These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#121 - 2014-04-29 17:26:55 UTC
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... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#122 - 2014-04-29 17:40:59 UTC
Grrr everything.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Josef Djugashvilis
#123 - 2014-04-29 17:54:28 UTC
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
#124 - 2014-04-30 07:31:41 UTC
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
#125 - 2014-04-30 09:33:45 UTC
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
Doomheim
#126 - 2014-04-30 10:03:29 UTC
Perhaps CCP is just trying to gradually make peeps use less and less drones for server performance.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#127 - 2014-04-30 10:09:58 UTC
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."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#128 - 2014-04-30 10:13:46 UTC
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.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#129 - 2014-04-30 10:15:50 UTC
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.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#130 - 2014-04-30 11:06:23 UTC
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
Black Hydra Consortium.
#131 - 2014-04-30 11:10:37 UTC
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."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
CCP Explorer
C C P
C C P Alliance
#132 - 2014-04-30 11:26:12 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Explorer
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 | @CCP_Explorer
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#133 - 2014-04-30 11:44:37 UTC
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.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.

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
Black Hydra Consortium.
#134 - 2014-04-30 11:55:53 UTC
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.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?

"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.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#135 - 2014-04-30 12:01:51 UTC
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

"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
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#136 - 2014-04-30 12:08:22 UTC
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
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#137 - 2014-04-30 12:34:01 UTC
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
#138 - 2014-04-30 13:27:02 UTC
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
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#139 - 2014-04-30 13:49:06 UTC
Having unintended effects doesn't make a change ill-conceived.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Josef Djugashvilis
#140 - 2014-04-30 14:02:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
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 appear to be rushed and ill thought through.

Oh well, onwards ever onwards I suppose.

This is not a signature.