These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New Omni nerf- why exactly was it needed? (CCP: to fix lag)

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Thats OK
Schmizle
#41 - 2014-04-28 17:10:54 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
We made this change because of server performance.

Oh, well Thats OK then.
TheButcherPete
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#42 - 2014-04-28 17:12:00 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
We made this change because of server performance.


lol, you made using a single omni useless, so everyone is using two or perhaps even three

Then you cry foul in regards to server performance.

With love
- Digusted Drone user

[b]THE KING OF EVE RADIO

If EVE is real, does that mean all of us are RMTrs?[/b]
King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#43 - 2014-04-28 17:15:28 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
We made this change because of server performance.


Explanation accepted, thanks for working to decrease lag and for the reply.

You could have mentioned this in the patch notes to avoid srs internet spacebutthurt.

Props to stoicfaux as well :)
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#44 - 2014-04-28 17:19:55 UTC
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.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#45 - 2014-04-28 17:28:25 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.


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*

Lol
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2014-04-28 17:40:44 UTC
Does this say something about TC vs Omni use.....?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#47 - 2014-04-28 17:41:04 UTC
TheButcherPete wrote:
lol, you made using a single omni useless
Not really, no.

I think the real question here is why do omnis cause such a performance drain? It doesn't make any sense… Ugh
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#48 - 2014-04-28 17:43:13 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
We made this change because of server performance.

What the ****?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#49 - 2014-04-28 17:44:41 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.


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*

Lol


I would give it a 6/10. Still needs a bit more paranoia sprinkled with angst.




☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2014-04-28 17:49:15 UTC
Tippia wrote:
TheButcherPete wrote:
lol, you made using a single omni useless
Not really, no.

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


James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
We made this change because of server performance.

What the ****?



I'm with Tippia and James here: ...what?

[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
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#51 - 2014-04-28 17:53:37 UTC
Tippia wrote:
TheButcherPete wrote:
lol, you made using a single omni useless
Not really, no.

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

Two words: Drone Code

How did you Veterans start?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#52 - 2014-04-28 17:59:23 UTC
The only reason I can think of is that drones are already annoying for the server since they're separate space objects that require a mini-brain of their own to keep track of — not as severe as an entire ship with a player in it, but still… and that drones make up for it by being 5× as many.

Omnis would then become annoying because they have to update those simulation objects once at the start of every cycle, and it can't be batched under the current implementation. This as opposed to, say, DDAs or navcoms, which are applied once, when the drone is first deployed and set up as an object.

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?
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2014-04-28 18:00:42 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.


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*

Lol

oh god you had me going there for a moment
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2014-04-28 18:05:54 UTC
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.....

What?

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Magnus Cortex
Ginger Industrial Solutions
#55 - 2014-04-28 18:07:39 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
We made this change because of server performance.

Interesting, any details on the improvements/metrics?



I think the most important statistic is there hasnt been any dead nodes since.
Kryxal
Wing Born Echos
#56 - 2014-04-28 18:14:41 UTC
Tippia wrote:
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 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...
stoicfaux
#57 - 2014-04-28 18:19:03 UTC
Magnus Cortex wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
We made this change because of server performance.

Interesting, any details on the improvements/metrics?



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

I haven't been keeping up. Has there been a problem with big drone fights and node crashes recently?

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2014-04-28 18:21:05 UTC
Kryxal wrote:
Tippia wrote:
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 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 shortUgh, like when they switched over from the 15-drone max to 5-drone max.

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

[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
stoicfaux
#59 - 2014-04-28 18:59:11 UTC
Grimpak wrote:
Kryxal wrote:
Tippia wrote:
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 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 shortUgh, like when they switched over from the 15-drone max to 5-drone max.

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

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.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Vyktor Abyss
Abyss Research
#60 - 2014-04-28 19:02:35 UTC
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?