. They're an expendable resource, and you probably have a hangar full of replacements just waiting for you to wake up in your cloning pod. It's probably a bit more involved with capital ships and the like, as they are really a group effort so the replacement capacities might belong to your alliance and not you personally, but they're still accounted for before a shot is fired.

In a way, this is really what makes EVE interesting. Losses needing to be replaced doesn't only make EVE battles meaningful on a different level than matches in other games (though I hesitate to say more meaningful...), but it also allows the internet spaceship economy to be very central to the game rather than just some mini-game-like distraction. "Item creation" becomes a question of securing resources and production pipelines and supply lines and whatnot, rather than a one-off effort that precedes the "actual" game.

Re: How the EVE Online Servers Deal with a 3,000 Person Battle

#43
post #8

The report of the battle they link to ( http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/01/28/eve-online-battle-asakai/ ) is even more fascinating to me. You spend hours and hours of effort in order to get a ship, and one way of thinking about them is as the time spent to earn them compressed into 3d form. Unlike (most) other MMO's, battles actually destroy things. So in that youtube clip, you're watching years and years of effort getti…

Here's a much more in depth report of the battle. http://themittani.com/news/asakai-aftermath-all-over-cobalt-...

It's a very fascinating read.

Re: How the EVE Online Servers Deal with a 3,000 Person Battle

#44
Second Life (I may be wrong on the game itself) talked about how it manages game scale across many servers.

The entire game is a virtual machine.

When a player leaves a server boundary, their player VM state is packaged up and sent to the next world server and then resumed on that server.

Players don't even notice they crossed server boundaries, and this was possible because the game can be paused mid flight for that player - pretty neat.

Re: How the EVE Online Servers Deal with a 3,000 Person Battle

#45
post #41
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you spent six months grinding the ISK to buy and outfit a carrier, how willing would you be to take it into a battle where any of a hundred things could destroy it, including server lag or a random disconnection?

I would invert the causality. Why would I spend six months outfitting a carrier if I had no intention of using it in combat or even flying it anywhere where other people would see it?

Same reason people spend hours tending their farmville farms...

Re: How the EVE Online Servers Deal with a 3,000 Person Battle

#46
post #8

The report of the battle they link to ( http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/01/28/eve-online-battle-asakai/ ) is even more fascinating to me. You spend hours and hours of effort in order to get a ship, and one way of thinking about them is as the time spent to earn them compressed into 3d form. Unlike (most) other MMO's, battles actually destroy things. So in that youtube clip, you're watching years and years of effort getti…

Heh, I could never play EVE because stuff like this would make it more addicting for me.

Re: How the EVE Online Servers Deal with a 3,000 Person Battle

#47
post #41
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you spent six months grinding the ISK to buy and outfit a carrier, how willing would you be to take it into a battle where any of a hundred things could destroy it, including server lag or a random disconnection?

I would invert the causality. Why would I spend six months outfitting a carrier if I had no intention of using it in combat or even flying it anywhere where other people would see it?

Well, you wouldn't do it at all. That's why the alliances try to help their members after fights.

Re: How the EVE Online Servers Deal with a 3,000 Person Battle

#48
post #38

It's like each solar system is a VM, and they can't move their VMs to a new physical server without disconnecting all clients. And all of their physical servers are at 100% load all of the time? Oh, I guess it's 100% utilization, not 100% load. As in, they don't spin down servers to save power during off-hours I guess. The time dilation is a neat solution to the server load problem, but it's sooo annoying as a player…

Two main solutions (given that the article mentions that they have huge machines already):- A) Allow a single solar system to span multiple machines. Very hard, especially if the server software isn't architected for this. Retrofitting this can be nigh on impossible. B) Have a few huge machines that can be used to host scenarios like this and, more importantly, have a way of migrating users over to the huge machine s…

Which never seems to come around, because the new hardware is so much faster that it can host what were previously problematic server loads without a problem, and you've got a million other things to write.

Yet players have a tendency to figure out when places are too overcrowded to be fun. So your old problematic load is almost never representative of how many players wanted to be in that area, but merely how many players were willing to put up with that level of degraded performance.

So upon release (or sufficiently close to it to start stress testing, which is conveniently when it's too late to really change architecture) the new limits are quickly hit.

Re: How the EVE Online Servers Deal with a 3,000 Person Battle

#49
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody actually "earns" titans. It's simply not something that an individual would ever fly. Titans belong to the biggest corporations, alliances, and coalitions, and are essentially floating cities that support fleets of other ships. They're a strategic resource that individual players would never use. In the case of this particular battle, CFC lost 3 titans. This alone is several thousand dollars worth of real-worl…

If they have so many Titans, why not bring out ten of them and sweep the battle?

They already had more than 10 titans. There were almost 3000 ships in the battle at its height. Also, this battle is a bit different in that it happened in low-sec space, where certain rules are enforced by the game's NPC Empire. So you can't use the Titan's most powerful weapon, which makes it vulnerable. Conversely, you can't use area denial interdictors, so many of the CFC's ships were able to escape when it became clear that they were doomed.

Also, travel takes a long time. This battle lasted 2.5 hours and both sides scrambled everyone, waking people up at 4am to go fight. The coalition headed by reddit arrived with 500 ships just as the battle was ending. Part of the reason the folks from Something Awful got beaten as bad as they did is that many different alliances, not just TEST, showed up just for a chance to stick it to them.

Re: How the EVE Online Servers Deal with a 3,000 Person Battle

#50
post #21
post #8

The report of the battle they link to ( http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/01/28/eve-online-battle-asakai/ ) is even more fascinating to me. You spend hours and hours of effort in order to get a ship, and one way of thinking about them is as the time spent to earn them compressed into 3d form. Unlike (most) other MMO's, battles actually destroy things. So in that youtube clip, you're watching years and years of effort getti…

It risk vs reward. To own the resources that generate large amounts of ISK/Resources, you'll need to risk your ships to defend it. You can grind all day long in places which has little to no risk to your ship, but it will take a long time to earn enough resources for a nice ship.

In general, this is actually a major problem with EVE right now. The risk vs reward balance is off with the game at least in the sense of an individual player. About the only thing this applies to is alliance income from moon minerals and market speculation.

Most alliances who own space in EVE though don't actually hold the moons that are valuable and so its pretty much all risk for them and no reward at least in terms of money, you do get a reward of having fun.

For the player as I said the risk vs reward ratio is very off balance because there is really no advantage to living in an area that you are more likely to be killed or participating in any pvp of your own choice

Post reply on HN