Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Seeker's's
FIRST SHOCK SQUADRON Darkness of Despair
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 04:55:00 -
[1] - Quote
I was wondering if those carriers are going to be rebalanced because 1. They can assist drones to ships with low scan resolution and in big fight u get an awefull instapopper. At the same time u may easily miss the lock from a trigger ship in 1k+ overview. 2. Untill recently (and now too if the fix doesn't help) they could easily avoid or disengage a losing fight by several deploying+abandoning drones to crush the battle node.
Maybe anyone's aware if somefink is gonna be done about it or "high-level pvp" will remain wrecked for another year on. |
Secret Squirrell
Allied Press Intergalactic
30
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 06:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
1) Lots of people want a nerf, but the real issue is with drone assist, not carriers. Don't expect carriers to exit the equation just because drone assist is nerfed. CCP hasn't announced anything either way.
2) No one has actually done this, and if they did, CCP would likely hit at least their FC with a ban hammer. Now it is true that a large fleet of carriers contributes more to server load on a per ship basis than most subcaps, but bringing 1500 people to fight 500 also contributes to server load, I suspect a lot more so then the 200 carriers. |
Seeker's's
FIRST SHOCK SQUADRON Darkness of Despair
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 13:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
Well, close to what I expected. Maybe there's a discussion topic here about ways to fix this? I'd appreciate a link. |
Rab See
Fool Mental Junket
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 14:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
Secret Squirrell wrote:1) Lots of people want a nerf, but the real issue is with drone assist, not carriers. Don't expect carriers to exit the equation just because drone assist is nerfed. CCP hasn't announced anything either way.
2) No one has actually done this, and if they did, CCP would likely hit at least their FC with a ban hammer. Now it is true that a large fleet of carriers contributes more to server load on a per ship basis than most subcaps, but bringing 1500 people to fight 500 also contributes to server load, I suspect a lot more so then the 200 carriers.
1500 ships, perhaps with 5 drones each = 9000 entities 200 carriers with 10 drones each = 2200 entities
But lets take 1500 carriers ... 10 drones each = 16500 entities
Carriers are a problem as they scale rapidly in the number of entities to look after - server load is HUGE. The sad part about 1500 carriers and one ship controlling 15000 drones is .. its about as broken as it gets in the game.
Make the bonus for carriers be one of drone damage/tracking/hitpoints per level to make them match what 10 drones would give and ti would push the number of entities down, it wouldn't solve the problem of assist. |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage Fidelas Constans
185
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 15:07:00 -
[5] - Quote
This is the long term result of the game balance we've seen thus far. capitals are still stuck in the "this ship is patently awful never fly it" era LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Alcorak
Stealth Tactics and Reconnaissance Service Rebel Alliance of New Eden
11
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 20:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
I think that if you have 1500 carriers, you're less concerned with node crashing and more concerned with popping everything around you. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
4298
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 22:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
Rab See wrote:Secret Squirrell wrote:1) Lots of people want a nerf, but the real issue is with drone assist, not carriers. Don't expect carriers to exit the equation just because drone assist is nerfed. CCP hasn't announced anything either way.
2) No one has actually done this, and if they did, CCP would likely hit at least their FC with a ban hammer. Now it is true that a large fleet of carriers contributes more to server load on a per ship basis than most subcaps, but bringing 1500 people to fight 500 also contributes to server load, I suspect a lot more so then the 200 carriers. 1500 ships, perhaps with 5 drones each = 9000 entities 200 carriers with 10 drones each = 2200 entities But lets take 1500 carriers ... 10 drones each = 16500 entities Carriers are a problem as they scale rapidly in the number of entities to look after - server load is HUGE. The sad part about 1500 carriers and one ship controlling 15000 drones is .. its about as broken as it gets in the game. Make the bonus for carriers be one of drone damage/tracking/hitpoints per level to make them match what 10 drones would give and ti would push the number of entities down, it wouldn't solve the problem of assist.
I don't know if it's fair to say that 1500 carriers are worse than 1500 Drakes. 1500 Navy Drakes with 3 volleys in the air would have 1500*(5+1+3*8) = 45000 entities on the field. What's worse than that is that due to the way fleet warps and fleet tactics work you'll have 256*(1+8+5)=3584 entities in the same octree cube to make collision detection and culling just that much more fun.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
LUMINOUS SPIRIT
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
64
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 04:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
back in the day they used to crash nodes by exploding a freighter full of cargo containers on purpose....
now its drones.
solution is of course to remove drones and missiles from 'real object' category, have them exist only server-side, but it will require redesign of smartbombs, defender missiles, bombs, etc..
but if CCP could simplify the drone calculations, it would be nice. Instead of actual drone models flying back and forth, you could have a 'cloud' for example with nice visual effect, and that 'cloud' is the drone cloud - like an aura around a ship that is a sentry cloud, applying constant damage like a DoT, or a moving cloud that can be shot, signifying swarm or regular nano drones....
major rework to be sure, but it would make calculations easier. |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
642
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 09:34:00 -
[9] - Quote
Secret Squirrell wrote:2) No one has actually done this, and if they did, CCP would likely hit at least their FC with a ban hammer. Now it is true that a large fleet of carriers contributes more to server load on a per ship basis than most subcaps, but bringing 1500 people to fight 500 also contributes to server load, I suspect a lot more so then the 200 carriers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vG6cnS4BsQ watch carefully @3.00 and 5.10 timemarks. Node has crashed, titans/carriers saved, no one is banned.
9000 drones that were left in space created 10% TiDi even with 100 players in local after node was restarted. GMs were called and had to clear grid manually.
Liang Nuren wrote:I don't know if it's fair to say that 1500 carriers are worse than 1500 Drakes. 1500 Navy Drakes with 3 volleys in the air would have 1500*(5+1+3*8) = 45000 entities on the field. What's worse than that is that due to the way fleet warps and fleet tactics work you'll have 256*(1+8+5)=3584 entities in the same octree cube to make collision detection and culling just that much more fun. -Liang 1500 drakes means there are 1500 pilots on grid which makes fight that much more fun. Also with recent buff to heavy missiles' velocity (and overall nerf to range) it is highly unlikely to have 3 volleys in space at the same time. but 200 carriers are only 200 players that create too much strain on the system by abandoning and deploying cheap t1 sentries from bottomless dronebay/cargo (including collision checks with all those drones and carriers and probably supers jumping in that blob of drones). Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |
Nimrod vanHall
Martyr's Vengence Nulli Secunda
55
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 13:29:00 -
[10] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Secret Squirrell wrote:2) No one has actually done this, and if they did, CCP would likely hit at least their FC with a ban hammer. Now it is true that a large fleet of carriers contributes more to server load on a per ship basis than most subcaps, but bringing 1500 people to fight 500 also contributes to server load, I suspect a lot more so then the 200 carriers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vG6cnS4BsQwatch carefully @3.00 and 5.10 timemarks. Node has crashed, titans/carriers saved, no one is banned. 9000 drones that were left in space created 10% TiDi even with 100 players in local after node was restarted. GMs were called and had to clear grid manually. Liang Nuren wrote:I don't know if it's fair to say that 1500 carriers are worse than 1500 Drakes. 1500 Navy Drakes with 3 volleys in the air would have 1500*(5+1+3*8) = 45000 entities on the field. What's worse than that is that due to the way fleet warps and fleet tactics work you'll have 256*(1+8+5)=3584 entities in the same octree cube to make collision detection and culling just that much more fun. -Liang 1500 drakes means there are 1500 pilots on grid which makes fight that much more fun. Also with recent buff to heavy missiles' velocity (and overall nerf to range) it is highly unlikely to have 3 volleys in space at the same time. but 200 carriers are only 200 players that create too much strain on the system by abandoning and deploying cheap t1 sentries from bottomless dronebay/cargo (including collision checks with all those drones and carriers and probably supers jumping in that blob of drones). Solution is rather tricky one: limit carriers to fighters only, 5 fighters per carrier, change assist mechanic to assign (player cannot control more drones that his skills allow him to), buff fighters (make drone modules affect them maybe?)
If you change carriers so that the only drones they can use are 5 fighters with a ship bonus on them and with Drone mos working on fighters the effect wil be scarry:
1500 dps 'ceptors? and that just my first thought.
|
|
Old Phill
Republic University Minmatar Republic
44
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 13:49:00 -
[11] - Quote
Solution to this whole drone assist thing is give drones a lock time equal to their owners ship so that would be its not just insta alpha in theory all the ppl with max 5 skills would be the same time but it basicly means the owner has to lock the target even though they wouldnt |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
72
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 14:39:00 -
[12] - Quote
My suggestion in another 'Kill drone assist' thread is that the number of drones a pilot can have assisting him/her is governed by the number of drones she/he can pilot themself. This makes sense as for the drones to target the assistee's primary victim they must be interfaced to the assistees targeting systems, i.e the pilot must be controlling them to some degree.
This does mean that you can have pilots flying more drones than they can usually carry in their small interceptor, but at least then the massive firepower would come from co-ordinated fleet action instead of one person vaporizing each ship in turn.
Maybe another idea could be that large numbers of ships/drones in a condensed area have an AOE effect on sig radius for ships of equal or smaller size. This would represent the targeting computers having to sift the myriad cluttered returns for that group of frigs running through the 1000's of drones sigs. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
4310
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 18:49:00 -
[13] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote: 1500 drakes means there are 1500 pilots on grid which makes fight that much more fun. Also with recent buff to heavy missiles' velocity (and overall nerf to range) it is highly unlikely to have 3 volleys in space at the same time. but 200 carriers are only 200 players that create too much strain on the system by abandoning and deploying cheap t1 sentries from bottomless dronebay/cargo (including collision checks with all those drones and carriers and probably supers jumping in that blob of drones).
Solution is rather tricky one: limit carriers to fighters only, 5 fighters per carrier, change assist mechanic to assign (player cannot control more drones that his skills allow him to), buff fighters (make drone modules affect them maybe?)
You seem to have not read what I was responding to. I was responding to the idea that X number of carriers is worse for server load than X of any other ship. I provided an example that is potentially (and has historically been) a lot worse than carriers. I don't think that you need to look for ways to nerf them, or to nerf drones any more than you need to look for ways to nerf Drakes or nerf missiles.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Lunkwill Khashour
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
179
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 19:48:00 -
[14] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote: 1500 drakes means there are 1500 pilots on grid which makes fight that much more fun. Also with recent buff to heavy missiles' velocity (and overall nerf to range) it is highly unlikely to have 3 volleys in space at the same time. but 200 carriers are only 200 players that create too much strain on the system by abandoning and deploying cheap t1 sentries from bottomless dronebay/cargo (including collision checks with all those drones and carriers and probably supers jumping in that blob of drones).
Solution is rather tricky one: limit carriers to fighters only, 5 fighters per carrier, change assist mechanic to assign (player cannot control more drones that his skills allow him to), buff fighters (make drone modules affect them maybe?)
You seem to have not read what I was responding to. I was responding to the idea that X number of carriers is worse for server load than X of any other ship. I provided an example that is potentially (and has historically been) a lot worse than carriers. I don't think that you need to look for ways to nerf them, or to nerf drones any more than you need to look for ways to nerf Drakes or nerf missiles. -Liang
AFAIK, The 8 missiles are counted as 1 if volleyed, same with gun grouping. IMHO, drone assist needs major nerf and as a far away goal, the whole 'entity' engine will need work or at the very least upscaling. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
4316
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 02:03:00 -
[15] - Quote
Lunkwill Khashour wrote: AFAIK, The 8 missiles are counted as 1 if volleyed, same with gun grouping. IMHO, drone assist needs major nerf and as a far away goal, the whole 'entity' engine will need work or at the very least upscaling.
Yes, but we are talking about worse case scenarios here - and the worst case for missiles is significantly higher than for carriers. However, even if we're talking about carriers vs group missile NDrakes: 10/carrier vs (3+5+1)=9/Ndrake.
Basically if you want to argue that drone assist needs a nerf then don't try to justify it based on "server load" semantics that you may or may not have an understanding of.
-Liang
Ed: Also, all of the **** about preventing carriers from even using drones. What the ****, seriously? Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Secret Squirrell
Allied Press Intergalactic
35
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 06:57:00 -
[16] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Secret Squirrell wrote:2) No one has actually done this, and if they did, CCP would likely hit at least their FC with a ban hammer. Now it is true that a large fleet of carriers contributes more to server load on a per ship basis than most subcaps, but bringing 1500 people to fight 500 also contributes to server load, I suspect a lot more so then the 200 carriers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vG6cnS4BsQwatch carefully @3.00 and 5.10 timemarks. Node has crashed, titans/carriers saved, no one is banned. 9000 drones that were left in space created 10% TiDi even with 100 players in local after node was restarted. GMs were called and had to clear grid manually.
Except in that fight, the side with carriers was the side that was in the process of massacring enemy dreads when the node went down. All the drones were the result of the natural progression of the fight.
Liang Nuren wrote: Ed: Also, all of the **** about preventing carriers from even using drones. What the ****, seriously?
Its standard tactics amongst certain entities, that when they are unable to overcome a tactic on the battlefield, to try to get it nerfed into the ground. They aren't sure that a drone assist nerf will be enough for them to overcome slowcats, so they propose something much more radical. Limit carriers to fighters, can only carry 1-2 flights, bomb fighters twice, battle won. Supers already have that problem, but it is somewhat balanced by the insane DPS of fighter bombers. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
682
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 11:35:00 -
[17] - Quote
Seeker's's wrote:I was wondering if those carriers are going to be rebalanced because 1. They can assist drones to ships with low scan resolution and in big fight u get an awefull instapopper. At the same time u may easily miss the lock from a trigger ship in 1k+ overview. 2. Untill recently (and now too if the fix doesn't help) they could easily avoid or disengage a losing fight by several deploying+abandoning drones to crush the battle node.
Maybe anyone's aware if somefink is gonna be done about it or "high-level pvp" will remain wrecked for another year on.
no, carriers arent the issue. They are issue for your alliance/coalition, because it is not willing to field the counter in shape of dread fleets/supers. Bigger fish eats smaller fish, thats the way of this game and always been this way. |
Rab See
Fool Mental Junket
29
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 14:13:00 -
[18] - Quote
Oddly descended into the 'we use this, you suck, we win, you cant defeat it' type discussion.
One thing that bears out from the simple analysis is that carriers and the multiplicity of their drones can cause server load issues, as well as exploit an unforseen broken mechanic. Sentry boat buffs illustrate this as well.
So my idea would be to reduce drone numbers on carrier but up their stats per level. 5 uber sentries rather than 10.
For assistance, make it squad leader can be assisted by 25, Wing 50, Fleet 250. Fielding a fleet commander for the job would be interesting and risky.
Of course, changing both would mean that 25 would be '50' with the new buffed carrier drones, and 250 would be 500 .... |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
4325
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 19:54:00 -
[19] - Quote
Rab See wrote:Of course, changing both would mean that 25 would be '50' with the new buffed carrier drones, and 250 would be 500 ....
I know that you don't care too much about unexpected side effects of nerfing things you don't like, but there are a lot of semantics with non-combat drones that can't really be emulated this way. Again, I want to reiterate the idea that you should suggest nerfs based on game imbalances instead of your perceived server load issues.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Seeker's's
FIRST SHOCK SQUADRON Darkness of Despair
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 00:46:00 -
[20] - Quote
GE-8 faced a battle of 3k players involved some time ago and there was TiDi ofc. But guess what? It was completely OK, it wasn't goddamn 1%, the node wasn't convulsed. Why not? There were neither drone fleets nor carriers involved.
I just dunno, I personally no wanna spoil anyone's super-fleet or anomaly farm or stuff, but gosh, I hope CCP at least admit this problem and start fixing it. |
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
4332
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 00:58:00 -
[21] - Quote
I'm completely ok with people asking for a better drone implementation or whatever. What I'm not ok with is attempting to justify nerfs based on your perception of what the root cause of performance issues are.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Seeker's's
FIRST SHOCK SQUADRON Darkness of Despair
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 02:50:00 -
[22] - Quote
Fair enough. IMHO, it should be done carefully and with no rush and no sudden nerfs CCP love so much.
But using drone assist in TiDi today is close to exploit of server mechanics. Assisted drones from 200-300 carriers have a tremendous alpha delivered within 1-2 server ticks (even in TiDi it lands PERFECTLY). This guarantees an instapop of any dread or lesser. At the same time 200-300 dreads using voice countdown deliver their damage spread within several seconds. In the case of good-buffered and resistant carrier this little difference proves to be enough to survive at structure and get repaired by logis. The only thing giving advantage to carriers is software drone assist. Add TiDi from notorious drones again and get 4-5 carriers destroyed in EIGHT hours. That's the reality of mass-pvp today. And you shouldn't forget that a carrier pilot can give out his drones to the trigger ship and just go away. AFK pvp? Great idea. Even miners don't have that easy mode. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
4333
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 05:25:00 -
[23] - Quote
I'm not defending drone assist; I don't even care about drone assist. I'm just saying that we shouldn't balance the game around some players' ideas for what causes server load, because they have no idea what the server source code looks like. And on top of that, such radical ideas as taking drones away from carriers are simply ludicrous. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Blodhgarm Dethahal
Transcendent Sedition Dustm3n
78
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 05:33:00 -
[24] - Quote
You also cannot balance a ship or a set of ships based around one situation. Carriers are seen in smaller scale engagements as well to great effect but can be drasticly fitted differently. You have to consider both. -Bl+¦d
Transcendent Sedition is recruiting! Join "TSED Recruitment" chat ingame to talk to us if you are interested in Wormhole life! |
Seeker's's
FIRST SHOCK SQUADRON Darkness of Despair
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 09:01:00 -
[25] - Quote
Blodhgarm Dethahal wrote:You also cannot balance a ship or a set of ships based around one situation. Carriers are seen in smaller scale engagements as well to great effect but can be drasticly fitted differently. You have to consider both. Absolutely. And carrier carebears shouldn't be forgotten. But hey, this little by little should be announced, discussed, tested on Singularity and applied. Not only drones, but also missiles, aoe damage, common inventories - all that top laggy stuff. But yet even the problem hasn't been admitted. |
Odithia
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 11:31:00 -
[26] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: And on top of that, such radical ideas as taking drones away from carriers are simply ludicrous. :)
-Liang I would like to see carrier as more than a glorified hybrid between a jump freighter, a logi and a Dominix. If it takes nerfing it's ability to use (sentry) Drones and potentially boosting it's fighter I am all up for it as it would make it a more unique platform to use with other Hull class rather than the ultimate all in one package capable of ridiculous damage projection, applications (to any Hull class) , alpha, strategic mobility and tank. |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Terra Incognita Insidious Empire
138
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 14:54:00 -
[27] - Quote
Brought to you by: CFC Meta-Propaganda Campaign
Please....
Your entire position is false, and self serving.
The Archon Doctrine is working as intended - where outnumbered players have innovated an emmergant game play style and brought more expensive ships to the field in the face of enemy numbers.
CCP's consistent theme regarding mechanics over the life of EVE Online has been about 'trade offs' - nothing about Archon's is either new nor broken. The ship has been the same for ages, and so are the mechanics that are being used in opposition to an attempted null sec invasion.
So rather than attempt to meta-game a 'nerf' out of CCP in favor of the CFC and it's war allies - why don't you all just SHIP UP and escalate.
That's the real issue - not the Archon.
This is a non-issue! |
Mondra Ronuken
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 15:02:00 -
[28] - Quote
If you take away sentrys from carriers, you would also have to remove them from ishtars and small and medium drones from BS. Every ship can use "smaller" weapon system than intended for its class, so why remove this option only for carriers? If fighters are redesigned (less m3, more EHP and cheaper to build), lets try - but to be honest, this discussion is about goons "not winning fast enough". Head over to TMC.com, some delicious tears from DBRB including wrong maths.
CFC = Cry For Changes (Trademark^^) |
Ilaj Baiulus
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 15:13:00 -
[29] - Quote
Mondra Ronuken wrote:If you take away sentrys from carriers, you would also have to remove them from ishtars and small and medium drones from BS. Every ship can use "smaller" weapon system than intended for its class, so why remove this option only for carriers? If fighters are redesigned (less m3, more EHP and cheaper to build), lets try - but to be honest, this discussion is about goons "not winning fast enough". Head over to TMC.com, some delicious tears from DBRB including wrong maths.
CFC = Cry For Changes (Trademark^^) ^this |
Odithia
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 15:23:00 -
[30] - Quote
Mondra Ronuken wrote:If you take away sentrys from carriers, you would also have to remove them from ishtars and small and medium drones from BS. Meh, if it was up to me I would just remove sentry form the game altogether! Other drones are OK as they have more serious drawbacks. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |