|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 04:25:00 -
[1]
no.. grow up and get out.
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 04:26:00 -
[2]
adapt or die
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 04:26:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Lana Torrin on 21/08/2009 04:26:51 pirate tears are best tears.
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 04:40:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Lexa Hellfury In Before Lana Gets Banned.
Because we all know how well that worked last time..
I'm getting pretty ****ed off with the supposedly hard core PvPers complaining about every little thing that gets changed. waa waa waa the dscanner is dead.. waa waa waa dust is going to kill sov.. waa waa waa i want my nano ishtar back... seriously, more tears than carebears.
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 04:56:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Liitar
Originally by: Lana Torrin
Originally by: Lexa Hellfury In Before Lana Gets Banned.
Because we all know how well that worked last time..
I'm getting pretty ****ed off with the supposedly hard core PvPers complaining about every little thing that gets changed. waa waa waa the dscanner is dead.. waa waa waa dust is going to kill sov.. waa waa waa i want my nano ishtar back... seriously, more tears than carebears.
You know, for a female impersonator you are doing an AWESOME job
wtf is that supposed to mean?!
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 05:12:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Omara Otawan waa waa waa waa waa
That's what I read anyway...
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 05:23:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Omara Otawan Forum pvp, how cute. Now gtfo.
Im sorry? what? You come in here and clame that a 2 second delay between scans effectively stops you from pvping all together, I accuse you of crying a ****ing river about it and im the one that has to get out?
I think my level of childishness over this is actually less than the crybabies that have decided that this is the worst thing that has ever been done to the game. Oh no! I have to wait 6 or 8 seconds before confirming someone is at a planet/belt and then warp to it!
If adding 6 or 8 seconds to your scan time is missing you targets then you fail it piracy. If your not talking about piracy and are in fact talking about uber 0.0 pvp, then go back to CAOD and stop polluting these forums with your whiny crybaby **** posting.
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 05:29:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Omara Otawan Edited by: Omara Otawan on 21/08/2009 05:26:57
Originally by: Lana Torrin
stuff
You obviously are a terrible scout / pirate. For those that are not exclusively hunting the unaware targets:
Linkage
Just stop posting before you make your self look even stupider.
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 05:38:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Jesslyn Daggererux
still not that bad. how many times have they tried to get rid of wrecks and cans? you can still use probes, and without having to warp. you will do that thing...i cant remember. what was it called? changing to meet your surroundings. addendum...amend...adapt? YES! thats it, you will adapt. or not do it anymore. just because something was one way does not mean it was right, fair, or the way it should always be. did i like the old spammy lazy directional? hell yea. but i wont cry over it being changed, i will just learn to change with it and make the best of it.
Jesslyn.. Next time I troll you, link this post and I'll retract my troll..
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 05:48:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer Ok now...
they removed 6200 ISK farmer accounts (Unholy Rage) and the load dropped 32 percent!
This is because certain bot programs rely on local and others on scanner.
All those bots spamming the scan button is hard on the servers.
And players like King Rothgar who can instabookmark battleships can put probes in on such short duration that you have to spam that scan button.
This is also hard on the server.
The 2 second delay or "window" is to control the load. Nobody can drop probes on a target, get a warpable hit, and retract probes that fast. I think 6 seconds is the best time according to various threads on that topic.
So let's not act like a bunch of old ladies in need of a tube of Vagisil over this one.
You've been reading my posts in the official 'cry about our changes' thread haven't you? I agree with you 120%.. In fact I agree with this change SO MUCH I'm surprised it was ever NOT like this.. I believe that CCP has done the game an AMAZING SERVICE by limiting this feature. (anyone, and I mean ANYONE that has tried to PvP in a system thats on the same node as 150 bots that spam scan every 0.3 seconds will agree with me)
|
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 06:10:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Thorvik In before Lana whines a 10th time.
Honestly, I they want to cut lag then eliminate 'Local' channel in 0.0 and make it like W-space. I'm almost certain that this would not only improve lag, but make 0.0 a little better for all.
I highly doubt that the local channel puts much load on the servers at all.. Although cutting it for 0.0 would be great I agree. (and it would counteract this 2 second timer quite nicely as well as you wouldn't be showing up in local so you would have a chance to still catch someone).
I would like to think that im providing a constructive counter argument to the well thought out and presented arguments of the people going 'zomg its going to kill eve!' but i know im not.. Its a relativity minor change that has resulted in some people needing to adjust how they do something that will benefit everyone in the long run.. I would have personally thought that cutting the cargo bay size is carriers and JUMP FREIGHTERS would have generated a lot more crying that this. Seriously, I understand the argument for cutting carriers cargo bay size (we never intended for them to be used as logistics like they are) but jump freighters?! If anything they need a BIGGER cargo hold...
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 06:36:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Artemis Rose Tears or not, it would be AMAZING if CCP actually disclosed the impact of scanning spamming.
I'm emo just like the rest of them, but just to slap a "server load issue" without backing it up with ANYTHING is a bit, meh.
You have been reading my other posts havent you!
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 06:48:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Zaphod Beeblebrox42
then it is total bs.
As you are new I will be kind.. Siigari is doing what Siigari does best, grabbing the wrong end of the stick and running with it. There is an easy fix for this issue as the reasons for it were basically spelled out in a devblog (the flag for 'decloaking' got its meaning slightly changed so it triggers at the start of a decloak and not the end, the d-scanner is obviously still using the old meaning so its showing a ship that is 'decloaking' and not 'decloaked' like it thinks it is). Restricting the dscanner was not implemented to fix this issue.
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 06:50:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Lana Torrin on 21/08/2009 06:53:46
Originally by: Artemis Rose
Originally by: Lana Torrin
Originally by: Artemis Rose Tears or not, it would be AMAZING if CCP actually disclosed the impact of scanning spamming.
I'm emo just like the rest of them, but just to slap a "server load issue" without backing it up with ANYTHING is a bit, meh.
You have been reading my other posts havent you!
I've been butthurt over it before your post!
ok, i'll let you off.. your not stalking me Good to see we both agree on something.
Edit: you know thats only like 30 mins before my post..
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 06:59:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Artemis Rose
Wait, did you steal my idea
EEEMMMMOORRAAAAGGGEEE
Damn.. your on to me! *hides*
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.21 07:44:00 -
[16]
Originally by: SDragoon The problem is with fast ships, such as covops and inties which warp at 13.5 AU/s. 2 second delay for scan means a 27 AU distance between the best possible scan locations. With the scan range being 14.4 AU I see a slight problem......
I refer to me second post... Adapt or die..
Spamscanning in fast ship is dead. Get used to it and stop crying. The covops in particular has a better way of scanning anyway..
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.22 09:57:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Tauranon A database would simply NOT keep up with it.
I agree with everything you have said and you are probably correct.. But I do think you have underestimated the speed of ramsans.. (we investigated them where I work for storage, and immediately discounted them based on cost, but the figures they produced were unbelievable fast)
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.22 10:58:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Tauranon
Originally by: Lana Torrin
Originally by: Tauranon A database would simply NOT keep up with it.
I agree with everything you have said and you are probably correct.. But I do think you have underestimated the speed of ramsans.. (we investigated them where I work for storage, and immediately discounted them based on cost, but the figures they produced were unbelievable fast)
Impressive speed of hardware notwithstanding, I don't think I'm underestimating the true scale of the problem...
SQL databases just don't do spatial queries well, and the database transaction benchmarks just don't translate to spatial problems well. Spatial problems have much bigger read and calculate sets than transaction benchmarks anticipate, and a spatial set with as many moving ships as EVE would make an incoherent mess of any database caching scheme, even the specific geo-locational type database extensions.
I was up with you until... well i started reading actually....
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.23 01:06:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Omara Otawan
CCP doesnt use RAMSANs as far as I know
Good job you qualified that.
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.23 01:26:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Lana Torrin on 23/08/2009 01:30:52
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: Lana Torrin
Originally by: Omara Otawan
CCP doesnt use RAMSANs as far as I know
Good job you qualified that.
Nice, didnt know that.
Doesnt change anything about cpu load being the bottleneck, and not storage though.
Totally depends on what they do however.. Given that the backend code for the game gos back a few years it is quite feasible that everything is stored in the database and updated as the node updates rather than being stored in the nodes ram and only updates when jumping out of system.. I'd say given the load figures in that devblog its more likely the case that the DB is kept up to date with all the data and the node keeps asking it for everything it needs when it needs it.
Either way, it doesn't matter as the end result to the user is huge lag..
Edit: What would be the best way to do the scan would be to send all static and semi static (ie POS and anchored objects) to the client when it jumps in to the system and then you are cutting down the amount of stuff the backend has to check for. It means that when you hit scan your client sends the request for non static object to the server and does the scan on the static stuff at your end, then combines the results. This would mean if someone anchors something in a system (or removes something) you have to update all clients in the system, but its not like thats going to use up too much bandwidth.
|
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.23 01:54:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Lana Torrin on 23/08/2009 01:54:04
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Edit: the figures in the devblog are pretty obviously indicating its not done, unless they forgot a few zero's there.
If you read them correctly then sure! If you misread them twice as accesses per ms then its a totally different story...
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: Lana Torrin
Edit: What would be the best way to do the scan would be to send all static and semi static (ie POS and anchored objects) to the client when it jumps in to the system and then you are cutting down the amount of stuff the backend has to check for.
I'm pretty sure that is done already this way.
I'm pretty sure that the client isn't trusted enough with that data.. I'm also sure im never going to find out and im going to stop speculating on how its done now.
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.23 08:53:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Raimo 2 seconds is too much.
I THINK the issue most people are having is that when you adjust the angle it triggers a scan, so if you change the angle and then change you mind and immediately change it again (or do what I do and change the angle and then line it up) you get hit with the 2 second warning..
Changing the angle shouldn't trigger a scan. Problem solved.
|
Lana Torrin
Minmatar Republic Military Skool
|
Posted - 2009.08.23 09:15:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Omara Otawan Edited by: Omara Otawan on 23/08/2009 09:14:17
Originally by: Lana Torrin
Originally by: Raimo 2 seconds is too much.
I THINK the issue most people are having is that when you adjust the angle it triggers a scan, so if you change the angle and then change you mind and immediately change it again (or do what I do and change the angle and then line it up) you get hit with the 2 second warning..
Changing the angle shouldn't trigger a scan. Problem solved.
Hmm, I think you are onto something there.
If the scanner would actually take a full snapshot every time you scan, and would simply update the changed angle / direction on that snapshot without doing a real new scan when you hit the next scan too early, that would make it work.
Would enable us to narrow stuff down quick again, downside it would mean a bit of redesign to the whole process.
Still, I think adjusting the delay to .5 seconds would do, no need to spam it like a monkey, all you need is 2 scans per seconds and even the really quick people would be ok with it, even .7 seconds maybe, but not more.
Please see my features and ideas post, which i wont link because otherwise that would be cross posting and i don't want to cop another ban just yet.
I think i'd like if you added what you just said to that
|
|
|
|