|
Post by versengeteriks on Jul 20, 2006 23:06:21 GMT
spotted the thread were you (funky) mentioned that traders cause a lot of lag.
could we not slim the number down a bit? Or hold a poll to see if there is a trader that few people use? Maybe combine traders that sell similar items? I mean, we have an armour shop, then there are two other traders who sell armour.
I have noticed that the market chests in the wyrm have a huge difference in useage. Priced item chest is a first stop now for most people over lvl 20. Where as the auction chest is hardly used. I suspect it takes more effort to run the auction chest too.
BTW - luv the servers, Whens number 4 comming?!! Trix
|
|
|
Post by mishimayukio on Jul 20, 2006 23:37:07 GMT
My own idea for lag reduction is simple. Cut off all XP for parties over 10 people.
|
|
|
Post by Bakchuda on Jul 21, 2006 0:11:14 GMT
I second that notion. Groups that large should break up and go after separate targets. It also makes finding a group to join easier since it can spread out the level ranges. And if you want a big party for big LL runs, you are more after loot in that case anyway.
Not sure about as drastic as all XP, but a healthy reduction would be nice.
|
|
|
Post by fusa on Jul 21, 2006 1:12:48 GMT
My own idea for lag reduction is simple. Cut off all XP for parties over 10 people. I strongly agree with this. I was recently in a beholders run with 2 others, the rest of the server (19 people) were after lolth. The server was running at an impossiblly slow pace, after spending a couple of hours to get 1/2 throught the first map we gave up (1 passed out other was close to it from the boredom) We've completed this run before using the same characters and players in the same amount of time it took for us to give up.
|
|
|
Post by fusa on Jul 21, 2006 1:15:12 GMT
Another thing that could be done is no tags given for oversized parties.
|
|
|
Post by jctrapster on Jul 21, 2006 4:49:28 GMT
I heartily agree with the aforementioned statements. It's also no great loss to party strength, as with more players, it becomes harder and harder to keep track of who needs GMW, barkskin, when rests are needed, etc, and as a result, efficiency diminishes greatly. Also more difficult to reign in a problem player. If a maximum party limit of 10 could be imposed, I don't know about la, but it would make the rest of the game more playable as well.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Jul 21, 2006 6:01:54 GMT
Yup, that's a notion we've toyed with for awhile. It may be time too, as with 3 servers there's likely to be another group for you. The number I had had in mind was actually 8, though, both because each player added increases the lag exponentially, because 1) there are added calculations in that area from that characters actions and 2) each calculations becomes more cumbersome. Pathing also increaes in complexity, though that may have a lesser impact than the rest of the ai calcs runnig. This is the reason you see ai errors here and there. Jasperre's ai, the custom ai we use, is much smarter than Bioware's, but that's because it does more calculations. Unfortunately, it does so many that with large parties it hits the 0 x 20000 instruction limit. That results in 1) immense lag and 2) poor ai decisions. 8 players is near, but in most cases, not past the point at which said ai errors tend to occur, though envirmental factors like narrow spaces, impassable areas, and blocking objects also come into play (as with that silly vrock in the abyss who likes to get stuck, before the babaus). The other reason for the 8 player limit is that it is twice what the areas are balance for at their intended character level, though it's fairly rare that you'll actually see 4 level-appropriate characters taking on an area, and that balancing rule-of-thumb may be a bit outdated. Anyone think 8 is just too low? Funky
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Jul 21, 2006 6:04:41 GMT
spotted the thread were you (funky) mentioned that traders cause a lot of lag. could we not slim the number down a bit? Or hold a poll to see if there is a trader that few people use? Maybe combine traders that sell similar items? I mean, we have an armour shop, then there are two other traders who sell armour. I have noticed that the market chests in the wyrm have a huge difference in useage. Priced item chest is a first stop now for most people over lvl 20. Where as the auction chest is hardly used. I suspect it takes more effort to run the auction chest too. BTW - luv the servers, Whens number 4 comming?!! Trix This has been suggested before, and rejected, both because I prefer the realism of having more than one competing merchant, and rewarding players who take the time to hunt through it all. That said, trimming the useless items from the various shops has long been on the todo list. It'll probably remain there for a fair bit longer, with everything else on the agenda. Funky
|
|
|
Post by mishimayukio on Jul 21, 2006 6:11:41 GMT
The only reason I said 10 was because in my experience lag starts to get bad after the 10th, and also because loot rarity caps out 9. I'm fine with 8.
|
|
|
Post by sabregirl on Jul 21, 2006 15:42:12 GMT
Seems like 8 should be a happy number but in practice maybe somewhat harsh - I'm pretty sure most of my more recent lowbie parties were far in excess of that number. Still, I like the idea, it's really not much fun to be in a party over 8 anyway. A party cap might have the side affect of removing some of the "hangers on" syndrome that's been happening on some of the main tag runs. Like the recent loth run I watched with 20 in the party . . . I would think there might need to be a slight uptick in the number of resets since the number of people that can get any particular tag at one time would be sharply reduced - although the party cap might reduce the number of successful completions. Also, maybe some of the old lowbie areas could be tweaked in difficulty and XP to give more places for people to level at a broader range of levels (Bugbear caves, mino maze, dread caverns - (high difficulty for XP) etc.)? To help reduce demand on certain areas and spread parties out . . . make people look around a bit more. -S
|
|
|
Post by mubu on Jul 21, 2006 16:44:14 GMT
8 people imo is big enough to do any run on the entire server, if you can not complete it with 8 folks you really shouldnt be there hehe. I do agree with sabre especially on the needed raising of xp in unused areas mainly the hero stone areas. I am not saying make it ridiculous but it should reflect imo the strange towers exp because the difficulty is pretty much the same.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Jul 21, 2006 17:33:10 GMT
We're planning to create some more lowbie areas, but as for raising the exp in those places, I don't think they really compare to the tower in difficiulty. Funky
|
|
|
Post by azrael on Jul 21, 2006 23:49:56 GMT
8 is a good number, but like Yue said, highest UR chance is with 9, maybe compromise and make the number 9, unless you change the loot spawn percentages too. Maybe raise UR percantage by 1 every 2 people, starting at 2, instead of 3. Capping the party size is a good idea especially with the introduction of the interserver shouts. Runs can get pretty big when you're shouting across 3 servers.
|
|
|
Post by Bakchuda on Jul 22, 2006 0:05:36 GMT
One thing that would concern me about putting a limit like this on is the shortage of targets, especially since the server is not resetting as often (a Good Thing(tm), to be sure).
I know auto-resets are a BAD Thing (ugh, i thought I had repressed that memory by now), but I would ask that any limit on party size also take into consideration the chances that the non-respawning quests can run out and more people would miss out.
|
|
|
Post by versengeteriks on Jul 24, 2006 12:33:05 GMT
to avoid resets. is it possible to do zone or area resets rather than just a full server all the time? just lock the zone once a party leaves, reset it, then open it again? Or have a timer like sphynx on tag runs? trix
|
|