Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules [Updated 12/21/2016]

MAIN RULES OF THE FORUMS

Please respect your community. Respect each other as you all enjoy the same thing – The Game.

We encourage open and friendly discussion of the game and the Community. Moderators and Staff have final decisions on all matters, and are here to make sure that the Community remains a friendly, fun place appropriate for players of all backgrounds, ages and groups.

It is the forum member's responsibility to stay up to date on forum rules and to honor the behavior outlined.

PURPOSE OF THE FORUMS

These forums provide an area for constructive player discussions of the game. It also allows players to
help each other identify bugs and issues, and help each other reproduce and resolve them.

These forums are not the most direct way to contact support. If you’re having an issue with your game and you need direct assistance, please tap on the FAQ/Support tab within the game.

CHANGES OR IMPROVEMENT

Please make sure to stay updated on these rules by reviewing this page from time to time.

SET RULES

This is a private board. As such, decisions made are final.
We reserve the right to remove any message board content without notice for any reason.


Rule 1: Responses to rule violations
Violating these rules will result in warnings, either formal or informal, suspensions, banning, or other sanctions.

Rule 2: Respect other users on the forums
- Do not make attacks or insult other users, either in the forums or through private messages. Disagreements and debates are fine, but don’t make it personal.
- Do not attack groups. This includes professions, races, religions, sexual orientations, genders, incomes, or even vague groups like “you people.”
- Do not use ill terms which are offensive to groups, do not “flame”, “troll.” or “haze”.

Rule 3: Respect the forum purpose and structure
- Make your posts in the appropriate forum.
- Please use the Search function. If a relevant thread already exists, please post there instead of creating a new thread about the same topic. Duplicate threads will be closed to keep the forums orderly and easy to navigate.
- Keep off-topic posts in the off-topic forum.
- Don’t start discussions about games that are not ours.
- Do not cross-link to other message boards or websites unless approved by a moderator.

Rule 4: Respect the law
- Do not post anything illegal under U.S. law, or encourage other users to break the laws of the U.S. or their country of residence.
- Do not encourage users to break terms of service. This includes giving information about how to find scripts, exploits, or cheats, as well as arranging to buy or sell accounts or virtual goods.

Rule 5: Respect the audience
Think about who you're talking to. Users may be as young as 13 on these message boards, and may be male or female, and from countries across the globe.
- Keep your language civil. Profanity is frowned on.
- Do not post Adult Material, inappropriate graphic sexual content in any format, or links to sexually explicit sites.
- Do not post graphic images or explicit descriptions of violent acts.
- Do not use an avatar or signature that could offend other users. They have to look at it a lot.

Rule 6: Respect privacy
- Do not post any private emails or private messages unless you have the explicit permission of each person involved in the exchange.
- Do not post private communication between customer support, members, moderators, or administrators on these forums, or anywhere else. (This include support ticket responses)
- Do not post any information covered by a non-disclosure agreement or beta testing agreement. Even if you somehow have inside information about our competitors, for legal reasons we don’t want to hear it.
- Do not post Facebook information about other forum users.
- Do not post any private information about other users.
- Do not post in-game information in an attempt to have other players attack your target. Be careful to not cross the line into bullying.

Rule 7: Do not spam
- Do not post repeatedly about the same topic.
- Do not spam users on the forums or through private messages.
- Do not start a thread without actual purpose.
- Do not start a thread about a news story or article unless you make it clear what the story is about, and offer your own opinion to start a discussion.

Rule 8: Respect your account
- Do not share your account information with other individuals. You will be held responsible for any rules violations that occur under your account.
- Do not create new accounts or use other tricks to avoid suspensions or bans.
- Do not create ‘sock puppet’ accounts – multiple accounts created just so that you can agree with yourself and make it seem like your ideas have more support than they do.
- Never include your e-mail address or any other personal information in posts.

Rule 9: Respect the Moderators
- Do not post using the color red. This color is reserved for moderators.
- Do not impersonate moderators. Do not claim to speak for the moderators.

Rule 10: Respect the decisions of the moderators
- The moderation teams reserves the right to warn, suspend, or permanently ban users judged to be acting against the spirit of the rules, even if the user is following the letter of the rules.
- Do not argue with moderators about moderator decisions. You can disagree with a moderator’s opinions, just like any other poster, but when they post moderator actions in red text, it is considered final.
- Moderators have no access to your game account. If you have an issue you must contact customer service.

Generally, BE NICE. There is nothing wrong with being nice to each other.
See more
See less

Reducing peak load of 100v100 battle start

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Reducing peak load of 100v100 battle start

    As three quarters of the active guilds (assuming uniformly distributed battle times, all slots being equally active) go into battle at the very same second, it's clear that there's a large activity spike. That activity spike is in part responsible for people not being able to join battle without mulitple tries, and needing to click dozens of times to spend ten tokens. Because everyone is trying to do that.

    The only way to reduce that activity spike is to spread it over larger time. As it can't really be done by adding battle time slots (goal is to reduce that spike significantly, so would need twice or three times the number of battle slots, thus one third or half the guilds participating in any given slot, thus worse matching), the only other way is to spread battle starting over some period of time.

    One way to spread battles within timeslot would be staggered start. For example, battles would be divided (randomly per bracket, that is each bracket would be divided instead of all battles from top vanguard to bottom unranked) into three groups, one group starting at :00, another at :05, and final one at :10. This way as one group starts, joins battle, spends tokens, by the time second group starts the first spike has already come and gone.

    Grouping could only be done after matching to allow for all guilds within any given bracket to be available for matching. Nobody could know which of the three groups a guild ends in until the battle starts. Yes, it would be unfortunate for people who try to reserve five minutes at the beginning of 100v100 to drop tokens who can't take fifteen minutes for the purpose (eg. quick break at work), but it would allow for the battle start to be less trippy.

    This is also doable with reasonable effort, not requiring large redesigns.




    Reducing tokens players start with while lowering token regen time so the total number of tokens in full length battle stays the same seems an even easier way to reduce battle start load.

    Starting with 5 tokens (with maximum still 10), and changing regen timer to 4 minutes for 100v100 and 3 minutes to 10v10 looks quite good.
    Last edited by Elandal; 05-31-2017, 09:24 AM.
    WARNING: THE POST ABOVE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN SARCASM AND/OR IRONY!

    Elandal [FIN] ΛĢ 8218DD

  • #2
    Interesting thought. We know that matches happen based on rank, so how about setting start time by rank so guilds will know when they'll be starting? For example, Vanguard guilds start at :10, Platinum guilds start at 0:05, and everybody else starts at 0:00. Guilds that are gold and below are likely to be able to finish their tokens quickly because they're less likely to to have to wait for orders before hitting. That gives Platinum guilds 5 minutes to look at their battle before they're allowed to join the battle. Finally, the competitive Vanguard guilds can all have 10 minutes to look at the battle and plan strategy before joining, so all the people who are complaining that their opponents are peeking at battles before they start can have 10 minutes to look too.
    Just another Castle Age player
    army code: D422AE

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Falco View Post
      Interesting thought. We know that matches happen based on rank, so how about setting start time by rank so guilds will know when they'll be starting? For example, Vanguard guilds start at :10, Platinum guilds start at 0:05, and everybody else starts at 0:00. Guilds that are gold and below are likely to be able to finish their tokens quickly because they're less likely to to have to wait for orders before hitting. That gives Platinum guilds 5 minutes to look at their battle before they're allowed to join the battle. Finally, the competitive Vanguard guilds can all have 10 minutes to look at the battle and plan strategy before joining, so all the people who are complaining that their opponents are peeking at battles before they start can have 10 minutes to look too.
      I'm afraid the top bracket (top 160 Vanguard guilds if brackets are like I remember them being at some time) causes more first minute lag than the rest of the guilds put together. I wouldn't expect lower ranked guilds to have as many players trying to get to battle at the very beginning, rather more people would enter "as soon as they manage, be that at battle start or after 15 minutes". So the lower ranked guilds likely already have initial battle start activity spread over time more than the higher ranked guilds.

      Also, brackets are not by rank, rather bottom Vanguard is bracketed with top Platinum (and same at all other rank breaks), so it couldn't happen exactly at rank breaks really.

      But even if it was done so top bracket (battles 1…80, Vanguard rank 1…160 guilds) was at 10 minute mark, a few brackets (3 I think, covering bottom Vanguard and most of Platinum) at 5 minute mark, and the rest at base battle time, it should spread load somewhat at least.

      Actual method of deciding which battles start at :00, :05, and :10 can be changed and adjusted if first try doesn't help spread load much. Maybe there're better ways to split the battles between start times, based on information we don't have but devs do. And as the battles are generated and divided into starting groups, this could also be shown in the home page Battle Status (that currently says BATTLE NOW).
      Anything that could reduce the activity spike to half of current would certainly benefit us all.
      WARNING: THE POST ABOVE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN SARCASM AND/OR IRONY!

      Elandal [FIN] ΛĢ 8218DD

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Elandal View Post
        Anything that could reduce the activity spike to half of current would certainly benefit us all.
        I think having guilds pick only 1 100v100 battle per day would do that...
        Just another Castle Age player
        army code: D422AE

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Falco View Post
          I think having guilds pick only 1 100v100 battle per day would do that...
          Sure, but I think that train went when iOS could do 4 festi battles daily…
          WARNING: THE POST ABOVE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN SARCASM AND/OR IRONY!

          Elandal [FIN] ΛĢ 8218DD

          Comment


          • #6
            That likely doesn't fix the tripping for anyone anyway. You would have to assign different start times to every single player, on both teams.
            ~VoV~

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by VersionsOfViolence View Post
              That likely doesn't fix the tripping for anyone anyway. You would have to assign different start times to every single player, on both teams.
              Lower peak load would mean less tripping. I don't expect everything to miraculously become great, but I would expect things to be a little better at least.
              WARNING: THE POST ABOVE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN SARCASM AND/OR IRONY!

              Elandal [FIN] ΛĢ 8218DD

              Comment


              • #8
                That's hard to believe, actually. The calculations required for a different battle don't seem to have any impact on tripping in mine. Only what is happening in the battle I'm in.

                Similarly, I don't miss my attack on War of the Red Plains because someone's bashing a hydra.

                Tripping is due to activity levels, and two or more people trying to do things at the same time, in a single battle.
                ~VoV~

                Comment


                • #9
                  An alternative to shifting battle times could also be to spread out guild battlers while starting us out with a lower number of tokens and starting out with shorter regen on the initial tokens. (which would be sort of what Nate was talking about.)


                  We could for example start out with 5 out of 10 tokens.

                  This would take the pressure of in terms of losing out on tokens and the need to get tokens out from the start.

                  If the first 5 tokens then regen at 3 minutes intervals instead of the standard 6 then that creates a window of 15 minutes in which to spread out token use without the fear of losing any tokens.

                  After that the rest of the tokens could regen at around 5.5 minutes a piece to counter the timing of the initial tokens.


                  To further spread token use the people joining the battle could be spread out in the first minutes of the battle.

                  For example. 25 could be allowed to join for each side of the start of the battle.

                  Another 25 could be allowed in 2.5 minutes in, then another at 5 minutes in, until all 100 were allowed to join.

                  This would reduce the number of people active from the start and thus also reduce token use.


                  Of course I'm also still a fan of potentially disabling splash heal and splash damage during the first 15 minutes of each battle.

                  While I don't agree with Nate in terms of 2+ causing an issue, I do believe that X+ creates an issue. X in this case would be the size of the queue on the server side.

                  Each splash, while not going through the same intensive calculations as I also believe to be part of the problem, does need a data lock in order to update health totals.
                  Last edited by Shadow Reaper; 05-23-2017, 07:07 PM.
                  "Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a night. Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life!" - Rev Sim

                  "Gratuitous acts of senseless violence are -my- forte!" - Max

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm really liking the idea that everybody starts with only 5 out of 10 tokens. It makes waiting part of the strategy, increasing the quality of game play while decreasing peak server load: Do you want to start early, use what tokens you have, and be a sitting duck at only half the Enrage or DF you normally have while everybody else slowly comes in, or do you want to play stealth, gather information, and come in when you get your 9th token, or some combination of the above or some strategy in between?

                    Also, it should be enough to just speed up regen to an even 4 minutes for 100v100 tokens and 3 minutes for 10v10 token to make up for the missing tokens. Why complicate it by making regen variable? Starting with only 5 of 10 tokens should be a very simple change, and increasing regen evenly across the whole battle type shouldn't that difficult either.

                    Disabling mage gate damage during the first 15 minutes of battle would give an even bigger advantage to clerics than they have now (with cleric generals scaling rune percentage while mage generals don't). Mage gate damage is most effective when the gate is fresh and everybody has health. Cleric gate heal is most effective later when people in their gate have started taking damage. So, clerics want to wait on splash anyway. Mages lose more effectiveness the longer their splash waits.

                    Everybody starting with 5 of 10 tokens seems balanced and fair across the board.
                    Just another Castle Age player
                    army code: D422AE

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Everything stated here and on other threads are very interesting and promising but somehow a strange notion has grown in me after years of playing CA that (new) devs dont really wanna mess with the (old devs') ancient code the game is built in.

                      Seems to me devs are in a way of 'better safe than sorry' kind of state.

                      Apart from organising events like Meteorite, maybe a new gen here and there, i dont expect anything being 'fixed'.
                      Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Falco View Post
                        I'm really liking the idea that everybody starts with only 5 out of 10 tokens.
                        Less tokens at battle start, with faster regen so total tokens in (full length) battle stays same, seems best and easiest to implement way for now.

                        Originally posted by Falco View Post
                        Also, it should be enough to just speed up regen to an even 4 minutes for 100v100 tokens and 3 minutes for 10v10 token to make up for the missing tokens. Why complicate it by making regen variable? Starting with only 5 of 10 tokens should be a very simple change, and increasing regen evenly across the whole battle type shouldn't that difficult either.
                        Agreed. Variable regen is unnecessary complication, just changing regen time seems to get desired result while being easier.
                        WARNING: THE POST ABOVE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN SARCASM AND/OR IRONY!

                        Elandal [FIN] ΛĢ 8218DD

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'm guessing this sort of goes here.

                          I thought the original idea behind 2 token powers was to reduce load issues. At a peak time like the start of battles only DF and Enrage are applicable, on their implementation there was the implication that their effectiveness would be reviewed. Other than allowing Intimidate to pierce the keep I can't really see how Warrior and Rogue powers could be made to be more desirable at the start of battle, but maybe the original balance might help.
                          Fixing Fireball and Berserk would be my starting point. (Not sure how you fix Berserk to be better than Whirlwind at the start of a battle, maybe best to just nerf WW )

                          DEAD TO ALL

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X