Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1833
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:26:00 -
[121] - Quote
Victor Andall wrote:Posting in terrible soon to be threadnaught stealth nerf highsec afk cloaking grr Goons unban Erotica1 thread
got to grr something i supose There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
admiral root
Red Galaxy Disband.
1159
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:40:00 -
[122] - Quote
Grrr everything. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
2299
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 17:54:00 -
[123] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:We made this change because of server performance.
So, once again CCP have done something without thinking it through and fully understanding the consequences of a change.
Dear CCP, think twice act once.
Sorry if I sound like I am whinging, but your record of anything to do with drones over the last 18 months is simply appalling.
This is not a signature. |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
670
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 07:31:00 -
[124] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:We made this change because of server performance. So, once again CCP have done something without thinking it through and fully understanding the consequences of a change. Dear CCP, think twice act once. Sorry if I sound like I am whinging, but your record of anything to do with drones over the last 18 months is simply appalling.
Drones are complicated ... K ? |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
2300
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 09:33:00 -
[125] - Quote
Hasikan Miallok wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:We made this change because of server performance. So, once again CCP have done something without thinking it through and fully understanding the consequences of a change. Dear CCP, think twice act once. Sorry if I sound like I am whinging, but your record of anything to do with drones over the last 18 months is simply appalling. Drones are complicated ... K ?
So, CCP should take more time to think any changes through.
Right now CCP seem to be staggering form one ill conceived drone tweak to another.
30 second timer on omnis - what?
This is not a signature. |
Rhatar Khurin
Happy Asteroid Ltd
565
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 10:03:00 -
[126] - Quote
Perhaps CCP is just trying to gradually make peeps use less and less drones for server performance. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
5557
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 10:09:00 -
[127] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote: 30 second timer on omnis - what?
With 5 drones in space, that one module causes 5 server interactions every 10 seconds. Now it causes 5 every 30 seconds instead. They have just cut 2/3 of the server load of that one module. And typically people used two of them.
Looks like they are finally getting down to giving the axe to mechanics that unduly contribute to server lag.
Good for them. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
-áPsychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
9473
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 10:13:00 -
[128] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Sal Landry wrote:Meandering Milieu wrote: Any reason why Omnis hurt server load but Tracking Comps don't?
Presumably because they need to update the attributes of 5 objects in space every cycle instead of 1 i think you meant numbers range from 2 to 8 actually? Hint: ships have 2 to 8 physical guns/turrets I would imagine that since all skill and module effects apply across all of a ship's turrets simultaneously, as long as they're the same exact models (completely the same name), it's probably easier to apply a tracking computer's effects to 8 turrets than to 5 drones which are in space and therefore behave differently. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
9473
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 10:15:00 -
[129] - Quote
In fact the only difference with turrets is that each turret's damage is calculated separately. The only paramater that changes between each calculation is the random number used to determine whether the weapon hit or missed, and how much damage was done. Since this calculation is repeated with all of the other parameters the same, that part of the calculation is probably only done once and then the requisite number of comparisons with the random number are done. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
672
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 11:06:00 -
[130] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote: 30 second timer on omnis - what?
With 5 drones in space, that one module causes 5 server interactions every 10 seconds. Now it causes 5 every 30 seconds instead. They have just cut 2/3 of the server load of that one module. And typically people used two of them. Looks like they are finally getting down to giving the axe to mechanics that unduly contribute to server lag. Good for them.
Except .....
Going back a month or two omnis did not cycle at all so they are fixing a problem they created all by themselves.
Anyway, a simpler solution would be to allow players to group the omnis. |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
5559
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 11:10:00 -
[131] - Quote
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
Except .....
Going back a month or two omnis did not cycle at all so they are fixing a problem they created all by themselves.
Anyway, a simpler solution would be to allow players to group the omnis.
While this is true, it's a good thing for them to behave in a self correcting fashion. There is a whole lot I will put up with to help with server load.
Besides that, I can fully imagine how the whole conversation went.
"Ah, crap, Omnis needed the nerf to be cycling, but we just increased overall server load!" And then someone laughs and makes an "emergent content" joke. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
-áPsychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
|
CCP Explorer
C C P C C P Alliance
2143
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 11:26:00 -
[132] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:stoicfaux wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:We made this change because of server performance. Interesting, any details on the improvements/metrics? I'm hoping to be able to reply in a few days with details, need averages over a couple of days to see the results. So here's a graph: http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66065/1/cpuperuser.png
This is total CPU usage across all nodes on Tranquility, normalised by the number of nodes and online users at each time, for the last year. We want to stay at or below the blue band. The two spikes in late Nov 2013 and late Jan 2014 are Rubicon and Rubicon 1.1. It took a while to find the largest culprits and fix those (can be seen in mid Mar) and then the latest dip that can be seen there at the tail end, finally bringing us back into the band (but we're not done yet), is this fix. Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Senior Development Director | EVE Online // CCP Games | @erlendur |
|
Grimpak
Shifting Sands Trader Cartel Bleak Horizon Alliance.
1428
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 11:44:00 -
[133] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:stoicfaux wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:We made this change because of server performance. Interesting, any details on the improvements/metrics? I'm hoping to be able to reply in a few days with details, need averages over a couple of days to see the results. So here's a graph: http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66065/1/cpuperuser.pngThis is total CPU usage across all nodes on Tranquility, normalised by the number of nodes and online users at each time, for the last year. We want to stay at or below the blue band. The two spikes in late Nov 2013 and late Jan 2014 are Rubicon and Rubicon 1.1. It took a while to find the largest culprits and fix those (can be seen in mid Mar) and then the latest dip that can be seen there at the tail end, finally bringing us back into the band (but we're not done yet), is this fix. Ok, yes I can see the reason why. Indeed the nerf was needed.
It still feels "eeeeehhhh" tho, no matter how much plausible and undeniable reasoning one puts in it. I am convinced, but it has a bitter aftertaste. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
5560
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 11:55:00 -
[134] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:stoicfaux wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:We made this change because of server performance. Interesting, any details on the improvements/metrics? I'm hoping to be able to reply in a few days with details, need averages over a couple of days to see the results. So here's a graph: http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66065/1/cpuperuser.pngThis is total CPU usage across all nodes on Tranquility, normalised by the number of nodes and online users at each time, for the last year. We want to stay at or below the blue band. The two spikes in late Nov 2013 and late Jan 2014 are Rubicon and Rubicon 1.1. It took a while to find the largest culprits and fix those (can be seen in mid Mar) and then the latest dip that can be seen there at the tail end, finally bringing us back into the band (but we're not done yet), is this fix.
Perhaps I'm being ignorant, but what precisely are the numbers on the left and right bounds of the graph? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
-áPsychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
Ramona McCandless
The McCandless Clan Council of Peace and Prosperity
3820
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 12:01:00 -
[135] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Perhaps I'm being ignorant, but what precisely are the numbers on the left and right bounds of the graph?
Tears and Rice Pudding, respectfully "They feel the need to cover their ears and eyes in horror at your very presence." - Pontianak Sythaeryn "I can't honestly believe that Peace and Prosperity has a face like a naughty sarcastic nun that's come to whip me with a ruler." - Domanique Altares -á-á ***FREE THE JITA 1*** |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
3098
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 12:08:00 -
[136] - Quote
If the drone update every cycle eats so many server resources, why not just split the current omnis into two passive mods, one for tracking and one for optimal. You are already reducing adaptability with the 30s cycles to the point where it barely matters, so why not go all the way and save the server all of it? Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Destoya
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
264
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 12:34:00 -
[137] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:If the drone update every cycle eats so many server resources, why not just split the current omnis into two passive mods, one for tracking and one for optimal. You are already reducing adaptability with the 30s cycles to the point where it barely matters, so why not go all the way and save the server all of it?
If they ever get that desperate, I hope they would use the guristas style and just condense drones fivefold. Instead of calculating 6 "ships" per player its suddenly only 2.
Related to this, will the addition of fighters and fighter bombers using player skills and being affected by modules in the upcoming expansion use more server resources? I'm very in favor of the change, just curious if it will make blob fights more laggy even with the actual number of drones being reduced by half. |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
2300
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 13:27:00 -
[138] - Quote
So CCP decide that omni's need to cycle which causes the lag problem in the first place, so they then introduce a 30 second cycle to fix the lag problem they caused in the first place...
As I posted earlier,
Right now CCP seem to be staggering form one ill conceived drone tweak to another. This is not a signature. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
9474
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 13:49:00 -
[139] - Quote
Having unintended effects doesn't make a change ill-conceived. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
2300
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 14:02:00 -
[140] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Having unintended effects doesn't make a change ill-conceived.
CCP need to do more of this: Think twice act once.
Many moons ago when I left school, my first job was as an apprentice engineer, and we had it drummed into us that the most important rule was not to leave something in a worse state than we found it.
I do not doubt for a moment that the whole drone issue - causing lag etc - is a serious and complex issue for CCP to deal with, my argument is that too many of the 'tweaks' over the past 18 months or so appears to be rushed and ill thought through.
Oh well, onwards ever onwards I suppose. This is not a signature. |
|
Mund Richard
557
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 17:02:00 -
[141] - Quote
And now this.
If the passive omni was too OP, and needed to be nerfed to TC levels, and now it's ability to adapt to a new situation is nerfed even further, can it's effectiveness be a bit better in return (and still below the old passive's level)?
Any word on how the work on the sentry information display issue is coming along?
Now that new passive modules are going to be introduced, was changing omnis to active really so important? Missiles don't have tracking computers and enhancers, why did drone modules have to be made resemble those of guns that much more, if it only breaks things? "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then?-áLock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor-áis two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s. |
Brooks Puuntai
Solar Nexus.
1825
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 18:23:00 -
[142] - Quote
Seems like a short sighted way to fix an issue that obviously doesn't scale well.
Wouldn't just splitting them into 3 different passive mods be a more efficient and scalable option? It would upset the min/max people but give scalability and reduces overall server usage. CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE-á/ Dynamic New Eden |
Valterra Craven
215
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 05:35:00 -
[143] - Quote
So I'm curious.
If a code rewrite on these modules were to happen in the future that would make the server CPU usage go away would these changes be reverted since they aren't for "balance"? If the answer is yes, is a code rewrite/change possible likely in the future ~next year?
As it stands this has drastic consequences on my game play.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
5589
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 05:41:00 -
[144] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: As it stands this has drastic consequences on my game play.
When it comes down to the question "Do we inconvenience afk L4 dominix gameplay, or do we improve server performance?"...
I'd have to say they made the right choice. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
-áPsychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
2301
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 07:27:00 -
[145] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: As it stands this has drastic consequences on my game play.
When it comes down to the question "Do we inconvenience afk L4 dominix gameplay, or do we improve server performance?"... I'd have to say they made the right choice.
Jeez, Kaarous, give it a rest already.
You used to be my favourite crazy poster, now you just constantly whine that that game is not hard enough and mean enough, especially anything to do with hi-sec.
Perhaps CCP should do something about the large fights in null which no one outside of null cares about to improve server performance?
Even a null-sec fight involving 4,000 or so players means that a tiny percentage of the player base is involved or cares. This is not a signature. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
5594
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 07:30:00 -
[146] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote: Perhaps CCP should do something about the large fights in null which no one outside of null cares about to improve server performance?
Even a null-sec fight involving 4,000 or so players means that a tiny percentage of the player base is involved or cares.
And yet, when BR-5 happened, the game had a big spike of new subs.
I don't recall the spike from shooting red crosses, but if you can think of it, be sure to let me know. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
-áPsychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
2301
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 07:47:00 -
[147] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote: Perhaps CCP should do something about the large fights in null which no one outside of null cares about to improve server performance?
Even a null-sec fight involving 4,000 or so players means that a tiny percentage of the player base is involved or cares.
And yet, when BR-5 happened, the game had a big spike of new subs. I don't recall the spike from shooting red crosses, but if you can think of it, be sure to let me know.
Big spike in new subs?
Evidence please. This is not a signature. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
5595
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 08:16:00 -
[148] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote: Perhaps CCP should do something about the large fights in null which no one outside of null cares about to improve server performance?
Even a null-sec fight involving 4,000 or so players means that a tiny percentage of the player base is involved or cares.
And yet, when BR-5 happened, the game had a big spike of new subs. I don't recall the spike from shooting red crosses, but if you can think of it, be sure to let me know. Big spike in new subs? Evidence please.
Don't read the twitter, do you?
Remember the part where Fozzie said that so many new subs were being made that a career agent system was in TiDi? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
-áPsychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
687
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 08:37:00 -
[149] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: As it stands this has drastic consequences on my game play.
When it comes down to the question "Do we inconvenience afk L4 dominix gameplay, or do we improve server performance?"... I'd have to say they made the right choice.
TBH ... my mission alt rarely changes scripts on my L4 Domi and there have been occasions (because optimal unbonused bouncer range for my Domi is pretty much MJD distance anyway) I have not turned them on and did not notice for a while.
This change will not effect the hull bonused ships like the Ishtar and Domi that much.
I expect it will be rather annoying for people flying Vexors and Prophecies.
|
Mund Richard
557
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 08:57:00 -
[150] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: As it stands this has drastic consequences on my game play.
When it comes down to the question "Do we inconvenience afk L4 dominix gameplay, or do we improve server performance?"... I'd have to say they made the right choice. Wait a sec... If I am swapping scripts in my omnis, how am I afk?
If they really wanted to improve server performance by a LOT, they could just let it be passive again.
Oh wait, THEN it would be more afk. "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then?-áLock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor-áis two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |