Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
|
CCP Zymurgist
Gallente C C P
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 16:54:00 -
[1]
CCP Veritas has been investigating CPU usage for Tranquility and has some great info to share. Read all about CPU utilization here.
Zymurgist Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact Us |
|
Katabrok First
Caldari Apukaray Security
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 17:01:00 -
[2]
Vini, vedi, venci!
IBC
Kata
Kata's Blog |
Bekenel
Gallente DOCS RUFF RIDERS
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 17:03:00 -
[3]
Silly CCP, Drakes can't blow up.
|
iP0D
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 17:03:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Katabrok First Vini, vedi, venci!
Veni, Vidi, CCP Veritas!
|
Zex Maxwell
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 17:05:00 -
[5]
WOOT! Graphs! \o/
|
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Legion
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 17:05:00 -
[6]
Wow that is a lot of drakes.
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 17:06:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Zex Maxwell WOOT! Graphs! \o/
This!
|
Ifly Uwalk
Caldari Empire Tax Collection Agency
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 17:07:00 -
[8]
Yay for tech-****. I don't understand most of it but like to pretend I do!
Second graph returns a 404 error btw. Is the green line the number of Drakes killed, and the blue spikes CPU usage?
Thanks a lot for the dev blog!
|
Hylax Ciai
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 17:09:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Hylax Ciai on 16/11/2010 17:09:17
Originally by: iP0D
Originally by: Katabrok First Vini, vedi, venci!
Veni, Vidi, CCP Veritas!
Veni, Vidi, Veritas!
(Nice blog, nice graphs)
|
|
CCP Veritas
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 17:09:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Ifly Uwalk Is the green line the number of Drakes killed, and the blue spikes CPU usage?
Blue is the raw data, green is a trendline.
|
|
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 17:15:00 -
[11]
probably all those drake pilots come from the fact that they'd been trained on them earlier?! Caldari are the most populated race in eve..
and
ibc
New Eden needs a Public Feature/Idea/Bug-Tracker |
|
CCP Explorer
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 17:19:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Ifly Uwalk Yay for tech-****. I don't understand most of it but like to pretend I do!
Second graph returns a 404 error btw. Is the green line the number of Drakes killed, and the blue spikes CPU usage?
Thanks a lot for the dev blog!
Large graphs have been fixed. Click each graph for awesome larger versions.
Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson Software Director EVE Online, CCP Games |
|
iP0D
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 17:21:00 -
[13]
Some years ago, most of those drakes would have been rifters, newbies and alts alike. Running around mad to tackle and swarm.
Maybe it is time to ask Game Design whether this perception voiced in the QEN of pilot effectiveness being two years needs reconsideration, and reflection.
In an age of bubbles and few second probing, the reigning perception is of uselessness until you can fly a drake. And that's not just a case for math, but also one of Game Design.
|
Athea G'man
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 17:24:00 -
[14]
What's the huge spike on 1 Oct 2009?
A
|
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 17:24:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Haniblecter Teg on 16/11/2010 17:24:44 OMG, what are certain entities going to do when drake blobs can't kill servers?
Get skillz? ----------------- Friends Forever |
|
CCP Veritas
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 17:31:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Athea G'man What's the huge spike on 1 Oct 2009?
Haven't got a clue. Maybe someone was running SETI@Home on TQ that day.
|
|
SoC Darkord
Minmatar Silentium Mortalitas Mortal Destruction
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 17:32:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Haniblecter Teg Edited by: Haniblecter Teg on 16/11/2010 17:24:44 OMG, what are certain entities going to do when drake blobs can't kill servers?
Get skillz?
Lies! this is not possible :o
|
Erebus Adrastos
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 17:50:00 -
[18]
I'm a little confused on how the number of drakes kill in null-sec is represented as a percentage. Percentage of what? All ships killed? Percentage of drakes in existence?
Would be interesting to see an absolute number of drakes and of all ships...
|
|
CCP Veritas
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 17:51:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Erebus Adrastos I'm a little confused on how the number of drakes kill in null-sec is represented as a percentage. Percentage of what?
Atlas can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's a percentage of nullsec ships killed.
|
|
Leovarian Lavitz
Minmatar Ghost Tribal Credit Union Sspectre
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 17:53:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Erebus Adrastos
Would be interesting to see an absolute number of drakes and of all ships...
You may wish to skim the charts in the recent QEN.
|
|
|
CCP Atlas
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 18:04:00 -
[21]
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: Erebus Adrastos I'm a little confused on how the number of drakes kill in null-sec is represented as a percentage. Percentage of what?
Atlas can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's a percentage of nullsec ships killed.
Yes, percentage of total number of ships killed in nullsec PvP.
|
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 18:07:00 -
[22]
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: Athea G'man What's the huge spike on 1 Oct 2009?
Haven't got a clue. Maybe someone was running SETI@Home on TQ that day.
When was the last armageddon day on TQ? --- 34.4:1 mineral compression |
Hentes Zsemle
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 18:22:00 -
[23]
Am i the only one to notice that CCP's biggest accomplishment with reducing server load was banning macros? It's nonsense that you are making a horde of devs working on a few percent of load reduction when you could accomplish so much with that.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 18:29:00 -
[24]
Kill a drake, save a kitten. Nice graphs.
Question I have is did the rise in drake deaths come from the wtfbbq alpha damage of projectiles allowing fleets the ability to kill drakes more easily or simply a dramatic increase in the number of drakes flown? The graph is only showing how many drakes died, too many variables.
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
Meiyang Lee
Gallente Azteca Transportation Unlimited Gunboat Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 18:30:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Meiyang Lee on 16/11/2010 18:30:13
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: Athea G'man What's the huge spike on 1 Oct 2009?
Haven't got a clue. Maybe someone was running SETI@Home on TQ that day.
Does that spike happen to coincide with Fanfest? I know that sounds odd, but FF started on October 1st in 2009.
|
Amy Garzan
Gallente The Warp Rats
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 18:32:00 -
[26]
Yay! Pretty hardware related news! Keep it coming
PS We still want server room pictures posted as promised from the move! -------------------------------------------------- 101010 The Answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything |
|
CCP Explorer
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 18:33:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Meiyang Lee
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: Athea G'man What's the huge spike on 1 Oct 2009?
Haven't got a clue. Maybe someone was running SETI@Home on TQ that day.
Does that spike happen to coincide with Fanfest? I know that sounds odd, but FF started on October 1st in 2009.
This CPU spike was "TRANQUILITY HOTFIX v.6.14.101786_1". This code was deployed 29 September 2009 but reverted 30 September 2009 for further analysis. It was a problem with a memory allocation change in the Stackless Python interpreter.
Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson Software Director EVE Online, CCP Games |
|
|
CCP Explorer
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 18:38:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Hentes Zsemle Am i the only one to notice that CCP's biggest accomplishment with reducing server load was banning macros?
Yes, you are, and the arrow on the graph pointing to "Unholy Rage" is purely coincidental.
Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson Software Director EVE Online, CCP Games |
|
Vincent Athena
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 18:52:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Vincent Athena on 16/11/2010 18:55:31 I remember the unholy rage blog also pointed out the server load drop, and surprise at how large it was. It was assumed to be because macros run continuously, where players, even when they stay logged in, take breaks.
There has been many threads recently talking about the rise of a new set of macro users, trial accounts running courier missions for RMT, macro ratters in null sec just to make isk for alliances, etc. If and when unholy rage II hits, the server load may well drop well below all previous historic levels.
CCP; There is a unholy rage II, right? Many of us true players would like it to be a weekly, if not daily event.
|
Grimpak
Gallente The Whitehound Corporation The Chamber of Commerce
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 19:08:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Vincent Athena CCP; There is a unholy rage II, right? Many of us true players would like it to be a weekly, if not daily event.
I would say a monthy/bi-annual event tbh, since it's known that just reporting suspicious people isn't really enough to warrant a ban, even if said people has a name like happiboy0008. ---
Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.
ain't that right. |
|
Darth Vapour
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 19:19:00 -
[31]
How does the drop in CPU per user compare to the drop in active subscriptions in Q3 2010 as can be seen in the QEN report published a few weeks ago ?
|
Evelgrivion
Ignatium.
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 19:28:00 -
[32]
Is there a version of the Drakes Killed in Nullsec graph with Wormhole Space kills excluded?
|
Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente The Crane Family
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 19:31:00 -
[33]
Encouraging graph (well, the first one). It's clear that the pooling of resources into a specific task-force to attack lag is slowly bearing fruit. Although I understand that from a managerial point of view, employee mobility and adaptability has it's advantages, for specific and hard problems like this, that organisational model is just not as effective as a dedicated and specialist team. I hope the progress made thus far, partially reflected in the graph, supports this case.
As for the 'Drake graph', I'd be careful to attach too much importance to it. It's easy to end up in a race-condition that way. Nerf the Drake and the Hurricane will take it's place as the blobbing ship in 0.0. Nerf the Hurricane and in turn another ship will take it's place. Etc.
The underlying problem is not necessarily the ship used and it's CPU utilisation. That's just a symptom of the fact that the Drake, and several other ships like it, are well suited for the blobbing warfare becoming more and more prevalent within EVE. I'm quite sure that you'll find a correlation between the latter trend and the use of several of these ships. Nerfing these ships may hide or move the symptoms, but what's called for is not nerfing a ship against another, or even a technological solution, but a design decision.
Although polishing code based on profiling is always a good idea, at least an equivalent effort should be made to bringing emergent pressure to bear in the design of the game to spread out player utilisation across the cluster and to diminish topical utilisation hotspots (i.e. blobbing). Inappropriate signature removed. Zymurgist |
Korerin Mayul
Amarr hirr
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 20:09:00 -
[34]
yay! graphs :D
|
Xituqtra
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 20:10:00 -
[35]
Second page IBC Cool graphs nice info
in total a great blog :P
|
|
CCP Veritas
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 20:38:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane The underlying problem is not necessarily the ship used and it's CPU utilisation.
I agree with you, but my point in showing that graph isn't that fixing missiles will fix lag, it's that making them performant should help reverse some of the degradation we've seen in large fleet engagements around Dominion-launch-time. They really are quite exceptionally worse than guns, in ways that I'm quite certain would offend your sensibilities.
I'm well aware that all the optimizations we're doing at this point are, in the limit, futile, since we always allow/encourage players to bring one more ship. Since I don't know when/if that's going to change, I'll keep aiming down the path of supporting the current design as best we can.
|
|
Lili Lu
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 20:47:00 -
[37]
It will be great if you can reduce the cpu load of missiles. Missiles may cause "cpu load" problem, but they have a place in the game. Missiles are not the "balance" problem imo.
It is the Drake itself. Don't lose your stated resolve to "nerf" the Drake. That one ship is far and away the best option for so much pve and pvp, that so many recognize it, and that so many use it, tells you that something is out of balance with it. I belive it has always been out of balance, it just took the lopsided use of it in fleet battles for you to wake up and realize it. The combination of a resist bonus and a damage bonus in one ship, the fact that the buffer tank mods do not conflict with the damage mods, and the out of balance stat you gave to BC shield regen (primarilly for pve, but for pvp it is useful to a lesser extent in lagged battles because the regen will perform fine even though the opposition is slowly manually cycling weapons) make this ship so much more useful that other ships in its class and the class higher (BSs).
Please reevaluate the bonuses the Drake receives, and the base 1400 sec regen for all BCs. It is still too close to that of a cruiser at 1250 sec. It is a shame to see the ridiculous better passive shield tanks you can get on other "armor tanking" BCs because you have the stat set wrong.
Someone earlier itt said that if you nerf the Drake then Hurricanes will just take their place. This is untrue. Hurricanes do not get a tanking bonus. Hurricanes get a damage bonus, and another secondary bonus (rof) that either aids short range damage directly, or simply removes a drawback of the long range arty (the very slow rof). The Hurricanes damage and range mods directly compete with armor tanking mods, and if shield tanked it does not have 6 mid slots for that shield tank. An attempt to replicate the Drake fleet supremacy with a Hurricane fleet for large fleet battles would be a laugh. Battleships would wipe the floor with them, as they should.
I think what your graph may show is that the Drake was at first considered only useful for pve, while sniper BSs reigned on the battlefield. You may want to look at the changes you made to probing (and how that can now be done on the battlefield to negate range advantages), tracking computers/enhancers, sensor booster scripts, ew ships range and strength, and other factors in BS gun usage, to explain the rise of the Drake. Once midrange or closerange became preferable in fleet fights (or long-range no longer possible to maintain) it didn't take long for people to realize a BC that can sport a BS sized tank, hit for full damage (even if not as spectacular as the theoretical max damage a close range turret BS could get) at 70km, and be replaced for a far cheaper price, was the better option.
It would be a shame if you peg your changes solely on cpu performance of missiles, and neglect to address the ship balancing. Missiles are a legitimate and welcome weapon system in the game. When massed they can perform in pvp, which is a good thing, despite the common complaint about delayed damage. To find an independent way to reduce their CPU load would be great. To also assist the use of other Caldari and Gallente ships though some buff to hybrid turrets would also be a good thing for those pilots and the game balance. However, such changes alone would still leave the game with a Drake use imbalance. |
Meiyang Lee
Gallente Azteca Transportation Unlimited Gunboat Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 20:51:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Meiyang Lee on 16/11/2010 20:52:46
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane Encouraging graph (well, the first one). It's clear that the pooling of resources into a specific task-force to attack lag is slowly bearing fruit. Although I understand that from a managerial point of view, employee mobility and adaptability has it's advantages, for specific and hard problems like this, that organisational model is just not as effective as a dedicated and specialist team. I hope the progress made thus far, partially reflected in the graph, supports this case.
As for the 'Drake graph', I'd be careful to attach too much importance to it. It's easy to end up in a race-condition that way. Nerf the Drake and the Hurricane will take it's place as the blobbing ship in 0.0. Nerf the Hurricane and in turn another ship will take it's place. Etc.
The underlying problem is not necessarily the ship used and it's CPU utilisation. That's just a symptom of the fact that the Drake, and several other ships like it, are well suited for the blobbing warfare becoming more and more prevalent within EVE. I'm quite sure that you'll find a correlation between the latter trend and the use of several of these ships. Nerfing these ships may hide or move the symptoms, but what's called for is not nerfing a ship against another, or even a technological solution, but a design decision.
Although polishing code based on profiling is always a good idea, at least an equivalent effort should be made to bringing emergent pressure to bear in the design of the game to spread out player utilisation across the cluster and to diminish topical utilisation hotspots (i.e. blobbing).
The trouble isn't really the drake as such, it's the fact that every single missile fired in a fight is an entity, TQ needs to track every single one to it's target before resolving damage.
This basically makes every missile fired count in a similar faction to an additional ship in the fight. Imagine a 500v500 fight with drakes, each side is spawning 3500 additional "ship entities" every firing cycle, not even counting drones (another potential 2500 entities). That is what messes up TQ if I understood the dev explanation correctly (not sure where I read it though). What they hope to do (and have done to Fighter-Bomber missiles as a temp fix) is turn them into virtual missiles. That basically takes the entity spawning step out of the loop for all missiles. Freeing up quite a bit of CPU on a node since there are far fewer entities to track in a given fight.
|
Deviana Sevidon
Gallente Panta-Rhei Butterfly Effect Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 21:00:00 -
[39]
Active tanking in PvP stopped to a long time ago to be a viable alternative, so it was either pure damage or buffer tank. With more and more Titans appearing in the boosts to buffer tanks, the pure damage setup also fell mostly out of favor. After that happened the race was only between speed/blob and buffer/RR/blob.
It is not surprising that so many use the drake, buffer-armor tanks have the massive disadvantage of speed and mobility, so they are only viable if you have massive amounts of RR. Shield tanks are more forgiving, many player hardly notice the sig-radius increase and the fact that these shields have high amount of passive regeneration on top of their buffer also helps.
The problem is not the drake but passive tanking and especially shield tanking in general. It simply encouraging blobbing too much and brought to eve the cycle of ever increasing blobs. Blobs that the hardware cannot support. Even if CCPs makes drastic improvements to the hardware, the blobs would just increase again to the point where the hardware is again unable to support fleet battles.
Quote: Disclaimer: All mentioned above contains my opinion and is therefore an absolute truth (for me anyway, my universe, muhahaha.....ok, done
|
Playing Eve
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 21:16:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Playing Eve on 16/11/2010 21:16:20
Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Hentes Zsemle Am i the only one to notice that CCP's biggest accomplishment with reducing server load was banning macros?
Yes, you are, and the arrow on the graph pointing to "Unholy Rage" is purely coincidental.
I believe Hentes was trying to say that more effort spent on banning more botters may have more overall effect than searching down load issues in code. While I don't like bots, I don't necessarily agree that it is a better use of CCP dev time.
|
|
Zendoren
Aktaeon Industries
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 21:45:00 -
[41]
WOOT, it feels like there is a DevBlog a week! Awesome!
I love it, keep up the pace.
If you run out of EVE topics to talk about in devBlogs, I'm sure the readers wouldn't mind devBlogs about Iceland or a "Who am I" blog about your dev staff once in a while! =P
Just keep up the single devBlog a day pace and I will be happy!
|
Thebro Nobrunder
Schrodinger's Renegades
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 21:52:00 -
[42]
On the bright side there IS a way to win against lag.
When we can have a fleet fight with the entire online population of the server without lag... then lag is officially dead and the one more ship problem goes away.
|
Bleu Blob
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 22:40:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Bleu Blob on 16/11/2010 22:40:29 Edited by: Bleu Blob on 16/11/2010 22:40:15 CCP Veritas' graphs were pretty sweet and all but I just gotta say that CCP Creber Cattus graphs' are the best graphs of all time...
(Linkage for those that dont remember...)
|
haav0c
|
Posted - 2010.11.16 23:14:00 -
[44]
let's all laugh at the people who thought you were nerfing drake to improve server load.
|
Blazde
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 00:14:00 -
[45]
Originally by: CCP Veritas I'm well aware that all the optimizations we're doing at this point are, in the limit, futile, since we always allow/encourage players to bring one more ship. Since I don't know when/if that's going to change, I'll keep aiming down the path of supporting the current design as best we can.
It's a popular argument but I really don't think the number of pilots the biggest coalitions are capable of bringing is increased by reducing server lag. The problem is just that what the nodes can handle has been well below what the coalitions can field for a very long time.
On the contrary it's when battles grind to a halt in lag that the numbers keep rising because more people come online, we keep pushing numbers into the system to try to win the fight, and yet hardly anyone is dying and leaving the system. That can go on for hours and with not much happening in the battle you spend all you time contacting offline people urging them to login and help swing the result. When you get a proper lagless battle it's over before reinforcements can arrive, or at the very least those reinforcements do nothing more than replace dead people leaving the fight.
The worst case scenario is when one side is heavily entrenched in a system early leading up to an important timer. This happened in LXQ. It also happened in M-O in late 2008 which was another big system record. Because the other side knows they will face extreme lag when they jump in they can't send fleets in early to harass, reduce numbers and spread out the fighting, but it's important enough they have to try at some point. So both sides build numbers up to the moment of the timer. The assaulting side never wants to blow their load early because of their disadvantage (caused by lag) and the possibility that waiting a bit longer might get them more (and relatively better) numbers. Come the timer they have no choice but to roll the dice, and then all fleets clash at once. The mentality of a lot of players at that point is 'fk I waited x hours already I'm going to see this through'.
In similiar situations without lag the fighting can rage for 6-8+ hours leading up to the timer, swing both ways in a long running battle of attrition without numbers ever getting too extreme, and often the result can be decided hours before the timer finishes when one side lacks the ships and morale to continue. Then you don't get the huge showdowns. _
Northern Coalition - Best friends forever <3 |
Miriam Letisse
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 00:14:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Playing Eve
I believe Hentes was trying to say that more effort spent on banning more botters may have more overall effect than searching down load issues in code. While I don't like bots, I don't necessarily agree that it is a better use of CCP dev time.
It all comes down to who's doing the banning though, I expect that it would be GM's rather than devs doing the banning work.
|
Louis deGuerre
Gallente Amicus Morte Dead Muppets
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 00:59:00 -
[47]
If you're gonna swing the nerf bat at Drakes do it now before I decide to buy new ones ----- Amicus Morte is recruiting. Dive into the world of 0.0 !
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 03:32:00 -
[48]
Any news/updates on the one-grid-per-node-thingy by Team Gridlock? Or how about the actual status of how much processes are running per node? New Eden needs a Public Feature/Idea/Bug-Tracker |
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 06:09:00 -
[49]
so reduce lag nerf drakes
|
Marchocias
Snatch Victory
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 06:43:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane It's easy to end up in a race-condition that way.
Some good discussion dude, but I don't think "race condition" means what you think it means. I reckon you mean arms-race. ---- I belong to Silent Ninja (Hopefully that should cover it). |
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 07:26:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 17/11/2010 07:27:59
Originally by: Lili Lu Baseless blabbering about Drakes
Yeah, sure. You are an expert on Drakes right? The biggest experts don't ever fly ships they criticize.
Drake is the only Caldari BC that uses missiles (unlike Amarr or Minmatar that use their primary weapon type on both BCs). Drake can't active tank (unlike Amarr or Minmatar BC's). Unlike you, who are crosstrained between Amarr and Minmatar, Caldari missile pilots do not have a choice which ships they are going to fly - 1 cruiser, 1 BC, 1 BS, 1 HAC (if you can call it that way... don't know what "Heavy" stands for in Cerberus's name anyway). Having a large percent of players in game in Caldari race and missile trained, you are basically asking that they nerf the only good thing that Drake have - its tank (which is btw not anywhere near Cyclone's active tank in 1v1... but who cares, right?)
|
Noun Verber
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 08:29:00 -
[52]
Originally by: CCP Atlas
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: Erebus Adrastos I'm a little confused on how the number of drakes kill in null-sec is represented as a percentage. Percentage of what?
Atlas can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's a percentage of nullsec ships killed.
Yes, percentage of total number of ships killed in nullsec PvP.
If the percentage is rising, then clearly Drakes need a buff because they are so bad.
|
Siiee
Recycled Heroes
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 08:43:00 -
[53]
Dev comments from the CSM Summit included for context http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1011/CPUGraph.png
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 10:32:00 -
[54]
Great blog! Really good stuff, thanks.
But I am confused by the many little spikes in the first graph. Why are there so many little spikes?
Why is the CPU per User going up noticable, just to go down a few day(s) later again? I would have expected the CPU per user being pretty continuous. |
Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 11:19:00 -
[55]
please reckon that there are several bugs or lag sources that are not tracable by an overall average of CPU usage.
1.) Session-Change Lag This has had a really huuuuuuuge impact on PvP. Alliances were not willing to risk capitals by cynoing them onto something. Although i believe this lag source is addressed pretty well with recent fixes by gridlock team, but its still in the mind of FCs
2.) Grid-Load Lag Fixed prior Dominion
3.) Module Stuck to my understanding this is not related to CPU usage per se but to the way the requests are handeled. Currently we have the absurd situation that people are using ungrouped unrepeated weapons to fight under high lag conditions. Ironically grouping was implemented to reduce lag, but apparently its the worst option to use in lag. Auto-repeat could also be used to reduce lag because unless the client gives a new command and the ammo supply is OK, the server could do damage calculations without server-client communication. Apparently this is not the case and modules get stuck.
Unpeaseant game play is mostly not caused by a large delay in responsivity but by modules getting stuck or exceptional long delay for certain actions such as relogging or unstucking modules. I am fine with modules taking 30+ secs to react in a system with 1500+ people but i hate being blackscreened for 20+ minutes or unstucking modules every 5 minutes while i still can align, move or warp ________________________________________________ Some days i loose, some days the others win ... |
StuRyan
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 14:15:00 -
[56]
Awesomeness comes to a new meaning.
Thanks for the efforts. We've finally (more a less a year) got some information....
So my two cents say if your going out in big fleet battles - power down the drakes and missiles.... Interesting point though, what is the CPU usage on Drones, lasers and visual effects such as hardeners? (Now i know why the Cap jump visual was replaced!)
Does this mean that all the neat visual things you keep coming out with are kinda "biting you" in the ass?
|
Mana Sanqua
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 14:53:00 -
[57]
You could fix defender missiles, then that graph would start reversing...
Just saying. |
Hentes Zsemle
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 15:01:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Miriam Letisse
Originally by: Playing Eve
I believe Hentes was trying to say that more effort spent on banning more botters may have more overall effect than searching down load issues in code. While I don't like bots, I don't necessarily agree that it is a better use of CCP dev time.
It all comes down to who's doing the banning though, I expect that it would be GM's rather than devs doing the banning work.
I just wanted to point out with my fail troll that i want the macros banned, becouse i belive its for the best and much better effort/gain than polishing the game's code. It's not a decision between the two actions, both of them should be done. If CCP doesn't have the manpower for it, they should hire more people.
|
Lili Lu
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 15:22:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 17/11/2010 07:27:59
Originally by: Lili Lu Baseless blabbering about Drakes
Yeah, sure. You are an expert on Drakes right? The biggest experts don't ever fly ships they criticize.
Drake is the only Caldari BC that uses missiles (unlike Amarr or Minmatar that use their primary weapon type on both BCs). Drake can't active tank (unlike Amarr or Minmatar BC's). Unlike you, who are crosstrained between Amarr and Minmatar, Caldari missile pilots do not have a choice which ships they are going to fly - 1 cruiser, 1 BC, 1 BS, 1 HAC (if you can call it that way... don't know what "Heavy" stands for in Cerberus's name anyway). Having a large percent of players in game in Caldari race and missile trained, you are basically asking that they nerf the only good thing that Drake have - its tank (which is btw not anywhere near Cyclone's active tank in 1v1... but who cares, right?)
Yes, you are so correct. Of course, I couldn't possibly have two other characters, both of which can fly Drakes. And, one of which flies a Nighthawk as well. And, you say that a Drake "can't active tank." You are wrong. Any ship can active tank, it's just why would one do it and have to worry about cap when one can just fit a far more powerful passive tank in pve, or a more practical buffer tank in pvp. And, yeah go ahead and complain about the plague of killer active-tanked Cyclones in the ubiquitous and scroupulously honored 1v1s in the game. Btw, are you aware of the prevalence of cap warfare and it being another knock against active tanking and in favor of buffer or passive tanking?
Lastly, if you are only going to train one race, and even worse, weapon type good luck with that. I've said many times in my forum posts - If you want to avoid real or imagined disadvantage in this game you should train at least two races (and their accompanying 2 weapons types, which may overlap with the other race anyway). I have as you note Lili flying Minmatar and Amarr. I have another main flying Gallente and Caldari. Both of these mains can armor or shield tank, use the guns of those races and have tech II missiles trained as well. I have a third main that is in the perilous position you mentioned because it only flies Caldari and the gunnery skills are rather weak. But I will be fixing that character soon to be like the others.
So next time, Sherlock, address arguments and not the person. Because there are many hidden aspects to any "character" on these forums. It is the interwebs afterall. |
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 16:07:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Lili Lu Stuff.
Me thinks someones sitting on 2,000 drakes... ----------------- Friends Forever |
|
iqplayer
Caldari Dragon's Rage
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 16:08:00 -
[61]
Quote: I really wish we had a metric for "number of players that can all shoot each other while the server is nice and happy", but I'm not even sure how we'd go about defining that, let alone getting enough samples to make it a sane metric. It stands to reason though that if player actions are requiring less CPU in general, they should require less in a big fleet fight than before, which would yield more people with similar performance.
Assuming that CPU/user is gathered per server, what might tell you this is actually a discrepancy between the actual and average cpu usage per person. That is, normally a person engaged in active PvP should be using more CPU than the average user, so systems with high load AND high usage per person would likely mean active PvP (or possibly a popular PvE system). From the Blog a few days ago, though, once a node hits it's limit, it starts delaying tasks until a breakeven is reached. So, the more players in system, the lower the amount of CPU per person would be - so an overloaded system should show near 100% CPU usage AND a lower than average cpu/person.
|
No Pun
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 17:03:00 -
[62]
Edited by: No Pun on 17/11/2010 17:05:22
Originally by: Gnulpie Great blog! Really good stuff, thanks.
But I am confused by the many little spikes in the first graph. Why are there so many little spikes?
Why is the CPU per User going up noticable, just to go down a few day(s) later again? I would have expected the CPU per user being pretty continuous.
My quick guess would be; 4 times per month, so it's the weekend spikes (more players more usage). Didn't get averaged out, since data wasn't averaged in 1-week window.
The more sporadic spikes then are the interesting question; dev's want to throw some guesses what are the bigger spikes, especially after the Gridlock start? |
Illectroculus Defined
Chooch Inc. Twilight Federation
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 17:33:00 -
[63]
Regarding the Drake graph - I'm pretty sure one of the big catalysts driving a growth in drakes for PVP was the introduction of Sized rigs. This dropped the cost of losing a rigged drake (or other battlecruiser) by 30million isk overnight, and when you factor in the insurance the reduction in the PVP cost becomes a huge factor. Granted the graph shows a blip a couple of months before this change, but It's such a large boost to the cost/efficacy equation I can't imagine it's not an important driver.
Vote Illectro for CSM5! Supporting the New Generation of Eve Players |
Lykouleon
Trust Doesn't Rust
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 18:36:00 -
[64]
Came to this blog expecting a graph-gasm
Left moderately disappointed. WTF CCP, MOAR GRAPHS!!!!
And also pg 3 with a Chribba post?
Quote: Lord Makk > Our pilots are masochist buttjockey
|
Terra Mikael
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2010.11.18 02:35:00 -
[65]
BECAUSE OF DRAKE!? Signature removed for evading the profanity filter and trolling. Zymurgist |
Sessym
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.11.18 09:03:00 -
[66]
It is interesting to see how small facelifts for your old game begins to take substantial effect. Please say that one day we may be rid of the all the stuff that goes nuts after an update hits. That'd be heaven
Also, where is Chribba? Veldspar cries.
0= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'So grab your guns.' |
Grady Eltoren
Minmatar Aviation Professionals for EVE
|
Posted - 2010.11.18 11:10:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Deviana Sevidon Active tanking in PvP stopped to a long time ago to be a viable alternative, so it was either pure damage or buffer tank. With more and more Titans appearing in the boosts to buffer tanks, the pure damage setup also fell mostly out of favor. After that happened the race was only between speed/blob and buffer/RR/blob.
It is not surprising that so many use the drake, buffer-armor tanks have the massive disadvantage of speed and mobility, so they are only viable if you have massive amounts of RR. Shield tanks are more forgiving, many player hardly notice the sig-radius increase and the fact that these shields have high amount of passive regeneration on top of their buffer also helps.
The problem is not the drake but passive tanking and especially shield tanking in general. It simply encouraging blobbing too much and brought to eve the cycle of ever increasing blobs. Blobs that the hardware cannot support. Even if CCPs makes drastic improvements to the hardware, the blobs would just increase again to the point where the hardware is again unable to support fleet battles.
THIS.
And expanding on the point of needing RR gangs for buffer tanks - you just don't see these as much due to lag so it is a vicious circle.
Aviation Professionals for EVE (APEVE)
|
Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente The Crane Family
|
Posted - 2010.11.18 12:21:00 -
[68]
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane The underlying problem is not necessarily the ship used and it's CPU utilisation.
I agree with you, but my point in showing that graph isn't that fixing missiles will fix lag, it's that making them performant should help reverse some of the degradation we've seen in large fleet engagements around Dominion-launch-time. They really are quite exceptionally worse than guns, in ways that I'm quite certain would offend your sensibilities.
I'm well aware that all the optimizations we're doing at this point are, in the limit, futile, since we always allow/encourage players to bring one more ship. Since I don't know when/if that's going to change, I'll keep aiming down the path of supporting the current design as best we can.
And from your POV, and that of the Girdlock team, that is exactly what you should do, and continue to do. It might not mean much, but I think you guys are on the right track. It seems to me you are profiling the problem, identifying a part of the server that contributes the most to the problem, and try to speed it up, in a continuous improvement cycle. And the first graph suggests that this is working. Clearly, I'm not saying you should stop doing that. And if the missile handling is in comparison to turret handling (and/or other event handling) exceptional in contribution to the problem, as you say it is, then this should be addressed with priority. The same applies to fixing the O(n^2) subroutines in Destiny, with profiling data again providing guidance towards priority.
That this is futile in the end, which I agree it is, is by no means a reason to stop making improvements. Far from it in fact. However, I'd be very hesitant to use profiling data generated to improve the server performance to inform game design changes. And this is suggested by including the second graph.
Although there should be a feedback loop between the Girdlock team and the game designers, in the case of the nerf-Drake narrative CCP seems to be building, I think the wrong conclusions are being drawn. If the Drake is to be nerfed (which I think in this case would simply be combating a symptom), it shouldn't be because it causes problems for the server as a result of an artefact there (inefficient missile handling). I don't think you should game design a problem away when it is ultimately a problem that needs a technical solution.
In the end I don't think that Drakes in this case are overpowered. They are an easy ship to get into, but they are not vastly better than other ships in the game. Ultimately the underlying problem is one of blobs. And if game design can find an answer for that, all the efforts by team Gridlock will become less futile. Drakes themselves aren't a problem in and off themselves, blobs are! Inappropriate signature removed. Zymurgist |
Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente The Crane Family
|
Posted - 2010.11.18 12:42:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Bartholomeus Crane on 18/11/2010 12:42:22
Originally by: Marchocias
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane It's easy to end up in a race-condition that way.
Some good discussion dude, but I don't think "race condition" means what you think it means. I reckon you mean arms-race.
Quote:
A race-condition or race-hazard is a flaw in a system or process whereby the output and/or result of the process is unexpectedly and critically dependent on the sequence or timing of other events. The term originates with the idea of two events racing each other to influence the output first.
The system in this case is EVE. The output is the performance of the server, in this case, the amount of lag. One event-sequence is the players choosing their FOTM ship. Another event-sequence is CCP nerfing ships because their effect on server performance (or simply because they are FOTM). The two event sequences race each other to influence the server performance (although with different objectives). The application isn't exact, but it's close enough. CCP shouldn't get into a nerfing race with the players based on server performance. In the end you might end up nerfing all ships that happen to have been popular. Especially not when there's an underlying problem whose solution would render the whole exercise moot anyway: blobbing.
I don't think arms-race applies because although there is a tit-for-tat reaction to it, there isn't the progressive build up of 'arms'. Quite the contrary in fact. Inappropriate signature removed. Zymurgist |
vipeer
D00M. Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2010.11.20 11:39:00 -
[70]
We use drakes because they are sooooo much better than any other Battlecruiser it's not even funny.
There are a few types of viable gangs for pvp? LR or Nano HAC's or RR BS's or drakes+scimis
Therein comes the "problem" of drakes. Those ships by far the cheapest choice.
Obvious resolution of this problem would be to nerf drakes or boost all other BC's. I'll go with the easier of two: Swap their shield resistances bonus for something else or lower the CPU so you make ppl fit a processor or make drake pilots use close range missiles via lowering targetting range...
And BTW...You guys at CCP ever think about why nobody in their right mind uses blasters anymore and how to fix that? -------------SIG STARTS HERE------------- Chaining BoBo in south Feyth:
Your Neutron Blaster Cannon II perfectly strikes Dukath [EVOL]<BOB>(Vindicator), wrecking for 741.0 damage. |
|
Black Dranzer
|
Posted - 2010.11.20 14:15:00 -
[71]
Wait, something's off here. Why would nuking a bunch of bots reduce the CPU per user? Unless a bot uses up considerably more server side CPU than your average pilot, there's going to be a drop in the overall, but not the per user. And if bots do use more server CPU than everybody else.. well, that's pretty ****ing baffling to be honest.
I suppose it could be explained if you're taking the CPU use of idle docked players into account, but then you're not graphing CPU use, you're graphing average player activity. -------------------------------------------------- Learning skills are an ultimatum, not a choice. |
Mikel Laurentson
|
Posted - 2010.11.20 15:05:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Black Dranzer Wait, something's off here. Why would nuking a bunch of bots reduce the CPU per user? Unless a bot uses up considerably more server side CPU than your average pilot, there's going to be a drop in the overall, but not the per user. And if bots do use more server CPU than everybody else.. well, that's pretty ****ing baffling to be honest.
I suppose it could be explained if you're taking the CPU use of idle docked players into account, but then you're not graphing CPU use, you're graphing average player activity.
What makes you think that the 'idle docked' players don't require CPU resources? People playing the market, fiddling with manufacturing, or just using the channels are all asking the servers to do stuff.
|
Dr Cron
Northern Lights Number 5 Hydroponic Zone
|
Posted - 2010.11.20 15:31:00 -
[73]
I'm not getting any useful information out of this graph.
"We'll just conveniently not address that HUGE second spike" - CCP Signature removed for not being EVE Related. Zymurgist |
Black Dranzer
|
Posted - 2010.11.20 18:41:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Mikel Laurentson What makes you think that the 'idle docked' players don't require CPU resources? People playing the market, fiddling with manufacturing, or just using the channels are all asking the servers to do stuff.
It's not that; It's just that it's not the best for measuring real performance. A drop in the graph could indicate a performance increase, but it could also indicate people sitting in their stations more. In this case it probably doesn't generate too much noise, but that doesn't make it a good metric. -------------------------------------------------- Learning skills are an ultimatum, not a choice. |
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2010.11.22 09:59:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Black Dranzer Wait, something's off here. Why would nuking a bunch of bots reduce the CPU per user? Unless a bot uses up considerably more server side CPU than your average pilot...
Exactly.
The bots used up a HUGE amount of CPU by spamming all the time the directional scanner (back at that time there was no cooldown counter for the scanner), several times a second ALL THE TIME, to scan for hostile ships on the directional scanner and at first sight of them on they logged off. This consumed a lot of CPU. A lot more than the average user used.
Drakes?
Drakes aren't used because they are so great but because they work in lag better than other ships! If there wouldn't be lag, drakes wouldn't be used in such quantities.
|
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.11.22 12:57:00 -
[76]
Quote: Dominion 1.0 was a bit worse than Apocrypha 1.5 for load. Not hugely so however
How is this the case when the Dominion 1.0 has a lower CPU per user metric? It looks to me that this comment is incorrect.
|
Junkie Babe
|
Posted - 2010.11.22 20:50:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Junkie Babe on 22/11/2010 20:51:01
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 17/11/2010 07:27:59
Originally by: Lili Lu Baseless blabbering about Drakes
Yeah, sure. You are an expert on Drakes right? The biggest experts don't ever fly ships they criticize.
Drake is the only Caldari BC that uses missiles (unlike Amarr or Minmatar that use their primary weapon type on both BCs). Drake can't active tank (unlike Amarr or Minmatar BC's). Unlike you, who are crosstrained between Amarr and Minmatar, Caldari missile pilots do not have a choice which ships they are going to fly - 1 cruiser, 1 BC, 1 BS, 1 HAC (if you can call it that way... don't know what "Heavy" stands for in Cerberus's name anyway). Having a large percent of players in game in Caldari race and missile trained, you are basically asking that they nerf the only good thing that Drake have - its tank (which is btw not anywhere near Cyclone's active tank in 1v1... but who cares, right?)
The only thing a drake has is it's tank?
Drake buffer fit
http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/44298-Command-Ham-Drake.html
PVP Harby fit [Harbinger, PVP] Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
10MN Afterburner II X5 Prototype I Engine Enervator X5 Prototype I Engine Enervator Warp Scrambler II
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Medium Energy Neutralizer II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Buffer tank Drake 89k Harby 76k
DPS Overloaded without drones Drake 604 @ 18.1 KM with Terror Rage Assault missile Harby 424 @ 20km with 3.8KM falloff with Scorch
So your drake has both a 13k EFHP bonus and does 180 more DPS.
Not that I'm saying all ships should be equal but doing the math,
Harby EFHP 76,000 / 604 Drake DPS is 126 seconds to destroy the Harby during which the Harby would have done 53,350 to the Drake leaving the Drake with over 35k EFHP left after the Harby had blown up.
As you can see the Drake is clearly overpowered it is a mile better than the Harby.
Thank you
Regards Junkie babe |
Vidar Kentoran
Minmatar Eighty Joule Brewery
|
Posted - 2010.11.23 00:06:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Junkie Babe
As you can see the Drake is clearly overpowered it is a mile better than the Harby.
You're basically ignoring the relative effectiveness of the weapon systems you're talking about. Just because a Drake can 1v1 a Harbinger doesn't mean anything.
Now, if you could prove the Drake was more effective against every target in the game than the Harbinger, you might be correct. (Hint: it's not)
|
Rip Minner
Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
|
Posted - 2010.11.23 06:35:00 -
[79]
Love the graph chart.
<--- Unholy rage. See numbers do count. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here. |
Rylai
Gallente Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.11.25 20:48:00 -
[80]
OMG GET RID OF MISSILES
and happy thanksgiving (2nd international holiday ever)(after fourth of july)
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |