| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
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..
|
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |