North American Sandbox Servers - NASS Main (Artificial Vanilla Config)

[MossyStone48]

The servers sector are not going to be increased. And YOU are the only person I have ever heard of in three years to have issues with sector size and combat. So it's not the sector size. Certainly the server has been laggy and I've been pretty diligent about cracking down on lag creators.

That narrows issues down pretty quickly.

 

[karkinosz]

And YOU are the only person I have ever heard of in three years

Well it has been awhile since NASS has had an active playerbase, hasn't it?

 

[MossyStone48]

You've removed most of the context of my statement. It should read:

And YOU are the only person I have ever heard of in three years to have issues with sector size and combat.

Someone might misread my quote and believe that it is an admission of NASS having been a ghost server for three years.

See like so:

NASS has had an active playerbase, hasn't it?

And I could sit there, smile on my face and respond: WHY YES IT HAS. Thank you for noticing! Someone reading that might draw an incorrect conclusion. And that'd be a terrible shame.

To answer your question: (Royal 'We' in heavy use here. Mind the gap.)
Not at all. There have been mostly new users testing out the the advanced build mode, mining, forming and using factions on the daily. Mostly because they can actually build a ship at spawn without being harassed by over zealous player pirates, faction recruitment or unchecked lag. After that they go play on other servers. We don't ask why.

BTW on NASS we check out lag. And directly address those responsible with all the courtesy we can afford at the moment. Which is, admittedly, sometimes very little. Context you understand.

Did you have a suggestion for the new user load out or server config? I might have missed it... if you'd care to restate it I'd much appreciate it.

 

[karkinosz]

You've removed most of the context of my statement. It should read:

Someone might misread my quote and believe that it is an admission of NASS having been a ghost server for three years.

While I understand how you'd think I was removing context, from my point of view the part I was answering was just that slice. That in three years he's the only person you've heard from about it, with my rebuttal being that NASS has been a ghost town for these last three years. Even on the most popular servers people will rarely go to you directly with complaints, prefering to whine in chat and then leave after a couple minutes.

Now lecic's argument does have merit in that low sector sizes cause an issue for PvP. Starmade still has many bugs concerning sector boarders which typically are soothed by making the fighting area larger. Ofc if he wants to make a suggest towards increasing the sector size he should, of course, contact you.

Also since we are already talking, please recall why NASS became depopulated in the first place. Im sure you already know why.

 

[Comr4de]

While I understand how you'd think I was removing context, from my point of view the part I was answering was just that slice. That in three years he's the only person you've heard from about it, with my rebuttal being that NASS has been a ghost town for these last three years. Even on the most popular servers people will rarely go to you directly with complaints, prefering to whine in chat and then leave after a couple minutes.

Now lecic's argument does have merit in that low sector sizes cause an issue for PvP. Starmade still has many bugs concerning sector boarders which typically are soothed by making the fighting area larger. Ofc if he wants to make a suggest towards increasing the sector size he should, of course, contact you.

Also since we are already talking, please recall why NASS became depopulated in the first place. Im sure you already know why.

Because MS' administration of the server led to all the major factions (DFN, Vaygr, Arstotzka, etc etc) fucking off onto other servers. With no meaningful interaction the server population plummeted. Stop being a retard. Warsong has his own fair share of problems but NASS was a ghost town when he got the job.

I do agree that a sector size increase would be nice, since there ARE problems with crossing sector borders and combat. However, I wouldn't go above 4km tbh. Even then, that's pushing it.

 

[karkinosz]

Because MS' administration of the server led to all the major factions (DFN, Vaygr, Arstotzka, etc etc) fucking off onto other servers. With no meaningful interaction the server population plummeted. Stop being a retard. Warsong has his own fair share of problems but NASS was a ghost town when he got the job.

I do agree that a sector size increase would be nice, since there ARE problems with crossing sector borders and combat. However, I wouldn't go above 4km tbh. Even then, that's pushing it.

Last I recall war was in charge at that point, if Im remembering incorrectly ill retract that point but im leaving it unedited either way.

 

[Comr4de]

Last I recall war was in charge at that point, if Im remembering incorrectly ill retract that point but im leaving it unedited either way.

No he wasn't. Warsong didn't take over until after Planr quit running the server, which Planr took over after MS disappeared off the face of the planet. Coincidentally, this disappearance took place at roughly the same time as the end of the first vaygr war which highlighted most of MS' admin bullshittery (deleting ships in combat, spawning pirates at bases, spawning other's ships for himself)

 

[MossyStone48]

Most people stay on NASS for more than a few moments. And I have had conversations with several folks bringing up questions and issues about the server and the game. I like working with new users. (In fact the logs may even go back that far.)
There really are few complaints these days. Though If you've heard of any I've apparently not then feel free to PM me the full list.

I'd love to see some numbers proving sector size has an effect on PvP. A video would be best. Then all claims would be either irrefutable or put to public scrutiny.

Until I see some evidence it has any affect: the sector size is not getting an increase.

 

[therimmer96]

The servers sector are not going to be increased. And YOU are the only person I have ever heard of in three years to have issues with sector size and combat. So it's not the sector size. Certainly the server has been laggy and I've been pretty diligent about cracking down on lag creators.

You're kidding right? Most major servers, even NFDBS, has sector sizes at 10km^3. This has been a thing since sector size configs were >_>

 

[MossyStone48]

The server's past is just that. Past. Let's look towards the future. More suggestions. Keep em comin' even if I shoot em down.

And yes rimmer. sector size is staying right where it is. Default.

 

[therimmer96]

And yes rimmer. sector size is staying right where it is. Default.

But why?! There is zero reason. Position inaccuracies aren't a thing at that scale, it reduces the risk of overlapping stations, it allows combat to be more reliable, travel is easy thanks to jump drives. Or are you just refusing to change your mind?

 

[MossyStone48]

I've explained it in previous posts. There are several reasons to leave the sectors be. I'm confident you can use the search tool to find the right posts.

And of all those claims as an admin for nearly 3 years I've only seen anecdotal and bug report evidence of overlapping stations. An issue that was thoroughly squashed long ago.

There's no 'change my mind'. It's set in stone. Or at least cfg file I'm not going to edit without sound reason. It's not MY mind you need to leverage arguments against. Argue against the flailing servers that are evidence to the contrary. Gap the lack of any proof there is EVEN a slight positive effect to making a change. A change that would need to be worth while for the entire server population. Not just a few. If it only serves PvPers then we're inconveniencing others for all of 1 reason.

And IF a change is to be made to what degree should it be increased? With no data to work with we're all just guessing.

 

[Aynslei]

*snip* Since it can be read above^

This is a direct quote from Raiben about what changes to the config would occur during the the Blood & Steel tournament.
"The only real changes are the sector sizes, the ai accuracy, and newtonian physics." (namely a single large locked sector)

This was a competition focused entirely around PvP, and many PvP players took part in said competition. Not a single one argued against an increase in sector size because it is a reasonable change for better a PvP environment, very few comments from the thread brought up the sector size at all showing that most players considered it fine.

Here is quote from Keptic from that thread. "If you ever go with 3x3 4km sectors say hello to sector change bugs. " (in response to having 3x3 sectors or one large one)

Many players around here understand the issues with sector changes mid combat, fewer understand that the loading/unloading that occurs can be exploited in multiple ways, your adamant defense of small sectors sizes confuses me.
(Edit: In my last statement I forgot to mention that those exploits are far easier to perform with small sector sizes.)

 

[MossyStone48]

What someone SAYS is all fine and good. No matter their reputation it does not put their statement above peer review. Instead of quotes.. How about something slightly more graph-able? Empirical? Some actual collected data proving it isn't an utter waste of time discussing this still?

The lack of an challenge does not make an argument unilaterally universal. No one KNOWS. Sector changes are being made by people who are guessing and no one knows for sure so no one argues. This is to save face. No one wants to be called out and proven wrong. That's where I differ. I am literally inviting people to show me real proof I am dead wrong about sector size. The fact this is not what's happening illustrates how little data actually exists.

Instead of evidence to analyze I'm getting bombarded with brow beating. And again why should I do something to benefit just PvP? Maybe there's a magic sector size that not only improves PvP by a decent percentage but also reduces CPU usage by delaying sector loads or makes asteroid belts render better with more resources spawned. Let's find that.
Additionally: How many of us can load up single player and record our game play for say: one hour with spawned pirates to get some statistics on results from different sector sizes? A lot of us have the hardware AND software to do that. Yet only one person is bothering.

Many people think mega doses of Vitamin C and Zinc will cure a cold. What every one thinks they know is wrong. Just because it's "common knowledge" does not mean it's not a steaming pile of AMIBIOs slag.

I'm not defending anything. I'm simply stating over and over that no change will be made because the topic simply won't die and allow us to move on to useful changes. That said; Usable data IS being gathered by a third party and I will be looking at it with a very open mind. Any one else who can substantiate the claim that one specific sector size has benefits over an other will get my full attention.

Until then I consider sector size changes a dead end topic. Unless data is included I'm ignoring further probing on sector size changes.
Let's move on to other suggestions.

 

[Aynslei]

I would consider the words of AndyP to speak truthfully about issues in the game.
I am not going to go an link through Phab and other sources to prove that issues on this topic exist.

I am not going to argue about whether or not there are issues in regards to sector boundaries and crossing them, there are many confirmed issues recognized by both Schine and a majority of the player base.

Now the next logical step in the discussion is whether a larger sector size versus a smaller sector will produce less issues.
Simple math can prove that one ship moving at a constant percent of sever speed will cross more sector boundaries with smaller sector sizes over a course of time than a ship moving at the same exact speed over larger sectors in the same course of time.

You want math I will give you some.
Take Ship1 moving at a constant rate of 100 m/s over a course of 3 minutes. Ship1 will cover a distance of 18km over the period of time.
Config A has a sector size of 2km, that means that Ship1 will have crossed roughly 9 sector boundaries if it started at a boundary.
Config B has a sector size of 3km, so we see that Ship1 will have crossed roughly 6 sector boundaries over the same time period with larger sectors.

To reiterate the point I was trying to make.
Sector boundaries cause issues. (Confirmed by players, sever owners, and Schine)
Sector size increases will reduce the number of boundaries crossed over a period of time.
The math to support this is simple and server max speed is a shared limiting factor for boundaries crossed over time vs the distance needed to cover before crossing another boundary

I would love to see the work of the 3rd party and the math they use to validate what ever claims they reach.
As to the topic of "how much" is a good change I can't say, not many can without people willing to test changes.
Edit: I am also done at this point, you made it clear you no longer wish to see the topic.

 

[Madman198237]

Something I've noticed from working on a nearly default config with larger sector sizes (6km if I'm not mistaken, private LAN server): AI accuracy drops, the rate of annoying/lagging/glitch-as-heck sector changes drops significantly, and pirates stay so far away that darnit I just can't hit them.

No empirical data, sorry, but I can guarantee that the results are reproducible. WarSong, you're running a server. Get together some players, record the action on your server. See how a fight (With AI and players) progresses. Then ask someone with non-default sector sizes (And, preferably, otherwise identical settings) to test it, and see what happens. Record relative loads (Whatever's the same system-to-system, don't give FPS, for example. Give average FPS, if you're even going to bother).
Ask the players to explain their experiences. Maybe have the same group of players participate in both.

 

[Comr4de]

-snip-

I just finished my own testing, and yeah, this was my conclusion. There are numerous bugs in the bugtracker regarding these problems. Sector border issues affect combat heavily. However, increasing the sector size (my experiment was 5km, control was default) made non-JD travel take much longer and made asteroid mining much more difficult. To mine two sectors of asteroids on default it took me about 5 minutes. It took just over twice that on 5km simply due to travel time. Next problem is player interaction, although that could easily be tied in with travel time. On both universes I went from 14 8 8 to 30 16 12. Using both thruster and jump drive for both (not chaindrive) it took me much less time to arrive on the default universe than it did the large sector universe.

edit: There's also the issue with weapon balance. While ranges increase with sector size, pulse range does not. On NASS, a pulse weapon is actually viable considering other weapons don't hit from 5km away.

I WAS going to make a video of this but Aynslei really did beat me to the punch. While I wouldn't advocate increasing to 10km I do agree that default sector size is a bit on the small size. I would advocate a raise to 4km at least, 5km at most.


I still can but the findings back up what Aynslei is saying.

 

[MossyStone48]

I would love to see the work of the 3rd party and the math they use to validate what ever claims they reach.
As to the topic of "how much" is a good change I can't say, not many can without people willing to test changes.
Edit: I am also done at this point, you made it clear you no longer wish to see the topic.

OK we're actually talking NUMBERS now. This I like. This I can chew on like a Pomeranian that found daddy's beef jerky stash. This info is MUCH welcome. We're no longer trying to argue why I'm a moron for not wanting a sector size change and actually processing some logical reasoning. YES. Let's crunch numbers. Facing the issue head on. You have earned 10000 WarSong points which have no value anywhere but congrats.

If crossing sector boundaries causes issues then two ships in a PvP situation with competent pilots would only cross a handful in the course of their fight. Unless the ships are massive. In which case you are in small sectors and clipping in and out of bounds all the time. But also if you are crossing more boundaries in a short time you are running and already lost. A player avoiding a fight would likely run or jump away as well and most attackers are smart enough to let small fries get away and concentrate on bigger fish. So PvP improvements partially fizzle unless we're talking fleet or large vessel combat. In which case one MASSIVE sector is all you need. That's what Battle Mode is for. So the PvP argument melts a bit farther. NASS does not host a Battle Mode server at this time and I don't think it's likely to happen soon.

Tho there's a germ of an idea there.. Maybe Shadow Script can help. I like this direction.

Something I've noticed from working on a nearly default config with larger sector sizes (6km if I'm not mistaken, private LAN server): AI accuracy drops, the rate of annoying/lagging/glitch-as-heck sector changes drops significantly, and pirates stay so far away that darnit I just can't hit them.

I'd love to get a video comparison of that but for the sake of harmony I'll take your word for now. Partially do to a confirmation of my own bias. Put also because it allows me to propose we see a video comparison to blow my bias out of the water or provide proof. We need recordings either way as we might accidentally find a perfect mix for Online PvE/PvP hybrid servers. Which would be mucho epico.

For the record let me state my bias. It is towards the best experiance of ALL users not just PvPers. If it doesn't benefit everyone some how I'm not interested. There's some leeway there but don't take the mile when I gave an inch.

I just finished my own testing, and yeah, this was my conclusion. There are numerous bugs in the bugtracker regarding these problems. Sector border issues affect combat heavily. However, increasing the sector size (my experiment was 5km, control was default) made non-JD travel take much longer and made asteroid mining much more difficult. To mine two sectors of asteroids on default it took me about 5 minutes. It took just over twice that on 5km simply due to travel time. Next problem is player interaction, although that could easily be tied in with travel time. On both universes I went from 14 8 8 to 30 16 12. Using both thruster and jump drive for both (not chaindrive) it took me much less time to arrive on the default universe than it did the large sector universe.

That's a bit discouraging. Yeah it plays to my bias but part of me was hoping the findings would be a bit more... friendly to the sector size increase argument. To address the contents of bugtracker I have to admit I was looking in the wrong places. Hadn't thought to use the word boundaries. No one to blame but myself there.

There's gotta be a good balance somewhere. Between server max velocity, jumpdrive distance and sector size there's gotta be a sweet spot after which you see diminishing returns. I wish I had more time right now. Maybe in the late evening.

WAIT what's schine's official test server set to?? I can't check just now and I'll likely not respond right away anyhow but I think it's a question worth asking at this point.

 

[Comr4de]

Don't get me wrong, it did wonders for combat. (which I really should've included in the first place...) But if you increase sector size, increasing max speed is just going to put you back at square one (which is ships crossing sector borders too often).

This really screws with fleet engagements, which is coincidentally where starmade combat shines. I do agree with a sector size increase, but not to 10km (or anything over 5km). I think 3500 or 4k would be a reasonable increase.

 

[Aynslei]

Don't get me wrong, it did wonders for combat. (which I really should've included in the first place...) But if you increase sector size, increasing max speed is just going to put you back at square one (which is ships crossing sector borders too often).

This really screws with fleet engagements, which is coincidentally where starmade combat shines. I do agree with a sector size increase, but not to 10km (or anything over 5km). I think 3500 or 4k would be a reasonable increase.

I have to agree with this.
Even 5km sector sizes is going to lead to issues with pirates and asteroids for PvE.
The number hunting for the sweet spot is going to be important with regards to travel time, AI accuracy, and weapon effective range.

I value this conversation because I view NASS as a good play ground, something I want to thrive in the sever environment.