DeletedUser23365
Thanks for the great advice as always.
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
- Status
DeletedUser37581
There are many ways in which GVG could possibly be modified to apparently alleviate any lag problems. However, any modifications could have unanticipated side effects.
For instance, if Inno makes a change to GVG and runs stress tests against it using known patterns of user interactions with the game, it may seem very feasible that the change will have the desired effect. However, if the change causes users to alter their patterns of game interactions (an unanticipated side effect), the result could be further lag or worse.
It is worth noting that because GVG already has lag issues, those who wish to see GVG available on the mobile platform perhaps don't realize that expanding GVG availability could have the side effect of bringing GVG to a screeching halt.
For instance, if Inno makes a change to GVG and runs stress tests against it using known patterns of user interactions with the game, it may seem very feasible that the change will have the desired effect. However, if the change causes users to alter their patterns of game interactions (an unanticipated side effect), the result could be further lag or worse.
It is worth noting that because GVG already has lag issues, those who wish to see GVG available on the mobile platform perhaps don't realize that expanding GVG availability could have the side effect of bringing GVG to a screeching halt.
DeletedUser33179
That's funny. Where did you get the idea that Inno administrators respond on this forum to whiners (or anyone else)? Why would anyone at Inno want to take time away from working on the game to oversee what'd be merely a b!tch & moan session.
And if they did, why in the world would you think it'd give you "some hope" & you'd perhaps stop whining? You just looked at the recent facebook video that talks about GvG, yet you still currently profess no hope + a keen desire to continue whining.
Resipsa2
Member
Guess what happens for Walmarts when demand significantly exceeds supply? Also, some businesses think of other alternatives when faced with frustrated customers, especially when it causes a fall in purchasing their merchandise - diamonds. So take the shields off all day long or put them on for only 12 hours; and clear the maps monthly - but do something if not increasing server capacity -- oh yeah, and we have space in cities for 2 more settlements let do that to mess up GVG -- and ironic; because they said on InnoGamesTV December they were going to address GVG.
Resipsa2
Member
There are 8500+ pages of members in E-N world; so probably about 5000 x 10 x 20 players that could be removed for servers if InnoGames would delete those that have not played in a year (as they said they would do about 6 months ago); and the worlds which others tried or accidentally clicked on and have not played in a year... there some server space.
Emberguard
Well-Known Member
*3 years from diamond purchase for account - people complained so it was extended. And if they log into the forums then it's still counted as active.
The system does work the way it's supposed to (I've had worlds deleted automatically within 30 days from inactivity without asking or pressing delete), but there are conditions that could prevent a world or account from being deleted.
If a player just clicks to start and then leaves shortly after their world isn't going to stick around unless they've met that criteria. it won't even show up in the neighbourhood after a week
Last edited:
DeletedUser
I seriously doubt that inactive accounts are contributing to lag at recalc. Kind of like cars in salvage yards don't contribute to road congestion, ya know?
RazorbackPirate
Well-Known Member
You can hardly compare Walmart opening additional checkout lanes when more people want to PAY for stuff to a drain pipe backing up because it's rains too hard. Now that settlements have been introduced, it doesn't matter how many cultures are introduced, each city can only have one active Settlement at a time.
In December, InnoGamesTV didn't say they were going to address GvG, they said they were having ongoing discussions about addressing GvG. Even the video linked in the earlier thread says a whole lot of nothing. Go back and watch it again. She did nothing but defer the question to a later date and gave nothing more committal than they're talking about it and hoping to do something about it this year.
The problem with lag at recalc is recalc. The number of inactive worlds on the server have nothing to do with the GvG issue. Dead cities aren't playing GvG resulting in BANDWIDTH issues and bandwidth issues can happen at any point between your computer and the server.
Inno is NOT going to make ANY changes to GvG unless they completely re-architect GvG for mobile. When and if they do, I suspect GvG will have significant changes and recalc as it exists today will be a thing of the past to remove the bottleneck. Inno knows there's a problem, but it makes no business sense to spend money on an aspect of the game available to less than half of all players. They'll bug fix as needed and tweak here and there, but that's about it.
Based on all the cuts and all the hemming and hawing in that short little video from earlier, I would not get your hopes up. All I see is a couple of people trying to avoid a very uncomfortable question. Tai's answer says they don't even have a firm plan for GvGs future internally yet, never mind have an answer to share with players.
RaveWolf
Active Member
That will only help clean out the Database. I highly doubt that HDD Space is an issue.
I have no idea how many servers they have, but limited servers could lead to Load balancing issues... Load balancing is a process where, if one server gets bottlenecked it automatically uses another available server and so on (depending on how they've structured their network).
With that said, the More Servers they have, the more processing they can do, but this is just the tip of the iceberg of possible issues.
This is a Free game that displays absolutely no Sponsored Ads for capital gain... They rely solely on Diamond purchases. I'm sure they get some money from other means too, but for the most part I'd assume it comes from Diamond purchases.
More diamond Purchases = More Servers...
But even that does not guarantee Less Lag... unless the world and all devices are connected 100% via Fiber Optics, and the Processing Power of the Servers and our individual Machines can handle that amount of IO, Lag will always exist. The connection and ping rate is only as fast as the weakest link.
DeletedUser23365
IDK the last ingame mod who told me to post here since they had no control over it and the game developers read the forums religiously.. You obviously are continuing the btch and moan session when I said I am not going to pick apart everyones comments and argue back and forth. I asked for suggestions for a fix and you are continuing to restart it.
Back to ideas on how to fix the issue?
DeletedUser23365
And I am not looking for 0 lag. I am looking for a playable solution that does not freeze the game up for 15 seconds between attacks or the lag glitch that down when you have the resiege window up to set a new one. GVG was playable before but now its far from it. Now when you add fe (The carnival Event) it makes GVG almost unresponsive.
DeletedUser
The only forum that this might be true of is the Beta forum, not this one. This is why we have the Proposal process and sub-forum.
I really think changing the defense armies' boosts to include an era-appropriate base along with the guild support pool numbers, and changing the AI program that controls them to the same as the C-Map would go a long way to alleviate the issue. The idea behind it is that it would slow down the fighting considerably by forcing more players to manually battle instead of auto. This will help spread out the load on the bandwidth. In fact, it would also change GvG into a real fighting feature rather than what it is now, which is a high-level attack GB/Rogue army slugfest that depends mostly on who can click the fastest. No real fighting ability is needed at all now. I mean, when your siege army can disappear in less than 10 seconds, how much actual fighting is going on? None, that's how much.
DeletedUser3882
@9iner we’ve now got three threads going in Forge Hall and I don’t think the two polls are going far...
What we do have is a collection of ideas here for some potential updates/changes to GvG that could offer some improvements to the gameplay and could also mitigate some of the lag.
Care to hammer out some details on a good(est) one and propose that?!?
What we do have is a collection of ideas here for some potential updates/changes to GvG that could offer some improvements to the gameplay and could also mitigate some of the lag.
Care to hammer out some details on a good(est) one and propose that?!?
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser36624
Having dealt with this kind of issue professionally many times, I can tell you that the problem is almost certainly compute resources spent simulating all the autobattles and not network bandwidth. So they could potentially throw more compute resources at the problem, but obviously don't want that kind of major expense to cover only an hour of usage that doesn't drive revenue. Something like @Stephen Longshanks idea that drastically reduces the amount of autobattling is very likely the only thing that fits within all the constraints of the problem.
DeletedUser23365
So do you think getting rid of Autobattle option would show a significant improvement?
DeletedUser
I think it would, but I think approaching it from the aspect of making it more playable to manually battle as opposed to auto battling would be more effective than merely deleting the auto battle button.
DeletedUser23365
Well everyone will continue to use the auto button until its deleted. If the auto button would be deleted then making troop availability better to speed up manual fighting a little (not showing injured troops option, only showing certain age troops after reloading when fighting in AA option, only showing 8 max per troop at a time, etc) Now will loading manual fight create a new mass lag issue if everyone starts using this feature again? I am sure people will say they are certain it will but obviously we wont know unless it was implemented and we would have to go through the entire process again. If only we had a developer here to answer questions... But I forgot we mean nothing to Inno on this forum.
DeletedUser
Well, my idea isn't to delete the auto button, but to modify the defense boosts and the AI that controls it to make it less beatable on auto. The auto button would still be there with my suggestion, but it would be less likely to be used since the battle would be more competitive than it is currently. And the back and forth between server and player device would be more spread out with manual fighting than with auto. There would probably be a lot of GvGers opposed to my idea, because many of them have developed their cities to maximize the benefit of auto battling GvG. But if the choice is between lag and battling manually, to me that's a no brainer.
DeletedUser13838
Deleting autobattle in GVG may be a step towards deleting GVG from the game completely. If GVG was a revenue driver I'd think it would be getting development resources. But with no new maps and Inno not porting GVG to mobile (from what I've read at least) that seems unlikely.
DeletedUser23365
Wouldn't most argue that manual fighting would cause just as much lag as clicking the auto button? You are opening another window and having to click alot more than just the one click of auto.
- Status