| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kiree Chancel
Phantom Squad
Atlas Alliance
   |
Posted - 2010.05.22 17:24:00 -
[61]
more math = more lag.
--
insert clever signature here. |
Ninetails o'Cat
League of Super Evil
|
Posted - 2010.05.22 18:07:00 -
[62]
 Originally by: Kiree Chancel
more math = more lag.
I'm almost certain that excessive maths is not the cause of the current lagpocalypse. I think that's to do with the fleet finder more than anything else.
|
Nica Guye
|
Posted - 2010.05.22 18:57:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Daedalus II
You have clearly not read and understood the fine points of this suggestion as most of your complaints are based on missunderstanding the original idea.
Quite possible. Either way I still don't like the idea that if you have more fire-power and more ships that you are punished for focusing fire.
Originally by: Daedalus II
Your own idea isn't very good either, it always comes up in relation to these threads and it's always countered by the simple fact that it's extremely exploitable. So in your idea only one squad can lock a ship? So you have two friendly squads that lock each other; yey we are invulnerable! And if you say there is an exception to friendly locks, then you just bring a neutral alt squad!
Yes my idea is totally rubbish, it was never meant to be good and I wouldn't want it to be implemented in anyway.
Though I still think that my novel idea would work at damage mitigation of the original idea unless I missed the point where the offensive module is ranked so large guns cause more sig reduction than small guns.
|
Torpir Lee
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2010.05.22 19:14:00 -
[64]
How about you figure out how to counter/avoid blobs like the rest of the competent 0.0 pvp'ers instead of whining about it.
This is a game where you get considerably outnumbered in every once in a while. Don't like it? Play another game.
|
Tom Peeping
|
Posted - 2010.05.23 00:20:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Tom Peeping on 23/05/2010 00:23:37
Focus Fire is already nerfed versus actual teamwork and tactics.
In the megablob scenario, with focus fire tactics, you're talking about more firepower than is needed to kill the ship... i.e. absolute use of focus fire = wasted shots.
If you take a focus fire FC with more dps than is necessary to kill a ship, and put him against an FC that knows how to deal with multiple targets at once, guess who wins?
The issue your talking about isn't really a problem
Edit:
You may be right, and the current issue might not be due to excessive calculations needing to be done... however one can pretty much guarantee, that a suggestion that the game/client needs to be on the fly calculating variable radius and depending on inputs from other client computers (i.e. how many other dudes are shooting at a single ship) that WOULD be enough math to significantly impact the functioning of the game. A complaint that your suggestion would involve lag inducing math problems, does not mean that we are therefore under the impression that ALL lag is caused exclusively by math.
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.05.23 20:22:00 -
[66]
I think everyone is only reading the first post. Read the thread, especially the post where I have detailed a simplified version which does not penalise small gangs, prevents horrendous RR tanking and just shooting a civilian blaster at a friendly to attempt to create a better tank, ain't gonna work. Also the signature radius of the ship does not change. It is simply used as a piece of data about the ship.
This suggestion is not game breaking, its game enhancing. It doesn't stop numbers from being an advantage. It puts more emphasis on the command structure. Squad commanders become far more important and they will actually have to do some work. Fleet commanders won't just command 200 ships to fire on a target, but to co-ordinate his fleet to engage the enemy fleet.
Just trying to create better game play.
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 10:55:00 -
[67]
keeping it alive
|
Mak Emson
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 17:37:00 -
[68]
I like your idea. Starwind's idea was a good start but it now looks refined and unexploitable (those who say that 30 BS's shooting a friendly in order to give it "Tank" are mad!)
Can't really see any holes so....
Supported, if I could.
|
Helixios
Minmatar
Frontier Explorations Inc.
Black Core Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.05 00:35:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Helixios on 05/06/2010 00:35:44
I think the problem cannot simply be solved by a single correction. I believe the solution to large fleet combat being bland and hive minded, rather than being based on the skill of individual piloting and good strategies (IE, not simply primary calls) it would require multiple effects across the board to discourage said issues.
Your proposal targets the ill-suited and boring "primary target gank warfare".
My proposal targets blob warfare in general: Battle Dust
Please take a look at my thread as well. With some work, a combination of these two ideas could be very beneficial to the future warfare of Eve.
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 13:00:00 -
[70]
I have edited the 1st post to reflect the current proposal.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2010.06.11 23:02:00 -
[71]
Introduce LOS.
2 types, automatic firing mode. Fire weapons even when los is blocked hitting the closest object to the firing ship that intersects with the los, or have it stop firing when los is blocked.
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.06.12 02:20:00 -
[72]
LOS would be nice. As far as we can tell it is unfortunately not possible with the current game engine.
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 13:37:00 -
[73]
bump
|
Gekkoh
Caldari
Trade Winds Ventures
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 18:18:00 -
[74]
You have to keep the system simple, to make it easier for players to understand as well as keep the amount of work the server has to do down to a minimum.
What you do is implement an exponential penalty modifier to sensor strength that increases in relation to the total mass of nearby ships. This penalty decreases with distance.
This penalty is very small with smaller number of large ships, or larger numbers of small ships, but as soon as you start blobbing up the massive ships in a small area, pretty soon it's taking a very, very long time to target anything.
So, you either spread out over a larger area, or bring less mass to the fight.
Tune the penalty so that you have reasonable lock times in the size of engagement that you feel is ideal, but so that it quickly increases past that point to really discourage bringing in a lot more mass to attempt to win.
Another benefit of this penalty would be that the penalty to lock times would be significant enough that roaming around looking for 20 to 1 fights is likely to result in your target getting away, encouraging even smaller wolfpacks hunting each other.
No need to count guns, or locks or anything else. It's easy to understand, as the more mass you concentrate in one area, the more the penalty increases. It doesn't impact smaller fights, and you can't really "game the system" by doing something silly like locking your friends.
The one downside is that you could potentially blob it up in order to prevent enemies from locking you, but that also means you're not going to be locking anyone yourself. But if the worst that can happen is a bunch of pilots log in to sit in one place doing nothing, that's a better result than what we have now.
|
Tornicks
Caldari
U-208
Blade.
|
Posted - 2010.06.17 19:32:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Nika Dekaia
tl;dr
This is a sandbox. Superior numbers will and should win.
The biggest bull**** I have heard about the complex and tactical game EVE Online is.
--
'Non-essential personnel, abandon ship.'
Admiral Yakiya Tovil-Toba's last command, CE23155
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.06.18 22:24:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Tornicks
Originally by: Nika Dekaia
tl;dr
This is a sandbox. Superior numbers will and should win.
The biggest bull**** I have heard about the complex and tactical game EVE Online is.
So does this mean that you think Nika is, how Mr. T. would put it "A fool"?
Do you like the idea or not?
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.06.19 13:24:00 -
[77]
Focused fire reduces lag fast by removing ships fast and one by one. Anything you do to prevent focusing will keep the number of ships up and thereby sustain the lag.
You do group your weapons, too, do you not?
--
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.06.19 14:13:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Whitehound
Focused fire reduces lag fast by removing ships fast and one by one. Anything you do to prevent focusing will keep the number of ships up and thereby sustain the lag.
You do group your weapons, too, do you not?
This is the paradox we face in this subject Whitehound.
Here is are a few questions for you though..... do blobs exist because focused fire is so effective (One shotting BS's)? Is this a desired game style? Is it fun?
I agree that lag is the biggest issue and a significant amount of resources needs to be allocated to that problem. Perhaps people need to also be educated that the hardware they are using to play the game might well work perfectly with all settings to absolute max and cheating your way into anti-aliasing when there are only a moderate number of ships on screen but can it handle the really massive scale fights? Do you need to turn your settings to minimum and brackets off before getting involved in the big stuff? I don't know.
But I agree with anyone who suggests that lag fixing > gameplay fixing
The suggestion above is to improve gameplay only.
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.06.20 16:53:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Spugg Galdon
Here is are a few questions for you though..... do blobs exist because focused fire is so effective (One shotting BS's)? Is this a desired game style? Is it fun?
Blobs exist, because players spread word of a fight around. Everyone wants to be there. Everyone wants a piece of the honour. It is desired and it is fun.
Does this answer your questions?
--
|
Rhadia
|
Posted - 2010.06.20 17:16:00 -
[80]
Eh, that's a matter of personal opinion, Whitehound. I find small squad combat far more engaging and exciting than blob warfare. For one, I at least know what's happening in REAL TIME. Not lagged time where everything that is happening actually happened about a minute ago, and you're actually already dead. Also, I find it rather boring as well considering the majority of blob fights I've been in involve me having to turn my graphics settings to their lowest possible level so that the sheer amount of movement and effects doesn't crash Eve- Thus I watch... basically nothing happen. Err, well... Laggy nothing. No effects, just a slowly updating overview and little spinny effects as my modules cycle (which I can't even rely on to be true).
So while the sheer scale of the battle, and the effects of it's outcome might incite excitement, the battle itself is actually extremely boring and tedious.
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.06.20 19:05:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Rhadia
Eh, that's a matter of personal opinion, Whitehound.
Modifying the game to suppress blob fights is more than just an opinion. It reduces the freedom of what is possible in EVE.
If one does not like blob fights then one should not go there - not an opinion, just common sense.
--
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |