Server Performance on Invasion Day (see other thread)

  • @Korn

    Here's a video from just now, was suffering from stuttering and massive FPS issues (30-40-50 FPS), I turn OFF the 'Off-screen Nametags' and I instantly run smooth as butter, my MS drops back into green and my actual FPS jumped up-to 80 FPS stable.

    i.gyazo.com/0ba0dd5036f5eeb7fbf09cc5be7347af.mp4

    Time to remove off-screen nametags from the game? All I've heard from them so far is issues after issues and clearly from just my .gif above there's still major issues that need fixing with them if I can INSTANTLY improve stutter, FPS issues and MS issues by just turning them off.

    Use this LINK & code 'ROBIN' for 20% off any plan!

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Robinhoodrs ().

  • @Korn

    So while I am pretty livid I don't want to flame here and instead ask: Why?

    Does the game not allow for a scaling operation? In today's on demand hardware, can you not rent more hardware to sustain the game in these trying times? Is there a financial issue? Or would more/better hardware not help? I just want to understand why this happened. We got kicked from the servers on a boss, one time with 20k HP, the other time with 10k right after. (still got it in the end through sheer persistence) But the stress and the unreliability is what makes me want to play something else. I saw you guys undertaking no steps at all to address the issue. Especially since it was coming a long way with all the server restarts around 17 UTC or something every day this week.

    Why?
  • kreeshak wrote:

    Korn wrote:

    Storydor wrote:

    I think the only thing that would make me feel good would be if you just said:

    "Sorry, we screwed up big time. We've secretly been remaking this game in another engine that handles networking and scaling better. In a month we will relaunch the game in Unreal/whatever and things will most likely be better"
    Unfortunately, it's not a hardware issue. If the performance could be increased by adding more hardware, we would instantly do that.
    out of curiosity can you provide a link to any article online, explaining (even in scientific or technical terms) what the bottleneck is, and how current technology can't solve it?
    Personally: no as I am not a tech guy myself.

    I'll try my best though:
    The underlying issue - in "layman" terms - is that Albion has fast paced combat with lots of different abilities. These generate a lot of information. If you have 10 players in a fight (such as in MOBA) information generated by 1 player needs to be transmitted to 9 others. That true for each player, in both directions, so unless my math is wrong that would be 2*10*9 = 180 information pathways. If you double the number of players, this more than doubles, to 2*20*19 = 760 (which is an increase by more than a factor of 4). In our case, we up to hundreds of players per zone - the information load created here is huge. Secondly, while you can share some of that load across different hardware devices (parallel processing) this cannot be done universally as the different CPUs that you share the load on will still need to come to a common understanding of what is happening, i.e. they will need to talk between each other. What we can do is get the most powerful CPUs on the market, optimize as much as we can (and there is certainly still room for improvement) and then determine the limit of the number of players that can be in a fight concurrently. Such a limit exits, and the main problem right now if that zones clearly allow more players to fight at the same time that what our systems currently can handle. This is made worse right now by the general server load (here, there is also room for optimization, i.e. the general game world population should have less impact on the particular fights inside certain zones and vice versa).

    To sum it up: there are clear pathways for us to take to further optimize. There is however a hard limit to how large fights can get in with an action-based combat system such as the one we use. Hence, there are also a game design challenge for us: we need to make sure that incentives for mega-blobs are reduced. We'll need to look at the zone queue / cap mechanic again. Intentionally trying to cap out a zone should not be a thing. As stated above, we'll provide more details early next week, both on the tech side of things (by our coders who are more qualified to talk about this than I am) and on how we are going to tackle these issues.
  • Korn wrote:

    Storydor wrote:

    I think the only thing that would make me feel good would be if you just said:

    "Sorry, we screwed up big time. We've secretly been remaking this game in another engine that handles networking and scaling better. In a month we will relaunch the game in Unreal/whatever and things will most likely be better"
    Unfortunately, it's not a hardware issue. If the performance could be increased by adding more hardware, we would instantly do that.
    But I didn't mention hardware in any moment at all... I mentioned game engines. If another engine handles things better than the current engine, you might not even need as much hardware invested as you have now.. Unity is limited, people know that. The developers from Rust know that. But their game is not made for 10-30k people, let alone 400 at the same time.
  • pobres los muchachos con low end pc aca no hacen una mierda, me paso ayer en el portal que tarde literal 5 minutos en logear al portal y me mataron con mucho equipo 5 noobs campeando pero quien me devuelve lo perdido, no creo que helmut me lo devuelva porque su super server anda como el orto, y pague por un juego que es injugable, optimicen el juego porque para celulares es injugable, y para Pc que son low end tb Gracias por su no comprension, y no tenia ganas de escribir en ingles.
  • Harun wrote:

    @Korn

    So while I am pretty livid I don't want to flame here and instead ask: Why?

    Does the game not allow for a scaling operation? In today's on demand hardware, can you not rent more hardware to sustain the game in these trying times? Is there a financial issue? Or would more/better hardware not help? I just want to understand why this happened. We got kicked from the servers on a boss, one time with 20k HP, the other time with 10k right after. (still got it in the end through sheer persistence) But the stress and the unreliability is what makes me want to play something else. I saw you guys undertaking no steps at all to address the issue. Especially since it was coming a long way with all the server restarts around 17 UTC or something every day this week.

    Why?
    It's neither a financial issue nor a hardware issue. If it was, it would be easy to fix - in fact, it would not have happened in the first place.

    Please see my statement above for a bit more background. Some proper, more scientific information will be shared with by our tech team next week. (we don't want to distract them right now)
  • Korn wrote:

    kreeshak wrote:

    Korn wrote:

    Storydor wrote:

    I think the only thing that would make me feel good would be if you just said:

    "Sorry, we screwed up big time. We've secretly been remaking this game in another engine that handles networking and scaling better. In a month we will relaunch the game in Unreal/whatever and things will most likely be better"
    Unfortunately, it's not a hardware issue. If the performance could be increased by adding more hardware, we would instantly do that.
    out of curiosity can you provide a link to any article online, explaining (even in scientific or technical terms) what the bottleneck is, and how current technology can't solve it?
    Personally: no as I am not a tech guy myself.
    I'll try my best though:
    The underlying issue - in "layman" terms - is that Albion has fast paced combat with lots of different abilities. These generate a lot of information. If you have 10 players in a fight (such as in MOBA) information generated by 1 player needs to be transmitted to 9 others. That true for each player, in both directions, so unless my math is wrong that would be 2*10*9 = 180 information pathways. If you double the number of players, this more than doubles, to 2*20*19 = 760 (which is an increase by more than a factor of 4). In our case, we up to hundreds of players per zone - the information load created here is huge. Secondly, while you can share some of that load across different hardware devices (parallel processing) this cannot be done universally as the different CPUs that you share the load on will still need to come to a common understanding of what is happening, i.e. they will need to talk between each other. What we can do is get the most powerful CPUs on the market, optimize as much as we can (and there is certainly still room for improvement) and then determine the limit of the number of players that can be in a fight concurrently. Such a limit exits, and the main problem right now if that zones clearly allow more players to fight at the same time that what our systems currently can handle. This is made worse right now by the general server load (here, there is also room for optimization, i.e. the general game world population should have less impact on the particular fights inside certain zones and vice versa).

    To sum it up: there are clear pathways for us to take to further optimize. There is however a hard limit to how large fights can get in with an action-based combat system such as the one we use. Hence, there are also a game design challenge for us: we need to make sure that incentives for mega-blobs are reduced. We'll need to look at the zone queue / cap mechanic again. Intentionally trying to cap out a zone should not be a thing. As stated above, we'll provide more details early next week, both on the tech side of things (by our coders who are more qualified to talk about this than I am) and on how we are going to tackle these issues.
    Yeah. It looks like you guys need to decide on whether you can actually handle the current meta of Alliances (massive 50+ v 50+ fights) or if you need to shift off of that and focus on smaller scale fights.

    I personally am not a big fan of zerg v zergs. I dream of the day I could just fight 5v5/20v20s forever, but things are not as simple.
  • It's a frustrating setback indeed but I still love Albion Online and hope to see it improve more. I know there is a lot of very negative comments here and I can understand as many people get very hyped up for this day and even spend a lot of time preparing for it. From my experience through out the week since the F2P launch, the game has been appearing better until today.

    I hope a good solution is found and I will still be sticking with Albion.
  • Korn wrote:

    Personally: no as I am not a tech guy myself.
    I'll try my best though:
    The underlying issue - in "layman" terms - is that Albion has fast paced combat with lots of different abilities. These generate a lot of information. If you have 10 players in a fight (such as in MOBA) information generated by 1 player needs to be transmitted to 9 others. That true for each player, in both directions, so unless my math is wrong that would be 2*10*9 = 180 information pathways. If you double the number of players, this more than doubles, to 2*20*19 = 760 (which is an increase by more than a factor of 4). In our case, we up to hundreds of players per zone - the information load created here is huge. Secondly, while you can share some of that load across different hardware devices (parallel processing) this cannot be done universally as the different CPUs that you share the load on will still need to come to a common understanding of what is happening, i.e. they will need to talk between each other. What we can do is get the most powerful CPUs on the market, optimize as much as we can (and there is certainly still room for improvement) and then determine the limit of the number of players that can be in a fight concurrently. Such a limit exits, and the main problem right now if that zones clearly allow more players to fight at the same time that what our systems currently can handle. This is made worse right now by the general server load (here, there is also room for optimization, i.e. the general game world population should have less impact on the particular fights inside certain zones and vice versa).

    To sum it up: there are clear pathways for us to take to further optimize. There is however a hard limit to how large fights can get in with an action-based combat system such as the one we use. Hence, there are also a game design challenge for us: we need to make sure that incentives for mega-blobs are reduced. We'll need to look at the zone queue / cap mechanic again. Intentionally trying to cap out a zone should not be a thing. As stated above, we'll provide more details early next week, both on the tech side of things (by our coders who are more qualified to talk about this than I am) and on how we are going to tackle these issues.
    So, while I'm not doubting this is true in whole- this logic makes me a little curious. In World of Warcraft, AB had 100v100. In GW2 there can be as much as 100v100. GW2 also has siege weapons that have AoE's that can cover an entire screen. Sight is not limited to a top down perspective.These do not cause a significant impact on gameplay in those MMO's. The abilities, AoE's, and general effects are far more detailed in those games as well. So how is it, that both of those games who have been out for 7+ years and able to pull it off from their start? Technology gets better every day, and if they were able to pull it off over seven years ago- then what's keeping SBI from maintaining that standard of gaming?
  • jwhite179 wrote:

    Korn wrote:

    Personally: no as I am not a tech guy myself.
    I'll try my best though:
    The underlying issue - in "layman" terms - is that Albion has fast paced combat with lots of different abilities. These generate a lot of information. If you have 10 players in a fight (such as in MOBA) information generated by 1 player needs to be transmitted to 9 others. That true for each player, in both directions, so unless my math is wrong that would be 2*10*9 = 180 information pathways. If you double the number of players, this more than doubles, to 2*20*19 = 760 (which is an increase by more than a factor of 4). In our case, we up to hundreds of players per zone - the information load created here is huge. Secondly, while you can share some of that load across different hardware devices (parallel processing) this cannot be done universally as the different CPUs that you share the load on will still need to come to a common understanding of what is happening, i.e. they will need to talk between each other. What we can do is get the most powerful CPUs on the market, optimize as much as we can (and there is certainly still room for improvement) and then determine the limit of the number of players that can be in a fight concurrently. Such a limit exits, and the main problem right now if that zones clearly allow more players to fight at the same time that what our systems currently can handle. This is made worse right now by the general server load (here, there is also room for optimization, i.e. the general game world population should have less impact on the particular fights inside certain zones and vice versa).

    To sum it up: there are clear pathways for us to take to further optimize. There is however a hard limit to how large fights can get in with an action-based combat system such as the one we use. Hence, there are also a game design challenge for us: we need to make sure that incentives for mega-blobs are reduced. We'll need to look at the zone queue / cap mechanic again. Intentionally trying to cap out a zone should not be a thing. As stated above, we'll provide more details early next week, both on the tech side of things (by our coders who are more qualified to talk about this than I am) and on how we are going to tackle these issues.
    So, while I'm not doubting this is true in whole- this logic makes me a little curious. In World of Warcraft, AB had 100v100. In GW2 there can be as much as 100v100. GW2 also has siege weapons that have AoE's that can cover an entire screen. Sight is not limited to a top down perspective.These do not cause a significant impact on gameplay in those MMO's. The abilities, AoE's, and general effects are far more detailed in those games as well. So how is it, that both of those games who have been out for 7+ years and able to pull it off from their start? Technology gets better every day, and if they were able to pull it off over seven years ago- then what's keeping SBI from maintaining that standard of gaming?
    Like I said. It's about the engine. What you can or cannot do is limited by the engine you're building onto. Some engines handle networking better than others, which seems to me to be the biggest current problem.
  • jwhite179 wrote:

    Korn wrote:

    Personally: no as I am not a tech guy myself.
    I'll try my best though:
    The underlying issue - in "layman" terms - is that Albion has fast paced combat with lots of different abilities. These generate a lot of information. If you have 10 players in a fight (such as in MOBA) information generated by 1 player needs to be transmitted to 9 others. That true for each player, in both directions, so unless my math is wrong that would be 2*10*9 = 180 information pathways. If you double the number of players, this more than doubles, to 2*20*19 = 760 (which is an increase by more than a factor of 4). In our case, we up to hundreds of players per zone - the information load created here is huge. Secondly, while you can share some of that load across different hardware devices (parallel processing) this cannot be done universally as the different CPUs that you share the load on will still need to come to a common understanding of what is happening, i.e. they will need to talk between each other. What we can do is get the most powerful CPUs on the market, optimize as much as we can (and there is certainly still room for improvement) and then determine the limit of the number of players that can be in a fight concurrently. Such a limit exits, and the main problem right now if that zones clearly allow more players to fight at the same time that what our systems currently can handle. This is made worse right now by the general server load (here, there is also room for optimization, i.e. the general game world population should have less impact on the particular fights inside certain zones and vice versa).

    To sum it up: there are clear pathways for us to take to further optimize. There is however a hard limit to how large fights can get in with an action-based combat system such as the one we use. Hence, there are also a game design challenge for us: we need to make sure that incentives for mega-blobs are reduced. We'll need to look at the zone queue / cap mechanic again. Intentionally trying to cap out a zone should not be a thing. As stated above, we'll provide more details early next week, both on the tech side of things (by our coders who are more qualified to talk about this than I am) and on how we are going to tackle these issues.
    So, while I'm not doubting this is true in whole- this logic makes me a little curious. In World of Warcraft, AB had 100v100. In GW2 there can be as much as 100v100. GW2 also has siege weapons that have AoE's that can cover an entire screen. Sight is not limited to a top down perspective.These do not cause a significant impact on gameplay in those MMO's. The abilities, AoE's, and general effects are far more detailed in those games as well. So how is it, that both of those games who have been out for 7+ years and able to pull it off from their start? Technology gets better every day, and if they were able to pull it off over seven years ago- then what's keeping SBI from maintaining that standard of gaming?
    We go far beyond 100 vs 100. Based on the formula above, 2*100*99 = 19,800. Our zone cap right now is 350, giving 2*350*349 = 244,300. That's more than 12-times as information intensive as a 100 vs 100 fight. For those of you more technically minded, our coders will share a more detailed statement about the technical situation with you next week.
  • I want to (genuinely) applaud the work that everyone at SBI has been doing today. Technical roles, community roles, management roles--I know you all are working hard and I want to make sure you all know that, even with so many people being VERY upset, some of us acknowledge the difficult position you're in, and that you really are doing the best you can given the circumstances.

    I want to call out and appreciate the amount of respect and direct communication that SBI is giving us, the players. They could have easily been posting these updates in a place or in a way where we couldn't respond and talk directly to the Game Director about these issues. And even with the anger and frustration, @Korn is still talking with us, answering questions, trying to give us all the information he can.

    To everyone at SBI: keep being awesome, know that at least one person out there appreciates you. And take care of yourselves, each and every one of you. We still want you around after all the craziness!
  • Korn wrote:

    kreeshak wrote:

    Korn wrote:

    Storydor wrote:

    I think the only thing that would make me feel good would be if you just said:

    "Sorry, we screwed up big time. We've secretly been remaking this game in another engine that handles networking and scaling better. In a month we will relaunch the game in Unreal/whatever and things will most likely be better"
    Unfortunately, it's not a hardware issue. If the performance could be increased by adding more hardware, we would instantly do that.
    out of curiosity can you provide a link to any article online, explaining (even in scientific or technical terms) what the bottleneck is, and how current technology can't solve it?
    Personally: no as I am not a tech guy myself.
    I'll try my best though:
    The underlying issue - in "layman" terms - is that Albion has fast paced combat with lots of different abilities. These generate a lot of information. If you have 10 players in a fight (such as in MOBA) information generated by 1 player needs to be transmitted to 9 others. That true for each player, in both directions, so unless my math is wrong that would be 2*10*9 = 180 information pathways. If you double the number of players, this more than doubles, to 2*20*19 = 760 (which is an increase by more than a factor of 4). In our case, we up to hundreds of players per zone - the information load created here is huge. Secondly, while you can share some of that load across different hardware devices (parallel processing) this cannot be done universally as the different CPUs that you share the load on will still need to come to a common understanding of what is happening, i.e. they will need to talk between each other. What we can do is get the most powerful CPUs on the market, optimize as much as we can (and there is certainly still room for improvement) and then determine the limit of the number of players that can be in a fight concurrently. Such a limit exits, and the main problem right now if that zones clearly allow more players to fight at the same time that what our systems currently can handle. This is made worse right now by the general server load (here, there is also room for optimization, i.e. the general game world population should have less impact on the particular fights inside certain zones and vice versa).

    To sum it up: there are clear pathways for us to take to further optimize. There is however a hard limit to how large fights can get in with an action-based combat system such as the one we use. Hence, there are also a game design challenge for us: we need to make sure that incentives for mega-blobs are reduced. We'll need to look at the zone queue / cap mechanic again. Intentionally trying to cap out a zone should not be a thing. As stated above, we'll provide more details early next week, both on the tech side of things (by our coders who are more qualified to talk about this than I am) and on how we are going to tackle these issues.
    Thank you for the explanation.

    So, the obvious question - why not host each one of these heavy PvP zones on their own server /cluster?
    PvE zones can be hosted on their own server/cluster/vm/ whatever you use.

    Nothing that is done in PvP zones should impact PvE zones and vice versa.


    Did I help? Please use my Referral Link.
  • Korn wrote:

    jwhite179 wrote:

    Korn wrote:

    Personally: no as I am not a tech guy myself.
    I'll try my best though:
    The underlying issue - in "layman" terms - is that Albion has fast paced combat with lots of different abilities. These generate a lot of information. If you have 10 players in a fight (such as in MOBA) information generated by 1 player needs to be transmitted to 9 others. That true for each player, in both directions, so unless my math is wrong that would be 2*10*9 = 180 information pathways. If you double the number of players, this more than doubles, to 2*20*19 = 760 (which is an increase by more than a factor of 4). In our case, we up to hundreds of players per zone - the information load created here is huge. Secondly, while you can share some of that load across different hardware devices (parallel processing) this cannot be done universally as the different CPUs that you share the load on will still need to come to a common understanding of what is happening, i.e. they will need to talk between each other. What we can do is get the most powerful CPUs on the market, optimize as much as we can (and there is certainly still room for improvement) and then determine the limit of the number of players that can be in a fight concurrently. Such a limit exits, and the main problem right now if that zones clearly allow more players to fight at the same time that what our systems currently can handle. This is made worse right now by the general server load (here, there is also room for optimization, i.e. the general game world population should have less impact on the particular fights inside certain zones and vice versa).

    To sum it up: there are clear pathways for us to take to further optimize. There is however a hard limit to how large fights can get in with an action-based combat system such as the one we use. Hence, there are also a game design challenge for us: we need to make sure that incentives for mega-blobs are reduced. We'll need to look at the zone queue / cap mechanic again. Intentionally trying to cap out a zone should not be a thing. As stated above, we'll provide more details early next week, both on the tech side of things (by our coders who are more qualified to talk about this than I am) and on how we are going to tackle these issues.
    So, while I'm not doubting this is true in whole- this logic makes me a little curious. In World of Warcraft, AB had 100v100. In GW2 there can be as much as 100v100. GW2 also has siege weapons that have AoE's that can cover an entire screen. Sight is not limited to a top down perspective.These do not cause a significant impact on gameplay in those MMO's. The abilities, AoE's, and general effects are far more detailed in those games as well. So how is it, that both of those games who have been out for 7+ years and able to pull it off from their start? Technology gets better every day, and if they were able to pull it off over seven years ago- then what's keeping SBI from maintaining that standard of gaming?
    We go far beyond 100 vs 100. Based on the formula above, 2*100*99 = 19,800. Our zone cap right now is 350, giving 2*350*349 = 244,300. That's more than 12-times as information intensive as a 100 vs 100 fight. For those of you more technically minded, our coders will share a more detailed statement about the technical situation with you next week.
    You're telling me, that the packet of information being sent in this game from one individual, to 349 other players- is larger, than a 100v100 of this?
  • jwhite179 wrote:

    Korn wrote:

    jwhite179 wrote:

    Korn wrote:

    Personally: no as I am not a tech guy myself.
    I'll try my best though:
    The underlying issue - in "layman" terms - is that Albion has fast paced combat with lots of different abilities. These generate a lot of information. If you have 10 players in a fight (such as in MOBA) information generated by 1 player needs to be transmitted to 9 others. That true for each player, in both directions, so unless my math is wrong that would be 2*10*9 = 180 information pathways. If you double the number of players, this more than doubles, to 2*20*19 = 760 (which is an increase by more than a factor of 4). In our case, we up to hundreds of players per zone - the information load created here is huge. Secondly, while you can share some of that load across different hardware devices (parallel processing) this cannot be done universally as the different CPUs that you share the load on will still need to come to a common understanding of what is happening, i.e. they will need to talk between each other. What we can do is get the most powerful CPUs on the market, optimize as much as we can (and there is certainly still room for improvement) and then determine the limit of the number of players that can be in a fight concurrently. Such a limit exits, and the main problem right now if that zones clearly allow more players to fight at the same time that what our systems currently can handle. This is made worse right now by the general server load (here, there is also room for optimization, i.e. the general game world population should have less impact on the particular fights inside certain zones and vice versa).

    To sum it up: there are clear pathways for us to take to further optimize. There is however a hard limit to how large fights can get in with an action-based combat system such as the one we use. Hence, there are also a game design challenge for us: we need to make sure that incentives for mega-blobs are reduced. We'll need to look at the zone queue / cap mechanic again. Intentionally trying to cap out a zone should not be a thing. As stated above, we'll provide more details early next week, both on the tech side of things (by our coders who are more qualified to talk about this than I am) and on how we are going to tackle these issues.
    So, while I'm not doubting this is true in whole- this logic makes me a little curious. In World of Warcraft, AB had 100v100. In GW2 there can be as much as 100v100. GW2 also has siege weapons that have AoE's that can cover an entire screen. Sight is not limited to a top down perspective.These do not cause a significant impact on gameplay in those MMO's. The abilities, AoE's, and general effects are far more detailed in those games as well. So how is it, that both of those games who have been out for 7+ years and able to pull it off from their start? Technology gets better every day, and if they were able to pull it off over seven years ago- then what's keeping SBI from maintaining that standard of gaming?
    We go far beyond 100 vs 100. Based on the formula above, 2*100*99 = 19,800. Our zone cap right now is 350, giving 2*350*349 = 244,300. That's more than 12-times as information intensive as a 100 vs 100 fight. For those of you more technically minded, our coders will share a more detailed statement about the technical situation with you next week.
    You're telling me, that the packet of information being sent in this game from one individual, to 349 other players- is larger, than a 100v100 of this?
    A cap of 200 vs a cap of 350. That seems to be the issue.


    Did I help? Please use my Referral Link.
  • it's not like it's been weeks, not to say months that players are complaining about the server, why do you have to launch the free to play when the server does not hold, it was sure that it would happen

    the game is just unplayable, what do you plan for the players who lose their time here

    It would be good to offer players compensation in the light of the many problems encountered

    my bad experience of the reset:
    youtube.com/watch?v=XEgoky-KuzE
    youtube.com/watch?v=WeuUm_a71tI


    waste of time, stuff, money
  • Honestly as bad as this problem is, it's really good you guys are acknowledging and responding to posts. Most major game companies like Blizzard or Valve would just ban 90% of the posts people have made in here and leave an unrelated 1-2 sentence comment.

    But it's really awful reset day turned out like this. You guys should have known this would have happened with evidence from launch day and even previous resets.