I believe that there already is a window like this, though it is a lot shorter than 15 minutes. I think that's a bit too long for something like this. And while I don't know how much space it would take to hold a mission's worth of info for that long, I'd have to say that about 5 minutes would be a bit more reasonable.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Unfortunately losing connection is a client end issue and the server doesn't lose contact with the player it just thinks you are standing still. Then when you are logging back in it thinks you are logging in from a new PC and tells you you are already logged in and ends the session.
Quote:
Then i will make the suggestion that they not end sessions like that
|
Originally Posted by _Klaw_
Unfortunately losing connection is a client end issue and the server doesn't lose contact with the player it just thinks you are standing still. Then when you are logging back in it thinks you are logging in from a new PC and tells you you are already logged in and ends the session.
|
Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Study Hard. Be evil.
I would love if the server won't reset my mission when I get disconnected.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this is something that works this way because it can't be changed, not because the Devs want it to.
Generally you've got the Login server, World server, the Regional server, and the Local server working together, to avoid -too- much bandwidth hogging. Basically it's one super-computer with different processors set to handle different tasks with the exception of the Login server which is a master server controlling the network. When you enter the Local server is when instances are loaded up into the server's memory for use. In the case of randomly generated maps it generates them and loads you in.
Now that mission is in the local server's memory, taking up space. The engine was designed to dump that memory as soon as it was no longer a worry. So as long as that mission is active and/or has people in it: it's loaded. As soon as it's no longer active/noone is in it BAM! Gone to free up memory for the next person coming along to get into an instance.
Now -if- I'm correct, which I think I am, the engine would need to be restructured almost completely in it's resource management functions to handle this concern. And, as was stated in my CoH2 thread, it's probably not ever going to happen thanks to the investment < return paradigm.
-Rachel-
Quote:
I understand everything you said up to the second to last sentience.|
Originally Posted by Steampunkette
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this is something that works this way because it can't be changed, not because the Devs want it to.
Generally you've got the Login server, World server, the Regional server, and the Local server working together, to avoid -too- much bandwidth hogging. Basically it's one super-computer with different processors set to handle different tasks with the exception of the Login server which is a master server controlling the network. When you enter the Local server is when instances are loaded up into the server's memory for use. In the case of randomly generated maps it generates them and loads you in. Now that mission is in the local server's memory, taking up space. The engine was designed to dump that memory as soon as it was no longer a worry. So as long as that mission is active and/or has people in it: it's loaded. As soon as it's no longer active/noone is in it BAM! Gone to free up memory for the next person coming along to get into an instance. Now -if- I'm correct, which I think I am, the engine would need to be restructured almost completely in it's resource management functions to handle this concern. And, as was stated in my CoH2 thread, it's probably not ever going to happen thanks to the investment < return paradigm. -Rachel- |
A) If I'm still running the mis wouldn't this be conceited as needed info. So rather then dump it couldn't it just reconnect.
B) I'm not familiar with your CoH2 thread or the "investment" you said about. would you clarify it
Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Study Hard. Be evil.
Quote:
She is referring to this thread (started by her which is just a few more threads down the first page here:|
Originally Posted by Malin0001
I understand everything you said up to the second to last sentience.
A) If I'm still running the mis wouldn't this be conceited as needed info. So rather then dump it couldn't it just reconnect. B) I'm not familiar with your CoH2 thread or the "investment" you said about. would you clarify it |
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=213101
If I understand what she is saying - in order to free up the "resources" (call it system capacity or processing power, but I'm sure that isn't the correct term for it), the server clears out the instance, so you are not able to log back into it because it isn't there any more.
In order to change that, the way the server manages its resources would need to be changed, which is most likely not trivial (not a coder here) and may not be possible with the current server layout and number of servers, etc., which would require more servers, or something like that - more expense incurred.
Yes, it is annoying to lose mission progress, etc., when you are disconnected (either forcibly disconnected by your ISP or weather event, etc., or by your own choice), but there are lots of players here. If a significant number of them had an instance stored "in progress", that's a lot of resources being used.
Obviously I'm not a developer (in fact, I'm only familiar with servers & coding isses because I have friends who talk about it in my pressence) - but I'm betting that they have decided that the current amount of time the mission instance is stored is the balancing point for using the server resources. Perhaps that balancing point could be adjusted, but it seems unlikely that they would want to store instances on the server indefinitely, and they have no way of knowing how soon you would return to your missions.
Altoholic - but a Blaster at Heart!
Originally Posted by SpyralPegacyon
"You gave us a world where we could fly. I can't thank you enough for that."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Malin0001
Then i will make the suggestion that they not end sessions like that
|
Then you would have the problem of missions taking up space that were logged out of 5 years ago. The computer has no way of knowing that the player that had that mission quit playing 4 1/2 years ago. As far as it's aware, that player could log back in any minute to finish their mission. That would be a HUGE amount of storage space that would be delegated to missions that will never be completed. There's no way it could be selective about it and only keep missions that were just logged out of, it would have to either save it forever, or not at all. At least no easy way I am aware of.
It deletes the instance as soon as there is no one ONLINE that is connected to it, meaning it is their active mission at the time. If you set it up so that when no one is actively running the mission it keeps the status of it, you would probably have the side effect of not being able to reset or switch a mission if it's too difficult or has a bug that prevents you from completing it. Since it would save your mission progress, that mission would ALWAYS be considered the active mission.
Say you run across a bug in a mission that prevents you from completing it, and it's an undroppable mission (missions that grant badges can't be dropped). Currently, you can just log out and back in to reset the mission, and go do something else. If it saved your mission at it's current point...you'd be completely screwed and be stuck there until a GM got around to your problem (which can be anywhere from a few minutes to several hours).
The investment < return point mentioned earlier means, basically, that the devs would spend more time and money on this than they would get any return out of. It doesn't make much sense to spend $100 on making something and then sell it for $15, you'd go out of business in a hurry if you did that. The amount of money they would spend on the technology and programming to make this possible (with all of the probable negative side effects associated with it) would FAR outweight the money they would make by having done it. It's not an issue for the overwhelming majority of the playerbase, so the devs are very unlikely to spend the huge some of money it woulod take to make just a few people happy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
Quote:
So basically it comes down to how they have it set up and between if its just a minor and magor adjustment. To bad only the devs know this|
Originally Posted by Ad Astra
She is referring to this thread (started by her which is just a few more threads down the first page here:
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=213101 If I understand what she is saying - in order to free up the "resources" (call it system capacity or processing power, but I'm sure that isn't the correct term for it), the server clears out the instance, so you are not able to log back into it because it isn't there any more. In order to change that, the way the server manages its resources would need to be changed, which is most likely not trivial (not a coder here) and may not be possible with the current server layout and number of servers, etc., which would require more servers, or something like that - more expense incurred. Yes, it is annoying to lose mission progress, etc., when you are disconnected (either forcibly disconnected by your ISP or weather event, etc., or by your own choice), but there are lots of players here. If a significant number of them had an instance stored "in progress", that's a lot of resources being used. Obviously I'm not a developer (in fact, I'm only familiar with servers & coding isses because I have friends who talk about it in my pressence) - but I'm betting that they have decided that the current amount of time the mission instance is stored is the balancing point for using the server resources. Perhaps that balancing point could be adjusted, but it seems unlikely that they would want to store instances on the server indefinitely, and they have no way of knowing how soon you would return to your missions. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Then you would have the problem of missions taking up space that were logged out of 5 years ago. The computer has no way of knowing that the player that had that mission quit playing 4 1/2 years ago. As far as it's aware, that player could log back in any minute to finish their mission. That would be a HUGE amount of storage space that would be delegated to missions that will never be completed. There's no way it could be selective about it and only keep missions that were just logged out of, it would have to either save it forever, or not at all. At least no easy way I am aware of.
It deletes the instance as soon as there is no one ONLINE that is connected to it, meaning it is their active mission at the time. If you set it up so that when no one is actively running the mission it keeps the status of it, you would probably have the side effect of not being able to reset or switch a mission if it's too difficult or has a bug that prevents you from completing it. Since it would save your mission progress, that mission would ALWAYS be considered the active mission. Say you run across a bug in a mission that prevents you from completing it, and it's an undroppable mission (missions that grant badges can't be dropped). Currently, you can just log out and back in to reset the mission, and go do something else. If it saved your mission at it's current point...you'd be completely screwed and be stuck there until a GM got around to your problem (which can be anywhere from a few minutes to several hours). The investment < return point mentioned earlier means, basically, that the devs would spend more time and money on this than they would get any return out of. It doesn't make much sense to spend $100 on making something and then sell it for $15, you'd go out of business in a hurry if you did that. The amount of money they would spend on the technology and programming to make this possible (with all of the probable negative side effects associated with it) would FAR outweight the money they would make by having done it. It's not an issue for the overwhelming majority of the playerbase, so the devs are very unlikely to spend the huge some of money it woulod take to make just a few people happy. |
Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Study Hard. Be evil.
Please don't end the sessions of missions when logging back into the same character that is currently running,.
Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Study Hard. Be evil.