These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mund Richard
#141 - 2014-04-30 17:02:17 UTC
And now this.

If the passive omni was too OP, and needed to be nerfed to TC levels, and now it's ability to adapt to a new situation is nerfed even further, can it's effectiveness be a bit better in return (and still below the old passive's level)?

Any word on how the work on the sentry information display issue is coming along?

Now that new passive modules are going to be introduced, was changing omnis to active really so important?
Missiles don't have tracking computers and enhancers, why did drone modules have to be made resemble those of guns that much more, if it only breaks things?

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
Brooks Puuntai
Solar Nexus.
#142 - 2014-04-30 18:23:43 UTC
Seems like a short sighted way to fix an issue that obviously doesn't scale well.

Wouldn't just splitting them into 3 different passive mods be a more efficient and scalable option? It would upset the min/max people but give scalability and reduces overall server usage.

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden
Valterra Craven
#143 - 2014-05-01 05:35:08 UTC
So I'm curious.

If a code rewrite on these modules were to happen in the future that would make the server CPU usage go away would these changes be reverted since they aren't for "balance"? If the answer is yes, is a code rewrite/change possible likely in the future ~next year?


As it stands this has drastic consequences on my game play.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#144 - 2014-05-01 05:41:31 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:

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.

"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.
Josef Djugashvilis
#145 - 2014-05-01 07:27:44 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

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.


Jeez, Kaarous, give it a rest already.

You used to be my favourite crazy poster, now you just constantly whine that that game is not hard enough and mean enough, especially anything to do with hi-sec.

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.

This is not a signature.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#146 - 2014-05-01 07:30:00 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:

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.

"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.
Josef Djugashvilis
#147 - 2014-05-01 07:47:31 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:

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.

This is not a signature.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#148 - 2014-05-01 08:16:17 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:

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.


Don't read the twitter, do you?

Remember the part where Fozzie said that so many new subs were being made that a career agent system was in TiDi?

"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.
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#149 - 2014-05-01 08:37:42 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

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.


TBH ... my mission alt rarely changes scripts on my L4 Domi and there have been occasions (because optimal unbonused bouncer range for my Domi is pretty much MJD distance anyway) I have not turned them on and did not notice for a while.

This change will not effect the hull bonused ships like the Ishtar and Domi that much.

I expect it will be rather annoying for people flying Vexors and Prophecies.
Mund Richard
#150 - 2014-05-01 08:57:26 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

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.

Wait a sec...
If I am swapping scripts in my omnis, how am I afk?

If they really wanted to improve server performance by a LOT, they could just let it be passive again.

Oh wait, THEN it would be more afk.

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#151 - 2014-05-01 09:13:11 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

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.

i would say it again: "Do we inconvenience afk L4 dominix gameplay, or do we repair server performance we damaged with recent Omni changes?"

Don't forget: before they made Omnis active server performance wasn't affected by these modules.
So all this 'server performance' stuff is a result of CCP half-thought changes

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

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#152 - 2014-05-01 09:19:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
March rabbit wrote:

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


You do realize I live in a wormhole, right?

And quit with the specious "what ifs", by the way. It so happens that CCP found their culprit, and took the action they deemed necessary. They said it themselves.

And that's the end of it. Whether it effects nullsec, highsec, or the furries down in Molden Heath.

"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.
Josef Djugashvilis
#153 - 2014-05-01 10:03:47 UTC
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.

Also Eve Online 101 for you.

I run missions, usually in hi-sec, sometimes in lo-sec so that I can afford my pvp in small gang roams in lo-sec.

To make it even easier for you, I need to make isk (mission running) so that I can afford to lose it in pvp.

Level 4 missions in an afk Dominix? do try keep up dear.

CCP created a lag issue by changing omni's, to which they then had to find a solution to the issue they created in the first place.

This is not a signature.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#154 - 2014-05-01 10:49:22 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
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.



Logins are not subs, dummkopf. As for new players, here you go:

https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie/status/430052471252070400

Dispute that, or not, as you please. All of us already know that carebears are entitled to, among other things, their own facts.

"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.
Josef Djugashvilis
#155 - 2014-05-01 11:51:22 UTC
So, you consider new players who do not log in to be a good thing?

Or are the new players logging in and the older players not logging in?

I think we should be told.

A carebear is someone who spends the vast majority of his playtime in lo-sec pvp?

We all know that Eve Online pixel hard-men are entitled to, among other things, their own facts.

You bore me, so I shall ignore you for a while.

Take care.

This is not a signature.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#156 - 2014-05-01 12:54:22 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
March rabbit wrote:

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


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'

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#157 - 2014-05-01 13:05:55 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
March rabbit wrote:

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


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'


It's funny how you think someone has to have an ulterior motive. That I can't be posting in approval of this in honesty.

But then there is that old adage about how a thief will always be able to believe that another man will steal.

"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.