open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Bog: Historical Server CPU Utilization Trend
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Darth Vapour
Posted - 2010.11.16 19:19:00 - [31]
 

How does the drop in CPU per user compare to the drop in active subscriptions in Q3 2010 as can be seen in the QEN report published a few weeks ago ?

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2010.11.16 19:28:00 - [32]
 

Is there a version of the Drakes Killed in Nullsec graph with Wormhole Space kills excluded? Smile

Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente
The Crane Family
Posted - 2010.11.16 19:31:00 - [33]
 

Encouraging graph (well, the first one). It's clear that the pooling of resources into a specific task-force to attack lag is slowly bearing fruit. Although I understand that from a managerial point of view, employee mobility and adaptability has it's advantages, for specific and hard problems like this, that organisational model is just not as effective as a dedicated and specialist team. I hope the progress made thus far, partially reflected in the graph, supports this case.

As for the 'Drake graph', I'd be careful to attach too much importance to it. It's easy to end up in a race-condition that way. Nerf the Drake and the Hurricane will take it's place as the blobbing ship in 0.0. Nerf the Hurricane and in turn another ship will take it's place. Etc.

The underlying problem is not necessarily the ship used and it's CPU utilisation. That's just a symptom of the fact that the Drake, and several other ships like it, are well suited for the blobbing warfare becoming more and more prevalent within EVE. I'm quite sure that you'll find a correlation between the latter trend and the use of several of these ships. Nerfing these ships may hide or move the symptoms, but what's called for is not nerfing a ship against another, or even a technological solution, but a design decision.

Although polishing code based on profiling is always a good idea, at least an equivalent effort should be made to bringing emergent pressure to bear in the design of the game to spread out player utilisation across the cluster and to diminish topical utilisation hotspots (i.e. blobbing).

Korerin Mayul
Amarr
Posted - 2010.11.16 20:09:00 - [34]
 

yay! graphs :D

Xituqtra
Posted - 2010.11.16 20:10:00 - [35]
 

Second page
IBC
Cool graphs
nice info

in total a great blog :P

CCP Veritas

Posted - 2010.11.16 20:38:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
The underlying problem is not necessarily the ship used and it's CPU utilisation.


I agree with you, but my point in showing that graph isn't that fixing missiles will fix lag, it's that making them performant should help reverse some of the degradation we've seen in large fleet engagements around Dominion-launch-time. They really are quite exceptionally worse than guns, in ways that I'm quite certain would offend your sensibilities.

I'm well aware that all the optimizations we're doing at this point are, in the limit, futile, since we always allow/encourage players to bring one more ship. Since I don't know when/if that's going to change, I'll keep aiming down the path of supporting the current design as best we can.

Lili Lu
Posted - 2010.11.16 20:47:00 - [37]
 

It will be great if you can reduce the cpu load of missiles. Missiles may cause "cpu load" problem, but they have a place in the game. Missiles are not the "balance" problem imo.

It is the Drake itself. Don't lose your stated resolve to "nerf" the Drake. That one ship is far and away the best option for so much pve and pvp, that so many recognize it, and that so many use it, tells you that something is out of balance with it. I belive it has always been out of balance, it just took the lopsided use of it in fleet battles for you to wake up and realize it. The combination of a resist bonus and a damage bonus in one ship, the fact that the buffer tank mods do not conflict with the damage mods, and the out of balance stat you gave to BC shield regen (primarilly for pve, but for pvp it is useful to a lesser extent in lagged battles because the regen will perform fine even though the opposition is slowly manually cycling weapons) make this ship so much more useful that other ships in its class and the class higher (BSs).

Please reevaluate the bonuses the Drake receives, and the base 1400 sec regen for all BCs. It is still too close to that of a cruiser at 1250 sec. It is a shame to see the ridiculous better passive shield tanks you can get on other "armor tanking" BCs because you have the stat set wrong.

Someone earlier itt said that if you nerf the Drake then Hurricanes will just take their place. This is untrue. Hurricanes do not get a tanking bonus. Hurricanes get a damage bonus, and another secondary bonus (rof) that either aids short range damage directly, or simply removes a drawback of the long range arty (the very slow rof). The Hurricanes damage and range mods directly compete with armor tanking mods, and if shield tanked it does not have 6 mid slots for that shield tank. An attempt to replicate the Drake fleet supremacy with a Hurricane fleet for large fleet battles would be a laugh. Battleships would wipe the floor with them, as they should.

I think what your graph may show is that the Drake was at first considered only useful for pve, while sniper BSs reigned on the battlefield. You may want to look at the changes you made to probing (and how that can now be done on the battlefield to negate range advantages), tracking computers/enhancers, sensor booster scripts, ew ships range and strength, and other factors in BS gun usage, to explain the rise of the Drake. Once midrange or closerange became preferable in fleet fights (or long-range no longer possible to maintain) it didn't take long for people to realize a BC that can sport a BS sized tank, hit for full damage (even if not as spectacular as the theoretical max damage a close range turret BS could get) at 70km, and be replaced for a far cheaper price, was the better option.

It would be a shame if you peg your changes solely on cpu performance of missiles, and neglect to address the ship balancing. Missiles are a legitimate and welcome weapon system in the game. When massed they can perform in pvp, which is a good thing, despite the common complaint about delayed damage. To find an independent way to reduce their CPU load would be great. To also assist the use of other Caldari and Gallente ships though some buff to hybrid turrets would also be a good thing for those pilots and the game balance. However, such changes alone would still leave the game with a Drake use imbalance.

Meiyang Lee
Gallente
Azteca Transportation Unlimited
Gunboat Diplomacy
Posted - 2010.11.16 20:51:00 - [38]
 

Edited by: Meiyang Lee on 16/11/2010 20:57:41
Edited by: Meiyang Lee on 16/11/2010 20:52:46
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
Encouraging graph (well, the first one). It's clear that the pooling of resources into a specific task-force to attack lag is slowly bearing fruit. Although I understand that from a managerial point of view, employee mobility and adaptability has it's advantages, for specific and hard problems like this, that organisational model is just not as effective as a dedicated and specialist team. I hope the progress made thus far, partially reflected in the graph, supports this case.

As for the 'Drake graph', I'd be careful to attach too much importance to it. It's easy to end up in a race-condition that way. Nerf the Drake and the Hurricane will take it's place as the blobbing ship in 0.0. Nerf the Hurricane and in turn another ship will take it's place. Etc.

The underlying problem is not necessarily the ship used and it's CPU utilisation. That's just a symptom of the fact that the Drake, and several other ships like it, are well suited for the blobbing warfare becoming more and more prevalent within EVE. I'm quite sure that you'll find a correlation between the latter trend and the use of several of these ships. Nerfing these ships may hide or move the symptoms, but what's called for is not nerfing a ship against another, or even a technological solution, but a design decision.

Although polishing code based on profiling is always a good idea, at least an equivalent effort should be made to bringing emergent pressure to bear in the design of the game to spread out player utilisation across the cluster and to diminish topical utilisation hotspots (i.e. blobbing).


The trouble isn't really the drake as such, it's the fact that every single missile fired in a fight is an entity, TQ needs to track every single one to it's target before resolving damage.

This basically makes every missile fired count in a similar fashion to an additional ship in the fight. Imagine a 500v500 fight with drakes, each side is spawning 3500 additional "ship entities" every firing cycle, not even counting drones (another potential 2500 entities).
That is what messes up TQ if I understood the dev explanation correctly (not sure where I read it though).
What they hope to do (and have done to Fighter-Bomber missiles as a temp fix) is turn them into virtual missiles. That basically takes the entity spawning step out of the loop for all missiles. Freeing up quite a bit of CPU on a node since there are far fewer entities to track in a given fight.

Deviana Sevidon
Gallente
Panta-Rhei
Butterfly Effect Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.16 21:00:00 - [39]
 

Active tanking in PvP stopped to a long time ago to be a viable alternative, so it was either pure damage or buffer tank. With more and more Titans appearing in the boosts to buffer tanks, the pure damage setup also fell mostly out of favor. After that happened the race was only between speed/blob and buffer/RR/blob.

It is not surprising that so many use the drake, buffer-armor tanks have the massive disadvantage of speed and mobility, so they are only viable if you have massive amounts of RR. Shield tanks are more forgiving, many player hardly notice the sig-radius increase and the fact that these shields have high amount of passive regeneration on top of their buffer also helps.

The problem is not the drake but passive tanking and especially shield tanking in general. It simply encouraging blobbing too much and brought to eve the cycle of ever increasing blobs. Blobs that the hardware cannot support. Even if CCPs makes drastic improvements to the hardware, the blobs would just increase again to the point where the hardware is again unable to support fleet battles.

Playing Eve
Posted - 2010.11.16 21:16:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: Playing Eve on 16/11/2010 21:16:20
Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Hentes Zsemle
Am i the only one to notice that CCP's biggest accomplishment with reducing server load was banning macros?
Yes, you are, and the arrow on the graph pointing to "Unholy Rage" is purely coincidental.


I believe Hentes was trying to say that more effort spent on banning more botters may have more overall effect than searching down load issues in code. While I don't like bots, I don't necessarily agree that it is a better use of CCP dev time.

Zendoren
Aktaeon Industries
The Black Armada
Posted - 2010.11.16 21:45:00 - [41]
 

WOOT, it feels like there is a DevBlog a week! Awesome!

I love it, keep up the pace.

If you run out of EVE topics to talk about in devBlogs, I'm sure the readers wouldn't mind devBlogs about Iceland or a "Who am I" blog about your dev staff once in a while! =P

Just keep up the single devBlog a day pace and I will be happy!

Thebro Nobrunder
Schrodinger's Renegades
Posted - 2010.11.16 21:52:00 - [42]
 

On the bright side there IS a way to win against lag.

When we can have a fleet fight with the entire online population of the server without lag... then lag is officially dead and the one more ship problem goes away. Laughing

Bleu Blob
Posted - 2010.11.16 22:40:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: Bleu Blob on 16/11/2010 22:40:29
Edited by: Bleu Blob on 16/11/2010 22:40:15
CCP Veritas' graphs were pretty sweet and all but I just gotta say that CCP Creber Cattus graphs' are the best graphs of all time...

(Linkage for those that dont remember...)

haav0c
Posted - 2010.11.16 23:14:00 - [44]
 

let's all laugh at the people who thought you were nerfing drake to improve server load.

Blazde
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.11.17 00:14:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: CCP Veritas
I'm well aware that all the optimizations we're doing at this point are, in the limit, futile, since we always allow/encourage players to bring one more ship. Since I don't know when/if that's going to change, I'll keep aiming down the path of supporting the current design as best we can.

It's a popular argument but I really don't think the number of pilots the biggest coalitions are capable of bringing is increased by reducing server lag. The problem is just that what the nodes can handle has been well below what the coalitions can field for a very long time.

On the contrary it's when battles grind to a halt in lag that the numbers keep rising because more people come online, we keep pushing numbers into the system to try to win the fight, and yet hardly anyone is dying and leaving the system. That can go on for hours and with not much happening in the battle you spend all you time contacting offline people urging them to login and help swing the result. When you get a proper lagless battle it's over before reinforcements can arrive, or at the very least those reinforcements do nothing more than replace dead people leaving the fight.

The worst case scenario is when one side is heavily entrenched in a system early leading up to an important timer. This happened in LXQ. It also happened in M-O in late 2008 which was another big system record. Because the other side knows they will face extreme lag when they jump in they can't send fleets in early to harass, reduce numbers and spread out the fighting, but it's important enough they have to try at some point. So both sides build numbers up to the moment of the timer. The assaulting side never wants to blow their load early because of their disadvantage (caused by lag) and the possibility that waiting a bit longer might get them more (and relatively better) numbers. Come the timer they have no choice but to roll the dice, and then all fleets clash at once. The mentality of a lot of players at that point is 'fk I waited x hours already I'm going to see this through'.

In similiar situations without lag the fighting can rage for 6-8+ hours leading up to the timer, swing both ways in a long running battle of attrition without numbers ever getting too extreme, and often the result can be decided hours before the timer finishes when one side lacks the ships and morale to continue. Then you don't get the huge showdowns.

Miriam Letisse
Posted - 2010.11.17 00:14:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Playing Eve


I believe Hentes was trying to say that more effort spent on banning more botters may have more overall effect than searching down load issues in code. While I don't like bots, I don't necessarily agree that it is a better use of CCP dev time.


It all comes down to who's doing the banning though, I expect that it would be GM's rather than devs doing the banning work.

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2010.11.17 00:59:00 - [47]
 

If you're gonna swing the nerf bat at Drakes do it now before I decide to buy new ones Razz

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2010.11.17 03:32:00 - [48]
 

Any news/updates on the one-grid-per-node-thingy by Team Gridlock?
Or how about the actual status of how much processes are running per node?

HeliosGal
Caldari
Posted - 2010.11.17 06:09:00 - [49]
 

so reduce lag nerf drakes

Marchocias
Posted - 2010.11.17 06:43:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
It's easy to end up in a race-condition that way.


Some good discussion dude, but I don't think "race condition" means what you think it means. I reckon you mean arms-race.

Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
Posted - 2010.11.17 07:26:00 - [51]
 

Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 17/11/2010 07:27:59
Originally by: Lili Lu
Baseless blabbering about Drakes


Yeah, sure. You are an expert on Drakes right? The biggest experts don't ever fly ships they criticize.Rolling Eyes

Drake is the only Caldari BC that uses missiles (unlike Amarr or Minmatar that use their primary weapon type on both BCs). Drake can't active tank (unlike Amarr or Minmatar BC's). Unlike you, who are crosstrained between Amarr and Minmatar, Caldari missile pilots do not have a choice which ships they are going to fly - 1 cruiser, 1 BC, 1 BS, 1 HAC (if you can call it that way... don't know what "Heavy" stands for in Cerberus's name anyway). Having a large percent of players in game in Caldari race and missile trained, you are basically asking that they nerf the only good thing that Drake have - its tank (which is btw not anywhere near Cyclone's active tank in 1v1... but who cares, right?Rolling Eyes)


Noun Verber
Gallente
Posted - 2010.11.17 08:29:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: CCP Atlas
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: Erebus Adrastos
I'm a little confused on how the number of drakes kill in null-sec is represented as a percentage. Percentage of what?


Atlas can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's a percentage of nullsec ships killed.


Yes, percentage of total number of ships killed in nullsec PvP.

If the percentage is rising, then clearly Drakes need a buff because they are so bad.

Siiee
Recycled Heroes
Posted - 2010.11.17 08:43:00 - [53]
 

Dev comments from the CSM Summit included for context
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1011/CPUGraph.png

Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2010.11.17 10:32:00 - [54]
 

Great blog! Really good stuff, thanks.

But I am confused by the many little spikes in the first graph. Why are there so many little spikes?

Why is the CPU per User going up noticable, just to go down a few day(s) later again? I would have expected the CPU per user being pretty continuous.

Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.17 11:19:00 - [55]
 

please reckon that there are several bugs or lag sources that are not tracable by an overall average of CPU usage.

1.) Session-Change Lag
This has had a really huuuuuuuge impact on PvP.
Alliances were not willing to risk capitals by cynoing them onto something. Although i believe this lag source is addressed pretty well with recent fixes by gridlock team, but its still in the mind of FCs

2.) Grid-Load Lag
Fixed prior Dominion

3.) Module Stuck
to my understanding this is not related to CPU usage per se but to the way the requests are handeled. Currently we have the absurd situation that people are using ungrouped unrepeated weapons to fight under high lag conditions. Ironically grouping was implemented to reduce lag, but apparently its the worst option to use in lag. Auto-repeat could also be used to reduce lag because unless the client gives a new command and the ammo supply is OK, the server could do damage calculations without server-client communication. Apparently this is not the case and modules get stuck.

Unpeaseant game play is mostly not caused by a large delay in responsivity but by modules getting stuck or exceptional long delay for certain actions such as relogging or unstucking modules. I am fine with modules taking 30+ secs to react in a system with 1500+ people but i hate being blackscreened for 20+ minutes or unstucking modules every 5 minutes while i still can align, move or warp

StuRyan
Posted - 2010.11.17 14:15:00 - [56]
 

Awesomeness comes to a new meaning.

Thanks for the efforts. We've finally (more a less a year) got some information....

So my two cents say if your going out in big fleet battles - power down the drakes and missiles.... Interesting point though, what is the CPU usage on Drones, lasers and visual effects such as hardeners? (Now i know why the Cap jump visual was replaced!)

Does this mean that all the neat visual things you keep coming out with are kinda "biting you" in the ass?

Mana Sanqua
Posted - 2010.11.17 14:53:00 - [57]
 

You could fix defender missiles, then that graph would start reversing...

Just saying.

Hentes Zsemle
Posted - 2010.11.17 15:01:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Miriam Letisse
Originally by: Playing Eve


I believe Hentes was trying to say that more effort spent on banning more botters may have more overall effect than searching down load issues in code. While I don't like bots, I don't necessarily agree that it is a better use of CCP dev time.


It all comes down to who's doing the banning though, I expect that it would be GM's rather than devs doing the banning work.


I just wanted to point out with my fail troll that i want the macros banned, becouse i belive its for the best and much better effort/gain than polishing the game's code. It's not a decision between the two actions, both of them should be done. If CCP doesn't have the manpower for it, they should hire more people.

Lili Lu
Posted - 2010.11.17 15:22:00 - [59]
 

Edited by: Lili Lu on 17/11/2010 15:33:01
Edited by: Lili Lu on 17/11/2010 15:32:19
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 17/11/2010 07:27:59
Originally by: Lili Lu
Baseless blabbering about Drakes


Yeah, sure. You are an expert on Drakes right? The biggest experts don't ever fly ships they criticize.Rolling Eyes

Drake is the only Caldari BC that uses missiles (unlike Amarr or Minmatar that use their primary weapon type on both BCs). Drake can't active tank (unlike Amarr or Minmatar BC's). Unlike you, who are crosstrained between Amarr and Minmatar, Caldari missile pilots do not have a choice which ships they are going to fly - 1 cruiser, 1 BC, 1 BS, 1 HAC (if you can call it that way... don't know what "Heavy" stands for in Cerberus's name anyway). Having a large percent of players in game in Caldari race and missile trained, you are basically asking that they nerf the only good thing that Drake have - its tank (which is btw not anywhere near Cyclone's active tank in 1v1... but who cares, right?Rolling Eyes)




Yes, you are so correct.Rolling Eyes Of course, I couldn't possibly have two other characters, both of which can fly Drakes. And, one of which flies a Nighthawk as well. And, you say that a Drake "can't active tank." You are wrong. Any ship can active tank, it's just why would one do it and have to worry about cap when one can just fit a far more powerful passive tank in pve, or a more practical buffer tank in pvp. And, yeah go ahead and complain about the plague of killer active-tanked Cyclones in the ubiquitous and scroupulously honored 1v1s in the game.Laughing Btw, are you aware of the prevalence of cap warfare and it being another knock against active tanking and in favor of buffer or passive tanking?

Lastly, if you are only going to train one race, and even worse, weapon type good luck with that. I've said many times in my forum posts - If you want to avoid real or imagined disadvantage in this game you should train at least two races (and their accompanying 2 weapons types, which may overlap with the other race anyway). I have as you note Lili flying Minmatar and Amarr. I have another main flying Gallente and Caldari. Both of these mains can armor or shield tank, use the guns of those races and have tech II missiles trained as well. I have a third main that is in the perilous position you mentioned because it only flies Caldari and the gunnery skills are rather weak. But I will be fixing that character soon to be like the others.

So next time, Sherlock, address arguments and not the person. Because there are many hidden aspects to any "character" on these forums. It is the interwebs afterall.Wink

edit- btw, here is your page. http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=298754&view=ships_weapons Wow, that's a lot of Drakes.Shocked At least you could fall back on Gallente, maybe, if your beloved Drake were to no longer be the ship of choice for fleet fights? Neutral (excluding that you may have more experience with all the races due to other accounts? Razz)

Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.11.17 16:07:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Lili Lu
Stuff.




Me thinks someones sitting on 2,000 drakes...


Pages: 1 [2] 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only