-
Posts
981 -
Joined
-
-
-
Quote:I'm running CoH on laptop with Win 7 64 bit, and quad core i7 Q720 (hyperthreading enabled). While CoH is running, I see 4-5 logical processors at around 50% utilization. So it seems that either CoH can utilize more than 2 cores, or Win 7 schedules things on more than 2 cores. Unfortunately, my desktop that has WinXP and 2 dualcores is getting killed by i17, so I can't say how many cores CoH utilizes on WinXP 32 at the moment. I'm going to wait until patch with performance fixes made it to live before trying my desktop again.I am working on spec'ing out a new laptop and am debating whether to go for a quad core or a dual core processor. From what I recall, COH only can utilize 2 cores, so the other 2 in a quad would not contribute to the game. Is this correct?
If so, then it seems I would get better COH performance from an Intel® Core i7-620M, 4MB L3 Cache, 2.66-3.33GHz over an Intel® Core i7-720QM, 6MB L3 Cache, 1.60-2.80GHz, perhaps even by a wide margin, since there is an 0.5 GHz difference between the top core clock rates.
Of course, COH isn't the only use for this machine, but it is the only MMO I play, so it will probably stress the system the hardest.
Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. -
-
Quote:When we ran LGTF after i17 release, I used Surveillance on green mitos. It showed 90% damage resitance to all positions. After EF was applied, it dropped to 84.5%. I haven't run LGTF since then, so I don't know whether their resistance was reduced to 70% in the last patch or notBack of the envelope calculation:
Level 50 Lt Health: 855.1
Max Regen: 4.0088
Total Regeneration at the cap: 57.132 h/s
Resistance buff due to passive defense: 70%
Total damage required to match regeneration: 57.132 / (1 - 0.7) = 190.44 dps
Total damage required to defeat LT in seven second window between mito heals**: 190.44 + 855.1/7 = 312.6 dps
So basically, I think Castle's "unkillable unless held" statement is probably more appropriate for the raid version than the LGTF version. Unheld they can still be taken down in quick order by a team of damage dealers in theory. At level 50 a damage dealing character should be able to reach at least 100 dps in a team. Holding the mito cuts the difficulty by more than half, but its not unbeatable unheld.
(In a raid, its different because the mitos become special boss-but-better entities: the same calculation generates 2179 dps to neutralize regen and 3300 dps to defeat a mito in seven seconds. That's quite a bit higher, even with a lot more raiders).
** You don't have to kill them that quick, but if you can you can definitely overpower any heals that come your way. Its mostly a simplification for the calculation. -
Quote:Castle, is it possible the mission writer actually _intended_ for the Green Mitos to have -50 Hold Protection? Could that possibly have been the specific mechanic employed to fully simulate that Hamidon was in a weakened state?Quote:No, that's not possible.
First of all, to the best of my knowledge Mitos in the LGTF are only weakened by being a lower rank than the ones in the zones. They otherwise have exactly precisely the same powers (the nucleus is a different story). That lower rank (they are basically Lts in the mission, but a special mito class in the zones) does alter the strength of powers like attacks, but the attacks themselves are the same power. So whatever the design intent of the "weakened Hamidon" was, it was implemented as a redesigned nucleus and a scaled down set of the same mitos.
This means the implementation intent of all the mez protection powers must be the same for both the standard and the weakened mitos, because they are the same thing. That's probably the real source of the problem: if the design intent was for the weakened hamidon to require a much lower level of mez magnitude than the trial version, they should have made two entirely different mitos. As it is, they are currently linked together.
My guess is that when the encounter was designed, the Healing Mito was originally set to have mag 30 protection to mez (it still does for things like sleep and stun). And then they decided at some point to increase the hold protection from 30 to 50. At that point a sign error was introduced.
Something worth mentioning is that protection powers are actually *negative*. When you run a protection power, it actually in a sense *debuffs* your mez attributes. If you have mag 10 hold protection, the power is actually *reducing* your hold by 10, or applying a -10 to hold. The meaning of the mez attributes is that if they are greater than zero, you're in that mez state. So negative is good, positive is bad. My guess is that at some point someone accidentally adjusted the hold protection by typing a "50" in there when they should have typed "-50."
This cannot possibly be by design, because it almost never makes any sense for something to hold itself unless something else is supposed to come along and free it eventually. Even if you wanted something to hold itself as a weird containment buff for controllers, there's no reason to apply a mag fifty hold to yourself, because there's no difference between applying mag 10 and mag 50 to yourself, again unless you're trying to overcome someone else's protection buff (and nothing I'm aware of can come along and buff Hamidon's mez protection). And if I was worried about that, I would apply mag 9999, not 50.
There is just no way that was done deliberately in this case. They'd be doing it to both versions of Hamidon, and there's no good reason to do it at all.
Pre i17, the only difference(besides rank) between "permaheld" LGTF green mito and raid green mito was that LGTF greens not needed to be held in order to do damage to them. Other than that they were fully functional even in "permaheld" state. They would heal other mitos and hami, and would spam their damage attacks the same way raid mitos would. -
Quote:It will mostly penalize PuGs, teams who were able to easily speed throug LGTF still will be able to handle this mission just fine.QR
2. Don't let the deaths of escorts end the mission without penalty.
QR
Edit: I think, the best will be approach taken for RSF, where you just release hostage without escorting... -
Quote:Heh... Have you try to save them on PuGs? It will be much harder to save them on most of the teams than get them killed....
The culprits are the assembling the team to the door once Penelope has been freed in the first mission, and auto-failing the third mission via getting Infernia and Glacia killed.
The latter I have never fully agreed with, and is an exploit that really needs to be looked at. -
Do these options suppose to change different settings of graphics engine?
If they change the same settings, then why in 2 places?
Normally options window is less than half size of what you see in screenshot (I had to extend it vertically to show all options). When you scroll down to second instance of settings, UM options become invisible and you don't know whether you making any changes for UM or not.
-
Quote:Yep, ran it again and while I haven't paid attention to ouro before selfdestruct activation, it was disabled after.If I remember correctly, the first elevator to take is the one facing the back wall. The next floor down the usable one will be on the left (as you face the back wall.)
Also, the O-portal is disabled for the entirety of the mission, including before self-destruct is activated. -
Just curious... Is it possible to use Ouro Portal? I had no problem to get to the exit tho.
-
Quote:I bet, your CPU is utilized 100% and CoH has no chance to process incoming packets from mapserver and send acknowledgements back. I guess, if mapserver doesn't see acknowlegements from the client for some time it will disconnect client. As soon as you hit Windows key, CoH becomes background process and CPU utilization goes below 10%. There all incoming packets processed and acks sent back to mapserver so you are staying connected....
What I find interesting is that I can make my LCTM issues go away entirely by hitting the Windows Key. When CoH is in the background the issues stop. I can see my bots fighting, people dying, er, uh, being arrested in droves but there is no connection problem. So if it was my router why would it go away when CoH goes from front to background? Because it is the PROGRAMS ISSUE, not the router.
My issues have not totally gone away as I had thought the had magically done. I did an ITF today. Laggggg was my constant companion but it would clear up just before the dreaded LCTM message would pop up.
Something, introduced in i17, demands much more CPU than it was in i16. -
Quote:Again, I hope you updated Windows.
And you have *a lot* of programs and services running in the background. You might want to try the solution given here below and see how your computer behaves running the game with all those programs/services disabled.
http://help.ncsoft.com/cgi-bin/ncsof...hp?p_faqid=986
Look Zombie Man,
The problem with i17 is that i17 consumes more CPU than i16.
When I was running i16 CoX on dual dualcore system, maximum CPU utilization on one of cores was 70-80%. Since i17 release it consumes 100% even with lower gfx settings, which makes game unplayable.
And no, I'm not running Ultra Mode, in fact I'm lowered gfx settings way below that I had in i16. It didn't help.
Something that devs introduced or changed in i17 demands much more CPU. If it is related to Ultra Mode, then their claim that Ultra Mode wouldn't affect players who aren't using it is false, and they should come clean about this. If something else causes higher CPU utilization, then we need ability to turn it off, or minimum (or not so minimum) system requirements should be changed.
In any event, i'm strongly suspect that multiple reports we seeing regarding lag, mapserve, ventrilo and Skype problems are related to 100 or near 100% CPU utilization caused by i17. -
-
Quote:Mac, I gave wrong information regarding green mitos hold protection. It wasn't +50 mag, but -50. The problem with these green mitos was that their damage resistance wasn't detoggled by anything we tried to hit them with. It was capped at 90% to all damage types, and lowest value I've seen was 84.5% after debuffs were applied. In contrast, the DR of green mitos during hami raids can be detoggled by holding them.Yeah, that was more than a bit aggravating... don't forget to mention that the green mitos on the LGTF seem to have been replaced with ones more akin to those found in the actual Hamidon encounter - they have mag 50 hold protection and 90% resistance to all. We were concerned for a bit before we just decided to power through them, take out Hami first, and then finish off the greens one by one. Hoping that's a bug, because a team that doesn't have either lots of damage or lots of mez will have a very rough go with that mission.
-
It doesn't matter what system reports and who gets that report as long as you understand that listing price includes 10% transaction fee. It is objective and there is no way around it. And BTW, the seller pays nothing except listing fee, that is refunded after transaction completed. Everything else is paid by the buyer.
-
Quote:To be accurate, while it might be seen as paradoxical, in reality it isn't the seller who pays transaction fee but the buyer.When you list a recipe on the market you have to pay a 5% listing fee upfront, if it sells the 5% is returned but you then have to pay a 10% sale fee.
So at the moment you are limited to setting a sale price of 47million due to a lack of inf on hand.
If you list it at 47million then is will sell immediately and you will get whatever the current high bid is. This is likely to be about 150million but obviously that isn't guaranteed.
What sever are you on? If you're on Virtue blueside I'll give you some inf so you can list it at a fair price.
The other option is to try and sell it directly bypassing the market entirely.
You just need to keep in mind that the listing price has intrinsic 10% transaction fee.
It is irrelevant for the most of the players (with exception for flippers and crafters), because in most cases they don't have easily quantifiable cost of the item they trying to sell.
On another hand, flippers and crafters have an associated cost of the item ( item price flipper paid to buy the item and recipe_price + ingridient_prices + crafting_cost for the crafter) and they calculate minimum listing price (break even price) as item_cost/0.9
So when the seller lists their item for sale, they implicitly saying they want receive 90% of the listing price.
When the buyer is buying the item, the seller is getting refunded the listing fee, and gets 90% of transaction price.
For example:
The seller lists the item for 10M (implicitly saying they want receive 9M) and pays 500K listing fee.
The buyer buys the item for 10M, the seller gets 9.5M ( 9M they wanted to get + 500K listing fee refund ), 1M from the buyer covers the transaction fee. -
Is it possible to be somehow related to recording of the log file?
-
Quote:Heh irony... You came into this thread as a "champion" of the rights and wellbeing of "poor sellers" saying that proposed system is going to screw them:And there is something that you are forgetting. The negative impact that will occur when people choose not to sell their items because they can't afford it.
All those items that would normally have been put on the market would then be gone, put in storage. That means there will be less items available. Which in turn means the ones that are available will be harder to come by, making them rarer and in turn more expensive. Items on the market will get more expensive and harder to buy.
Quote:/unsigned
This would defeat the purpose of the highest bid going to the lowest sales price. If you can see what the asking prices are your just going to bid the lowest amount listed and screw over that seller.
For example a player gets an extremely valuable drop that normally sells for 50 million but for whatever reason he can only afford to set a price of 2-3 million. under your suggestion instead of getting the true value of the drop, you'd be able to snag it for far less than it's worth.
As far as the negative impact of withholding of these items is concerned, at worst, these goods will be delayed to market by few hours, days, weeks (whatever time is necessary for poor guy to make enough inf to list it). And how many of these rare goods are sold by poor guys anyway? During of my 2+ years of playing this game, I had to gamble just once by selling lelvel 12 Regenrative Tissue+ during my 2nd week in the game and listing it for 100K and regretted it right after I clicked "post" button. I didn't know anything about the game, recipes, markets during that time. After that, I never came across the situation where I would compelled to list rare item way below it's going price. -
Quote:Forbin, you missing the point.Ok Shadow try to follow this. You and I both have the same recipe and it is worth 265 million inf at the CH. I have enough inf on my character to sell my recipe for 265 million, however YOU only have enough influence to sell it for 5 million because the CH won't let you set a sales price if you don't have enough to cover the sales fee.
Along comes Chriffer and he can see the sales prices we have set.
Sales Price
265 million
5 million
Remember in the market the highest bid goes to the lowest seller. Anyone that sets their sales price too high just sits there unsold. So do you honestly think he's going to pay the highest sales price listed? Heck no he's going to see your bid and he's only going to pay 5 million. Final result is that you just got screwed out of 260 million inf.
Under current system, if "poor seller" decides to sell his shiny on market, there are the following possibilities:
- There is highest outstanding bid for 265M inf on that recipe. He puts his recipe for 5M and gets paid 265M. This is a ideal case: both buyer and seller are happy.
- There is highest outstanding bid for 10M inf. He puts his recipe for 5M and gets paid 10M. He screwed out of 255M if he hoped to sell it for 265M. Seller is pissed off, buyer is happy.
- There is highest outstanding bid for 1M inf. He puts his recipe for 5M and leaves it. Couple hours later here comes "BUY IT NAO" guy, sees last sale price of 265M and places bid for that amount. Seller gets paid his 265M. This is near ideal case: both buyer and seller are happy, but seller had to wait for his recipe to sell.
- There is highest outstanding bid for 1M inf. He puts his recipe for 5M and leaves it. Couple hours later I'm deciding that I need that recipe and and willing to go as high as 100M. So, I'm deciding to bid creep it with 10M increments. I'm putting lowball bid for 1M to see if I can get it at bargain price, nothing. Next my bid will be for 10M and here I am getting this recipe for 10M, screwing seller out of 255M. I'm happy, seller's screwed. BTW, I'm really bidding like this for expensive items I want to buy. I also don't think that my buying behavior is unique in any shape and form, given that "The Market and Inventions" forum has crapload of posts outlining this strategy.
With displayed BBO I'm proposing, seller will immediately see what he might get from the market, and make completely educated decision whether to put it on market now or hold it until he has enough inf for listing it at hes desired price. There is ABSOLUTELY no way he can be screwed unless he ignores all information given to him, and lists his recipe. -
Quote:Yes.
*EDIT* Maybe there are some misunderstandings at work. I made a picture of what I am thinking this suggestion means.
Is this what we are talking about?
Quote:For example a player gets an extremely valuable drop that normally sells for 50 million but for whatever reason he can only afford to set a price of 2-3 million. under your suggestion instead of getting the true value of the drop, you'd be able to snag it for far less than it's worth.
Now, current "blind" system forces that "poor seller" either to GAMBLE or to stay away from market until he has enough inf to list his item at his price. Conversely, proposed system will remove that GAMBLE element by letting "poor seller" know what price he can get for his shiny and will allow to make informed decision whether to list it or to stay away from market. -
Quote:It was the part of my suggestion and it is in the name of the thread "Markets: Display Best Bid/Offer prices for WW/BM items".If you read Chriffer's post he doesn't want to see just the bids, he wants to see the sellers asking prices so people can screw the poorer players that can't afford to list their drops for what they are actually worth.
If your going to list the sellers asking price then you'll have to get rid of the listing fees so poorer sellers can then price their drops competitively with the richer players.
Offer = Ask = Seller's Listing price
As for dropping listing price, I put suggestion, in one of my responces, to fold listing fees into transaction fees, and Adeon Hawkwood countered that such measure would greatly benefit EBIL marketeers
And BTW, as it was pointed before, poor player with insufficient listing funds can be very easily screwed in the existent "blind" market: "Snags for 1 inf" thread in The Market and Inventions forum is great example of that.