open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Drone lags removal idea
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Vasim Vio
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.02.15 08:00:00 - [1]
 

Big amount of lag (if not most of) in big fights is generated by drones (fighter bombers is worst, fighters and other drones - cause lag too although a bit smaller). I think it is good idea to reduce number of drones allowed to deploy as it will make much less objects in space to handle for server:

Standard drones: only ONE drone per subcapital ship (frigates - small one, battlecruisers - medium, battleships - big). To don't ruin DPS from them - every drone gets more shots per cycle and/or smaller cycle/raised alpha, also 3-4 times more HP. For example, small drone could do attack every 2 seconds (instead 4) and do 2..2.5 times more damage (or do two shoots every cycle).

Fighter bombers: only 5-6 fighter bombers per supercarrier. Their cycle should be lowered to standard drone's (2 seconds), alhpa reduced by 2..3 times, so they will keep same DPS.

Also, fighter bombers should get standard drone attack instead torpedoes. These pseudo-torpedo attack cause ****load of lags it seems. Attack range of fighter bombers should be same as fighter's to make it possible to kill with smartbombs or their signature should be raised to 400..800 (will allow to counter massive fighter bombers attack, currently it is impossible to clear them almost at all because lags caused by them and their small signature).

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2011.02.15 08:48:00 - [2]
 

We have certainly been looking into drones. You may recall this previous blog where we rolled out the initial changes to bombers and the effects it has on our server CPU usage. Obviously halving the bomber count cuts that load in half for as much as drone damage calculations cut into the overall CPU utilisation of a battle. It should be noted though that fighters actually generate more load because their rate of fire is lower than an equivalent number of bombers so if a supercarrier were to be scaled to 10 like a carrier, using bombers would generate less load. The concept is fairly sound in what it does to try to reduce load in large scale warfare and definitely worth considering.

WRT to the Uemon battle last night (which I assume lead to this suggestion in general), the majority of the additional load is being generated due to it being empire and low sec. Our aggression management system we call crimewatch is running there which is responsible for criminal flagging you and everything that comes from that. Especially where we have 1000 people in the scene, and there is propagating criminal flagging states between you all, I am sure you can imagine why it makes the hamsters cry. Definitely not a good experience of course to not be able to enjoy the extreme battles, especially ones which happen so spontaneously as hotdrop and counter-hotdropping scenarios within low sec. Team Gridlock is turning its attention to low sec amongst other things and our research into our aggression system should hopefully yield some good results.

Of course, at a higher level the absence of a predator for the supercarrier is something that we are aware of and looking into good ways to approach that. If you happen to be going to fanfest, Game Design and Gridlock will be talking at length with you all on the many facets of large scale warfare in eve.

prospector oen
Posted - 2011.02.15 12:00:00 - [3]
 

CCP is finally being forced to fix low sec - wasnt enough the pve has been nerfed progressively over time but now 00 titans arent enough we got titan online in low sec ( just lol the moon must have been worth something awesome)

If drones and criminal flagging is logged at ( perhaps only a flag every hour instead of 15 minutes) or just reduce podding by 1/4 and ship explosions in low sec by 1/3 Then the gcc-criminal flag- sec status system wouldnt be to much of a issue

Well piracy getting some loving

MAX MEXX
Posted - 2011.02.15 12:16:00 - [4]
 

Thb, Check out the screenshot for the MASSIVE ammounts of drones present ...

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/pederf-h/2011.02.14.22.56.jpg

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.02.15 12:22:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
....

Low-sec cannot be reinforced if I recall, but if the GCC status is such a huge drain, why not disable it for the system/constellation and call it a pseudo-reinforcement?

The big bashes in low are not that common so the standings loss that is 'avoided' should not be that big.

Nothing to do about the hot-drop scenario though, but then that goes for null as well ..

Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.02.15 12:33:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

Of course, at a higher level the absence of a predator for the supercarrier is something that we are aware of and looking into good ways to approach that. If you happen to be going to fanfest, Game Design and Gridlock will be talking at length with you all on the many facets of large scale warfare in eve.


Supers do not need predators. They need to be stripped of any and all offensive roles, or nerfed back in line of simple tier2 capitals.

Anything else will not help the situation at all.

Also, team Gridlock should assemble some baseball bats and tell game design why their decision to create a swiss-knife catch-all combat ship based on drone spam, of all things, is a ridiculously stupid idea.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.02.15 12:53:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Batolemaeus
...

Bull**** walk, money talks but only a punch in the face can get the message across?

I like your thinking Very Happy

Daedalus II
Helios Research
Posted - 2011.02.15 13:41:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Daedalus II on 15/02/2011 13:40:52
Balancing super carriers is ever so easy:

Just remove their ability to use anything but fighter bombers. And in a flash, any ship smaller than a battlecruiser is a danger to them.

Doctor Invictus
Gallente
Industry and Investments
Posted - 2011.02.15 13:45:00 - [9]
 

It seems like the lag from drones could be reduced by changing how they are represented in the environment. Instead of having 5 drones flying around, each with their own attributes, might it not work to have the drones rolled together as a group, representing the aggregate HP/DPS/etc of the entire group.

It makes operating drones less fine-grained, which is bad, but would (theoretically) reduce the amount of drone-related lag.

Valuv
Wraith.Wing
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2011.02.15 14:30:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Doctor Invictus
It seems like the lag from drones could be reduced by changing how they are represented in the environment. Instead of having 5 drones flying around, each with their own attributes, might it not work to have the drones rolled together as a group, representing the aggregate HP/DPS/etc of the entire group.

It makes operating drones less fine-grained, which is bad, but would (theoretically) reduce the amount of drone-related lag.


That is basically forcing grouped drones, much like how group weapons works. In my opinion, losing the ability to assign different targets to individual drones is nothing compared to the lag they cause.

Force group the drones in groups of 5, which is essentially what OP was asking, making them look like just 1 drone instead of 5.

I like the idea. CCP, do it!

Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
Posted - 2011.02.15 14:38:00 - [11]
 

Well here is another question since a developer is looking at this thread.

How much of the lag is generated by the star system inventory when a drone is launched or is that something predone as the ship enters system with drones in her bays?

Also is any of the archaic Item Inheritances are applied to drones the same way its applied to the missiles before the changes rolled though? I do realize that drones unlike missiles DO need the majority of the stats normally associated with the most inheriting items ie the ships but how much of that fat can we trim off? like IE cargo space, stupider ai routines, and maybe resistances overall (give them hp buff to counter) if it only saves a bit more lag. Yet drones are another basket all together from missiels almost but it wouldnt hurt.

All I'm saying though from the dev blog about hamsters and missiles, it maybe wouldnt hurt too much to look at the solutions the missiles had and see if any of that could be applied to the drones or vice versa.

Lev Aeris
United Amarr Templar Legion
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2011.02.15 14:48:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Lev Aeris on 15/02/2011 14:57:03
Edited by: Lev Aeris on 15/02/2011 14:51:43
I'd take it a step farther, and remove fighters and fighter bombers from the game all together. If these ships truly are carriers, then they should be launching player ships instead of imaginary fighter spam.

Make a carrier more like the titan bridge, as in players dock in its bay, and wait for the carrier to jump and then deploy from the carrier. Maybe even give bonuses to any ships that are under the carriers 'command' in theatre like the titan bonus.

That kind of mechanic change wold warrant removing titan bridges as carriers would be filling that role, and titans would be completly useless. Still I think its more logical for fleets to ride into battle in the launch bays of carriers than it is for us to ride a titan bridge.

Also, as each carrier would have a finite amount of 'ships' it could jump in with, the lag of 400 people titan bridging onto grid at once might be reduced as pilots jumped in the system inside a cap (no grid until launch possibly).


Corporal Punishment08
NosWaffle
Nostradamus Effect
Posted - 2011.02.15 18:16:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: MAX MEXX
Thb, Check out the screenshot for the MASSIVE ammounts of drones present ...

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/pederf-h/2011.02.14.22.56.jpg


WOW that is one heck of a screen shot. I've never seen so many drones!

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.15 18:36:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: AnonyTerrorNinja on 16/02/2011 02:10:58
Reducing drone counts can actually be a tactical disadvantage, as in small scale fights currently, sometimes picking off drones is desirable and can sway the outcome of a fight quite heavily. Less drones to lock, easier to take out, less tactical advantage for those involved, less complex fights.

There is of course also the matter of scaling vs ships. Some frigates can use two scout drones, some can use only one, some can use five (Ishkur). So there would need to be a scaled bonus on any ship to accommodate the previous drone count vs current drone count;

Armageddon or Typhoon with 125mbit for 5 heavy drones? Give a 500% bonus to HP/Damage of the single heavy drone, medium drone or scout drone it can now launch. 75mbit as on a Raven? Give a 300% bonus to heavy drone, 500% to medium/scout drones. 40mbit on a Hurricane? Give a 100% modifier for heavy drones, 400% for medium, 500% for scout.

Of course, for a Dominix, you'd be giving it a 500+10% per level of battleship bonus.


In this way, though, I think drones would need a complete model makeover as well as stats rebalancing. Same for Fighters. At this point they end up being more like small ships than their current 'drone' feeling, and as such end up being more like sub-capital fighters than anything else.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.02.15 19:57:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Corporal Punishment08
WOW that is one heck of a screen shot. I've never seen so many drones!

Screw the drones, look at the overview.

35 ships shown. 2 HICs + 1 DIC, Rest Titans and SC's. CCP must be so proud at what they have created Rolling Eyes

If SC's are such a problem on non-reinforced nodes, remove them from non-reinforcable space and it ceases being an issue .. ie. remove supers from Empire completely.

CCP can then move some of the moon operations to low-sec giving Dreads a purpose and a pasture to graze in their twilight years ..

Lets face it, SCs are not going to change with so many
around. Was a whine-fest when numbers were below a few hundred and there is now thousands.

Vasim Vio
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.02.16 09:54:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

WRT to the Uemon battle last night (which I assume lead to this suggestion in general), the majority of the additional load is being generated due to it being empire and low sec.


It is not about Uemon's battle, i had that thought long time before (Uemon was just culmination of the problem and i've got some free time to write post during multi hour grid load there, as i couldn't log in until DT).

EVERY ONE fight with supercarriers and fighters/fighter bombers was unplayable lagfest. 10 supercarriers with fighters or fighter bombers launched causes lag as 500 players, bigger numbers of SCs makes no chances for everyone to shoot anything for hours. EXCEPT fighter bombers of course, with their artifically raised priority of these torpedo attacks. I think we both know who is personally responsible for this coding diversion, just get your **** together and fix.


 

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