Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Two Knives
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 14:05:00 -
[271]
Originally by: Zenst
ROFLMFAO
Oh no were dieing again, call for nerf. Seriously you chaps need to adpat and not cry nerf everytiume the tides change.
This is a petition to reduce lag, not to nerf carriers in any way.
|
Zenst
Gallente Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 14:15:00 -
[272]
Originally by: Two Knives
Originally by: Zenst
ROFLMFAO
Oh no were dieing again, call for nerf. Seriously you chaps need to adpat and not cry nerf everytiume the tides change.
This is a petition to reduce lag, not to nerf carriers in any way.
Well you completely fooled.
|
Shoukei
Boobs Ahoy
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 15:05:00 -
[273]
i say that no carrier should be able to carry any fighters, to reduce lag when goonies bring 800 alts in noobships to grind the system into a halt.
here be signatures! |
BronYAurStomp
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 16:36:00 -
[274]
Quote: What we, the undersigned, want is just for CCP to acknowledge fighter spam lag as a priority issue and make fixing and adjusting it a goal in an upcoming patch, whenever that may be.
I think some of you are misreading what this petition is about. |
Jarek Dryayen
Caldari Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 16:38:00 -
[275]
Edited by: Jarek Dryayen on 09/09/2007 16:39:45 /signed
I honestly do not think that carriers and fighters need a nerf, provided we are talking about a game in a lag-free environment. My sole problem is with the crippling lag produced when a fighter swarm comes onto grid. Now, I'm fully aware that a lag-free environment is a pipe dream. But every single time that I have been on the same grid as a significant number of fighters, the lag has been ridiculous.
I love the idea of a ship sitting off grid, sending off their oversized drones to blow the crap out of their foes, assigning fighters to other ships, and the other myriad tasks carriers perform in battle. That being said, apparantly the way the fighters are implemented is creating the lag that makes it take forever and a day to load the grid. If the developers can implement fighters as they exist now, but with much reduced lag, my complaint disappears.
|
SunglassesInSpace
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 17:00:00 -
[276]
those saying that this would be nerf to carriers are pretty dumb. The proposed changes to dps and drone hp means that it would take a lot more damage to start affecting total fighter dps. Fighter swarms would be more resilient to smart bombs among other things.
|
Ar'tee
DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 17:35:00 -
[277]
Originally by: Kerfira
So, in conclusion, your figures are extremely inaccurate (unless CCP really HAS implemented the worst possible collision detection algorithm).
Which wouldn't surprise me in the least, tbh. Knowing where to find and how to use/write efficient algorithms is not exactly CCP's strongest point, as far as I can tell. (Neither is user interface design, but I digress.)
For example, try to optimize (for least number of jumps) a route of 9+ waypoints. The client will give you a warning because it will take a very long time. When you experiment with this, it is rather obvious that they use the most naive implementation possible: try every possible ordering of the waypoints and see which one has the least jumps. There are n! possibilities (n=number of waypoints) - this is the worst solution imaginable (worse than exponential, in fact).
However, optimizing waypoint ordering is known as the Traveling Salesman problem, which is one of the best known computer science/graph theory problems. It should take at most a couple hours of searching the internet (or even CS textbooks) to find solutions using heuristics that are orders of magnitude faster - including a specification of how to implement the algorithm so you can just rip it off. No real thinking required even.
From the amount of lag caused as a function of the number of players in a system, I suspect that similar problems occur in CCP's codebase in numerous other places as well, on-grid collision detection is likely to be one of them. (I'm not saying efficiently implementing collision detection is easy btw - because it most certainly isn't).
|
Postmaster Generale
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 17:56:00 -
[278]
Was going to make a stupid CAOD style rebuttal to Kerfira but thought better of it because hey, look at that forum title.
I don't think anyone in here knows exactly how fighters are coded or how the servers run that code, but anyone who has been in major battles involving fighter swarms can attest to the enormous server lag associated with them.
Fighters are a major source of lag in large engagements, and are currently making capital fleet fights extinct because neither side will risk sending their dreads into such an uncontrollable situation. In sub-capital fights fighters often have the unfortunate and frustrating effect of immobilizing players through server lag while continuing to fight themselves. This leads to more unhappy "stared at loading screen for 10 minutes then loaded station in a pod" player experiences and ultimately makes the game less fun for everyone involved.
