open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [PROPOSAL] Should some modules (such as Damage Control) be Passive?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic

Rahnim
Posted - 2010.09.15 22:34:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Marconus Orion, in this post in a recent dev-blog thread, makes an interesting point:

Quote:
Please CCP, make the Damage Control and Drone Control Unit passive already. You can't tell me that players not having to activate one module that is on every ship would not help lag a bit. Not to mention all the players gratitude for the change.


I would like opinions pro/con to such a change, as well as other potential modules that could be made passive (modules with no cap cost, such as Drone Link Augmentor, come to mind).

The obvious con argument is that it makes cap warfare slightly less effective, but given the tiny cost of a DC (1 GJ) vs. a hardener (30 GJ) is it really all that significant?

If there is reasonable consensus on this, I will raise it at an upcoming meeting.


:P a good neuter can turn off even the DC, sure it's annoying to turn it on. :) but I can see an advantage in being able to turn it off (from the shooters side)

Nuts Nougat
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW
Posted - 2010.09.16 07:47:00 - [62]
 

Originally by: darius mclever
bagehi: when you log off the first time, all your modules keep running, when you try to log in again and log off again ... then they turn off.

atleast from my experience.
This is correct. Plus, I've crashed before while in combat and the only thing that saved me was that modules kept on running and I mwd'd off grid while trying to log back in. So no thanks to modules shutting off on logoff.

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.09.16 17:28:00 - [63]
 

I have noticed a lot of concern about afk Orcas and logoffski capitals. I understand your concern.

What about if the damage control is fit on a sub cap it acts like a passive module. If put on a capital ship, you have to activate it to get the benefit.

If that's to complicated then I suggest the current damage control be passive and can only be fit on sub caps. Introduce a capital ship sized damage control that can only be fit on caps. This of course would need to be turned on to work.

Please don't forget the motivation behind this idea is to help with lag and the tedious turning on a module after every jump which is anoying.

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.09.16 17:50:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: Marconus Orion
I have noticed a lot of concern about afk Orcas and logoffski capitals. I understand your concern.

What about if the damage control is fit on a sub cap it acts like a passive module. If put on a capital ship, you have to activate it to get the benefit.

If that's to complicated then I suggest the current damage control be passive and can only be fit on sub caps. Introduce a capital ship sized damage control that can only be fit on caps. This of course would need to be turned on to work.

Please don't forget the motivation behind this idea is to help with lag and the tedious turning on a module after every jump which is anoying.


for lag reduction it would make more sense that unprojected modules preserve their state. as you see on crash + relog that already works. so all they would need to do is preserving the state during jump.

SideSlide
Calmer Than You Are
Posted - 2010.09.17 15:59:00 - [65]
 

I fully support this (and any other quick/easy fixes for lag sources).

As for those concerned about the AFK hauler situation, the client is aware the autopilot function is running, in theory this should allow for a flag to be set to disable specific modules. Cetain modules would then be ineffective during the autopilot process, basically saying it needs the processing power of the ships systems for those specific modules to do its job.

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.09.17 17:07:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: SideSlide
I fully support this (and any other quick/easy fixes for lag sources).

As for those concerned about the AFK hauler situation, the client is aware the autopilot function is running, in theory this should allow for a flag to be set to disable specific modules. Cetain modules would then be ineffective during the autopilot process, basically saying it needs the processing power of the ships systems for those specific modules to do its job.


very consistent behavior ... it should be either passive/keeping state for all or for nobody.
also.... you know that people often use to jump in/out out overloaded systems? maybe you want to pvp a bit more...

Kramnik
Gallente
Posted - 2010.09.18 21:29:00 - [67]
 

Supported.

Haiden Po
Posted - 2010.09.19 18:17:00 - [68]
 

supported

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2010.09.20 16:43:00 - [69]
 

Ok, I haven't made up my mind about the topic, but those are the cons I can think of:

- when neuted, you still need to reactive them, which makes combat more active.
- under neut, there's gaps in the time you can activate them, thereby lowering your EHP
- in the case of drones, that also means you can't dispatch your drones to large distances until you've reactivated the items.
- You can't activate modules while cloaked, so when decloaking, there's a gap under which you don't immediately gain full combat potential.
- while the damage control is activatable in warp, I believe that's not the case for the drone control unit (more gaps)

In essence, the reason one would want these items to become passive is exactly the reason they could be argued to stay active. One needs to pay attention and go through the trouble of activating them, one needs to "do something" to gain full combat potential.

In these 2 cases, I wouldn't be in favour of increasing their cap requirement, but I would lean towards keeping them as they are.

As a potential sidenote, but is probably not important, I used to purposefuly leave some hardeners/damage control inactivated to give the enemy the impression he could kill me then activated them before he could do so to give my other character some extra time to dish out damage before the ennemies decided to switch primary...

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.09.22 13:29:00 - [70]
 

After reading the discussion so far, I am leaning towards this proposal:

"Preserve the state of active, non-charge-using, non-projective modules (such as damage control, drone control, hardeners, etc) over player-commanded gate jumps."

This deals with the issue of buffing Autopilot haulers in Empire, and can probably be done by just having the client remember the state and send the commands to the server after a jump.

Question: should this be extended to cynos and bridging?

The issue of whether or not to make damage control full passive should perhaps be mentioned but with a note that it should only be considered if it will have significant anti-lag benefits.

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.09.22 13:40:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
After reading the discussion so far, I am leaning towards this proposal:

"Preserve the state of active, non-charge-using, non-projective modules (such as damage control, drone control, hardeners, etc) over player-commanded gate jumps."

This deals with the issue of buffing Autopilot haulers in Empire, and can probably be done by just having the client remember the state and send the commands to the server after a jump.



i would bet that AP is also client side and not server side. so from a server side standpoint you wouldnt really care if the AP or a player issued a jump command. and as pointed out before ... I often use AP to jump during laggy server conditions (right click start gate -> add as first waypoint -> hit AP button). I am quite sure many others do so aswell, so to save the commands being send to the server, you shouldnt differ between AP and non AP jump.

and i mean it gets a positive side effect. suicide ganker get a new challenge. ;)

Quote:
Question: should this be extended to cynos and bridging?


given both are pretty common ways of moving in 0.0, where most of the laggy fights happen, i would say yes.

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.09.23 03:20:00 - [72]
 

one flaw with the keep state idea:

while this would work with bridge/cyno, it wouldnt work with gate jump, as you cant run modules under (gate) cloak.


steave435
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.09.23 11:31:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Ok, I haven't made up my mind about the topic, but those are the cons I can think of:

- when neuted, you still need to reactive them, which makes combat more active.
- under neut, there's gaps in the time you can activate them, thereby lowering your EHP
- in the case of drones, that also means you can't dispatch your drones to large distances until you've reactivated the items.
- You can't activate modules while cloaked, so when decloaking, there's a gap under which you don't immediately gain full combat potential.
- while the damage control is activatable in warp, I believe that's not the case for the drone control unit (more gaps)

In essence, the reason one would want these items to become passive is exactly the reason they could be argued to stay active. One needs to pay attention and go through the trouble of activating them, one needs to "do something" to gain full combat potential.

In these 2 cases, I wouldn't be in favour of increasing their cap requirement, but I would lean towards keeping them as they are.

As a potential sidenote, but is probably not important, I used to purposefuly leave some hardeners/damage control inactivated to give the enemy the impression he could kill me then activated them before he could do so to give my other character some extra time to dish out damage before the ennemies decided to switch primary...


So should we make people have to click to activate the armor platings (both energized version and the non-energized one) and shield resistance amps, while adding a slight cap use to them to get that effect as much as possible? No. Just because it might in some niche scenarios be easier to kill someone if DC remains as it is doesn't mean that's the way it's supposed to be.
If it was possible to fit and use a doomsday with a T1 frigate, would the fact that removing that ability would result in fewer dead ships be a valid argument for not doing so? Again, no.
The only reason damage control is active right now is that game mechanics didn't allow for it to be passive in the past. It's time to fix that now.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.09.23 15:15:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: darius mclever
one flaw with the keep state idea:

while this would work with bridge/cyno, it wouldnt work with gate jump, as you cant run modules under (gate) cloak.



Obviously, it would require the client (or perhaps the server) to remember the module state when the jump begins, and start the modules up again as soon as the player breaks cloak. It occurs to me while writing this that a cloak timeout perhaps should not activate the modules.

Marak Mocam
Posted - 2010.09.23 20:22:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: steave435
Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Ok, I haven't made up my mind about the topic, but those are the cons I can think of:

- when neuted, you still need to reactive them, which makes combat more active.
- under neut, there's gaps in the time you can activate them, thereby lowering your EHP
- in the case of drones, that also means you can't dispatch your drones to large distances until you've reactivated the items.
- You can't activate modules while cloaked, so when decloaking, there's a gap under which you don't immediately gain full combat potential.
- while the damage control is activatable in warp, I believe that's not the case for the drone control unit (more gaps)

In essence, the reason one would want these items to become passive is exactly the reason they could be argued to stay active. One needs to pay attention and go through the trouble of activating them, one needs to "do something" to gain full combat potential.

In these 2 cases, I wouldn't be in favour of increasing their cap requirement, but I would lean towards keeping them as they are.

As a potential sidenote, but is probably not important, I used to purposefuly leave some hardeners/damage control inactivated to give the enemy the impression he could kill me then activated them before he could do so to give my other character some extra time to dish out damage before the ennemies decided to switch primary...


So should we make people have to click to activate the armor platings (both energized version and the non-energized one) and shield resistance amps, while adding a slight cap use to them to get that effect as much as possible? No. Just because it might in some niche scenarios be easier to kill someone if DC remains as it is doesn't mean that's the way it's supposed to be.
If it was possible to fit and use a doomsday with a T1 frigate, would the fact that removing that ability would result in fewer dead ships be a valid argument for not doing so? Again, no.
The only reason damage control is active right now is that game mechanics didn't allow for it to be passive in the past. It's time to fix that now.


Honestly, I'd be more in favor of making things like Energized plating powered than DC's unpowered passives.

If someone forgets to turn it on, that's their fault and plenty of folks I've met forget to turn mods on "early" during combat and that costs them.

This recommendation may have some "nice" sounding arguments to it but the net effect is lazier, less active modes of operation of ships in combat and I really find that lame.

Crazy KSK
Posted - 2010.09.24 15:55:00 - [76]
 

Edited by: Crazy KSK on 24/09/2010 15:56:24
imho if it reduces lag by a noticeable amount make it passive if not keep it active as it keeps a bit of variety

Lucyna
Interstellar Killer Bee Enterprises
Posted - 2010.09.24 21:02:00 - [77]
 

thumbs up

Sepheir Sepheron
Caldari
1st Grave
Posted - 2010.09.25 05:57:00 - [78]
 

God yes, I've launched 9 drones before realizing my Drone Control Unit was off too many times!

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2010.09.25 07:24:00 - [79]
 

Originally by: Blazde
Edited by: Blazde on 24/09/2010 12:17:10
I think people are underestimating how common it is for a DCU to be neuted off. There's a couple of reasons:

- The way your cap recharge works, when it's nailed to 0 you're getting way less cap/second than you do at your peak. In practise getting that 1 cap back in any subcap ship often doesn't happen. I've sure been in that situation quite a few times. In a supercap I don't know... but I'm sure it's not inevitable with dozens of neuts properly staggered on you.

- When DCU is neuted off I at least often don't notice immediately, it's not the kind of thing I'm expecting. Result is it's definetely not going back on 1 second later. More like 20-30 seconds or never. Watch FRAPS back later -> oh **** my DCU was off that whole time.

I'd rather see the code fixed and optimised so it can handle the game as-designed before dumbing down gameplay in the name of lag. That said, this is a very minor aspect of gameplay. If it turns out it helps significantly, then that's probably a sign of a deeper performanc issue, but nor is it exactly going to ruin gameplay to make em passive.

The other thing it would help mitigate is people dying while blackscreened on jump/log-in before they can activate DCU/hardeners. But again I'd rather see those cases reimbursed properly, in the interim until blackscreening is 100% fixed.

Any dumbing down to fix lag that approaches anything like this:

Originally by: Chuck Skull
TBH thinking about it, couldn't all hardeners be 'passive'?

Needs to be avoided.

All of this, hence not supported.


Pages: 1 2 [3]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only