Time for a Serious Server upgrade ?
By
Alphane,
Posted on: 2008-07-20 19:04 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, big server upgrades need big money and the CoX players rejected any more paid-for expansions to the game. "We pay our subscriptions and we don't want to pay for anything more," we said (apparently). Well, we get to live with that choice.
[/ QUOTE ]
We did?
I don't recall saying that myself 
I quite liked the wedding pack and would not mind paying a little extra for more costume options.
[/ QUOTE ]
About a year after CoV came out, the prospect of a third game/second expansion (however you see it) was put forward by NCSoft and Cryptic. This resulted in a flurry of rather acid threads on the US fora and a lesser quantity on the EU stating that expansions should be free and paid for by subscriptions. The new expansion never happened.
I like the idea of the Wedding Pack as well and would love to see more things like that. However, they are not going to generate the same spike of revenue that adding in an 'optional' expansion which everyone just has to have really would do.
So, we are 'stuck' with a slightly slower rate of progress and no sudden leaps forward. Not entirely a bad thing and we do get progress. I took about a year off and I pop back in and find loads of things to do on my level 50 as well as new stuff to do with lower level alts.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
[ QUOTE ]
Just look at the Roman TF. the 3rd mission has so many patrols, mobs and etc. it's super laggy doing nothing. And the netgraph shows no network lag there.
[/ QUOTE ]
This one should hopefully be fixed, or at least improved significantly, in an upcoming build.
[ QUOTE ]
Most performance curves due to almost anything to do with computers tank at some point, generally catastrophically, and quite often with no sign of degredation until the failure point. It also need not be actually CPU, but physical RAM. Use up all of that and start paging and you get a sudden drop in performance.
[ QUOTE ]
I'd still be surprised if it was CPU bound though -- I'd expect a more even degradation then.
[/ QUOTE ]
Leif, I'm dissapointed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, not what I meant. "Even" as in "evenly distributed" -- as far as I can gather the lag in CoX flickers and clusters in ways that don't seem consistent with CPU limitation. You'd expect stuff to bunch up more, and then harden. (Kinda like a plane with rounded nose approaching the speed of sound.)
Besides, server applications of this type are almost always pipeline bound rather than CPU bound, too, and then to external pipes such as network or DB.
That's if the problem actually is a resource constraint, of course, and not a scheduling or routing issue.