The only reason I can think of that anyone would oppose reducing fighter lag is that they currently derive some benefit from its continued existence, but I caution those people that the same fighter lagging tactics can be against them in the future.
So please, CCP, look into this issue. Nobody wants a nerf to fighters or carriers, in fact we want fights involving fighters and carriers to become a normal, smoothly integrated part of fleet warfare, rather than a monster that ruins the fight with lag. We at Goonfleet and around the EVE galaxy appreciate the stellar work you've put out in the past year, and hope that, with our input, you can continue to make EVE a better place to play.
|
Jinmie
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 18:02:00 -
[279]
This would technically be a buff to Carriers with them having to spend half as much on Fighters and having each Fighter last 2x as long to damage than they currently do.
Apparantly some of you can't see that are are crying nerf, I don't see how given the above and the fact that 5 Fighters will do as much dps as 10...
|
Dimirti
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 18:06:00 -
[280]
/signed.
|
|
Vyres
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 18:07:00 -
[281]
Originally by: Zenst
Originally by: Two Knives
Originally by: Zenst
ROFLMFAO
Oh no were dieing again, call for nerf. Seriously you chaps need to adpat and not cry nerf everytiume the tides change.
This is a petition to reduce lag, not to nerf carriers in any way.
Well you completely fooled.
Please stay out of this thread since you are bringing in game politics to a place where it dose not belong. We propose the same dps for carriers with less lag helping both alliances. If you dont have anything contructive go to COAD we would be more then glad to troll with you there. Untill then your just making your alliance just as bad as we look in COAD except this isnt COAD...
|
Orion Moonstar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 18:08:00 -
[282]
/signed
|
GHAD Empire
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 18:43:00 -
[283]
Same carrier DPS? Check. Prevents lag? Hopefully so. Signed? Check.
|
Welfare State
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 19:27:00 -
[284]
Originally by: Zenst
ROFLMFAO
Oh no were dieing again, call for nerf. Seriously you chaps need to adpat and not cry nerf everytiume the tides change.
Issue is numbers involved not fighters and frankly 1 fighter per ship and limit 5 to a carrier is frankly akain to smoking your own fesius.
NOT SIGNED - BUT I'M NOT A GOON ALT NOW AM I
I'll leave you folks to spam now.
I'm sorry you don't agree with my position, but I believe that the game could be improved if lag was reduced and this seems like a plausible source of lag in large fleet battles.
If you disagree, your best bet would be to direct your attention to the original post (OP) and provide some rational counter-arguments to his post. Otherwise, please refrain from posting personal attacks and flaming someone because they happen to hold a different opinion about the game. Thank you!
|
Shadow Leigon
horizons GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 20:11:00 -
[285]
/signed
|
Edith
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 20:15:00 -
[286]
/signed
|
Kaldaine
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 20:22:00 -
[287]
Originally by: Zenst
Originally by: Two Knives
Originally by: Zenst
ROFLMFAO
Oh no were dieing again, call for nerf. Seriously you chaps need to adpat and not cry nerf everytiume the tides change.
This is a petition to reduce lag, not to nerf carriers in any way.
Well you completely fooled.
Lets try something new here. Instead of not reading a single post in the thread and going straight to insulting us because lawl goonies, lets have a discussion on why having 5 fighters doing the DPS of 10, with increased hitpoints and thus harder to smart bomb and finally having less lag in fleet battles is a bad thing? How exactly are the proposed changes a nerf to fighters? Do you have better ideas aside from fly smaller gangs nub? This stuff may be obvious to an experienced vet such as yourself however I am quite new and could use the help. I havent noticed anyone in FAT or the north proposing it as a realistic possibility. Anyone who still thinks it somehow is with the current game mechanics is a much bigger noob then any Goonswarm pilot.
If I am to understand Kerfira we should actually increase lag and make it harder to fight with smaller numbers of people in system. This will prevent people from having large fleet battles and lagging out. Im not sure I agree with this.
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 21:22:00 -
[288]
Its kinda of a hard one. there is something so overwhelmingly cool about large numbers of fighters from carriers and MS swarming hostiles. But it definitely adds significant stress.
it would be a pity to reduce carriers to launching 5 fighters.
Not signed on the proposal. But the issue needs significant thought
|
Deadly Fear
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 22:43:00 -
[289]
/signed
|
Serendipity007
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 01:21:00 -
[290]
Signing this.
I fly a carrier btw, not happy with giving up fighters, but if its to reduce lag, i'm all for it.
Also, make them smarter and faster so we won't need 20 of them to get the job done. ___________________________________________________ "I'm an engineer, not a miracle worker!" - Scotty, Star Trek: TOS
|
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 03:15:00 -
[291]
Originally by: Gyle Its kinda of a hard one. there is something so overwhelmingly cool about large numbers of fighters from carriers and MS swarming hostiles. But it definitely adds significant stress.
it would be a pity to reduce carriers to launching 5 fighters.
Not signed on the proposal. But the issue needs significant thought
Bear in mind that there is no technical reason that a "fighter" couldn't be replaced with "fighter squad" and rendered with a model containing 3-5 individual fighters that are simply treated as a single ship by the game. Carriers launching 5 fighter squads would actually make a lot more sense IMO.
|
Orangir
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 03:55:00 -
[292]
Kerfira, I'm not going to bother breaking down your post again and refuting it point by point because you've devolved into political maneuvering and name-calling, so I'll just leave you with a quote from CCP themselves that completely refutes your position. This is from a dev blog regarding the reduction of the amount of deployable drones:
Originally by: CCP Oveur I'd just like to point out that the optimizations are being done from not one, not two but from THREE sides. It may come as a surprise to some players but we are actually optmizing code, optimizing content (this change) and buying more hardware.
Drones take a lot of resources on the client and the server and although it may seem very little to some of you, doing this change alone actually reduces the resource usage by almost half. I think that's quite a lot ;)
I think someone has already linked the blog itself early in the thread if you want to look at it.
Oh, and let's not forget this quote:
Originally by: CCP Oveur We always want to evolve the gameplay in EVE and in many cases, like Drones, there is no way to do that without optimizing the bejesus out of the system. An easy fix isn't always possible since the system is already so resource intensive that we are directly prohibited from evolving them.
Optimizing it usually means exterminating the factor which causes the most load - and in the case of Drones, the number of drones in space was #1, using heavy resources on the Client and the SOL servers. Exterminating the factor meant reducing the number of drones, plain and simple.
http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=286
|
Dagam
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 09:55:00 -
[293]
Edited by: Dagam on 10/09/2007 10:05:46 It's too bad Kerfira's trolling is only bumping this thread giving this issue more attention when his posts are buried in the 8th page and after. Not to mention he's wrong on pretty much every point he makes. Amazing.
Back on topic I liked when drones were reduced from 15 to 5 because it let you micromanage them much better. The change actually buffed drones while reducing lag. Fact is if goons proposed this change you would have the same alt trolls and BoB members kneejerk opposing it just because they're goons. They don't care or want to consider if it will make the game better.
|
Miss KillSome
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 10:40:00 -
[294]
Edited by: Miss KillSome on 10/09/2007 10:43:20 well, the fighters may be the cause for extra lag as drones were 1 year back BUT!
I remember 6-7months ago when LV was still alive. That JV1V battle at the 4am in th emorning for me..there was no fighters (or very little!) there was just a massive defensive fleet (400 in system) and THE massive offensive fleet (1000man gang) approaching JV1V.
And node crashed, and crashed. And GM didnt do anything. nor he couldnt do anything except lock the system. But he didnt.
So, there is still a problem with massive fleets engaging eachother apart from fighters and drones.
I think that they will solve this problem, when they implement that system for distributed NODE processing, but till then, we cannot do anything. If there is 150fighters in air, i'm sure that both parties have ALOT of ships there also, making lag anyway, having fighters or not.
Fighters are good for defending force, coz they work even if everything is lagged. Jumpins have priority over logins into system, making crashed defenders unbale to help in fight, at least fighters can do some work, when offensive blob jumps into system.
Solve the problem at roots: UI redesign. Overview into threads. g8s jump limit (there is always some other route into system..). Logins into system have priority over jumpins. GMs should be informed by someone that big fleet fight is going to happen or they can be autoinformed by system if there is gang of over 200ships moving around. More JITA nodes available for strategic 0.0 systems. Jumping delay when uncloaking needs to be eliminated. (Are?) Gang bonuses still calculated from every gang members on uncloking. (Is?) Grid updating for all ships when one offensive module is activated on one ship only.
|
sliver 0xD
Cosmic Odyssey YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 11:01:00 -
[295]
/disagree
there are no drones in jita, still there is lag. this will be the second nerf on drones that will not help the lag problem.
the numbers u use are not facts. lag is made up from more factors then just a few drones.
i actualy trained up my drone skills as high as posible to fight in lag. ironic enough goons made me make this choice :P
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 11:12:00 -
[296]
Originally by: sliver 0xD /disagree
there are no drones in jita, still there is lag. this will be the second nerf on drones that will not help the lag problem.
the numbers u use are not facts. lag is made up from more factors then just a few drones.
i actualy trained up my drone skills as high as posible to fight in lag. ironic enough goons made me make this choice :P
No one anywhere has implied drones are the sole cause of lag?
Lag will always exist so long as perfect hardware doesn't, which means that there is no "one solution to rule them all", and that all lag everywhere can't be fixed doesn't mean that steps should not be taken that effect the middle ground of lag.
If we could drop the number of entities in the air from carriers to 5 each like ships, then middle ground lag - say, 2 groups of carriers engaging each other - will be no more potentially lagging then two equally sized fleets of any other ship type.
|
shinoda
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 12:22:00 -
[297]
Edited by: shinoda on 10/09/2007 12:28:10 The OP's logic is flawed. Drones don't interact with each other. Therefor the flops needed by the server to control them don't rise exponentialy. What rises exponentialy however is the amount of outbound data from the node as each client connected to the grid gets updated on every action of each single drone. While the node itself might more or less be able to cope with it due to Gigabit infrastructure most homecomputer systems won't.
What is needed (and thats not just because of fighters) is a slimmed down protocol for large scale fights.
There is no need to notify my client when a drone thats not on me is firing a shot. I don't care if they play firing animations. I know that they are attacking when they orbit someone! There is no need to have the server calculate an orbiting path either. I don't care if the drones orbit in a different pattern on a different client as long as both clients see them on the same target! There is no need to notify my client of each single gun on the battlefield completing a cycle! A generic "this boat has started/stopped firing at you" message will do because its very likely that I wont find the time to admire the fancy animations anyways. There is no need to calculate a flightpath for each missile in realtime either.
Not in a large scale battle! These details go unnoticed and are unnessecary! All they do is create an immense amount of traffic that drags down the server and prolongs grid loading.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 14:37:00 -
[298]
Originally by: shinoda Edited by: shinoda on 10/09/2007 12:28:10 The OP's logic is flawed. Drones don't interact with each other. Therefor the flops needed by the server to control them don't rise exponentialy.
You have never seen drones bounce off each other? Because this is a fairly common occurance.
Quote:
What rises exponentialy however is the amount of outbound data from the node as each client connected to the grid gets updated on every action of each single drone.
This part is actually a linear increase
|
shinoda
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 14:51:00 -
[299]
Originally by: GoumindongYou have never seen drones bounce off each other? Because this is a fairly common occurance.[/quote
Nope, I haven't. If thats true however, then the OP makes sense.
Quote:
Quote:
What rises exponentialy however is the amount of outbound data from the node as each client connected to the grid gets updated on every action of each single drone.
This part is actually a linear increase
Actually true aswell... thats what you get for adding bits and pieces by the edit function. Ofc trafic generation from drones is linear. It's adding new players to the grid that causes exponential growth.
Doesn't change the fact thou, that all those shiny animations are useless in a fleet fight. Default animations would do the trick and they'd rely on alot less information being transferred.
|
Duranium
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 16:55:00 -
[300]
/signed
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |