china, i personally am thankful for your input and help with this bot.
Maybee you can answer this, would it work better if everything was installed on your own pc?
because i can 100% tell when alot of people stop using this, my bot goes alot quicker
I even tested this by creating a thread saying how awesome the bot was running for 5 hours with 0 errors or slowing down - within 30 minutes of the post and 18 views which could have been anywhere from 18 - 540 new connections or more depending on how many BWbot people have bought and how many bot farms people have, my bot went completely to shit, got errors and also slow down syndrome.
Not to mention when the USA is asleep and all their bots crash my bot here in Australia runs completely error free and perfect for around 8 hours. It is not the coding at all.
It is a bandwidth problem OR the server code is not fast enough to respond to all connections at once. My bet is the second. Bottlenecking information is creating errors.
Hi,
Cylak12 and
Deadlybot,
I'm not sure its the BW servers as much as the SW:TOR servers.
(this is speaking from complete ignorance, as I know nothing for certain about the BW architecture)...
Buddywing only contacts its servers for two pieces of information:
- Authentication--at login, and it may be periodic and ongoing for all I know, but I doubt it.
- Pathing
Unlike Honorbuddy, Buddywing doesn't appear to cache meshes locally, but I've never seen this to be a problem due to server loading. (Of course, there are problems when the meshes are botched, or the mesh server dies, but that's not the failure mode that everyone is complaining about here.)
----------
On the other hand, a lot of our problems seemed to start when SW:TOR did their massive 'server merge'. We have now upwards of 2000 people or more on each of a handful of servers. Any new customers (those coming from the F2P model) are being loaded into the same servers--not new ones--as far as I can tell.
We've seen the quality of code on the SW:TOR client side. Its probably a similar team of programmers on the SW:TOR server side of things, or the fact they have to deal with the quirks in the SW:TOR client that gives us all the grief. And, unlike WoW, their server teams probably don't have the 11+ years of experience with heavy server loading that the WoWserver team has.
----------
Ideally, a game provider wants to perform
all functions server-side, and leave the client-side only for presentation (i.e., 3d graphics). This is a highly-desirable architecture, because its easier to protect from attacks, hacking, and exploits. Its also much harder to write a bot where all functions but display are done server-side. (I.e., you need a real 1980s-era
learning AI in a bot and that is computationally expensive--not just the static substitute of AI 'appearance' that we have today). Not
nearly as heavy, but something along the architecture of IBM's
Watson would be needed for an all server-side game.
The only modern game I know that still does everything server-side--including all movement--is Second Life. In Second Life, you will note that
all non-terrain data is loaded from the server--this is why objects and buildings appear to slowly materialize one-by-one when you do a zone change. This is also why movement feels 'rubbery' in Second Life. They will probably always do it this way since their Lindons are
real currency that can be traded on many exchanges. So, they are
very serious about protection from exploit possibilities.
----------
However, due to latency between the client and server, and the server load due to population, game providers eventually relent and move many of the calculations to client-side. Even Blizzard didn't get this right up front, and they had to push many calculations from the server-side to the client-side. This opens them up to exploits like we've seen in WoW in the past few years.
Client-side to Server-side latency was the reason most games have 'auto-attack' and the concept of a 'global cooldown'. When the games were created, global Internet latency was simply too high to have interaction on every damage-dealing attack, so they reserved interaction for special abilities. The global internet latency has dropped (and server co-location becoming a norm), has pushed games like Tera into going back into a 'full interactive' model (like gaming consoles) for all attacks. This new attack model has to make choices like "is the damage calculated server-side or client-side"? Server-side prevents exploits, but places a heavier load on the shared server resource.
Lots and lots of variables in system architecture. Its very fun, but even seemingly small design choices have costs and benefits. I believe SW:TOR has made some inappropriate choices both on server-side and client-side, and that is what we're seeing.
@
Deadlybot,
Were your tests conducted on EU or US SW:TOR servers?
All pure speculation on my part, and just my $0.02,
chinajade
) but I understand. I've never thought SWTOR was exactly a well working game. A random crash here and there, some sticks, whatever, we're fine with that. I think the sheer amount we run into is what makes people fall of the deepend. I'm damn happy there's a bot at all tbh. I think a lot of people's rage will subside if more Devs just check in every once and awhile. Even if its just once every few days, we feel like the red headed step child support wise when compared to HB and DB. 
Multi-threaded applications share a lot of properties with 'statistics'--non-determinism, races, boundary conditions, initial conditions, entry/exit criteria, etc.