Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 17 post(s) |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
82
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 19:49:00 -
[91] - 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 at same time means defenders only go to one. The obvious adjustment is "majority of encounters" and as you said they run simultaneously. It certainly looks like a possible method for consideration. Unfortunately HED has only two gates and one is in High Sec. I still like splitting the encounter between systems. Another idea is to reduce effectiveness of large fleets, thus limiting their deployment. |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
584
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 19:50:00 -
[92] - Quote
Destoya wrote: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 didn't say anything about 'isk efficiency' or anything about our 'subcaps shouldn't have jumped in', because you obviously don't understand goons. Goons don't care about isk efficiency and we're pretty anti-capitals in general. The newbie player takes how long to get into a carrier?
What I was implying with the first statement was 'It was dumb to cyno dreads on grid, right into the fight.'
That was followed by an attempt to refocus on 'CCP fix this so we can have large fights.' not a 'My alliance is the best at PVP and we win win win grrrgoons' rah rah that you want to turn this into. I don't want a fight to be decided on luck. Like who could load grid, if their weapon systems can fire, if their computer catches on fire due to all the brackets, if their drones go into a fugue state where they are useless, or they get a black screen. I'd rather be based on known set of rules and mechanics and is not 'What poorly designed system is being exploited here'.
Ideally, this is a non-tidi'd fight with the largets possible fleet both sides can assemble and shoot some internet spaceships to death. Everyone has fun, recognizes where they messed up, and hopefully improve next time. Or just do the same thing next time because they're dumb, either way. But the key is that their spaceship loads grid, turns on (OR OFF) some modules, and can shoot a fellow internet spaceshipper. Without that, we could just go play tanks with 15 on 15 battles deciding the outcome of who controls something. But that's dumb. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8785
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 19:53:00 -
[93] - 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? Nobody fits drone control units in fleet PVP. My EVE Videos |
Naomi Asty
A New Beginning
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 19:55:00 -
[94] - Quote
Thx for the update and the info. Love it when you explain stuff i'm not sure about, keep it up. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6215
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 19:59:00 -
[95] - 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. As good as this would be, I've never once seen an actual system proposal where the correct answer isn't still to blob up and hit each group of defenders/attackers one at a time if they split up. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1217
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 20:02:00 -
[96] - Quote
Fix drones! The Tears Must Flow |
stoicfaux
3901
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 20:06:00 -
[97] - Quote
Weaselior 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. As good as this would be, I've never once seen an actual system proposal where the correct answer isn't still to blob up and hit each group of defenders/attackers one at a time if they split up. Defeat in detail. It's been around as a military concept for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.
WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
stoicfaux
3901
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 20:09:00 -
[98] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Fix drones! Spade or neuter your drone? Dude. Just because it's legalized doesn't mean it's necessarily safe to use in quantity or over time.
edit: Spilled beer over my spelling. WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
979
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 20:17:00 -
[99] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: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? Nobody fits drone control units in fleet PVP.
The question is, could people create a "bonus lag" fit with 15 drones? Call it crawlcat and slowdown the node more? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2588
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 20:18:00 -
[100] - Quote
The only way to stop blobs, is to remove the big timers.
Turn Sov fights into /lots/ of little fights, which have to happen over time.
Which is grinding. And this impacts on fun levels. (Though the current blob system isn't so much fun either. Or so it appears. I'm not involved) 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 20:22:00 -
[101] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:The only way to stop blobs, is to remove the big timers.
Turn Sov fights into /lots/ of little fights, which have to happen over time.
Which is grinding. And this impacts on fun levels. (Though the current blob system isn't so much fun either. Or so it appears. I'm not involved)
You still need an objective to shoot and it will have a timer to prevent people from using the other side's weak TZ to plow through countless systems... |
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries Solar Assault Fleet
992
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 20:22:00 -
[102] - Quote
CCP Veritas wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Then if you are against any solution that changes game mechanics That's not what I said. I'm against any solution that alters game mechanics based on what the TiDi factor is. Changes to game mechanics that do not rely on the TiDi factor are not covered by this statement. That's pure evil Veritas.
Since that's so far above Dinsdale's (hopefully created for an RP reason) level of intelligence that it's mean.
CCP Eterne: Silly player, ALL devs are evil. CCP Fozzie: When Veritas describes a programming challenge as "very hard" I tend to believe him.
|
Krimishkev
Critical Mass Inc. Nexus Fleet
120
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 20:23:00 -
[103] - Quote
And so cameth the great drone nerf of 2014... |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2588
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 20:29:00 -
[104] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:The only way to stop blobs, is to remove the big timers.
Turn Sov fights into /lots/ of little fights, which have to happen over time.
Which is grinding. And this impacts on fun levels. (Though the current blob system isn't so much fun either. Or so it appears. I'm not involved) You still need an objective to shoot and it will have a timer to prevent people from using the other side's weak TZ to plow through countless systems...
Yup.
Something similar to FW wouldn't be perfect, but it does allow for grinding by small groups. And respawn rates would affect the rate you can grind down someone's systems.
Though something more interesting than button orbiting is a must. (Though a timer is needed) Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
82
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 20:32:00 -
[105] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:The only way to stop blobs, is to remove the big timers.
Turn Sov fights into /lots/ of little fights, which have to happen over time.
Which is grinding. And this impacts on fun levels. (Though the current blob system isn't so much fun either. Or so it appears. I'm not involved) You still need an objective to shoot and it will have a timer to prevent people from using the other side's weak TZ to plow through countless systems...
How about many battles over a long timeframe? This system switches if over the last 72 hours (or 1 week) X number of objectives points have been gained. You attack your opponent's weak timezone, and they defend in their strong timezone.
Again given the right setup this is a possible solution. |
stoicfaux
3901
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 20:32:00 -
[106] - Quote
Krimishkev wrote:And so cameth the great drone nerf of 2014... Drone buff!
Make drones micro-warp jump, not MWD, to their target, which removes movement lag. Once at their target, drones "stick" to the ship, thus reducing moving/tracking/orbiting lag. All drones on a target are treated as one big "swarm" of aggregated stats which reduces the number of attack calculations. A group of sentries are now a single deployable (single object being tracked reduces lag.)
The forums, on the other hand, would need to be reinforced and water-proofed. WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4800
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 20:37:00 -
[107] - Quote
Kadl wrote: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 at same time means defenders only go to one. The obvious adjustment is "majority of encounters" and as you said they run simultaneously. It certainly looks like a possible method for consideration. Unfortunately HED has only two gates and one is in High Sec. I still like splitting the encounter between systems. Another idea is to reduce effectiveness of large fleets, thus limiting their deployment. I like the high sec one. Shooting the objective would mean you gain a suspect flag and offers high sec players the chance to witness a null conflict up close and personal. . |
Drakun Kugisa
We're Only in It for the Money
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 20:44:00 -
[108] - 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...
It had been stated in a previous devblog that carriers were supposed to be anti-subcap machines. I.e. IN current balance sentries. Removing normal drones is all well and good if you make fighters not completely useless against subcaps and not die when sneezed at by bombs. |
stoicfaux
3902
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 20:46:00 -
[109] - Quote
Taking secondary objectives results in wormhole/incursion type buffs/debuffs on owned/enemy sites.
/planetside
WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
Fix Lag
756
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 20:46:00 -
[110] - Quote
CCP Veritas, how much extra load does refitting a ship in combat produce? Like, say, if a carrier fleet suddenly switches hardeners? CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude. |
|
Veldar Reku
Wu Xi Holdings
10
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 21:07:00 -
[111] - Quote
Quote:This is one of the bounding scaling factors in large fleet fights, the unavoidable O(n2) situation where n people do things that n people need to see...
Unavoidable O(n^2) things don't exist. Certainly not in a game. You can always optimize and compromise to avoid them.
So what can you do to avoid these n^2 problems? How about turning off collision detection (except with POS force field, for example) when TiDi is above some limit? I'm assuming you do not do collision detection with warp bubbles already unless warp attempt is actually initiated.
Everything else in EVE is not O(n^2) complex since there are limits - lock limits, watch list limits, etc. Because those limits exist, interaction complexity should not be O(n^2). Network traffic may still scale at O(n^2), but that can be managed and optimized at other nodes, not grid node (for example, I don't care if ship at 100km updates its position as frequently as a ship at 15km)
The only event that a client needs to be told is when the ship dies. Player X does not care that a drone is orbiting player B, especially when drones are not visible to player B! Sort and compromise so things scale. Send aggregate updates to clients that actually need to know about sum of events, not specific event. Player X does not care that Drone 123 hit for 5 dmg and Drone 154 hit for 20. It only cares that Player X sustained 25 damage in a given tick *iff* Player X is either locked by player B or is in Player B's watchlist. If Player B does not lock player X (and not in watch list), then Player B does not care that player X sustains damage.
There is no need or reason to be able to see (or be notified of) drone fire, laser fire, nos effects, etc. when there is TiDi on a server. Simplify and compromise algorithms so you do not have O(n^2) under TiDi.
|
Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
979
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 21:27:00 -
[112] - Quote
Veldar Reku wrote:
There is no need or reason to be able to see (or be notified of) drone fire, laser fire, nos effects, etc. when there is TiDi on a server. Simplify and compromise algorithms so you do not have O(n^2) under TiDi.
They don't want mecanics to change because of TiDi. Veritas said so in this very thread. They want a solution always applied. |
Highfield
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
51
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 21:39:00 -
[113] - 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.. stoicfaux wrote: You mean turn a group of sentries into a single deployable?
PinkPanter wrote: You mean so they are treated as guns? They still need to be targetable but at least what you say makes sense :)
No not a single deployable. Basically everything stays the same, but they just lose the 1 m/s movement attribute they currently have. This means a whole lot less calculation work for movement + all the broadcasts of said movement to every client connected.
Essentially this turns them into stationary turrets (which was the designed purpose I think), nobody is going to miss 1 m/s movement. Turning them into deployable structure would be nice because they can benefit of the new code (and devs that actually know how that code works), but that wasn't part of my initial brainfart ;) |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2617
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 21:58:00 -
[114] - Quote
CCP Veritas I got a question:
How far would TiDi have to have gone to keep Dogma Lateness at zero? 5%? 1%? 0.01%?
And a question to us all: Would more TiDi be preferable to what happened? Yes I know the best answer is "No lag, No TiDi". But what's second best? http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
1345
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 22:07:00 -
[115] - Quote
I would like to ask a question regarding drones- Is one players group of drones treated as one entity or 5 individual entities (25 bandwidth?
If the latter, then wouldn't it be better to rework the drone system in a way that only allows people to launch 1 drone but maintains the performance of a group of drones? +1 |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
974
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 22:11:00 -
[116] - 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
Oh yes, you do. You really do. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
|
CCP Veritas
C C P C C P Alliance
954
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 22:40:00 -
[117] - Quote
Allright, post-nap replyathon!
Frostys Virpio wrote:How much does a drone "lost" in space cost in performance? To someone already on grid, nothin'. They hurt a bit to someone coming on grid, which is why massed container spew on Jita 4-4 is unhappy and we hurt people who do that.
Frostys Virpio wrote:How about entirely removing the auto attack behavior of drones Yeah, a separate drone setting for that makes sense to me. I know I'd use it as a player for sure.
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.. Yes. Removing their desire to approach and orbit would reduce the amount of messages they generate.
Weaselior wrote: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? I haven't tested it specifically, but if there is an increased load due to their inventory I doubt it'd be directly because of multiple bays. Under the hood it's just one inventory with stuff identifying which bay it's in.
Weaselior wrote: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? No, it doesn't. The modifiers from skills and such are already set up they just get picked up by the new module. I don't expect refitting would cause much load but I haven't tested it.
Aryth wrote: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? Two reasons: - We've only got one machine of that kind, so 4 nodes to use. Jita takes one, so there's 3 left for handling reinforcement requests - A vast majority of days have no requests, so our most powerful machine is 3/4 wasted.
Fixable things of course. The second is yet another thing to prioritize vs everything else on Gridlock's plate ;)
Vincent Athena wrote:How far would TiDi have to have gone to keep Dogma Lateness at zero? 5%? 1%? 0.01%? I honestly don't know. It's entirely possible that the node would have needed to be nearly paused in order to keep up with all the non-time-scale load, which is Kinda Bad. Also, when the tick finally did advance, there'd be one helluva lot of processing to do for both clients and servers. That would not be fun. CCP Veritas - Technical Director - EVE Online |
|
Tauranon
Weeesearch Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
655
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 23:14:00 -
[118] - Quote
Just make carrier sentry drones, that a carrier can only launch 5 of, that are basically 2 regular sentry drones (ie a double damage garde that degrades in effectiveness when half damaged would be perfect).
Make the highslot module let you field 1 of those instead of a regular drone. Call them sentinal drones if you like. No longer allow a carrier to field more drones than other ships, just give them a better sentry.
That way 400 carriers fielded is 2400 enttites again and not somewhere between 4000 and 4400.
The only thing that can fix the dominix blob is reducing the effectiveness of drone assist, but for obvious reasons that may be politically unpalatable right now.
I think drone assist should be squad only myself, but an intermediate point might be to try making it wing only. IMO a full fleet should have to announce on comms and manually synchronise if it wants full fleet alpha.
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6219
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 23:38:00 -
[119] - Quote
CCP Veritas wrote:Weaselior wrote: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? I haven't tested it specifically, but if there is an increased load due to their inventory I doubt it'd be directly because of multiple bays. Under the hood it's just one inventory with stuff identifying which bay it's in. Weaselior wrote: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? No, it doesn't. The modifiers from skills and such are already set up they just get picked up by the new module. I don't expect refitting would cause much load but I haven't tested it. Thanks for the answers. I think it might be worth looking at the refitting issue as it does seem to cause lag (and that would be increased due to the mobile depot being very popular) just to confirm. Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Roddex
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 23:57:00 -
[120] - Quote
CCP Veritas wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:How about entirely removing the auto attack behavior of drones Yeah, a separate drone setting for that makes sense to me. I know I'd use it as a player for sure.
Is this not what the Aggressive/Passive option does? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |