open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked [CSM6] Re-Elect Trebor Daehdoow
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 : last (11)

Author Topic

Johnathan Walker
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.15 11:08:00 - [241]
 

Originally by: Devilish Ledoux

A candidate is judged by the views which distinguish them from everyone else, not the consensus opinions virtually every pilot holds. Your ideas - your actual, conceived-by-Trebor, unique ideas - are godawful. No, you can't claim credit for 'fix the UI' as a unique idea. Well, I guess you can TRY.





At what point in time have you come up with the belief that CSM delegates are personally responsible for raising and passing every proposal mentioned since the inception of the Council?

Quote:
The Council of Stellar Management (CSM) is a player-elected council to represent the views of the players to CCP.



We, the players, come up with the suggestions to be raised with CCP and while any member of the CSM is also considered a player, their ideas are raised in the same fashion as you or I would do. To liken an idea to a candidate's potential is ridiculous at best. Would you also argue that "silly ideas" have no place in the brainstorming process? Would you disagree that all ideas, no matter how "stupid", contribute to other thoughts or "aha" moments for others?

Surely you, Devilish Ledoux, have become the personal authority of all human beings on what is considered "acceptable thought" and you, personally, are the sole author and editor-in-chief as to what constitutes "proper ideas". You may disagree until the sun collapses to a white dwarf about a particular idea or thought and that is your freely-entitled opinion but you cannot go about dismissing the ideas of others because you, the sole authority of thought, believe the content is "foolish".

Even Mittens isn't that arrogant, and he's pretty high up there.

Yeep
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.15 11:54:00 - [242]
 

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab

You don't think Empyrean Age style DD would be cool? Boring goons are boring.



The original AoE doomsday was cool, that didn't stop it being a terrible idea.

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab

Local spam is a GS weapon of choice, so of course you'll find the suggestion stupid.



If its a good idea you should be able to defend it on it's own merits rather than attacking it's detractors.

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab

Don't worry, you don't need to know that stuff yet still manage to live a perfectly happy life.

Preloading data, encryption and topics such as those aren't easy to understand for lay people. If you want an example of the use of preloaded data in the client, just check out that thing that comes up on the screen when you enter your password. That's preloaded data.

Also, you could read up on wikipedia about encryption, one-time pad encryption should give a nice introduction to why it wouldn't necessarily ruin everything. (Of course they wouldn't use one-time pads since they need to be the same size for theoretically unbeatable encryption, and there would need to be additional measures in place to make it difficult to guess the content type by size and timing but those are implementation details)



Congratulations, you successfully defended the 'how' from all the zero people who doubted it. Now have a go at the 'why'.

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab

Trebor even said in the post it isn't 'the way to deal with lag', but rather a starting point for discussion.



Ideas which are presented as a fix for one thing which only hold merit because they also fix another issue the candidate happens to support (in this case 'blob' warfare) are dangerous. If you can't defend an idea for something as fundemental as fixing lag without bringing party politics into play then that idea is a bad idea.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2011.03.15 14:29:00 - [243]
 

Originally by: Devilish Ledoux
Originally by: Jade Constantine

I met the player of Helen Highwater once or twice at the UK live roleplaying event "The Gathering" and suffice to say he really shouldn't be labelling anyone else "a dribbling idiot."


Counterpoint: You're Jade Constantine.



Doesn't that rather discredit the rest of the meticulously-crafted froth you've posted on this thread Devilish?

That you are relying on a oneline kneejerk - what is that even? "personal attack", "paintive moan", "naming fetish" (not sure) to defend yourself from my allegation that one of your candidates comes from a culture of abusing volunteer status for character advancement and probably can't be trusted not to seek personal (or alliance) advantage through the CSM medium is rather sad.

Yes Devilish Ledoux, I am Jade Constantine. A player of this game with a long record of never cheating, exploiting, breaking NDAs, or otherwise bringing the game into disrepute. A player who managed previously to stand for open election and win outright against the goon block vote and had mostly positive interactions with all concerned in Iceland despite advocating a shake up of 0.0 mechanics that was vigorously opposed by the goon-leadership (because it would make it more difficult for them to hold large areas of space).

I am seeing similar echoes in this new election, and similar issues from your friends Devilish. There is something broken in 0.0 we all know this. Somehow the fun has gone for a lot of people. Its become too mechanical, too stactic, too boring. But its simple human nature that those who are benefiting most from the boredom and stasis will want to maintain the status-quo and hence the NC/Goon electorial strategy to fill the CSM with reactionary dupes on a brief to assure CCP than nothing should change (again).

Now you can certainly respond with the plaintive cry "but its Jade Constantine" (again).
But if you do then don't feel wounded to the quick that other responders here will read your words as "just another mitani alt" - after all, live by the meme die by the meme.



Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.15 15:01:00 - [244]
 

Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab on 15/03/2011 15:03:49
Originally by: Yeep
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab

You don't think Empyrean Age style DD would be cool? Boring goons are boring.



The original AoE doomsday was cool, that didn't stop it being a terrible idea.

The current single-target deathray is also cool, but that doesn't stop it from being a better idea than previous AoE version.

So, have we established now that you can't judge an idea based on calling it 'cool' or 'ping-pong'? Also, the post was made in response to the devblog detailing the DD change, so you can't make the argument that it would be the 'FOURTH change' as the THIRD change wasn't even on Tranquility.

That's just stupid, but it's the kind of stupid you get when alas you go digging for dirt and ignoring context.

Originally by: Yeep
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab

Local spam is a GS weapon of choice, so of course you'll find the suggestion stupid.



If its a good idea you should be able to defend it on it's own merits rather than attacking it's detractors.

No, I shouldn't.

Why? Cause we're dealing with completely different and incompatible views of what spam is, and that leads inevitably to what I wrote above.

I can argue why the solution he posted would be worth considering, what corner cases we would need to take care off, what effect it might have... However all that would be like ****ing in the wind when it comes to convincing your side, as we have different goals. If you feel this is wrong, and you really _DO_ want a system that heavily (and fairly) suppresses local chat during large fleet engagements, I'll be willing to oblige you. (Or Trebor might)

Originally by: Yeep
Congratulations, you successfully defended the 'how' from all the zero people who doubted it. Now have a go at the 'why'.

Ahh, so it would not 'ruin a lot of things' as previously claimed?

Good, seems the point got across then.

On the why side; I admit this suggestion isn't really applicable to e.g. warping to a heavily populated grid... Yet. Not because it wouldn't cut down on the load time by a significant amount of seconds for many people, but rather because it isn't the right optimization at this moment, imho.

What they should, and likely have, considered is to put a grid caching server between the player and the sol node, which would transfer the grid (and system) state to the client. This would offload the work needed to populate the client's grid away from the sol node, which causes the majority of the lag in large fleet engagements due to being limited to a single thread.

After that is done, encrypted packets would be easy to add to deal with network lag. (The 'Why' in your question)

Originally by: Yeep
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab

Trebor even said in the post it isn't 'the way to deal with lag', but rather a starting point for discussion.



Ideas which are presented as a fix for one thing which only hold merit because they also fix another issue the candidate happens to support (in this case 'blob' warfare) are dangerous. If you can't defend an idea for something as fundemental as fixing lag without bringing party politics into play then that idea is a bad idea.

You cannot have any serious discussion regarding fixing lag in general without also including the issue of too many pilots gathering on a single grid. That is a fundamental aspect of this issue, one you cannot ignore.

It's kinda like trying to solve the budget shortfall by only dealing with discretionary spending, and something that isn't party politics. It's reality.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.15 15:21:00 - [245]
 

Edited by: Trebor Daehdoow on 15/03/2011 15:21:46
Originally by: Devilish Ledoux
No, you can't claim credit for 'fix the UI' as a unique idea. Well, I guess you can TRY.

I never made that claim. I merely pointed out the irony that The Mittani made a big deal out of a moddable UI, just as I did last year. And if you bother to read the manifesto and thread, you will note I carefully addressed most of the big concerns about addon exploitability.

I understand that you don't like some of my ideas, and have no problems with that. But at least I have ideas, and I have the courage to put them out there where people can criticize them, and then modify or even abandon them after due reflection.

Oh, and as for that laundry list of my alleged crimes against mentality, Andrea Griffin and Rakshasa Taisab have done an excellent job of ripping it to shreds.

Moving to claims that I'm an idiot, anyone bothering to check my Wikipedia page will find that I have a 30-year track record of being the exact opposite. If the page seems vandalized, wait a few minutes; the long-suffering wikipedia staff will fix it. And I'd like to thank the Goons, for by trying to get it deleted, they've not only ensured it'll stay around for a long time, but have also gotten some people involved in improving and expanding it.

So while I will take any coherently and politely expressed objections you might have to any of my current positions very seriously indeed, you will forgive me if my response (and that of those who know me) to claims that I am an idiot is one of mild amusement.

Serious Internet Politician
www.seriousinternetpolitician.com
Posted - 2011.03.15 16:03:00 - [246]
 


Yeep
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.15 16:51:00 - [247]
 

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab

Originally by: Yeep
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab

You don't think Empyrean Age style DD would be cool? Boring goons are boring.



The original AoE doomsday was cool, that didn't stop it being a terrible idea.

The current single-target deathray is also cool, but that doesn't stop it from being a better idea than previous AoE version.

So, have we established now that you can't judge an idea based on calling it 'cool' or 'ping-pong'? Also, the post was made in response to the devblog detailing the DD change, so you can't make the argument that it would be the 'FOURTH change' as the THIRD change wasn't even on Tranquility.



You seem to have confused me for Devilish Ledoux, I in no way support leaving something broken just because it has changed enough already. But a chained doomsday is terrible for the same reason an AoE doomsday is terrible, in fact the whole concept behind titans is terrible but thats not really something I see CCP changing at this point.

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab

Originally by: Yeep

If its a good idea you should be able to defend it on it's own merits rather than attacking it's detractors.

No, I shouldn't.



If you honestly believe that any idea hated by someone you dislike needs no other merit than that then sorry, you're fundamentally broken as a human being. If you're willing to change your mind on that issue then I'll ask how you feel people using local during a fleet fight is detrimental to your gameplay to the extent that it needs changing. Right now all I'm hearing is 'but I don't like it make it stop' and minimizing your chat window is a solution to that problem without impacting anyone elses gameplay.

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab

Originally by: Yeep
Congratulations, you successfully defended the 'how' from all the zero people who doubted it. Now have a go at the 'why'.

Ahh, so it would not 'ruin a lot of things' as previously claimed?

Good, seems the point got across then.



Again, I am not Devilish Ledoux.

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab

On the why side; I admit this suggestion isn't really applicable to e.g. warping to a heavily populated grid... Yet. Not because it wouldn't cut down on the load time by a significant amount of seconds for many people, but rather because it isn't the right optimization at this moment, imho.

What they should, and likely have, considered is to put a grid caching server between the player and the sol node, which would transfer the grid (and system) state to the client. This would offload the work needed to populate the client's grid away from the sol node, which causes the majority of the lag in large fleet engagements due to being limited to a single thread.

After that is done, encrypted packets would be easy to add to deal with network lag. (The 'Why' in your question)



I'm slightly out of date on my dev blogs but its stupid to suggest technical implementation solutions to problems you don't even know exist. If your grid caching server solves lag on the server side, why do you need client side caching and all the security and concurrency headaches it brings? I've never seen Eve come even close to maxing my internet connection.

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab

You cannot have any serious discussion regarding fixing lag in general without also including the issue of too many pilots gathering on a single grid. That is a fundamental aspect of this issue, one you cannot ignore.


This is a technical fix for a human problem, you're advocating making the game broken by design for large fights rather than encouraging people to form small fights. The danger comes from the hidden agenda of breaking up 'blobs' (which I only ever hear from people not involved in them) clouding the issue of lag. If you're willing to accept such a broken 'fix' for lag because it also furthers your anti-blob message then that is a "Bad Thing".

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.15 19:05:00 - [248]
 

Originally by: Yeep
You seem to have confused me for Devilish Ledoux, I in no way support leaving something broken just because it has changed enough already. But a chained doomsday is terrible for the same reason an AoE doomsday is terrible, in fact the whole concept behind titans is terrible but thats not really something I see CCP changing at this point.

I did notice you're not that other goon, however you cannot argue _for_ his position and then cop out later with the 'I didn't say that, HE did' card.

However I am willing to concede that Devilish Ledoux made a stupid argument there and agree not to hold it against you.

But to say chained and AoE DD is terrible for the same reasons ignores what really makes AoE terrible; damage will be done to all ships on grid. It scales to infinity, while chained and single-target are finite. And to point out that titans are terrible in general is kinda off-topic, as criticism that goes beyond the merits of the DD suggestion relative to AoE and single-target DD in demanding titan-concept reevaluation misses the distinction of incremental and systematic improvements.

Originally by: Yeep
If you honestly believe that any idea hated by someone you dislike needs no other merit than that then sorry, you're fundamentally broken as a human being. If you're willing to change your mind on that issue then I'll ask how you feel people using local during a fleet fight is detrimental to your gameplay to the extent that it needs changing. Right now all I'm hearing is 'but I don't like it make it stop' and minimizing your chat window is a solution to that problem without impacting anyone elses gameplay.

One of the major reasons for political strife is that the opposing sides do not realize the other side holds fundamentally different view on the world, and thus imagine those against their views are idiots who can't make even the simplest of reasoning.

My point was that by assuming Trebor's suggestion was idiocy, you and that other guy are making such a fallacy. This does not preclude a discussion on the actual issue causing the disagreement, but it does mean calling the proposal for idiocy is in itself idiocy.

Originally by: Yeep
I'm slightly out of date on my dev blogs but its stupid to suggest technical implementation solutions to problems you don't even know exist. If your grid caching server solves lag on the server side, why do you need client side caching and all the security and concurrency headaches it brings? I've never seen Eve come even close to maxing my internet connection.

I didn't say grid caching solves server side lag, I said the sol node being single-threaded causes the lag...

If Trebor had asked in corp chat about this before posting, I would have told him why his solution probably isn't the right one and that the above suggestion would likely be better. The 'how' does not solve the 'why', and Trebor has acknowledged that after having heard more details from CCP.

What I'm arguing here however is that the 'how' and the 'why' weren't as idiotic and unsafe as was claimed, and it is the details of the issues not allowing for it not the suggestions themselves being unworkable.

Originally by: Yeep
This is a technical fix for a human problem, you're advocating making the game broken by design for large fights rather than encouraging people to form small fights. The danger comes from the hidden agenda of breaking up 'blobs' (which I only ever hear from people not involved in them) clouding the issue of lag. If you're willing to accept such a broken 'fix' for lag because it also furthers your anti-blob message then that is a "Bad Thing".

The above misrepresents what I wrote to such a degree that it isn't possible to make a reply that would put the discussion back on track, except to say; take a deep breath, relax, then imagine yourself as being me writing these past few posts as you read them.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.15 19:36:00 - [249]
 

Pardon me for interrupting this wonderful discussion, but I just wanted to mention that Team BFF has published a nice little devblog about some potholes that they have filled.

Yeep
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.15 21:07:00 - [250]
 

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab

I did notice you're not that other goon, however you cannot argue _for_ his position and then cop out later with the 'I didn't say that, HE did' card.



Theres a reason I just quoted your post initially rather than his as well. A lot of suggestions come from both CCP and the general playerbase which are cool ideas but would totally ruin the game, the original titan doomsday is one of those. As I see it the CSM partially exists to tell both partys when their "cool" idea is bad.

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab

But to say chained and AoE DD is terrible for the same reasons ignores what really makes AoE terrible; damage will be done to all ships on grid. It scales to infinity, while chained and single-target are finite.



If the idea of a ship that does fatal (or almost fatal) damage to any (or multiple) ships on grid is broken, as I strongly believe it is, then no incremental improvements are going to fix that. For what its worth I really liked the initial announcement of titans when they were alliance level mobile logistics bases but you're right, this is far too off topic for this thread.

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab

One of the major reasons for political strife is that the opposing sides do not realize the other side holds fundamentally different view on the world, and thus imagine those against their views are idiots who can't make even the simplest of reasoning.



Try me. I've been in Goonfleet since before it was a corp, I was a director for 3 years. I've joined a fofo chain perhaps twice, I've had conversations with friends both allied and hostile in local before, during and after fleet engagements more times than that. I'd be interested to hear why the latter should be taken away from people because of the former.

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab

The above misrepresents what I wrote to such a degree that it isn't possible to make a reply that would put the discussion back on track, except to say; take a deep breath, relax, then imagine yourself as being me writing these past few posts as you read them.



My intention was to clarify my post rather than misrepresent yours. If you got the wrong impression I'm sorry, I've went back and read my original comment and it wasn't very clear.

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab

What I'm arguing here however is that the 'how' and the 'why' weren't as idiotic and unsafe as was claimed, and it is the details of the issues not allowing for it not the suggestions themselves being unworkable.



Ok, but at this point this is your idea, not Trebor's. The only real link it has to the original proposal is that it attempts to fix lag. Are you running for CSM? Can I vote for you? Sure the discussion might have started from Trebor's post but thats not really grounds for a CSM position, anyone can throw ideas at the wall in the Speakers Corner.

Immortal Demigod
Minmatar
Hyper-Nova
Posted - 2011.03.15 22:12:00 - [251]
 

Championed the Removal of Learning Skills?

Responsible for the Player Polling system?

Spork awards?

How can you go wrong with that track record? :D

You got my vote, for whatever it may be worth.

Good luck in the polls! :)

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.15 22:16:00 - [252]
 

Originally by: Yeep
Ideas which are presented as a fix for one thing which only hold merit because they also fix another issue the candidate happens to support (in this case 'blob' warfare) are dangerous. If you can't defend an idea for something as fundemental as fixing lag without bringing party politics into play then that idea is a bad idea.

I completely agree with you on that latter point, but I do not believe that this is the case here.

Any discussion of long-term fixes to lag have to address some fundamental design constraints that are inherent in the EVE architecture.

The most obvious of these are:

* The total amount of CPU horsepower available to process combat activities in a single system is limited (to the resources of a single core, at present).

* No matter how good a job Team Gridlock does of making individual combat actions more efficient, there will always be a maximum number of actions that can be processed (and thus pilots supported) before the node starts lagging.

* Clever fixes, such as running individual grids on their own cores, are both difficult and only delay the problem.

* The current game mechanics provide a positive incentive to blob -- more ships is almost always better. Thus, "fleet sizes expand to fit the lag available".

Therefore, it follows that one possible long-term solution to lag is changes to the game-mechanics that provide positive incentives for combat commanders to divide their forces into smaller groups with independent objectives. In other words, so that 2 fleets of 250 -- hopefully doing things on different nodes -- are more useful than one fleet of 500. Two basic ways to do this are (a) adjust the fleet-size/fleet-power curve so that after a certain point, adding extra ships doesn't help you much, and/or (b) tweaking sov-warfare so that it requires the simultaneous achievement of multiple objectives.

I merely described one possible way to do (a), as an illustration of the design challenge, and to stimulate discussion. I made no claims that it was the only way, or the best way.

I encourage you to challenge the assumptions I have made above, and my conclusions. But please don't conflate being "anti-blob" with being "anti-big-battle"; it is entirely possible to be anti-blob while at the same time being pro-big-battle.

From a player perspective, the real problem with a lot of big nullsec battles is that they aren't so much 500v500 fights as 1v1; the two fleet commanders square off, and most of the other players target primaries, press F1, and wait to get alpha'd. Yes, this is a bit of an oversimplification, but I think you get my point.

If you agree with that assessment, then re-read my manifesto from last year, and note how the "God's Eye View" limitations I proposed would greatly increase the ability of individual players to take bold actions that might the outcome of a battle. I believe this to be a desirable goal.

Whatever your opinion of the idea itself, I do not believe you can reasonably argue that it was not thoughtfully and honestly presented.

PS: amusingly enough, one of the changes that Team Gridlock has implemented -- serializing updates -- makes it more difficult to implement fog-of-war visibility limitations.

Borachon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.15 22:44:00 - [253]
 

The high-level goal of breaking up large fights isn't the point of any of this, because people's concerns about your candidacy isn't your ability to set high-level goals.

CSM members must to serve as a firewall against bad ideas getting into the game in addition to high-level goal setting. That means that CSM members need to be able to look at a proposed idea with a critical eye, think about all of its implications and side effects, and then react accordingly. If CSM members can't do that, we end up game-breaking things like the supercap imbalance, the tech imbalance, the mind-numbing sov grind, worthless faction warfare, and lots of other things.

Your inability to vet even your own ideas much less other people's is the problem. Trying to distract people from that by derailing this into a conversation about high-level goals doesn't change that.

Yeep
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.15 23:08:00 - [254]
 

The trouble with any artificial limit on the number of players in a fight is it inflates the value of skillpoints by a huge amount. If I can only put 100 people on a grid before they start to disappear then why should I bring the guy in the rifter at all when I could just take another Maelstrom pilot, why bring the T1 Maelstrom pilot when I could bring a T2 pilot? Its arguable that this is currently the case with supercaps but I don't see any candidate arguing to keep that. And what if I bring the rifter pilots anyway but they end up on grid with the Tengus and get slaughtered. What about ships that rely on range and transversal to survive such as ECM and Logistics (which incidentally operate outside the 1v1 of fleet commanders most of the time)?

Bringing fewer players than the artificial limit doesn't really work either. If the limit is 100 and I bring 50 and my enemy drops 100 on me I'm still outnumbered its just now my fleet is split down arbitrary and constantly changing borders.

Most MMO players are fairly passive, Goonfleet made a big deal of the directors taking Eve seriously so the members don't have to and this extends to fleet commanding. People don't like responsibility and very few people handle having it suddenly thrust on them. Its why DPS classes are far more popular than tanks or healers in classic MMOs like WoW. Expecting them to start leading a fleet when they get split by artificial grid restrictions is asking too much 99% of the time.

By slapping "fog of war" on large fleet battles you're punishing people for bringing large numbers. Instead you should be providing motivation for them to be more than one place at once. Basic carrot vs. stick stuff

Lord Zim
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.16 00:56:00 - [255]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
If you agree with that assessment, then re-read my manifesto from last year, and note how the "God's Eye View" limitations I proposed would greatly increase the ability of individual players to take bold actions that might the outcome of a battle. I believe this to be a desirable goal.



So your suggestion to solve lag is to make the servers perform even more calculations?

Exactly how is it that the "only see the closest N ships" would solve lag? Why? Where? Client-side or server-side? How will this make combat more tactical?

You keep going on about ideas like this, flesh it out some more, let's see how good your technical understanding of how things work really is.

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.16 01:52:00 - [256]
 

Originally by: Yeep
If the idea of a ship that does fatal (or almost fatal) damage to any (or multiple) ships on grid is broken, as I strongly believe it is, then no incremental improvements are going to fix that. For what its worth I really liked the initial announcement of titans when they were alliance level mobile logistics bases but you're right, this is far too off topic for this thread.

To put it to the extreme; if the DD insta-killed sub-SC ships of a limited number and then self-destructs the titan after 10 minutes, would the DD still be broken (in terms of being overpowered)?

It's difficult to claim that to be the case, so you can't categorically say fatal damage to multiple ships on grid to be broken. Or what if it cost 5 trillion ISK to fuel the DD...

Originally by: Yeep
Try me. I've been in Goonfleet since before it was a corp, I was a director for 3 years. I've joined a fofo chain perhaps twice, I've had conversations with friends both allied and hostile in local before, during and after fleet engagements more times than that. I'd be interested to hear why the latter should be taken away from people because of the former.

While I've always been in alliances with strict local chat rules, I wonder why (if I wasn't) you want to keep a system that makes it impossible to have reasonable conversations with allies and hostiles in local?

Originally by: Yeep
Ok, but at this point this is your idea, not Trebor's. The only real link it has to the original proposal is that it attempts to fix lag. Are you running for CSM? Can I vote for you? Sure the discussion might have started from Trebor's post but thats not really grounds for a CSM position, anyone can throw ideas at the wall in the Speakers Corner.

This is a discussion regarding the merits of the proposal at the time it was made by Trebor, e.g. was it braindead or not.

What I gave was an analysis of the idea and pointed to the reasons why it was, if one has limited information, not braindead as the previous goon claimed. The last year the CSM has managed to make CCP release more information on the real causes of lag so hopefully future proposals will be closer to what is really needed.

And no, you can't vote for me cause I'm too lazy to do the kind of hard work Trebor puts into being a CSM delegate. But if you want to vote for me, I strongly recommend sending your vote to Trebor instead.

HeroInAHalfShell
Posted - 2011.03.16 02:05:00 - [257]
 

Originally by: Bomberlocks
Originally by: ******AHalfShell
...
If you don't think this CSM election is the most important thing you've ever participated in then I don't know that you even deserve to vote.....


Quoted for hilarity. Very Happy


I hope you're laughing with me <3

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.16 13:01:00 - [258]
 

Originally by: Yeep
The trouble with any artificial limit on the number of players in a fight is it inflates the value of skillpoints by a huge amount.

I think the term "artificial limit" has some connotations, such as "hardness", that are a bit misleading. I prefer to think of the solution as involving an flexible "organic" fleet-size cap, and I (obviously) agree that it should be carrot-based.

Your objections to the fog-of-war concept are interesting, but I think you may be underestimating one element of the idea, which is that it increases the value of maneuver on the battlefield. For example, a tight blob of ships will mostly see blues, whereas multiple small squads will mostly see reds -- in effect, a pack of hyenas vs. a lion. While this would introduce big changes in fleet doctrine, I am not convinced it will significantly boost the value of skillpoints. And I would argue that it could boost the survivability of logistics (which I like to fly, for exactly the reason you note), because logistics attached to smaller squads would only be targetable by part of the opposing blob.

But in any case, the proposal was a deliberately simplified example designed to illustrate the larger concept of organic blob reduction, and since I don't push my personal ideas on CCP as part of my CSM duties, as long as the issue gets addressed in some way, I'm happy. And you will note that I will push CCP hard to have any idea they come up with tiger-teamed by player experts (such as yourself, no doubt) to help expose any flaws before they hit SiSi.

I found your observation about player passivity of value. While this is definitely not my play-style, I agree that a change that forces leadership roles on too many people in a large fleet would have negative consequences. On the other hand, something that encourages people to step up -- yet another carrot -- is worthy of consideration.

Finally, regarding providing motivation for people to be in more than one place at a time, this is option (b) in my previous post, and we agree on it. If technical fixes by Team Gridlock are short-term lag fixes, this would be the medium-term fix, and organic fleet size limits would be the long-term approach.

You may, by the way, want to get in touch with Meissa Anunthiel about the multiple-objectives approach, as he is much in favor of it.

PS: If you are going to FanFest, look me up. I find these discussions flow even better F2F.

Ezekeil Rage
Posted - 2011.03.16 14:57:00 - [259]
 

You had my vote at "Gemstone".

:)

Best of luck!

Lord Zim
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.16 16:44:00 - [260]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Your objections to the fog-of-war concept are interesting, but I think you may be underestimating one element of the idea, which is that it increases the value of maneuver on the battlefield. For example, a tight blob of ships will mostly see blues, whereas multiple small squads will mostly see reds -- in effect, a pack of hyenas vs. a lion. While this would introduce big changes in fleet doctrine, I am not convinced it will significantly boost the value of skillpoints. And I would argue that it could boost the survivability of logistics (which I like to fly, for exactly the reason you note), because logistics attached to smaller squads would only be targetable by part of the opposing blob.



I'm still interested in hearing just how this is going to fix or even improve lag, as you claim on your CSM page.

As to gameplay-wise, your explanation of how you foresee this to work does not win me over in any way. In fact, it makes me think of when we're looking at a ****ed up grid, where 95% of the fleet suddenly disappears into a different grid, leaving a few stragglers (without logis) to get ****ed up the ass by the other fleet. It's jarring, it's illogical, and just ... no. Not unless there's some magical way you're thinking of making this work which I haven't read yet.

Additionally, if you really think that fleet fights ONLY has to be about "dirtbag is primary, dirtbag is primary", then you haven't flown with some of the better FCs in the game. Nor have you been in multi-fleet assaults on systems.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.17 01:59:00 - [261]
 

No time tonight for detailed replies, but in the interest of bump management...

Originally by: Ezekeil Rage
You had my vote at "Gemstone".

Ah, another alumni of the Council of Light, eh? Twisted Evil

Tehg Rhind
Posted - 2011.03.17 06:09:00 - [262]
 

Edited by: Tehg Rhind on 17/03/2011 06:09:43
What I'm seeing here (currently and historically) are a variety of very good ideas blended in with a variety of very bad ideas.

The bad ideas seem to be most focused around null sec warfare and the like. Generally superficial things that won't get off the drawing room floor.

The good ideas, on the other hand, are much broader and consequential and have hit the game or have a decent chance of doing so.

Weighting those two I would say that you're a solid candidate. Still though, all my votes are going to Prom. Just saying.

Edit; Also gemstone wtf that brings me back. Damn.

Johnathan Walker
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.17 09:39:00 - [263]
 

Nice to see such a huge response and voter turnout Treb; keep up the hard work.

+5 for you!

Avaaloniaa
Posted - 2011.03.17 15:01:00 - [264]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Edited by: Trebor Daehdoow on 10/03/2011 12:02:31
Originally by: Avaaloniaa
Hi Trebor,
Have you had any news on this matter [scalable UI and EVE font], please?
Thank you in advance!

I inquired, and received a brief internal reply. I (and Mynxee and Dierdra Vaal) have requested some more details.

I hope to be able to provide a more detailed answer soon.

I'm very sorry to chase you for that, but I was wondering if any response has been given? Thank you.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.17 20:00:00 - [265]
 

Originally by: Lord Zim
I'm still interested in hearing just how this is going to fix or even improve lag, as you claim on your CSM page.

As I pointed out in the discussion with Yeep, the point was not whether a particular (and deliberately simplified) example -- made in my manifesto for the previous CSM election -- was the fix for lag. What was important was the larger issue being illustrated.

It should be obvious to everyone that if the number of players on a node is kept well below the capacity of the node, then lag will tend to go away. The problem with EVE is that the game-mechanics do not reward that behavior; they do quite the opposite.

I am quite happy that you have found enjoyment in large fleet fights; others have been less fortunate. But I am sure that we can agree that the search for game-mechanics that would address the limitations of the EVE architecture and make large battles more fun is a worthy one, deserving of broad support.

When I ran for CSM last year, I had no expectation of actually getting elected. I ran because I was concerned about several key aspects of the game that would, if not addressed, eventually cause me to quit playing EVE -- the first game in over a decade I thought was worth a damn. So my campaign platform was really a way of starting a discussion that I felt was important.

If you've read my first "Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician" blog post, you'll know that I was absolutely shocked that I got elected, and that, in what is now a delicious irony, it occurred to me that the Goons had voted me in to grief me. Twisted Evil

However, this time around, having learned through hard work what the CSM (and CCP) can and cannot do, I am running because I believe I will be even more effective in CSM 6 than I was in CSM 5.

I know that you don't share that opinion, but hopefully this discussion has given other readers of the thread some insights that will help them make an informed decision in the voting booth.

Sabalin
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.17 23:38:00 - [266]
 

Count me in.

Extreme
Eye of God
Intergalactic Exports Group
Posted - 2011.03.17 23:44:00 - [267]
 

THIS THREAD IS THE LARGEST THREAD SINCE ANKHSAMETAMPEKEH!

Lord Zim
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.18 00:06:00 - [268]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
As I pointed out in the discussion with Yeep, the point was not whether a particular (and deliberately simplified) example -- made in my manifesto for the previous CSM election -- was the fix for lag. What was important was the larger issue being illustrated.

It should be obvious to everyone that if the number of players on a node is kept well below the capacity of the node, then lag will tend to go away. The problem with EVE is that the game-mechanics do not reward that behavior; they do quite the opposite.

I didn't say that you said it would be the fix for lag, but a fix for lag. I'm pointing to that idea because, it will not fix lag in any way. If anything, I expect it'd probably make it worse.

First of all, which node players are on isn't defined by which local they show up in, but which solar system they're in. Limited visibility won't help here, in fact I suspect it'd make it worse by either involving more calculations server-side (bad for lag), or client-side calculations (ohai the clientside has way more information than the official client is showing, I'm sure nobody'll ever exploit that), both of which are a bad idea.

Secondly, we currently have grids that are (I believe) defined by the servers during downtime. How the server puts you in a grid or another, I don't rightly know (seleene would probably be the closest guy to answer that, since he's worked there), but I would assume it uses coordinates to determine this. And your idea makes me think back to the times I've lost a ship because the majority of the fleet went off-grid, and I was left there with no or few logistics, and a large and angry enemy fleet. That wasn't fun, and I've yet to see anyone sell this kind of idea to me.

Thirdly, if you're going to look at a singular way to fix lag, then what you would look at would be ways to structure the way EVE handles players/solar systems, so it would spread the load over multiple CPUs or even nodes. Anything else is basically just putting on a bandaid.

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
I am quite happy that you have found enjoyment in large fleet fights; others have been less fortunate. But I am sure that we can agree that the search for game-mechanics that would address the limitations of the EVE architecture and make large battles more fun is a worthy one, deserving of broad support.

I was never a part of 0.0 when POSes claimed SOV, but after having been part of the delve defence (until we ran out of money :v:), having been part of the peaceful handover of deklein from TCF to goons AND been part of the war to take over cloud ring/outer ring/fountain, I'll emphatically say that the old SOV system sounded better, by far. I also keep seeing tons of old vets say the exact same thing.

It's extremely static and non-granular, it's hard to **** up the timing (unless you're sons of tangra :v:), it's almost impossible to do a quick and easy handover to a friendly ally, and it's basically just way too easy to defend. At worst, you can be under attack in up to 6 different systems and still keep all of them by piling all your fleet (basically supercarriers and titans) into one system a day and just keep circling. And worse than that, IT is still holding SOV over 54 systems and 27 outposts, and they've effectively been dead for a full month now.

Add to that the fact that a full day's worth of manufacturing capacity can make 6 minutes worth of ammo for a full maelstrom fleet or 2 days worth of ratting ammo (missiles, mainly) pr day, and 0.0 starts to look more and more like a place to rat and mine ABCH ore, and 0.0 end up looking like a place to claim for epeen and officer spawn, not to actually live in. That should ideally also change to incentivize more people to move from empire and into 0.0. I certainly wouldn't mind if empire manufacturing etc got nerfed. Not killed, just nerfed a bit to give people an incentive to look for 0.0 space.

Sikhtar
Gallente
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.18 07:46:00 - [269]
 

I see your proposals regarding limiting fleet numbers as a dangerous precedent to turn EVE from a sandbox into kindergarten playground.

- 'This is a wonderful universe, come play in the sandbox'
- Cool, let me bring my 3 shovels
- 'Sorry, only one shovel allowed'

The thing, probably the ONE thing about EVE that has remained fairly consistent is that 'anything goes'. You do not find that anywhere else. If we are now going to seriously consider paths which fit the player experience around artificial constraints based on technological limits, rather than finding ways of lifting the technical liits to improve the player experience, then I see EVE turning very quickly from a 'sandbox MMO' into just 'another MMO'.

Heres hoping I don't log in one day to see agents in Incarna with a big ! above their heads.....

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.18 13:37:00 - [270]
 

Edited by: Trebor Daehdoow on 18/03/2011 13:37:03
Originally by: Avaaloniaa
I'm very sorry to chase you for that, but I was wondering if any response has been given? Thank you.

Unreasonably hounding your representatives is one of the pleasures of democracy; you should not apologize for it. The current status is that I asked two questions, got a single reply, and I and several other CSMs have asked for a clarification. As of yet, there has not been one.

Given that FanFest is on the horizon (and I think there will be a UI session there), I would cut the devs a bit of slack until after everyone recovers from their Party at the Top of the World hangovers.


Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 : last (11)

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