These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#81 - 2014-04-29 00:52:31 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

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.


Yeah, having friends is so overpowered.



Nerf friends...too stronk!






There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.

Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#82 - 2014-04-29 00:58:05 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

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.


Yeah, having friends is so overpowered.



Nerf friends...too stronk!









but but ... getting together with friends and ganging up on weaker targets is the EVE way :D
Meandering Milieu
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2014-04-29 01:01:25 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.


Any reason why Omnis hurt server load but Tracking Comps don't?
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#84 - 2014-04-29 01:06:48 UTC
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
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#85 - 2014-04-29 01:16:52 UTC
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


... and drone doctrines

This is presumably about fleet battles and blobs, not people shooting rats.

Probably came up as an issue during Burn Jita.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#86 - 2014-04-29 01:17:50 UTC
Hasikan Miallok wrote:


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


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.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Slade Trillgon
Brutor Force Federated
#87 - 2014-04-29 01:22:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Slade Trillgon
Doc Fury wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

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.


Yeah, having friends is so overpowered.



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.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#88 - 2014-04-29 01:32:34 UTC
Slade Trillgon wrote:
Doc Fury wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

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.


Yeah, having friends is so overpowered.



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.


Well, we just freed-up some server ticks from nerfing the Omni, that should cover it! Lol

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#89 - 2014-04-29 03:03:26 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Hasikan Miallok wrote:


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


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.


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.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#90 - 2014-04-29 05:59:35 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
But naturally, any conversation about limiting the size of a cartel is a non-starter with CCP and especially the CSM.
…aside from them talking about it a fair bit, you mean.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#91 - 2014-04-29 06:38:18 UTC
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 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?
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2014-04-29 06:44:23 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
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.


Lol

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.

[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

Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#93 - 2014-04-29 06:52:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tauranon
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

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.


It was the very tech cartelling goonswarm that lobbied for the destruction of and thus ruined the tech gravy train, ie they always believed that income starting from the average player was more important than alliance income - and they supported that belief with actions.

In any case the 3 elements you need to understand the change are.

CCP says performance.
I say carriers have lots of drones.
Sal Landry says, omnis update all the drones every time they cycle.

That is plainly the performance problem being optimised.
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#94 - 2014-04-29 07:00:53 UTC
Riot Girl 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 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?


its 500 carriers on a grid, each with 13 to 15 drones out all being updated by multiple omnis per carrier.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#95 - 2014-04-29 07:12:22 UTC
Grimpak wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
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.


Lol

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.


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).
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#96 - 2014-04-29 07:13:07 UTC
Tauranon wrote:
Riot Girl 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 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?


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.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#97 - 2014-04-29 07:14:06 UTC
Concentration of force at a weak point is the single most viable and commonly used military tactic.

The EvE universe should be different why?

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann

Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#98 - 2014-04-29 07:59:16 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
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.


TIDI is protective of a lot of issues, including client networks and clients themselves, both of which can choke if event spam is too fast.

If you have 1000 omnis, affecting an average of 13 drones, you have 13000 operations per omni cycle, - 1300 per (1 second - no tidi) server tick under the old model, and 433 per server tick under the new.

Needing to do something thousands of times per second obviously stands out on the profiler after a while, there are finite numbers of discrete things a processor can do in 1 second.

I'd expect though the omni issue itself is mostly confined to the server processing the grid itself though, since the game doesn't deign to tell me what tracking, optimal or falloff actually applies to my drones anyway, so its not marshalling it and sending it.

Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#99 - 2014-04-29 08:26:56 UTC
Of course the SENSIBLE solution would be allow the grouping of omnis:

a) making it easier for the players

b) with clever coding letting the server treat them as a single unit
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#100 - 2014-04-29 08:28:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


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.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.