[X] My Assistant

Max t/s dropped from 4 to 3.2

source, please? i didn't find any comment about this coming from admin on 0.85 or 0.86 patch threads.

btw, in my case i'm sure it was ajax - even if reloader couldn't do a thing before (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Scremaz: Nov 23 2017, 01:16

source, please?

Well, that's what almost every player that reached max t/s before, experienced now.
3.2, maybe 3.3, rounding errors may occur, it's the max

Example:
First arena done without doing anything but hovering from the first instant
My ping with HV is below 100 ms, so I could reach 10 t/s in theory, but the game limits it to very obvious values...

Well, that's what almost every player that reached max t/s before, experienced now.
3.2, maybe 3.3, rounding errors may occur, it's the max

that's not a valid proof. it may be due to many things, from https to scripts, to... whatever. someone in the past speculated it may depend by the way you connect to the router, for example. all of this while assuming your ISP always has the same load, of course.

apart for the fact that that 4 tps refers to the vanilla game, i invite those who whine about that huuuuuuuuge drop from, saying, 3.8 to 3.3 to consider the actual difference in time: for a melee DWD (which is somehow the most time-consuming quest) we may be around 5k, which means an increasing from 1316 s ~ 22 min (3.8 tps) to 1515 s ~ 25 min (3.3 tps), for a grand total of...

.
..
...

(drumroll)

.
..
...

a whooping 3 minutes difference, not even the time to make a coffee (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)


seriously, what are we even speaking about? (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)

If I'm not mistaken, there was no tps hardcap before v0.85, so it may explain some things. The other reason I see is that the responsivity of an AJAX script toward responses received by a browser could be slower than just displaying a new page. Keep in mind aswell that Monsterbation is likely to be heavier than something like Reloader, even though I'm pretty sure that sicken does his best to have performance at the finest we can expect.

And I confirm that a home router is a potential source of issues: mine has been one not long ago.

All this being said, that is overall a great improvement for a majority of players and for the server's load+bandwidth. I don't think tenb will ever revert such a thing because some people lose time equivalent to not even a coffee worth when they clear PFUDOR DwD.

So I suggest that instead of trying to point fingers, investigating the real cause and finding solutions is better. Or at the very least convincing yourself that 3 tps is already a very neat value. Heck I do have pride of my ability to reach that value myself while I did have issues making it drop to 2 with huge lag spikes. Though I do acknowledge the fact that working in the IT sector and having some knowledge in networks helps a lot in the field of optimizing the quality of data transmission.

If I'm not mistaken, there was no tps hardcap before v0.85

afaik it has always been 4 tps. or at least, since quite a while

afaik it has always been 4 tps. or at least, since quite a while

Err...proof? The answer is the same as the one for the current 3.2~3.3 (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/duck.gif)

finally 382 \o/

I can finally use my forged shield <3

All this being said, that is overall a great improvement for a majority of players and for the server's load+bandwidth. I don't think tenb will ever revert such a thing because some people lose time equivalent to not even a coffee worth when they clear PFUDOR DwD.

I get the feeling this is more of a culprit that is being brought up.

End of All Hope is looking at things in an odd way: the server is this vast, infinite thing. His personal connection to it exists in a vaccuum. The only factors that matter are his own personal bottlenecks. Reducing those bottlenecks lets him personally play at maximum speed.

Thing is, the server is not a vast, infinite thing. Lots of people connected, and all hammering away with superfast requests does create a load.

If you cap users and balance the load better, it can easily result in better overall performance for the majority of the users. Because they're not facing bottlenecks created by greedy/abusive users hogging more than their fair share of whatever load the servers can handle.

If you were slowed down by this change, might want to be a bit humble about it. Might mean that you were part of the problem before, and now this solution ensures you're not, without resorting to things like bans.

End of All Hope is looking at things in an odd way: the server is this vast, infinite thing. His personal connection to it exists in a vaccuum. The only factors that matter are his own personal bottlenecks. Reducing those bottlenecks lets him personally play at maximum speed.

Thing is, the server is not a vast, infinite thing. Lots of people connected, and all hammering away with superfast requests does create a load.

If you cap users and balance the load better, it can easily result in better overall performance for the majority of the users. Because they're not facing bottlenecks created by greedy/abusive users hogging more than their fair share of whatever load the servers can handle.

If you were slowed down by this change, might want to be a bit humble about it. Might mean that you were part of the problem before, and now this solution ensures you're not, without resorting to things like bans.

So you are accusing him of being greedy and abusive, arrogant, a problematic user and suggesting that he was deserving the ban.
And everything without a single proof whatsoever.

If you had just observed the requests created by your browser you would have easily seen that HV servers never appear to have any bottlenecks, the responses are just slowed down to unsure you're not exceeding the speed limit.
The new round page request is not under any speed limit and it's much faster than the rest even if it's a full page load (which requires more resources to be generated).

But even then, if people could reliably get 3.9t/s it's objectively impossible that the server was having any kind of bottlenecks, server don't work as you may think, if they are slow they are slow of all the users, it's not like "greedy players" get superfast responses at the expense of all the other users.

If you know jack shit about something please refrain from commenting on it, it makes you look silly and just creates a stupid crusade against users that got nearly 4 t/s before.

So you are accusing him of being greedy and abusive, arrogant, a problematic user and suggesting that he was deserving the ban.
And everything without a single proof whatsoever.

If you had just observed the requests created by your browser you would have easily seen that HV servers never appear to have any bottlenecks, the responses are just slowed down to unsure you're not exceeding the speed limit.
The new round page request is not under any speed limit and it's much faster than the rest even if it's a full page load (which requires more resources to be generated).

But even then, if people could reliably get 3.9t/s it's objectively impossible that the server was having any kind of bottlenecks, server don't work as you may think, if they are slow they are slow of all the users, it's not like "greedy players" get superfast responses at the expense of all the other users.

If you know jack shit about something please refrain from commenting on it, it makes you look silly and just creates a stupid crusade against users that got nearly 4 t/s before.

That isn't what I said at all. My post is not edited. I invite you to reread it and come to an interpretation that makes sense.

Thanks.

So you are accusing him of being greedy and abusive, arrogant, a problematic user and suggesting that he was deserving the ban.
And everything without a single proof whatsoever.

If you had just observed the requests created by your browser you would have easily seen that HV servers never appear to have any bottlenecks, the responses are just slowed down to unsure you're not exceeding the speed limit.
The new round page request is not under any speed limit and it's much faster than the rest even if it's a full page load (which requires more resources to be generated).

But even then, if people could reliably get 3.9t/s it's objectively impossible that the server was having any kind of bottlenecks, server don't work as you may think, if they are slow they are slow of all the users, it's not like "greedy players" get superfast responses at the expense of all the other users.

If you know jack shit about something please refrain from commenting on it, it makes you look silly and just creates a stupid crusade against users that got nearly 4 t/s before.

Sorry, Sapo84, I think you got the message wrong (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

What he means (or at least what I understood) is:
1. Any server's tps caps exist solely to make even gameplay to all players, to prevent users with extremely fast bandwidth (like some Asian players) to "hoard" the server. He means that if no caps (4tps, or 3,2tps, whatever) were existed, then there would be situation when one player would have atrociously high speed (like, say, I do not know, 8 tps) which gives him unfair advantages over other users.
2. Any changes to tps (if there are any) were/will be made only to reflect current connection situation and justify all players to prevent some to get extremely high speed compare to others. If majority of users have speed of 2,5 tps, however some users have 3,9tps, then changing the cap to 3,2 would not affect most of players and justify high-speeders in terms of received drops per time unit and penalties.
3. Reference to ban was "non-literal" it was like thoughts: "how can we reduce the speed of players with high bandwidth? Well we can create somekind of ban system (like playing first 2,000 rounds on good speed and following rounds on decreased, but it is too over-the-top, let's just reduce the cap".

I just see no reference in Cryosite's post about banning other users or whatever (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

This post has been edited by f4tal: Nov 23 2017, 11:44

well, as far as i remember sapo was also afflicted by this, so no wonder he reacted this wasy. Cryosite exposed things in an objective manner, as far as i can see.

and as i said, if people are not williing to forgive the crappy system which is greedily stealing a couple of minutes more of their time each day, uh... guess we have a problem.


last but not the least, keep it calm guys.

Ping is more influenced by location if I'm not mistaken. Europeans enjoyed high tps die to HV hosted in Netherlands (I think). It could get 10 turns per second before the limit was imposed. The east Asians only reached 6 if I remember it right. Me? I'm happy if I can reach 2.4 reliably. I have 2 hours window to enjoy 2.7 every day. 1.9 at all other time. Yeah, my internet sucks. I should stop playing online game... (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

Speaking of which, it is because of my level or what, but I see no drop in speed. As I had 2,7 - 3,0 before update - I still has it. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/happy.gif)

Whoever has a problem with speed, could you try different browser or playing at alt site? In my case (Russia) both alt and normal sites have same speed, but I am preferring Alt with no real reasons.

This post has been edited by f4tal: Nov 23 2017, 12:47

Ping is more influenced by location if I'm not mistaken. Europeans enjoyed high tps die to HV hosted in Netherlands (I think). It could get 10 turns per second before the limit was imposed. The east Asians only reached 6 if I remember it right. Me? I'm happy if I can reach 2.4 reliably. I have 2 hours window to enjoy 2.7 every day. 1.9 at all other time. Yeah, my internet sucks. I should stop playing online game... (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

ping doesn't tell you so much. if we still want to go with personal experiences, i had 50 ms ping and i couldn't go past 0.7 tps prior to 0.85 (well, maybe 1.1 on the first arena). now, same ping and i go under 2.5 only if i'm very lazy.

Ping is more influenced by location if I'm not mistaken. Europeans enjoyed high tps die to HV hosted in Netherlands (I think). It could get 10 turns per second before the limit was imposed. The east Asians only reached 6 if I remember it right. Me? I'm happy if I can reach 2.4 reliably. I have 2 hours window to enjoy 2.7 every day. 1.9 at all other time. Yeah, my internet sucks. I should stop playing online game... (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

Actually, if we neglect everything besides ping, you can achieve the 4tps with a maximum ping of 1000ms / (4tps*2) = 125 ping. The factor of 2 corresponds to the number of data transmissions between you and the server to validate one turn.

The issue that makes it impossible to reach 4tps even with a top-notch ping is most likely lying in clock time, either client-side or server-side. That much should be investigated, and I suppose that persons like sicken can tell us more about how synchronization with the server works.

End of All Hope is looking at things in an odd way: the server is this vast, infinite thing. His personal connection to it exists in a vaccuum. The only factors that matter are his own personal bottlenecks. Reducing those bottlenecks lets him personally play at maximum speed.

Whaaaat...if I said that the t/s dropped is because other users aknowledged it, not only me (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/duck.gif)

So you are accusing him of being greedy and abusive, arrogant, a problematic user and suggesting that he was deserving the ban

What ban, exactly? (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

If majority of users have speed of 2,5 tps, however some users have 3,9tps, then changing the cap to 3,2 would not affect most of players and justify high-speeders in terms of received drops per time unit and penalties.

Maybe it's true. But the "problem" is how the game feels. Before patch was barely above slow paced, now it's slow, full stop (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/heh.gif)

And we're not talking about "not even the time to make a coffee out of 30 minutes" (it's still 10%, more than the bonus for the Daemon Duality everyone saves for sooner or later...), with old HV I could clear DwD in 9 less minutes than now, out of 30 min (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/heh.gif)

What ban, exactly? (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

were you banned? that's news to me (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)

and yep, i completely failed to notice that "ban" mention (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

What ban, exactly? (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

Do'nt try to hides |_￣)
he gots you caught red santed σ( •̀ ω •́ σ)
just accepts and admits it already and prosecutionyan (/ =ω=)/ will give you light jail times

Seems a lot of people are getting a wee bit edgy due to perhaps language barriers?

If you were slowed down by this change, might want to be a bit humble about it. Might mean that you were part of the problem before, and now this solution ensures you're not, without resorting to things like bans.

Lemme try to make this more clear.

A lot of discussion, with End of All Hope's words being a ready example, seem to focus strictly on the player's own side of how fast they can play. This is not in and of itself wrong or bad. No one is saying it is.

There are three main sections that determine speed though:

1. Your personal computer, hardware, ISP, and so on. Things you own, pay for, and can control.
2. The wilds of the internet between you and the server. Belonging to mysterious and powerful people.
3. The Server, owned by 10b, and whatever organization/company he is boss of.

That last one has some considerations that are important to it. One is how many users are connecting to it, how fast they all collectively send traffic, and so on. There are lots of little tricks and things that a server administrator can do to ensure service is responsive and efficient. But for the most part, the big restriction is how powerful the hardware is, and how much they're willing to spend on that hardware. You can roughly measure that based on what scale of userbase you want to serve.

You can create a server with any computer. I have a laptop sitting on my shelf in my room that is set up to be one, except at the moment it is unplugged. It's running Winxp and some freeware server software. I forget which. I originally used it to host a minecraft server for a few months. It could handle maybe 10-ish people.

Professional servers like what was used at my last place of work in a warehouse could handle about a thousand connections without too much trouble. This is much more expensive than my laptop, and it required a dedicated room with cooling the size of a closet.

Enterprise level severs can handle much bigger scales. Millions of users is possible. Way more expensive, and probably fills a large room or several rooms depending on how big.

Also, a lot of games/sites rent space in an enterprise server, and may only use a laptop worth. So, don't think the above is, like, definitive. It's just a visual image to help.

Anyway, what all that means is that while some servers can handle ridiculously high amounts of traffic, you can't assume they all do. Some are smaller and cheaper. Because there is no point in paying for hardware way above what you need. It is also often cheaper to optimize what you do have rather than upgrade to more hardware.

"Load balancing" is one very efficient optimization. It spreads use across a broad amount of time. Peaks/spikes in use require more hardware power. But if you blunt that use across hours that see very little use, everyone gets the service they want, without needing more powerful/expensive hardware.

Back to the HV stuff. If you have 100,000 users, and they're all making requests 4 times per second, that's 400k requests per second. And if that is considered "normal use" then the hardware needs to be scaled to handle that reasonably well.

If those same 100k users make 8 requests per second, twice as much traffic (800k). All else being equal, need stronger/costlier hardware available to handle that.

If you have that same 100k users, and 90% of them only make requests 4 per second, but the other 10% make requests 8 per second, they're using up twice as much load as everyone else. Need 440k requests worth of hardware capability to handle it.

A server administrator can deal with this situation in several ways.

1. pay for more hardware. This usually means raising the price for everyone. This ends up rather unfair, because 10% of the people, even if they're willing to pay more, are making the price go up for the other 90% who are seeing no benefit.
2. Throttle speeds back, or introduce some kind of an upper limit. This impact those people who are "heavy users" without impacting most users. This appears to be what 10b chose to do.
3. Another option, the one I mentioned that got everyone in a tiffy, is "ban" people. Some administrators look at high/excessive use as abusive behavior, and ban people. Of note, this also only negatively impacts those high-volume users, and doesn't negatively impact the 90% who are using things "normally." Plus, since you just decreased your typical load down to 360k requests per second, you might even be able to reduce hardware and costs, saving those 90% some money.

My suggestion is to not complain too much if the throttling has slowed you down. There are worse ways it could have been handled, that you'd like less.

Is that more clear?