Omnidirectional tracking link cycle time has been increased to 30 seconds. Capacitor use per cycle remains unchanged.

Posting in terrible soon to be threadnaught stealth nerf highsec afk cloaking grr Goons unban Erotica1 thread

Ooh. Gàô the capacitor draw. Now there's a nerf that really kicks people in the 'nads. Wait what?

They tripled the cycle time of Omnidirectional Tracking Links, 30 seconds is long enough to prevent swapping scripts in combat. Now I'd like to know if the already nerfed Omnis were so overpowered that they had to be made even worse.

Posting in terrible soon to be threadnaught stealth nerf highsec afk cloaking grr Goons unban Erotica1 thread

Ooh. Gàô the capacitor draw. Now there's a nerf that really kicks people in the 'nads. Wait what?

30 seconds, srsly CCP?

Why even have it scripted anymore?

CCP hates high sec.
Pretty simple answer.

CCP hates high sec.
Pretty simple answer.
Just look at the total set of changes being inflicted on high sec.
They demonstrate the contempt CCP has for the largest segment of its player base (soon to not be its largest segment).

Rubicon was very aptly named.

Dinsdale wtf

F1 monkeys in null don't change scripts nearly as often as someone ratting in a mission, where the frigs are on top of you, and you have to now have to wait 30 seconds to get a chance to shoot them.

So if this was really about cap usage, then CCP could just as easily cut the activation cost by 3.
But no, they made the module even more unusable.

F1 monkeys in null don't change scripts nearly as often as someone ratting in a mission

But no, they made the module even more unusable.

At the risk of repeating myself, the reasons for the 30s change are:

Reduced server load.

Sentry 'balancing'.

To encourage use of the new drone low-slot mods which will be more "balanced" in terms of bonuses (e.g. TEs versus TCs) thus making the low-slot fixed "generally" bonused low-slot omni-equivalent a valid choice over the 30s to change, all-or-nothing min-maxed Omnis. Which has the "side" effect of DDAs competing with low-slot Omnis and thus reducing drone DPS (aka more balancing,) while also making the new faction DDA's more attractive.

It also opens up the market for specialized drones, e.g. drones with a inherently better than tracking or range as a means of compensating for the 30s inflexibility of the Omni script swaps.

The lower cap use is just a weak attempt to assuage CCP's guilt and mollify/distract the player base.


For bonus karma (negative karma is still karma,) CCP will probably make it so the mid-slot Omnis won't work without a script, ergo, you can either have an Optimal bonus or a Tracking bonus, but not both, thus making the low-slot Omni modules attractive/competitive.


/tin_foil_in_bulk

another huge nerf to drone users, without any warning nor consultation.

This was just some arbitrary change to game play, another huge nerf to drone users

Just stop. You're awful

What is even more galling is the fact that there was nothing about this in the F&I thread, nor dev blogs.
This was just some arbitrary change to game play, another huge nerf to drone users, without any warning nor consultation.

So run the omnis unscripted then Jeeze you people and your whining.

F1 monkeys in null don't change scripts nearly as often as someone ratting in a mission, where the frigs are on top of you, and you have to now have to wait 30 seconds to get a chance to shoot them.

So if this was really about cap usage, then CCP could just as easily cut the activation cost by 3.
But no, they made the module even more unusable.

edit:

I best not complain though about the fact that tracking computers have a cycle time of 10 seconds, because CCP might then just "balance" those as well to 30 seconds.

We made this change because of server performance.

We made this change because of server performance.

We made this change because of server performance.

We made this change because of server performance.

Yup reducing the frequency of the Omni cycles will have a noticeable effect on server performance and after some investigation and discussion we made the call that they were still powerful, useful and balanced with 30s cycles.
The reduced cap usage over time is a happy side effect, although we know it doesn't quite make up for the longer delay before swapping scripts for most people.

lol, you made using a single omni useless

We made this change because of server performance.

And just who uses omnidirectional links in such numbers that it causes lag? Nullsec, that's who. So CCP bows to the pressure of their true RMTing nullsec masters and nerfs high sec missions runners so null sec blobs can be more effective in RMTing.

Did I Dins that particular Dale in correct fashion guys? Sorry if I didn't, this kind of thinking takes getting used to.

*waits for the inevitable post from you know who saying you know what*

Not really, no.

I think the real question here is why do omnis cause such a performance drain? It doesn't make any senseGǪ

What the ****?

Not really, no.

I think the real question here is why do omnis cause such a performance drain? It doesn't make any senseGǪ

And just who uses omnidirectional links in such numbers that it causes lag? Nullsec, that's who. So CCP bows to the pressure of their true RMTing nullsec masters and nerfs high sec missions runners so null sec blobs can be more effective in RMTing.

Did I Dins that particular Dale in correct fashion guys? Sorry if I didn't, this kind of thinking takes getting used to.

*waits for the inevitable post from you know who saying you know what*

Interesting, any details on the improvements/metrics?

But by the same token, does not every cycled module have the same kind of impact? Is it really that much harder to update active objects in space? Or is it, once again, just a matter of there being a fsckton of drones flying about?

I think the most important statistic is there hasnt been any dead nodes since.

I suppose I could see it, other modules update the current object, the Omnis update multiple OTHER objects ... I don't know how they set it up, but you're probably locking each of the objects, updating, releasing, and on to the next, otherwise things would get messy. It's not like the alterations to the current object where you already have it locked, no extra overhead...

Yeah but, this seems to be no more than a stopgap procedure. Sure yes, you gain increased server health with it, and that is important, but having it affect a game mechanic just because of that... feels bit short, like when they switched over from the 15-drone max to 5-drone max.

I still miss the days of the 15 drones domi, CCP

Wait! There's more! And by more I mean less! Open up the market window and look at the Gecko super heavy drone. It uses the same bandwidth and bay space as two heavies, yet does omni damage with the same firepower of two heavies! (And with a base 1,820 m/s max velocity to boot!)

So now you'll have fewer drones! And for no extra charge, fewer types of drones as well!


I, for one, welcome our 2.5 super-drone overlords.

Next, you will be getting AI controlled frigates buddies.

When you see Tippia asking questions about CCP changes this is very bad sign.......

Need to agree: "server performance" doesn't look like good explanation here.....

When you see Tippia asking questions about CCP changes this is very bad sign.......

Need to agree: "server performance" doesn't look like good explanation here.....

I do sometimes wonder if CCP change stuff because the day ends in a Y or because, well...god only knows some of the time.

Once again CCP - think twice act once.

I think the most important statistic is there hasnt been any dead nodes since.

It's a wee bit better than "because :reasons:"

Interesting, any details on the improvements/metrics?

Or you could, you know, scrap the scripts and return omnis to being passive modules like they were for years before you arbitrarily decided drones were overpowered and decided to wage war against Gallente.

You really don't think things through do you CCP?

We made this change because of server performance.

Maaaaaaaaaaaan this thread pretty much confirms Dinsdale is actually just a very high effort troll. I honestly thought he believed that ****.

If CCP actually fixed the real problem, the use of the blob as the weapon of choice, all these other lag issues go bye bye.
But we know that will not happen, because thinking about changes to the null sec political and economic problems is really hard.

Frankly, I gave up using sentry drones as soon as the Omni was trashed the first go-around.

You guys want to know why missiles will never ever be improved to be a viable weapon system for large scale warfare?

A Domi pilot has 5 weapons deployed in space at one time, tracking usually one target.
Now imagine some situation where a missile pilot might have, depending on ranges, 6 or 7 missiles deployed, and they might be tracking multiple targets, if the launcher cycle time is fast enough, or if the pilot split his launchers. Yes, I am sure the null sec theory-crafters are working hard on RMHL meta's, but I have yet to hear about any massive fleets using them.

My opinion on the skill level of the game designers in question is well-documented.
The self-inflicted problems and the "solutions" to these problem just make me smile, very sadly.

If CCP actually fixed the real problem, the use of the blob as the weapon of choice, all these other lag issues go bye bye.
But we know that will not happen, because thinking about changes to the null sec political and economic problems is really hard.

Frankly, I gave up using sentry drones as soon as the Omni was trashed the first go-around.

You guys want to know why missiles will never ever be improved to be a viable weapon system for large scale warfare?

A Domi pilot has 5 weapons deployed in space at one time, tracking usually one target.
Now imagine some situation where a missile pilot might have, depending on ranges, 6 or 7 missiles deployed, and they might be tracking multiple targets, if the launcher cycle time is fast enough, or if the pilot split his launchers. Yes, I am sure the null sec theory-crafters are working hard on RMHL meta's, but I have yet to hear about any massive fleets using them.

My opinion on the skill level of the game designers in question is well-documented.
The self-inflicted problems and the "solutions" to these problem just make me smile, very sadly.

If CCP actually fixed the real problem, the use of the blob as the weapon of choice, all these other lag issues go bye bye.
But we know that will not happen, because thinking about changes to the null sec political and economic problems is really hard.

So tell us, oh Lord of Tinfoil, how precisely do you deter numbers being a force multiplier? Especially, how do you do it without making pricetag the force multiplier instead? Because that's far, far worse of a problem than numbers.

