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) |
Kropotkin
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 13:46:00 -
[421]
Originally by: Ogresmash One suggestion I've heard is to multiply the DPS and health of an individual fighter by 5, change the name and description to that of a fighter squadron, and divide the amount of fighters able to be deployed and controlled by carriers/motherships by 5.
Here's a problem I see with that: with five fighters, each of hitting power 1 and durability 1, a hit capable of killing one fighter will kill 1/5 of the total hitting power. But a single fightergroup of hitting power 5 and durability 5 will continue to hit with power 5 until the 5th single-fighter-killing hit arrives.
Whether making the obvious fix to that problem -- degrading the fightergroup hitting power as hits-taken accumulate -- would complexify combat computations enough to negate the beneficial effect on lag, of reducing the total number of entities flying around, I don't know.
Hmm... There's another subtlety: if four of five single fighters are destroyed, the launching ship is out 4/5 of the initial combat capability until it gets resupplied. But if a five-fighter-group is 4/5 damaged, applying the ordinary repair rules would restore it to full 5/5 combat capability. There's a straightforward fix for that one too, but again at the cost of complexifying the combat calculations.
|
Baulath
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 19:28:00 -
[422]
I've been training for a carrier for the last few weeks. After reading posts like this I'm honestly rethinking. Lag has always been an issue in EVE and no doubt always will. Reducing the number of drones a carrier can use is a ridiculous. They are drone boats, pure and simple. Upgrade the servers before you downgrade the game play. Spend some of that cash we're all sending your way CCP to deliver what everyone is crying out for.. Better performance!
- b |
Samurai XII
|
Posted - 2007.11.04 22:35:00 -
[423]
Taking fighters out is not the answer. If anything, make only BS+ size ship use drones. That will take away A LOT more drones/fighters than carriers/MS = less lag.
Don't like it? ______________________ Just another cool alt. |
Princess Jodi
Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 16:22:00 -
[424]
NOT Signed!
The purpose of Carriers is to use lots of Fighters. Stop messing with that. If you think Fighters cause lag (which is debatable) then change it so that all the Fighters you launch become a single Icon on the screen. Shooting this Icon damages a random Fighter in the stack.
While I understand that this limits the ability to break apart your Fighters, in my exprience that is not desirable anyway. Obviously people can launch multiple groups of fighters seperately, thus creating multiple icons for things like assigning Fighters. Overall, however, I believe that people will want all Fighters to shoot at one target anyway.
Also, as pointed out, Drones auto-retarget: Fighters do not. So if you want to stop that ability you affect every player in Eve. Don't blame Carriers just cuz they launch a few more drones than normal ships. I would LOVE to have Fighters auto-retarget: with the lag, I feel that I'm operating at 50% effectiveness because I have to order my Fighters to attack. (It make me feel like I do when I delegate Fighters... watch half of them not being used cuz someone's a noob or they died. Whee. )
Find another way to attack Lag. But leave Fighters alone.
|
Dominator9987
Minmatar The Shambling Horde
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 16:58:00 -
[425]
Fit out to kill cruisers when taking on fighter spam. Your wing will be satisfied with teh results.
|
Butternut Squash
Gallente Ramm's RDI
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 17:59:00 -
[426]
It would appear that the majority of people are against nerfing a cap ships fighter ability, yet agree that something should be done to reduce the lag, IMO the next obvious entity to consider nerfing is the blob itself. If FC's only had a limited number of fleet slots then fleets may become honed to a specific task, if you think about it, we already do this when fitting out a ship to ensure we get the best results from our available cap ... fleets could just become an extension of that.
If for example a fleet were to consist of 200 fleet slots, a carrier may consume 5 of those slots, with each additional fighter consuming another fleet slot, this would make fleet battles an extension of the FC's tactical ability.
I can imagine FC's having substitutes warming up on the touchline waiting to come on
I am jealous of my wife ... she already has a titan :D |
Scatim Helicon
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 19:04:00 -
[427]
Originally by: Butternut Squash It would appear that the majority of people are against nerfing a cap ships fighter ability, yet agree that something should be done to reduce the lag, IMO the next obvious entity to consider nerfing is the blob itself. If FC's only had a limited number of fleet slots then fleets may become honed to a specific task, if you think about it, we already do this when fitting out a ship to ensure we get the best results from our available cap ... fleets could just become an extension of that.
If for example a fleet were to consist of 200 fleet slots, a carrier may consume 5 of those slots, with each additional fighter consuming another fleet slot, this would make fleet battles an extension of the FC's tactical ability.
No, alliances would just bring multiple fleets.
|
YouNoob
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 19:24:00 -
[428]
/signed
|
Butternut Squash
Gallente Ramm's RDI
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 19:31:00 -
[429]
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
No, alliances would just bring multiple fleets.
But that is surely just a game dynamic that could be accounted for in the coding, preventing/restricting alliances (those of positive standing to each other) from using more than a single fleet.
I am jealous of my wife ... she already has a titan :D |
Azuse
The Brotherhood Of The Blade Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 20:56:00 -
[430]
Oh this is golden.
We all get up in arms about ccp cutting fighters, this lot think, "ok that's that sorted now why hasn't ccp done anything about fighter lag?"
and they say the forums don't reduce iq --------------------------
|
|
Sir Bart
Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 21:39:00 -
[431]
Edited by: Sir Bart on 05/11/2007 21:42:34 I agree that the lag should stop but not with the ideas in how to improve.
I think the drones need to be just coded in a way that if a ship launches drones or fighters they are a single entity called a drone swarm. The drones swarm has combined hitpoints of all the drones, combined dps, averaged velocity, and you can't mix drones in a swarm so if you want to launch 3 heavies and 2 mediums, you can't, you just pick between heavies or mediums or fighters. It's targetable and shooting it / webbing it works as if it were happening to a ship.... that is, the whole swarm gets webbed or shot or whatever.
This would slightly nerf drones since they would be easier to kill so to combat that, have it so that drones sig radius is reduced slightly and their HP is increased slightly. It's easier to kill all of a players drones but since you have to kill them all to kill one you also take full dmg from their drones until it's done so it's not a total nerf.
Anyways, that would reduce the amount of drone / fighter lag in all forms of combat by a factor of 5 so how about it?
edit: Also to prevent the issue of having exponential increase of server lag based on objects in a grid, just change code so that at 90% server load, collision detection is turned off... ships can't bump into each other, then the server load becomes linear and it spends it's effort on the important stuff, like how much damage so-and-so is taking.
-Bart
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 22:19:00 -
[432]
Originally by: Azuse Oh this is golden.
We all get up in arms about ccp cutting fighters, this lot think, "ok that's that sorted now why hasn't ccp done anything about fighter lag?"
and they say the forums don't reduce iq
Thread was started before CCP said anything about a fighter nerf
|
|
|
|
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 |