Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Darth Gustav
Warp Devils United Pod Service
|
Posted - 2011.01.26 21:26:00 -
[241]
Edited by: Darth Gustav on 26/01/2011 21:27:03
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 26/01/2011 21:16:47
Originally by: Darth Gustav Read my edit, plz. I elaborated. It has nothing to do, really, with CCP's spaghetti. It's the fact that it takes time.
[edit again: it's not just client response. It's also server response to client requests. This is the hangup we're having I guess. Anything I tell the server as an aggressor already has a built-in delay. Extending that delay is foolhardy.]
Yes, it's pretty much the dividing factor between us right now.
I don't see how it would take much time: right now, when the shooter goes after an illegal target, he already gets a popup; when he chooses GCC, the server goes through and hands out GCCs to everyone involved in the support chain.
I don't see how front-loading this would cause any critical delays: when the shooter goeas after an illegal target (server already handles this), go through the support chain (the server already handles this ù it's instant enough) and give each of them popups (this is still the only delay) ù until the answer comes back, nothing is activated, and only when it comes back are the GCCs actually handed out depending on their answers (the server already handles this as well).
It might look instant, but it so isn't. What really happens is this. I activate a module. It activates. The server assigns damage, then checks for GCC. I've turned off my warning so it just happens. Meanwhile, you were repping me. How do you get a chance to stop what you already did? In other words, I believe that the GCC check doesn't happen at the same time the pop up does. Sorry. I think you're mistaking a confirmation dialogue for a "mechanic".
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.01.26 21:31:00 -
[242]
Originally by: Darth Gustav It might look instant, but it so isn't. What really happens is this. I activate a module. It activates. The server assigns damage, then checks for GCC.
See, I don't think this is what happens. If it did, the current "you are about to commit a dangerous act" dialogue wouldn't have any effect (because, as you say, you'd choose to accept GCC after you've already been given it). There is obviously a check after you click the module but before it actually activates and does something nasty. It's this check, at that precise moment, that I believe could and should be distributed to the supporters as well. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Darth Gustav
Warp Devils United Pod Service
|
Posted - 2011.01.26 21:32:00 -
[243]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Darth Gustav It might look instant, but it so isn't. What really happens is this. I activate a module. It activates. The server assigns damage, then checks for GCC.
See, I don't think this is what happens. If it did, the current "you are about to commit a dangerous act" dialogue wouldn't have any effect (because, as you say, you'd choose to accept GCC after you've already been given it). There is obviously a check after you click the module but before it actually activates and does something nasty. It's this check, at that precise moment, that I believe could and should be distributed to the supporters as well.
I believe that dialogue is client-side and generates no server traffic whatsoever. If you think about it, you seem intelligent, you'll probably guess why. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.01.26 21:38:00 -
[244]
Originally by: Darth Gustav I believe that dialogue is client-side and generates no server traffic whatsoever. If you think about it, you seem intelligent, you'll probably guess why.
It might be to provide that reaction edge, yes. Even so, the GCC propagation mechanic could probably be rejiggered to also include a kill-modules/query-for-continue stage.
Even if the warning is client-side, the GCC hand-out is server-side and providing safety for the supporters can be just as instantaneous as that propagation. The cost for this will be that the shooter might be without support for a server tick or two while the responses are being collected, but is that really such a high price? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Darth Gustav
Warp Devils United Pod Service
|
Posted - 2011.01.26 21:54:00 -
[245]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Darth Gustav I believe that dialogue is client-side and generates no server traffic whatsoever. If you think about it, you seem intelligent, you'll probably guess why.
It might be to provide that reaction edge, yes. Even so, the GCC propagation mechanic could probably be rejiggered to also include a kill-modules/query-for-continue stage.
Even if the warning is client-side, the GCC hand-out is server-side and providing safety for the supporters can be just as instantaneous as that propagation. The cost for this will be that the shooter might be without support for a server tick or two while the responses are being collected, but is that really such a high price?
Well, the indicator I was thinking of is that the settings are reset from machine to machine and install to install, so you have to constantly reset them if you game in multiple locations on multiple pc's. But sure, reaction time. Think of it like a software condom for your e-p...er...ship. What you want is for the server clusters to start handing out Condom tokens to all the people who've already gone GCC. I think that's dumb.
A warning dialogue before your module engages, warning you that you could be in danger while repping? That's a great solution. It uses brainpower.
I like accountability.
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2011.01.26 22:31:00 -
[246]
Originally by: Darth Gustav
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Darth Gustav I believe that dialogue is client-side and generates no server traffic whatsoever. If you think about it, you seem intelligent, you'll probably guess why.
It might be to provide that reaction edge, yes. Even so, the GCC propagation mechanic could probably be rejiggered to also include a kill-modules/query-for-continue stage.
Even if the warning is client-side, the GCC hand-out is server-side and providing safety for the supporters can be just as instantaneous as that propagation. The cost for this will be that the shooter might be without support for a server tick or two while the responses are being collected, but is that really such a high price?
Well, the indicator I was thinking of is that the settings are reset from machine to machine and install to install, so you have to constantly reset them if you game in multiple locations on multiple pc's. But sure, reaction time. Think of it like a software condom for your e-p...er...ship. What you want is for the server clusters to start handing out Condom tokens to all the people who've already gone GCC. I think that's dumb.
A warning dialogue before your module engages, warning you that you could be in danger while repping? That's a great solution. It uses brainpower.
I like accountability.
That warning would be about as accurate and useful as one saying "Undocking could cause you to lose your ship. Do you want to continue?". I don't think that's really helpful.
About the "breaking causality": That wouldn't be the case. As already mentioned the server runs the simulation in ticks, which means time does not elapse continuously, but rather in "chunks". The server can let as many things happen at the same (simulation!) time as it can calculate in one tick. It's not like reality where processes happen on their own and you can observe and maybe influence them if/when you're fast enough. Everything that happens in the server happens because the server makes it happen.
Furthermore, the server can actually determine that someone is to receive a GCC and still execute some other operation before actually assigning the GCC to that ship. It does not have to assign the GCC to know that the GGC is/should be there.
So the server can actually intervene because it can correctly predict a part of the future - of course it cannot predict user decisions, but it can predict the outcome of its own rules - the same way your operating system can predict that emptying the recycle bin will result in you losing everything in it, even if you choose not to empty it after seeing that information.
|
Darth Gustav
Warp Devils United Pod Service
|
Posted - 2011.01.26 22:41:00 -
[247]
Originally by: Ban Doga That warning would be about as accurate and useful as one saying "Undocking could cause you to lose your ship. Do you want to continue?". I don't think that's really helpful.
About the "breaking causality": That wouldn't be the case. As already mentioned the server runs the simulation in ticks, which means time does not elapse continuously, but rather in "chunks". The server can let as many things happen at the same (simulation!) time as it can calculate in one tick. It's not like reality where processes happen on their own and you can observe and maybe influence them if/when you're fast enough. Everything that happens in the server happens because the server makes it happen.
Furthermore, the server can actually determine that someone is to receive a GCC and still execute some other operation before actually assigning the GCC to that ship. It does not have to assign the GCC to know that the GGC is/should be there.
So the server can actually intervene because it can correctly predict a part of the future - of course it cannot predict user decisions, but it can predict the outcome of its own rules - the same way your operating system can predict that emptying the recycle bin will result in you losing everything in it, even if you choose not to empty it after seeing that information.
I'm sure CCP will love to add all these proposed extra processes to servers that are already frequently strained, in spots. It'll be so much more healthy for the game if the server protects everybody by successfully predicting the future for people far less gifted than it.
Or there could just be a warning, just like the one for smartbombs in empire...
Much like the server, the human brain can actually predict part the future with a good degree of accuracy, given the right information - and in real time!!!!
|
PeHD0M
|
Posted - 2011.01.26 22:55:00 -
[248]
Total failure. Boring waste of time with 0 reward. Nothing interesting at all: overpowered npc, same plexes over and over again, stupid reward rules. Fail.
|
Brixer
Dai Dai Hai
|
Posted - 2011.01.26 23:20:00 -
[249]
GCC by assisting should maybe give some other response from concord, like perma jam ECM it for a few secs. No more 'we will use 100 logistics in hi-sec and tank concord' argument. Not that keeping any ship alive with RR against concord would work anyway. It might still wreck havoc on a fleet, but atleast 1 asshat couldn't concordokken your entire fleet, and give them a a fair chance of warping away.
If you fit a smartbomb fleet and warp ontop on anything and kill stuff, fine. But this mechanic with bribing Concord to do your kills is just flawed.
|
Aquana Abyss
|
Posted - 2011.01.27 01:16:00 -
[250]
I used to like CCP, but Incursions is yet another expansion that is poorly thought out and designed.
People are so upset over some core mechanics of Eve such as aggression, trust-worthy cooperation and its rewards etc that they seem to be overlooking the fundamental flaw in Incursions : That it is a repetitive time sink made to look like part of some huge interactive plan for a NPC takeover.
The sad truth is CCP did not learn the lesson of the wasted potential of Faction Warfare, in that after a relatively short time the users became fully aware there is no real point in "plexing" or winning occupancy because it does not really do anything. People now play factional warfare now for the ISK return of missions and the free wardec against a very large number of targets for pvp.
CCP have dropped another treadmill system for us to run on without making it even slightly dynamic or responsive to the players actions. I mean, the Incursions despawn and will continue to spawn regardless of whether players ignore them completely or kill every single NPC.
How does this fit in with the Sanshas conquest plans? Oh wait there is no plan because the plan was only for a new treadmill.
You can't keep delivering boring static content that goes stale quickly CCP and expect us players not to notice - we're quite savvy (some of us anyway) in your methods for keeping us subbed. You should be investing in dynamic content that actually has an interesting impact on the game world?
I mean meta capital items as a reward for this new treadmill? Give over.
|
|
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.01.27 03:07:00 -
[251]
Originally by: PeHD0M Total failure. Boring waste of time with 0 reward. Nothing interesting at all: overpowered npc, same plexes over and over again, stupid reward rules. Fail.
Narrow focus, the same rubbish over and over basically they are making eve die because its to narrow the focus not enough diversity poorly thought out expansions but ccp plays the wow card but weve got a million bored addicted users
|
Infinity Ziona
Minmatar Cloakers
|
Posted - 2011.01.27 04:08:00 -
[252]
Edited by: Infinity Ziona on 27/01/2011 04:15:47 Like I already said. Convoluted ideas / solutions are not necessary.
Simply remove concordeken for RR that causes criminal concordeken. Its a waste of time to punish someone so severely for performing an action that has zero impact on the criminal - concord interaction.
The lag it causes is tremendous and just that in itself is reason to make this change.
The mechanic allowing RR in low sec to instantly jump to high sec and escape is a symptom of another unrelated issue - that RR causes no aggression timer. That should be addressed as its own unrelated issue.
--------------------------------------------- I AM BETTER THAN YOU. |
Echo Jenquai
|
Posted - 2011.01.27 04:34:00 -
[253]
To fix RR what needs to happen is this
Person 1 doing RR on Person 2 Person 2 Commits a crime Person 1 receives popup saying his module was deactivated as his targets' (person 2) concord status has changed, if you reactivate module on said target you are an accompliss and will also be flagged with the crime. or something to that effect that is more eloquent.
profit
|
Silhouette Locke
|
Posted - 2011.01.27 06:15:00 -
[254]
Overall from a pve game style standpoint the incursions seem pretty sound but they are being held back by a few issues. Firstly is the concordokken and griefing which is just "immersion breaking" or to put it otherwise downright daft.
Second the ninja-ing of rewards is a bit off for what should be a massive group effort. It is senseless even by eve standards that only one fleet gets rewards from an incursion. I haven't got too much info on this yet but it should come out in time.
Thirdly the risk vs reward is very off for eve. While I like the idea of tough coordinated fights that will cause players to lose ships regardless .They seem very small in general compared to what you can do in highsec with a little planning or nullsec in general. I can't predict how the concord LP store will turn out but I can't really see it as being a goldmine.
The last thing that bugs me is the style of rewards. This is really more of a pet peeve than much else but still. Surely there can be some kind of reward in incursions that aren't purely for high end cap pilots and supercap pilots. The sanshas have supercarriers but don't have normal carriers , dreads , titans or even a fighter. Maybe the incursions should drop officer quality modules or something of the like. They have the difficulty and they should be very resistant to botting and farming that tends to plague other faucets.
I really want people to keep dieing gloriously to incursions and fighting on bravely rather than just ignoring them.
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2011.01.27 08:07:00 -
[255]
Edited by: Ban Doga on 27/01/2011 08:08:47
Originally by: Darth Gustav
Originally by: Ban Doga That warning would be about as accurate and useful as one saying "Undocking could cause you to lose your ship. Do you want to continue?". I don't think that's really helpful.
About the "breaking causality": That wouldn't be the case. As already mentioned the server runs the simulation in ticks, which means time does not elapse continuously, but rather in "chunks". The server can let as many things happen at the same (simulation!) time as it can calculate in one tick. It's not like reality where processes happen on their own and you can observe and maybe influence them if/when you're fast enough. Everything that happens in the server happens because the server makes it happen.
Furthermore, the server can actually determine that someone is to receive a GCC and still execute some other operation before actually assigning the GCC to that ship. It does not have to assign the GCC to know that the GGC is/should be there.
So the server can actually intervene because it can correctly predict a part of the future - of course it cannot predict user decisions, but it can predict the outcome of its own rules - the same way your operating system can predict that emptying the recycle bin will result in you losing everything in it, even if you choose not to empty it after seeing that information.
I'm sure CCP will love to add all these proposed extra processes to servers that are already frequently strained, in spots. It'll be so much more healthy for the game if the server protects everybody by successfully predicting the future for people far less gifted than it.
Or there could just be a warning, just like the one for smartbombs in empire...
Much like the server, the human brain can actually predict part the future with a good degree of accuracy, given the right information - and in real time!!!!
There wouldn't be any additional processes. Are you just throwing around technical terms without understanding them?
What you call "protecting everybody by successfully predicting the future" is no more than instead of giving a GGC to a logistics ship disable the RR-modules of that ship and ask if they should be reactivated in exchange for giving the GCC. The server needs to determine that someone is aiding someone else in both cases. The part you seem so worried about, because "it will ruin the servers", is already happening.
You seem to think that costs tons of CPU cycles and I'm not even sure I want to hear another convoluted explanation why that should be the case.
|
Aidan Patrick
Zero Point Group
|
Posted - 2011.01.27 09:20:00 -
[256]
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: Daedalus II What is really needed is for CCP to do something about the RR aggression mechanic. As long as aggression transfers to the RR ship it is as you say; you can not join an unknown fleet.
The only safe way to play with unknowns is to not use RR on them; the pilot in an RR ship risks his whole ship on the premise the one he's repairing is not a jerk or idiot. Given that 95% of the eve population seems to be jerks or idiots that is a pretty risky gamble.
And without any RR what so ever, any PUG fleet will be DOA. With a better RR aggression mechanic you can still not be sure you're not in a fleet full of players who only look for themselves, but you can at least know that they can't get you concorded any second.
If we see it like this; in how many other MMOs are the healers punished by death for offering to help? Doesn't seem like much of an incentive to cooperation in my eyes.
We are looking into this issue right now.
I see two potential solutions to this. They are as follows:
#1. Auto-disable any kind of remote support you are using if your target gets themselves flagged as a criminal. When you try to re-support them, provide a popup warning as normal.
#2. Personally my preferred: Remove any kind of concord response in systems with incursion; replace their response with a severely increased standings hit (Penalized further due to taking advantage of the inability for concord to respond). Also, seirously - if Concord can show up and wtf pwn a player fighting the Sansha... Why the *SERIOUSLY EMPHASIZED EXPLETIVE* aren't they there owning the Sansha themselves? It's *ANOTHER SERIOUSLY EMPHASIZED EXPLETIVE* lore breaking CCP. Seriously.
- Aidan Patrick |
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.01.27 09:22:00 -
[257]
problem is ppl are using rr because the rats are to far overpowered make it more balanced instead of going for the easiest make em so hard ppl die routine. Typical ccp lunacy at work. Well i noticed today 200 in some systems has dropped to 30 and level 4 systems are back up guess what losses have ****ed ppl off
The ppl have voted with their feet and are ignoring incursions ccp fails until tis balanced and fixed
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2011.01.27 09:43:00 -
[258]
Edited by: Destination SkillQueue on 27/01/2011 09:45:06
Originally by: Brixer GCC by assisting should maybe give some other response from concord, like perma jam ECM it for a few secs. No more 'we will use 100 logistics in hi-sec and tank concord' argument. Not that keeping any ship alive with RR against concord would work anyway. It might still wreck havoc on a fleet, but atleast 1 asshat couldn't concordokken your entire fleet, and give them a a fair chance of warping away.
If you fit a smartbomb fleet and warp ontop on anything and kill stuff, fine. But this mechanic with bribing Concord to do your kills is just flawed.
That would still just treat the symptoms instead of the disease. You would still get a security status loss for ading a criminal and other entities than CONCORD could still engage you and so would gate guns. Point being it could still be used to grief people who don't want to give aid to a criminal in the first place.
The problem isn't getting a punishment for aiding in criminal activity. The problem is that in some roles, in practice you can't make that decision for yourself. You either avoid all situations where it can happen or find a person who agrees to function as an extension of your own will in this matter, in other words a friend you can trust to do and choose what you want. The only solution to this problem is to give the RR a choice to not participate in the aiding of a criminal and, if he chooses not to give aid, avoiding any negative consequenses of the other guys criminal activity. If you just do that, all the symptoms of that lack of choice will go away and people who want to do so can continue to give aid and accept the consequenses of that aid.
|
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.01.27 09:46:00 -
[259]
make the high sec incursions easier removing the rr need = solution
|
Infinity Ziona
Minmatar Cloakers
|
Posted - 2011.01.27 13:03:00 -
[260]
Originally by: HeliosGal make the high sec incursions easier removing the rr need = solution
makin em farmable by bots and duel boxers. Bad idea. EvE is already too easy.
--------------------------------------------- I AM BETTER THAN YOU. |
|
progodlegend
101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2011.01.28 03:58:00 -
[261]
This is the best expansion ever. The carebear tears are so epic and so overdue, thank you CCP :).
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2011.01.28 04:37:00 -
[262]
Originally by: Darth Gustav I believe that dialogue is client-side and generates no server traffic whatsoever. If you think about it, you seem intelligent, you'll probably guess why.
I am not sure why you would assume the server would wait for a response from the user when disabling remote support modules when the target acquires a GCC.
Server disables modules, player must manually deactivate them at which point the player gets the "Are you sure?" dialog as per current rules, the only catch is that armor reppers transfer armor at the end of the cycle, meaning the remote support is provided after the GCC and after the module is "turned off".
I am still keen on remote support disabling the target's option to perform criminal acts. No remote SEBO supported pod tanking in hisec!
-- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.01.28 04:44:00 -
[263]
now what u need is to introduce tech 3 battlecruisers to even the score wit the super sanshas
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2011.01.28 05:20:00 -
[264]
Originally by: Darth Gustav They had a choice. Thy chose to rep somebody that they don't trust.
CONCORD is there to provide consequences for illegal actions, not punishment for trusting someone to not be stupid.
Admittedly it will only take a dozen or so encounters to pay off a lost basilisk, but I would still like the opportunity to cut the guy loose when he does something stupid, rather than having to find people I trust before trying to cooperate with them.
I would like Incursions to be a gentle introduction to fleet ops with RR gangs to get hisec care bears curious about low sec and PvP. I would prefer that there was a little more safety for these people, so they can gain confidence in their fleets before heading out to low sec and learning about sentry guns and login traps.
Retaining the current mechanic will dissuade people using RR gangs in hisec, meaning people curious to learn how to fly RR fleets will be forced to do so in small never-expanding groups, or with relative strangers out in low sec.
Yes I am a care bear, and perhaps I am acting out of the same good intentions that pave the road to Hell.
-- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |