Can you reduce max player limit during Beseiged?

[Dymlos]

Can you guys reduce the max player limit during Besieged in Al Zahbi to at least 500 players in the area? While Besieged is really fun, I dislike it how at times there will be 700 players defending it. This in turn, creates a massive amount of lag and makes it harder to defend the Astral Candesence.

Yes, while defending it is suppose to be hard, the massive amount of lag not only kills the fun in Besieged but also makes it so I feel like defending it with that much lag, isn't worth the trouble and effort.

[LyonheartLakshmi]

Capping player participation at 500 might make level 8 Besieged a death sentence. Both times I've seen my server lose Besieged, we had around 450 people in the zone. I don't know if the decreased lag from 500 players would make up for the reduced Zerg-power of 200 fewer participants.

With plenty of lower level players trying to participate for various reasons (cheap exp, lower level BLUs trying to learn certain spells, etc), lowering the cap might need to be accompanied by a way to toss out players from the zone. I'd hate to see a level 75 player get turned away because a level 10 player is taking up one of the "slots". I understand that that's already the case with the cap at around 700. But the lower that cap goes, the more important each participant becomes.

[Raydeus]

We need a faster connection to the server, specially for Besieged (and some times even dynamis), the dial-up cap kills it.

Also, the client/server should prioritize Party members, enemies and generals over everything else, so even if you have a bottle-neck like connection you could at least get the most important info even if your client skipped everything else to keep things lagless.

Why is it that a General that's right in front of me dissapears when another player who isn't even in my party does something?

That I will never understand. >.<

[Aeni]

Capping player participation at 500 might make level 8 Besieged a death sentence.

No it won't. Conversely capping player participation, they can reduce the difficulty of each besieged.

Reducing the amount of enemies and additionally reducing the difficulty of said enemies while severely reducing player participation will in all likelihood reduce amount of lag experienced and will make the event enjoyable for all.

Possibly having 18 hour intervals between the events (That is, half of the world gets to participate every other event placed during their "prime time") might be a good start.

[Ameroth]

Possibly having 18 hour intervals between the events (That is, half of the world gets to participate every other event placed during their "prime time") might be a good start.

That already happens:

The beastmen army will invade approximately 16-36 hours after their last invasion

(Source: http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/Besieged)

[Yellow Mage]

I've never done a Besieged before, so I may not know what I'm talking about . . .

But wouldn't setting such a cap on players/monsters kind of ruin the point of Besieged, seeing that it's supposed to be a large-scale battle system?

[Theyaden]

Personally if there is a change in the besieged numbers I'ld rather see a minimum level to enter rather than reducing the participants. I honestly don't see what a level 10 would be doing there, but someone with minimum level to use raise may be usefull as a resuraction guy. /shrug

[Legal Fish]

Besieged's wave numbers should already be based on the number of participants in Al Zahbi when they enter. That's a bigger issue than the max limit.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Personally if there is a change in the besieged numbers I'ld rather see a minimum level to enter rather than reducing the participants. I honestly don't see what a level 10 would be doing there, but someone with minimum level to use raise may be usefull as a resuraction guy. /shrug

Thing is, there are just as many AFK level 75 players as there are low levels mules to scam some EXP and IS.

Anyone not moving 10 minutes after Beseiged starts should be loaded back into Whitegate.

[Kirsteena]

You are on Bahamut - seriously, the only time there is a 700 player besieged in on weekends, in japanese prime time. There is a reason we keep losing the Candy...

[IfritnoItazura]

Has S-E actually gone into the technical details on why exactly do FFXI clients exhibit such poor performance during Besieged?

Chew on this for bit: FFXI clients does not even try to display 700 players on screen. Ever. Or 500, for that matter. If you reduce the number of players in the zone, you're not reducing the display load. So, why would a 500 cap improve performance significantly? Even if it does, what would be the causal mechanism?

I'm sure some people will now claim "It has to be the 64kbps modem limit." Others will insist "The server is overload." A few will say "Because PS2 couldn't handle it and the PC client is capped to PS2's level."

Claim whatever you want, but I'm pretty sure most people making those claims have no solid evidence or reasoning, and rely on intuitions like "it must be this!"

Until S-E itself make clear the reason why Besieged perform the way it does currently, it's fairly pointless for the majority of users to keep insisting on random changes in hopes of getting better performance.

For the minority, though, unless you've actually hacked the client and server and analyzed how they receive, process, and send data during Besieged, make no claim on why it doesn't work well. And, if you don't know why things are the way they are, don't make random suggests on how"fix" things, either.

Please.

[Dymlos]

Kirst, there are times where we have max limit during US prime-time, so it's not just JP prime-time. Well Ifritno, according to that, if the client doesn't bother loading that much players, then we shouldn't be having massive lag as I shouldn't have to spam hit the ranged attack button to fire off my ammo.

And from what I noticed in several Besieges, the lag is specifically less with 500 people opposed to 700 people. But hey, if you enjoy playing in 700 player filled Besieges to where you have to spam hit your macros for it to get to work, and to constantly die from lag itself then be my guess.

[Kirsteena]

/shrug, I'm most likely tucked up in bed then. And that seems to be the time we lose the Candy more, so I was extrapolating.

And no, I find the lag as bad with anything from 300-700 people. Dieing from lag when you don't lose any xp doesn't worry me either!

[Raydeus]

Has S-E actually gone into the technical details on why exactly do FFXI clients exhibit such poor performance during Besieged?

Chew on this for bit: FFXI clients does not even try to display 700 players on screen. Ever. Or 500, for that matter. If you reduce the number of players in the zone, you're not reducing the display load. So, why would a 500 cap improve performance significantly? Even if it does, what would be the causal mechanism?

You are confusing frame rate drop because of too many models being displayed on screen at the same time with lag problems cause by the overload of information while on Besieged.

The problem in Besieged is on the connection side and how the game doesn't prioritize important characters over the info from the other 100 players around you who have nothing to do with your party.

I'm sure some people will now claim "It has to be the 64kbps modem limit." Others will insist "The server is overload." A few will say "Because PS2 couldn't handle it and the PC client is capped to PS2's level."

Claim whatever you want, but I'm pretty sure most people making those claims have no solid evidence or reasoning, and rely on intuitions like "it must be this!"

Until S-E itself make clear the reason why Besieged perform the way it does currently, it's fairly pointless for the majority of users to keep insisting on random changes in hopes of getting better performance.

For the minority, though, unless you've actually hacked the client and server and analyzed how they receive, process, and send data during Besieged, make no claim on why it doesn't work well. And, if you don't know why things are the way they are, don't make random suggests on how"fix" things, either.

Please.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand why the overload of info coming from all those players around you while on besieged causes connection lag.

Or why when you are in a part of the area with fewer players around you (regardless of how many players are in Al Zhabi in total) it improves connection lag regardless of the number of character models being displayed at the time.

So, while it's true the specific (XI client/server interaction) technical details are unknown, the symptoms are very well known, and that allows you to have a good idea of what the problems are.

But then again, everyone has their own set of ideas, so believe whatever you want to believe. =P

[Aeni]

For the minority, though, unless you've actually hacked the client and server and analyzed how they receive, process, and send data during Besieged, make no claim on why it doesn't work well. And, if you don't know why things are the way they are, don't make random suggests on how"fix" things, either.

Please.

Not sure what caused your underpants to wad up, but ease up here a little.

You don't need to be an expert or an insider to understand basic fundamental mechanics of MMORPG. One has to just look at the basic kinds of online games, like StarCraft, for example, to understand what is causing the kinds of problems being discussed here.

If it's simple issues with the rate at which characters are being drawn on your screen and you're on the PS2, more than likely it is an issue of a server being bogged down with requests to update individual clients connected in one local area (FFXI is broken down into zones and even in a world w/o physical boundaries like WoW, these areas do exist and much content and data are segregated into these areas)

If you're on the PC, the problem might not be so easily diagnosed, because of the myriads of configurations possible, which leads to a myriad of potential problems which can cause a common symptom to occur.

What is experienced in Besieged by most PS2 users are more than just one kind of symptom exhibited. Everything from a high latency (Receives of over 1,000) to a slow down of the PS2's graphics processing (or worse, general computations that occurs in the CPU)

It is already a fact that events such as Dynamis can and will causes problems for both PS2 and PC users. If you go to any reputable Dynamis resource site, many will tell you to "dumb down" all sorts of customizable options, from the number of characters drawn on the screen to filtering out just about every possible system message and game effects.

However, note that only up to 64 can participate in the original Dynamis events.

Beseiged is well over that number ... roughly 10 times that. Having to follow the same procedures outlined above to enjoy a Dynamis event (which individual players should not have to do in the first place) will clearly not work for something on a magnitude such as Besieged.

Bottom line. It's a novelty event. It's great for some. But it also has serious drawbacks which can frustrate many players. Which leads me to believe that it was a sales pitch gimmick to sell the game (in order to stand out from the competition) and people shouldn't be too serious about this. If you don't participate, big deal. This doesn't mean you will be locked out of any future content or be prevented from progressing with your HNM LS end game or any missions or quests for that matter.

Now, if SE expects players to somehow grit their teeth and log on to every Besieged event, then yes, there should be a good reason as to why SE ought to fix Besieged. However, anyone with half a brain will know that Besieged is pretty much all or nothing at this time. You either take it in current form or SE will just nix it completely. There's too much limitations to the system and SE's network at this point in time for them to even try to improve on it. The only thing they can do are just minor adjustments and reducing the number of participants is one of those kinds of suggestions for a minor fix. Iincreasing the minimum level requirement is also a sound method and since Aht Urgan does have a soft-level requirement, this shouldn't be an issue. (You don't see level 10 players actively killing monsters outside of the town, do you?)

[little ninja]

I think if they lower the total amount of players, put a lvl limit on jobs allowed into besieged, and remove inactive players after 3mins. Then this will most likely help with some of the lag issues an make it bearable if anything.

As it stands right now. I'm running a 4k system with a cable modem. I have all my setting off. An still anything higher then 500 in besieged drives me nuts. I highly doubt thats what S.E had in mind for besieged. An if they did. They need to quit making MMO's.

[IfritnoItazura]

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand why the overload of info coming from all those players around you while on besieged causes connection lag.
No, but a little computer science background would help with making educated guesses. Actual knowledge of how the game is programmed would be helpful, too, commonsense tells me.

The trouble I have with most of the people who ask for a changes like this is that they don't have good reasonings behind the specific caps they propose.

The problem in Besieged is on the connection side and how the game doesn't prioritize important characters over the info from the other 100 players around you who have nothing to do with your party.
This is an example of an educated guess. (Not all that common on this forum. /sigh) But, you stated it as a fact, rather "It's possible that..." Unless you work for S-E, or have done fairly rigorous analysis of the game's network traffic yourself, it is just a guess.

(That said, I, too, thought data prioritization could be a problem--just don't have the means to prove or disprove it. There could be other contributing factors like memory thrashing, network software/hardware bottlenecking, redundant/repeat info, client side CPU overload, etc. None of which I can prove or disprove... )

What is experienced in Besieged by most PS2 users are more than just one kind of symptom exhibited. Everything from a high latency (Receives of over 1,000)
I thought that number indicates the amount of data received in a time period, rather than latency?

You don't need to be an expert or an insider to understand basic fundamental mechanics of MMORPG. One has to just look at the basic kinds of online games, ...
Speaking of other games, let's try a different angle.

There are other MMOPRG's with massive battle fields, right? Has any of them shown significantly better performance (i.e decent frame rate, tolerable lag)? On comparable minimum systems required by FFXI's PC client? I've no first hand experience with other games, but I know many posters here do.

If those games do exist, how do they manage do better?

If we understand how other systems are able to perform well in massive battle fields, then we can make more intelligent suggestions to S-E. (It wouldn't surprise me if a decent 700 people Besieged is possible, with some combination of server re-architecture and client code revision.)

[little ninja]

Well sorry to burst a bubble or two. But its not like S.E will ever clue us in on how anything actually works. Most of what we go off of was basically a bunch of players doing long tests so we have ballpark figures. An even then S.E wont let us in on how close we are. The same thing could be said for the reasons why a player lags in besieged. Or why we lag in other areas as well. By the A.H, Dynamis, god/hnm battles, parting with another party next to us and so on.

To answer your question of whats the problem between this MMO an others. I was playing WoW and FFXI at the same time. I was being booted from the FFXI servers and my frame rate in WoW was always at the same level. So if i had to say what it was Id go with the servers. Its funny now that i think about it. I can only remember 1 time in WoW where i lagged real bad. It was the day 3/4 the Horde population on our server stormed Stormwind.

[Karinya]

There are other MMOPRG's with massive battle fields, right?
Actually, I don't think there are. WoW instances are capped at 40 players maximum, and have no more mobs at one time than Dynamis, probably less. I can't think of any other MMO that allows literally hundreds of players to fight in the same area at the same time. (WoW has massive lag just walking into a city, let alone fighting there...)

I think client side CPU/graphics load can most likely be ruled out as the primary problem (although some players may also have secondary problems with it) because *everyone* gets Besieged lag, no matter how good their system is. That suggests either a server or a communications bottleneck problem. I agree that SE has more tools for analyzing this than we do, but since they're unlikely to share their technical data with us, we have to try to reach our own conclusions or just sit and wait.


Regardless of whether or not it would have much effect on the lag, I think the following would be reasonable:
1. Anyone who doesn't move or take some action within 1 minute after the start of Besieged is moved to Whitegate. (They can try to reenter when they get back from AFK if there's room.) Yes, I know that's really short. People who aren't AFK when it starts get priority over those that are, if there are limited slots.
2. In order for this not to be too harsh on people going to the bathroom or whatever, there is now a log message when the beastmen get close (like 2-3 minutes travel) to Al Zahbi.
3. When you try to enter a full besieged, if there is a player at least 20 levels lower than you, they may be booted to make room for you. If this happens the lowest levels (i.e. level 1 mules that someone somehow got to Al Zahbi) will be booted first, with ties broken randomly. There is no level minimum to enter as long as it isn't full. Level 56+ characters will never be booted this way, but anyone lower might be. A player who is removed this way immediately gets exp and IS for contributions they have made so far. (They can still try to reenter and earn more if the player total drops below full due to afkers being booted, etc., but the amount they received previously is deducted from the cap so they still cannot earn more than the cap total.)
4. Players who take no action (chat does not count) for 5+ minutes are relocated to Whitegate. If they're dead that long they're probably AFK, which can waste multiple people's raise attempts and deny space to other players. Obviously people who are alive and do nothing for 5 minutes are probably AFK. Players receive a warning in the chat log 30 seconds before this happens (in case someone is just sitting waiting for weakness or whatever). Players booted this way *can* reenter - if they come back from AFK before the besieged ends and if there's room.
5. Players who are dead at the end automatically get a raise that must be accepted within 5 minutes or it wears off. If they accept it they get exp and IS for the besieged. If they don't accept in time, they get nothing.


As you can probably tell from the above, I think AFKers are the biggest problem aside from technical problems. Hopefully anti-AFK measures will keep the "boot low levels to let in high levels" rule from needing to be invoked, but if it is still necessary, a high level player who is actively trying to get in will almost always contribute more to the besieged than a player that many levels lower (no matter how hard they try).

[little ninja]

I think booting afk players will be a plus and a minus. In some instances it will lower the total number of players in the zone. In other cases it will just increase the active players thus making for even more clogged battles.

I think besieged is broke anyways, I don't even have to participate for the whole fight. I maybe fight for 5-10mins. Then i run to the second level and hide in the corner and wait out the besiged while chatting it up in ls. an i walk out with no head ache an full points.

As for WoW. My guild leader always complained about lag in places i had no trouble. So in some cases its player side. An the rest is due to server side. I think S.E is the same way. But since its everyone who complains about lag in the simplest of situations. It leads more to server side.

When i started playing FFXI i didnt think id ever have to turn off all effects, reduce how many things load on my screen, and so on. Just so i could lessen the headaches of lag. To me it defeats the purpose of what im looking.