AFK Players in Whitegate and Besieged: Why aren't they autologged?

[Icemage]

Re: AFK Players in Whitegate and Besieged: Why aren't they autologged?

No, once a UDP goes stray it never reaches a destination and neither side cares if it's got there or not. It is not like a TCP session, the TCP sessions are meticulous in ensuring they get all data. That hiccup you are getting is a result of something else entirely different, an array of possibilities well beyond just internet.

Should add, you want evidence: User Datagram Protocol
I may mess up the technicals on databases, but that's largely due to the IT group I have to learn from. However try and shit me about Internet is just rediculous because I have Cisco Certifications for Networks. Anyway done before it gets way out of hand.

That's the thing though - UDP, while it does not guarantee delivery, does not go out of its way to hinder it either. Yes, you do lose UDP packets quite often (~1%+), particularly when crossing large geographic distances - but given the way that FFXI renders the chatlog almost flawlessly the other 99.9% of the time, I'm betting the overlying protocol structure implements some top-level verification to make sure data was received, and requests an update if it isn't received in a timely fashion (most time-critical applications that use UDP as their primary data pipeline do this - it is one of the essential elements in network programming, particularly for online games).

This suggests that one of two things is happening. Either Square-Enix is deliberately choking the output to avoid killing 56K connections, or their hardware (or some connection point between) is dropping loads of packets because of network congestion. I find the first case to be more likely than the latter, as the second case would result in many 56K users complaining that Besieged invariably kicks them off of their connection due to data flooding, but I'll grant the possibility that it is happening and they simply aren't saying anything because they're used to it...

In either case, most players have more than enough under the hood to deal with the incoming data software-wise. The fact is the packets simply aren't arriving, not that the systems aren't handling the incoming data.


Icemage

[Macht]

Re: AFK Players in Whitegate and Besieged: Why aren't they autologged?

That's the thing though - UDP, while it does not guarantee delivery, does not go out of its way to hinder it either. Yes, you do lose UDP packets quite often (~1%+), particularly when crossing large geographic distances - but given the way that FFXI renders the chatlog almost flawlessly the other 99.9% of the time, I'm betting the overlying protocol structure implements some top-level verification to make sure data was received, and requests an update if it isn't received in a timely fashion (most time-critical applications that use UDP as their primary data pipeline do this - it is one of the essential elements in network programming, particularly for online games).
This suggests that one of two things is happening. Either Square-Enix is deliberately choking the output to avoid killing 56K connections, or their hardware (or some connection point between) is dropping loads of packets because of network congestion. I find the first case to be more likely than the latter, as the second case would result in many 56K users complaining that Besieged invariably kicks them off of their connection due to data flooding, but I'll grant the possibility that it is happening and they simply aren't saying anything because they're used to it...
In either case, most players have more than enough under the hood to deal with the incoming data software-wise. The fact is the packets simply aren't arriving, not that the systems aren't handling the incoming data.
Icemage

Can agree with that. Except for the part stating that UDP packet loss is only ~0.1% that's way to low to quantify UDPs as being unreliable. Especially when I check the routers logs and see them having at least a 10% packet loss during moderat traffic. With heavy traffic it has to be at least like 30% loss. The 56K users wouldn't be complaining because like for I don't know how many times now I've stated UDP packets when lost the routers simply just trashes them. So there is no data flooding, the more likely result would end up being high data loss. This would mean objects not appearing, chatlog not receiving all the info, animations not being executed, or even motion blinking (Character is in one location and suddenly appears in another, example character is to the right of you and suddenly is to the left of you, this game tries to compensate for this one and if you've .dat modding with motions you'd understand how).

Now when a server lags on sending data or your system lags on the data then you get this rapid motion. That should be obvious as to why. Yes, the client side could be setup to make sure it gets certain data. Seriously though evaluating all the data you get which really is more of a priority. Info that you hit, which most of the time this data is only extreemly important to parsing. Out side of parsing the only other time it's ever even noted is when damage of a high number or intresting event occured. To me this makes that data low priority I wouldn't even bother having the client notify to server if it seems like a damage message got dropped.

Besides that it's wasted speed on a UDP to have it doing packet checks, so if I'm going to waste speed I'd want it to be for something more important. That means to me the more important would be user seeing their character, communication from other players, TP, HP, MP, mobs HP, and mob itself. Since game works by zones, a default appearance can be handled client side so sending data to the client on what zone to load is only needed when first entering. Outside of that any other data is just relivance, if the client gets then great if not then no skin off my nose.

[little ninja]

Re: AFK Players in Whitegate and Besieged: Why aren't they autologged?

LMAO the problem ever changes between yous two doesnt it. lol

[Mog]

Re: AFK Players in Whitegate and Besieged: Why aren't they autologged?

i can't even muster myself to read it all. It's just a game!!! x.x I feel like I'm taking the SAT all over again when I read your posts.

[Macht]

Re: AFK Players in Whitegate and Besieged: Why aren't they autologged?

LMAO the problem ever changes between yous two doesnt it. lol

Ehh, like I said he and I probably view at opposite ends. One of us seeing a half full cup and other as a half empty cup.

One thing I'm extreemly positive about though is even with low traffic networks a ~0.1% data loss is only possible if you've recorded like 1-5min. of traffic. Recording it daily it's more around 5%-10% data loss, for UDP that means 5%-10% of the data is never seen, for TCP that means 5%-10% of the time it has request the data again.

So for high traffic a daily loss would read around 20%-30%, for 30 min. - 1 hr that is about 10%-20% data loss. Becomes obvious then that with 100 lines of messages 10-20 of them are going to be lost.

[Icemage]

Re: AFK Players in Whitegate and Besieged: Why aren't they autologged?

Actually the lossage rate isn't usually quite that high. I posted above that a cross-Pacific trip should result in a minimum of 1%, and yes, you could go way higher, but I'd expect a normal average of about 10-15% under peak conditions. 30% for normal traffic is excessive; if you're getting that sort of UDP loss rate you need to change ISPs.

However, there's obviously something double-checking at the far end, because we don't generally lose anything off the chat log, so anything that fails to show up obvious gets resent under normal circumstances.

Another possibility is that Square-Enix temporarily disables this resend feature during Beseiged in an effort to reduce the amount of data that has to go out (at the cost of losing accuracy in the chat logs). I don't really think that's happening, though, since I seem to get better results when I fight in a more isolated corner of Al Zhabi - and my packet receive numbers don't fluctuate wildly - they just stay high most of the time.


Icemage

[Macht]

Re: AFK Players in Whitegate and Besieged: Why aren't they autologged?

Actually the lossage rate isn't usually quite that high. I posted above that a cross-Pacific trip should result in a minimum of 1%, and yes, you could go way higher, but I'd expect a normal average of about 10-15% under peak conditions. 30% for normal traffic is excessive; if you're getting that sort of UDP loss rate you need to change ISPs.
However, there's obviously something double-checking at the far end, because we don't generally lose anything off the chat log, so anything that fails to show up obvious gets resent under normal circumstances.
Another possibility is that Square-Enix temporarily disables this resend feature during Beseiged in an effort to reduce the amount of data that has to go out (at the cost of losing accuracy in the chat logs). I don't really think that's happening, though, since I seem to get better results when I fight in a more isolated corner of Al Zhabi - and my packet receive numbers don't fluctuate wildly - they just stay high most of the time.
Icemage

As far as what they do with the packets, this has been explained before (Not even by me but that Cliff guy) is that he's recorded it sending 1 UDP packet for less pertinant data and sending 2 UDP packets for more important data. So it already suggests there that the client does very little in the form requesting a resend. So I would stick with the belief that if the client does request for a resend, it's of data that is the most important to receive by how SE rates importance.

[Lambeaus]

Re: AFK Players in Whitegate and Besieged: Why aren't they autologged?

Slightly off topic.

How do I tell when a Besieged is going to take place? And can I find out in any place outside of Whitegate?

[Macht]

Re: AFK Players in Whitegate and Besieged: Why aren't they autologged?

Slightly off topic.
How do I tell when a Besieged is going to take place? And can I find out in any place outside of Whitegate?

Type /bmap and look at you'll see status of the enemy forces. Any that are advancing means they are getting ready to attack. Basically one will generally start to advance once they reach around 100 units, then continue increasing till they reach you.

[Lambeaus]

Re: AFK Players in Whitegate and Besieged: Why aren't they autologged?

Type /bmap and look at you'll see status of the enemy forces. Any that are advancing means they are getting ready to attack. Basically one will generally start to advance once they reach around 100 units, then continue increasing till they reach you.

Do you have to be in the ToAU area to access this?


For me, this is more or less knowing to avoid the area at my level, even tho I'd love to take part

About how much time is there between when they start advancing and when they start breaching the walls?

[Macht]

Re: AFK Players in Whitegate and Besieged: Why aren't they autologged?

Do you have to be in the ToAU area to access this?
For me, this is more or less knowing to avoid the area at my level, even tho I'd love to take part
About how much time is there between when they start advancing and when they start breaching the walls?

At the moment they start advancing it takes about 30min. till they reach you and Besiege begins. If you see it say Attacking in there then you know Besiege the actuall battle has started.

[Lambeaus]

Re: AFK Players in Whitegate and Besieged: Why aren't they autologged?

Thanks for all the info! One last question, if you don't mind

How often do they occur. I've only been there a handful of times, and been stuck in one once (when logging in)

[Macht]

Re: AFK Players in Whitegate and Besieged: Why aren't they autologged?

Thanks for all the info! One last question, if you don't mind
How often do they occur. I've only been there a handful of times, and been stuck in one once (when logging in)

Varies depending on what the players have done. You can stunt the Beseige's or delay them if players are out attacking them. Otherwise it can be pretty frequent, some times you can have all 3 forces come at you and it's a Besiege, after a Besiege, after a Besiege.

[little ninja]

Re: AFK Players in Whitegate and Besieged: Why aren't they autologged?

So are you guys saying that S.E in attempts to make Besieged injoyable for all systems an system speeds, that it only sends out the most basic of UDP packets?

[Icemage]

Re: AFK Players in Whitegate and Besieged: Why aren't they autologged?

So are you guys saying that S.E in attempts to make Besieged injoyable for all systems an system speeds, that it only sends out the most basic of UDP packets?

It's not so much that they send out the most basic data (but I grant that it is a possibility). But the limitations in the technology are certainly what's causing the excessive lag that we're seeing. I think it's just a matter of how S-E created their game engine. The problems in Beseiged arise from the fact that, more than any other activity in the game, in pushes the technology beyond its limits.

Theoretically, the FFXI server for Al Zhabi can send as much data as it wants to each player, but the thing with UDP (which is what FFXI uses for chatlogs), in cases where there's tons of information coming down the pipeline, it's the first data to get dropped by the computers that are transmitting to the players.

If you want a visual example, think of a funnel - the transmitting computers on the Internet will each have a maximum amount of data that they are willing to pass along, and it's possible that Square-Enix's servers are sending so much data that some of it is getting "dropped" in favor of more important information. So only the most useful data (like player stats) gets through, and all of the combat log messages have to take their chances.

[code]
Important data \
Important data \
Important data \-------
Combat Log Important data
Combat Log Important data
Combat Log Important data
Combat Log Combat Log
Combat Log Combat Log
Combat Log /-------
Combat Log /
Combat Log /
[/code]


Icemage