EVE Search - The crux of Eve - to POSspam or not to spam

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The crux of Eve - to POSspam or not to spam

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 .. 11 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 6 post(s)
DeadDuck Amarr DAB RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2006.08.10 11:28:00 - [271] Originally by: Uther Doull Originally by: Redundancy stuff... \o/ yay for dev responses! Indeed We are in the midle of a POS bashing operation ... we are making that for a week now, and we still have a dam large number of pos to knock ... this must have been the most boring days of playing EVE, sat on a gate 5/6 hours/day doing nothing just waiting for a eventual hostile attack while the Dread Fleets knock the POS into reinforced mode. After that, return 20m or 2 days after (nobody knows) to finish it ... While you're there you have plenty of time to ask your self, "what the hell I'm doing here ?" "This is a game and this is supposed to be funny, am I having fun playing this ???"
Veest Caldari Crisis Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.10 12:15:00 - [272] Edited by: Veest on 10/08/2006 12:17:03 Edited by: Veest on 10/08/2006 12:15:30 One tactic that we do witness though, is the juggling of fuel by a defending alliance, to allow them to try and manipulate the time that a POS will come out of re-inforced mode. Simple solution that CCP could implement here is to make that impossible once a POS is undeer attack and it's shields have dropped below say 90%. This would allow the offensive alliance time to halt their assault on a specific POS, move to another and so on, until they feel that the Strontium stored in a POS is not going to run out just before downtime for instance, when the defenders know that the offensive alliance will be unable to finish off the job in hand. Guaranteed, this doesn't eliminate the lagf issues we are all experiencing, bur I see it as a tactic that would allow attackers a slightly better chance of trying to shift sovereignty a little bit easier. Originally by: Redundancy I think it's important to note that reinforced mode is designed to be sucky for the attacker - it's there so that neither the attacker nor the defender has complete control over the time that the POS will come out of reinforced mode (attacker controls when it goes in, defender controls how long it stays in). The original balancing of the fuels has changed a few times since they were released to make the resupply a little easier and the reinforced mode a bit longer. I think it's arguable that where the orginal intention was that resupply was going to be a bit of a *** (and we didn't know how many people would really bother), we're now in a quite different situation./ Quote:**
Vortex Freeman Celestial Fleet Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.10 12:23:00 - [273] Just make the POS reinforced mode fuel-independant, make it a fixed time or randomly chance based within a time frame. Large pos say 36-48 hrs, medium POS 18-24 hrs and small POS 9-12 hrs. ~ Preparatus Supervivet ~
Hellraiza666 Regeneration Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.08.10 12:36:00 - [274] yay a dev response. However i think this POS stuff needs sorting asap, its just as important, if not more important than new content.
Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.10 12:45:00 - [275] Yes, owning a majority of planets in a system to own SOV is the ultimate, but there is no way that can happen just yet. There is no reason the DEV's can't implement SOV up to that point in steps. The first Step was POS' claiming SOV, I think we have reached a point where this needs to change. I say we should be required to build 3 military outposts to claim SOV, and this will override any number of POS' claiming SOV. Then we can move on to planetary flight, owning planets to claim SOV, etc... If the DEV's were to release these military outposts that can be built at planets today, it would change the POS wars immediately... It's doubtful that any alliance could spam 10's or hundreds of these things if they cost 1/3 the price of an outpost... When the time comes where alliances can, you'd hope planetary ownership would be in the game, and we'd have the ultimate SOV solution... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.10 14:14:00 - [276] Originally by: Nafri I still prefer the combination of my idea and the other idea Give Stations reinforced mode, make POS modules which increase station HP, and take away the need to kill the POSes first. POSes should not be the only target in a war, as it is now. Sorry but most of you going "best idea ever" haven't really thought this through and/or have expereince in planning and operating with Capital Fleets. This will not alievate the situation at all, in fact it will make it worse. You will simply bring in more Dreads - say 40-50 and therefore more forces to protect that investment. Futhermore, the worst part about this is you will go back to the bad old days of Station ping pong. Rather than being able to claim soverignty and therefore not being able to target a Station/Outpost, you will have entire systems camped for weeks on end with Dread, Carrier and BS fleets a.k.a. Blob wars. This in turn leads to boredome and will end up killing Eve because people will simply stop logging in. Now I agree that the lag is bad but with careful planning it's not intollerable. There's a lot of mass hysteria floating around. CCP have said that the new Dragon Code that's coming in a week or two will enable better load balancing. Couple this with sensible planning a.k.a NOT blobbing and you'll alievate a lot of problems. Finally, CCP need to wake up. BM copying/spaming to artificially increase lag is bad mkay? Make it a bannable offence once and for all. When I attack a POS I don't want to wait 10 minutes for the grid to load up because my opponent is ejecting shuttles with hundreds of BMs in their cargo hold. You need to make anyone artificially increasing lag subject to a warning and then possible sanctions/banning from Eve. Make a Difference
iqplayer Caldari Dragon's Rage Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.10 15:04:00 - [277] Originally by: Nafri question is, reinforced is not killed, were LV able to kill the large control tower? I guess not, cause the control tower will come out when the enemy has to work. Which is a problem that the dev's have already stated they aren't comfortable with, so no doubt the mechanics will change in the near future. And the fact is, the assault was halted right after the POS was put into reinforced, so perhaps we'll never really know whether it could have been taken down? BTW, I was there, in person, in a BS, shooting at the RA fleet while they attacked LV's dreads, so I have pretty good insight into what happened there. The fact is, Dread's should be killable. A Dread assault on a POS in which the defender defends with a fleet, should result in Dread losses. Some people apparently think that Dread's should never be lost in a POS takedown, and that's the mindset I'm trying to reason against here. Take any other ship into a fleet battle, and if it is targeted it has a very good chance of dying. Why should Dread's be any different? And to the guy that responds to this with cries of lag - yes, the lag in those battles is serious. But it's not the whole mechanic that's necessarily flawed - if the lag hadn't been there on the Sunday assault in C-J, it would have been a textbook POS battle, imho. Frankly though, for all those arguing that 'lag' killed the Dread's - I wonder..... Only a few Dread's were lost to a large RA BS fleet - how many of them weren't able to target and fire in a timely manner? How many Coalition Dread's might have died had there not been any lag? We'll never know, but it's something to think about......
Shayleigh Snowflower DarkStar 1 Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.10 15:20:00 - [278] My carrier loss was fair and square. They locked me down and swarmed me. I have no problem with that. Another carrier, was sitting with a desynced client, showing everyone at long long range, unable to activate mods because he can't do that while warping etc etc. That is an action that happens due to lag, and that is damn anoying. Looseing a dread because there comes in 30 BS and wtfpwn you after they drain your cap etc, are fair and square. Looseing a dread because it is stuck in siege mode, and won't come out of it (or into it) due to lag, are not OK. But thats just my opinion. (ohh, btw, make carriers loose control of fighters if carriers goes inside POS shields, and normal ships loose control of drones if inside a POS shield, might not be to dumb an idea either.)
RUNYOUFOOLS Caldari Konkord is'the'best Corp	Posted - 2006.08.10 16:13:00 - [279] Joram you sexy beast, everything you have written is right and you should be given a free Moros for your services to the eve community Ps: use the luny move! Well do you love eggs?
Nafri Caldari Cataclysm Enterprises	Posted - 2006.08.10 17:06:00 - [280] Originally by: John McCreedy Originally by: Nafri I still prefer the combination of my idea and the other idea Give Stations reinforced mode, make POS modules which increase station HP, and take away the need to kill the POSes first. POSes should not be the only target in a war, as it is now. Sorry but most of you going "best idea ever" haven't really thought this through and/or have expereince in planning and operating with Capital Fleets. This will not alievate the situation at all, in fact it will make it worse. You will simply bring in more Dreads - say 40-50 and therefore more forces to protect that investment. Futhermore, the worst part about this is you will go back to the bad old days of Station ping pong. Rather than being able to claim soverignty and therefore not being able to target a Station/Outpost, you will have entire systems camped for weeks on end with Dread, Carrier and BS fleets a.k.a. Blob wars. This in turn leads to boredome and will end up killing Eve because people will simply stop logging in. Now I agree that the lag is bad but with careful planning it's not intollerable. There's a lot of mass hysteria floating around. CCP have said that the new Dragon Code that's coming in a week or two will enable better load balancing. Couple this with sensible planning a.k.a NOT blobbing and you'll alievate a lot of problems. Finally, CCP need to wake up. BM copying/spaming to artificially increase lag is bad mkay? Make it a bannable offence once and for all. When I attack a POS I don't want to wait 10 minutes for the grid to load up because my opponent is ejecting shuttles with hundreds of BMs in their cargo hold. You need to make anyone artificially increasing lag subject to a warning and then possible sanctions/banning from Eve. There wont be any pingpong when the station has a reinforced mode, it will come out of it like a POS, just the difference is that you will have a real battle for the station, and not another POS attack From Dusk till Dawn Sig removed, e-mail us if you'd like to know why. -ReverendM ([email protected])
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.10 18:07:00 - [281] Originally by: Nafri There wont be any pingpong when the station has a reinforced mode, it will come out of it like a POS, just the difference is that you will have a real battle for the station, and not another POS attack Of course it will, unless I'm totally not understanding what you mean? So what if it goes into reinforced mode? It comes out, it's lost. Defender goes in, puts it into reinforced mode, it comes out, it's retaken. Rinse and repeat. Like I've said, I've been involved in both the planning and the taking of POS and Outposts (as a Military Commander, FC of Support Fleet and a Dread/Carrier Pilot) and the lag, with well thoughtout tatics isn't as bad as it can be. The biggest problem we've had has come from stretching the limits of what's not exploitable (and I'm not making judgement on this, simply stating fact). If CCP make it clear that artificially generating lag is not tollerated, then you'll be in a position to assualt a POS without fear of loosing your entire Capital ship fleet. As for the idea of limiting what ships can enter a POS shield, that won't help because you'll just have 150 shuttles outside the shield ranther than in. What would be better is to have all unpiloted ships inside (or outside) the POS shield start to "decay" and self destruct. Cure the damn problem of people leaving shuttles outside the station due to lazyness as well and this will have a positive effect on reducing the lag. Soverignty isn't the problem, it's the way Soverignty is abused that is. Solve that abuse and Soverignty will act as it was originally intended. Make a Difference
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.10 18:10:00 - [282] Edited by: John McCreedy on 10/08/2006 18:15:30 Double post due to laggy forums. Obviously someone's attacking POS on here Make a Difference
Plutoinum German Cyberdome Corp Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.08.10 18:34:00 - [283] Edited by: Plutoinum on 10/08/2006 18:36:53 Originally by: John McCreedy When I attack a POS I don't want to wait 10 minutes for the grid to load up because my opponent is ejecting shuttles with hundreds of BMs in their cargo hold. I'd like to see a dev clarification one day, if this can even create lag, as long as noone accesses the container, hangar, cargo hold with bms in it. I mean, the BMs are just database entries that don't need to be accessed as long as noone opens the container to get a list of its content. If I warp into a grid with a can full of BMs, the server has to tell my client that there is a can at position x,y,z with the infos name, corp and ally. The content doesn't matter, as long as I don't open it. So how is it creating lag just by floating in space ? Is it a myth or is the content of the container cached somewhere that it creates lag ? P.S.: Sorry for being a bit off topic, but I wonder about the bm jetcan story since I've heard of it for the first time several months ago and still can't believe that a lonely floating unaccessed (!) jetcan can create more lag than any other jetcan floating in space, just because it has a specific content. edit: spelling
Lygos ISS Navy Task Force	Posted - 2006.08.10 22:31:00 - [284] There is no easy solution to blobbing. POS-mediate warfare is fine. It is a new step towards plutocracy. They put limits to mobility and they create a reason for groups not to log off. Maybe you forgot about the mass fleet logoffs and how boring it was for only 1% of the population to bother with fighting. Now we are approaching the age of the mass man in pvp and glimmers of republics are emerging. The main problem I see with POS or deployable structures is that they 1)were developed after blobbing and 2)that their logistical management can be done in bursts which translates to some form of extended mining labor down the road. In the case of #1: Empires, and by extension POS, need Distributed Risk. Empires need to have their garrisons flung to the far corners of their empire so you have smaller groups coming at them. The other problem are the corps and alliance that have no territory that can blob up and swamp these scattered garrisons. We need to restrict their mobility. Being able to cross the galaxy is unrealistic. 0.6AU/s is the most anyone really needs, you get great scans in at this speed too. EVE still needs it's merc corps and pirate corps, but they need to be superbly provisioned for excursions through outer rim colonies. Joy riding is a bigger problem than pos strength or weakness to balance groups in terms of logistics. Really really big groups should move slowest of all (istead of fastest) due to having to wait for industrials with fuel to catch up to the fleet. Combatants need to win battles, and more importantly territory and resources, before the battles themselves. Really aggressive groups need to have exposure rather than the ability to log off or dock their dreads at npc stations. Blobbing up needs to become a huge invitation for smaller squads to move in a wreak havoc on a empire with hugely distributed risk. There needs to be constant incentive for empires to waver between medium sized fleets, and really spread out forces. The more they spread out, the faster resources should be replenished and grow. Pilots and ships need constant overhead to worry about to add incentive to make financially intelligent decisions as often as tactically intelligent decisions. Logging off or safespotting should be the most expensive decisions anyone makes if they intend to play the game at the same level as other serious minded players. So long as you want Easy Street, installations will be absurd. Absurdity contributes to the willingness of ordinary human beings to endure tedium, which is evidenced by all the carebears out there. Lazy pvpers are responsible for mechanics which create boring aspects of carebeardom. #2 Installations, let's say POS, need to be reliant on other POS. Deathstars need to be a the centre of player empires. Their borders are where the exploitable resources and all the risk should be centered. It should be defacto impossible to take down central assets without first eliminating periphery assets. Periphery assets, which can be modified by soveriegnty, should always be weaker. The game can be hardcoded to where the resources that sovereign installations require can only be obtained in non-sovereign systems. Thus we have a natural state of replacable, yet indispensable "feeder pos" that demands active player-based defense. Most POS or installation components should only be constructable at POS factories, but we need the bpos.
Mr Bondy Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.10 23:39:00 - [285] I dont have time for a in-depth reply so... POS = boring Fix POS > new content
Hermia HIVE	Posted - 2006.08.11 02:08:00 - [286] Originally by: Lygos In the case of #1: Empires, and by extension POS, need Distributed Risk so agree! I believe the more fundamental problem lies with the one-dimensional strategy eve is struggling with (the blob), starbases just accentuate the dilemma rather than cause the central issue. More than being lag generators blobs disable quite a bit of varibility in the way fights are handled since focus fire mutes alot of interesting content, which we want to employ but cant because of its consideration. Unfortunately the blob will always be with us but Anything to lessen the strategic reliance on blobing should be where things need to go. Increasing the perks of soverenty and changing how its gained is a real opportunity to break this headlock and encourage squad level battlegroups. Using new "soverenty claiming structures" as some have suggested will not (on there own) bring us into a drastically new situation, it should be combined with something thats not destructable but impressionable instead. Example would be influencing npc-planetry-colonies, or NPC's for short . A game design where small mobile teams can bring down or switch soverenty faster than a single blob is what this could lead to, im sure everyone would agree that small-medium groupings are a lot more fun. We're probably not going to see anything on these lines soon , i agree with most people here that in respect to POS's perhaps something a little less developed needs to happen now and not in 6 months, however the planetry factor is probably the holy grail. The devs did blog about planets becoming more important a while back, i only hope that soverenty is part of the planet deal.
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.11 12:54:00 - [287] Blob warfare has tatical advantages in certain situations. We where promised that Eve's new hardware would be more than capable of acomodating large scale fleet battles. Funny how Eve's laggier than ever since its implementation. Small, mobile gangs can currently change Soverignty which in itself is an entirely different discussion. The issue here is not Blob warfare. I've been in battles of 200 vs. 200 at a gate where the lag was no where near as severe as 40 vs. 40 at a POS. It's POS as an item that's the issue. POS cause lag. To blame the lag on blobbing is a falacy. Make a Difference
Vortex Freeman Celestial Fleet Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.11 12:58:00 - [288] Edited by: Vortex Freeman on 11/08/2006 13:00:47 Originally by: Hermia Increasing the perks of soverenty and changing how its gained is a real opportunity to break this headlock and encourage squad level battlegroups. Using new "soverenty claiming structures" as some have suggested will not (on there own) bring us into a drastically new situation, it should be combined with something thats not destructable but impressionable instead. Example would be influencing npc-planetry-colonies, or NPC's for short . A game design where small mobile teams can bring down or switch soverenty faster than a single blob is what this could lead to, im sure everyone would agree that small-medium groupings are a lot more fun. How about having NPC colonies tied to the faction owning the space. Naturally not every planet would be colonized but so much more to do for explorers, find a populated NPC colony and what they are in need of and you have a good trading opportunity. Trading with them would raise your standing to that faction. In addition to trade you could have the option to take over the colony by force, which would of course lower your standing with the faction but give you control if you succeed. Ownership of the colony would give you options to improve it, at a cost of resources and manpower. Improvements such as defenses, factories, crop farms etc would be possible given the right conditions. Colonies might even come in different types, we've already seen mining colonies on asteroids ingame, but they're only eye-candy so far. Controlling the majority of planetary colonies in a system would give you sovereignty. Asteroid colonies could give you additional income and then there could be purely military based semi-outposts to be used as staging points. Automatic trade routes could be set between colonies to exchange goods and balance the supply/need of resources for maintaining them and making them grow. These trade routes could be represented by NPC ships which pirates, or enemies, then could destroy as pure sabotage or to plunder the convoys. Hmm, playerbase think-tank at work... I hope CCP are picking up on some of these ideas we're spitting out. ~ Preparatus Supervivet ~
Trishtan DeMore	Posted - 2006.08.12 11:02:00 - [289] excellent thread so far! :D
Rynthran Thrandyr Asgard Schiffswerften Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.08.12 23:15:00 - [290] Edited by: Rynthran Thrandyr on 12/08/2006 23:18:29 I really like the idea of colonies/population. Why not go a totally different way for gaining sov in a system. Every system has a population. Having sov in a system means having the support of the majority of the population. Gaining and loosing this support could be done by various different actions/events, like: gaining popularity/support: - killing Ships and Assets(POS) of another Alliance in the system (and maybe neighboring systems) - killing NPC Pirates - mining, producing things / building up an industry - anchoring and maintaining POS - showing presence in large numbers over longer timeperiods (also showing military presence at the gates or station while the other Alliance is sitting at their POS) - colonizing planets in the system with billions of brainwashed fanboys of your alliance loosing support - loosing Ships and Assets to NPCs or Players of other Alliances - showing no presence All this would mean, that there would be many ways of gaining and maintaining sov in a System and would also generally help to encourage non blob warfare with smaller roaming gangs for example to keep the upperhand in a number of neighboring systems. Also it would make it difficult for an alliance to claim huge amounts of space without actually being there. And it would mean that continuously loosing large fleetbattles or not showing up to fight over a longer period of time would loose you sov eventually.
Selfe Caldari UK Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.12 23:37:00 - [291] Tripple POS Prices? ----------------------- Join The UK Corperation. Foundin Partners in Lokta Volterra
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.13 00:44:00 - [292] Originally by: Rynthran Thrandyr Edited by: Rynthran Thrandyr on 12/08/2006 23:18:29 I really like the idea of colonies/population. Why not go a totally different way for gaining sov in a system. Every system has a population. Having sov in a system means having the support of the majority of the population. Gaining and loosing this support could be done by various different actions/events, like: gaining popularity/support: - killing Ships and Assets(POS) of another Alliance in the system (and maybe neighboring systems) - killing NPC Pirates - mining, producing things / building up an industry - anchoring and maintaining POS - showing presence in large numbers over longer timeperiods (also showing military presence at the gates or station while the other Alliance is sitting at their POS) - colonizing planets in the system with billions of brainwashed fanboys of your alliance loosing support - loosing Ships and Assets to NPCs or Players of other Alliances - showing no presence All this would mean, that there would be many ways of gaining and maintaining sov in a System and would also generally help to encourage non blob warfare with smaller roaming gangs for example to keep the upperhand in a number of neighboring systems. Also it would make it difficult for an alliance to claim huge amounts of space without actually being there. And it would mean that continuously loosing large fleetbattles or not showing up to fight over a longer period of time would loose you sov eventually. This is a really great idea and makes 0.0 more interesting but not for claiming Soverignty. Prehaps something for Advanced Soverignty, assuming CCP haven't scrapped it all together. But at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, killing POS is still ridiculously difficult due to the tatics employed in so-called "Lag Stars" where you have 100 shuttles/frigs behind the POS sheild to maximise lag. Until such time as it's declared an exploit or game mechanics are changed so you cannot do that, no amount of changes to soverignty will work so long as POS are involved. Remove POS from the Soverignty equation and you negate any point in Dreadnaughts. People will simply take over a system and starve a POS offline because it's easier. People are getting off track with ways to "fix" Soverignty when Soveriegnty works fine. It's POS that are the problem and the associated lag that comes with them due to the aforementioned tatics employed by certain Alliances. Address the underlying cause of the problems involved in POS assualts, i.e. lag, and you fix Soverignty issues over night. Make a Difference
Hermia HIVE	Posted - 2006.08.13 02:13:00 - [293] Originally by: Rynthran Thrandyr gaining popularity/support: - killing Ships and Assets(POS) of another Alliance in the system (and maybe neighboring systems) - killing NPC Pirates - mining, producing things / building up an industry - anchoring and maintaining POS - showing presence in large numbers over longer timeperiods (also showing military presence at the gates or station while the other Alliance is sitting at their POS) - colonizing planets in the system with billions of brainwashed fanboys of your alliance loosing support - loosing Ships and Assets to NPCs or Players of other Alliances - showing no presence All this would mean, that there would be many ways of gaining and maintaining sov in a System and would also generally help to encourage non blob warfare with smaller roaming gangs for example to keep the upperhand in a number of neighboring systems. Also it would make it difficult for an alliance to claim huge amounts of space without actually being there. And it would mean that continuously loosing large fleetbattles or not showing up to fight over a longer period of time would loose you sov eventually. Yep, once you tread down this road it doesnt take much imagination to see what a standings based sovereignty template brings, thats exactly what im talking about Rynthran, thx . Your list of events that cause NPC colonies to gain/loose allignment points to different factions (player alliances) is the crutial bit really. If implemented correctly this could really break up fleets, exactly how eve players allign planetry populations is not important to me, just the concept and its related repercussions. Originally by: John People are getting off track with ways to "fix" Soverignty when Soveriegnty works fine. It's POS that are the problem and the associated lag that comes with them due to the aforementioned tatics employed by certain Alliances. Address the underlying cause of the problems involved in POS assualts, i.e. lag, and you fix Soverignty issues over night. quick note: the following is more to the community, than one person. Seems our desire is the same john, albeit from a different perspective. Dont get me wrong, i do recognise the POS issue however defeating the problem at ground level can transcend passed the revision of one gamming aspect to confront the bigger picture. POS's are indeed very time consuming to take down, but with just a little clever game design the power of constelation soverignty becomes interesting: What if POS's as they stand now with huge shielding and invulnerable modes were affected by NPC population standings of the relavent constelation it resides. Suddently the emphasis is placed on attacking this infrastructure to severely weeken POS function and/or defence. I let everyone else consider what this meens for themselves. J McCreedy, you said earlier that this belongs in a different thread, yeah i agree, this line of discussion is hanging on for dear life to the OP's topic . Sorry about that. Maybe ill compile all the points people are making (in regards to population allignment) and post it later in a full frontal rant. We havent even scratched the surface.
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.13 13:40:00 - [294] Hermia, I keep saying this. When lag is not artificially increased, POS assualts are a viable option. Yes things are laggy but laggy within acceptable tollerance levels. The problems arise when you have 100 shuttles behind the POS shield and your client is trying to render all of that on the screen. It can take 10-15 minutes for the grid to load then you have module lag on top of that. System Soverignty works perfectly fine as it is. It's the lack of will to do something about these tatics that's the problem. Make a Difference
The Ratfink Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.13 13:59:00 - [295] Isn't it also great that drones were reduced for all ships as a design issue but now we have fighters that sit in their pos safely who assign them to frigates who join fights at pos and makes lag even more unbearable. Removing the risk factor completely for them at the expense of them loosing a single frigate.
Hermia HIVE	Posted - 2006.08.13 15:50:00 - [296] yeah fair enough, i can meet you on that point john. the lag generating method used by some groups i recognise and yeah it should be sorted out. To me it sounds worthy of exploit and hence eligible for petition (unless it is already ofcourse). If thats not desirable, im not sure how you could write mechanics against such an activity without making things too restrictive. But you can design against anything so its probably doable. The last time i was in major alliance warfare was about 1.2 years ago, i hated fighting in blobs, i hated the focus-fire lottery and lack of varibility in fights. Lag is not my only motivation for putting up a response.
Nepereta DarkStar 1 Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.14 13:21:00 - [297] My 2 pennies on this. I work on search engine with various search partners (services) our stratregy has always been render as much as many services with in a certain time frame. If a search doesn't return in time it simply isn't rendered. perhaps a client timeout should be rigged so the return packet of information only consists of objects ( starting from the most significant) that can be rendered within a certain timeframe. eg a grid has 5 carriers,40 bs, 60 frigates and 100 shuttles. The renderer only has say 500ms time to render as much as it can and it renders: 5 carriers, 40 bs and 55 frigates. 5 frigates and 100 shuttles aren't rendered due to the client timeing out. These are chosen not to render by virtue of being of greater insignificance than the carriers, bs and other frigates. By only rendering the most significant objects prior to timing out you can avoid lag of the 'redundant' junk in the system. Which is the main issue of deliberate lag generation. You end up in situation where lag is guaranteed not to ruin your experience however you end up where certain objects are simply not rendered. Which in turn can be a problem. This can end up with bad problems too however, for example a large bs fleet could be mobbed by invisible frigates for example. I would suggest having some sort of dynamic personal significance based on the actions of other ships on the server eg: 1) ship is firing/using module upon you 2) ship is hostile/friendly 3) ships proximity to you. 4) is object inert/occupied. Of course I fear this means a plethora of additional calculations the server has to make and may be totally unfeasible Another hot fix is to only allow bookmarks in station hangars. If its impossible to transport them into space then the problems of using them as a lag generator go away. In two swipes you get rid of the pos loaded with shuttles each carrying 1000 bookmarks syndrome that certain forces may or may not use. Originally by: CC 3 Cybok and lacky's REVENGE WILL BE SWEAT ILL BE BACK
Havelcek Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.14 15:04:00 - [298] CCP just doesn't get it. They are going to spend all kinds of developer cycles thinking and strategizing on this topic when all they need to do to alleviate a significant portion of the problem is start enforcing their own exploit rules about lag generation. Perhaps the devs need to attend some of these POS battles on Tranquility to see first-hand.
Emeline Cabernet Amarr KVA Noble Inc.	Posted - 2006.08.14 15:42:00 - [299] how many ra people have replied in here btw?
Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.14 15:45:00 - [300] Edited by: Bhaal on 14/08/2006 15:46:38 Originally by: Emeline Cabernet how many ra people have replied in here btw? They don't want it changed... They didn't want it changed last time when the "SOV points" were redistributed for certain size towers and the longer SOV claiming wait time was added... It's a good thing we all whined last time, we got results. Now we just need to keep up the whine until CCP actually fixes the damn problem instead of putting more Band-Aids all over the gaping sore that is starting to smell like cheese... (Or is that Almonds?) ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 .. 11 :: 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.