Changes Focused on Boosting Game Performance

[Arkat]

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.

I'm guessing modern CPUs (e.g. Intel 3rd Gen Xeon Platinum Scalable CPUs) would do wonders for things like processing effect queues. Ones with a boatload of cache would do wonders for your database servers' performance.

More RAM's ok, but it sounds like better CPUs are what you really need.

[GramercyRiff]

If you won't increase proc rate then increase the magnitude of the procs. This is still a nerf of course. You love nerfing stuff so you still get your way.

It's difficult to trust and respect the developers of this game.

[Tilomere]

They could remove debuff from the game and reduce the scaling of mob hp mrr/prr.

I don't even fully believe it is all debuffs. You can lag spike an instance several seconds simply by pulling 30-50 mobs together then hitting them with an eldritch wave. This was a relatively common occurrence in slave lords farming.

So 100+ hits in a short time even without procs staggers an instance, which a raid of 12 people may commonly approach or exceed or even sustain, especially in trash AoE situations.

A dynamic debuff ward though would gaurd against this, by turning off effects as needed to keep the instance running.

============================================

You could also reduce server load by having a toggle for high level dungeons to produce random level collectibles, so that a cap player doesn't reset small problem 20x or mirra's 100x getting low level ingredients.

[Elixxer]

If this were as simple as buying more RAM, we'd do it, but it's not, so here we are.

One does not simply buy more RAM.

You download it.
For free.
On the internet.
https://downloadmoreram.com/

[Tuxedoman96]

You are inverting the burden of proof. We should be given reasons for the nerf, not the other way around.

"Design space" is clearly a lie: not ALL of those bows limit design space.

I would argue that not even very common and/or easy to get bows like Silver, Sinew or Pinion are limiting design space.

But the (very) rare ones definitely don't. Are you gonna dispute this? Are you going to say they can't design cool new bows because everyone will be using Epic Thornlord over them? So why are they getting nerfed?

You are mistaken. I'm not inverting the burden of proof, because that would require evidence, which is not what I was asking about. I was asking about the person's thought process and value assessment. I myself don't really know what the effects of leaving the bows alone would be, since I haven't done all the calculations, but the point of the latter sentences of my quoted post still stand. If we are highly likely to lose something anyways, then we should think about what we should get in exchange.

And no, I wouldn't say that those bows limit design space, but I'm of the mind that we would get more done by trying to look at other paths rather than just butt heads with the devs. Because that's certainly worked many times before.

[Valerianus]

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.

thanks for answering.

the possibly unsolvable problem is on player side. we are the problem but we can't solve it by our own. we can't imagine a normal industry standard mmo that has problems with managing mob simply moving (pathing\aggro\dungeon alert) and characters simply attacking. are we wrong? i'm aware that saying "simply" is not fair and an oversemplification of, i don't know, but i guess, some really complex processes, but this is how a lot of players perceive it and getting bad vibes from it, also because we have already seen changes on attacks when doublestrike was introduced also motivated with system\lag fix too, and now we are at it again. also sorry if i say we players like i'm speaking for all, i mean the majority of players, because such feelings are the ones i usually hear or read.

i would like to add, i don't want to be rude, or polemical, i'd just like to humbly point out that having no customer service + no marketing (just 1 example: 1 bundle pack in 15 year, the new expansions one, not counting the old necro bundle, we still have no adventure pack bundle) + constant threads about ddo store\market failing to process payments for points\vip\expansions, that is, you are failing to get the cash.......

this is not normal industry standard...and this the core of the problem, when it is said we players are pessimist, mean, always thinking the worst, paranoid etc etc, basic stuff is looking weird. it's how we perceive things. we get a lot of bad vibes from these issues. maybe the forums propose a distorted reality, maybe i am wrong. am i too pessimist? am i victim of some "the neighbor's grass is always greener" thought? it sounds bad anyway.

so, if we make jokes about hamster-powered potato servers because the game lags, and it lags, well, that's because it's what we expect. potatoes. not because we are bad, not because we think the devs are lying, but because it's what we have experienced for years and still experiencing and what we are accustomed to. basic stuff not working properly. shaky foundations. walking on something you think has shaky foundations makes you nervous, quite a lot.

[IBCrabin]

I don't even fully believe it is all debuffs. You can lag spike an instance several seconds simply by pulling 30-50 mobs together then hitting them with an eldritch wave. This was a relatively common occurrence in slave lords farming.

So 100+ hits in a short time even without procs staggers an instance, which a raid of 12 people may commonly approach or exceed or even sustain, especially in trash AoE situations.

A dynamic debuff ward though would gaurd against this, by turning off effects as needed to keep the instance running.

This is the same with a Rogue mechanic Great crossbow build using "Volley" when you line them up and IPS through about 5+ mob with fusillade. nerve venom, nightmare, identity crisis, fetter of unreality. I am assuming these are effects the Dev are talking about being queue. The game locks up too if enough mob get IPS with fusillade.

If you get rid of the debuff effect, you wouldn't need a ward anyways. There is not a lot of different hitting 15 mob with 2 debuff vs hitting 1 raid boss with 30 debuff from 12 people from my understanding; they still get queue.

[Kielbasa]

I don't even fully believe it is all debuffs. You can lag spike an instance several seconds simply by pulling 30-50 mobs together then hitting them with an eldritch wave. This was a relatively common occurrence in slave lords farming.

So 100+ hits in a short time even without procs staggers an instance, which a raid of 12 people may commonly approach or exceed or even sustain, especially in trash AoE situations.

A dynamic debuff ward though would gaurd against this, by turning off effects as needed to keep the instance running.

Very true quest design could very well be part of the problem. More and more quests just have large pods of mobs that all trigger the pack all at once get a few of those agroed and poof lag plus the added benefit of purposefully designed lag in the form of dungeon alert. Rather than scaling the difficulty of a small number of enemies difficulty usually scales the number of enemies you face. Also if the default challenge level for players is now reaper you will always have the max number of enemies per quest instance versus what the game was like years ago. Thus the server has to work harder despite there being a smaller player base.

[Hawkwier]

So, are we therefore saying that these changes are absolutely required to cut the number of procs to a datum that will allow the game to function, and above which it can't? That we must accept there is no other way?

By implication are we then saying that once that datum is hit, it can never again be exceeded - i.e. there can never again be any further features invoking additional procs added to the the game?

Because if so, then tacit acceptance of these changes, not only means accepting all the nerfs and limitations that will apply, but also surely means tacit acceptance that the game development is to be severely stymied going forward.

How on earth can such an approach and it's implications be acceptable?

For this reason, this approach to the problem is unacceptable to me. I'm extremely disappointed it seems to be OK to SSG.

Please. Find another way.

[SpardaX]

Ok, so help me out here. I am twf monk with 100% DS (reaper buffed) and 90% offhand strike. Say i do 100 damage. What is the damage before and after U49. Is it the same? Just bigger numbers and less frequent? Or is there a nerf in there somewhere? I saw 50% thrown out there for offhand strike in an earlier thread, so just trying to understand if that was for example purposes or if that is the cap now for offhand strike.

Also, please keep this in mind if you do anything to monk ki attacks. In other words, less procs (due to less "hits", means less ki generated. Right now, monk benefits with double ki from doublestrike. This is bad potentially. Please keep this in mind.

Thanks!
Nico

If I am reading things correctly, your offhand strike (From TWF feats for example) isn't changing. Your offhand doublestrike chance is getting changed. This comes from effects such as Perfect Two Weapon Fighting (Which currently gives +5% Main hand doublestrike, and +10% offhand double strike.)

Now they are removing the things that give offhand double strike, and taking that stat entirely off 50% of your doublestrike stat. And Lyn has said that having a Doublestrike stat above 100%, so 120% for example, still caps itself at 100%, but that 120% applies for the x0.5 for offhand double strike. At least for now.

I checked the wiki, and based on what it says for Offhand Double strike, the current maximum seems to be 51%. So This change could actually result in a buff for anyone who can get 104% doublestrike or higher.

So the breakdown-
Before change:
You attack - 1 main hand attack - 100 damage.
100% Doublestrike - 1 additional main hand attack - 100 damage.
You will see two separate "100s" float from your enemy.

Offhand chance of 90% (From I assume, feats such as TWF)
- 90% chance for 1 offhand attack. - 100 damage.
- If above chance happens -
Offhand Doublestrike - You havent listed an amount for that so I dont know.
You will see a third "100" float from your enemy
If you have offhand Doublestrike that you didn't mention:
You will see a fourth "100" float from your enemy

----
After change
You attack - 1 main hand attack - 100 damage
100% Doublestrike - 100% chance to double above damage.
You will see 1 "200" float from your enemy

Offhand chance of 90% (From I assume, feats such as TWF)
- 90% chance for 1 offhand attack. - 100 damage
- If above chance happens -
100/2 = 50% Offhand Doublestrike - 50% chance to double above damage
Assuming your 90% offhand strike from TWF happens:
50% of the time your offhand double strike doesn't work, and you will see a "100" float from your enemy.
50% of the time your offhand double strike works, and you will see a "200" float from your enemy.
---

TL;DR though:
End results before change:
2, with 90% chance for 3 (or 4) x 100 floaty numbers.

End results after change:
1 x 200 floaty number definitely
90% chance (offhand strike) for 1 x either 100 or 200 depending on if your (potentially new) 50% offhand doublestrike works or not.

End result: 1 (or 2) less total attacks but same damage. (Assuming you had 50% offhand doublestrike to begin with. But it only seems to be on 1 epic feat (so not in heroic), tempest capstone (So not on monk), a couple vistani points (So also not on monk unless you're going a dagger monk), and Scourge past lives. So chances are you actually have between 0% - 6% Offhand Doublestrike. This means you'll actually get more damage total, since it's moving to being based off your main hand doublestrike chance, so 50% of your offhand strikes will start doing double.)

[Hawkwier]

If the issue stems from raid parties, and is bleeding into other parties quest experiences, why not look at addressing the source of the problem in a different way?

If the issue is driven by, presumably, the larger number of players in a raid generating too many procs in a given period, why not cut the numbers in a raid party from 12 to 10 or even, if necessary 9 or 8? The difficulty of raids could be scaled back if necessary to balance, though in many cases folks may enjoy the added challenge.

If this sorted out the proc-lag issue, that would be a far preferable approach to me than that which apparently the Devs are telling us is absolutely necessary here.

[SpardaX]

So, are we therefore saying that these changes are absolutely required to cut the number of procs to a datum that will allow the game to function, and above which it can't? That we must accept there is no other way?

By implication are we then saying that once that datum is hit, it can never again be exceeded - i.e. there can never again be any further features invoking additional procs added to the the game?

Because if so, then tacit acceptance of these changes, not only means accepting all the nerfs and limitations that will apply, but also surely means tacit acceptance that the game development is to be severely stymied going forward.

How on earth can such an approach and it's implications be acceptable?

For this reason, this approach to the problem is unacceptable to me. I'm extremely disappointed it seems to be OK to SSG.

Please. Find another way.

Assuming their quoted numbers are correct, and I have understood what they've written:
they dropped from 99+% of calculations being this (Technically the moment the queue starts that means the calculations technically exceed 100% and the system is just saying "Stop everything while I work this stuff out), down to 50%.

That means this single change is worth more to the system speed than literally everything else in the game combined. Even with this less proc based system in place, they were still using 50% of the system calculations. And we can assume this system uses more than 0%. If this new system uses even just 1% of the total, that means literally the rest of everything happening is using 49%, and running procs the old way uses 51%. And that's definitely a false assumption. I don't like it either, but it looks like it's this change or lag.

Or I guess SSG goes out and buys a whole new data / server center. However much server they have running, they double it.

[BDog77]

If this is truly the problem, why not revisit all newer quests and get rid of the "kill X MOBS to advance" mechanic. Also, not that I was ever a big fan, but this would help bring back stealth gameplay as an option.

Seriously, why should the players shoulder the whole burden, let's nerf the MOBS!

[rabidfox]

If the issue stems from raid parties, and is bleeding into other parties quest experiences, why not look at addressing the source of the problem in a different way?

If the issue is driven by, presumably, the larger number of players in a raid generating too many procs in a given period, why not cut the numbers in a raid party from 12 to 10 or even, if necessary 9 or 8? The difficulty of raids could be scaled back if necessary to balance, though in many cases folks may enjoy the added challenge.

If this sorted out the proc-lag issue, that would be a far preferable approach to me than that which apparently the Devs are telling us is absolutely necessary here.

They've previously stated things like reducing max raid (or party) sizes wouldn't be a good thing; each spawning of an instance is a big overhead (mobs, pathing, etc.). So reduced sizes where more instances are likely to get spawned on busy night is also a no-no for performance based off what's been said in the past.

[Hawkwier]

Assuming their quoted numbers are correct, and I have understood what they've written:
they dropped from 99+% of calculations being this (Technically the moment the queue starts that means the calculations technically exceed 100% and the system is just saying "Stop everything while I work this stuff out), down to 50%.

That means this single change is worth more to the system speed than literally everything else in the game combined. Even with this less proc based system in place, they were still using 50% of the system calculations. And we can assume this system uses more than 0%. If this new system uses even just 1% of the total, that means literally the rest of everything happening is using 49%, and running procs the old way uses 51%. And that's definitely a false assumption. I don't like it either, but it looks like it's this change or lag.

Or I guess SSG goes out and buys a whole new data / server center. However much server they have running, they double it.

Fair enough.But why then does it need to be a full 49% reduction? All or nothing? Take it or leave it?

Surely a reduction of even 10% would help provide sufficient headroom to eliminate a significant number of lag events? Pareto suggests that the earlier proportion of proc reductions might help in the vast majority of lag events, with only a small portion of events being affected by the later proc reductions. Why should we care about that tail of only a few events, particularly if not every lag event is eliminated anyway at 49%? Even if it is, is that a price worth paying?

If someone came with a solution that said "look, we're not going to be able to eliminate all lag events in the game, but by rejigging the damage proc calcs we reckon we can eliminate 80% plus of them", wouldn't we be delighted? Wouldn't that be a better prospect than all the implications of this?

What % reduction is achieved by only addressing those damage procs that can be scaled? If they make up only 1/3 of procs that equates to a c.16% saving out of the 49%. Why wouldn't that prove sufficient? To what extent might it do so? Why don't they try that first and see?

What is so necessary and by implication absolitelly limiting about taking that full 49%? What do they do with all of that freed up capacity anyway?

I don't think the work has been done to finesse the optimal response to the problem here.

I strongly suspect they have ID'd an issue and, as so often In the past, gone straight for the easiest over-simplistic, over-hasty, and over-zealous solution. Whilst players have to take the consequences of that lack of additional effort to find a more optimal and nuanced balance to finesse the solution.

Just my perception, but it is unnaceptable.

[Hawkwier]

They've previously stated things like reducing max raid (or party) sizes wouldn't be a good thing; each spawning of an instance is a big overhead (mobs, pathing, etc.). So reduced sizes where more instances are likely to get spawned on busy night is also a no-no for performance based off what's been said in the past.

That's a reasonable conjecture i guess.

[DjangoKeys]

Why does everyone assume they'll gut Tempest capstone (and nerf PTWF etc) without adding something to make up for that?[/B]

Um, because they’ve already said they’re specifically getting rid of it without saying what - if anything - they’re they’re replacing it with. This is exactly the complete lack of professionalism that I’ve increasingly come to expect from SSG.

It’d be nice of they straight up swapped out ALL offhand doublestrike bonuses from feats and enhancements to 2x their current value in mainhand doublestrike, but I certainly won’t hold my breath.

[Malusny]

In Update 49 we are making significant changes to how melee and missile combat is calculated to address long-term community and development team concerns about game performance. If you're curious, we've included a long form explanation as to what these changes entail on the back end, but if you're interested in just the changes and the results, here's what we've found:

Before this change: Simulations of a raid group proccing on-hit effects use approx 99.965% processing per-instance and produce an effects queue, which causes combat processing lag for all players on the same server while the queue is processed.
After this change: Simulations of a raid group proccing on-hit effects use approx 50% available processing per-instance (still well within the green zone of server frames per second) and rarely if ever hit an effects queue.

An important thing to note when going into this is that when an effects queue happens, it does not only affect your instance, but every other instance on the server that your instance is being processed by. Server in this case does not refer to world, such as Ghallanda or Sarlona or Wayfinder, but the actual machines that process DDO and share the load of each instance between them.

This also alleviates a source of client lag (floaty text queue), so if you play with floaty text off to alleviate client strain, this will prevent that strain by removing pressure from the floaty text queue.

Background Information

We've dedicated a lot of time to investigating and alleviating specific sources of reproducible lag within DDO in recent months. One of the most frequent causes of lag happens when an Effects Queue forms. This means that players have applied a ton of on-hit effects to a monster and the game has reached a buffer and must clear its queue in order to continue processing new information.

You can see this happen in raid groups; the party jumps in, opens up with a ton of active attacks and on-hit effects, and the game begins to degrade in performance almost immediately. It is also worth noting that this kind of lag has two separate portions: Client Combat Lag (which can be alleviated by turning off Floaty Text in your settings) and Server Combat Lag. We are specifically targeting Server based lag with this change. Behind the scenes, the server crunches damage, effects, and debuffs in a big queue. We can measure how efficient the server is at processing this queue by measuring the server frames.

To begin researching and addressing the root causes we put together simulations of a standard raid group and their on-hit profiles. Simulations of a raid group attacking a single target quickly ran into the same kind of performance problems that have become prevalent in raid groups, so we knew we had a reliable test case. What we found was that the amount of damage dealt didn't matter, it was about the frequency that effects were being applied. It didn't matter if a simulation was against one target or many - if the effects queue was in trouble the rest of the instance had its performance significantly impacted. That means lag for not just you and your group but for other people on the server.

What's Changing

• Doublestrike and Doubleshot will no longer apply a full subsequent "attack" as part of your attack chain. Instead, when a player Doublestrikes or Doubleshots (for brevity, we will call this a multi-hit from now on, just remember that this applies for all melee and all ranged) the game will instead multiply the base amount of damage dealt (first number and sneak attack) by the amount of multi-hits generated. This means that a player who deals an average of 100 damage on their first hit will now deal 200, or 300 damage, or however many multi-hits multiplied by their base damage, when their multi-hit goes off.
• When a multi-hit happens, you'll see an icon of two swords next to your damage in the floaty text, similar to how Point Blank Shot provides its feedback.
• Abilities that apply additional ranged projectiles (Shuriken Expertise and Advanced Ninja Training) no longer apply multiple hits or projectiles. Instead, just as if they had been purely Doubleshot scalars, they will simply be additional chances to multi-hit.
• Effects that trigger on-hit will also have their damage multiplied comparatively. This means that if you deal 10 Law damage on each hit, on a doublestrike, it will deal 20.
• Repeating Crossbows and the Dual Crossbow style still fire 3 or 2 full projectiles (so you'll still see 3 numbers or 2 numbers, respectively) and are still affected by their Doubleshot penalties of 66% and 50%, respectively.
• A player's 100% effective Doublestrike cap still applies in this system.
• Offhand strikes will still be a separate "hit" and will roll their own damage from their own weapon and can still Doublestrike. However, we have removed the stat Offhand Doublestrike from the game. Your offhand now Doublestrikes at 50% of the Doublestrike of your mainhand. This means that if you have a 50% chance to produce an offhand strike, and 100% Doublestrike, your offhand will hit 50% of the time for 50% Doublestrike (so a 50% chance to deal double damage). Abilities and enhancements that used to provide Offhand Doublestrike no longer do so.
• Shields still cannot Doublestrike.
• Strikethrough attacks still proc their own Doublestrike roll individually per target struck.
• The main reasoning behind these changes (letting repeaters and offhand strikes still proc rather than fully condensing) is that we want to keep our damage numbers appropriate to the amount of animations that a player actually produces.

A major effect of this change is that you will see much spikier damage across the board. The multi-hit calculation takes the original roll into account when determining damage, which means that you'll see much higher highs and much lower lows. Attacks that crit will multiply that increased damage, so you'll see much higher numbers on those attacks. Attacks that miss will deal no damage, as before, but rather than a multi-hit giving a chance for a second strike to deal damage, they will still deal no damage, as the original strike has missed.

These changes eliminate the Floaty-text queue in practice. Players who are used to seeing damage numbers scroll by on a delay will see the system replaced with numbers that are current. This will make DPS easier to estimate from a series of hits, and there will simply be fewer numbers to add up and adjust.

The Crunchy Details

Curious as to what's actually happening when a player attacks? Currently, when a player Doublestrikes or Doubleshots, we actually handle those types of attacks through very different flows. Both melee and missile attacks use something that we call a detect-attack to deal their regular damage, but how they get there is very different. Right now, a player “Doublestrikes” when their attack scripts use their Doublestrike stat to determine if they fire off another detect-attack. A player “Doubleshots” when the Missile Attacker code gets to the part in the code where we determine how many "Missiles" are a part of the projectile. From there, the scripts use the number of missiles to determine how many times they use a detect-attack.

Now, when a player “attacks” (from the detect-attack callback or elsewhere) the determination to Doublestrike or Doubleshot is made within that single attack call. The appropriate stats are queried, even the weird ones like the Shuriken multi-throw feats, and the appropriate adjustments to the chances are made such as the Doubleshot penalty from using a repeater or dual crossbow. From there, we determine how many “extra attacks” you have rolled, and if you have any bonus “attacks,” we multiply the damage you would deal by that amount.

We also have to do some funky stuff to get the damage of procs to double or triple or quadruple, and that starts in the same place where we calculate the number of effective hits. The combat code saves the number of hits and passes it down the chain until it gets to the place where effects actually deal their damage. From there, the effect will understand how many times it needs to be multiplied.

So, for comparison: Before, a melee character swings with his weapon, and Doublestrikes, which would be two detect-attacks, two damage rolls, and two series of on-hit effect triggers. Under these changes, the player attacks, Doublestrikes, and double damage is dealt, but only one set of on-hit-effects trigger because, to the game, only one “attack” took place.

What this means in practice is that no matter how many projectiles a shuriken thrower uses, or a dual-crossbow player fires, the maximum rate of an on-hit effect is now directly linked to your actual attack speed, and therefore, is significantly reduced. This has the potential to greatly reduce the amount of actual “attacks” in DDO without greatly disrupting player behavior.

Summary

The end result of this change should be improved gameplay on the performance end. Furthermore, the numbers you see while dealing damage will more accurately reflect what's happening in the moment, and you should be able to make calculations more quickly. We hope that you'll give this a solid try on Lamannia and look forward to your feedback, both on the usability of this change and any change in performance therein.

I am just surprised that you mention about the benefits and all (which is really great) but what about effects that would proc twice that are non-dmg? Eg - adrenaline charge regaining, neg leveling (which in epics is going to be completely useless because the monsters regain their levels back like every 2 seconds or so), or other debuffs...
I understand that that number of debuffs/buffs or procs is one of the reasons to cause lag but your dev team does not offer anything to compensate for the 50% less procs...

Or what will you do with some things like Barbarian's One Spirit (that requires 100 charges to be activated)... now it will charge up 2x slower. Which means the barbarian will long gone die. How do you plan to compensate for those???

Another thing:

Non of the devs mentioned that (and I find it really odd) is that a large portion of lag is also created when the monsters are spawning in large groups. Eg - something that happens in Thunderforge when there are a lot of players entering a doorway and suddenly the mobs are being spawned and the whole party lags to death and that is NOT because of any procs because non of the players was able to activate anything.

That happens in variety of places and in my opinion is related to the mobs-spawn-targeting + calculations or something.

I really hope you can offer us something for your (unspoken) nerf to the proc rates. A lot of builds rely on that. Or if you really want to nerf it all across - why don't you just say it?

Cheers.

[Malusny]

We are trying to reduce the amount of times over a period that procs happen, and changes that put us to the same amount of procs per second will not fix our effects queue problem.

But how are you planning to compensate to the players their loss of procs (about 50% loss) that are mostly related to their debuffs or charging certain abilities?

I mean, for many that is their game play style, especially when a player is relying on slowing mobs down , or tripping them or neg leveling them (because now it will happen 2 times less than before, or even more if there are less attacks/shots).

Can you please elaborate on th

Maybe a solution would be for the non-dmg effects to proc less often but harder? For example if a character would vorpal neg level a monster and would have 2x or 3x chance to proc that, now it would neg lvl only once but for 2negative levels at once?
Or if Adrenaline charges gain from vorpal hits is currently 33% , you could change it so you would regain 2 adrenaline charges at once?

If a Barbarian swings to charge One Spirit Enhancement then 1 hit would gain 2 charges of it?

Please do not walk by the 50% proc loss for players. Please be fair and compensate it someway or at least please discuss it with us about what you and your dev team thinks about it?
cheers.

[DeltaBravo]

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.

Iam absolutely sure you are right that new hardware alone can remove performence issues in the game.. And iam not a computer tech Einstein. However that being said. if a restart of the servers wich clears memory and refresh other stuff actully works for some of the performence issues wich i atleast some times find it does. Then there must be some kind of hardware issue out there, whatever you think it is not. If the restart never helped then i would 100% agree on you. but it actully does work at times. Wich is a lack of memory / storage or whatever you call it now. Since that pretty much all a restart will clear out.

This can also just be avoided by doing one more restart each week.


Cheers DB