Why....You screwed up.

[Khafar]

Probably never...

Correct. Adding 32-bit clients for two operating systems costs a lot (particularly in terms of testing), and simply won't matter very much. LOTRO isn't CPU-bound in nearly any situation.

Requiring DX10/DX11 might be feasible, since only about 3% of people on Steam are running DX9 any more. DX11 and Windows 7/8, as the other poster was suggesting? No way. 38% of the gamers on Steam are missing one or the other (or both). When that number falls to more like 3.8%, they might consider it.

Khafar

[Seedly]

As Angadan pointed out, what I said was the client. Which is the software that actually runs on your computer. So what you describe is perfectly in keeping with what I said. Network synchronization plays a huge role here and so does the code controlling it and the tolerances involved. So yes it can be 100% "on your pc" without it being your PC.

Key words highlighted.

So this suddenly makes so much sense it hurts.

Depending on how the sync is happening, its entirely possible that a raid is at the mercy (or more likely, the whole zone is at the mercy) of the person with the worst machine/connection. The same underlying issue could be affecting warsteeds assuming the game treats them as a separate NPC-like character (likely) that the server is controlling with your input (again likely).

If the game client/server connection has a heartbeat signal (wiki it) that requires a response from all clients in a zone, it makes total sense. (I dont know why, but I remember reading some seriously detailed posts back before the "beta" forums where people were doing packet sniffing to examine the hitching issues that have been around since launch. IIRC, they were able to pick out a distinct, regular traffic burst that corresponded to the hitching)

[Khafar]

If the game client/server connection has a heartbeat signal (wiki it) that requires a response from all clients in a zone, it makes total sense

Synchronizing all the clients in a zone would make no sense at all, IMO . Clients run asynchronously, and they don't use a reliable transport layer, counting on redundancy in the stream to fill in data from missing packets (to help ensure things don't get clogged up). If you take a packet capture while running the game, you'll see that nearly all of it is UDP, and that it delivers a new set of packets to each client about 3X per second. In other words, it works sort of like how VoIP or video streaming does... it can tolerate some drops without much degradation of client experience. If it missed telling you that your buddy is at a certain set of coordinates at time "T", it'll just tell you where he's at at time "T + 300 ms" (the next set of packets). The client will interpolate from where he was the last time it knew to where he is "now" (which isn't really "now" either due to latencies), and try to smoothly move him there. If there are too many drops in a row, it won't be smooth, and you'll see weird rubber-banding, sliding, and other effects.

Sapience may be talking about synchronization within their multi-threaded client... it has to dish off the data it's getting in an order that allows for optimal processing, without stalls if possible. Or he may be talking about some of the games they play to give the illusion that latencies (and latency differences within groups) are less than they are, trying to time the data processing within members of a group so each of them sees the same events happening at close to the same time. Jason Booth once wrote a blog post about some of those methods (back around 2005 or so), but unfortunately that seems to be lost to time.

Khafar

[cdq1958]

I suspect that there are multiple, and confounding at times factors. I never have lag, even in the 'Moors in a RvR (on Nimrodel ... can't say anything about Dwarrowdelf because I have not gone to the 'Moors there) unless my ISP is having problems (which is often). I don't have to have the ping go 'off the charts' for it to happen. I simply need the dropped packets happen strategically (such as the chat server connection having trouble).

A recent problem showed backbone trouble to be the bottleneck, such that my ISP had to change backbone providers to route around it. It wasn't enough to adversely affect my ping that much. It was apparently when and what got lost and how quickly the re-transmission could sync up.

That said, if client performance issues do get fixed, that should help everyone most of the time (but it won't help all of the time).

[cdq1958]

This is off topic a little bit, but I found it interesting.

There's a TV show that films all sorts of crazy things in slow mo so you can see how things actually react to outside forces. Like a stick hitting a cymbal and the forces transmitted through the metal.

One experiment they did was to see how long the brain "lagged" behind the body. By filming with high speed cameras at known frame rates them could show how long it took a pain stimulus to reach the brain and a reaction to occur. I thought their times were interesting...

Leg pain - 100ms
Shoulder - 80ms
Ear - 40ms

So your body is kind of laggy at the extremities.

He he. Human neural transmission speed is a function of length and myelinization of the axon. The system is basically set up for processing to happen everywhere pretty much at the same time (generally between 50 and 100ms, such that moving your arm and your leg can happen synchronously). Pain transmission is more variable, by type and by design, because of modulation and what size axon it travels on.

[swattz101]

Your comment about the leaderboards is only half true. People may not have been using it on the LOTRO site but they were on the Black Appendage site because they cut and displayed the data in a more useful format. If you want a truer idea of the amount of people who were actually viewing total leaderboard data, I am sure the Black Appendage people can provide you with their usage information.

I have to wonder how much of the "people are not using" data is because of old data. I don't know about the PvMP Leader Boards, but the Skirmish Leader Boards always seems to be behind, the LoreBook continued to fall behind and was not updated and eventually char sheets fell behind. When things quit updating, people tend to not use it as much. It's no wonder nobody used them anymore and the data shows that they were not used. Kind of a self fulfilled prophecy.

Oh, I always thought of the "client" as the computer (my computer, any player's computer). I guess I thought that because it mirrored "server" and "client" better. Both being hardware, an actual physical box, you know. But it appears that in Turbine terminology (which may be common to most/all other computer gaming companies too?), "client" is shrink-wrapped to refer specifically and only to the software of the game that resides on players' computers. That's very interesting, and clears up a lot of miscommunication between players and Turbine Team over the past couple of years.

Common mistake. I think some of it comes from when everyone used dumb terminals. You had the mainframe "server" and "client" system that didn't do anything except when it was connected to the server. Now, as is pointed out here, the client is usually software that runs on someones computer system. I use a terminal emulate client at work to connect to the mainframe sometimes.

The server also isn't always the hardware. I have worked with many "servers" running on one computer. (And I won't get into virtual servers). I run a DLNA server on my home computer to share music to "client" programs, including my PS3. Even Turbine's "server" is actually a server farm..or collection of servers that load balance the server software.

Testify! I changed nothing about my computer other than upgrading from Windows XP 32bit to Windows 7 64bit and the game got so much more playable. I was crashing on zone-through to Tower of Orthanc and having severe performance issues all throughout Rohan and once I upgraded that all went away. I had/have a very good graphics card, it was the OS that was messing with my game.

Sometimes an upgrade is good, just because it cleans out all the junk that accumulates on a system. Every time a new version of Windows comes out, people talk about how much faster it is than the previous version. In some cases that is true. However, some cases it is just because they are used to their old version with all the junk from the past couple of years that slows things down after time. Of course, new versions of Windows continue to be optimized and run better than the old versions also.

[Mar-Evayave]

Other than some upgrades that most would argue shouldn't help (and I'm not saying you'd be wrong) but do help? Ditch Windows XP and Vista, Go to Win7 or 8 64 Bit (avoid 32bit). Throw more RAM at it and bump up the video card. All this will help (and is why we suspect we have outgrown our stated system specs), but there is no 'throw this switch' solution. Which is why we know there is something up with the client itself and why we suspect that it's probably both client and system spec not just one or the other.

I am regularly (but lovingly) teased by my friends who play LOTRO and other MMOs with me about my computer. It is so unbelievably pitiful... But I am a very stubborn person and somehow always manage to get in game with them. I 100% believe my own problems are due to my specs. My graphics card is not even supported by the manufacturer anymore and hasn't had an update in, well, years...

Dell Precision M65 (laptop)
Windows XP Pro SP3 (which will have its support discontinued by Microsoft next year)
Dx9.0c
Intel Core 2 CPU
T7200 @ 2.00GHz
2 GB of RAM
Nvidia Quadro FX 350M
On wifi with poor internet speed (I live out in the country; when downloading games I typically get 300-350 kbs)

In LOTRO I play with mixed settings. Some are on low, some are on high, mostly depending on what I want. I like reflections and some of the better lighting/shadow effects. Draw distance is high, but frills are turned down a ways. I regularly have lag and rubber banding, but rarely enough to interfere with playability.

In SWTOR I have all settings on the rock bottom and lag every other step. Sometimes I get frozen in place and have to wait around 30s just for all the world features to load. Almost unplayable much of the time. Oh, and the game causes my entire machine to freeze completely (sometimes for several minutes) whenever I go to close the game. And within the last few months there have been updates that also freeze my machine when I try to install them. I've lost track of how many times I've reinstalled.

**edit**
It may be worth saying that my troubles in SWTOR are not all due to my poor specs. I have friends with high-end specs who also have a lot of problems with the games. I started playing before f2p launched and had virtually no issues. I had my graphics turned down still, but playability wasn't impacted at all. Then f2p came and the servers were merged and goodness knows what else. Now I almost can't play at all.
**end edit**

In Neverwinter, RIFT and Fallen Earth I have the graphics turned down, though not all the way. Some minor lag and of course the world doesn't look fantastic at that level, but definitely playable.

I've also played STO and EQ but I can't remember what settings or performance I had.

I still raid and PvMP. I have had those 24 vs 24 battles in the Moors but still managed to hold my head above the tidal wave of lags. *shrug* There have been times I've considered waving a dead chicken over my laptop to induce better performance, but I am afraid my family would not be happy with me killing one of those birds...

[zagreb000]

Most people didn't use the leaderboards.

Maybe not, but there are those that used other sites that used the data collected from the leaderboards...Some third party sites created amazing charts and lists...(the black appendage).... Im aware you arent interested in third party sites but im sure you know that your actions did have a greater impact on the players then you are maybe willing to admit..

[Sapience]

Maybe not, but there are those that used other sites that used the data collected from the leaderboards...Some third party sites created amazing charts and lists...(the black appendage).... Im aware you arent interested in third party sites but im sure you know that your actions did have a greater impact on the players then you are maybe willing to admit..

The reason we announced all of these things were going away months ago was to let those sites have plenty of time to decide on a course of action.

[Valamar]

Maybe not, but there are those that used other sites that used the data collected from the leaderboards...Some third party sites created amazing charts and lists...(the black appendage).... Im aware you arent interested in third party sites but im sure you know that your actions did have a greater impact on the players then you are maybe willing to admit..

The real problem here is -- The Leaderboards HAVE NOT HAD VALID DATA since the beta of Update 4 - Rise of Isengard, back in September of 2011!

That is when the link between the in-game database and data.lotro.com "broke" (the first time).

As many people have noted -- there were frequent delays in posting updates, and in fact, many of those updates only contained "partial" data.

All of these other sites (as did the Lorebook) used this same source for information - data.lotro.com. So when that broke, they all broke.

[Valamar]

A recent problem showed backbone trouble to be the bottleneck, such that my ISP had to change backbone providers to route around it. It wasn't enough to adversely affect my ping that much. It was apparently when and what got lost and how quickly the re-transmission could sync up.

That said, if client performance issues do get fixed, that should help everyone most of the time (but it won't help all of the time).

1- Ping-times are an INCREDIBLY poor metric to use for anything much of anything. They are one of the most mis-used and least understood "network tools" available to the user.

Ping is a tool to determine if a destination is reachable AT ALL... not how easily, quickly, or how. Traceroute can provide more information on those scores.

2- There are significant fixes in the test version (Update 11.3) now up on Bullroarer. Several locations which have been known to easily reproduce "lag" and "rubber-banding" no longer do so. ... As they say in California... your milage may vary. I have not tried the Moors, as I haven't played there in years (since the level-cap was 50!) so I have nothing to compare it with.

3- The Internet problems of the other week, are not particularly unusual. The "Internet" is a network of networks and you, the end user, have zero control over the path from your home computer to your destination computer. You are at the mercy of typically, at least 3 ISPs; your local ISP, your ISP's connection to the backbone, the backbone connection to Turbine. If your ISP is NOT one of the majors -- Verizon, Comcast, Time-Warner, who have their OWN "private" Internet backbones... you can go through multiple ISPs to get to the "backbone." Internet Topology is a fun topic, and incredibly complex. That it works at all is a minor miracle. I've been part of it since ARPAnet days and while the pipes are "fatter" (i.e. faster and able to carry more bits/second) and the "imps" have been replaced by "Switches" -- the problems are still all the same. "The Net" is much more reliable, but it is NOT infallible!

[Valamar]

On wifi with poor internet speed (I live out in the country; when downloading games I typically get 300-350 kbs)

WIFI connectivity can be deadly to gaming. WIFI connections are subject to interference which can dramatically impact the throughput or your connection.
But those problems "come and go" causing "lag-like effects."

This is especially true in the City or an apartment building. "Channel" Interference from other WIFI hubs nearby impacts far more folks than they realize.
It's usually not enough to "stop" things cold, but it can slow things down significantly by requiring constant "retransmissions" between the WIFI Hub and your computer. If you can see more than your own WIFI connection, they you are a candidate for interference. ... long before you worry about cordless phones, microwaves, baby-monitors, etc. all of which can slow down your WiFi connection.

Modern Operating Systems (in both the PC and the Hub) tend to do a reasonably good job of picking a optimal channel... but not really. This is partially because the problem is dynamic. What was a clear channel at 7AM can be crowded at 7PM. But your "system" is locked into the situation it chose when it was powered up. You can help things somewhat by "sniffing" and picking a channel with few or no others using it.... but that "sniff" can change as your neighbor (spouse, partner) fire up their laptops...

[Palentian]

WIFI connectivity can be deadly to gaming. WIFI connections are subject to interference which can dramatically impact the throughput or your connection.
But those problems "come and go" causing "lag-like effects."

This is especially true in the City or an apartment building. "Channel" Interference from other WIFI hubs nearby impacts far more folks than they realize.
It's usually not enough to "stop" things cold, but it can slow things down significantly by requiring constant "retransmissions" between the WIFI Hub and your computer. If you can see more than your own WIFI connection, they you are a candidate for interference. ... long before you worry about cordless phones, microwaves, baby-monitors, etc. all of which can slow down your WiFi connection.

Modern Operating Systems (in both the PC and the Hub) tend to do a reasonably good job of picking a optimal channel... but not really. This is partially because the problem is dynamic. What was a clear channel at 7AM can be crowded at 7PM. But your "system" is locked into the situation it chose when it was powered up. You can help things somewhat by "sniffing" and picking a channel with few or no others using it.... but that "sniff" can change as your neighbor (spouse, partner) fire up their laptops...

Also, as I found out with Clearwire, such things that you CAN'T see can interfere with your connection. Like making popcorn in your microwave. I do agree that Internet Topography is fascinating. Its rather like the ultimate "Does String 1 go to A, B, C, D?" In my networking class we'd do hop counts, then try and locate the routers at each hop. Crazy. It turns out that computers sometimes have strange definitions of "shortest hop".

[mr_toad]

WIFI connectivity can be deadly to gaming. WIFI connections are subject to interference which can dramatically impact the throughput or your connection.
But those problems "come and go" causing "lag-like effects."

This is especially true in the City or an apartment building. "Channel" Interference from other WIFI hubs nearby impacts far more folks than they realize.
It's usually not enough to "stop" things cold, but it can slow things down significantly by requiring constant "retransmissions" between the WIFI Hub and your computer. If you can see more than your own WIFI connection, they you are a candidate for interference. ... long before you worry about cordless phones, microwaves, baby-monitors, etc. all of which can slow down your WiFi connection.

Modern Operating Systems (in both the PC and the Hub) tend to do a reasonably good job of picking a optimal channel... but not really. This is partially because the problem is dynamic. What was a clear channel at 7AM can be crowded at 7PM. But your "system" is locked into the situation it chose when it was powered up. You can help things somewhat by "sniffing" and picking a channel with few or no others using it.... but that "sniff" can change as your neighbor (spouse, partner) fire up their laptops...

All great reasons not to play multiplayer pc games over wifi. I can't agree with you enough in terms of the need to reduce interference. Let me add two more big reasons why wifi is deadly to multiplayer pc games:

1) The wireless data units that are being sent over the air have a gigantic overhead when compared to wired data units. A big part of this overhead is the encryption, which every single wireless data unit has! Over a wired network, there is not this extra overhead.


2) All wireless networks are half-duplex -- that is only one device can communicate at a time in one direction. Most modern wired networks are full duplex, capable of simultaneous information exchanges in both directions between two devices. So once again, wired tech, from a multiplayer pc gamer perspective, is far superior.


There is no real solution to these two above problems in regards to a wireless gaming environment. I have a new, state-of-the-art wireless router that supports the latest wifi AC standard, and it will still suffer from the two problems above.