Oh, and if you can manage it without adding artificial, immersion breaking binary gating mechanisms, that'd be great too.

So let's hear about how we can fix "the real problem".

A Domi pilot has 5 weapons deployed in space at one time, tracking usually one target.
Now imagine some situation where a missile pilot might have, depending on ranges, 6 or 7 missiles deployed, and they might be tracking multiple targets, if the launcher cycle time is fast enough, or if the pilot split his launchers. Yes, I am sure the null sec theory-crafters are working hard on RMHL meta's, but I have yet to hear about any massive fleets using them.

Yeah, having friends is so overpowered.

Nerf friends...too stronk!

Yup reducing the frequency of the Omni cycles will have a noticeable effect on server performance and after some investigation and discussion we made the call that they were still powerful, useful and balanced with 30s cycles.
The reduced cap usage over time is a happy side effect, although we know it doesn't quite make up for the longer delay before swapping scripts for most people.

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

but but ... getting together with friends and ganging up on weaker targets is the EVE way :D

Nerf friends...too stronk!

A friend stacking penalty.

For every friendly pilot in a fleet above 2 memebers, each member will take a .5% decrease to range, tracking, max velocity and fleet command bonuses.

It's not just the EVE way, it's the new player friendly way.

Think about it. If, as some suggest, pricetag becomes the force multiplier, then new players will by definition never be able to be effective.

They don't have weight of skillpoints, and they do not have the spending ability that the veterans have. Those are things they basically can't have.

What they can have is numbers. That is not out of their reach.

Suggesting that "teh blob needs nerfed!" is suggesting that new players should not be effective, period.

Which is why I would love to know how Dinsdale would propose to nerf "the real problem" as he puts it. I am fully aware that what he really means is nerf having friends because he has none, however.

But naturally, any conversation about limiting the size of a cartel is a non-starter with CCP and especially the CSM.

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.

If CCP actually fixed the real problem, the use of the blob as the weapon of choice, all these other lag issues go bye bye.
But we know that will not happen, because thinking about changes to the null sec political and economic problems is really hard.

Actually, I was thinking of how to deal with the problem of the blob over beer and wings tonight.
The only real approach I could take to tackle the problem is "if the cartels cannot counter the solution, then it has potential".
Fundamentally , it comes down to this: You have to carve out their economic hearts in a manner where scaling to immense size is incredibly inefficient. I am talking not so much on the blob in a a battle, but on the size of an organization.

But naturally, any conversation about limiting the size of a cartel is a non-starter with CCP and especially the CSM.

There are ways to do it, but there is zero chance that cartel leaderships will allow their income streams to be eviscerated.

So do the cycle times themselves have an effect on performance, or is this a case of just making drones less attractive so people will stop using them so much?

you have a better idea?

no, hard-limits don't work, they are very exploitable, don't even talk about sharding whatever, and AOE-type weapons, created to avoid ship clumping, worked so well that whoever had the bigger titan blob wins, so for the time being, and until someone comes up with a miracle, all you can do is make the game playable while having blobs around.

its 500 carriers on a grid, each with 13 to 15 drones out all being updated by multiple omnis per carrier.

So reducing the cycle times on all modules is the answer to TiDi. By having ships perform like they're in TiDi anyway, the effects of TiDi can be reduced.

Actually, I was thinking of how to deal with the problem of the blob over beer and wings tonight.
The only real approach I could take to tackle the problem is "if the cartels cannot counter the solution, then it has potential".
Fundamentally , it comes down to this: You have to carve out their economic hearts in a manner where scaling to immense size is incredibly inefficient. I am talking not so much on the blob in a a battle, but on the size of an organization.

But naturally, any conversation about limiting the size of a cartel is a non-starter with CCP and especially the CSM.

There are ways to do it, but there is zero chance that cartel leaderships will allow their income streams to be eviscerated.

So there are one of a few ways that can play out.

Either you simply make nullsec itself totally unviable to live, manufacture, and sustain anything in, or you attack corporation and alliance scaling itself, which places artificial limits on everyone.

The first you may as well just delete null security space entirely. The second you have crippled anything besides solo players, casuals, and small penny ante corporations. Which while I'm sure those results would suit you just fine, those suggestions pretty much show that you're no better than the supposed cartels, you're just less well organized.

The not so well hidden point of the exercise was that your soluton not eliminate a third of the subs in the game, bro.

This is of course assuming that what Dino fears is actually bad, and not the best thing that could ever happen in an MMORPG

Who wants my stuff?

I'm playing Devil's advocate, of course.

I fully suspect that, if he replies to the point where his suggestion would basically eliminate either a huge number of subs or functionally remove an entire area of space, he'll say something along the lines of "break a few eggs".

So what he would be doing then, is suggesting that CCP toss aside an established, long term loyal, and paying playerbase in exchange for a purely theoretical one (casuals) that he promises is bigger than ones who are being told they aren't welcome in the game anymore.

So... Trammel.

Nevermind the fact that he would be fundamentally shattering the sandbox as well, by setting upper limits, saying "you are only allowed to win this much".

This is how destructive, insidious, and evil carebear thought is, ladies and gentlemen. Repent now, and be saved.

Dibs.

Can I have some of his stuff, y'know, cos I have bombs to pay for?

It's been stated elsewhere, but the point is that the only viable solution is a mechanic for sov battles that encourages MULTIPLE, SIMULTANEOUS battles to occur across multiple systems. If the mechanic requires 5 victories in 5 systems then current blob tactics are no longer viable; or at least not until the average null entity gets 5x larger.

What would such a mechanic look like? I have no clue. But presumabky paid game designers should be able to come up with SOMEthing. Constellation control hubs or something, I dunno. Regardless, the point is not to gimp a large fleet thru artificial penalties or weird stacking mechanics. If you want to blob, blob away. The point is to change sov mechanics so that the entity with five smaller fleets wins the strategic victory over the giant blob fleet every time, at least when it comes to the fights people care about (sov/ownership stuff).

Frankly, I gave up using sentry drones as soon as the Omni was trashed the first go-around.

That's because you're a reactionary, not a reasoning thinker. Sentries work just fine and I'm using them more now than before.

Stop trying to make facts fit your pre-drawn conclusions.

I think the most important statistic is there hasnt been any dead nodes since.

That would have nothing to do with nerfing your afk F1 monkeys would it? Followed by nerfing fully AFK drone gameplay?

Infact thats a brilliant maneuvre by CCP - by raising the barrier to entry for even a rudimentary 1000 man fight, they quickly cull the doe-eyed and reduce server load through Darwinian forces.

Nevermind the fact that he would be fundamentally shattering the sandbox REAL WORLD and it's economy as well, by setting upper limits, saying "you are only allowed to win this much".

It's also been refuted elsewhere why this is a very dumb idea and won't achieve what you want it to achieve. For instance - you're trying to make numbers be less effective? Great. Now who do you think is better posed to defend 5 targets, the smaller entity or the larger one?
This solution seems to exist in a fantasy world, where the defender wouldn't just do the obvious and gang up on one fleet, then the next, then the next. No, you don't lose 2 or 3 5ths of your fleets wholesale in a one-sided slaughter, come out of it with maybe 2 of 5 objectives taken, and consider it a victory.

Dumb ideas like this would have prevented most of the conflict in the past ~18months from happening at all.

Presumably because they need to update the attributes of 5 objects in space every cycle instead of 1

The CFC abandoned the drone assist doctrine entirely when the limit to Assisting was introduced, now we use Megathrons with TCs.

Nobody I know, other than perhaps TRI / MOA are still using Omnis for fleet warfare.

Hint: ships have 1 to 8 physical guns/turrets

It's been stated elsewhere, but the point is that the only viable solution is a mechanic for sov battles that encourages MULTIPLE, SIMULTANEOUS battles to occur across multiple systems. If the mechanic requires 5 victories in 5 systems then current blob tactics are no longer viable; or at least not until the average null entity gets 5x larger.

What would such a mechanic look like? I have no clue. But presumabky paid game designers should be able to come up with SOMEthing. Constellation control hubs or something, I dunno. Regardless, the point is not to gimp a large fleet thru artificial penalties or weird stacking mechanics. If you want to blob, blob away. The point is to change sov mechanics so that the entity with five smaller fleets wins the strategic victory over the giant blob fleet every time, at least when it comes to the fights people care about (sov/ownership stuff).

If he could do that, he wouldn't say 80% of the stuff he says.

Posting in terrible soon to be threadnaught stealth nerf highsec afk cloaking grr Goons unban Erotica1 thread

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 ?

30 second timer on omnis - what?

i think you meant numbers range from 2 to 8 actually?

Hint: ships have 2 to 8 physical guns/turrets

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.

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.

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.

Perhaps I'm being ignorant, but what precisely are the numbers on the left and right bounds of the graph?

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?

Having unintended effects doesn't make a change ill-conceived.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You are happy that this happened not to you. Try to imagine if CCP made the same to 0.0? Still support it?

Dear Kaarous, I suggest that you study this link : http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility the figures for the past six months may enlighten you.

You do realize I live in a wormhole, right?

that makes it clear: WH dwellers don't use drones

so now it even simpler: 'CCP nerfed something and it is not about me'