Instancing question/concern

[Mad_Bombardier]

My question of the day is about public instances. What is the queuing protocol for multiple instances and will it be addressed/fixed? I cannot tell you the number of times that DDO places me in the full 1-Gianthold instance when there is a 2-Gianthold instance with 5 players in it. I can tell you the number of times I was automatically put into the empty 2-Instance; only twice! I can see if I was a solo player and there were 48/50 player spots in 1-Instance, that the protocol would try to fill 1-Instance with ungrouped individuals.

I have looked through the Knowledgebase and seen few suggestions. I recall that if your party leader is in 1-Instance, DDO keeps the party together and shifts the whole party to 1-Instance, regardless of overcrowding. But, why does DDO consistently put a party of 6 into an overcrowded 1-Instance when there is an open 2-Instance waiting? Why must I wait 2 minutes for 1-Instance to load, then manually rezone to 2-Instance? Why do you bother to add a 2-Instance, if the public instance queue protocol doesn't use it or only rarely uses it?

Again, there is little documentation for Public Instances in the DDO Knowledgebase, other than it's existance and how to switch between instances. I am working from my experiences and my party's experiences. But, with server mergers coming and the possibilities of numerous public instances, will any of the queuing protocols change to cope with more players? Any other player experience or official explanations are welcome.

[Beherit_Baphomar]

The way I think it works is this.

Fifty people would fill an instance, when fifty one log into that instance the fifty first person is sent to instance two.

Now, you log into Gianthold but three people have left the first instance, bringing the total down to 47. That fifty first person is still in GH instance 2 but because instance one is at 47 you get sent there instead of instance two.

Y'see? You wont get sent to the second or third instance unless the first is full.

[Mad_Bombardier]

The way I think it works is this.

Fifty people would fill an instance, when fifty one log into that instance the fifty first person is sent to instance two.

Bee, thanks for your thoughts. That's what I assume, too. But, inevitably, I'm put in 1-Instance. With server merge, the thought of having 4 or 5 instances means that instead of being put into 1 nearly full instance, I will be shunted into any of 3 or 4 nearly full instances rather than the last empty instance. And when this happens in Gianthold, I basically get frozen until I can change instances. It's the worst when 1-Gianthold is nearly full and there is not yet a 2-Gianthold to relieve the pressure.

I don't know if they should lower the max player count per instance or if that would only create more problems. But, at least I could load into and move in the instance. Right now, I can't even move (the 2 main problem areas for me on Mabar are Market and Gianthold). Perhaps a player option (for those of us without high-end gaming PCs) to always be put into the highest numbered instance. Players unaffected wouldn't check the option and would continue to fill lower numbered instances.

[Beherit_Baphomar]

Bee, thanks for your thoughts. That's what I assume, too. But, inevitably, I'm put in 1-Instance. With server merge, the thought of having 4 or 5 instances means that instead of being put into 1 nearly full instance, I will be shunted into any of 3 or 4 nearly full instances rather than the last empty instance. And when this happens in Gianthold, I basically get frozen until I can change instances. It's the worst when 1-Gianthold is nearly full and there is not yet a 2-Gianthold to relieve the pressure.

I don't know if they should lower the max player count per instance or if that would only create more problems. But, at least I could load into and move in the instance. Right now, I can't even move (the 2 main problem areas for me on Mabar are Market and Gianthold). Perhaps a player option (for those of us without high-end gaming PCs) to always be put into the highest numbered instance. Players unaffected wouldn't check the option and would continue to fill lower numbered instances.

I had the same problem, it was so bad I wouldnt even bother switching instances because it would take too long. It would take me so long to get from the port at GH to the gate at GH. Once I was in the Ruins everything was good, but getting there? Forget about it.

I bought an upgrade for my memory. $60. Put me to 1gb(?) of memory and man, I am so fast now. Its awesome. I still cant run the settings on anything higher than low in the public areas because I lag a bit, not as bad as I used to, but now having no lag is the way I like it.

Anyways, I wonder how much effort it would take for Turbine to put in a box to choose what instance you want to load into? That would be awesome.

[Laith]

Anyways, I wonder how much effort it would take for Turbine to put in a box to choose what instance you want to load into? That would be awesome.

Such a selection would almost always be over-ridden.

If a member of your party is already in the instance you're traveling to, you will be put in whatever instance he/she's already in.

The system prefers to keep parties in the same instance. Very helpful, but it means individuals selecting their preferred instance will usually be ignored if they are partied when they load up the zone... and you can't leave party during quests.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

The first thing I do when I zone into GH1 is immediately move to the highest number GH on the list. Works wonders. It would be nice however if the system did a better job of placing you in the more empty zone if one was <50% while the other was >80% capacity or something along those lines.

As for memory... I had 1GB before playing DDO and was still fairly laggy (but then I have a marginal video card by DDO standards). I moved to 2GB of RAM and 95% of the lag disappeared. The only time I have problems now are those rare moments during a run where people say "is everyone laggy" and the answer is yes.

I am looking forward to the new optimization promissed by the devs yesterday

[negative]

Well, as said, it's obvious that the system tries to completely fill the first instance before sending anyone to the second instance, even if the second instance already exists. As soon as the second instance is created, the system is already actively trying to get rid of it.

It also seems clear that the dev's believe they have a "factor of safety" on the population cap for an instance, so that full groups can be put into an instance (and raise the population of that instance above the typical cap), but given the lag in some places, maybe that cap needs to be lowered further?

Maybe it's a combination of the sheer number of players coupled with the scale, size and general graphic's demand of the marketplace and gianthold that cause those areas to have more issues than others. Maybe a single generic population cap for all serves is not approriate? Maybe some servers need a different cap than others to deal with client-side issues such as the ones being described above?

[MysticTheurge]

Rather than working to fill each instance sequentially (50 in the first, then put people into the next until you get 50 there and then work on the third), the system should work to even out populations in each instance.

50 people should be 25 people in two instances
100 people should be 33 people in three instances
and so on.

[Boulderun]

I say bring back portal storms. Randomly drop people in the middle of a mob camp in Gianthold Ruins.

[Taur]

Rather than working to fill each instance sequentially (50 in the first, then put people into the next until you get 50 there and then work on the third), the system should work to even out populations in each instance.

50 people should be 25 people in two instances
100 people should be 33 people in three instances
and so on.

agreed, though i think that once the threshold is crossed to create a second instance, the game should balance between the two instances until the total number of players in that area falls below a certain threshold, say 10 or so. then it reverts back to a single instance.

[negative]

Rather than working to fill each instance sequentially (50 in the first, then put people into the next until you get 50 there and then work on the third), the system should work to even out populations in each instance.

50 people should be 25 people in two instances
100 people should be 33 people in three instances
and so on.

The only thing to keep in mind is, afaik, is that eventually, if you end up with TOO many instances, that itself will degrade server performance even if they are all lightly populated.

Which is why, I believe, the system tries to minimize the number of instances it creates and maintains. But, how it tries to do that seems a bit too aggressive perhaps.

[Shawhan]

I bought an upgrade for my memory. $60. Put me to 1gb(?) of memory and man, I am so fast now. Its awesome. I still cant run the settings on anything higher than low in the public areas because I lag a bit, not as bad as I used to, but now having no lag is the way I like it.

Harddrive performance is also a key issue as well as 'draw distance'. I had a gig of ram and would still lag a ton in the marketplace. Once i tweaked my harddrive and adjusted the draw distance things improved quite a bit.

Shawhan

[Mad_Bombardier]

Rather than working to fill each instance sequentially (50 in the first, then put people into the next until you get 50 there and then work on the third), the system should work to even out populations in each instance.

50 people should be 25 people in two instances
100 people should be 33 people in three instances
and so on.

I really liked Lorien's queuing suggestion. Stop automatically putting players into the instance above 80% capacity. That extra 20% allows for party member overflow, as well as manual player instance hopping.

At the same time, I agree with negative (who fleshed out my first idea). The most problematic instances, beit from landscape draw distances, number of NPCs, popular player zones, etc., should have lowered player capacities to *help* offset the problem.

[MtnLion]

This thread points out a weakness in instances. My observations correlate the theories about filling an instance and keeping it filled regardless of additional instances available.

I would suggest that the maximum number be lowered when a second instance is created. As an example if MP1 gets to 50, and number 51 is shunted to a new instance MP2, the maximum for MP1 should drop slightly. MP2 would be created with a slightly lower cap, too, say 40. Then when 41 logs into MP1, and MP2 has 40, MP3 is created with a slightly lower cap, too, say 35. Then all instances would be capped at 35. The cap would only be applied to new arrivals, and releasing instances would, in turn, raise the caps of existing instances.

The definition for this characteristic is called hysterisis. With hysterisis some semblance of balance can be maintained rather than constantly cycling through imbalances.

An additional approach would be to target new arrivals for the lowest population instance, if the number occupants in the instances justify continued multiple instances, rather than shunting them to the lowest numbered instance.

[MtnLion]

I say bring back portal storms. Randomly drop people in the middle of a mob camp in Gianthold Ruins.

AC1 Yahoo!