| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
sonofollo
   |
Posted - 2005.07.13 11:45:00 -
[91]
allowing us to set multiple wayopint routes would fix that problem but players need to be smart enough to use them.
I agree on the tolerance thing add map changes that cut highways off a solution has been foudn that should work in 90% of cases.
|
Bombcrater
|
Posted - 2005.07.13 12:27:00 -
[92]
 Originally by: Matthew
Erm, no. The autopilot tolerance thing is not pasting over it - it's opening up a whole new bit of functionality that originally CCP set at some pre-defined value. It's more choice to you and less dictating from CCP.
It's a classic kludge that developers have been using for decades. If you cannot manage to come up with a routine that works acceptably in most cases, add some extra options so the use can tweak it into working.
There's no need for this in the case of the autopilot. The data you already provide - location, destination, preferred route type - is enough for a competant pathfinding routine to plot an acceptable course. Forcing the user to provide extra data in order to get a good route means the pathfinding code just isn't good enough.
Kludging in a tolerance value may actually be the best solution given that CCP have to get the autopilot working as soon as possible, but it's still a kludge and I hope they fix the autopilot properly in the future.
|
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.07.13 12:46:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Bombcrater
It's a classic kludge that developers have been using for decades. If you cannot manage to come up with a routine that works acceptably in most cases, add some extra options so the use can tweak it into working.
That's not the case here, as I'll explain below. The new feature isn't a kludge to get a routine to work properly - it's a new feature that allows the routine to answer a larger variety of questions.
Originally by: Bombcrater
There's no need for this in the case of the autopilot. The data you already provide - location, destination, preferred route type - is enough for a competant pathfinding routine to plot an acceptable course. Forcing the user to provide extra data in order to get a good route means the pathfinding code just isn't good enough.
And just how much data is the minimum necessary data to define what sort of route you're looking for? Right now, you can set that you "prefer safer" on your route. But currently you can't tell it how strongly you prefer a safer route. Do you want a safe route regardless of any other consideration? Would it be ok to take a short-cut through 1 unsafe system to cut 2 jumps off the route? Would it be ok if it cut 20 jumps off? If it cut 50 jumps off? Without a tolerance control, you can't tell that to the autopilot, and have to settle for the CCP-default value.
As you say, you should only need to provide 3 things to the autopilot, current location, destination and preferred route type. Adding the tolerance control simply allows you more choice when specifying your preferred route type. It lets you be more specific in the questions you ask the autopilot, so the autopilot can return you more useful results. It is an expansion of autopilot capabilities. It's certainly not a kludge.
|
Uther Doull
|
Posted - 2005.07.13 12:53:00 -
[94]
Edited by: Uther Doull on 13/07/2005 12:53:39
Quote:
There's no need for this in the case of the autopilot. The data you already provide - location, destination, preferred route type - is enough for a competant pathfinding routine to plot an acceptable course. Forcing the user to provide extra data in order to get a good route means the pathfinding code just isn't good enough.
while what you say is partly true, that is not the reason why ccp has implemented this tolerance setting... they planned this before the autopilot was borked (don't know what broke it, but it worked before)
the most obvious benefit (and i'm surprised you don't see it) is for ppl with bad sec rating to be able to avoid high sec systems on their autopilot route (like 0.8 and up for example)
|
Kuolematon
|
Posted - 2005.07.13 12:58:00 -
[95]
And now something complete different: It's patch day on WoW too  . Nerf warlocks!
Oh damn, 2 games patching same day. BF2 here I come.
_______________________________________________
My opinions aren't my corporations opinions.
"I troll, therefor I am!" //\\ Suomi-Finland-Perkele asennetta! |
Dame Sneakers
|
Posted - 2005.07.13 13:34:00 -
[96]
Edited by: Dame Sneakers on 13/07/2005 13:41:43
I sure hope that they fixed the "Liked By" and "Disliked By" tabs on the standings part of my character sheet. When I click on them nothing happens. The little loading icon does not even spin around. This used to work pre-Cold War. The other two tabs on the standings sheet still work, the little loading icon spins about 3/4 of the way around and then the information is displayed.
Oh yeah, and please fix the alt-tab crash.
Oh, and allow us to have off-lined modules in the high slots at least, or fix the real bug of having off-lined modules not affect the stats on your ships instead of this lame band-aid of having to have all modules fit PG and CPU wise.
Oh, and thanks for the search feature in assets, that I do truely like.
------------------------------------So many skills, so little time... |
Kerby Lane
|
Posted - 2005.07.13 14:12:00 -
[97]
Autopilot is fine as fair as I see 8)
Thanks 8)
|
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.07.13 14:14:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Uther Doull
while what you say is partly true, that is not the reason why ccp has implemented this tolerance setting... they planned this before the autopilot was borked (don't know what broke it, but it worked before)
What broke in the autopilot when it first started giving "strange" results was the default tolerance setting. Previously, the tolerance was set to something ridiculously low, so the autopilot would be hugely reluctant to include any low-sec systems unless absolutely unavoidable. At that point "Prefer Safer" really meant "Use Safe unless impossible to do otherwise".
Then they reviewed and tweaked the routefinder for 3363, and changed the tolerance level. Now "Prefer Safer" changed to mean "Use Safe unless there's a shortcut through unsafe that'll save me some jumps". Everyone so used to the old definition of "Prefer Safer" considered the autopilot to be broken. In reality, it was simply giving the answer to a different question.
Now we get to choose which question to ask the autopilot. Choice is good.
Oh, I didn't notice this before, so I'll pick up on it now:
Originally by: Bombcrater
Forcing the user to provide extra data in order to get a good route means the pathfinding code just isn't good enough.
Computers cannot read minds. The autopilot works, and gives you a good route every time, based on what you've told it is a good route. If it is provided with an incorrect or incomplete definition of what constitutes a good route, no amount of fancy code is going to be able to read your mind to determine what you're really asking for.
|
Tenashi
|
Posted - 2005.07.13 15:15:00 -
[99]
nice patch, nice overview fix but err...
|
uytuyt
|
Posted - 2005.07.13 19:11:00 -
[100]
Anyone else having problems connecting to the server?
??
|
|
|
Hawk Firestorm
|
Posted - 2005.07.13 19:37:00 -
[101]
There's one thing that needs some serious attention and that weapons in general.
Problem is coupled with the problems with the current method used by turrets and tracking and the new missile changes it's made frigates and small ships next to totally invulnerable.
This is a major problem for hunters especially in 0 space as smaller ships just aren't hardy enough to survive but the BS's can't do anything about the frigates, even small drones are ineffective against them now.
All things would be fine and dandy if mobs contained all the same type of ships, frigs in high sec crus's in mid sec and bs in low sec, but that's not the case.
No class of ship should be immune to ANY other class or it opens up the door to exploitation and many problems such as the above.
Biggest problem in the way that you've set things out I think is that you've gone too complex, this is especially true with turrets, rather than assuming they all hit and then dealing with the dmg calculations according to ship class and size to put in some consistancy but with some calcutlations to put in a random element.
The same is true of the new missile changes to a degree in that you've again been overly complex, rather than just adding missile defence systems with a % chance to destroy the incomming missile.
It's very hard for a frigate to kill another frigate now with missiles on a class v class basis, and a BS is just goosed for just about anything other than another BS, everythings really outta wack.
While something had to be done to balance pvp, the method you've chosen wasn't the best way to go IMHO, which is why it's caused the above.
Anyways could you guys please take a look.
|
Testarosa
|
Posted - 2005.07.13 20:00:00 -
[102]
I`m getting an patch error saying that i have incorrect patch and i currently have 2.06.3548 and says when i try and connect
unexpected errors has occured.... how can i fix this?
|
Alpha799
|
Posted - 2005.07.13 20:23:00 -
[103]
Has the graphical issues with the market been fixed? No matter what setting have you have selected in the RGB windows, the market bars are always grey. This what not the case until the patch was deployted.
Can anyone confirm that this has been fixed? |
sonofollo
|
Posted - 2005.07.13 21:23:00 -
[104]
it all come down to datamining if enough BS get blown up by gruopds of frigates then CCP may nerf frigs again. Otherwise battleships will soon become avoided for PVP
|
CreamSoda
|
Posted - 2005.07.13 22:55:00 -
[105]
Originally by: chillz
Why don't CCP hire a decent actor for the voice?
I play GTA, I have Samuel L Jackson doing some of the voices!
(I know they don't have the budget for hollywood but they could at least pick someone who is awake).
I agree, I hate the new voice. It makes you tired, and she sounds horrible.
|
Jennai
|
Posted - 2005.07.14 01:57:00 -
[106]
why does the autopilot slider have a scale of 1 to 100 when it appears that setting 1-6 is exactly the same as "prefer shorter" and 7-100 is exactly the same as "prefer safer"?
|
Mister Locke
|
Posted - 2005.07.14 04:56:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Jennai
why does the autopilot slider have a scale of 1 to 100 when it appears that setting 1-6 is exactly the same as "prefer shorter" and 7-100 is exactly the same as "prefer safer"?
Wow, have you already tested this for all 100 slider positions and all combinations of source and destination system?
Good work soldier...
---
--Missile balance whiners make baby Jesus cry-- |
Mari Y'Tuk
|
Posted - 2005.07.14 07:01:00 -
[108]
When can we see the Comso missions fixed? Patch has made things worse, ships are still spawning one at a time and now even less ships drop the required item.
the ships should be spawning in groups like they do directly after DT, and EVERY ship should drop atleast 1 mission item.
I have no nope of completing the missions
My Production Spreadsheet, Most T1 Bp data, Located here. |
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.07.14 09:01:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Jennai
why does the autopilot slider have a scale of 1 to 100 when it appears that setting 1-6 is exactly the same as "prefer shorter" and 7-100 is exactly the same as "prefer safer"?
Because for many routes, especially short ones, there's either the low-sec shortcut route, as found by "prefer shorter", and the pure-safe route as found by "prefer safer" with a high slider value. But with longer routes, or routes around more complex areas of the map, there may well be several different low-sec shortcuts with differing numbers of low-sec jumps, that cut differing lengths off the overall journey. The slider will allow you to find these variants.
Having said that, the top value of 100 does seem slightly high, if it's doing what I think it is. I'd expect the useful range to be about 1-15. But an extreme high value is often used in these methods to ensure ensure enforcement of a certain extreme - in this case going to 100 guarantees no low-sec routes sneak in - limiting it to something low like 20 or 30 means a few could sneak through.
|
Bobby Wilson
|
Posted - 2005.07.14 14:13:00 -
[110]
Originally by: sonofollo
it all come down to datamining if enough BS get blown up by gruopds of frigates then CCP may nerf frigs again. Otherwise battleships will soon become avoided for PVP
PPl are already avoiding BSes for PvP. Flavour of the month is HACs, especially the Vagabond. The combination of speed (insane in the case of Vagabond), shield/armor resistances, signature and damage output means that only the saddest/unluckiest HAC will lose 1 vs. 1 to a BS. Not to mention HACs can for the most part kill frigates. Best of both worlds.
There's still a place for BSes in NPCing, gate camps and fleets, but in small PvP engagements HACs 4tw.
BW
Originally by: Pallas Athene
IŠm using voice recognition software - where my fingers get stuck isnŠt your concern sweetheart 
|
|
|
arjun
|
Posted - 2005.07.14 15:49:00 -
[111]
we claim about 10 starsystems by means of pos. only 5 of them are shown on the map. 5 are not and systems souverainity is NOT shown in system either. we are sure, that in none of those systems are poses of another alliance, which would claim. the systems in question each were shown on map as claimed for a day or 2. now they are not.
is this crap bugged or what?
|
Shai 'Hulud
|
Posted - 2005.07.14 16:29:00 -
[112]
Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this here, but the graphics for the Jaguar/Wolf have been really messed up since the patch. On the Jaguar only 1 of the 6 total turrets it should have actually appears, and on both ships when you zoom out to a certain distance they swap models (Jag becomes Wolf, Wolf becomes Jag).
I would much rather have cosmetic problems than major problems with gameplay, but this has been a little annoying 
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |