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) |
CSFFlame
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 21:56:00 -
[1]
This is the opinion of a fellow goon and I thought I'd share it as a petition, as it addresses important points
Quote: Alright, hereÆs the scoop:
ò A carrier can launch up to three times more drones than a normal ship at one time and MSes up to 5 times ò Drones increase server instability at an exponential rate ò Drones will auto-aggro and keep killing stuff, even if everyone else is lagged, making them ôimmuneö to lag ò Lag really sucks ò Solutions like upgrading servers to alleviate the lag are expensive and fleeting at best, since as the capacity for fighters increases, more people will come in and reach the max capacity again (see: Jita overpopulation)
Carriers and MSes create an inordinate amount of lag because they can launch more drones than any other ship. While twenty normal ships may collectively launch 100 drones, twenty carriers will launch 300. At this point, trying to do anything in system becomes futile, where the server is so flooded that it can take more than 5, 10, or even 15 minutes to respond to player commands.
Since the number of interactions with the server is a value of n^3, lag increases exponentially with each new drone launched.
ò 5 drones require 125 times more server calculations than just one. (5^3 / 1) ò 15 drones require 27 times more server calculations than five. (15^3 / 5^3) ò 25 drones require 125 times more server calculations than five, and 15,625 times more calculations than a single drone.
Reducing fighter counts could create profound improvements in server performance, and considering the same was done for normal ships in RMR, itÆs not an outrageous request.
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. Combat cannot occur as the game was designed without distinct and effective action from CCP.
The quote below is just an example of what could work, though whatever happens is not as important as making sure something happens. This idea can be scrapped if a better idea works just as well.
Quote:
1. you can only have 1 fighter delegated to your ship at once instead of 5. That means any ship with a fighter assigned only get to use that 1 fighter and no other drones.
2. Reduce maximum deployable fighters from a carrier at any time to 5.
3. Make the Drone Interfacing skill apply to fighters so that at level V fighters get +100% damage and +100% HP.
4. give motherships an added +20% to drone damage and HP per level on top of what they already have. The Nyx gets +25% per level to keep it as it is.
5. Drone Control Units; Since the DPS of the whole thing is determined first by multiplication and then adding stuff, giving DCUs a percentage-based increase to anything drone related won't scale properly for a mothership and in the end would make something either gimped or absolutely insane. As a cheap cop-out, make it so DCUs add +20 damage to each of the 5 fighters, which gives a +100 total damage with one DCU (same damage increase as is now) and +500 total damage with 5 DCUs. Only place where that breaks down is that it would a sort of a stealth nerf to the Nyx and Thanatos, since before they would get more damage out of the additional fighters they could use. The technical limitations behind this may make it impossible to get this to work properly without reworking Drone Control Units in general.
6. reduce the drone capacity on carriers and MSes appropriately, since they seem to be designed to carry only a limited number of fighters.
Other, more complicated changes are also an option, but the bottom line is that something has to change.
|
Welfare State
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:22:00 -
[2]
Fighters are currently killing the server's ability to process larger battles. The epic scope of large-scale space battles in EVE is a large draw for me.
Please consider the solution above, and look into this and figure out a way to reduce the lag caused by fighters.
/signed
|
Fray
Octavian Vanguard RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:26:00 -
[3]
I really can't think of any ways to fix the problem, but yeah
/signed.
Good luck with that :)
- <@Cf'DigitalCommunist> D2, if you go to za'ha'delve, you will die. - |
Maverus Penthark
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:27:00 -
[4]
I also agree with this, as dying to a swarm of fighters when the lag is so high one can't do anything is not fun.
/signed
|
Dramaticus
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:29:00 -
[5]
sup
|
Elle D
Caldari Ars ex Discordia
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:30:00 -
[6]
/signed
Ah crap now I have to log out and /sign this with my bob alt.
|
Tea Spoon
Gallente Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:30:00 -
[7]
signed
Fights where CPU controlled entities and not your actual paying customers are a majority in both numbers and combat power are becoming ever more common.
|
Xander Gael
Ars ex Discordia
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:30:00 -
[8]
/signed
they did it before when we whined they should do it now when we beg
|
Mihailo Great
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:31:00 -
[9]
signed
|
Pringlescan
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:34:00 -
[10]
Simply this is the biggest obstacle to having big fun lag free fights. /Signed
|
|
Teldi Beinew
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:34:00 -
[11]
/signed |
Ungdall
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:35:00 -
[12]
/signed
It's too bad things like this have to happen. Masive drone clouds would be a reality in normal SPAAAAAAAAAACCCCCEEEE-WAARRSSS but unfortunatly due to issues it's not something that can be done without screwing over the game.
also, in before "stupid goons always whining"
|
Berrik Radhok
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:35:00 -
[13]
/signed
Originally by: Khavi Vetali
Oh don't worry, the goons are just as suicidal with their battleships as they are with their frigates.
|
Von Druid
Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:38:00 -
[14]
/signed
|
Marius Duvall
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:38:00 -
[15]
/signed
Originally by: "Reticenti" Oh, one note to Scius, you have made Goons and BoB agree on something. Good job.
|
Citric Acid
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:38:00 -
[16]
/signed
|
Elunas
Rare Astronomical Phenomenon Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:38:00 -
[17]
When fighter swarms create lag I beat my children. You don't like children getting beat do you? My children beg you to fix fighter lag. |
CootBoot
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:38:00 -
[18]
/signed
personally, i think you should just make drones non-collidable and drastically reduce the number of computations done per each, but whatever; they are a lag problem so fix them however you can
|
Tevlent
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:39:00 -
[19]
/signed
"Hope is a waking dream" ~Aristotle |
Nordvargr
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:40:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Maverus Penthark I also agree with this, as dying to a swarm of fighters when the lag is so high one can't do anything is not fun.
/signed
Sort of like dying to a swarm of newbies in tech1 frigates is not fun.
/signed
|
|
Guido gezelle
Duragon Pioneer Group
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:43:00 -
[21]
/
|
Len Jahad
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:44:00 -
[22]
I've never been hugely bothered by ordinary server lag, because it effects everyone equally. The recent prevalence of enormous fighter swarms is a different issue, however. It's unbelievably frustrating to have fighters targeting your expensive fleet ship and watch it melt in seconds while the server struggles to catch up and allow you to do anything, and then watch the fighters continue to destroy other ships while no actual player-controlled ships are able to respond.
Moreover, as we've discovered in recent days, fighter swarms create a huge (and very unintended) equalizer between cap fleets. Although I can't blame BoB for using every fighter at their disposal to defend their systems, it also creates a frustrating situation. It is simply not safe for a dread fleet to engage when a certain number of fighters are operating in system, because dreads require direct player input and fighers cripple the ability to provide that input. It doesn't matter if the attacking cap fleet outnumbers the opposing cap fleet significantly, because once the server reaches its breaking point, no capital operation is worth the risk of losing half the fleet to crashes or lag paralysis. This affords the defender the ability to defend the system by simply having a critical mass of carriers and motherships in system, completely independent of anything the attacker does.
Of course, this ability existed before with conventional ships, but it's a good deal more difficult to reach that critical mass with single ships than it is when deploying 10-25 fighers apiece.
|
Schlieren Altiprlayle
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:46:00 -
[23]
sure why not ____________________________
stop posting |
Traverse Moonstalker
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:46:00 -
[24]
/signed
|
Alexander Knott
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:49:00 -
[25]
/signed
----- "I like to loot, especially going to the can of the battleship, sometimes there is a surprise inside, sometimes there is only carp..." |
olzi
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:50:00 -
[26]
/signed
|
Ouroboron
Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:55:00 -
[27]
Signed.
Chowdown fights with honor. |
Salastil
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:56:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Salastil on 07/09/2007 22:56:42 Reducing the amount of Fighters per carrier is stupid, and reduces their overall effectiveness in battle, the creator was stupid for thinking it is even close to being a viable solution as multiple targets are harder to pin down than one super high HP drone. However I do agree that the crippling lag needs to be checked into and become a focus of development over unneeded stuff as walking in stations. Oh and I also like the questionable math and statistics he came up with too.
|
Puppchen
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:56:00 -
[29]
/signed
|
Colonel Ives
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 22:58:00 -
[30]
Signed.
|
|
WrathOfOprah
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:00:00 -
[31]
/Signed
I don't care what you do CCP. Just do something. This is more annoying than the old Titans. I want to at least See when I die.
|
Snowden Vel
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:01:00 -
[32]
/signed
Recent changes have done wonders to reduce lag and make 0.0 fleet combat more fun than ever, but fighter and drone-related server lag remains as one of the last vestiges of a very laggy past. I believe this is the single most important problem with 0.0 combat right now and I hope CCP is willing and able to address it in the near future. Signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link) - Jacques([email protected]) |
Dagam
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:02:00 -
[33]
this is a good idea
|
Zabernist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:02:00 -
[34]
/signed |
Kayl Breinhar
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:03:00 -
[35]
Signed.
|
Samantha Rhoads
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:04:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Samantha Rhoads on 07/09/2007 23:03:58 /signed.
|
Shinori
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:05:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Shinori on 07/09/2007 23:05:50
Signed too!
This along with the BOB member's thread on an option to remove wrecks from loading, and mine of abandoned drones from loading is just win win for everyone who wants to play the game as intended.
|
Ricky1989
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:06:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Ricky1989 on 07/09/2007 23:05:58 Wait, is this a carrier & mothership nerf.
Oh noes our fighters are causing too much lag, EVE will /ALWAYS/ have lag.
Don't trying to get everything nerfed and play the game.
edit for typo of game
|
Urich Fiano
Caldari Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:09:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Ricky1989 Edited by: Ricky1989 on 07/09/2007 23:05:58 Wait, is this a carrier & mothership nerf.
Oh noes our fighters are causing too much lag, EVE will /ALWAYS/ have lag.
Don't trying to get everything nerfed and play the game.
edit for typo of game
No one has said anything about a nerf.
|
Habe Quiddam
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:09:00 -
[40]
/signed
|
|
UncleSam83
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:09:00 -
[41]
/signed
Please fix this. Is you ever want eve to live upto its full potential, crippling issues like this need to be addressed.
|
Dagam
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:10:00 -
[42]
The idea is not to nerf anything but reduce lag, like what CCP did with drones a while back when they reduced max drones from as many as 25 to 5 across the board. For some reason they didn't apply the change to fighters as they felt carriers were different and special from every other ship that used drones. Well, carriers are now very common in 0.0 and we're starting to see the same problems crop up as we had in Exodus: masses of drones/fighters cause server lag.
|
Ogresmash
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:11:00 -
[43]
The main objective of Rev 3 is to improve the overall performance of the game, so implementing a fix to fighter lag would be a great move that would provide massive improvement to the one area of the game that is struggling most: large scale capital engagements. I'm not sure if you were already planning to fix the problems that come from fighter blobs, but if you are it would be great to have a confirmation of it and if you aren't it would be great to have a confirmation that you will work towards fixing the issue.
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. It's a simple fix that provides massive improvements to performance in large engagement.
|
Kif
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:11:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Kif on 07/09/2007 23:13:28 The only problem I have is the fact that fighters are essentially immune to lag (that they help create). Thats the problem that needs fixing. Complain all you want about huge fleets with hundreds of people lagging, but at least everyone has to deal with that. When you have 7 MS and 30 carriers that dump hundreds of fighters on grid at once, then procede to just agro whatever and tear it apart while its helpless... thats what sucks.
|
Papa Ina
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:11:00 -
[45]
I'd settle for them not auto agressing. It's at the point when they may aswell be the only thing on a gate since they are all that is fighting. Or atleast allow drones to auto agress fighters.
|
Mrs Trzzbk
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:12:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Ricky1989 Edited by: Ricky1989 on 07/09/2007 23:05:58 Don't trying to get everything nerfed and play the game.
At 1 FPS (if you're lucky) it's rather hard to play, and an argument could be made that it doesn't even constitute a game at that point.
I don't like the 1 assigned fighter idea at all, but the sheer strain fighters put on the server means unless a Dev comes up with a better idea, it's probably the best bet.
|
Hrin
Minmatar Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:12:00 -
[47]
Signed, because this is will fix lag without nerfing carriers and motherships. Heck, more fighter hitpoints should make capship pilots smile as they are uninsurable and expensive.
|
Charles Case
Caldari Duragon Pioneer Group GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:12:00 -
[48]
signed Your signature has been deemed inappropriate. If you have any questions about this please Mail the Mods be sure to include a link to your signature. -Darth Patches |
Caldur Ryndal
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:17:00 -
[49]
Signed
|
AztecD
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:18:00 -
[50]
/signed
|
|
Torsadeu
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:19:00 -
[51]
/signed
|
G Dabak
Magellanic Itg GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:20:00 -
[52]
Signed that fighter blob lag needs addressing. The OP is a good idea but it needs a lot of consideration.
|
Wodan Violence
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:21:00 -
[53]
I concur with previous posters' sentiments about lag and fighters immunity to it. Ideally there would be no lag, but if there must be lag, it should apply evenly across the board.
|
TrevorReznik
Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:24:00 -
[54]
This is the most pressing issue in the game. It's simply not fun to play in lag, and fixing collisions and other things about drones & fighters can help everyone.
|
Lenny Descartes
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:25:00 -
[55]
/signed :psyduck: |
Moctobot
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:27:00 -
[56]
/signed
teh problem is the basically there are ships with an extra 450dps of lag proof drones attached to them and we are seeing engagements with upwards of 300 fighters in daily engagements.
one possible solution to this problem that could be implemented almost immediately with very little flak would be to only have fighters auto-agress if they themselves are fired upon
|
Ismern
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:28:00 -
[57]
/signed
----------------------------------------------------------- The winners of EVE have spoken.
Let's all quit GoonSwarm and go to Empire while we still have some ISK left. |
motomysz
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:33:00 -
[58]
/signed
|
Brick Bossload
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:34:00 -
[59]
/signed
|
Nurge Genergy
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:35:00 -
[60]
I'm so /signed right now
|
|
Tejin
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:35:00 -
[61]
/signed
|
Ba'Zap Da'Rezd
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:35:00 -
[62]
/signed
|
Arl
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:38:00 -
[63]
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. It's a simple fix that provides massive improvements to performance in large engagement.
I like this idea a lot.
|
Moctobot
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:40:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Arl
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. It's a simple fix that provides massive improvements to performance in large engagement.
I like this idea a lot.
the only problem with this is that 1 fighter will do 450 dps O_o
|
Jhyme
Amarr Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:50:00 -
[65]
/signed
|
AluraXV
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:52:00 -
[66]
/signed A dagger at night saves 1000 swords at dawn
|
Morning Mist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:53:00 -
[67]
Signed. Auto agressing, lag immune kill machines that cripple any system they're deployed in is stupid.
|
Kian Jorry
Minmatar Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:53:00 -
[68]
/signed
|
FatKao
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:57:00 -
[69]
/signed
This was done to regular drones for a reason. The changes should have carried over to carries/MSs.
|
shortspecialbus
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:57:00 -
[70]
Signing this.
Fighters seem to create an exorbitant amount of lag. We did some testing while attacking POS guns with dreads, carriers, and battleships. Without fighters deployed and dreads in or out of siege the lag, while existent, was manageable. With fighters deployed, frame rates dropped exponentially and module/ship lag got to 5 minutes. This is annoying for everybody in any battle with carriers or large amounts of fighters on grid, as the fighters don't have any lag.
|
|
Toyal Wiulaz
Legion Du Lys GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.07 23:59:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Moctobot
Originally by: Arl
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. It's a simple fix that provides massive improvements to performance in large engagement.
I like this idea a lot.
the only problem with this is that 1 fighter will do 450 dps O_o
That's pure math. You'r talking about a capital ship. Its awright if it can kill a BS in 20-30 secs.
Decrease the number of fighters and increase their stenght and firepower!
/signed ----------------------------------------- I speak QC tabarnak! QC 4tw! :) |
Pseudothei
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:00:00 -
[72]
/signed
|
true enjoyment
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:02:00 -
[73]
/signed
|
Ikma Freizen
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:04:00 -
[74]
/signed
|
magnus amadeus
Amarr Hammer Of Light
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:06:00 -
[75]
/signed
_________________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you down with experience. |
Kiko Goatbiter
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:06:00 -
[76]
Signed, lag is no fun for anyone.
|
Xiut
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:07:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Papa Ina I'd settle for them not auto agressing. It's at the point when they may aswell be the only thing on a gate since they are all that is fighting.
signed |
Justor JeiGallo
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:08:00 -
[78]
I like the idea of removing fighter auto-agression except when the fighter itself is attacked, as well as removing collision detection for fighters which is pretty much unnecessary for proper reflection of game world mechanics. I also think examining what other extraneous calculations exist for fighters and working to remove them needs to be a priority.
CCP has done a great job responding to the needs of the community at large. Here's hoping that continues by dealing with fighters in a fair and effective manner and making fleet battles more enjoyable for ALL Eve players.
/signed
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:13:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Moctobot
Originally by: Arl
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. It's a simple fix that provides massive improvements to performance in large engagement.
I like this idea a lot.
the only problem with this is that 1 fighter will do 450 dps O_o
What's the difference between a single "Fighter Squadron" entity doing 450dps, and 5 individual Fighter entities doing 90 dps each? Except that it means 1/5th of the ship entities present to grind the server to a halt, of course.
Also, I'm da drone squadron proposal writer in da OP, and having my idea approved and introduced to EVE would be great for my ego .
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:20:00 -
[80]
/signed.
|
|
Vic Tim
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:22:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Vic Tim on 08/09/2007 00:22:32 /signed
|
FungusAmongus
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:23:00 -
[82]
Since this affects among others... BoB too, I wonder If they would be willing to sign this as well. /shrug
Good idea anyways, Reduce the number of fighters and Increase their damage and Damage Bonuses To it Evens out, just less fighters. Great Idea, Wonder if Anyone else has any!
/signed
|
Gloomy Gus
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:25:00 -
[83]
/signed
I don't want them nerfed in any way, just reduce the lag.
|
Belligerent Monk
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:29:00 -
[84]
signing petition
-Dianabolic, Chief Diplomat of Band of Brothers Alliance |
Gorau
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:29:00 -
[85]
/signed
|
Coptic
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:31:00 -
[86]
/Signed
|
Phil Sagan
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:34:00 -
[87]
Anything done to reduce lag is a massive plus in my book.
/signed
|
Dragon Farland
Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:35:00 -
[88]
signed but pretty sure BoB wouldn't sign seeing thats there whole defense plans . i don't do fleet fights becuase the lag and just sitting there watching my ship blow up and can't do anything
|
Jane Spondogolo
NoobWaffe
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:36:00 -
[89]
/signed ______ Unrepentant Southern Federation Cheerleader.
|
Bob Socko
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:43:00 -
[90]
Signed.
|
|
Caf
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:45:00 -
[91]
/signed
|
Yggdrassill Yeltsin
The Greater Goon
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:56:00 -
[92]
If I lag bad when drones are deployed in small gang warfare on a computer that usually handles the game fine, I can't imagine how this is playable.
Please fix it!
|
Innominate
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 00:58:00 -
[93]
/signed
|
MGargantua
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 01:05:00 -
[94]
Signed
|
Icome4u
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 01:08:00 -
[95]
Edited by: Icome4u on 08/09/2007 01:08:24 How about... no lag when i launch/dock my fighters? ______
Originally by: Vyger If I lose connection while walking around a station will my avatar run off in a random direction and go hide in a corner?
|
Audri Fisher
Caldari VentureCorp Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 01:12:00 -
[96]
Signed. The MJ node begs you to do something, anything...
|
Jomin Herdsy
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 01:16:00 -
[97]
/signed Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo |
Double Magpie
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 01:25:00 -
[98]
Signed
|
Swift Mover
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 01:35:00 -
[99]
Edited by: Swift Mover on 08/09/2007 01:36:29 Edited by: Swift Mover on 08/09/2007 01:36:15 /signed
I'm not sure if I agree with the exact examples of changes proposed here, but I do know that fighter lag is game-crippling and, even more importantly, not fun at all. People who are calling this an attempt to nerf carriers and motherships -- I don't care if, in the end, carriers and motherships end up STRONGER from this. I don't mind getting blown up. I just want to get blown up while I have a chance to do something, instead of sitting and watching my ship on fire, still trying in vain to align to warp out from a command I gave ten minutes ago.
Edit: Sonnofa... how did this character get logged in? Should be:
Dash Vanderhuge Goonfleet Goonswarm
|
Atama Cardel
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 01:46:00 -
[100]
/signed
I have enough problems playing in fleet fights without carriers/motherships present as it is
|
|
autylocus
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 01:51:00 -
[101]
This is one of many huge problems that, considering how long this game has been running, should have been fixed already.
/ signed
|
Stradiot
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 01:53:00 -
[102]
Edited by: Stradiot on 08/09/2007 01:53:48 signed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HLZkjeHCM4
|
Krebbs
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 02:01:00 -
[103]
/signed
|
Postmaster Generale
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 02:09:00 -
[104]
/signed.
I especially like the idea of changing fighters to fighter squadrons. I don't think it would be too much to ask for one entity to consist of a number of the fighter models going through a formation flying animation or something.
Also reducing calculations on the fighters would be great.
|
Frederic Sampson
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 02:19:00 -
[105]
Replacing the fighters with squadrons is an interesting idea. However, if it is treated as a single entity, the change would have the interesting side effect of making fighters five times more resistent to smart bombs and other area of effect weapons. The damage would have to get through a full block of five times the hit points before killing a single fighter, whereas now one fifth the damage could wipe out an unlimited number, provided they are within range.
|
Dreadllama
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 02:19:00 -
[106]
My name is dreadllama and I do not disapprove of this product or service.
It wasn't a 'nerf' when drone interfacing was changed from +1 drone per level to +1 drones worth of damage and hitpoints per level. The proposed changes aren't a nerf either.
X dps and Y hitpoints spread over 5 drones or 50 is still the same damage, same amount of HP to chew through in order to neuter them. The only difference is the amount of lag imposed on the system. Anything which works to reduce lag is a good idea.
Also: Donges.
|
Pyrosquee
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 02:20:00 -
[107]
/signed
|
Carsidava
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 02:24:00 -
[108]
/signed |
NohairMcGee
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 02:31:00 -
[109]
As a frequent fleet battle victim, I must agree that some action needs to be taken to resolve this issue. 0.0 superiority is not a battle won by 10 man gangs. It is battled out between forces reaching the hundreds if not thousands of players in the biggest, longest reaching and fastest moving ships they can afford.
It is a problem to me as a player when I jump into an important battle and am unable to do anything with my millions of skillpoints and hundreds of millions of isk spent on my ship and modules. |
Warau Inu
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 02:34:00 -
[110]
/signed
|
|
Virtuality
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 02:34:00 -
[111]
Signed
|
Phyneas
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 02:41:00 -
[112]
/signed
Fighters are the biggest sources of lag in large engagements. Hopefully CCP can come up with something to reduce their effect on performance.
|
cepo
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 02:46:00 -
[113]
/signed
I guess they could fix it the same way they fixed dominix's way back when, by simply reducing the number of drones and giving the carriers/ms's a damage bonus.
But this is kind of weird since one of the best part of carriers is being able to assign out a lot of fighters to different gang members.
|
General Tsao
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 02:47:00 -
[114]
/signed
|
Avos Sova
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 02:54:00 -
[115]
/signed
It sounds like most likely the problem is drone collision or collision in general. Leveraging it from drones sounds like a good idea.
|
Scavok
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 02:55:00 -
[116]
The auto-aggression and the lag fighters generate makes for a game breaking combination. One of the two really needs to go. This isn't just a rare occasion in battles like F-T, JV1V battle kind of thing. The game has progressed to the point where carriers are being used like battleships in the North, Southeast, and Southwest (these 3 areas make up 90% of 0.0 participants).
|
Frenord
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 03:00:00 -
[117]
/signed
|
Kjermzs
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 03:16:00 -
[118]
/Signed
|
Gregorio McAwesomeness
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 03:33:00 -
[119]
Signed.
|
Machine Epsilon
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 03:39:00 -
[120]
Signed. |
|
Malloc Memrel
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 04:02:00 -
[121]
I don't believe that motherships and carriers should have their number of available drones/fighters reduced (That's half of the point of having them) but I will agree that the code for them needs to be seriously optimized. Having 3/4 of the active attackers/defenders on grid be unmanned and making the last quarter unresponsive in the process is just plain old bad design.
I don't think politics should come into it- if the tables were reversed I'm sure BoB would be just as unhappy and the situation just as untenable- because this is just a plain and simple example of "This doesn't work."
Again, I'm opposed to reducing the number of drones/fighters capitals should be able to have, but *something* needs to be fixed.
So, although somewhat hesitantly...
/signed
|
Matrices Sunbound
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 04:04:00 -
[122]
Confirmed.
There's no way the developers could have anticipated capital and super capital blobs on this scale. The doomsday one-button win was nerfed back into its proper place. One-button "release drones, introduce crippling lag, while free lag for these here fighters" option should be no exception.
More Eve Online less Capitals Online (again),
Signed
|
Matrices Sunbound
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 04:07:00 -
[123]
Edited by: Matrices Sunbound on 08/09/2007 04:07:08 .
|
Mith'raw'nuruodo
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 04:15:00 -
[124]
This is a very good idea. People joke about lag generators, but in this case it is what fighters are. This isn't something that only one side has a problem with, its a universal problem. A fighterblob is the ultimate defense because it can kill anything that jumps into it, and nothing that jumps into it can defend itself. I don't think that this is working as intended and as long as the new change wouldn't effect the overall strength of carriers or motherships, but reduced lag I'm all for it
/signed
|
Mr Broker
Station Gremlings
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 04:25:00 -
[125]
even if you used a titan to clear the fighters, the carriers and motherships can launch new fighters and relag the system
assembling 40 carriers and deploying drones isn't a show of skill nor tactics
any medium sized alliance can do this, and as soon as people realize it, they will start doing it to defend their systems from any attackers
it's a failproof defense
|
Daveydweeb
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 04:43:00 -
[126]
/signed
|
arkarsk
Provenance. Endless Horizon
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 04:59:00 -
[127]
This is a genuine issue and should be looked into as soon as possible
/signed |
Mjilaeck
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 05:04:00 -
[128]
/signed *snip* Do not troll in your signature and follow the Forum Rules -Eldo Davip([email protected]) |
Keldjos Falzir
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 05:12:00 -
[129]
/signed
|
Morris Falter
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 05:23:00 -
[130]
Unplayable fighter lag is not something that can be swept away conveniently. As more people use blobs of carriers, I hope this issue will be looked at, and something will be done.
Don't let us down CCP!
|
|
Knobbles
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 06:00:00 -
[131]
To me, it makes sense that things get harder when carriers and moms enter the battle. From a role playing perspective, giant ships launching squads of fighters at your fleet should cause a significant amount of disarray. Obviously CCP can't come to your house and hit you in the head, but the lag kind of has the same effect. Sounds fine to me.
|
Fallorn
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 06:14:00 -
[132]
/Signed. As a person who is in the finishing stages of training for carriers please change it so that it requires something other than push button. Sig removed. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] with a link to your signature. - Elmo Pug
|
Valea
Wrath Of Khaine Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 06:19:00 -
[133]
Very well presented, with good reasoning. I have had the firsthand pleasure of dealing with a largely capital based battle, and the lag was unacceptable. As a carrier pilot I would prefer a solution, be it code based or hardware based, that would not decrease the total number of drones a carrier pilot can control, yet still reduce lag. In short, I have spent 16 months and hundreds of dollars in subscriptions to get my carrier, and I feel the drone control bonus, which sets carriers apart from all other ships, should not be taken away from people who dedicated the time and isk required to field such ships. Maybe if there was some kind of compromise for carrier pilots not rooted in extra bonuses this idea would be more appealing. Kudos to you for presenting your idea in such a cohesive and well explained fashion, you do not see that much anymore.
|
Chronojam
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 06:42:00 -
[134]
I do believe this happened before, but with normal drones.
Signed.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 06:47:00 -
[135]
I support this. Drones and Fighters simply create too much work for the server. Simplify it.
|
Valea
Wrath Of Khaine Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 06:50:00 -
[136]
"Since the number of interactions with the server is a value of n^3, lag increases exponentially with each new drone launched."
How did you determine drone lag increases exponentially for every drone deployed? I am hardly the best coder in the world, but my limited experience would tell me that server calculations would just stack non exponentially for every drone fielded.
|
SpankieNL
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 06:58:00 -
[137]
/signed
fighter lag really sucks
|
jeffb
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 07:30:00 -
[138]
Edited by: jeffb on 08/09/2007 07:30:29 Getting killed by fighters while the node wont take any of my navigation commands is pretty lame :(
Could also move to a system where drones are deployed in fixed wings, instead of having to make individual calculations for each drone you could just do one for that whole group. Would be a big performance increase with minimal change to mechanics.
Now that wrecks and cans aren't collidable doesn't really make sense for drones or fighters to be, thats potentially another big performance increase there.
Remove all the "drone ai" from serverside, people will probably see it as an improvement that their drones actually do what they tell me, you can add it back in later when the servers can handle it.
|
Porks
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 07:36:00 -
[139]
/signed
|
Roschambo
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 07:45:00 -
[140]
/signed
|
|
Seras Haruko
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 07:46:00 -
[141]
/Signed.
|
Jack Archer
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 07:55:00 -
[142]
/signed
--- Booya. |
Postmaster Generale
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 08:06:00 -
[143]
As someone pointed out, a change from fighters to squadrons wouldn't be a nerf to carriers, it would actually strengthen them by making fighters less susceptible to area of effect damage. I don't really think this would ruin smartbombing battleship tactics, since a decent group of sb battleships already kill fighters so fast that the group often can't deactivate smartbombs fast enough to avoid useless friendly fire.
Also remove collision, and change the rules of auto-aggression. While the number of calculations performed by the server is the cause of fighter lag, auto-aggression is the real game-breaker, since, as people have pointed out, launching a fighter cloud not only renders every player helpless but also destroys them as the fighters auto-aggro and pound on essentially unpiloted ships.
|
Lady Caeser
Open Fist of Castallus
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 08:10:00 -
[144]
/sign -------------------------------------- What are you looking at? -------------------------------------- |
Captain Drees
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 08:12:00 -
[145]
signed. Why should fighters be allowed to dictate the outcome of a battle while the players are still loading the grid? Either stop treating fighters and drones as individual ships or find some other way to allow players to actually determine the result of fights.
|
Vladimir Tinakin
Caldari Hadean Drive Yards Archaean Cooperative
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 08:34:00 -
[146]
Lag sucks.
/signed, though using other means of balancing than mentioned if possible; its nice to be able to pop out a bunch of drones....but lets face it, if that drone bunch causes lag, we're at the scaling point where that will kill the game for whoever's in the vicinity. ----------------------------------------------- Adm Vladimir Tinakin CFO Hadean Drive Yards |
Gericault m0id
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 08:56:00 -
[147]
Signed. This is exactly the reason why we can't control 10 drones with regular ships since Exodus.
|
NeoTech
Minmatar DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 09:03:00 -
[148]
signed for sure!
fofofo |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 09:16:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Valea "Since the number of interactions with the server is a value of n^3, lag increases exponentially with each new drone launched."
How did you determine drone lag increases exponentially for every drone deployed? I am hardly the best coder in the world, but my limited experience would tell me that server calculations would just stack non exponentially for every drone fielded.
Its because drones are collidable objects, so while each new drone only has to update each pilot, each new drone has to figure collision and angular velocity with every ship on the grid[afaik, you get the info whether or not its on your overview or not].
But i dont know where he got the ^3, it should be ^2 afaik.
|
Adm Tecumseh
Caldari The Templars Knights
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 09:51:00 -
[150]
First you guys cry so hard about the titans being able to kill you that they get nerfed, now you want fighters nerfed as well, whats next?
Nerf Battleships cause it takes a lot of skills points to run one effectively and gtc for real money for isk for advanced characters has dried up?
What about you cry till everyone is back in a noob ship. Thats one way to level the playing field. A 4 year player with 60 mill sp in a noob ship just so teh goonies will stfu about how unfair the game is too noobs.
Thread sucks I give it a one for stupidity.
|
|
Scavok
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 10:09:00 -
[151]
Originally by: Adm Tecumseh First you guys cry so hard about the titans being able to kill you that they get nerfed, now you want fighters nerfed as well, whats next?
Nerf Battleships cause it takes a lot of skills points to run one effectively and gtc for real money for isk for advanced characters has dried up?
What about you cry till everyone is back in a noob ship. Thats one way to level the playing field. A 4 year player with 60 mill sp in a noob ship just so teh goonies will stfu about how unfair the game is too noobs.
Thread sucks I give it a one for stupidity.
Nobody wants fighters or carriers nerfed. We want the game to support them in high numbers, which it currently doesn't.
|
NeoTech
Minmatar DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 10:13:00 -
[152]
Originally by: Adm Tecumseh First you guys cry so hard about the titans being able to kill you that they get nerfed, now you want fighters nerfed as well, whats next?
Nerf Battleships cause it takes a lot of skills points to run one effectively and gtc for real money for isk for advanced characters has dried up?
What about you cry till everyone is back in a noob ship. Thats one way to level the playing field. A 4 year player with 60 mill sp in a noob ship just so teh goonies will stfu about how unfair the game is too noobs.
Thread sucks I give it a one for stupidity.
You obviously didn't read the thread stupid.
fofofo |
Randorial
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 10:18:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Scavok
Originally by: Adm Tecumseh First you guys cry so hard about the titans being able to kill you that they get nerfed, now you want fighters nerfed as well, whats next?
Nerf Battleships cause it takes a lot of skills points to run one effectively and gtc for real money for isk for advanced characters has dried up?
What about you cry till everyone is back in a noob ship. Thats one way to level the playing field. A 4 year player with 60 mill sp in a noob ship just so teh goonies will stfu about how unfair the game is too noobs.
Thread sucks I give it a one for stupidity.
Nobody wants fighters or carriers nerfed. We want the game to support them in high numbers, which it currently doesn't.
So you're petitioning to reduce lag? something ccp has been doing since 2003? Good one. Smart to. Makes total sense. We should have an anti-lag petition every week, cus that will solve it!
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 10:24:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Randorial
Originally by: Scavok
Originally by: Adm Tecumseh First you guys cry so hard about the titans being able to kill you that they get nerfed, now you want fighters nerfed as well, whats next?
Nerf Battleships cause it takes a lot of skills points to run one effectively and gtc for real money for isk for advanced characters has dried up?
What about you cry till everyone is back in a noob ship. Thats one way to level the playing field. A 4 year player with 60 mill sp in a noob ship just so teh goonies will stfu about how unfair the game is too noobs.
Thread sucks I give it a one for stupidity.
Nobody wants fighters or carriers nerfed. We want the game to support them in high numbers, which it currently doesn't.
So you're petitioning to reduce lag? something ccp has been doing since 2003? Good one. Smart to. Makes total sense. We should have an anti-lag petition every week, cus that will solve it!
Or you know, maybe they're petitioning for CCP to look at a particular solution to a problem which wasn't considered in the game since it's only recently that the number of capitals has become such that it could generate the issues it does?
Or maybe you just had nothing worthwhile to post yet needed one more hit of push butan.
|
Randorial
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 10:43:00 -
[155]
Originally by: James Duar
Originally by: Randorial
Originally by: Scavok
Originally by: Adm Tecumseh First you guys cry so hard about the titans being able to kill you that they get nerfed, now you want fighters nerfed as well, whats next?
Nerf Battleships cause it takes a lot of skills points to run one effectively and gtc for real money for isk for advanced characters has dried up?
What about you cry till everyone is back in a noob ship. Thats one way to level the playing field. A 4 year player with 60 mill sp in a noob ship just so teh goonies will stfu about how unfair the game is too noobs.
Thread sucks I give it a one for stupidity.
Nobody wants fighters or carriers nerfed. We want the game to support them in high numbers, which it currently doesn't.
So you're petitioning to reduce lag? something ccp has been doing since 2003? Good one. Smart to. Makes total sense. We should have an anti-lag petition every week, cus that will solve it!
Or you know, maybe they're petitioning for CCP to look at a particular solution to a problem which wasn't considered in the game since it's only recently that the number of capitals has become such that it could generate the issues it does?
Or maybe you just had nothing worthwhile to post yet needed one more hit of push butan.
since goons and ra have invented the superblob (with normal and capital ships) a long time ago, i somehow find it hard to believe this is not linked to the fact that they are having problems taking a system down south.
|
Danzir Kasnov
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 11:03:00 -
[156]
/signed
Disabling auto aggression on fighters/drones during laggy fights would probably make the use of them in these situations fairer but it wouldn't fix the fundamental problem here. I would like to hear the reason drones and fighters are treated the same way as a ships in the game in terms of server side calculations of their exact position in space as well as being collidable. Surely spatial accuracy is no where near as important with drones as it is with a player ship? Would looking into these fundamentals not be the best way to tackle this problem as opposed changing game play mechanics?
|
Strana Mechty
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 11:06:00 -
[157]
Signed.
|
Stoffer Ninjapirate
Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 11:08:00 -
[158]
Signing dis.
|
NeoTech
Minmatar DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 11:10:00 -
[159]
Originally by: Randorial
Originally by: James Duar
Originally by: Randorial
Originally by: Scavok
Originally by: Adm Tecumseh First you guys cry so hard about the titans being able to kill you that they get nerfed, now you want fighters nerfed as well, whats next?
Nerf Battleships cause it takes a lot of skills points to run one effectively and gtc for real money for isk for advanced characters has dried up?
What about you cry till everyone is back in a noob ship. Thats one way to level the playing field. A 4 year player with 60 mill sp in a noob ship just so teh goonies will stfu about how unfair the game is too noobs.
Thread sucks I give it a one for stupidity.
Nobody wants fighters or carriers nerfed. We want the game to support them in high numbers, which it currently doesn't.
So you're petitioning to reduce lag? something ccp has been doing since 2003? Good one. Smart to. Makes total sense. We should have an anti-lag petition every week, cus that will solve it!
Or you know, maybe they're petitioning for CCP to look at a particular solution to a problem which wasn't considered in the game since it's only recently that the number of capitals has become such that it could generate the issues it does?
Or maybe you just had nothing worthwhile to post yet needed one more hit of push butan.
since goons and ra have invented the superblob (with normal and capital ships) a long time ago, i somehow find it hard to believe this is not linked to the fact that they are having problems taking a system down south.
BoB can blob all they want, thats not the issue. The issue is that fighters are not effected by lag, whereas players are. Thats the difference, a blob creates equal lag on both sides, while fighterblobs only create lag on the other. (or rather, it does not matter if the characters that control the carriers lag, because their fighters will not be lagged)
Do you see the problem? (why do i even bother)
fofofo |
fire 59
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 11:12:00 -
[160]
Edited by: fire 59 on 08/09/2007 11:26:15 I think that anything which is good for the game is good in general. But, when you guys blob to monstrous levels and make the system grind to a halt/have your own fighter swarms but doesn't seem to be a problem then etc. Events like the jv1v situation where it was blobbed to such degrees that the system melted, where was your anti lag petitions then?
Trying to stay away from caod style flaming but it does seem that it isn't a problem until you have to put effort in and feel lag affect you like your blobs effect others. And also your lot (ra and co) pretty much invented the capital blob/gank which means you have to immediately have a sizeable cap fleet yourself to use caps otherwise you will just blob and gank.
Capital fights would certainly be more workable but i don't think it's the fighters that are the problem, moreso the 600 people you try to stuff into the system afterwards. The fight we had in 9-9 awhile back which was an attempted cap gank worked fairly well, 400 ish local and fightable.
|
|
Prall Grosserbauch
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 11:13:00 -
[161]
signed
|
thoth foc
Arcane Technologies The Five
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 11:37:00 -
[162]
Originally by: NeoTech
BoB can blob all they want, thats not the issue. The issue is that fighters are not effected by lag, whereas players are. Thats the difference, a blob creates equal lag on both sides, while fighterblobs only create lag on the other. (or rather, it does not matter if the characters that control the carriers lag, because their fighters will not be lagged)
Do you see the problem? (why do i even bother)
The problem is the need for the blob, not the fighters you seem to think benefit from it, you should address the problem not the result.. _________________________ xMenta (DSMA) xBOS (CA) ATUK (.5.) DICE (BOB) Elcyion Lacar
|
kkx
Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 11:39:00 -
[163]
/signed
|
Heng
Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 11:58:00 -
[164]
/signed
|
Shoukei
Boobs Ahoy
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 12:05:00 -
[165]
this just in, goons and sniggs were told to by their ceo's to sign this thread using all their accounts/alts/friends accounts/etc.
what am i doing here? well, what else? providing a friendly bump!
*bump*
ccp nerf fighters because they are OVERPOWERED!!!!!!! your hardware cant cope with our 800 strong frig blobs!!
here be signatures! |
jeffb
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 12:08:00 -
[166]
Edited by: jeffb on 08/09/2007 12:09:01 Edited by: jeffb on 08/09/2007 12:08:44
Originally by: Shoukei this just in, goons and sniggs were told to by their ceo's to sign this thread using all their accounts/alts/friends accounts/etc.
what am i doing here? well, what else? providing a friendly bump!
*bump*
ccp nerf fighters because they are OVERPOWERED!!!!!!! your hardware cant cope with our 800 strong frig blobs!!
this just in, bob and pets were told by their ceo's to troll this thread using all their accounts/alts/friends accounts/etc.
see what i did there?
|
El Mauru
Amarr A Black Knight Corp FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 12:11:00 -
[167]
agreed :-P
less fighters, more damage, more hit-points-
only issue i can see with this is that it will be way more difficult to take out fighters in hit & run maneuvers-
Maybe fix this by giving fighters a small delay before their shields recharge when you recall them.
either way, /signed -
Recruiting! Convo ingame for details |
Shoukei
Boobs Ahoy
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 12:12:00 -
[168]
Originally by: jeffb see what i did there?
i see what you did here. you created 6 pages of goon posts in very short time, IN an obscure forum, ALL consisting of mostly "/sign".
you still want to deny the obvious?
here be signatures! |
WrathOfOprah
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 12:17:00 -
[169]
Originally by: jeffb Edited by: jeffb on 08/09/2007 12:09:01 Edited by: jeffb on 08/09/2007 12:08:44
Originally by: Shoukei this just in, goons and sniggs were told to by their ceo's to sign this thread using all their accounts/alts/friends accounts/etc.
what am i doing here? well, what else? providing a friendly bump!
*bump*
ccp nerf fighters because they are OVERPOWERED!!!!!!! your hardware cant cope with our 800 strong frig blobs!!
this just in, bob and pets were told by their ceo's to troll this thread using all their accounts/alts/friends accounts/etc.
see what i did there?
They do it automatically. They've become allergic to our mere existence.
|
Rodent
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 12:25:00 -
[170]
Originally by: fire 59 Edited by: fire 59 on 08/09/2007 11:26:15 The fight we had in 9-9 awhile back which was an attempted cap gank worked fairly well, 400 ish local and fightable.
Are you joking? I ran two dreads in that fight, both survived until the battle was esencially over. One got on two mails, the other on one. Out of two hours fighting and 15+ hostile caps down. On one I did the mistake of putting stront in a can, which then took 40 minutes to get into my cargohold. The other one just couldnt target + enable guns on ANYONE after the first primary was down. One dread managed to jump out when it was over, the other one was tackled and died 20 minutes after I told it to jump.
So no, 9-9 did NOT work fairly well AT ALL.
|
|
Shoukei
Boobs Ahoy
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 12:29:00 -
[171]
Originally by: Rodent Are you joking? I ran two dreads in that fight, both survived until the battle was esencially over. One got on two mails, the other on one. Out of two hours fighting and 15+ hostile caps down. On one I did the mistake of putting stront in a can, which then took 40 minutes to get into my cargohold. The other one just couldnt target + enable guns on ANYONE after the first primary was down. One dread managed to jump out when it was over, the other one was tackled and died 20 minutes after I told it to jump.
So no, 9-9 did NOT work fairly well AT ALL.
bring 400 less useless frigs into the fight. you will have less lag. in the meantime, stop crying when you put every effort into grinding servers to a complete halt.
here be signatures! |
Yonker
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 12:56:00 -
[172]
signing dis
|
Kaldaine
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 13:18:00 -
[173]
Originally by: fire 59 Edited by: fire 59 on 08/09/2007 11:26:15 I think that anything which is good for the game is good in general. But, when you guys blob to monstrous levels and make the system grind to a halt/have your own fighter swarms but doesn't seem to be a problem then etc. Events like the jv1v situation where it was blobbed to such degrees that the system melted, where was your anti lag petitions then?
Trying to stay away from caod style flaming but it does seem that it isn't a problem until you have to put effort in and feel lag affect you like your blobs effect others. And also your lot (ra and co) pretty much invented the capital blob/gank which means you have to immediately have a sizeable cap fleet yourself to use caps otherwise you will just blob and gank.
Capital fights would certainly be more workable but i don't think it's the fighters that are the problem, moreso the 600 people you try to stuff into the system afterwards. The fight we had in 9-9 awhile back which was an attempted cap gank worked fairly well, 400 ish local and fightable.
I dont know any way to manage the number of people in a system for a fight except by telling them they cant play the game. Now if there was a way to reduce the number of objects on grid like say fighters maybe it would be a good idea to do that. I dont know why people keep saying we want to nerf fighters or carriers since everyone who actually has something to say on the subject doesnt care if they buff carriers or fighters as long as they reduce the # on grid.
Much as people want to claim we invented the blob you give us too much credit. I had a chance to fly with 5, LV, V and others and watched them brag about the amount of numbers they could bring to the fight to blob systems and their enemies. You can try and start a petition for CCP to take out frigs, noob ships and destroyers but people will still come to fights in the 100's with cruisers, BCs and BS. Not really sure what you expect us to do about it.
I cant see how people think we actually enjoy lag in any way. Its as much fun for us as it is for anyone else and anyone who can read our forums can see we ***** as much as anyone else.
Nobody uses fighters swarms or numbers because they are fun. They use them because it makes sense and choices are limited. I cant exactly blame anyone for blobbing up a 4 or 7 moon system. There is a large number of goons who dont participate in large fleet operations simply because they are no fun and their systems cant handle 50 person fights. Maybe BoB or some of you bitter alts have some brilliant ideas on how to defend a system with minmum numbers and maximum participation so everyone gets to play but I dont.
|
HatfulOfHollow
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 13:20:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Shoukei bring 400 less useless frigs into the fight.
This guy has a point. We should stop flying all frig fleets.
|
Shoukei
Boobs Ahoy
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 13:26:00 -
[175]
Originally by: HatfulOfHollow This guy has a point. We should stop flying all frig fleets.
look at the killboard statistics. even if they are slightly off, they still show rather accurately what are the most flown ships.
its hard to believe most of those are not just noob frig alts you bring into engagements.
here be signatures! |
Zombie Network
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 13:41:00 -
[176]
Originally by: Shoukei this just in, goons and sniggs were told to by their ceo's to sign this thread
Because it is a serious issue with the game, and one that needs to be addressed.
The only way to make the developers aware there is a problem is to point it out to them, which is eaxactly what we are doing, in a civil and organised fasion. There are a lot of us who are very unhappy with the way the game handles drones/fighters with regards to lag. We are all paying customers, have an equal right to voice our opinion, and have this thread to do so.
Quote: bring 400 less useless frigs into the fight. you will have less lag. in the meantime, stop crying when you put every effort into grinding servers to a complete halt.
When it comes to the choice between having a person in a ship or an unmanned drone in a fight I would pick the human player every time. When it comes to reducing lag, I would rather see CCP remove the NPC combatants before removing players. However, if you feel strongly on the topic, please feel free to create a new thread discussing how and why CCP should disallow certain pilots from joining a fight to reduce lag and stop trolling this one since your arguments have no bearing on the amount of lag caused by fighters.
CCP are not going to change anything just because we whine, they will investigate the problem independantly and decide for themselves if we are right and if the fighter situation needs to be looked at. We are just making them aware that we think there is a big problem with game mechanics, and the number of replies here give an indication of the number of people who see this as a valid issue.
This is a problem not just with fighters, but drones as well. Every BS and most cruisers have the ability to launch 5 drones of some type, meaning that 100 person fleet (not an uncommon sight) could potentially launch 500 drones. Most people don't use drones in large fights, because the lag they cause means they are almost impossible to use effectively and you are just ****ing money away because it's impossible to recall them if you need to warp out. I often forget to bring drones with me, and when I remember I could have I usually think 'oh well, probably wouldn't use them anyway'. This is a bigger problem with MS/Carriers, because you don't spend 1.5Bil on a ship not to use its primary weapon system.
|
Shoukei
Boobs Ahoy
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 13:50:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Zombie Network Because it is a serious issue with the game, and one that needs to be addressed.
in all seriousness, only issue is the fact that servers cant cope with 800 people fighting on the same grid. stop trying to cram as many people as possible into one system.
here be signatures! |
Suseki Koi
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:01:00 -
[178]
Same damage, but less lag? Sounds good to me.
/signed
|
Zombie Network
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:07:00 -
[179]
Edited by: Zombie Network on 08/09/2007 14:08:01
Originally by: Shoukei
Originally by: Zombie Network Because it is a serious issue with the game, and one that needs to be addressed.
in all seriousness, only issue is the fact that servers cant cope with 800 people fighting on the same grid. stop trying to cram as many people as possible into one system.
I will admit that the server being unable to cope with 800 people fighting on the same grid is definately an issue that needs to be addresses, but is is not the ONLY issue, and is definately not related to the content of this thread which is the obscene amount of lag caused by the several hundred fighters that can be produced by a couple of dozen players. So please take your complaints and discussion about the need for the blob to the relevant thread.
|
Pociomundo
Gallente World Order The Imperial Order
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:08:00 -
[180]
Edited by: Pociomundo on 08/09/2007 14:12:07 If this would mean that atm.
Carrier V, Fighters V Thanatos with 12 Fighters does 1500 dps with each fighter doing 125 dps x 12 = 1500.
And the new system would mean 125 x 2 (drone interfacing 5) = 250 + 25dps extra per Fighter per Drone Control Unit.
So a Fighters V Carrier V Thanatos with 5 Fighters and 2 Drone Control's would still do 1500 dps.
Then /signed.
|
|
BrightWater
Otakus Society Infinite Innovation
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:09:00 -
[181]
/signed
As long as motherships and carriers have the same firepower, but somehow generate less lag (making drones non-collidable or reducing their numbers but increasing their strength) it is a great idea.
There was already a fix for a very similar problem in exodus when players could control more than 5 drones. The problem that they had was an immense amount of lag caused by the drone blobs. I don't think anyone disagrees with that decision. Now that we are having the exact same problem I think it would be prudent to look at the past and see what can be done to fix it.
|
ChoppinBrocolli
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:15:00 -
[182]
Wether or not the overhead of drones is exponential, it is quite safe to say they have a crippling effect on a grid/node as anyone with experience in fleet battles will attest to.
Limiting the amount of drones is absolutely the right course of action. Perhaps in addition to this, fighters could somehow also be affected by lag? For instance not having them aggress the next target for a X seconds, where X is the average ping to each player?
|
Ling Xiaoyu
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:18:00 -
[183]
/signed
I fly a carrier, and I love being able to use 10 fighters in my ratting setup, but the lag it causes is just too much. I got in a carrier for the cap fights, but there aren't any anymore and (though there are other factors) I think a big part of it is the lag caused by fighters makes it impossible.
Please fix somehow tia
|
HatfulOfHollow
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:18:00 -
[184]
Originally by: Shoukei
Originally by: HatfulOfHollow This guy has a point. We should stop flying all frig fleets.
look at the killboard statistics. even if they are slightly off, they still show rather accurately what are the most flown ships.
lol ur dum
|
Chrisis Fae
Duragon Pioneer Group GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:19:00 -
[185]
Originally by: HatfulOfHollow
Originally by: Shoukei bring 400 less useless frigs into the fight.
This guy has a point. We should stop flying all frig fleets.
This isn't getting enough attention. Goon leadership needs to explain why haven't we been told this before!
In all seriousness, though, I like the suggestions in this thread that buff fighters in exchange for reducing their number. Damage output stays the same for the high skill players, but now everyone in the fleet battle gets to play the game. |
BuIIseye
Amarr Pax Amarria Corp
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:19:00 -
[186]
Edited by: BuIIseye on 08/09/2007 14:21:06 IMO if you want to improve game performance, instead of concentrated on improveing fights in 600 man systems, switch to discourageing forming of blobs.
Adding a limit of non-positive standing players that can lock your ship in combat would be a step in the right direction.
For example: only # hostiles can target your frigate only ## hostiles can target your cruiser . . . only ### hostiles can target your titan (replace # with a number that balance things depending on the ship class)
As server performance improve, increase the numbers. Not sure how doable it is in terms of codeing, but adding this when there is more than 4 gangs of 200+ players in surrounding systems might help with the blobing trend that we all do, even if we want it or not.
Nerfing drones for the sake of game performance won't deal with the main problem and that is the tendence to blob.
Having the option to turn off missile effects, ship explosion effects and wreck/can's from the grid would also help in 150+ vs 150+ clashes.
Just my 2 cents.
------------------------------ Yes i am hax0r
Because of the name I have a higher chance of a wrecking shot, please don't tell the GM's or they'll nerf me =/ |
ChoppinBrocolli
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:33:00 -
[187]
Originally by: BuIIseye Edited by: BuIIseye on 08/09/2007 14:21:06 IMO if you want to improve game performance, instead of concentrated on improveing fights in 600 man systems, switch to discourageing forming of blobs.
Adding a limit of non-positive standing players that can lock your ship in combat would be a step in the right direction.
For example: only # hostiles can target your frigate only ## hostiles can target your cruiser . . . only ### hostiles can target your titan (replace # with a number that balance things depending on the ship class)
As server performance improve, increase the numbers. Not sure how doable it is in terms of codeing, but adding this when there is more than 4 gangs of 200+ players in surrounding systems might help with the blobing trend that we all do, even if we want it or not.
Nerfing drones for the sake of game performance won't deal with the main problem and that is the tendence to blob.
Having the option to turn off missile effects, ship explosion effects and wreck/can's from the grid would also help in 150+ vs 150+ clashes.
Just my 2 cents.
I understand what you're saying about blobbing and you are right in that this is part of the lag problem but seriously, what you propose would constitute an enormous upheaval in balance and has such far reaching complications that make it absolutely unfeasable to implement. Aside from that, your suggestion would actually do nothing to stop blobbing as such. It would only nerf calling primaries and instead promote spreading your DPS.
Better solutions are: - more strategic objectives so that fleets are forced to split up their forces. - better scalability; the option to have multiple servers/nodes per system etcetera. I believe this was announced as 'under development' some time ago. - lower POS HP so that it is more effective to split up a BS fleet and hit multiple POS at once
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:41:00 -
[188]
Edited by: Goumindong on 08/09/2007 14:46:26
Originally by: Shoukei
Originally by: Zombie Network Because it is a serious issue with the game, and one that needs to be addressed.
in all seriousness, only issue is the fact that servers cant cope with 800 people fighting on the same grid. stop trying to cram as many people as possible into one system.
Exactly, and drones/fighters are essentially people in the servers eyes. It has to do ALL the calculations for all of them that it has to if the drone was a character in a frigate.
This means that if the server cant handle 500 people on grid, when 100 people are on grid and have drones/fighters out, the server is 100 people over limit instead of 400 people under limit!
20 carriers produces on average about 248 fighters. So 20 carriers provide a full half the capacity of the servers if the servers could handle 500 people on grid[they cant as far as i can tell]
Here is a good example.
Two days ago when RSF was sieging 0oyz, BoB warped 16 carriers and 4 motherships on grid to bust up the camp so they could jump through the gate and get battleships in system[at least as i saw it]. This should be a legitimate tactic, 16 carriers and 4 motherships are going to spider-tank like a nothing and dump out plenty of DPS to melt a battleship before it knows whats happening.
So our battleships are scattering and our support are loading anti-fighter overviews. It took me about 5 minutes to lock the fighters. At which point i believe i was called primary[t2 battlecruiser], i dont know. All i know is that a single megathron started shooting me, and his entire rack of guns clearly didnt activate because i was taking very little damage. I warped out at about half armor, it took me about 1 minute to do so.
In all reality it should have taken me 10 seconds to warp out and the battleship should have gotten halfway through my armor in about 4 volleys[of which i recieved many more than 4].
I got to the gate and there was a fighter there, so i locked, targeted and aggressed it. It was close to me and so i really couldnt hit it well. But the aggression caused it to come and shoot me instead of returning to the carrier. It took my drones and some other ship maybe two to three minutes to kill the fighter. The Carrier pilot who ought to have been able to recall his drone and save it couldnt because the fighter lag was so bad he couldnt issue orders to his fighter to not die after following a ship into warp.
Do i want 16 carriers and 20 motherships to NOT be a potent force with ~30,000 dps? No. Do i want fighters to be easy to kill? No
But what i do want is for me to be able to operate my ship under those conditions, and for my enemy to be able to operate his ship under those conditions. Because 20 carriers dont have to release 250 drones in order to deal 20,000 dps. And 16 carriers and 4 motherships dont have to release 300+ to deal 30,000. At least, they dont so long as you fix fighters to lower numbers. They would only have to bring 100 fighters, which would save them a full 150-200 people on grid of power.
|
BuIIseye
Amarr Pax Amarria Corp
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:46:00 -
[189]
Originally by: ChoppinBrocolli
Better solutions are: - more strategic objectives so that fleets are forced to split up their forces. - better scalability; the option to have multiple servers/nodes per system etcetera. I believe this was announced as 'under development' some time ago.
Agreed
My idea above needs more brainstorm to make it more practical and i wasan't saying to have it as a default thing, but more like a "supliment" to reinforceing nodes to at least descourage people massing up in a system since the idea that you will lag out but still manage to grind a way to victory if you just bring more only causes massive pilot buildups in a system.
------------------------------ Yes i am hax0r
Because of the name I have a higher chance of a wrecking shot, please don't tell the GM's or they'll nerf me =/ |
Shihuangdi
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 15:21:00 -
[190]
/signed
I don't think fighters should be nerfed (i.e. whatever changes should leave them as effective as before but without the omg lag effects they generate) but something needs to be done about the huge amount of lag they create.
|
|
Vio Geraci
Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 15:23:00 -
[191]
Players pay for subscriptions, fighters do not. Yet players are crippled by fighter lag as the fighters kill with impunity.
/signed
|
Havoc GunStar
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 15:37:00 -
[192]
/Signed
Ignore the haters. Siege Mode lag was addressed recently, please CCP, give Fighters the same work-over you did to dreads. Whether that means a reduction in the number (and increase in damage) like when Drone Interfacing was nerfed down from letting me field 10 drones, or some sort of re-design, whatever, please just give fighter lag some focus.
|
Xenotic
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 15:44:00 -
[193]
/SIGNED
I want to be able to pew pew :(
|
Morris Falter
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 16:18:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Shoukei
Originally by: Zombie Network Because it is a serious issue with the game, and one that needs to be addressed.
in all seriousness, only issue is the fact that servers cant cope with 800 people fighting on the same grid. stop trying to cram as many people as possible into one system.
This is not a unique situation with any one player alliance or corporation. 100 carriers x 10 fighters each.. if that proves challenging for you to work out, please post again so we can assist further.
But I'd prefer it if you just kept quiet unless you have something useful to contribute.
Regards,
|
Hanns Choibman
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 16:50:00 -
[195]
I just wanted to make the point that, The difference between Goonfleet blobs and fighter blobs, is that Goonfleet blobs have paying customers behind each ship and fighters do not.
|
Iceinferno
Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 16:58:00 -
[196]
well the goal for the game here has obviously been big fleetfights - and now we have them but the secondary goal to keep it playable and lagfree has not succeeded yet. I wish to have lagfree fights but it gets alredady laggy when there are 100 ships in local jumping. this has nothing to do with drones at all - sure they will maximise the lag. I am gonna sign the post but changes on drones are not the solution we need I am afraid.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 17:07:00 -
[197]
Originally by: Hanns Choibman I just wanted to make the point that, The difference between Goonfleet blobs and fighter blobs, is that Goonfleet blobs have paying customers behind each ship and fighters do not.
No, the difference between goonfleet blobs and fighter blobs is that goonfleet blobs cant take actions in huge lag because goonfleet blobs are made up of players, but fighter blobs continue to auto-aggress hostiles.
So if goonfleet blobs a system they get hit just as hard as anyone else. If you blob with fighters you dont get hit as hard as the other side.
This is why people dont launch drones in high lag situations, because it just makes it harder for them and everyone else to have a fight.
This isnt about which side has more paying customers, the lag affects everyone. Its about making changes that do not modify the primary balance considerations but do make the game playable for all involved.
This has advantages for both carrier pilots and the rest. Carrier pilots get bigger, heartier drones, that respond better to their commands. Motherships get ridiculously bigger, heartier drones, that respond better to their commands.
This makes it easier for them to save drones, makes it easier for them to change targets, and makes it easier for them, in general, to go about the business of being a carrier. If they need to bug out it makes it easier for them to scoop their fighters and launch expendable warriors to take down the tacklers.
Everyone else gains the ability to fight.
Its win win situation.
|
The Trixter
Caldari DarkStar 1
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 17:38:00 -
[198]
/Signed
|
Kar Strike
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 17:42:00 -
[199]
Signing this. Something needs to be done.
|
Jacques Cousteau
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 18:18:00 -
[200]
/signed
|
|
Andre Carnegi
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 18:27:00 -
[201]
/signed
|
Layla Shai
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 18:31:00 -
[202]
Originally by: BuIIseye Edited by: BuIIseye on 08/09/2007 14:48:34
Originally by: ChoppinBrocolli
Better solutions are: - more strategic objectives so that fleets are forced to split up their forces. - better scalability; the option to have multiple servers/nodes per system etcetera. I believe this was announced as 'under development' some time ago.
Agreed
My idea above needs more brainstorm to make it more practical and i wasan't saying to have it as a default thing, but more like a "supliment" to reinforceing nodes to at least descourage people massing up in a system since the idea that you will lag out but still manage to grind a way to victory if you just bring more only causes massive pilot buildups in a system until it gets unplayable.
If you can figure out a way to discourage large blobs without limiting anyones ability to play the game or discourage them from playing the game Im sure everyone would love to hear it. Seeing as the game was designed and advertised with large fleet battles in mind Im not really sure how easy it will be to actually accomplish this. Seeing how broken large fleet battles actually are theres really no reason not to look at every little idea to minimize lag or numbers.
Its also nice how the alt trolls still believe Goonswarm and RA are the root of all evil. How come they have no problems with such grand alliances as LV bragging about being the largest alliance in Eve or bragging about fighting with 10000 people vs RA's 1000?
|
Kiliana Kratanna
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 18:31:00 -
[203]
/signed
It seems the only BOB response to this thread so far is that Goons are just attacking them . This is an incorrect assumption. I have no problems losing ship after ship to anything a hostile corp can throw at me. The problem i have is I want to at least put up some sort of fight between jumping into a hostile system to attack and seeing my pod back in station. As of this point it is impossible to even see my killer nevermind activate my guns or any module for that matter. Reduction of lag is essential for the further existence of this game and its subscribers regardless of faction.
|
Midshipman
Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 18:47:00 -
[204]
It seems like removing collision detection from fighters/drones would go quite a long way to reducing the lag generated by them. The only possible con to this idea that comes to mind is that it'll be a bit harder to decloak people, but that is a rather limited usage of drones compared to everything else that they are used for. Is there any other good reason for drones to have collision detection?
Regardless of the method, something definitely needs to be done to mitigate the lag caused by large numbers of drones. --- *snip* - Not really an appropriate signature, please email mods@ccpgames if you have any questions - Tallan |
Delvainar
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 18:51:00 -
[205]
/sign on fighter lag being broken.
But I'd rather see reducing the numbers be something of a last resort. First fix should be to eliminate auto-aggression for fighters so that they are no longer immune to lag. That way they're not going to do anything if everyone is so lagged out that they can't target or shoot at anyone... just like everyone else.
|
Himo Amasacia
Minmatar Fade to Black Inc Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 19:09:00 -
[206]
I wrote this a while back as part of an essay about what is wrong with eve. Might as well put it here, as anywhere. This was part of my rant on capitals but a lot of it is relevant here.
What is the most valuable resource in eve? Isk? Promethium? Server speed? No, the most valuable thing in eve is the time of a player. To do anything, you need players to log on. Now what if a player can log on and you need 50 pilots online to counter him and destroy him. You have to work 50 times harder to get people online, who are willing to fight, get them organised and get them to work flawlessly, rather than player X who can just log on and you tell that player where to go and press a few buttons in their I-win button. Thats why Supercapitals are stupid. They cost a lot of isk but once they are online all you need is one player and he can just cause a ton of damage and counter the other guys 50 people. That gives you breathing room to create more isk and make more supercaps and it spirals.. basicly CCPs insistence the supercaps are anti-blob weapons is stupid because you need a blob to fight them, and the "way" to kill them is so stupidly difficult you may as well not bother without a superbly organized 300 man fleet. It basically requires that player X be all alone and a dumnass.
And there is another problem. More than anything else, Capital ship warfare is a numbers game.
Lets say 6 carriers (Team 1) are squaring off against 5 (team 2). Each carrier projects 1 point of kill strength. Lets also assume it takes 2 and a half kill strength points to overcome a carriers tank and kill it. So all sides launch fighters. One carrier has 6 kill points on it the other has 5. The one with 6 will die slightly before the one with 5 on it. Whereupon, the carrier in team 1 with 5 on it will suddenly have 4 on it, so it lasts slightly longer than it would with 5 kill points on it. So another carrier in team 2 now has 6 strength points on it for a while dropping to 5 after a short while but it will still take the damage of 6 points of kill strength while the carrier of team one still functions.. But the carrier on the team 1 is now taking damage more slowly... and so on and so on. According to my rough calculations, team 1 wins the fight with the loss of 1 with a generous possibility of losing 2 carriers, the other side is wiped out. Thats best case 2 for 5, just because you were silly enough to arrive with 1 less carrier than the opposition. Maneuvering is irrelevant as fighters move around with their targets. Thats what the tactics of carrier and capital warfare amounts to. Bo-ring. Of course the guy with the 6 carriers probably has more money than the other side with 5 meaning that they probably need 3 points of kill strength to kill one of their carriers, making it even worse.
Now you would argue that carriers are meant to be in the middle of a support fleet.. but that not how it works in eve. In all cases a capital carrier blob arrives with some interdictors and a small bunch of battleships. Unless you have a highly motivated swarm like Goonfleet thirsting for revenge over months and months of pos bowling, Doomsdays and forum crap, you simply cannot get the thousands of pilots needed into warships to counter the 50 or so cap pilots on the other side. Remember the most valuable resource in eve is players online, and if you have ships that the opposition cannot physically get enough people to fight you cannot be stopped. Thats what happened up north. People looked at the stupidity of the situation and went **** this.
*continues*
"Constant practice devoted to one subject often outdoes both intelligence and skill." -Cicero |
Himo Amasacia
Minmatar Fade to Black Inc Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 19:17:00 -
[207]
Another little thing since I'm on the subject. Last year drones were "nerfed" so you could only have 5 in the air at once. ****ed a lot of people off, bit mostly drone users accepted it because they could see the benefits. Less lag, drones easier to deal with, etc. Then CCP decided to come out with ships that allow you to control more and more drones with your carrier skill.. Oooh ooh and lets have one that can control 3 per carrier skill! That wont make the server melt!!!!! And fighters from 20 people in carriers will be easy to deal with for a properly set up fleet! Really!
Carriers, the blob that drop blobs.
Ok, rest is new. As for the auto-targetting issue, yes for goodness sake disable the auto-targetting. Not only would it actually provide an instant fix for the "spawn CPU lag unaffected ally" issue, but 1000s of drone using mission runners would immediately and passionately kiss you. And it would reduce server strain for the reason that the drones would not be running around selecting targets, so those routines would be scrapped. Less process running = more cpu power to run the battle. Its not rocket science. As a drone user I know autotargetting is a pain in the neck generally. No-one will really complain if it went, and it serves no it serves no purpose really, par possible the "response to someone jamming you" issue, but that only works if you are not jammed or attacked before the drones are launched.
In any case mark me down as a signed.
"Constant practice devoted to one subject often outdoes both intelligence and skill." -Cicero |
phillie blunt
Live And Let Die
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 19:18:00 -
[208]
Originally by: thoth foc
The flaw in you logic is that, you would have us believe that changing fighters, will improve node performance during fleet fights, it wont, it will simply increase the size of the blobs until the same situation is reached again, (as has been proved by the last drone nerf). If you wish to reduce the lag, the change that is required is to reduce concentration of ppl needed/allowed.
^^^^ he is correct
|
Phryne Tsume
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 19:32:00 -
[209]
/signed
|
Yggdrassill Yeltsin
The Greater Goon
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 19:34:00 -
[210]
Originally by: phillie blunt
Originally by: thoth foc
The flaw in you logic is that, you would have us believe that changing fighters, will improve node performance during fleet fights, it wont, it will simply increase the size of the blobs until the same situation is reached again, (as has been proved by the last drone nerf). If you wish to reduce the lag, the change that is required is to reduce concentration of ppl needed/allowed.
^^^^ he is correct
If you reduce the hundreds of fighters carriers drop, alliances will bring hundreds more people?
That's stupid. Why not deal with the fighter lag issue now and continue to deal with the player lag issue as it comes up? The whole point of the OP is that carrier and MS drones create lag on a scale ridiculously higher and faster than just a bunch of players.
|
|
Zhongchao84
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 19:36:00 -
[211]
signed
|
Dawnfiend
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 19:50:00 -
[212]
Signed.
20-minute lag to load a grid only to find I've been blown up by 200 fighters makes this game pretty worthless to me, and I want to quit just a little bit more every time it happens.
|
Lokopalas
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 19:56:00 -
[213]
signed
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 20:15:00 -
[214]
Edited by: Kerfira on 08/09/2007 20:16:35
Originally by: CSFFlame
ò 5 drones require 125 times more server calculations than just one. (5^3 / 1) ò 15 drones require 27 times more server calculations than five. (15^3 / 5^3) ò 25 drones require 125 times more server calculations than five, and 15,625 times more calculations than a single drone.
The OP is completely wrong on this one (where the hell did he get that n^3 nonsense from), and if that is the basis of his argument, the argument is basically null and void.
A drone/fighter (referenced collectively as 'drone' from now) requires a certain amount of server CPU. It needs that for flight-path calculation and shooting information. ò 2 drones require 2 times the CPU of 1 drones! ò 5 drones require 5 times the CPU of 1 drones! .....etc.
This is so, because there are NO interaction between drones. They don't need to know about each other (unless they're shooting each other), i.e. drone A doesn't need to tell drone B that "I'm here, doing this". In that aspect, they're little different from any gun mounted on a ship. The information about them is a static piece, unless a player action changes it.
So, if we try to count the different pieces of information needing to be calculated and sent to other ships on grid.
Take a gun BS for example (Raven is worse since it also has missiles in flight): 7 or 8 pieces of firing information for its guns 10 pieces of information for its drones 1 piece of flight-path information ? pieces of effect information ? pieces of targeting information Total: 19 + ? + ?
Now, take a carrier: ~2 pieces of firing information for its remote reppers (of whichever type) 18 pieces of information for its fighters (assuming he can control 9) 1 piece of flight-path information ? pieces of effect information ? pieces of targeting information Total: 21 + ? + ?
And a mommyship: ~3 pieces of firing information for its remote reppers (of whichever type) 40 pieces of information for its fighters (assuming he can control 20) 1 piece of flight-path information ? pieces of effect information ? pieces of targeting information Total: 44 + ? + ?
So, a BS and a carrier has approximately the same amount of information pieces to be processed/sent. A mommyship has a little more than double that (fair IMHO considering its cost).
So, the ships in themselves are pretty equal in their use of processing/networking power, which brings up the issue: Why do battles lag?
What causes battle lag is the amount of player actions on the node!!!
If there are like 500 people on a node, NOT in battle, the node might be a bit sluggish but people can move around etc. with relatively little lag. Whether they have drones out or not doesn't matter greatly.
However, if 2-300 of them decides to fight, the node instantly goes into overload. This is because every one of them suddenly starts to send commands to to server, and THAT is the heavy processing and network activity that causes the battle lag. This WILL happen whether drones are out or not.
If CCP want to implement something that eliminates battlelag, it has to be something that encourage a reduction the number of ships in fights. Reducing the number of drones will have minimal effect as they're not particularly CPU or network heavy compared to the other weapon types.
What will have an effect on lag is if blob'ing IN GENERAL is discouraged...
No matter whether there are drones or not on the field, any battle with more than ~200 people in it will be a lagfest. The number of people and their actions is the cause though, not the relatively small resource consumption of the drones!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 20:27:00 -
[215]
I think the bottom line is that CCP could easily reduce a lot of extraneous server load if they got down to it and considered a 15/25 -> 5 deflation and kept everything else carrier related the exact same.
It's a call for attention to a big issue that might be getting neglected. |
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 21:09:00 -
[216]
Edited by: Kerfira on 08/09/2007 21:08:58
Originally by: Bein Glorious I think the bottom line is that CCP could easily reduce a lot of extraneous server load if they got down to it and considered a 15/25 -> 5 deflation and kept everything else carrier related the exact same.
It's a call for attention to a big issue that might be getting neglected.
It could warrant attention of.c., but it is a minuscule issue compared to the extraneous server load caused by some alliances bringing 450+ to a fight....
As demonstrated above, drones are a very minor contributor. A drone is just another weapon system! The only difference in server resource consumption is that it has flight-path information too.
The thing that cause lag is when player actions cause a change in some status on the server that needs to be calculated and communicated to players on grid. Whether that is a status change for a drone or a gun is indistinguishable....
Bringing one extra ship to a 200 ship battle probably causes more lag than launching 50 drones.... This is because the ship cause an EXPONENTIAL increase in information exchange, where the fighter only causes a LINEAR increase.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Moon Kitten
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 21:20:00 -
[217]
Edited by: Moon Kitten on 08/09/2007 21:23:27 Edited by: Moon Kitten on 08/09/2007 21:20:47 Neither of you know how much increased load drones or players cause to the server unless you happen to be a developer. Regardless I hope CCP looks into all potential ways to reduce lag including changing drone and fighter mechanics which they already have done at least once.
For example, I'd like to see Goonfleet in a year -CCP Oveur |
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 21:30:00 -
[218]
Originally by: Kerfira
...
Would you agree that reducing server lag by reducing fighter counts is a good idea, at least until a more ideal design becomes feasible in which "blobbing" becomes unnecessary? |
Postmaster Generale
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 21:44:00 -
[219]
Kerfira, your analogy of drones:weapons is flawed because the drones are entities in space just like ships, and their actions need to be updated on all the players' clients just like another ship in combat would. Also, in EVE the clients are just terminals, the server is doing all the calculations, and those calculations are exactly the same for fighters and player ships, except the fighters are even worse because the server has to run their AI rather than waiting for player input.
Someone said it before but it needs to be said again: fighters affect the server just like players. A system with 200 in local shouldn't be straining the server, but if those 200 have 500 fighters the server will be screaming just as if there were 700 players in local.
Jumping into a system like that with any size fleet is suicide, and jumping in with a large fleet is insane because of the enormous losses for no gain. Therefore, when one side does this, no matter who it is, it makes fighting impossible. This is not a nerf to anyone, we just want to see NPC combatants step aside so that more players can use the server.
|
Postmaster Generale
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 21:45:00 -
[220]
Edited by: Postmaster Generale on 08/09/2007 21:45:53 edit: i pres butan to fast
|
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 22:01:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Postmaster Generale Kerfira, your analogy of drones:weapons is flawed because the drones are entities in space just like ships, and their actions need to be updated on all the players' clients just like another ship in combat would.
So does every weapon mount since each client need to know who it is shooting at. The only difference is the flight information.
A drone circling and shooting a target should use exactly as many resources as a gun shooting a target, since there are no status change involved. Clients will have received the information: "Drone X is shooting target Y" exactly like "Turret X is shooting target Y" which is what they'll display until a status change occurs. No extra lag from drones
Originally by: Postmaster Generale Also, in EVE the clients are just terminals, the server is doing all the calculations, and those calculations are exactly the same for fighters and player ships, except the fighters are even worse because the server has to run their AI rather than waiting for player input.
So you're claiming that the ONE calculation that a drone at rare instances has to do (which target to attack after its current target is gone), is on par with handling the multitude of module activations, course correction, targeting attempts, and other player button spam etc. by a ship?
That's not how it works....
Originally by: Postmaster Generale Someone said it before but it needs to be said again: fighters affect the server just like players. A system with 200 in local shouldn't be straining the server, but if those 200 have 500 fighters the server will be screaming just as if there were 700 players in local.
'Someone' was wrong!
There is NO way a single drone, with no equipment or cargo load, and a very simple AI algorithm for choosing a new target is anywhere near the magnitude of a player controlled ship with regard to server resource use.
---
Player actions cause lag, not weapon modules..... Discourage blob'ing, and you'll see an effect on lag.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 22:15:00 -
[222]
Originally by: Bein Glorious
Originally by: Kerfira
...
Would you agree that reducing server lag by reducing fighter counts is a good idea, at least until a more ideal design becomes feasible in which "blobbing" becomes unnecessary?
I would see it as a non-solution to a problem caused by something entirely different. I don't see it having any real effect....
Blobbing is to a large degree caused by two things: 1. Recent utterly stupid design decisions by CCP with regard to POS warfare. 2. The fact that assembling a lag-blob is an 'I-Win' button.
If you have a 200 vs. 200 scenario, the party that warps/jumps in WILL loose!! The explanation for that is very simple. The ones already on-grid will have already loaded the ships there, so only needs updates on the ships coming in, while the ships coming in will first have to load the entire grid, THEN get the updates. Once the first ships are in, the ones on-grid will start getting updates, will start targeting and shooting, and at THIS point the server goes to hell!!! This is before the people coming in has loaded, but the people on-grid are already targeting and shooting.
The only solution to THAT problem is not a reduction of a small part of the lag equation since the far larger part of the equation is the player actions, but the introduction of game mechanics or features that strongly discourage the blobbing that makes those masses of player actions have the lag effect they do.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 22:18:00 -
[223]
Originally by: Kerfira The OP is completely wrong on this one (where the hell did he get that n^3 nonsense from), and if that is the basis of his argument, the argument is basically null and void.
A drone/fighter (referenced collectively as 'drone' from now) requires a certain amount of server CPU. It needs that for flight-path calculation and shooting information. ò 2 drones require 2 times the CPU of 1 drones! ò 5 drones require 5 times the CPU of 1 drones! .....etc.
This is so, because there are NO interaction between drones. They don't need to know about each other (unless they're shooting each other), i.e. drone A doesn't need to tell drone B that "I'm here, doing this".
I think I made an estimate of that order a while back (for ships, not drones specifically) in another thread, but I can't find it. Although drones don't usually interact with each other in all the same ways that players do, they can still occasionally collide with one another, especially when deployed in large numbers. I would speculate that an n^2 estimate would probably be better for drones. Of course, it's possible that large amounts of unnecessary information are being taken into account when computing drone behaviour.
The basis of the n^3 estimate for player-controlled ships was that as well as everyone receiving more information about everyone else, the density of ships tends to increase as more people pile on to the same grid and more collisions/short ranged AoE effects take place. My research services Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats |
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 22:29:00 -
[224]
Edited by: Kerfira on 08/09/2007 22:30:30
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro I would speculate that an n^2 estimate would probably be better for drones. Of course, it's possible that large amounts of unnecessary information are being taken into account when computing drone behaviour.
The basis of the n^3 estimate for player-controlled ships was that as well as everyone receiving more information about everyone else, the density of ships tends to increase as more people pile on to the same grid and more collisions/short ranged AoE effects take place.
Nobody here of.c. knows how the code in behind it is. If it is normal IT industry quality, that's bad
However, the way I'd implement collition detection for a grid would be to impose a 'micro-grid' on it, so you only needed to check for collisions between objects on those micro-grids. This would reduce the complexity to somewhere between n^1 and n^2. Where between 1 and 2 it would be would depend on the size of the micro-grids and a lot of other factors...
A complexity of n^3 for ships (even with drones at n^2) would just enforce my argument tbh. The blob is at the core of the problem, not the weapons used....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Orangir
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 22:41:00 -
[225]
Edited by: Orangir on 08/09/2007 22:41:28
Originally by: Kerfira So does every weapon mount since each client need to know who it is shooting at. The only difference is the flight information.
A drone circling and shooting a target should use exactly as many resources as a gun shooting a target, since there are no status change involved. Clients will have received the information: "Drone X is shooting target Y" exactly like "Turret X is shooting target Y" which is what they'll display until a status change occurs. No extra lag from drones
A drone or fighter requires much more server processing time than a gun turret does because a drone or fighter is essentially considered a full fledged player combatant. Collisions are calculated, damage equations are calculated, and transversal equations are calculated (to mention just a few). All of these are calculated server side as to maintain integrity, and when you have 200 people fighting 200 other people with 500 fighters deployed on each side, you effectively have 1400 enemy ships fighting on a single grid. Reducing the amount of fighters deployed by a factor of 5 would reduce that to 600, which, while still bad, is something the servers can hopefully handle after Rev 3.
Anyone saying that reducing the amount of deployable fighters isn't going to fix anything is automatically retorted by the fact that CCP reduced the amount of deployable drones you could launch awhile ago, and the results were very noticeable. This isn't asking for a nerf of carriers and motherships, for all we care you could make them more powerful, but either the fighter blob has to go or the auto-aggressing capabilities need to go because it is crippling large scale capital warfare.
|
Vladimir Tinakin
Caldari Hadean Drive Yards Archaean Cooperative
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 22:49:00 -
[226]
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 08/09/2007 22:30:30
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro I would speculate that an n^2 estimate would probably be better for drones. Of course, it's possible that large amounts of unnecessary information are being taken into account when computing drone behaviour.
The basis of the n^3 estimate for player-controlled ships was that as well as everyone receiving more information about everyone else, the density of ships tends to increase as more people pile on to the same grid and more collisions/short ranged AoE effects take place.
Nobody here of.c. knows how the code in behind it is. If it is normal IT industry quality, that's bad
However, the way I'd implement collition detection for a grid would be to impose a 'micro-grid' on it, so you only needed to check for collisions between objects on those micro-grids. This would reduce the complexity to somewhere between n^1 and n^2. Where between 1 and 2 it would be would depend on the size of the micro-grids and a lot of other factors...
A complexity of n^3 for ships (even with drones at n^2) would just enforce my argument tbh. The blob is at the core of the problem, not the weapons used....
While true to an extent, its a lot easier to apply a sizeable "Bandaid" to the problem via addressing drones.
Solving the "Blob" problem is an exercise in countering human nature. People will bring to the table as much firepower as they can muster, and when talking about alliances of 1000s of people this can very easily amount to blobs of several hundred.
The trick is discouraging the effects of blobs without nerfing everything else. The limited lock number on a ship might work; I could see a few ways to exploit that immediately however. Even focus-fire limits would just result in a breakup of the fleet to multiple independant wings--so you'd still have the same number of people in local, just more targets being selected.
Its a difficult problem to solve, and one that would take a lot of deliberation--and one that I think has already had a lot of deliberation spent on it to no avail as yet.
Fighters/drones, on the other hand, csn be addressed much more easily to provide some breathing room for possible solutions to the blob issue. ----------------------------------------------- Adm Vladimir Tinakin CFO Hadean Drive Yards |
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 22:50:00 -
[227]
Originally by: Kerfira
I would see it as a non-solution to a problem caused by something entirely different. I don't see it having any real effect....
Blobbing is to a large degree caused by two things: 1. Recent utterly stupid design decisions by CCP with regard to POS warfare. 2. The fact that assembling a lag-blob is an 'I-Win' button.
If you have a 200 vs. 200 scenario, the party that warps/jumps in WILL loose!! The explanation for that is very simple. The ones already on-grid will have already loaded the ships there, so only needs updates on the ships coming in, while the ships coming in will first have to load the entire grid, THEN get the updates. Once the first ships are in, the ones on-grid will start getting updates, will start targeting and shooting, and at THIS point the server goes to hell!!! This is before the people coming in has loaded, but the people on-grid are already targeting and shooting.
The only solution to THAT problem is not a reduction of a small part of the lag equation since the far larger part of the equation is the player actions, but the introduction of game mechanics or features that strongly discourage the blobbing that makes those masses of player actions have the lag effect they do.
Your description of jumpin lag is pretty accurate though with some discrepancies, but is it not true that fighters, or any interactable object, also make it take longer to load the grid? Not only that, but the force jumping in obviously cannot use fighters of their because they are coming through a gate. The issue with fighters and lag is centered almost entirely - but not fully - on the fact that jumping into an enemy gatecamp using more fighters than the server can handle introduces unnecessary difficulties for the attackers. Not just because they create lag, but also because fighters auto-aggro and continue to kill enemy forces as if they had a perfect connection with the server.
As for your description of jump/warp in lag: yes, that is how it is sometimes, but I've been in many fights before where neither the attacker nor the defenders' grids loaded significantly faster than the attackers'. For example, in 1V-, an enemy force warped in on us at a moon where a POS was being anchored, and I literally did not see anything for over thirty minutes. And even then, it was only one or two ships. At one point I somehow started taking damage from some missile (a stray FoF cruise missile? I really do not know) and miraculously warped out after a few minutes.
My point being, while there are situations that in players-only fights the group that jumps or warps in has the lag disadvantage, it is still players shooting players, not NPCs shooting players. The advancing group may fight a partially uphill battle with lag, but over time, the sides become equal because both sides become equally lagged. It doesn't happen all the time, I admit, but saying that the jumping in forces always get screwed just isn't true.
And at the end of the day, deflating fighter counts reduces lag and keeps everything else the exact same. It couldn't hurt. |
Ar'tee
DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 22:52:00 -
[228]
Quote:
Since the number of interactions with the server is a value of n^3 [where n=number of drones in space]
Wait, I must be missing something here.
Obviously that's your problem right there.
I don't see why you need to propose making carriers and motherships utterly useless, instead of getting CCP to fix their totally broken code?
Also, how do you know that this is the formula for the number of interactions, as I don't see the reasoning behind this. (may have missed something there). But anyway, if that formula is correct, there is code that needs to be fixed - not ships that have to be nerfed.
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 22:56:00 -
[229]
Originally by: Ar'tee
Quote:
Since the number of interactions with the server is a value of n^3 [where n=number of drones in space]
Wait, I must be missing something here.
Obviously that's your problem right there.
I don't see why you need to propose making carriers and motherships utterly useless, instead of getting CCP to fix their totally broken code?
Also, how do you know that this is the formula for the number of interactions, as I don't see the reasoning behind this. (may have missed something there). But anyway, if that formula is correct, there is code that needs to be fixed - not ships that have to be nerfed.
Nothing is being nerfed since the petition is to keep carriers the exact same but less laggy, and hopefully CCP can both reduce lag by deflating fighters and also fixing the code. Pardon me for saying so, but I'm not really sure what you are complaining about...? |
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:07:00 -
[230]
Originally by: Orangir .....essentially considered a full fledged player combatant.
Ehhh, who at CCP said that? Provide a reference or stfu...
Just because Goons continue to claim so, doesn't make it so....
Originally by: Orangir Collisions are calculated, damage equations are calculated, and transversal equations are calculated (to mention just a few).
Collisions are extra compared to a turret, but thats the ONLY thing extra. A drone is calculation wise as ONE turret which can move independently.
A battleship has 7 or 8 turrets, PLUS modules, making it like 10 times (at least) as 'heavy' for the server to handle (and this is BEFORE calculating in the effects of player actions).
Originally by: Orangir ...when you have 200 people fighting 200 other people with 500 fighters deployed on each side, you effectively have 1400 enemy ships fighting on a single grid.
Nope, more like 210 vs. 210... MAYBE 220 vs. 220....
---
A drone might go something like this in a laggy battle: 1. Target destroyed 2. Select new target 3. Fly to target 4. Start shooting
A player will do like this: 1. <20 mouseclicks=10 commands> Align... ffs.. align <20 more mouseclicks=10 more server commands> 2. <20 targeting command> Target all in sight .... ffs. why don't they target <another 20 targeting commands> 3. Shoot... ffs. he's out of range... change ammo... ffs, ammo not changing... retry 4. ..someone shooting me.... Align-warp-align-warp <another 50 command>
So, for the drone, 4 internal actions (not requiring networking) to do by the server. For the ships maybe 50+ PLAYER ACTIONS (requiring networking) to act on, not to mention the fact that a ship has 7/8 times the weapons firing.
By all reasonable calculation (and without access to CCP's source code), the effect of 1 drone on the server in a laggy battle is MAYBE 5% of a player.
So, since there is far more to be gained lag-fighting wise by nerfing blobs in some way, how come you're not advocating that instead????
---
I see a lot of Goon hipocricy here tbh.... "Goons and co. encounter something that lags the game (not caused by them)" "They want it removed ASAP..." "Their own lag-blob of.c. MUST stay as it is...."
Strongly discourage blobbing, and you solve both problems. Since you're SOOOOOO much against lag, you should all sign up. Right? Right?... Right?
....guess not....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
|
BronYAurStomp
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:17:00 -
[231]
Edited by: BronYAurStomp on 08/09/2007 23:25:48 Huh?
Originally by: Kerfira
Collisions are extra compared to a turret, but thats the ONLY thing extra. A drone is calculation wise as ONE turret which can move independently.
Ehhh, who at CCP said that? Provide a reference or stfu...
Originally by: Kerfira
A battleship has 7 or 8 turrets, PLUS modules, making it like 10 times (at least) as 'heavy' for the server to handle (and this is BEFORE calculating in the effects of player actions).
Ehhh, who at CCP said that? Provide a reference or stfu...
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Orangir ...when you have 200 people fighting 200 other people with 500 fighters deployed on each side, you effectively have 1400 enemy ships fighting on a single grid.
Nope, more like 210 vs. 210... MAYBE 220 vs. 220....
Ehhh, who at CCP said that? Provide a reference or stfu...
---
Originally by: Kerfira
A drone might go something like this in a laggy battle: 1. Target destroyed 2. Select new target 3. Fly to target 4. Start shooting
Ehhh, who at CCP said that? Provide a reference or stfu...
Originally by: Kerfira
So, for the drone, 4 internal actions (not requiring networking) to do by the server. For the ships maybe 50+ PLAYER ACTIONS (requiring networking) to act on, not to mention the fact that a ship has 7/8 times the weapons firing.
Ehhh, who at CCP said that? Provide a reference or stfu...
Originally by: Kerfira
By all reasonable calculation (and without access to CCP's source code), the effect of 1 drone on the server in a laggy battle is MAYBE 5% of a player.
Ehhh, who at CCP said that? Provide a reference or stfu...
---
oh /signed
|
Ar'tee
DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:18:00 -
[232]
Originally by: Bein Glorious
Nothing is being nerfed since the petition is to keep carriers the exact same
Not exactly the same, I see a long list of changes - some of which will undoubtedly have funny unforeseen side effects as usual, and in any case will take a lot of CCP's time to implement.
Quote:
but less laggy, and hopefully CCP can both reduce lag by deflating fighters and also fixing the code. Pardon me for saying so, but I'm not really sure what you are complaining about...?
I'm simply not in favor of making random game changes to address symptoms (rather than causes) of what is obviously broken game code.
I'll admit I didn't bother to read all the details, but the proposed solution seems to be: make carriers have 3x less fighters and make up for that by giving bonuses. Thus addressing the current symptom by making lots of changes (=work, for CCP).
Then in 3 months there will be a fight with 3x more carriers on the field than what is considered normal today (as more people will get ready to fly cap ships), and you'll have the exact same problem once more - except you're out a lot of time writing code to address some symptoms instead of the cause.
My suggestion would be to make fighters non-colliding objects. At least, if that is what causes "interactions" (I'm not sure it is). Or just change whatever else in the game that fixes the *cause*, which is (at least if the OP has stated the correct formula) some game algorithm taking O(n^3) time to run.
I agree with the idea of this petition though, CCP should *make it a priority to fix [the cause of] this problem*.
|
an internet
Duragon Pioneer Group GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:19:00 -
[233]
No, the real issue is collision detection. Its the same reason that making it possible to fly through corpses and wrecks reduced so much lag.
What happens is this - the server must check that no object is in contact with another object.
2 objects, you only have to check once for both objects.
3 objects, object a has to check for object b and c, object c has to check for b, 3 checks
4 objects, a has to check for b, c, and d, b has to check for c and d. C has to check for d. Thats 6 checks.
This creates lag because it's a (n-1)! algorithm. Reducing the number of drones on grid makes this much, much, easier.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:22:00 -
[234]
The formula is n^2, the OP made a slight error. Well, more correctly, the formula is xn^2 + 2zn. Where x is the number of typical updated informations and calculations, and Z is the number of specific actions that need to be shown. But the specific actions really dont matter as battles get larger.
This however does not mean that the problem isnt large, it is.
Basically each object that must be interacted with much check at the very least collision/position and tracking. As well, each individual object that takes an action must send that action to all applicable targets.
Such 10 drones must figure collision, position, and tracking for all 10 drones. 300 calcs. As well each drone must send and recieve its actions and orders to any aplicable drones, so 10 drones produce 320 calcs. This is the minimum.
This is roughly the same number of calcs that players produce.
O.K. so now we have 100 drones, that is 30200 calculations. 94 times more calculations for 10 times more drones. O.K. now lets have 200 drones. Twice the numbers, 4 times the calculations.
20 Carriers produce 240 drones at 12 drones apiece. 260 total objects.
After the reduction 20 carriers would produce 100 drones at 5 drones apiece, 120 total objects.
This is 4.65 less work the server has to do to figure the battle.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:24:00 -
[235]
Originally by: Bein Glorious .....but is it not true that fighters, or any interactable object, also make it take longer to load the grid?
True to an extent, but not much more than turrets.... When you load a grid, you get information about items there, AND information about ships AND THEIR FITTINGS and current status. Information about a drone is basically a type, movement information and firing status. Information about a turret is a type, and firing status. Information about a ship is type, name, pilot, turrets, modules, cargo (unless they fixed that), movement information, module effect.
In the grand scheme of things, they're just another weapon system.
Originally by: Bein Glorious Not only that, but the force jumping in obviously cannot use fighters of their because they are coming through a gate.
They can't use weapons of their own either until they've targeted. Targeted... launched... same thing. The disadvantage of attacking....
Originally by: Bein Glorious The issue with fighters and lag is centered almost entirely - but not fully - on the fact that jumping into an enemy gatecamp using more fighters than the server can handle introduces unnecessary difficulties for the attackers.
"The issue with lag-blobbing is centered almost entirely - but not fully - on the fact that jumping into an enemy gatecamp with more ships than the server can handle introduces unnecessary difficulties for the attackers."
Originally by: Bein Glorious because fighters auto-aggro and continue to kill enemy forces as if they had a perfect connection with the server.
Afaik drones/fighters only auto-aggro once you're aggro on their controller.... Guns continue to shoot too, and you can set your ship for auto-lock. That way you only need to activate your guns and wait for them to fire.
Not exactly the same, but close enough.
Originally by: Bein Glorious ....I literally did not see anything for over thirty minutes. And even then, it was only one or two ships.
That's a desync... not lag...
Originally by: Bein Glorious And at the end of the day, deflating fighter counts reduces lag and keeps everything else the exact same. It couldn't hurt.
Doesn't do much good either. When correcting a problem, the CORE of it needs to be adressed. Not a small 5% part of the problem.
Every single time CCP has tried to improve the game so lag is less of a factor, people just bring more and more and more until the game is lagged again. The CORE of the problem has to be adressed and that is twofold: 1. Game features encouraging blobbing 2. No game features discouraging blobbing
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
BronYAurStomp
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:30:00 -
[236]
How is that a bad thing, to enable larger and larger battles?
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:32:00 -
[237]
Originally by: Goumindong Such 10 drones must figure collision, position, and tracking for all 10 drones. 300 calcs. As well each drone must send and recieve its actions and orders to any aplicable drones, so 10 drones produce 320 calcs. This is the minimum.
You're using the WORST possible collision detection algorithm. With a good micro-grid architecture behind it, you'd only need to do collition detection to the drones immediately near you.
For an entire grid, I'd expect a good collition detection architecture to have a complexity of n^1.05 or less.....
Originally by: Goumindong This is roughly the same number of calcs that players produce.
For collisions, yes, but you're completely ignoring that players send commands to the server, which are most likely a LOT heavier (and I wouldn't be surprised if the factor was 10x-100x) because they require network communication, that the drone AI (which only kicks in when it needs a new target). Also you're ignoring that a drone has 1 (one!) weapon system for the server to keep track of, and 1 (one!) target for it. A Battleship has 7/8 weapon systems, up to 7 targets, plus modules.
---
So, in conclusion, your figures are extremely inaccurate (unless CCP really HAS implemented the worst possible collision detection algorithm).
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:36:00 -
[238]
Originally by: Kerfira
You're using the WORST possible collision detection algorithm. With a good micro-grid architecture behind it, you'd only need to do collition detection to the drones immediately near you.
For an entire grid, I'd expect a good collition detection architecture to have a complexity of n^1.05 or less.....
You clearly have never fought against a carrier. Its not called a "fighter swarm" for nothing. Its a big fing blob of fighters that all all bunched up within a couple kilometers of space.
|
dan 1
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:38:00 -
[239]
signed
|
Mika 1
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:40:00 -
[240]
signed (dan's mom)
|
|
Slick McDurper
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:44:00 -
[241]
signed (dan's dad)
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:45:00 -
[242]
Originally by: Vladimir Tinakin While true to an extent, its a lot easier to apply a sizeable "Bandaid" to the problem via addressing drones.
The problem is that it is just a minor part of what is causing lag that it'll not do any good. Blobs will just grow larger.
Originally by: Vladimir Tinakin Solving the "Blob" problem is an exercise in countering human nature. People will bring to the table as much firepower as they can muster, and when talking about alliances of 1000s of people this can very easily amount to blobs of several hundred.
My personal favorite is a smartbomb-like module like this (might need a few modifications):
Mounted on battleship, can be activated by player or activates if battleship is destroyed. Player activation destroys ship. If less than 100 ships on grid: No effect (except maybe a little 'pop' sound...) 100-149 ships: 300-3000 damage, radius 50-100km 150-100 ships: 3000-20000 damage, radius 100-150km 200-249 ships: 20000-60000 damage, radius 150-200km 250+ ships: WTFPWN all BS, radius 250km.
The ship numbers could be adjusted up as the server becomes able to handle more ships on grid.
In essence, I've taken the titan DD and removed the two things most people complained over about that: 1. Used to kill small groups of players 2. Only big boys had it
It would so strongly DISCOURAGE blobbing that the problem would completely disappear.... People bringing out a 100 man blob could have it decimated by a 50 man blob... People bringing a 250 man blob could have it destroyed by a single BS....
PS: I'll read on tomorrow... Bedtime....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Kalralahr
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:45:00 -
[243]
Edited by: Kalralahr on 08/09/2007 23:46:09 signed (dan's creepystalker)
Lot of theorycrafting and blind guessing in this thread. Fighters are breaking things and it's a reproducible problem. The devs can deal with the specifics.
|
BronYAurStomp
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:50:00 -
[244]
How is having a single bs be able to wipe out 250 players a good idea?
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:54:00 -
[245]
Originally by: Goumindong You clearly have never fought against a carrier. Its not called a "fighter swarm" for nothing. Its a big fing blob of fighters that all all bunched up within a couple kilometers of space.
I have fought carriers, but what does that have to do with it? Your example was using 20 carriers. Clearly they're not all putting all their fighters within the same micro-grid.
If they're spread evenly in 2 microgrids, then at worst we're talking about a complexity of 2*((n/2)^2). If in 10, a complexity of 10*((n/10)^2) If in 100, a complexity of 100*(n/100)^2)
If each microgrid is 10x10x10km, and the fight is in a 50x50x50km cube, that's 125 microgrids. They fighters'll of.c. not be completely evenly spread, but in general you'd have only maybe 10-20 on the same micro-grid.
Collision detection is a problem that can be quite effectively minimalised without reducing numbers, and is in any case just a very small part of the problem.
Player commands is THE big part that needs to be reduced to solve the lag problem. Everything else is just a little piece of band-aid doing very little.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:55:00 -
[246]
Originally by: Kalralahr Lot of theorycrafting and blind guessing in this thread. Fighters are breaking things and it's a reproducible problem. The devs can deal with the specifics.
Lot of theorycrafting and blind guessing in this post.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.09.08 23:57:00 -
[247]
Originally by: BronYAurStomp How is having a single bs be able to wipe out 250 players a good idea?
Those 250 players are causing lag which we all agree we don't like. Discouraging that by making it easy to kill them will cause them to split up (or they'll die)...
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Churuya
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 00:39:00 -
[248]
Edited by: Churuya on 09/09/2007 00:44:09 /signed. And by signed, I mean DO IT.
|
Orangir
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 00:46:00 -
[249]
Originally by: Kerfira Ehhh, who at CCP said that? Provide a reference or stfu...
Just because Goons continue to claim so, doesn't make it so....
CCP doesn't need to state how every aspect of the game works. We can infer from the way drones behave that they are treated just as a player's ship is.
Originally by: Kerfira Collisions are extra compared to a turret, but thats the ONLY thing extra. A drone is calculation wise as ONE turret which can move independently.
A battleship has 7 or 8 turrets, PLUS modules, making it like 10 times (at least) as 'heavy' for the server to handle (and this is BEFORE calculating in the effects of player actions)
You don't understand a thing about the way MMO server's work, and it shows. The majority of server lag in EVE comes from the need to judge the flight paths of all ships on a grid and report the movement to every individual client. When you have 400 people on a grid, the server needs to provide the position of 400 entities to each of the 400 clients, this is a massive load and is the fundamental reason a blob causes lag. Add in 1000 fighters who's position also needs to be reported to each individual client, and you've got a dead node. Turrets and modules have nothing to do with this, as they add a relatively small load on the server because their status is not being updated in real time, but rather every few seconds.
Originally by: Kerfira Nope, more like 210 vs. 210... MAYBE 220 vs. 220....
---
A drone might go something like this in a laggy battle: 1. Target destroyed 2. Select new target 3. Fly to target 4. Start shooting
A player will do like this: 1. <20 mouseclicks=10 commands> Align... ffs.. align <20 more mouseclicks=10 more server commands> 2. <20 targeting command> Target all in sight .... ffs. why don't they target <another 20 targeting commands> 3. Shoot... ffs. he's out of range... change ammo... ffs, ammo not changing... retry 4. ..someone shooting me.... Align-warp-align-warp <another 50 command>
So, for the drone, 4 internal actions (not requiring networking) to do by the server. For the ships maybe 50+ PLAYER ACTIONS (requiring networking) to act on, not to mention the fact that a ship has 7/8 times the weapons firing.
By all reasonable calculation (and without access to CCP's source code), the effect of 1 drone on the server in a laggy battle is MAYBE 5% of a player.
So, since there is far more to be gained lag-fighting wise by nerfing blobs in some way, how come you're not advocating that instead????
Again, you have no understanding of what causes server load. No matter how fast a player can spam double click, the updating of ship locations in real time will require much much much more server processing time. Flight paths need to be calculated, collisions need to be detected, and transversal determined for not only each ship, but every drone and fighter that also happens to be on grid. And, as has been said over and over and over again, all of this is calculated in real time - tens of times per second. There's a reason most MMOs don't detect for collision, one of them being the massive amount of calculations it requires and the need for much more robust player position calculations.
Quote: I see a lot of Goon hipocricy here tbh.... "Goons and co. encounter something that lags the game (not caused by them)" "They want it removed ASAP..." "Their own lag-blob of.c. MUST stay as it is...."
Strongly discourage blobbing, and you solve both problems. Since you're SOOOOOO much against lag, you should all sign up. Right? Right?... Right?
....guess not....
And of course, some blatant politicalization to cap off your post. Only BoB could find some way to construe reducing lag as a bad thing.
|
Sedyna
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 01:17:00 -
[250]
Edited by: Sedyna on 09/09/2007 01:20:48 I just cannot believe there is someone arguing against a, by all appearances, simple to implement fix (or band-aid) to lag.
I seriously doubt that the server calculates much for a turret. IF we go by what the player guide on turret tracking does, thats all that is required.
On the other hand, drones require all of the above from turrets, travel, collision, each drones HP (sheild/armor/hull), AI (next target, MWD on/off, orbit speed/distance, insane factor) and reporting back (sheild/armor/hull/status) to the player. So to whomever said drones=turrets for calculations your very dead wrong.
Oh and you can argue for micro-grids all you want, I seriously doubt that CCP uses them. Wouldn't that cause lag for objects moving in and out of those "micro-grids" in the form of hand-offs between grids?
Anyway as for the idea /signed
BTW there is a simple test. gather maybe 50 vs. 50 with only normal drones and no ship fielding above 5. Then try 50 vs 50 with 20-30 carriers/motherships launching 15-25 fighters a piece. Would the difference in lag be tiny as Kerfira suggest, or vast like everyone else thinks?
|
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 02:02:00 -
[251]
From this thread I think it can be generally agreed that there's no good reason for drones to be doing collision calculations currently.
While it would have some minor issues with combat around large objects in space, the net effect would be fairly minor and the potential lag improvements huge if they were simply turned off as collidables.
|
Suprala Psarian
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 02:43:00 -
[252]
All of you people arguing about the root cause of fighter lag are wasting your time. None of us know WHY they cause lag. We just know they DO cause lag.
I don't really care what maths CCP makes up to fix fighter lag, as long as they fix it good and proper. |
Aisar
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 04:45:00 -
[253]
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 08/09/2007 23:58:07
Originally by: BronYAurStomp How is having a single bs be able to wipe out 250 players a good idea?
Those 250 players are causing lag which we all agree we don't like. Discouraging that by making it easy to kill them will cause them to split up (or they'll die)...
And the problem of lag is very much solved!
PS: Now I really AM going to bed....
You're right, alliances with a high number of paying customers shouldn't be allowed to use these people in battles. CCP should totally cater to their high sp paying customers, because their money is worth more than paying customers that can't field anything more than a frigate (and if you think this isn't, then there is no helping you).
|
JPthe2
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 05:25:00 -
[254]
/signed
|
Dagam
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 05:47:00 -
[255]
Edited by: Dagam on 09/09/2007 05:55:04 Fighters cause as much lag as drones, probably more because they have to report to both the person assigned fighters and the carrier they belong to. The RMR expansion reduced max drones from 15 to 5 because of how much lag they were causing. Ergo, doing the same for fighters would reduce lag. If you still doubt it, read the dev blog on the reason for drone reduction.
Originally by: Tuxford
This whole project is also not about "nerfing" drones. This is about reducing server lag and at the end give you a more joyful experience while playing.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 08:34:00 -
[256]
Originally by: Aisar
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 08/09/2007 23:58:07
Originally by: BronYAurStomp How is having a single bs be able to wipe out 250 players a good idea?
Those 250 players are causing lag which we all agree we don't like. Discouraging that by making it easy to kill them will cause them to split up (or they'll die)...
And the problem of lag is very much solved!
PS: Now I really AM going to bed....
You're right, alliances with a high number of paying customers shouldn't be allowed to use these people in battles. CCP should totally cater to their high sp paying customers, because their money is worth more than paying customers that can't field anything more than a frigate (and if you think this isn't, then there is no helping you).
There's absolutely nothing with my suggestion that prevents you from using all your members.
It'd just prevent you from using them in a huge lag-blob. You AND whoever you're fighting would be discouraged from using more than 50 people in each group, so you'd BOTH have to split your forces, attack/defend multiple targets, and we'd get all the smaller lag-free battles that we all claim we want....
It would of.c. be much better IF CCP could make the servers support 1000 vs. 1000 battles, but that's IHMO unlikely to happen. So unless CCP has a rabbit up their sleeve, my suggestion makes eminently good sense. I don't really see how your alliance can argue against it either.... After all, you all HATE lag with a vengeance!!! If the best solution (removing lag completely) can't be done, why are you arguing against a solution that would work?
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 08:43:00 -
[257]
Edited by: Kerfira on 09/09/2007 08:44:51
Originally by: Orangir The majority of server lag in EVE comes from the need to judge the flight paths of all ships on a grid and report the movement to every individual client.
If CCP has coded this properly, they don't need to calculate flight paths continously. It is enough that the flight path is calculated at it's beginning, and clients informed about that (the clients can then). In all probability, that is what happens since it fits very nicely with the way the overview behaves when you desync.
Originally by: Orangir Again, you have no understanding of what causes server load. No matter how fast a player can spam double click, the updating of ship locations in real time will require much much much more server processing time.
And yet, if there are 500 players on grid being idle, even if they have drones out, the server is only sluggish. Only when these players start DOING something the server lag-freezes.
Clearly shows YOU is the one who doesn't know about what causes server load. You deliberately ignore reality to fit a truth you want....
Originally by: Orangir And, as has been said over and over and over again, all of this is calculated in real time - tens of times per second.
I know you've said it a lot of times. That doesn't make it the truth.....
Originally by: Orangir
Quote: I see a lot of Goon hipocricy here tbh.... "Goons and co. encounter something that lags the game (not caused by them)" "They want it removed ASAP..." "Their own lag-blob of.c. MUST stay as it is...."
Strongly discourage blobbing, and you solve both problems. Since you're SOOOOOO much against lag, you should all sign up. Right? Right?... Right?
....guess not....
And of course, some blatant politicalization to cap off your post. Only BoB could find some way to construe reducing lag as a bad thing.
Oops, me thinks me hit a very sensitive little nerve there Don't like it when someone calls your hipocricy, do you?
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Orangir
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 08:53:00 -
[258]
Originally by: Kerfira If the best solution (removing lag completely) can't be done, why are you arguing against a solution that would work?
Because your solution is a hamfisted one that would break more things than it fixes. By forcing gangs to conform to some arbitrary size limit you're inherently giving the advantage to alliances such as BoB and MC who have pilots with ridiculous levels of SP, but have fewer members. Forcing alliances to only bring a gang of 50 to a fight removes an entire tactical element of the game that can't be solved by simply saying "Well your excess members can go attack something else". There will always be key focal points that are several orders of magnitude more important than anything else at that time, and your suggestion would (probably intentionally) make alliances with a few high SP characters completely dominate those that may completely outnumber and outmaneuver them, simply because it would be impossible to achieve any strategic victories. Not to mention that with the way POS warfare works, a defender would be able to easily cover every point by simply timing POSes to come out at different times.
Implementing your idea would break alliance warfare more than tripling the amount of lag fighters create would.
|
Orangir
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 09:16:00 -
[259]
Edited by: Orangir on 09/09/2007 09:17:05 Edited by: Orangir on 09/09/2007 09:16:36
Originally by: Kerfira If CCP has coded this properly, they don't need to calculate flight paths continously. It is enough that the flight path is calculated at it's beginning, and clients informed about that (the clients can then). In all probability, that is what happens since it fits very nicely with the way the overview behaves when you desync.
That's not how any MMO, or hell, most multiplayer games in general work. The server keeps tabs on what entity is where continuously and distributes this information to every client. If it didn't do so there would be no integrity as to the position of entities and clients could potentially alter their data in malicious ways. Additionally, the server has the final say as to who is where rather than the client, further proving that calculations are done server-side. The only time the client may do any path prediction of a foreign entity is when it doesn't receive an update from the server as to where that entity may be. I don't even think EVE does that much; from my experiences when the node chokes all ships will stop moving until an update is received from the server. I'd love to hear your experiences, but you apparently haven't been in any major conflicts as your character doesn't return any results on any killboard I've checked. If you'd like to post on your main though, that'd be grand.
Quote: And yet, if there are 500 players on grid being idle, even if they have drones out, the server is only sluggish. Only when these players start DOING something the server lag-freezes.
Clearly shows YOU is the one who doesn't know about what causes server load. You deliberately ignore reality to fit a truth you want....
This is a ridiculous point as there's never been a situation in which 500 people have sat around idle with their drones and fighters all deployed on Tranq for you to judge from, ever. And as a goon you can sure as hell bet that I've been in bigger blobs than you've ever seen. In fact, it's actually common practice for our FCs to pod anyone who has drones out while we're idling on a gate because, you've guessed it, they cause lag. If you want to blatantly lie in some perverse attempt to support the presence of lag go on right ahead though, it only strengthens the positions of those of us who want it fixed.
|
bitters
Rens 911
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 09:26:00 -
[260]
I agree with this request.
|
|
SunglassesInSpace
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 09:42:00 -
[261]
something really does have to be done about drone lag. I bet one thing that would help a lot would be removing collisions for drones and fighters, just like they did for wrecks and cans.
Furthermore, Kerfira clearly doesn't understand how coding works.
|
Popychacz
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 10:12:00 -
[262]
Would be so much fun if dev reading this petition used CAODCleaner;-)
/NOT signed.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 11:04:00 -
[263]
Originally by: Orangir ...The server keeps tabs on what entity is where continuously and distributes this information to every client.
Ehhh, No....
That is the most stupid way to do it, since it means that you continually have to check the same matters over and over again, even if there are no changes.
When normally happens is that when an action is received from the player, the consequences of that action is checked against the current status, and an interaction timer set for when the next interaction(s) are to happen (for example a gun firing, or a collision happening), and the data about the action stored for use by other actions, and sent to clients to present.
The server will then not need to do continuous checking like: Does object A hit object B. No. <Wait 100 ms> Does object A hit object B. No. <Wait 100 ms> Does object A hit object B. No. <Wait 100 ms> ...which is a surefire way of lagging ANY server architecture to hell...
You're taking the MOST inefficient way of coding an MMO and making it the pure truth, just so it fits your (invalid) argument.
Originally by: Orangir .....If it didn't do so there would be no integrity as to the position of entities and clients could potentially alter their data in malicious ways.
Ehhh, No again...
The client altering data would not matter since the server still make the calculation about whether a weapon hits or not, and how much it hits for. The client can not influence that. Positions, speed etc. are kept at the server, and the client only transmits actions, like "change heading to this, speed that", or "shoot at this", the server then calculates the effects of that.
Changing data in the client would only screw up what the client represents to its user, thus being a moot point.
Originally by: Orangir I'd love to hear your experiences, but you apparently haven't been in any major conflicts as your character doesn't return any results on any killboard I've checked. If you'd like to post on your main though, that'd be grand.
Oooh. You're down to "You're using an alt so your arguments are false!".... sorry that you're running out of real arguments (not that it stops you from posting lies though, but of.c. I understand you want to deflect attention from your lag-blobs)...
I HAVE been in 500 people fights, and I HAVE been in at least 4-500 people doing-nothing lag-blobs (yours as a matter of fact) WITH drones out.
The 4-500 people doing nothing even with drones out are playable (maybe 1-5 seconds lag, module or movement), the 500 (or 2-300 too for that matter) fights are not (like 10+ minutes module/movement lag).
Everyone who's been in these situations know thats the fact. Some alliances like to lie about it of.c. to deflect attention away from THEIR use of lag-blobs to make them immune to attacks, but that doesn't change anything.
Originally by: Orangir In fact, it's actually common practice for our FCs to pod anyone who has drones out while we're idling on a gate because, you've guessed it, they cause lag.
THAT, is an OUTRIGHT lie right there. You have drones out all the time (well, at least you did a month or so ago) whenever you're wielding your lag-blob!
I especially remember one time when you have 350 or so people sitting at a POS coming out of reinforced (and yes, you DID have your drones out), and the system was perfectly playable UNTIL you started shooting with your ships when all went to hell. That example proved that flight-path calculation is not a big deal, but that player actions and weapon calculations IS.
As I said, desperate attempt to deflect attention from your use of lag-blobs to gain effective immunity from attacks. The game need a counter to THAT (to simply discourage people from doing it), and the lag problem will solve itself. Reducing a small part of the lag equation won't solve anything (but of.c. you don't REALLY want lag to be solved, do you....).
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 11:12:00 -
[264]
Originally by: Orangir
Originally by: Kerfira If the best solution (removing lag completely) can't be done, why are you arguing against a solution that would work?
Because your solution is a hamfisted one that would break more things than it fixes. By forcing gangs to conform to some arbitrary size limit you're inherently giving the advantage to alliances such as BoB and MC who have pilots with ridiculous levels of SP, but have fewer members.
So your argument is basically that EVE should be about who can gather the biggest lag-blob to lag out the node and opponent???? .... and EVE not being a game of skill, skills (those two are different, btw), tactical and strategic abilities, guts and effort?
Funny, I thought that was the concept of the game....
Welcome to Goon-Lag-Blob online, I suppose....
---
My solution doesn't BREAK anything, it simply removes one thing that already IS broken (the lag-blob). The server can't handle lag-blobs, we all know it, but some people use them anyway since it is an 'I-Win' button even bigger than titans ever were.
Instead of wishing the server could handle big lag-blobs, the game mechanics should take into account that it can't, and heavily discourage gameplay that uses it. Lag-problem solved.
That POS warfare needs a serious kick in the butt is a completely other matter.....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 11:17:00 -
[265]
Kerfira, you appear to be in the wrong forum. CAOD is about 4 links above this one, easy mistake to make apparently.
|
GateGuy
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 11:29:00 -
[266]
/signed
|
Shoukei
Boobs Ahoy
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 12:24:00 -
[267]
Originally by: James Duar Kerfira, you appear to be in the wrong forum. CAOD is about 4 links above this one, easy mistake to make apparently.
3 large posts heavily loaded arguments and you accuse him of trolling just because his arguments happen to shred yours? way to go, troll.
here be signatures! |
James Duar
Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 12:45:00 -
[268]
Originally by: Shoukei
Originally by: James Duar Kerfira, you appear to be in the wrong forum. CAOD is about 4 links above this one, easy mistake to make apparently.
3 large posts heavily loaded arguments and you accuse him of trolling just because his arguments happen to shred yours? way to go, troll.
No, because he seems incapable of argument without "lol goonies", and because he was already well rebutted and simply restated what he said with more "lol goonies".
But you know, whatever, clearly Titans were never broken either.
|
Zombie Network
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 13:13:00 -
[269]
Originally by: Shoukei
Originally by: James Duar Kerfira, you appear to be in the wrong forum. CAOD is about 4 links above this one, easy mistake to make apparently.
3 large posts heavily loaded arguments and you accuse him of trolling just because his arguments happen to shred yours? way to go, troll.
His argument basically boils down to the idea that CCP should not reduce lag because if they do then more people will be able to play. Which is completely idiotic!
His posts are also full of inflamitory remarks, as well as direct and inderect attacks on certain corporations and individuals who have posted in this thread.
He also has a history of trolling Goonfleet/Goonswarm & allies in almost every thread in COAD.
Looks like a troll, acts like a troll, smells like a troll, and has no place in this forum.
|
Zenst
Gallente Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.09 13:56:00 -
[270]
Originally by: Welfare State Fighters are currently killing the server's ability to process larger battles. The epic scope of large-scale space battles in EVE is a large draw for me.
Please consider the solution above, and look into this and figure out a way to reduce the lag caused by fighters.
/signed
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.
|
|
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
|
|
Dagam
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 18:03:00 -
[301]
Edited by: Dagam on 10/09/2007 18:04:23 It's more like (players + drones)^2 . Drones don't cause as much lag individually as a player but they do interact, if you collide with them they bounce off. They bounce off each other, off wrecks, POS shields (that used to trigger a recursion that caused lag), etc. Changing human behavior to reduce players is tricky but reducing the number of drones (in this case fighters) is easy and will result in an exponential reduction of lag and would not benefit one side more than another.
|
Dagam
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 18:05:00 -
[302]
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
Nobody said drones are the sole cause of lag.
|
Citric Acid
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.11 01:51:00 -
[303]
Hopefully the new drone changes will fix the lag.
|
Valea
Wrath Of Khaine Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.11 02:08:00 -
[304]
Originally by: Dagam Edited by: Dagam on 10/09/2007 18:04:23 It's more like (players + drones)^2 . Drones don't cause as much lag individually as a player but they do interact, if you collide with them they bounce off. They bounce off each other, off wrecks, POS shields (that used to trigger a recursion that caused lag), etc. Changing human behavior to reduce players is tricky but reducing the number of drones (in this case fighters) is easy and will result in an exponential reduction of lag and would not benefit one side more than another.
So wouldn't just turning off collision on drones fix this lag problem to some extent? I can appreciate your efforts to reduce lag, but much of the logic in the OP seems to be rooted in assumption. "ò 25 drones require 125 times more server calculations than five, and 15,625 times more calculations than a single drone." Jita is unusable at 800 people, but I have flown in the same gang as a 25 fighter (or 15,625 drone, I suppose)spamming mothership with no lag, so I would reach the conclusion that 25 fighters most certainly do not generate the amount of lag the op is claiming, if drones are in fact handled in the same way as player ships. It is obvious that fighters and drones cause undue amounts of lag, but I still can't understand where this idea of exponential lag increase is coming from. I can understand that more drones out means more drones bumping around and thus more server strain, but still 25 = 15,625 seems a pretty far fetched claim.
|
Devian 666
Sectoid Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.09.11 02:53:00 -
[305]
Irrespective of the numbers drones contribute to lag and recent conflicts have contributed to drone/fighter lag.
There needs to be a way to reduce the processing and network traffic so that large conflict become bearable. I was concerned after Rev 2.0 that a 1v1 in an empty system in 0.0 with no pos's in local would have significant latency during combat.
We need both hardware and software solutions rather than ppl arguing where the lag comes from.
I agree I don't have the features to be a holoreel star. Most people have missed the point that this is Mobsters Online and that carebears are at the bottom of the foodchain. |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.11 08:11:00 -
[306]
Edited by: Goumindong on 11/09/2007 08:12:04
Originally by: Valea
Originally by: Dagam Edited by: Dagam on 10/09/2007 18:04:23 It's more like (players + drones)^2 . Drones don't cause as much lag individually as a player but they do interact, if you collide with them they bounce off. They bounce off each other, off wrecks, POS shields (that used to trigger a recursion that caused lag), etc. Changing human behavior to reduce players is tricky but reducing the number of drones (in this case fighters) is easy and will result in an exponential reduction of lag and would not benefit one side more than another.
So wouldn't just turning off collision on drones fix this lag problem to some extent? I can appreciate your efforts to reduce lag, but much of the logic in the OP seems to be rooted in assumption. "ò 25 drones require 125 times more server calculations than five, and 15,625 times more calculations than a single drone." Jita is unusable at 800 people, but I have flown in the same gang as a 25 fighter (or 15,625 drone, I suppose)spamming mothership with no lag, so I would reach the conclusion that 25 fighters most certainly do not generate the amount of lag the op is claiming, if drones are in fact handled in the same way as player ships. It is obvious that fighters and drones cause undue amounts of lag, but I still can't understand where this idea of exponential lag increase is coming from. I can understand that more drones out means more drones bumping around and thus more server strain, but still 25 = 15,625 seems a pretty far fetched claim.
its An^2+Bn not n^3, the person the OP was quoting had made an error. This means that 25 drones use 625 times more resources than 1 drone and 25 times more resources than 5.
I am not sure what "800 people in jita" has to do with your assertion, but look at it this way. 800 people in jita are sitting in stations for the most part. There is little if all combat, yet it still lags to heck.
Lets say drones use half the resources that players do, then 800 people on grid with no drones is roughly equivelent to 228 people on grid with drones out. 106 carriers with fighters out, and 66 motherships with drones out.
Now, clearly the server cant hand a 400 vs 400 fight, drones or no. So lets start looking at more realistic numbers. A 200 v 200 fight with no drones is about the same amount of resrouces as a 57 v 57 fight when everyone has 5 drones, a 26 vs 26 fight for carriers with 13 fighters each, and a 16 v 16 fight of motherships.
The other day, bob warped 16 carriers and 4 motherships in on GS. Or about 24 carriers equivelent. That was, in terms of server load, one quarter of 400 person slugfest, before you started counting the 50-100 ships that GS had on the gate, which would keep increasing load exponentially as they were added.
Basically, how many people on grid and fighting at the same time can the server handle? Well, if you divide that by 8, that is how many carriers the server can handle. Now, if you cut the number of drones down to 5 then the server can handle 3.5 people for every one carrier.
Or without the change, 10 carriers will create the lag of at least 99 people not using drones.
With the change, 10 carriers will create the lag of at least 42 people not using drones.
42 people not using drones uses 4.5 times less server resources than 99 people not using drones.
*Disclaimer: It was a long time since i have attempted to solve problems like these, the answer may be wrong, though they should not be off by far, and should be underestimations in favor of not making the reduction]
|
Morris Falter
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.09.11 10:55:00 -
[307]
In a recent engagement, 7 carriers deployed drones at once. The node blipped and no commands were responded too for a short time (30-40s).
This was with 16 people in local. Scale this up to blobs of 50+ carriers, and there you have a slight problem.
Something, clearly, is up. Keep the petition going.
|
Dagam
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.11 11:07:00 -
[308]
Originally by: Valea
Originally by: Dagam Edited by: Dagam on 10/09/2007 18:04:23 It's more like (players + drones)^2 . Drones don't cause as much lag individually as a player but they do interact, if you collide with them they bounce off. They bounce off each other, off wrecks, POS shields (that used to trigger a recursion that caused lag), etc. Changing human behavior to reduce players is tricky but reducing the number of drones (in this case fighters) is easy and will result in an exponential reduction of lag and would not benefit one side more than another.
So wouldn't just turning off collision on drones fix this lag problem to some extent? I can appreciate your efforts to reduce lag, but much of the logic in the OP seems to be rooted in assumption. "ò 25 drones require 125 times more server calculations than five, and 15,625 times more calculations than a single drone." Jita is unusable at 800 people, but I have flown in the same gang as a 25 fighter (or 15,625 drone, I suppose)spamming mothership with no lag, so I would reach the conclusion that 25 fighters most certainly do not generate the amount of lag the op is claiming, if drones are in fact handled in the same way as player ships. It is obvious that fighters and drones cause undue amounts of lag, but I still can't understand where this idea of exponential lag increase is coming from. I can understand that more drones out means more drones bumping around and thus more server strain, but still 25 = 15,625 seems a pretty far fetched claim.
I get what you're saying. If there's 10 people, the server has to send each person information about 50 drones or 500x the amount of calculations one drone causes. 100 people; 500 drones or 50,000 drone informations. If there's X people, it's X * X * (number of drones per person). So it's exponential based on number of people and linear on number of drones per person, unless more drones also increases how much they interact and cause more server calculations. Turning off drone collision would probably ensure that this interaction is minimal so yes you are right. I didn't see it this way until now. I still would like to see fighters per carrier to be reduced overall although it would only be a linear decrease in calculations.
|
Barthezz
Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.09.11 11:37:00 -
[309]
I do tend to agree that the number of drones put out has a considerable effect as there are indeed calculations needed. But I doubt they increase exponentially in effect to players the way your suggesting. But it doesnt really matter as it still increases lag.
However the fix is not as easy as just increasing damage by x %.
The reason I say that lowering the amount of drones a carrier (or mothership) can field has a lot more effects. To name just a few (most important ones) :
* Lower Effectiveness (Damage / Repair Amount / EW change / etc) * Lower collective HP (10-25 drones have more HP then 5) * Easier killable (5 drones are a lot easier to web / kill / ew, even with a boost to their HP, then lets say 10-25 drones)
Even if you increase their effectiveness (not just damage) your still not there, even if you increase their HP your still not there. Its a fact that you can easily web 5 fighters (compared to 10-25) making a carrier a lot more vulnerable. The effectiveness increase would also have to work for all drone types not just fighters.
I would miss deploying 20 fighters with my Nyx though, but I can see how it would at least help a bit in some fights (not all though). But I fear the 'easier killable' factor has a bigger impact then some would think. (think about for example a warrior ii swarm that is used to kill those pesky interdictors, suddenly there's only 5 left which are a LOT easier killable then 20, less targeting time, etc)
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.11 13:06:00 -
[310]
Edited by: James Duar on 11/09/2007 13:23:50 Why not ask for the middle ground? Can anyone think of a good reason that drones should not have collisions turned off OR drone-drone collisions ignored?
CCP could progressively try a few of these, but we all know collisions can be a fairly nasty computational issue, so surely even if drone collisions were still desired a vast section of the problem (and some bugs such as drones colliding on the way back to a ship) would go away if drone-drone collisions were switched off.
You could also get rid of wreck-drone collisions at the same time, drone-corpse, drone-pod?
tl;dr : CCP should turn off checking for collisions between individual drones since this would eliminate a huge section of collision checks when massed drones/fighters are present (as they usually are).
EDIT: Or just turn off collision testing for drones, put it on Sisi and see how many people notice without being told. And once they notice, if they care.
|
|
DrNeato
|
Posted - 2007.09.11 18:12:00 -
[311]
Signed.
|
Lowa
Gallente North Star Networks
|
Posted - 2007.09.11 19:10:00 -
[312]
Have you seen the new blog on ships with MOOAAAR drones? I think this idea got screwed. And it wasnt a bad idea I might add.
/Lowa
What if the truth was something else? |
Wednesday Sheffield
Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.11 21:37:00 -
[313]
Signed.
Lag that effects everyone equally is bad enough but when one side (whoever has more motherships/carriers at the battle) is able to unilaterally side step it fights become unfightable. My guy is going bald, heehee. |
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.11 21:40:00 -
[314]
Originally by: Lowa Have you seen the new blog on ships with MOOAAAR drones? I think this idea got screwed. And it wasnt a bad idea I might add.
Well no, the blog doesn't seem to indicate that people will be able to launch more drones.
Quote: Edit note: Bandwidth referenced here is not in reference to your internet connection. It's to un-nerf specialized drone ships and allow more differentation between ships.
I believe the intent behind it is to give ships like the Vexor and Arbitrator families more veratility while not allowing them use five heavy drones. The five drone limit should still be in place. Thank you for your support, though.
As for the petition itself, if, as the blog says, they've already finalized what's going in for Rev 3, then I guess this issue has probably already been noticed at some point.
To reiterate, though, what many feel are problems are:
Drone collisions - From my limited understanding of programming, physics of movement are just hard to calculate in almost any situation. If they made drones immaterial it could reduce server usage pretty significantly. I can't really think of a situation where it might be exploitable, except for maybe drones passing through Starbase force fields and Stations, but I can't really think of a situation where someone could take advantage of that in any tangible way. (pun not intended)
Drone "Auto-aggro" AI - More often a complaint from mission-runners who get annoyed when drones aggro all the NPCs in a mission, but with fighters, if the system is badly, badly lagged and the fighters have engaged, they will continue to kill ship after ship on their own while manned ships can't do anything to escape or kill them. Nozh's post in Features and Ideas says that they're working on drone AI, so that could be something.
The issue here is both that the fighters just make too much lag and also that they become too useful in laggy fights, where they become the deciding factor. If they didn't make so much lag you could just shoot them, but realistically speaking that's just not possible. It's hard enough getting people to jump into gatecamps and engage without them, but with fighters, only an idiot would do it, since it'd be about the same as warping into a 10/10 complex and going for a walk.
They made corpses and cans immaterial for the benefit of supercap pilots because they didn't have the manpower to completely redo the physics engine; would it be reasonable to adjust drone auto-aggro AI a little as well?
Somewhat unrelated issue, but You can't scram/web fighters to prevent the owner from retracting them like normal drones, they just teleport back to the bay. I don't know why this is how it is - at a guess, it's a coding limitation, like how EVE's software doesn't allow for delegated fighters to receive skill and ship bonuses - but if there's a way to make this work, it should definitely get taken care of.
This is especially true if fighters do get deflated so they get a damage and HP boost individually, since if you need to do more damage to kill one, it gives the owner more time to just retract them and keep them alive forever. Then it becomes a sort of a risk vs. reward problem.
Issues worth considering, anyway. |
Angelonico
Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.11 21:46:00 -
[315]
/signed
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.11 21:47:00 -
[316]
There is a post in this forum and a post in the blogs thread regarding the 5 drone limit. It is most certianly still in place.
Bandwidth is a manner in which you can unhinge the size and stength of drones that a ship can launch from its drone bay. Expect ships like the arbitrator and vexor to have 125 cubes or more of bay, but only to be able to launch 5 medium drones. Or 2 heavy, 2 medium, 2 light, or 3 heavy. If you have ever seen the idea behind "drone control points" bandwidth will probably look like something similar to that.
|
Kif
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.11 21:58:00 -
[317]
Originally by: Shoukei 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.
ahhh I love your posts, seriously keep posting.
|
The StrayDawg
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.11 22:29:00 -
[318]
Please just make the game go text-based when there are more than 600 people in a system.
|
Devian 666
Sectoid Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 01:21:00 -
[319]
Originally by: The StrayDawg Please just make the game go text-based when there are more than 600 people in a system.
I endorse this idea but with a matrix style interface with the scrolling symbols. No wait Eve already has an overview.
When I used to run a text based MUD we could easily handle 125 players with very low loading on a Pentium 100.
Any drone optimisation would be greatly appreciated.
I agree I don't have the features to be a holoreel star. Most people have missed the point that this is Mobsters Online and that carebears are at the bottom of the foodchain. |
Valea
Wrath Of Khaine Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 04:33:00 -
[320]
Well, the newest dev blog says drones are getting a long overdue overhaul. Hopefully this is not just the UI and addition of bandwidth, but an actual overhaul of the drone code itself.
|
|
Bloody Dame
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 12:33:00 -
[321]
Is this a Goon commercial???
|
HeadWar
Minmatar North Star Networks
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 14:26:00 -
[322]
Edited by: HeadWar on 12/09/2007 14:26:02
Originally by: Goumindong able to launch 5 medium drones. Or 2 heavy, 2 medium, 2 light, or 3 heavy.
Math's not your strong point, is it?
5 medium, or 1 hvy, 2 medium, 1 light, or 2 hvy. (Assuming bandwidth scales the same way as current drones volume.) At no point should an Arbitrator be able to launch more than five drones though. (As you point out yourself. )
--- Не поговорите русского. F1, F2, F3... |
Kcel Chim
Caldari Arcane Technologies The Five
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 11:05:00 -
[323]
The op has a good cause, to reduce lag. But it starts at the wrong end of the calculation. IF we reduce the amount of drones or even if we remove them as a whole we would only achieve that another 100 players can squeeze into big fleetbattles. Which wouldnt change the lag situation the slightest because quickly those 100 additional spots would be filled and we would look at the same lag we are looking at now.
Also the op is running on wrong calculations and ignoring certain keyfacts. First of all we need to be clear we are comparing players from the same weaponbranch. We compare players with droneships with other players in droneships and then we compare them to the average fleetbattleship which in return we will compare to the average other shipclasses.
So our first comparison: normal ships / Droneships A normal t1 frig can launch 0-1 drone. A normal t1 cruiser can launch 0-2 drones. A normal t1 battleship can launch 4-5 drones. A normal t1 carrier can launch 8 fighters (average lvl 4 skills)
A t2 dronefrig can launch 5 drones. A t1/t2 dronecruiser can launch 5 drones. A t1 dronebattleship can launch 5 drones. A t1 carrier with 4 cunits can launch 12 fighters.
We see that the average amount of drone growth rate between the different average classes on the regular t1 level is always ~100% from frig to cruiser to bs to carrier. However on the t2 level we have the problem that while all classes max out at the arifical 5drone barrier. The carrier can use cunits which simulates the droneboni by adding new fighters instead of +20% hp and dps per level.
So the conclusion is that between the shipclasses the carrier is not outstanding in its basic form but if it fits cunits because it adds new drones instead of enhancing existing ones.
However capital ships are already on the same level as bs when it comes to their slotlayout. While theoretically bigger ships with more slots create more information and effects capitalships are "subpar".
A possible solution would be to allow carriers the ability to control 8-10 drones (depending on skill) but to change cunits to the point where either the mod or the skill adds 10-20% hp and dmg per unit/skillevel to the existing fighters/drones when activated. A Mothership would then get a "natural" ship bonus of 1 fighter per level and +200% fighter dmg and hp per level (to simulate the +3 fighters per level). However then we would have superfighters, especially if the mothership uses cunits.
As for the often used example of how "fighters and drones fight in lag". Those examples are quiet silly and made up. Drones only work under 2 conditions. A) the controller/ remote controller is not effected by lag and hence it doesnt make a difference between him using drones or his guns. B) the controller / remote controller is effected by lag and the "victim" attacks the lagged out person and gets autoaggro which is imo not a bad thing either and nothing to complain about, afterall you want a fight.
Like i said in my initial statement, no modification to drones or fighters will make the game in any way or form more playable unless a maximum player amount in battles get enforced. As we have seen during the past years, the amount of players participating in fleetfights steadily increased and always filled up newly created buffers to decrease lag quickly to the point of unplayability.
Especially since some alliances have no issue and see no problem of enduring lag to achieve their ingame goals there is no point for an improvement discussion. I dont see why they wouldnt simply add another 100 or 200 players if they could. Afterall they are not reducing their fleetsizes right now when they see unplayable lag ahead. Simply said, any alliance who will "move" 400 players to a certain area pretending to look for fights will move 600 players if the lag would stay at the same level aslong as no hardcoded limitations are made to the amount of players (per faction) per system
EDIT: Cunit = Dronecontrolunit
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 14:01:00 -
[324]
Edited by: James Duar on 14/09/2007 14:01:07 Snipped everything which had nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Originally by: Kcel Chim As for the often used example of how "fighters and drones fight in lag". Those examples are quiet silly and made up. Drones only work under 2 conditions. A) the controller/ remote controller is not effected by lag and hence it doesnt make a difference between him using drones or his guns. B) the controller / remote controller is effected by lag and the "victim" attacks the lagged out person and gets autoaggro which is imo not a bad thing either and nothing to complain about, afterall you want a fight.
I'm not entirely convinced this is how drone auto-aggression mechanics work but I can't log on and test it right now.
Originally by: Kcel Chim Like i said in my initial statement, no modification to drones or fighters will make the game in any way or form more playable unless a maximum player amount in battles get enforced. As we have seen during the past years, the amount of players participating in fleetfights steadily increased and always filled up newly created buffers to decrease lag quickly to the point of unplayability.
The number of pilots in fleet fights has not increased to lag buffers, it has increased as the number of available pilots has increased. No one "just brings 100 people" - that's 100 people who need to be motivated to actually turn up to a battle and fight, and it gets progressively harder to try and get more and more people. The idea that people "just bring 200 more people" is ridiculous.
Originally by: Kcel Chim Especially since some alliances have no issue and see no problem of enduring lag to achieve their ingame goals there is no point for an improvement discussion. I dont see why they wouldnt simply add another 100 or 200 players if they could. Afterall they are not reducing their fleetsizes right now when they see unplayable lag ahead. Simply said, any alliance who will "move" 400 players to a certain area pretending to look for fights will move 600 players if the lag would stay at the same level aslong as no hardcoded limitations are made to the amount of players (per faction) per system
EVERY alliance will add as many people to a battle as they are able and so long as strategic objectives remain as "this is the single most important thing here" this means EVERY person not off ratting/mining/whatever is going to head for that battle because hey, people like being part of important big things.
Hard coded player caps, even with enforced balancing, do nothing but favor higher SP at the end of the day and nullify the political benefits of being charismatic or motivational, which EVE is very much about seeing as how no alliance dies except from within.
To talk about "400 players" being a problem of people not wanting fights is ******** - you get 400 players because if you want to win you damn well need 200 or whatever you think the enemy is bringing and so when you say "hey guys come on this op" you say "because it is damn important we will totally kill those Goons/BoB/Rise/RA whatever"
|
1Of9
Gallente Beasts of Burden YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 14:40:00 -
[325]
Originally by: CSFFlame
ò A carrier can launch up to three times more drones than a normal ship at one time and MSes up to 5 times ò Drones increase server instability at an exponential rate ò Drones will auto-aggro and keep killing stuff, even if everyone else is lagged, making them ôimmuneö to lag ò Lag really sucks ò Solutions like upgrading servers to alleviate the lag are expensive and fleeting at best, since as the capacity for fighters increases, more people will come in and reach the max capacity again (see: Jita overpopulation)
Carriers and MSes create an inordinate amount of lag because they can launch more drones than any other ship. While twenty normal ships may collectively launch 100 drones, twenty carriers will launch 300. At this point, trying to do anything in system becomes futile, where the server is so flooded that it can take more than 5, 10, or even 15 minutes to respond to player commands.
Since the number of interactions with the server is a value of n^3, lag increases exponentially with each new drone launched.
ò 5 drones require 125 times more server calculations than just one. (5^3 / 1) ò 15 drones require 27 times more server calculations than five. (15^3 / 5^3) ò 25 drones require 125 times more server calculations than five, and 15,625 times more calculations than a single drone.
Reducing fighter counts could create profound improvements in server performance, and considering the same was done for normal ships in RMR, itÆs not an outrageous request.
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. Combat cannot occur as the game was designed without distinct and effective action from CCP.
The quote below is just an example of what could work, though whatever happens is not as important as making sure something happens. This idea can be scrapped if a better idea works just as well.
Quote:
1. you can only have 1 fighter delegated to your ship at once instead of 5. That means any ship with a fighter assigned only get to use that 1 fighter and no other drones.
2. Reduce maximum deployable fighters from a carrier at any time to 5.
3. Make the Drone Interfacing skill apply to fighters so that at level V fighters get +100% damage and +100% HP.
4. give motherships an added +20% to drone damage and HP per level on top of what they already have. The Nyx gets +25% per level to keep it as it is.
5. Drone Control Units; Since the DPS of the whole thing is determined first by multiplication and then adding stuff, giving DCUs a percentage-based increase to anything drone related won't scale properly for a mothership and in the end would make something either gimped or absolutely insane. As a cheap cop-out, make it so DCUs add +20 damage to each of the 5 fighters, which gives a +100 total damage with one DCU (same damage increase as is now) and +500 total damage with 5 DCUs. Only place where that breaks down is that it would a sort of a stealth nerf to the Nyx and Thanatos, since before they would get more damage out of the additional fighters they could use. The technical limitations behind this may make it impossible to get this to work properly without reworking Drone Control Units in general.
6. reduce the drone capacity on carriers and MSes appropriately, since they seem to be designed to carry only a limited number of fighters.
Google translation from goon language to human language:
We are been owned by carriers and mom's drones and we dont whant to lose ccp.. plz nerf nerf nerf.
/translation
|
Jinmie
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 15:05:00 -
[326]
How is it a nerf if all Carriers do equivalent dps after just through 5 Fighters, 5 Fighters that will die 2x slower due to having 100% more hp mind you...
If anything that's clearly a buff.
|
1Of9
Gallente Beasts of Burden YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 18:47:00 -
[327]
Edited by: 1Of9 on 14/09/2007 18:51:29
Originally by: Jinmie How is it a nerf if all Carriers do equivalent dps after just through 5 Fighters, 5 Fighters that will die 2x slower due to having 100% more hp mind you...
If anything that's clearly a buff.
Because less drones will do same damage, but once you kill 1 of them, u kill ur target dps ALOT faster .. so, yeah, it's a "hidden" pro-goon feature .. a.k.a. nerf nerf nerf
Edit: just notice ALL the goons posting /signed in this topic. It's too obvious no? they all entered the forumobile to get this with tons of pages
|
Lars Erlkonig
Caldari GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 19:20:00 -
[328]
Originally by: 1Of9
Google translation from goon language to human language:
We are been owned by carriers and mom's drones and we dont whant to lose ccp.. plz nerf nerf nerf.
/translation
More like, we'd like to fight in OMG huge battles but with all the drones flying around we can't jump into the systems without having the servers crash and burn for most of us while others jump in 1 at a time into a giant fighter drone swarm. We want to fight against fighters and carriers but not if they're going to make the lag so bad we don't even get a chance to fire a single volley. Heck just opening up the drone interface with a carrier normally lags me out for a good few minutes, despite having all the different types of drones in separate folders. This is becoming a serious issue affecting pilots game play, not some RSF vs GBC argument.
|
Dark Hunterj
Gallente CodeManiaxx Ltd Sempiternus
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 19:43:00 -
[329]
/signs against it
Fighter spam lag exists, and it sucks, but a carrier is a carrier never the less. A carrier needs to have the ability to launch a lot of fighters at one point.
Fix the problem doing something else, better algorithms, better AI, wolf-gang pairing for drones (more drones do the same thing so they won't have different threads, as individual drones) BUT leave the carrier launch that huge amount of drones.
|
1Of9
Gallente Beasts of Burden YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 19:59:00 -
[330]
Originally by: Lars Erlkonig
Originally by: 1Of9
Google translation from goon language to human language:
We are been owned by carriers and mom's drones and we dont whant to lose ccp.. plz nerf nerf nerf.
/translation
More like, we'd like to fight in OMG huge battles but with all the drones flying around we can't jump into the systems without having the servers crash and burn for most of us while others jump in 1 at a time into a giant fighter drone swarm. We want to fight against fighters and carriers but not if they're going to make the lag so bad we don't even get a chance to fire a single volley. Heck just opening up the drone interface with a carrier normally lags me out for a good few minutes, despite having all the different types of drones in separate folders. This is becoming a serious issue affecting pilots game play, not some RSF vs GBC argument.
dude when u guys jump with 200+ gangs in a system, you blame drones??
i think u better get a better excuse, really, this is not working, coming from kids that admit playing with lag to kill enemies..
|
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 21:40:00 -
[331]
Originally by: Jinmie How is it a nerf if all Carriers do equivalent dps after just through 5 Fighters, 5 Fighters that will die 2x slower due to having 100% more hp mind you...
If anything that's clearly a buff.
Moreover, reducing the lag caused by drone clouds means that carrier and droneboat pilots might actually be able to control their drones and be able to all assign them to the primary or their particular desired target, rather than the player throw them at the only ship that appears on his overview, or having them sit idle or auto-aggress a randomly selected ship from the enemy fleet.
Originally by: 1Of9 Because less drones will do same damage, but once you kill 1 of them, u kill ur target dps ALOT faster .. so, yeah, it's a "hidden" pro-goon feature .. a.k.a. nerf nerf nerf
Which is why I suggested merging the 2/3/4/5 individual drones into a 'squadron' entity which would have 2/3/4/5x the HP of an individual drone. That way, by the time you've chewed through the HP of that squadron and killed it, you've done the same amount of damage as you would have needed to kill the 5 individual drones/fighters anyway.
I've no problem at all with changes which actually result in a slight net improvement in the performance of carriers and motherships - as I've pointed out previously, there's probably not all that great a difference between the amount of active carriers and MSs on the RSF side and those being used against us, so even if you think this is all some dark and evil goonie plot it would do little to benefit us anyway. What I, and I'm sure all of us, want is for those ships to make their presence felt on the field through the deliberate actions of the player piloting that ship, not for the carrier pilot to pop out the fighters and go afk for half an hour because he or she can't issue any commands anyway and just has to rely on the lag-free fighters to auto-aggress and do all the work.
|
Lars Erlkonig
Caldari GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 21:41:00 -
[332]
When the other system has 200 pilots on the gate with 270 est fighter drones what do you expect us to do? Jump in 10 at a time so the node has time to re-balance? Give me a break. We've had gangs of equal size but due to lag don't jump them in because we cannot trust the nodes will hold with all the drone spam on a gate. I'd rather have some decent fights over giant lag-fests where nothing happens except for the few pilots who can shoot. I'm not saying that the OP has the best suggestion in mind, but we do need to do something about getting the resultant lag from epic style fleet fights to a manageable level.
|
1Of9
Gallente Beasts of Burden YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 22:06:00 -
[333]
I dont expect you 2do anything, except to die.
i dont care if u jump 1by1 or all at once, just dont blaim it on the drones, because they r not it. you little coordinated forum-spam trick dont work. besides, you guys not just do the same, but u do even worse. and when u r the welcoming side, u dont complain.
nerf nerf nerf you say?
/not signed
|
Jinmie
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 22:47:00 -
[334]
Yes you would lose 2x the dps if one died, but they take 2x as much damage before they die !
Making them 2x easier to scoop / rep in time.
How dense are you really? >.<
|
Ur235
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 00:45:00 -
[335]
I suppose the only fix for this is to stop drones auto aggroing, so the player ahs to order what to fight, making it an even playing field.
Its a fare enuogh demand it does not give an advantge to either side.
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 01:23:00 -
[336]
Removing auto-drone aggression would fix balance issues, but not lag issues. It's kind of preferable to do both, but I'm under no illusions that it's just drones - there's lots of other things. Jump in mechanics probably need to change so a massed jump in actually results in everyone loading grid.
|
Usarua
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 02:25:00 -
[337]
Edited by: Usarua on 15/09/2007 02:32:30 I think allowing them to keep the capacity of fighters or even increase it, while slightly increasing fighter damage but lowering the number of fighters they are allowed to field at once by 3/5x or so would be the perfect solution. the fighters can replace the losses easily this way, but it doesnt lag the server and over time adds up to the same dps anyway, which means carriers dont suffer anything but slightly increased cost losses from fighters being in smaller numbers and therefore easier to focus fire kill. it also prevents all a carriers fighters being popped at once by DDD or smartbomb spam.
Originally by: Kif Edited by: Kif on 07/09/2007 23:13:28 The only problem I have is the fact that fighters are essentially immune to lag (that they help create). Thats the problem that needs fixing. Complain all you want about huge fleets with hundreds of people lagging, but at least everyone has to deal with that. When you have 7 MS and 30 carriers that dump hundreds of fighters on grid at once, then procede to just agro whatever and tear it apart while its helpless... thats what sucks.
upon seeing, this would actually fix the whole thing quickly for a while until its changed to be less lag inducing. because what fleet is going to lag itself and the enemy out with no gain?
|
Swinton Wolsoncroft
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 03:29:00 -
[338]
It is really awesome when hundreds of autonomous drones sit on the other side of a gate cause your client to fail to load for 5-10 minutes and when your client finally loads, its in a station in a newbie clone. Fix the lag now. Do not trolls in your sig. -Kaemonn |
Zeoliter
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 04:30:00 -
[339]
Read the first page and it's just a Goon whine.
Goon perspective: We are losing, nerf Eve.
Go play WoW. And here's a another box of tissues.
|
Usarua
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 04:42:00 -
[340]
Originally by: Zeoliter Read the first page and it's just a Goon whine.
Goon perspective: We are losing, nerf Eve.
Go play WoW. And here's a another box of tissues.
moderators, lets remove all this forum's troll and flame/criticize/unconstructive posts.
|
|
Zaranisa
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 05:07:00 -
[341]
Originally by: Usarua
Originally by: Zeoliter Read the first page and it's just a Goon whine.
Goon perspective: We are losing, nerf Eve.
Go play WoW. And here's a another box of tissues.
moderators, lets remove all this forum's troll and flame/criticize/unconstructive posts.
yes doo that and also remove post #1
|
phillie blunt
Live And Let Die
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 05:20:00 -
[342]
Originally by: James Duar Removing auto-drone aggression would fix balance issues, but not lag issues. It's kind of preferable to do both, but I'm under no illusions that it's just drones - there's lots of other things. Jump in mechanics probably need to change so a massed jump in actually results in everyone loading grid.
since when the drones auto agress? ah yeah those are the t3 drones
|
Perpello
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 05:25:00 -
[343]
Quote: twenty carriers will launch 300
Yup, all Alliance carrier pilots have Advanced Drone Interfacing V and fit five drone control units. We are that good.
|
TechnoMag
Minmatar Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 05:49:00 -
[344]
Originally by: WrathOfOprah /Signed
I don't care what you do CCP. Just do something. This is more annoying than the old Titans. I want to at least See when I die.
yeah sure ... why not u r making your own game ... its kinda silly : nerf that (because we r loosing) after 2months ok nerf THAT and un-nerf the other one and so on... Why u think eve should be developed after your evolution ingame? if the ccp will nerf again on command because of goons mass petition maybe other alliance will do the same in future and petition the unliked features of the enemy? EULA 7. CONDUCT A. 1. You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System. |
James Duar
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 05:50:00 -
[345]
Originally by: Perpello
Quote: twenty carriers will launch 300
Yup, all Alliance carrier pilots have Advanced Drone Interfacing V and fit five drone control units. We are that good.
4 from Carrier 4 + 4 from ADI 4 = 8 drones per carrier = 160 drones. 'splain to me how that is that much better?
|
Usarua
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 06:27:00 -
[346]
Edited by: Usarua on 15/09/2007 06:31:59 Edited by: Usarua on 15/09/2007 06:30:14
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 08/09/2007 20:16:35
Originally by: CSFFlame
ò 5 drones require 125 times more server calculations than just one. (5^3 / 1) ò 15 drones require 27 times more server calculations than five. (15^3 / 5^3) ò 25 drones require 125 times more server calculations than five, and 15,625 times more calculations than a single drone.
The OP is completely wrong on this one (where the hell did he get that n^3 nonsense from), and if that is the basis of his argument, the argument is basically null and void.
A drone/fighter (referenced collectively as 'drone' from now) requires a certain amount of server CPU. It needs that for flight-path calculation and shooting information. ò 2 drones require 2 times the CPU of 1 drones! ò 5 drones require 5 times the CPU of 1 drones! .....etc.
This is so, because there are NO interaction between drones. They don't need to know about each other (unless they're shooting each other), i.e. drone A doesn't need to tell drone B that "I'm here, doing this". In that aspect, they're little different from any gun mounted on a ship. The information about them is a static piece, unless a player action changes it.
So, if we try to count the different pieces of information needing to be calculated and sent to other ships on grid.
Take a gun BS for example (Raven is worse since it also has missiles in flight): 7 or 8 pieces of firing information for its guns 10 pieces of information for its drones 1 piece of flight-path information ? pieces of effect information ? pieces of targeting information Total: 19 + ? + ?
Now, take a carrier: ~2 pieces of firing information for its remote reppers (of whichever type) 18 pieces of information for its fighters (assuming he can control 9) 1 piece of flight-path information ? pieces of effect information ? pieces of targeting information Total: 21 + ? + ?
And a mommyship: ~3 pieces of firing information for its remote reppers (of whichever type) 40 pieces of information for its fighters (assuming he can control 20) 1 piece of flight-path information ? pieces of effect information ? pieces of targeting information Total: 44 + ? + ? .........................
you very neatly neglected the part where turrets on a ship dont have velocities and trajectory calculations for flight into orbit around a target. to fire, once per the firing rate, the gun retrieves all the pertinent information, and updates the fight with a hit or miss. a drone or fighter is another ship with its own gun. thats 20 more ships running collision detection and trajectory modification based on how the target is movin. are you insane?
|
Tijuana
Mrrp Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 07:13:00 -
[347]
Originally by: James Duar
Originally by: Perpello
Quote: twenty carriers will launch 300
Yup, all Alliance carrier pilots have Advanced Drone Interfacing V and fit five drone control units. We are that good.
4 from Carrier 4 + 4 from ADI 4 = 8 drones per carrier = 160 drones. 'splain to me how that is that much better?
Now teaching MA 109 "Math for Goons" is: Professor Tijuana. 9 from Carrier Level 4 +4 from all 4 Drone Control Units = 13 Fighters (kinda like 8)
20 X 13 = 260
As Perpello suggested: 10 from Carrier Level 5 +5 from 5 DCUs
=15 fighters
15 X 20 = 300
Hope that helps!
|
Perpello
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 08:46:00 -
[348]
Originally by: Tijuana Now teaching MA 109 "Math for Goons" is: Professor Tijuana.
Well, counting isn't a skill that Goons are renowned for.
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 08:48:00 -
[349]
Originally by: Perpello
Originally by: Tijuana Now teaching MA 109 "Math for Goons" is: Professor Tijuana.
Well, counting isn't a skill that Goons are renowned for.
Don't fly a carrier, just mildly amused that your point was still invalid even when I stuffed up the math grossly in its favor.
|
LUKEC
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 08:50:00 -
[350]
You could remote dd them with titan, you know...
... but you were whining about that too.
Now eat whatever you cooked.
|
|
BOldMan
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 09:44:00 -
[351]
Originally by: James Duar
No one anywhere has implied drones are the sole cause of lag?
All I see is 'pls nerf ships that can create lag to our ubber blob or can kill us in our uber lag'
|
Yazoul Samaiel
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 09:56:00 -
[352]
Dear CCP
Plz nerf everything that the whining majortiy of GS can not field and gets owned by it or they will whine whine whine .
Br
PS: Epic lulz at goons and their pets circle jerkign each other
|
Dagam
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 10:00:00 -
[353]
At this point it's mostly you guys bumping it giving it more attention. Thanks for dis.
|
Yazoul Samaiel
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 10:02:00 -
[354]
Originally by: Dagam At this point it's mostly you guys bumping it giving it more attention. Thanks for dis.
At the point when ppl laugh at the village idiot he doesnt get attention he is just a mockery , exactly like you and ur alliance . MAD PROPS
|
Dagam
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 10:11:00 -
[355]
Probably the best suggestion yet to reduce lag was to remove drone collision. That, and reducing fighters to 5 while keeping dps the same, like what was done to drones in RMR, would go a long way to making massive fleet fights playable. For some reason this is unreasonable to many on the Bob side, though one can guess why.
|
1Of9
Gallente Beasts of Burden YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 10:16:00 -
[356]
we cant oublob anymore .. CCP nerf!!!
nooo we are blobed to hell NERF!!
nerf nerf nerf nerf
|
LUKEC
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 10:54:00 -
[357]
Originally by: Dagam Probably the best suggestion yet to reduce lag was to remove drone collision. That, and reducing fighters to 5 while keeping dps the same, like what was done to drones in RMR, would go a long way to making massive fleet fights playable. For some reason this is unreasonable to many on the Bob side, though one can guess why.
How about every goon launching drones before we jumped into them? Was that also part of goon initative to reduce lag? For some reason, this is unreasonable to many on BoB side, though one can only guess why.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 10:56:00 -
[358]
Originally by: Usarua
Originally by: Kerfira My stuff...
you very neatly neglected the part where turrets on a ship dont have velocities and trajectory calculations for flight into orbit around a target.
You'll kindly notice that I quoted 2 (two) pieces of information for the drones and 1 (one) for the turrets. The extra one is the flight calculation.
IF collision detection and flight path calculation was the cause of lag, the game would be lagged to hell when there was no battle going on, but all had drones out. This however is not happening (drones out cause at max a slight decrease in responsivenes, even for a large fleet), so the argument is not valid.
What most likely causes the majority of lag is the server trying to receive, parse and act of massive amount of player actions, and making massive amounts of damage calculations per second.
Originally by: Kerfira are you insane?
No, I'm just not accepting misrepresentation of the truth on the forum for the purpose of removing in-game enemies you're not good enough to handle.
Originally by: Kerfira ...good tactic to use lag to kill people with the excuse that you bought all those ships and should be able to use them.
Ask RA and their pets. They have the most experience in this area of the game.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Francesca Dell'Agio
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 10:57:00 -
[359]
Give it 3 months until you see the bulk of carrier pilots switched to motherships for POS action. Law of diminishing returns.
|
ElfeGER
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 11:03:00 -
[360]
some points on drones: - fighter amount bonus should be converted to dmg/hp bonus (max 5 drones) - dcu should be converted to drone dmg mod or they would be overpowered - normal combat drones rof needs adjustment (2 sec on every light, medium and heavy combat drone should be something like 3, 5, 7 seconds while keeping dps the same) - drone collisions should be removed (launching 500 idle drones might not lag the server to death but add cpu usage as well)
|
|
fire 59
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 11:05:00 -
[361]
Originally by: 1Of9 we cant oublob anymore .. CCP nerf!!!
nooo we are blobed to hell NERF!!
nerf nerf nerf nerf
Those smilies pretty much sum up what i did when i saw the goon whines ^^
Allied forces strike coalition fleet, wrecking for toys thrown out of pram damage ^^ |
James Duar
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 11:54:00 -
[362]
Originally by: El***ER - drone collisions should be removed (launching 500 idle drones might not lag the server to death but add cpu usage as well)
CCP should probably do this one first and then see how much lag it gets rid of. I'd be willing to bet a lot more then any other change.
|
Cmdr Sp0ck
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 11:59:00 -
[363]
PATHETIC.
This is the only way i can describe the general Goonswarm community at this point in time. You loose your ability to win fights using the traditional "lag out the system" tactic and you whine on the forums like little children. Had it been the other way around, nothing would happen cause neither would we come here crying like mad about it, nor would any of you goons complain.
You whined on the forums when our Titans DD'd you left right and centre so CCP would nerf them, now you whine so CCP can further nerf carriers. While you're at it, why don't you ask CCP to nerf BoB iga so that anyone who joins will automatically lose 80% of their SP's, only be allowed to fly T1 frigates, and only be able to fit 1 gun... Maybe then you'll be able to actually beat us 1 on 1... Another solution could be to not attack our poses, then we wouldnt need to use carriers to repair them and could switch over to our Dreads.
I can only hope CCP disregards your whineage. It's sickening. No wait, it's beyond that.
Guys, grow up already! You've had more than enough time to do so by now. |
jeffb
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 12:21:00 -
[364]
Edited by: jeffb on 15/09/2007 12:20:47 The OP is actually from the SHC forum and was written a long time before anything in 0oy happened. Nice troll though.
|
Cmdr Sp0ck
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 12:26:00 -
[365]
Originally by: jeffb Edited by: jeffb on 15/09/2007 12:20:47 The OP is actually from the SHC forum and was written a long time before anything in 0oy happened. Nice troll though.
Yet you felt the need to make an EVE-O thread about it now. How curious... |
1Of9
Gallente Beasts of Burden YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 13:11:00 -
[366]
Originally by: Cmdr Sp0ck Edited by: Cmdr Sp0ck on 15/09/2007 12:27:34
Yet you felt the need to make an EVE-O thread about it now. How curious, especially when the majority of people "signing" are goons...
What he said --^
|
Jesus HChrist
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 13:50:00 -
[367]
lag sucks? try NOT bringing 400 ppl, 50 of which are in noob ships.
fecking whiners
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 13:56:00 -
[368]
Originally by: Cmdr Sp0ck Yet you felt the need to make an EVE-O thread about it now. How curious, especially when the majority of people "signing" are goons...
Well Bein's F&ID eve-o post was made here over a month ago. But please, continue to enjoy your tinfoil moment. Be sure not to include any constructive criticism or rational counter arguments, I'm sure your normal PvF warriors drooling about evil goonie nerf plots will do more to convince CCP.
[insert some emoticons here]
|
maria stallion
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 14:41:00 -
[369]
It's kind of funny to see Goons want to reduce lagg, while history showed us they tried everything possible to create lagg to win a fight.
if you really want to reduce lagg why don't you try to bring even numbers to a fleet fight and not wait an hour extra to get 3 times as much as the oponent and after the fight whine about the lagg...
This just looks to me like, a small kid that can't win so he starts crying that the game is not fair. Start ordering your members to show up in decent ships or leave tehm behind, because bringing shuttles, rookie ships and pods to the battle is not reducing the lagg.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 14:45:00 -
[370]
Originally by: maria stallion It's kind of funny to see Goons want to reduce lagg, while history showed us they tried everything possible to create lagg to win a fight.
Goons don't want to reduce lag. They just want it to work only to THEIR advantage (after all the lag-blob is their invention).
When it doesn't they cry a lot
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
|
Sir JoJo
Minmatar Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 15:38:00 -
[371]
all i see in this thread is Goons whine about lag which is highly amusing, and second after that is CCP plzz make this Goonswarm Online.
i have faith in ccp and we all want lag reduced , but plzz goons mass whining every time u have a hard time just dont make u any better.
|
Menth
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 15:49:00 -
[372]
Its not the fighters causing the lag. Its the 300-500 man blob that goonswarm has to bring to fight. like on 14/09/07 The server was fine with 300 in local. Goons try to jump in 300+ people. Server grinds to a halt. Not one fighter was used until at least 20 mins later. So no fighters have no effect on laggy fights as the lag is there anyways. They are rather handy at killing goons tho. Hence this thread.
|
wph0r
Federation of Synthetic Persons YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 15:52:00 -
[373]
Please change the topic to: "PETITION: Reduce Goonswarm forum spam!"
|
Ivan Hablovi
Minmatar Financial Removal
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 16:55:00 -
[374]
I admit that the sheer amount of fighters with one particular alliance is tremendous, I dont sign this since its only purpose is to undermine the high SP players capabilities, and for that, its obvious why this thread is more or less full of just Goon members.
And also. Fighters are not the reason for lag, in fights where there is +300 people, the lag is produced more from actual player actions.
Im ex-FinFleet member, and I remember fighting RAGOON back in the days, and I must point out, that back then, the lag was produced by ridiculous amount of simultanous jumpins, even the nodes went down like cardhouse in a hurricane.
So, if this thread is to reduce lag, I think its a failure to issue the actual problem. But in otherhand, as I see it. This is only another "Nerf High SP players who are Overpowered"
Last time this kind of thread was made, it was made by goons to nerf Titans, which had a good point in it. Titans were overpowered.
Now the actual "whine" in this thread, is that BoB has seemingly found a way to fight Goons in their own game, and its ****ing goons off.
Thats my 10 cents on this issue.
|
The Economist
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 17:38:00 -
[375]
I'd be against these ideas for a few reasons:
It's a stop-gap fix with little effect in the grand scheme of things, been done before, didn't make that much difference.
Reducing the number of fighters nerfs carriers regardless what you do to hitpoints. Less drones to delegate, less to target, less to kill, can effectively engage less targets etc.
It would also be yet another nerf to CCP's anti-blob weaponry. Case in point would be titans, DDs were working to break up blobs and discourage super-blobs (especially on one grid), much whining happened, titans got nerfed; the second this happened the blobs grew again. Blobs = Lag. This "solution" exacerbates the issue of blob lag by nerfing a blob counter. Thereby cancelling out any gains achieved.
1 fighter delegated to a ship at one time?
Making people train up high rank skills to get back to where they currently are? Yeah that'll be a popular idea. I mean we've all seen in the past how much the eve community as a whole loves this approach to "balance"
Reduce the drone bay? A Domi can carry 2 waves of heavies and some assorted extras. A carrier can carry two waves of fighters [a limited amount] and some assorted smaller ones. This is a good thing. This is called balance
The only interesting idea i've noticed in this thread is removing drone collisions. Could be a good idea, but would give us immaterial drones, which does seem to me pretty silly, they should be solid objects (ideally a little more intelligent and capable of following orders than they are atm).
To summarise:
This idea: NO.
I say no to nerfing gameplay for such reasons. It's not a question of balance so shouldn't be a candidate for a nerf.
CCP are constantly trying to attack the Lag issues from every angle, the fact that nerfing of fighters hasn't been so much as mooted in god knows how many blogs and interviews does imply that it's not a profitable avenue of thought. Likely a drop in the ocean compared to the solutions they're working on.
COMPUTER SAYS NO, STOP WHINING.
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Marvn Riley
Amarr Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 17:41:00 -
[376]
No.
This didn't come out until you lost a big fight. Now you're all whining about it.
Losing a battle doesn't make you game dev geniuses. It just means you lost. Get over it.
You jumped into a system with a prepared enemy, who had time to set their defenses to a tactical advantage. And got whipped in the process.
Don't cry that lag was an unfair advantage. I still remember the exploitative Bookmark bomb-shuttles you used to run, and the node crashing ftw against LV.
Pretty sure I would be seeing a completely different story if the winner/loser bracket had been flipped.
Which means you whine because you lost.
CCP can't fix you sucking. Sorry.
Marvn
|
MivMining
Gallente NXS Industries
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 18:18:00 -
[377]
Edited by: MivMining on 15/09/2007 18:19:01 So can we nerf T1 blobs? To the THREADNAUGHT!
|
Nova Cygni
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 18:56:00 -
[378]
Edited by: Nova Cygni on 15/09/2007 18:56:53 you guys are right, those goons are complaining for no reason!
its not like BoB has ever been known to abuse broken game mechanics! they would never use the aggression timer to kill a titan, or abuse the clearly broken titan game mechanic, or POS bowl. And they CERTAINLY wouldnt use an absurd number of fighters just to lag nope nope. you guys are right.
oh wait? whats this picture i just found: http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/3491/fightersvr0.jpg
hmmmm.
|
Slaatibartfast
Chimp Logistics
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 19:05:00 -
[379]
Edited by: Slaatibartfast on 15/09/2007 19:05:05
Originally by: Nova Cygni Edited by: Nova Cygni on 15/09/2007 18:56:53 you guys are right, those goons are complaining for no reason!
its not like BoB has ever been known to abuse broken game mechanics! they would never use the aggression timer to kill a titan, or abuse the clearly broken titan game mechanic, or POS bowl. And they CERTAINLY wouldnt use an absurd number of fighters just to lag nope nope. you guys are right.
oh wait? whats this picture i just found: http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/3491/fightersvr0.jpg
hmmmm.
Damn those evil BoB and their h4xsploits!
I mean it's not like any sane person would choose to use capitals that can remote rep each other to fight other caps....that would be utter madness. Must just be to create lag which indiscriminately affects all and therefore would serve to shoot them in their own feet. Sheer tactical genius!
|
1Of9
Gallente Beasts of Burden YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 19:05:00 -
[380]
Originally by: Nova Cygni Edited by: Nova Cygni on 15/09/2007 18:56:53 you guys are right, those goons are complaining for no reason!
its not like BoB has ever been known to abuse broken game mechanics! they would never use the aggression timer to kill a titan, or abuse the clearly broken titan game mechanic, or POS bowl. And they CERTAINLY wouldnt use an absurd number of fighters just to lag nope nope. you guys are right.
oh wait? whats this picture i just found: http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/3491/fightersvr0.jpg
hmmmm.
yeah .. finally u admiting you whining because u got OWNED and u had to win to come to the forums scream victory.. oh wait .. u cant can u ? TO THE WHINEMOBILE you all read in the goons forum right?
|
|
Pesadel0
Ordem dos Templarios Pax Atlantis
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 19:06:00 -
[381]
Originally by: fire 59
Originally by: 1Of9 we cant oublob anymore .. CCP nerf!!!
nooo we are blobed to hell NERF!!
nerf nerf nerf nerf
Those smilies pretty much sum up what i did when i saw the goon whines ^^
Very funny :D
|
Slaatibartfast
Chimp Logistics
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 19:08:00 -
[382]
Oh almost forgot;
Turret calculations create lag.
What about limiting each ship to one turret/launcher and adjusting/creating skills to up their dmg to the equivalent of current levels?
Oh wait, that's right, it's a crap approach to tackling lag.
|
Nova Cygni
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 19:10:00 -
[383]
Originally by: Slaatibartfast
Must just be to create lag which indiscriminately affects all and therefore would serve to shoot them in their own feet. Sheer tactical genius!
Yes, because we all know that fighters dont auto target in lag or anything, so clearly where would the advantage be!
|
Bon Ali
Bon's Ecological Recycling
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 19:12:00 -
[384]
Originally by: 1Of9
yeah .. finally u admiting you whining because u got OWNED and u had to win to come to the forums scream victory.. oh wait .. u cant can u ? TO THE WHINEMOBILE you all read in the goons forum right?
I really hope english is your 9th language.
|
Kaldaine
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 19:19:00 -
[385]
Originally by: Jesus HChrist lag sucks? try NOT bringing 400 ppl, 50 of which are in noob ships.
fecking whiners
Checking out BoBs killboard looking for rookie ship losses I am having trouble finding 50 rookie ship kills other then yesterday when we started suiciding into 0OY as it was seen as a lost cause. The number of shuttles killed in the last year is almost negligible. Checking frigate losses I also see that aside from yesterday in the past several weeks frigate losses are at an all time low. I am forced to conclude BoB is either unable to handle our rookie shuttle gangs, we are not fighting BoB or (the most likely scenario) we havent had much more then 200 people in gang and they are flying much more then frigates for the past while.
I guess we can put the rookie ship, bookmark bomb and intentional lag myths to rest now using your own killboard.
|
Slaatibartfast
Chimp Logistics
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 19:23:00 -
[386]
Edited by: Slaatibartfast on 15/09/2007 19:24:17 Edited by: Slaatibartfast on 15/09/2007 19:23:17
Originally by: Nova Cygni
Originally by: Slaatibartfast
Must just be to create lag which indiscriminately affects all and therefore would serve to shoot them in their own feet. Sheer tactical genius!
Yes, because we all know that fighters dont auto target in lag or anything, so clearly where would the advantage be!
They respond to agression....think about what that actually means before you claim it's an advantage in big fights where you're trying to focus fire on caps...
Warp into a fight/mission etc, nothing targets you, nothing aggros you, you launch your drones, your drones will do nothing.
Seriously, where are you guys getting all these wierd ideas about how drones work from? Or do you order all your pilots to make sure they each fire a shot at every carrier just to make sure they get fighters auto-aggro'ing them?
|
Bon Ali
Bon's Ecological Recycling
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 19:31:00 -
[387]
Originally by: Slaatibartfast
They respond to agression....think about what that actually means before you claim it's an advantage in big fights where you're trying to focus fire on caps...
Warp into a fight/mission etc, nothing targets you, nothing aggros you, you launch your drones, your drones will do nothing.
Seriously, where are you guys getting all these wierd ideas about how drones work from? Or do you order all your pilots to make sure they each fire a shot at every carrier just to make sure they get fighters auto-aggro'ing them?
Chimp Logistics, at the forefront of fleet battles on a daily basis, ready to dish out the hard earned knowledge! ps you are dumb.
|
1Of9
Gallente Beasts of Burden YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 19:53:00 -
[388]
Originally by: Bon Ali I really hope english is your 9th language.
it is
|
fire 59
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 20:39:00 -
[389]
Have they understood that fighters DO NOT auto aggro like drones do yet and only respond to aggression or commands?
Allied forces strike coalition fleet, wrecking for toys thrown out of pram damage ^^ |
Cyleth
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 20:52:00 -
[390]
Goons having close to 300 posts out of 400 tells quite a lot. -- Listen to Club BNC on BoB Radio. Visit our website for schedules.
|
|
BOldMan
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 21:32:00 -
[391]
Edited by: BOldMan on 15/09/2007 21:32:39
Originally by: Nova Cygnioh wait? whats this picture i just found: http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/3491/fightersvr0.jpg
hmmmm.
You forgot to phoshop the local number chat, dude!
|
fire 59
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 21:45:00 -
[392]
Originally by: BOldMan Edited by: BOldMan on 15/09/2007 21:32:39
Originally by: Nova Cygnioh wait? whats this picture i just found: http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/3491/fightersvr0.jpg
hmmmm.
You forgot to phoshop the local number chat, dude!
O dear, fancy doing a sloppy job whilst faking a picture . Why would you fake a picture if your cause was just? Strange that you would do that if it was as bad as you have been making out, why not a genuine picture hmmm?
Allied forces strike coalition fleet, wrecking for toys thrown out of pram damage ^^ |
Admiral Trask
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 23:09:00 -
[393]
a) Fighters don't autoagro unless the FIGHTER has been shot at or the order to attack has been given. b) Each pilot who had fighters assigned had as many of his own drones in bay so the same thing would occur with normal drones making a fighter nerf pointless to say the least c) Carriers and Motherships do cause a little bit of lag, but they are very expensive and so no where near as common as bs's and support, because those are the ships cause the majority of the lag d) If you think fighter are an unfair advantage train those characters in frigates to use carriers instead of relying on your allies capitals and then whining about ours.
Fighters are fine. leave them be
|
Machanara
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 03:03:00 -
[394]
You know....its pretty funny, yet sad...that all yo Goons come here and whine up a storm when you got WTF PWND in a fleet fight.
Did ANYONE MAKE you jump through that gate into all those carriers, which you KNEW were there in the first place?? Don't think so.
Do fighters agress on their OWN without either being fired upon or their owners being fired on or commanded to?? Nope, not there either.
The ONLY thing I see here is a bunch of immature LOSERS who try to blame someone else for their STUPID decisions! Yea, lag SUCKS! We've all delt with it over and over and over.
YOU and YOU made the decision to JUMP into the froth and you got your WHINY arses PWND. You and ONLY YOU have yourselves to blame for it. If you can't deal with the lag EVERYONE IN THIS GAME knows is there, then I suggest you go find another game where you can't blame mechanics on your EPIC failure.
I know a good day-care down the street you guys can stay in if you need to, btw....
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 03:16:00 -
[395]
Originally by: Machanara Did ANYONE MAKE you jump through that gate into all those carriers, which you KNEW were there in the first place?? Don't think so.
Clearly the future of EVE warfare is for no one to fight anyone. I see this as an excellent direction for the game to go and is surely conducive to a compelling game experience.
|
KISOGOKU
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 08:02:00 -
[396]
/Not signed when will goons stop crying evrytime their ** handed to them in a fleet battle?Noone trained carriers and other *** load skills to uncompetent goons crying for nerf. start training capitals ,train fighters dont cry.
|
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 08:46:00 -
[397]
this thread, and this forum in the future, is in dire need of moderation ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Mihailo Great
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 09:06:00 -
[398]
Don't worry, the devs only read the intelligent posts, and cringe when they see smacking.
|
1Of9
Gallente Beasts of Burden YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 09:41:00 -
[399]
Originally by: Mihailo Great Don't worry, the devs only read the intelligent posts, and cringe when they see smacking.
So true, and so sad, because you guys making dev's wasting hours reading 14 pages of useless posts about how goons lost a battle and they r out blobed. This time they could used to actually fix lag instead of reading this crap...
|
Brunswick2
coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 22:09:00 -
[400]
Edited by: Brunswick2 on 16/09/2007 22:10:11 Well, I at least agree that fighters should be made immaterial. Wouldn't imbalance anything and would reduce lag, which is always good.
And also, attack the idea, not the person.
|
|
HaulandHaul
Gallente Caldari Deep Space Ventures Caldari Deep Space Industral
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 10:12:00 -
[401]
Edited by: HaulandHaul on 17/09/2007 10:13:08 ROFLCOPTERLMAO MORE GOON TEARS
Edit; this is almost worse then the threatnaught! ahaha
- *snip* Modifying another player's signature graphic to insult them is trolling. -Rauth Kivaro ([email protected]) |
Cmdr Sp0ck
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 14:21:00 -
[402]
Originally by: Mihailo Great Don't worry, the devs only read the intelligent posts, and cringe when they see smacking.
Then we can rest assured they won't read any Goon posts.
Anyways, back on topic.
Fighters don't create the massive lag you Goons are inventing on these forums. They contribute to lag indeed, but not more than all the other things that exist in game: jumping, module activation, the fleet structure, all the other ships in game, all the other drones in game, all the calculations involved in all the different types of actions that come from using all these features/items, and so on. It is all these things combined - which increase as the number of pilots in any one node increases - that causes the load on the servers, NOT fighters in any specific and unique way as Goons try to put it.
Fighters are nothing more than drones with specific characteristics. If you say fighters cause insane amounts of lag, then you are saying that ALL DRONES cause that insane lag. In which case Goons themselves destroy their own arguments as it is common knowledge that fighters ARE NOT the most common drones in EVE.
Being serious about solving the lag issues in EVE means that CCP need to revisit the coding in virtually everything, from ships to modules, to try and make calculations more efficient (if possible). This is nothing short of a monumental task for the devs i'm sure. Fighters are merely a VERY small part of the problem. There are many other things in EVE that cause much more lag than fighters.
This thread and Goons' arguments are mute. And like Mihailo stated, devs only read intelligent posts. |
Toffles
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 16:07:00 -
[403]
Originally by: 1Of9
Originally by: Nova Cygni Edited by: Nova Cygni on 15/09/2007 18:56:53 you guys are right, those goons are complaining for no reason!
its not like BoB has ever been known to abuse broken game mechanics! they would never use the aggression timer to kill a titan, or abuse the clearly broken titan game mechanic, or POS bowl. And they CERTAINLY wouldnt use an absurd number of fighters just to lag nope nope. you guys are right.
oh wait? whats this picture i just found: http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/3491/fightersvr0.jpg
hmmmm.
yeah .. finally u admiting you whining because u got OWNED and u had to win to come to the forums scream victory.. oh wait .. u cant can u ? TO THE WHINEMOBILE you all read in the goons forum right?
Check the date this thread was created, then check the date the 0oyz battle happened. Then shoot yourself in the head for being a ******* moron. That goes for the rest of you bob + bob pets ****ting on this thread by being willfully ignorant despite the number of times people have tried to slowly explain to you that this isn't about nerfing carriers or fighters. This could just as easily be a discussion about simplifying missile physics in large fleet battles or some other change that would allow the battle to play out as it normally would, just not as pretty and with less lag.
|
Toffles
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 16:24:00 -
[404]
Originally by: Cmdr Sp0ck
Originally by: Mihailo Great Don't worry, the devs only read the intelligent posts, and cringe when they see smacking.
Then we can rest assured they won't read any Goon posts.
Anyways, back on topic.
Fighters don't create the massive lag you Goons are inventing on these forums. They contribute to lag indeed, but not more than all the other things that exist in game: jumping, module activation, the fleet structure, all the other ships in game, all the other drones in game, all the calculations involved in all the different types of actions that come from using all these features/items, and so on. It is all these things combined - which increase as the number of pilots in any one node increases - that causes the load on the servers, NOT fighters in any specific and unique way as Goons try to put it.
Fighters are nothing more than drones with specific characteristics. If you say fighters cause insane amounts of lag, then you are saying that ALL DRONES cause that insane lag. In which case Goons themselves destroy their own arguments as it is common knowledge that fighters ARE NOT the most common drones in EVE.
Being serious about solving the lag issues in EVE means that CCP need to revisit the coding in virtually everything, from ships to modules, to try and make calculations more efficient (if possible). This is nothing short of a monumental task for the devs i'm sure. Fighters are merely a VERY small part of the problem. There are many other things in EVE that cause much more lag than fighters.
This thread and Goons' arguments are mute. And like Mihailo stated, devs only read intelligent posts.
Then it's nice to know they won't read your post. I can't see where anyone ever said reducing fighter numbers would completely fix the lag, just that it might help reduce it, so maybe stop putting words in other people's mouths. You state that fighters are only a small cause of the lag and then vaguely say that there are other things causing much more lag... Like what? What is your reasoning based on other than guessing.
At least with carrier fighters we have anecdotal evidence as anyone who's been around a "fighter cloud" can tell you that it makes things noticeably more laggy. I know for our own alliance when we are shooting a tower/station with a support fleet the order will go out to pull drones back in when things get too laggy. After winning an engagement in a laggy system its not uncommon for the fc to order the enemy drones left behind be killed to reduce lag.
|
HydroSan
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.18 03:47:00 -
[405]
If any of the BoB/BoB pets posting in this thread would actually read the OP, they'd know that we aren't asking for a nerf, but a rework of the code so it isn't as laggy.
We're not asking for the damage or capabilities of carriers to be nerfed, we're asking for CCP to rework the code so fighters don't completely destroy the server when they're used.
Here, let me spell it out for you guys again:
WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR CARRIERS TO BE NERFED IN ANY WAY. WE WANT CCP TO REWORK THE CODE SO THE LAG ISN'T AS BAD.
And just in case you don't get it:
WE, THE GOONS, DO NOT, EN OH TEE, TO NERF, OR LESSEN, THE CAPABILITIES OF CARRIERS IN ANY WAY AT ALL.
Is that better for you? Do you guys get it now? Or will you continue to chestbeat and bring politics into a forum where politics are not allowed?
|
Butter Dog
The Littlest Hobos Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.09.18 10:28:00 -
[406]
Edited by: Butter Dog on 18/09/2007 10:32:09
Sorry Goons but you lose all credibility with regard to a stance about lag-reduction, whenever you jump in hundreds of T1 frigs/noobships into an already lagged system.
The sole point of doing that is lag creation. We all know such ships cannot contribute to the fight in any meaningful way. Also your assumptions about fighter auto-aggression are simply wrong. Your whole logic is fundamentally flawed.
Its a little bit like going into my local butchers, who proceeds to tell me how cruel meat is and that I should convert to vegetarianism. Your stance is little short of preposterous given your in-game actions vis-a-vis lag.
----------
|
Qual
Gallente Cornexant Research
|
Posted - 2007.09.18 10:35:00 -
[407]
Originally by: HydroSan
WE, THE GOONS, DO NOT, EN OH TEE, WANT TO NERF, OR LESSEN, THE CAPABILITIES OF CARRIERS IN ANY WAY AT ALL.
Well, then your suggestions have a few problems. Main one I see is that when you turn 5 drones into 1 drone, you take out the ability to combine damage types. You also take away the ability to spread out damage. (Yes, that actaully have uses in some situations. Especialy with targets far removed from each other.)
Allready there you have a significant nerf of the carrier capabilities.
While I will accept that you intention might not be to nerf the carriers, you actual suggestions do nerf them.
"The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf |
Lady Caeser
Open Fist of Castallus
|
Posted - 2007.09.18 10:55:00 -
[408]
Originally by: Butter Dog Edited by: Butter Dog on 18/09/2007 10:32:09
Sorry Goons but you lose all credibility with regard to a stance about lag-reduction, whenever you jump in hundreds of T1 frigs/noobships into an already lagged system.
The sole point of doing that is lag creation. We all know such ships cannot contribute to the fight in any meaningful way. Also your assumptions about fighter auto-aggression are simply wrong. Your whole logic is fundamentally flawed.
Its a little bit like going into my local butchers, who proceeds to tell me how cruel meat is and that I should convert to vegetarianism. Your stance is little short of preposterous given your in-game actions vis-a-vis lag.
Butterdog talking about credibility? +1 Fail point.
Noob ship fun is irrelevent to the issue, as you stated they arent capable of affecting the fight much so don't see your point there (the noob ships in 00y were after the fight and purely to let off steam): +2 Fail points.
There aren't "assumptions about fighter autoaggression" as you put it, if you read the post (yes I know expecting a lot from you isnt it?) the poster talks about DRONE auto aggression (15 heavy t2 ogres on a thanatos isn't peanuts after all). It is your reading comprehention that is flawed: +1 Fail point.
Why do you think drones were limited to 5 per ship in the first place butterdawg? Oh yeah I remember now, because people used it to LAG out their opponents at gatecamps and win the fight. Not remembering your eve history properly: +1 Fail point.
ANALYSIS COMPLETE: FAILED. -------------------------------------- What are you looking at? -------------------------------------- |
Butter Dog
The Littlest Hobos Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.09.18 11:33:00 -
[409]
Originally by: Lady Caeser
Originally by: Butter Dog Edited by: Butter Dog on 18/09/2007 10:32:09
Sorry Goons but you lose all credibility with regard to a stance about lag-reduction, whenever you jump in hundreds of T1 frigs/noobships into an already lagged system.
The sole point of doing that is lag creation. We all know such ships cannot contribute to the fight in any meaningful way. Also your assumptions about fighter auto-aggression are simply wrong. Your whole logic is fundamentally flawed.
Its a little bit like going into my local butchers, who proceeds to tell me how cruel meat is and that I should convert to vegetarianism. Your stance is little short of preposterous given your in-game actions vis-a-vis lag.
Butterdog talking about credibility? +1 Fail point.
Noob ship fun is irrelevent to the issue, as you stated they arent capable of affecting the fight much so don't see your point there (the noob ships in 00y were after the fight and purely to let off steam): +2 Fail points.
There aren't "assumptions about fighter autoaggression" as you put it, if you read the post (yes I know expecting a lot from you isnt it?) the poster talks about DRONE auto aggression (15 heavy t2 ogres on a thanatos isn't peanuts after all). It is your reading comprehention that is flawed: +1 Fail point.
Why do you think drones were limited to 5 per ship in the first place butterdawg? Oh yeah I remember now, because people used it to LAG out their opponents at gatecamps and win the fight. Not remembering your eve history properly: +1 Fail point.
ANALYSIS COMPLETE: FAILED.
Maybe you don't fly much PvP, or maybe you weren't around before the drone number reduction - but I can tell you it made sweet FA difference to lag.
How can you possibly say the T1 frig/noobship thing is not an issue? By jumping hundreds of them into an already laggy system you will conly to create more pressure on the node. You create more lag, you add nothing, you can only die and make more wrecks/lag.
The Goons have zero credibility on a lag-reduction stance. It is amusing to watch, though. You lose a fight or two then cry en-masse to change game mechanics despite previously using said mechanics to your advantage.
Maybe next time they won't be insane enough to deploy capitals in an *already* lagged out system with 50 carriers in. Jumping in, dying as anyone could have told you that you would have, then whining on this epic scale is bordering on the comedic.
One can only assume it was done specifically to create such a whine-thread, as God knows there is no other logical reason to suicide capitals like that on a gate.
----------
|
Lady Caeser
Open Fist of Castallus
|
Posted - 2007.09.18 11:49:00 -
[410]
I'm not a goon but thanks for playing! -------------------------------------- What are you looking at? -------------------------------------- |
|
HydroSan
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.18 23:09:00 -
[411]
Edited by: HydroSan on 18/09/2007 23:10:16
Originally by: Butter Dog How can you possibly say the T1 frig/noobship thing is not an issue? By jumping hundreds of them into an already laggy system you will conly to create more pressure on the node. You create more lag, you add nothing, you can only die and make more wrecks/lag.
Yes because it wasn't a single, lone frigate who decloaked Shrike and got him killed. Not to mention that frigates can fit a MWD, a warp disruptor and a stasis webifier: something that can pin down anything from another frigate to a dreadnought. Every ship counts.
Quote: The Goons have zero credibility on a lag-reduction stance. It is amusing to watch, though. You lose a fight or two then cry en-masse to change game mechanics despite previously using said mechanics to your advantage.
Yes, we've abused Titans, POS bowling, and fighter spamming in the past. Absolutely right. Oh no, wait, you're wrong.
Quote: Maybe next time they won't be insane enough to deploy capitals in an *already* lagged out system with 50 carriers in. Jumping in, dying as anyone could have told you that you would have, then whining on this epic scale is bordering on the comedic.
One can only assume it was done specifically to create such a whine-thread, as God knows there is no other logical reason to suicide capitals like that on a gate.
So you just admitted that 50 carriers made the system unplayable and disallowed a reasonable tactic (jumping capitals on top of capitals) from working, and then turn around and say the tactic is unreasonable because lagging a system out with 50 carriers is perfectly acceptable?
Butter Dog your posting is better when you're whining like a baby and committing political suicide.
|
B Glorious
|
Posted - 2007.09.18 23:39:00 -
[412]
Originally by: The Opening Post What we 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. Combat cannot occur as the game was designed without distinct and effective action from CCP.
The quote below is just an example of what could work, though whatever happens is not as important as making sure something happens. This idea can be scrapped if a better idea works just as well.
I had feared we had strayed from issue at hand. |
Acacia Everto
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.19 01:26:00 -
[413]
In my opinion, the fact that a Carrier can field multiple smaller drones is one of its greatest assets, making it much much harder to take down its DPS. I say we wait for Rev3 and Trinity 2 before we start whining for fighter reduction. A Carrier just doesn't have the same punch or feel if you can field only 5 drones, uber as they may be.
/not signed
|
Herring MacGuffin
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.09.19 02:49:00 -
[414]
Originally by: Acacia Everto In my opinion, the fact that a Carrier can field multiple smaller drones is one of its greatest assets, making it much much harder to take down its DPS. I say we wait for Rev3 and Trinity 2 before we start whining for fighter reduction. A Carrier just doesn't have the same punch or feel if you can field only 5 drones, uber as they may be.
/not signed
Whoa, yeah...lets not get crazy here and do anything about lag for a good 3 months...gotta let this thing simmer a bit and see what comes out of it.
50 ships in local usually doesn't = lagged out.
50 carriers in local with 10+ drones out each = lagged out.
Man, I wonder where that lag is coming from...must be the goons and their infernal T1 frigates.
|
Moon Kitten
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 20:38:00 -
[415]
Will the next patch improve the lag situation? Does anyone know?
|
Xune
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 10:44:00 -
[416]
Fighters dont autoatack. Drones do yes, fighters dont. So the call that figters are immune to lag is utter nonsens. Only time a fighter "atacks" something that hes not told to atack is when its under fire itself.
Keep you hands away from my Fighters and Carrier ! took long enough to get all of the skills to 5
|
Elder Bob
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 20:45:00 -
[417]
Originally by: Xune Keep you hands away from my Fighters and Carrier ! took long enough to get all of the skills to 5
edit: i know most of the goons are to " young" to remember the old times. And many of the others simply seem to have a selective perception. But back then when they changed the max drones on normal ships to 5 it did NOTHING to the performance at all. The battles still lagged like hell, even worse if you asked me (after all the changes they made). And in small engagments ther was not even the slightest hind of a perfomance change at all.
If you'll cast your mind back, RMR screwed lag up royally, as well as introducing a whole host of issues like the memory leak. We didn't see improved performance again until the deployment of dragon and the new server.
I fail to understand how you can judge the difference that drones made given that situation.
|
LingLeng
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 11:28:00 -
[418]
loooooooool goons nerf goons you say fighers make lag?realy Oo and goon frig ship spam? whats about goons?i know you the nice guys lol
|
Xune
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 13:45:00 -
[419]
Originally by: Elder Bob
Originally by: Xune Keep you hands away from my Fighters and Carrier ! took long enough to get all of the skills to 5
edit: i know most of the goons are to " young" to remember the old times. And many of the others simply seem to have a selective perception. But back then when they changed the max drones on normal ships to 5 it did NOTHING to the performance at all. The battles still lagged like hell, even worse if you asked me (after all the changes they made). And in small engagments ther was not even the slightest hind of a perfomance change at all.
If you'll cast your mind back, RMR screwed lag up royally, as well as introducing a whole host of issues like the memory leak. We didn't see improved performance again until the deployment of dragon and the new server.
I fail to understand how you can judge the difference that drones made given that situation.
Good point there, but alright to prove my point, lets go further back into eve history where Battleships just had 1 Bonus instead of the 2 we know today. Back then the dominix only got a damage bonus.
The performance Before the +Drone per skill and after was the same. And i should know, as it got the drone bonus we used the Dominix a lot.Yes that was even before they stacking-nerfed damage mods where it was a viable option to shieldtank it and fit the lows only with damage mods.
|
Kropotkin
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 13:32:00 -
[420]
Originally by: Len Jahad I've never been hugely bothered by ordinary server lag, because it effects everyone equally. The recent prevalence of enormous fighter swarms is a different issue, however. It's unbelievably frustrating to have fighters targeting your expensive fleet ship and watch it melt in seconds while the server struggles to catch up and allow you to do anything, and then watch the fighters continue to destroy other ships while no actual player-controlled ships are able to respond.
Isn't the straightforward solution, to eliminate the fighters' (and drones', for that matter) auto-retargeting?
Or, if you want to be subtle about it, change the allocation strategy for server resources, so that fighters' and drones' auto-retargeting is only done *after* all player-initiated targeting? Maybe something like, "do an auto-retargeting cycle only every five player-initiated-targeting cycles"?
Am I missing something?
|
|
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] |