EVE Search - Sticky:Dev blog: HED-GP Technical Retrospective

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev blog: HED-GP Technical Retrospective

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 17 post(s)
stoicfaux 3896	Posted - 2014.01.24 18:33:00 - [61] - Quote Highfield wrote: Would stripping sentry drones from all movement capabilties (ie. turning them into deployed turrets) help solve some of the lag related to them? After all, it takes all movement calculations out of the equations while nobody is going to miss that 1m/s.. You mean turn a group of sentries into a single deployable? WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
Frostys Virpio Caldari Provisions Caldari State 979	Posted - 2014.01.24 18:34:00 - [62] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Unless they make drone totally immobile unless jumping, then the load will be the same or more if the drone calculate himself if he should jump or "slowboat". Each gun attack also need to be calculated individually to be on equal term as guns even if groupped. No, and no. If they are not immobile, they still have to keep moving so that calculation is not saved at all. Why would they be given a single attack when grouped guns do not?
PinkPanter The Scope Gallente Federation 29	Posted - 2014.01.24 18:34:00 - [63] - Quote Highfield wrote: Would stripping sentry drones from all movement capabilties (ie. turning them into deployed turrets) help solve some of the lag related to them? After all, it takes all movement calculations out of the equations while nobody is going to miss that 1m/s.. You mean so they are treated as guns? They still need to be targetable but at least what you say makes sense :)
MeBiatch GRR GOONS 1696	Posted - 2014.01.24 18:36:00 - [64] - Quote WarFireV wrote: Guess in the end, it was the 1000 domis that doomed CFCRUS. make you wonder what 1000 maels would have done to the wreaking ball eh? There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request
Jessica Danikov Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension 251	Posted - 2014.01.24 18:36:00 - [65] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: +1 for Drone swarms (i.e. groups), because how often do people not apply all their drones to a single target? Hell, go one step further all put all drones attacking a single target into an aggregate group? If 15 drones from three attackers are on one target, then treat those 15 drones as one single drone swarm. (Yes, abstracting different drones into one attack is non-trivial.) Genius, wish I'd thought of that- only really works for your mobile drones that can establish an orbit, though. Sentry drones should have their speed set to 0 and only ever have a fixed position (in part to prevent the annoying behaviour of slowly drifting into POSes on a bash).
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1442	Posted - 2014.01.24 18:37:00 - [66] - Quote CCP Veritas wrote: Actual work has happened since Brain in a Box was announced. I don't want to go into amazing details 'cause it could be a devblog of its own, or maybe a Fanfest presentation or something, but I spent about 6 months solid on it personally before I got promoted to technical director. Early in the process I discovered that the fundamental design of Dogma was going to get in the way of implementing BiaB, so I started rewriting that foundation. Since then we had one failed attempt to boot it up with a different team. In December we gave it another spin and I'm very happy with the composition of the new team. I believe once they've come up to speed with the system they'll be able to knock out work at a great pace and put me to shame. This is great news. If you had to throw a wild guess at it and I know it is truly a guess. Less than a year out? Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Weaselior GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 6215	Posted - 2014.01.24 18:38:00 - [67] - Quote There's been some speculation that loading inventories is server-intensive and that capitals, due to multiple inventory bays, may cause higher lag - is that correct? Also, what sort of lag does refitting in space put on the node? Does refitting trigger the same sort of intense calculations brain in the box is intended to fix, because you've suddenly got to apply all sorts of new bonuses to new mods? Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division: "We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half."
Wulfy Johnson NorCorp Security 18	Posted - 2014.01.24 18:47:00 - [68] - Quote Get rid of the damed things already so we can go back to fighting eachother by changing doctrines.. This one weaponsystem fights all is ruining the game.. Yeah even the ratters that knows what they are doing and bitching because we call for a nerf knows they need to go.. Not to mention the impact this sentryfuzz is having on the average market..
stoicfaux 3896	Posted - 2014.01.24 18:52:00 - [69] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: stoicfaux wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Unless they make drone totally immobile unless jumping, then the load will be the same or more if the drone calculate himself if he should jump or "slowboat". Each gun attack also need to be calculated individually to be on equal term as guns even if groupped. No, and no. If they are not immobile, they still have to keep moving so that calculation is not saved at all. Why would they be given a single attack when grouped guns do not? Grouped guns are not abstracted into a single roll of the dice because that would make WTFBBQ criticals much more common (DPS would be the same, but the probabilities of big hits and big misses would increase, which would be noticeable to statistics impaired players.) The variations in stats between classes of drones isn't that great, unlike guns. Standard combat drones (i.e. not sentries) don't really have a huge difference in range, so generalizing the stats into one optimal+falloff isn't as jarring as say averaging the range for a blaster + railgun group. Mixing drone damage types is equivalent to mixed damage ammo types that we have now. On so on. In theory, SWAG, back of the napkin, etc., abstracting combat drones should be "easy." Sentry drones appear to have a huge variation in optimal+falloff, at least until you take drone control range into account, meaning Bouncers/Curators/Wardens have ~60km optimals as it is. Gardes are the biggest problem and would need their stats to be refactored. Obviously, Omnis and drone range extenders would need a going over as well. As for drone movement, just get rid of drone movement. Drones MJD to the target and then "stick" to the target (piggy back (or surf) on the time-space warping wake created by moving ships.) You could still have target speed affect the DPS of a sticky drone swam because "lore-wise," fast moving ships create rough space-time "wakes" which affects swarm targeting. Anyway, even if drone swarms were implemented, it's still an O(N^2) problem, so the gains would be "negligible" in the computer science definition. WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
indiana bones Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 66	Posted - 2014.01.24 18:54:00 - [70] - Quote I feel a new drone nerf module on the horizon Rubicon 1.2 perhaps?
PinkPanter The Scope Gallente Federation 29	Posted - 2014.01.24 18:57:00 - [71] - Quote indiana bones wrote: I feel a new drone nerf module on the horizon Rubicon 1.2 perhaps? I'm soooo hoping that maybe and I mean maybe this time it won't be the case.
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1442	Posted - 2014.01.24 18:59:00 - [72] - Quote Prior to the fight CCP had to take down G-0 (our staging) and HED. This was because they were both located on the same node. This has occurred many times and has been escalated before. Why have more nodes not been put in the reinforcement pool? Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Kismeteer GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 584	Posted - 2014.01.24 19:00:00 - [73] - Quote DRGaius Baltar wrote: Herpa ...derp... derp..... derp.....Guess you guys shouldn't of jumped your capital fleet on the same god damn grid with your domi fleet + 5,000k drones in addition to N3/PL fleet....... Yep, that was extremely dumb. And the people involved should be shot. Luckily, that's not my call. What is my concern is that we have another situation where 'on grid first' wins.
Destoya Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 232	Posted - 2014.01.24 19:09:00 - [74] - Quote indiana bones wrote: I feel a new drone nerf module on the horizon Rubicon 1.2 perhaps? Omnidirectional nerf is already a step in the right direction, now at least the archons and domnixes only have insane tracking at relatively short range instead of out to 100-150km
Destoya Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 232	Posted - 2014.01.24 19:18:00 - [75] - Quote Kismeteer wrote: Yep, that was extremely dumb. And the people involved should be shot. Luckily, that's not my call. What is my concern is that we have another situation where 'on grid first' wins. This seems like a very contradictory statement to me. You admit that jumping 1000 domnixes (which did absolutely nothing in terms of doing damage in the fight) was a stupid decision that caused a large amount of lag that severely hampered your dreadnought fleet. If those 700 dreads were actually functioning, even at reduced level, it would have been absolutely terrifying. This effect is compounded by how it was so laggy that the drone assist on slowcats was not working at all, and that the modlue lag was long enough that it would be very difficult if not impossible for the carriers/supers to get any reps down before the targets died to overwhelming alpha. Even if you lose the majority of the dread fleet, there were a heck of a lot of soft targets (ragnorak/hels/wyverns) to kill off first to at least get the isk efficiency number in the green.
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1442	Posted - 2014.01.24 19:23:00 - [76] - Quote Destoya wrote: Kismeteer wrote: Yep, that was extremely dumb. And the people involved should be shot. Luckily, that's not my call. What is my concern is that we have another situation where 'on grid first' wins. This seems like a very contradictory statement to me. You admit that jumping 1000 domnixes (which did absolutely nothing in terms of doing damage in the fight) was a stupid decision that caused a large amount of lag that severely hampered your dreadnought fleet. If those 700 dreads were actually functioning, even at reduced level, it would have been absolutely terrifying. This effect is compounded by how it was so laggy that the drone assist on slowcats was not working at all, and that the modlue lag was long enough that it would be very difficult if not impossible for the carriers/supers to get any reps down before the targets died to overwhelming alpha. Even if you lose the majority of the dread fleet, there were a heck of a lot of soft targets (ragnorak/hels/wyverns) to kill off first to at least get the isk efficiency number in the green. I agree. The fleet we had assembled was going to murder. The only thing that could have went bad to end that fight was CCP. We are very fortunate we saw the impacts happening before we jumped the supers and titans in. If the FC's hadn't gotten concerned carriers were not loading this could have been the most expensive turkeyshoot in gaming history. However, for us to get the fight we all want, CCP is going to have to make some serious changes to how EVE handles big fights. Subcaps or not, this is not going to happen within current mechanics. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
knobber Jobbler Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 318	Posted - 2014.01.24 19:25:00 - [77] - Quote "future popularity of drone-centric fleet doctrines" Future? I'm struggling to find a doctrine for large scale fights that isn't drone based.
Cap'n Schmitty Critical Mass Inc. Nexus Fleet 1	Posted - 2014.01.24 19:35:00 - [78] - Quote CCP Veritas wrote: Actual work has happened since Brain in a Box was announced. I don't want to go into amazing details 'cause it could be a devblog of its own, or maybe a Fanfest presentation or something +1 for BiaB Fanfest presentation. Make it happen.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 634	Posted - 2014.01.24 19:35:00 - [79] - Quote besides caps being able to field 3x's the amount drones that of any other ship which seems strange in itself ( maybe nerf down to 10 and remove drones from caps altogether fighters only since their capital weapons and all) ... perhaps another way of reducing the amount of caps on field is too make fighters require actual pilots too fly fighters/bombers... *EVE Valkyrie* comes too mind here.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Leigh Akiga My Highsec Backbone 516	Posted - 2014.01.24 19:37:00 - [80] - Quote knobber Jobbler wrote: I'm struggling to find a doctrine for large scale fights that isn't drone based. We used to shoot each other with guns and missiles and fly our ships in space, anchor up and approach and orbit! Now we are wadded up in a ball and our highslots dont even have any weapons- they have drone mods
DeDes Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance 40	Posted - 2014.01.24 19:37:00 - [81] - Quote So your saying that all those times the GM said there was nothing in the log files to say there was a problem and that the server was fine was a lie? There really was a log file that could be looked at to see problems?
Marlona Sky D00M. Northern Coalition. 4800	Posted - 2014.01.24 19:38:00 - [82] - Quote Only having one objective to kill/protect in these sov related battles is terrible. But you can't just add more objectives in the same system because that is still the same load on on system. So the solution is to make the gates leading to the system being contested equally important. Now instead of one system trying to support thousands upon thousands of players, the weight is spread across a few systems. Each system on its own reinforced node. Still one giant battle, but far more playable and hamster friendly. .
Destoya Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 232	Posted - 2014.01.24 19:40:00 - [83] - Quote Harvey James wrote: besides caps being able to field 3x's the amount drones that of any other ship which seems strange in itself ( maybe nerf down to 10 and remove drones from caps altogether fighters only since their capital weapons and all) ... perhaps another way of reducing the amount of caps on field is too make fighters require actual pilots too fly fighters/bombers... *EVE Valkyrie* comes too mind here.. To be clear, the majority of drones quoted in the post were sentry drones, not fighters or fighter bombers. Also, carriers can only field 10 drones, and for most people only 9 since they havent put in the time for carrier 5.
Frostys Virpio Caldari Provisions Caldari State 979	Posted - 2014.01.24 19:41:00 - [84] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: Only having one objective to kill/protect in these sov related battles is terrible. But you can't just add more objectives in the same system because that is still the same load on on system. So the solution is to make the gates leading to the system being contested equally important. Now instead of one system trying to support thousands upon thousands of players, the weight is spread across a few systems. Each system on its own reinforced node. Still one giant battle, but far more playable and hamster friendly. Won't people send all they have to system 1 and if they win go to system 2 then 3 then whatever because they are facing smaller fleet distributed over numerous systems which can be moved to all the time thanks to power projection?
Marlona Sky D00M. Northern Coalition. 4800	Posted - 2014.01.24 19:42:00 - [85] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Marlona Sky wrote: Only having one objective to kill/protect in these sov related battles is terrible. But you can't just add more objectives in the same system because that is still the same load on on system. So the solution is to make the gates leading to the system being contested equally important. Now instead of one system trying to support thousands upon thousands of players, the weight is spread across a few systems. Each system on its own reinforced node. Still one giant battle, but far more playable and hamster friendly. Won't people send all they have to system 1 and if they win go to system 2 then 3 then whatever because they are facing smaller fleet distributed over numerous systems which can be moved to all the time thanks to power projection? Not if winning means you need to win all the objectives at the same time. .
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 2588	Posted - 2014.01.24 19:45:00 - [86] - Quote Destoya wrote: Harvey James wrote: besides caps being able to field 3x's the amount drones that of any other ship which seems strange in itself ( maybe nerf down to 10 and remove drones from caps altogether fighters only since their capital weapons and all) ... perhaps another way of reducing the amount of caps on field is too make fighters require actual pilots too fly fighters/bombers... *EVE Valkyrie* comes too mind here.. To be clear, the majority of drones quoted in the post were sentry drones, not fighters or fighter bombers. Also, carriers can only field 10 drones, and for most people only 9 since they havent put in the time for carrier 5. Should I refer to Advanced Drone Interfacing? Or is that still capped to 10, even with Drone Control Units? Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 2588	Posted - 2014.01.24 19:46:00 - [87] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Marlona Sky wrote: Only having one objective to kill/protect in these sov related battles is terrible. But you can't just add more objectives in the same system because that is still the same load on on system. So the solution is to make the gates leading to the system being contested equally important. Now instead of one system trying to support thousands upon thousands of players, the weight is spread across a few systems. Each system on its own reinforced node. Still one giant battle, but far more playable and hamster friendly. Won't people send all they have to system 1 and if they win go to system 2 then 3 then whatever because they are facing smaller fleet distributed over numerous systems which can be moved to all the time thanks to power projection? Not if winning means you need to win all the objectives at the same time. The main problem there is that a smaller group /cannot/ capture any system. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Frostys Virpio Caldari Provisions Caldari State 979	Posted - 2014.01.24 19:47:00 - [88] - Quote Marlona Sky wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Marlona Sky wrote: Only having one objective to kill/protect in these sov related battles is terrible. But you can't just add more objectives in the same system because that is still the same load on on system. So the solution is to make the gates leading to the system being contested equally important. Now instead of one system trying to support thousands upon thousands of players, the weight is spread across a few systems. Each system on its own reinforced node. Still one giant battle, but far more playable and hamster friendly. Won't people send all they have to system 1 and if they win go to system 2 then 3 then whatever because they are facing smaller fleet distributed over numerous systems which can be moved to all the time thanks to power projection? Not if winning means you need to win all the objectives at the same time. All or a majority? If all, the defending side will pile up in one system to insure they prevent a full win for the other side...
Leigh Akiga My Highsec Backbone 516	Posted - 2014.01.24 19:47:00 - [89] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Destoya wrote: Harvey James wrote: besides caps being able to field 3x's the amount drones that of any other ship which seems strange in itself ( maybe nerf down to 10 and remove drones from caps altogether fighters only since their capital weapons and all) ... perhaps another way of reducing the amount of caps on field is too make fighters require actual pilots too fly fighters/bombers... *EVE Valkyrie* comes too mind here.. To be clear, the majority of drones quoted in the post were sentry drones, not fighters or fighter bombers. Also, carriers can only field 10 drones, and for most people only 9 since they havent put in the time for carrier 5. Should I refer to Advanced Drone Interfacing? Or is that still capped to 10, even with Drone Control Units? Hes talking about the PL slowcat which carries hundreds of sentry drones in its drone bay making it unlimited ammo/drones offensive platform + logistics in one.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 634	Posted - 2014.01.24 19:48:00 - [90] - Quote Destoya wrote: Harvey James wrote: besides caps being able to field 3x's the amount drones that of any other ship which seems strange in itself ( maybe nerf down to 10 and remove drones from caps altogether fighters only since their capital weapons and all) ... perhaps another way of reducing the amount of caps on field is too make fighters require actual pilots too fly fighters/bombers... *EVE Valkyrie* comes too mind here.. To be clear, the majority of drones quoted in the post were sentry drones, not fighters or fighter bombers. Also, carriers can only field 10 drones, and for most people only 9 since they havent put in the time for carrier 5. well there is also the drone mod... supercarriers can use 15 fighters Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.