Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 107
  1. #1
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,861

    Default The Net Effect of Less Effects

    Looking at the L forums I see that SSG answer to our lag problems is going to be chopping the legs off of the player effects. I don't have the time or desire to review eventually what will happen to my effects based toons. I don't expect SSG to remotely figure out how to rebalance the affected effects to be useful. They will touch those that people raise the most complaints over, and others will just get thrown into the useless bucket because even I'd have no interest in a full inventorying of all effects and trying to rebalance them. It is going to be a nightmare for those of us who don't have time to myopically pay attention to game changes.

    The solution of trying to permanently prevent effects from reaching a certain volume (which they are well above the target volume) is essentially putting a huge cap on the behavior of the game. That fact that that cap is way below currently game behavior is going to be like asking NASCAR drivers to re-tune their governors and race around the track at highway speeds.

    I don't know why SSG is not actually figuring out how to finally raise the ceiling on their throughput issues one final time, and then make sure in future development effects don't get beyond that. Ok, great, they figured out the effect queue is a major issue. That's great (let's put aside how many years it took them to finally figure that out). Now, fix the obvious scalability issues by, I don't know, making things that should be scalable, scale. Obvious is obvious.

    Don't ask players not to require effect process scaling that they are already doing. Push the processor capacity ceiling up above existing players, decouple effect processing for raids from stripping the other instances of their resources, and then once the ceiling is raised, actually pay attention to how future updates consume effects processor resources.

    But, if the goal is, "play less DDO", congratulations SSG, you're doing a bang up job.
    Last edited by myliftkk_v2; 04-14-2021 at 10:08 AM.

  2. #2
    Community Member arminius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,416

    Default

    On the one hand, you have masses of players who are saying, "Reduce the lag at all costs, or we'll quit."

    On the other hand, SSG is taking them at their word, and moving forward with it, at all costs.

    It isn't surprising that for some, at least, the "all costs" part turns out to cost too dearly.

    I am willing to wait to see what hits live, and how that gets tweaked in subsequent patches.
    __________________
    Gwyneira : Cattari : Gorobei : Berylore : Zelphia : Aanouk : Beatriice : RobotMaria : Dalrymple : Ainouk : Bearatrice
    Dragonmark Alliance : Fernia : Ghallanda

  3. #3
    Community Member FuzzyDuck81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Berkshire, UK
    Posts
    6,456

    Default

    Another thing that could happen is with proc effects becoming less frequent, to keep them desirable to build for they can potentially be tweaked to be more effective on the occasions that they actually happen - higher DCs, longer durations, greater magnitude (eg. raw damage numbers or more stacks depending on effect). It won't happen straight away though since they'll want to gather more data first, but it's a possibility.
    I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was, now what's it is weird and scary to me.

  4. #4
    Community Member Mercureal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Somewhere that's far too cold right now.
    Posts
    1,365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myliftkk_v2 View Post
    I don't know why SSG is not actually figuring out how to finally raise the ceiling on their throughput issues one final time, and then make sure in future development effects don't get beyond that. Ok, great, they figured out the effect queue is a major issue. That's great (let's put aside how many years it took them to finally figure that out). Now, fix the obvious scalability issues by, I don't know, making things that should be scalable, scale. Obvious is obvious.
    I'm not an IT guy, but I'd guess that increasing the processing capacity of their system would require additional hardware and/or additional engineers to review and optimize the code. And those things need approval for increases in operational or capex budgets - which is maybe not something anyone wants to ask the new owners for, so soon after the purchase?

  5. #5
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,620

    Default

    It's more like if NASCAR kept canceling races because the cars all kept blowing their head gaskets mid race, and they figured out the cars were going faster than a head gasket could take, so they slowed down to what the engines could actually do, so they could finish races.

    Effect throttling is not an arbitrary limit being imposed just as a band aid. It's literally what the problem is...regardless of whether or not you liked it, previous proc rates were not something the game could actually support.

  6. #6
    Community Member SpartanKiller13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Cannith, usually
    Posts
    3,662

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercureal View Post
    I'm not an IT guy, but I'd guess that increasing the processing capacity of their system would require additional hardware and/or additional engineers to review and optimize the code. And those things need approval for increases in operational or capex budgets - which is maybe not something anyone wants to ask the new owners for, so soon after the purchase?
    They've specifically stated the issue isn't hardware. Here's the exact quote, from 4/10/21:

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynnabel View Post
    To be completely clear, the kinds of problems we're trying to solve on the design end are not problems that can be solved by new hardware. We have a robust datacenter, with all of the completely normal industry standard bells and whistles to monitor and observe the metrics of both our baremetal servers and our virtual servers, and all the firewalls and connections and switches and routers that make up DDO as a whole are hooked up to extensive monitoring to prevent and mitigate any potential bottlenecks. If this were as simple as buying more RAM, we'd do it, but it's not, so here we are.
    -Khysiria of Cannith
    Quote Originally Posted by zehnvhex View Post
    Warlock is basically a ghetto Shiradi Sorc. You gives up some of the damage and self sustain for the ability to just hold down left click and yolo blast your way to victory.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynnabel View Post
    It's DDO. There are probably 6 different types of Evil damage.

  7. #7
    Community Member Oxarhamar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    6,490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droid327 View Post
    It's more like if NASCAR kept canceling races because the cars all kept blowing their head gaskets mid race, and they figured out the cars were going faster than a head gasket could take, so they slowed down to what the engines could actually do, so they could finish races.

    Effect throttling is not an arbitrary limit being imposed just as a band aid. It's literally what the problem is...regardless of whether or not you liked it, previous proc rates were not something the game could actually support.

    Proc effects favor high attack speed & double etc because of more chances to proc

    Many procs that have been nerfed could be buffed on a lower proc chance.


    I will hold Judgement until testing

    I think that this could be an improvement let’s see how the lag is affected.

  8. #8
    Community Member Lauf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    757

    Default

    What is happening to this community?
    People being reasonable and moderate on a doom thread...

  9. #9
    Community Member Mercureal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Somewhere that's far too cold right now.
    Posts
    1,365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpartanKiller13 View Post
    They've specifically stated the issue isn't hardware. Here's the exact quote, from 4/10/21:
    That's fine, but I was just responding to the issue raised in the starting post from someone who IS an IT guy - unless you're implying I misinterpreted the meaning of 'raising the ceiling on throughput'? Which is possible, since I'm not an IT person.

  10. #10
    Community Member SpartanKiller13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Cannith, usually
    Posts
    3,662

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercureal View Post
    That's fine, but I was just responding to the issue raised in the starting post from someone who IS an IT guy - unless you're implying I misinterpreted the meaning of 'raising the ceiling on throughput'? Which is possible, since I'm not an IT person.
    I was responding to this line:
    Quote Originally Posted by Mercureal View Post
    I'd guess that increasing the processing capacity of their system would require additional hardware
    And this line:
    Quote Originally Posted by Mercureal View Post
    ...And those things need approval for increases in operational or capex budgets
    With the dev response that 1) it's not a hardware issue issue (per direct quote) and 2) it's not a budget issue (given they'd buy more RAM if that was the issue).

    To address your other point (additional engineers) note that the devs have hired additional employees specifically to work on optimization.

    -----

    I certainly could be misinterpreting you, and I'm also not an IT person (or programmer) past any very basic level; but at least two of the three concerns you mentioned are answered by that dev quote so it definitely seemed relevant.
    -Khysiria of Cannith
    Quote Originally Posted by zehnvhex View Post
    Warlock is basically a ghetto Shiradi Sorc. You gives up some of the damage and self sustain for the ability to just hold down left click and yolo blast your way to victory.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynnabel View Post
    It's DDO. There are probably 6 different types of Evil damage.

  11. #11
    Community Member AbyssalMage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,793

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myliftkk_v2 View Post
    <snip>
    Ok, great, they figured out the effect queue is a major issue. That's great (let's put aside how many years it took them to finally figure that out). Now, fix the obvious scalability issues by, I don't know, making things that should be scalable, scale. Obvious is obvious.
    Oh please no! They have ruined Run Speed, False Life, Fortification, Vitality, Attack Speed, and probably more once I really think about it... by making them "scalable." Yeah, there is nothing "obvious" for this development crew.

    But, if the goal is, "play less DDO", congratulations SSG, you're doing a bang up job.
    That they have been. There was hope once they bought out Turbine but... things remain the same.
    Quote Originally Posted by hp1055cm View Post
    They have been tweaking the game since I started and often I disagree with them. They focus on wrong stuff, over or under compensate and abandon too much stuff. Every once in awhile they get something right, if only temporarily.

  12. #12
    Community Member AbyssalMage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,793

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lauf View Post
    What is happening to this community?
    People being reasonable and moderate on a doom thread...
    For me personally, its the empty promises that continue from this development team. They use lag as the "boogie man" for the justification on nerfing everything and everyone. And people take SSG at their word that they are being honest even after getting "pie in their face."
    Quote Originally Posted by hp1055cm View Post
    They have been tweaking the game since I started and often I disagree with them. They focus on wrong stuff, over or under compensate and abandon too much stuff. Every once in awhile they get something right, if only temporarily.

  13. #13
    Community Member Artos_Fabril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AbyssalMage View Post
    Oh please no! They have ruined Run Speed, False Life, Fortification, Vitality, Attack Speed, and probably more once I really think about it... by making them "scalable." Yeah, there is nothing "obvious" for this development crew.
    I think you have confused Scaling effects with "Scalable Architecture" unless your point was that SSG have done so.

  14. #14
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arminius View Post
    On the one hand, you have masses of players who are saying, "Reduce the lag at all costs, or we'll quit."

    On the other hand, SSG is taking them at their word, and moving forward with it, at all costs.

    It isn't surprising that for some, at least, the "all costs" part turns out to cost too dearly.

    I am willing to wait to see what hits live, and how that gets tweaked in subsequent patches.
    I think this is a really good take on what is happening at the moment.

    2006 game engine, in development since 2002 likely, can't handle all the effects that have been layered on over the years. The best solution is likely to do what SSG is going to do and triage the effects to make the game engine better able to accommodate the amount of traffic in the pipeline.

  15. #15
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AbyssalMage View Post
    For me personally, its the empty promises that continue from this development team. They use lag as the "boogie man" for the justification on nerfing everything and everyone. And people take SSG at their word that they are being honest even after getting "pie in their face."
    It's a 15 year old game that likely has been in development for close to 20.

    It's a miracle that the thing runs at all given all the changes it has had to accommodate over the years.

    I'm more than willing to give SSG the benefit of the doubt on what needs to be changed to reduce lag to the point that the game has a real shot at 5-10 more years of life.

    I'd rather they were working on DDO2 but the fiscal realities on that probably say no chance.

  16. #16
    Community Member kanordog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    1,645

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arminius View Post
    On the one hand, you have masses of players who are saying, "Reduce the lag at all costs, or we'll quit."
    On the DDO podcast they admitted it will not solve all lag issues but players will feel the change.
    That could mean anything.
    You nerfed my monks, dailies and alchemists.
    I nerfed your profit on two accounts.

  17. #17
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KoobTheProud View Post
    It's a 15 year old game that likely has been in development for close to 20.

    It's a miracle that the thing runs at all given all the changes it has had to accommodate over the years.

    I'm more than willing to give SSG the benefit of the doubt on what needs to be changed to reduce lag to the point that the game has a real shot at 5-10 more years of life.

    I'd rather they were working on DDO2 but the fiscal realities on that probably say no chance.
    5-10 years thats optimistic, I have a permanently damaged monster manual on my 8 year multi-thousand dollar account and cant even get the F rated CS to look at it, my sense and i could be wrong is that they have given up and are desperately band aiding to get another couple of years of income. I'm what you would describe as a fanboy white knight or whatever but the reality of this fossil is slowly sinking in for me and im on the verge of walking away. I've had a lot of fun in this game over the years but have seen many of my in game friend that were more dedicated than me are long gone.
    I hate the doom and gloom type attitude and usually oppose it, but the reality's is starting to bite me hard.

    The lack of communication to individual payers with real problems is coming across as a lack of ethics. Something would need to change to convince me that this game has not gone into limp mode.
    Last edited by Bluemercury; 04-14-2021 at 10:10 PM.

  18. #18
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droid327 View Post
    It's more like if NASCAR kept canceling races because the cars all kept blowing their head gaskets mid race, and they figured out the cars were going faster than a head gasket could take, so they slowed down to what the engines could actually do, so they could finish races.

    Effect throttling is not an arbitrary limit being imposed just as a band aid. It's literally what the problem is...regardless of whether or not you liked it, previous proc rates were not something the game could actually support.
    Except software does not have the same physical limitations because the abstraction of a "effects processor" does not equal a piece of silicon hardware.

    Actually it sounds like the game supports many scenarios entirely fine.

    What it clearly (if we believe their testing) doesn't support, because the engineering is poor, is raid groups which steal all the resources due to the mal-development of unitary serialized process for effects processing for more than one instance that allows cannibalization of resources that shouldn't be able to be cannibalized.

  19. #19
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mercureal View Post
    I'm not an IT guy, but I'd guess that increasing the processing capacity of their system would require additional hardware and/or additional engineers to review and optimize the code. And those things need approval for increases in operational or capex budgets - which is maybe not something anyone wants to ask the new owners for, so soon after the purchase?
    Sure, it is "tougher" theoretically to solve a serialized process problem by converting it to scaling parallel processing with resource guardrails. But, the solution being proposed, actually isn't a good one.

    It doesn't fix the resource theft that hammers instances entirely unrelated to queue stuffing. That gaping hole still exists, ready for every subsequent update to drive right into it and viola, we are back at square one.

    What they're proposing is re-jiggering the entire game at the consumer level, as it's been played for years, to fix a problem that technically speaking, in software terms, probably shouldn't even exist if the development was done with an eye toward parallelization.

    Maybe they'll re-jigger it without blowing the game up. See bridge I have for sale.

  20. #20
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AbyssalMage View Post
    Oh please no! They have ruined Run Speed, False Life, Fortification, Vitality, Attack Speed, and probably more once I really think about it... by making them "scalable." Yeah, there is nothing "obvious" for this development crew.


    That they have been. There was hope once they bought out Turbine but... things remain the same.
    You're thinking of scaling in game terms not software terms. I am speaking of something very different.

    Let me break this down in an area where I've done this for years, financial transaction processing.

    Let's say I have 100 cashier terminals doing electronic transactions. I can have one piece of software in the middle that handle the details of every transaction from every terminal. Ok great, but what happens if one terminal has a black friday situation all the time? Well, if I serialize all the processing through my one "transaction processor" then guess what, if that terminal dumps in tons more transactions than the physical hardware can support in a serialized process, everyone's terminals back up. This is the "effects queue" problem distilled to the simplest example.

    How do you solve this? Easy SSG says the company stops selling merch at all terminals and that means the problem terminal does fewer transactions and all terminal go back to normal throughput and everyone is happy. Ummm, obviously not, and this is readily apparent to most businesses.

    What should happen is there should not be an "effects processor" singular. There should be a flexible bank of "effects processors" that sit around and numerically scale wide across hardware as needed, that allow for terminals to grab them as they need them. Even in a situation where a single terminal outstrips the capacity of the effects processor assigned to it (let's say only one can be assigned to a terminal), because of the parallelization, the other terminals have no idea because they still run at peak speed. And of course the customers relying on all other terminals are happy.

    There are in reality, no hard physical reasons software systems cannot be parallelized, all the way down to the database level. When you encounter throughput issues, the answer is not to ask the customer to put less work in the pipe, but to figure out how to multiply the pipes that do the work.

    Or, you could just look inside your machine and see the multiple cores on your silicon.

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload