Neri 3590 Share Posted July 14, 2016 32 minutes ago, Telanir said: I personally run around as often as I can taking care of stray boats, overpopulated farms, and etc.—unfortunately they are repopulated within days. Unlike run of the mill Bukkit plugin dev's, every decision we make here we have to consider its effects on server performance. Nexus does not compound the issue, for example, the crafting subplugin only does minimal calculations and these occur only when you access the actual workbench, and causes absolutely zero lag in the event that no workbenches are being accessed at that moment. Delegating calculations to moments of access or on asynchronous threads means that the main thread (that if slow, is responsible for lag) is interrupted as little as possible. What you should take from this is that our custom plugins are not part of the issue: removing them to solve lag is like chipping away at a brick with only your nails. I'm on vacation this month so I won't be too much help at the moment, but the rest of the Dev team I know for a fact is finding solutions to the performance issues. I've already found and resolved about 17.7% of the lag we were experiencing two weeks ago (according to our profiler), but we've got a ways to go. Let me know if that answers your question, thanks Freya. Thanks for the answers. I was less so referring to crafting and such since I know that's not a constant server resource hog. I meant more so things like personas and custom weapons which would, in my albeit layman experience with java, both increase the size and amount of packets being sent, an amount that would increase geometrically with the number of people in a fight. Then again I don't know how either java or nexus' backend works in this situation so it could cause no server impact at all, I don't know. If it's simply minecraft's netcode that is the changing variable then I wish you all the best since Mojang has never been one to prioritize optimization. btw are junior coder positions still open Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telanir 6975 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Just now, Freya said: Thanks for the answers. I was less so referring to crafting and such since I know that's not a constant server resource hog. I meant more so things like personas and custom weapons which would, in my albeit layman experience with java, both increase the size and amount of packets being sent, an amount that would increase geometrically with the number of people in a fight. Then again I don't know how either java or nexus' backend works in this situation so it could cause no server impact at all, I don't know. If it's simply minecraft's netcode that is the changing variable then I wish you all the best since Mojang has never been one to prioritize optimization. We have been looking into modifying the server jar for the past month as well, it's much more time consuming but if it gets the job done then very well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naj 545 Share Posted July 14, 2016 36 minutes ago, James2k said: They had just fixed 1.8 warclaims right before we updated. We had a massive test fight that went very smooth with shittons of players. Yes but the server updated. And with polls, it showed a that a reasonable amount players would be in favor of 1.9 pvp without lag. Hence they try to employ a situation with 1.9 that reduces lag. They did what the community responded saying to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toastersaurus 412 Share Posted July 14, 2016 What are you on about? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free The Hobbits 859 Share Posted July 14, 2016 1 hour ago, Pandan said: Because the cost isn't something we can endure right now, unfortunately. Our finances are not 'code red' status however they're also not the strongest they've been since the massive forced re-shuffle with the ol' perks. I'd love to be capable to dropping £100-£200 a month to get something like that operating, yet anything lower (such as the build server, ask anyone working on 5.0 how bad it can be) would simply not be capable of handling the 200+ potential players. Regarding 1.7, its been that long it'd just be very broken I imagine. I can't say for certain however its very difficult to get legacy versions working across entirely new windows updates, computers, graphics cards and even server software. Again, this is me presuming. I'm here to talk not to.. code. Maybe the finances aren't doing well because nobody wants to donate to a game that thinks they are a fortune 500 company. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
big narstie 1701 Share Posted July 14, 2016 3 hours ago, poland said: how come lotc is the only server that seems to ever be affected on a large scale by minecraft updates lol yea? le sigh. 1.8 when? Listen to your playerbase, @Telanir Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent™ 552 Share Posted July 14, 2016 This is almost the exact idea I've been suggesting for months for how warclaims should be done. Time to see if it will work in practice, although I can already see some holes that people could abuse. 12 hours ago, Fireheart said: In the case of a force’s numbers being below the anticipated count, for that day, another player may fill in for the absent fighter, regardless of their participation prior or to come. If players use alt accounts when filling out the roster form, then even if they don't show up to their warclaim day another player from any of the other days is allowed to fill in that spot. For instance, if side A has 100 players and those players own 50 alt accounts together then they can increase their numbers by 50%, also allowing them to let their best PvPers partake on all three days when the alt accounts don't show up. This in itself is a serious problem that would need to be addressed as it can easily throw the balance of battles out the window. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Equinox 245 Share Posted July 14, 2016 I'm never a huge fan of Warclaims, but if lag actually some how decreases server-side due to this change. I'd probably be much more inclined to actually fighting. Even though i'm certain this won't make it lagless, that's more on the Java netcode and how Spigot utilizes it for 1.9, which is rough in its own right. Let's hope to weird short-cuts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pureimp10 5691 Share Posted July 14, 2016 7 minutes ago, DPM said: Enjoy the new warclaim system, typical 100v100 will result in. 1st day: 10 people 2nd day: 45 people 3rd day: 45 people Worst part is, the 10v10 will lag to all hell and back. Good effort though, techies. You really put a lot of thought into this decision! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaw 964 Share Posted July 14, 2016 8 hours ago, Gangrel1230 said: Defender default when? Raids auto default to pvp now. What was the purpose in having the defender default rule if the new raid limits don't allow for that rule to work. People can roll in groups of 6 and find anyone to pvp default them. Look- 60.56% of the server knows and wants auto pvp during raids. People should and probably all do know the defender default end, meaning this is what the majority wants, literally more than half the server. Surely the majority are the ones who should be acted on and not the minority? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gridlock 1033 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Why not split sieges up in 3 parts too? 1st a field battle, 2nd an attack at the walls and 3rd a smaller battle inside the settlement. Could be fun. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2samspan 241 Share Posted July 14, 2016 After reading this, thing I'm worried about, honestly, is that it feels like this will lessen the chance for the use of actual tactics in warclaims. The change not just to make it a best of three system, but also that it's in its own special instance, means you can't pull out too many surprises, and also makes the stakes for each battle, in my opinion, lower, because you'really guaranteed to have, at the very least, two battles. Minecraft isn't the optimal place to have something like that, admittedly. It doesn't include enough factors to make it realistic or as dynamic and interesting as it could be, but I still find it really interesting and gets my mind going. I think it still has plenty of opportunities to use strategic thinking in a lot of different ways, and this could stifle them. I realize to most people, this part of it probably won't matter, and I understand that. But what I would hope for, in the very least, is the possibility to do something like that, the possibilty to do something impressive not just with mechanical skill. On the flipside, since it'seems a controlled instance, that means changes can be made to the map by those fighting. This, to my knowledge, is not something that would have been very possible for most battles, but in this we are givenot a way, potentially, to make those changes; cover a field in water to make it all muddy, or remove cover on one side. This could introduce a whole new dimension to battles, because it would make it so that people think up not only strategies involving more than just the terrain that is already there, but also cause people to worry about the opponent messing with the area. It would serve as a way to make it less 'whoever lags less wins' or 'whoever has more people wins' because there are more elements that are not entities in play. A few examples of the top of battle strategies off the top my head that should not cause any extra lag, that would be made possible by this are things like entrenchment, the aforementioned muddy battlefield, and removing cover from one side of the battlefield. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taketheshot 3834 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Are you forced to spread your forces evenly or is it possible to lose one battle while sending in 0 guys or a small amount of guys while allocating the rest to the other 2 battles. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireheart 2777 Author Share Posted July 14, 2016 15 minutes ago, Taketheshot said: Are you forced to spread your forces evenly or is it possible to lose one battle while sending in 0 guys or a small amount of guys while allocating the rest to the other 2 battles. It is possible, though a very poor strategy. You already promise yourself a loss which means the enemy would only have to win one more battle in order to take the victory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wealthypiano 394 Share Posted July 14, 2016 This is just a lazy solution to a serious problem devs have failed to address for a year tbqh 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.4e5370fc69f142d96a905e477cd5dd97.png)
Recommended Posts