These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sturmwolke
#61 - 2014-04-28 19:03:24 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:

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.
Victor Andall
#62 - 2014-04-28 19:05:11 UTC
Sturmwolke wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:

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.


Fighters?

I just undocked for the first time and someone challenged me to a duel. Wat do?

19.08.2014 - Dinsdale gets slammed by CCP Falcon. Never forget.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#63 - 2014-04-28 20:01:35 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
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?


Also agreeing here... if every cycle of an omnidirectional causes an update to each drone I'm fielding, it sounds to me like making these scripted and cycling modules was a poor choice for the hamsters' sake - especially now that it takes multiple omnis on one ship to do what they use to do.


I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#64 - 2014-04-28 20:13:21 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
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?



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

☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Josef Djugashvilis
#65 - 2014-04-28 20:27:08 UTC
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.

This is not a signature.
stoicfaux
#66 - 2014-04-28 20:34:35 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
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.

If you live in Iceland, you do what the Volcano gods tell you to do.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Last Wolf
Umbra Wing
#67 - 2014-04-28 20:39:08 UTC
At least let us switch scripts without turning off the mod, and it automatically take affect the next cycle.

That awkward moment at the Gentlemen's Club when you see your sister on the stage....and you're not sure where to put the money....
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2014-04-28 20:42:10 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.

to use this argument you need to provide evidences that nodes used to die because of this module before

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2014-04-28 20:55:36 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
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?



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


actually "server performance" sounds like ":reasons:" if you don't add any details

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
CCP Explorer
C C P
C C P Alliance
#70 - 2014-04-28 22:19:35 UTC
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.

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Senior Development Director | EVE Online // CCP Games | @CCP_Explorer
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#71 - 2014-04-28 22:30:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Hasikan Miallok
Vyktor Abyss wrote:
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?



You are likely to get two passive modules ... one like the range scripted omni and one like the tracking scripted omni. Not a happy situation.

In reality for the majority of PvE people that tend to fly a Ishtar or Dominix with 3 or sometimes 4 omnis, the work-around is stagger your omnis so they cycle at different times. That way when you want to swap out three range scripted omnis for three tracking scripted omnis you can change one every ten seconds.

Still sux for people with just the one omni though.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#72 - 2014-04-28 22:58:07 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
We made this change because of server performance.

Could you make it so when I turn off a omni, it turns off right away rather than at the end of the 30 second cycle? That way you get your server performance boost from the long cycle time, and we get to control our ships.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#73 - 2014-04-28 23:32:26 UTC
Maaaaaaaaaaaan this thread pretty much confirms Dinsdale is actually just a very high effort troll. I honestly thought he believed that ****.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#74 - 2014-04-28 23:54:32 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Maaaaaaaaaaaan this thread pretty much confirms Dinsdale is actually just a very high effort troll. I honestly thought he believed that ****.


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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#75 - 2014-04-29 00:00:17 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.


Yeah, having friends is so overpowered.

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".

"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.
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#76 - 2014-04-29 00:06:36 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Maaaaaaaaaaaan this thread pretty much confirms Dinsdale is actually just a very high effort troll. I honestly thought he believed that ****.


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.


If World War 3 starts because of the Ukraine situation you will blame the Eve Online "null sec cartels".

Dinsdale, you either have a aneurysm the size of a bowling ball inside your brain, or you are a mentally ******** person.

The Tears Must Flow
Markku Laaksonen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#77 - 2014-04-29 00:06:43 UTC
10s mods really are a strain on the server, as evidenced by several graphs I could whip up in MS Paint, but won't. All modules need at least a 30s cycle time.

:roll:

DUST 514 Recruit Code - https://dust514.com/recruit/zluCyb/

EVE Buddy Invite - https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=047203f1-4124-42a1-b36f-39ca8ae5d6e2&action=buddy
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#78 - 2014-04-29 00:18:50 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Maaaaaaaaaaaan this thread pretty much confirms Dinsdale is actually just a very high effort troll. I honestly thought he believed that ****.


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.


Yeah, see this is what I mean. You're talking in circles to try to get away from your comment that this is a change (presumably asked for by the all powerful cartels) directed specifically at highsec and intended to be a nerf.
You don't believe that, because only someone with an actual mental impairment can get so stuck in a cycle that everything has to be about their pet bugbear.

You bit too hard on this one, and in doing so have revealed the Dinsdale persona as a troll. You had a good run, though.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#79 - 2014-04-29 00:22:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Hasikan Miallok
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


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".


The simplest solution would be to have additional attacks on the same target have some form of stacking, probably by having each attack add a small level of "resistance" to that attacks type of effect for a very short time (1 server tick?). Of course this would not help with server load as it introduces load of its own. The other downside of this is it would make alpha much more valuable.

Its what Goblinworks proposed for AoE attacks in pathfinder online https://goblinworks.com/blog/i-fell-into-a-burning-ring-of-fire/
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#80 - 2014-04-29 00:49:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Tauranon
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


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.



Except that the drone carrier line doesn't end at the dominix, and unlike bigger missile boats, carriers field more drones. Unless they make a missile logistics capital, we are stuck with capital logistics being the preserve of drone carriers.