open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked PETITION: Reduce fighter spam lag!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (15)

Author Topic

James Duar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.09.09 11:17:00 - [271]
 

Kerfira, you appear to be in the wrong forum. CAOD is about 4 links above this one, easy mistake to make apparently.

GateGuy
Posted - 2007.09.09 11:29:00 - [272]
 

/signed

Shoukei
Caldari
Boobs Ahoy
Posted - 2007.09.09 12:24:00 - [273]
 

Originally by: James Duar
Kerfira, you appear to be in the wrong forum. CAOD is about 4 links above this one, easy mistake to make apparently.


3 large posts heavily loaded arguments and you accuse him of trolling just because his arguments happen to shred yours? way to go, troll.

James Duar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.09.09 12:45:00 - [274]
 

Originally by: Shoukei
Originally by: James Duar
Kerfira, you appear to be in the wrong forum. CAOD is about 4 links above this one, easy mistake to make apparently.


3 large posts heavily loaded arguments and you accuse him of trolling just because his arguments happen to shred yours? way to go, troll.

No, because he seems incapable of argument without "lol goonies", and because he was already well rebutted and simply restated what he said with more "lol goonies".

But you know, whatever, clearly Titans were never broken either.

Zombie Network
Perkone
Posted - 2007.09.09 13:13:00 - [275]
 

Originally by: Shoukei
Originally by: James Duar
Kerfira, you appear to be in the wrong forum. CAOD is about 4 links above this one, easy mistake to make apparently.


3 large posts heavily loaded arguments and you accuse him of trolling just because his arguments happen to shred yours? way to go, troll.


His argument basically boils down to the idea that CCP should not reduce lag because if they do then more people will be able to play. Which is completely idiotic!

His posts are also full of inflamitory remarks, as well as direct and inderect attacks on certain corporations and individuals who have posted in this thread.

He also has a history of trolling Goonfleet/Goonswarm & allies in almost every thread in COAD.

Looks like a troll, acts like a troll, smells like a troll, and has no place in this forum.

Zenst
Hall Of Flame
Chain of Chaos
Posted - 2007.09.09 13:56:00 - [276]
 

Originally by: Welfare State
Fighters are currently killing the server's ability to process larger battles. The epic scope of large-scale space battles in EVE is a large draw for me.

Please consider the solution above, and look into this and figure out a way to reduce the lag caused by fighters.

/signed




ROFLMFAO


Oh no were dieing again, call for nerf. Seriously you chaps need to adpat and not cry nerf everytiume the tides change.

Issue is numbers involved not fighters and frankly 1 fighter per ship and limit 5 to a carrier is frankly akain to smoking your own fesius.

NOT SIGNED - BUT I'M NOT A GOON ALT NOW AM I

I'll leave you folks to spam now.

Two Knives
GoonFleet
Posted - 2007.09.09 14:05:00 - [277]
 

Originally by: Zenst

ROFLMFAO


Oh no were dieing again, call for nerf. Seriously you chaps need to adpat and not cry nerf everytiume the tides change.



This is a petition to reduce lag, not to nerf carriers in any way.

Zenst
Hall Of Flame
Chain of Chaos
Posted - 2007.09.09 14:15:00 - [278]
 

Originally by: Two Knives
Originally by: Zenst

ROFLMFAO


Oh no were dieing again, call for nerf. Seriously you chaps need to adpat and not cry nerf everytiume the tides change.



This is a petition to reduce lag, not to nerf carriers in any way.



Well you completely fooled.

Shoukei
Caldari
Boobs Ahoy
Posted - 2007.09.09 15:05:00 - [279]
 

i say that no carrier should be able to carry any fighters, to reduce lag when goonies bring 800 alts in noobships to grind the system into a halt.

BronYAurStomp
Perkone
Posted - 2007.09.09 16:36:00 - [280]
 

Quote:
What we, the undersigned, want is just for CCP to acknowledge fighter spam lag as a priority issue and make fixing and adjusting it a goal in an upcoming patch, whenever that may be.


I think some of you are misreading what this petition is about.

Jarek Dryayen
Caldari
Merch Industrial
Posted - 2007.09.09 16:38:00 - [281]
 

Edited by: Jarek Dryayen on 09/09/2007 16:39:45
/signed

I honestly do not think that carriers and fighters need a nerf, provided we are talking about a game in a lag-free environment. My sole problem is with the crippling lag produced when a fighter swarm comes onto grid. Now, I'm fully aware that a lag-free environment is a pipe dream. But every single time that I have been on the same grid as a significant number of fighters, the lag has been ridiculous.

I love the idea of a ship sitting off grid, sending off their oversized drones to blow the crap out of their foes, assigning fighters to other ships, and the other myriad tasks carriers perform in battle. That being said, apparantly the way the fighters are implemented is creating the lag that makes it take forever and a day to load the grid. If the developers can implement fighters as they exist now, but with much reduced lag, my complaint disappears.

SunglassesInSpace
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.09 17:00:00 - [282]
 

those saying that this would be nerf to carriers are pretty dumb. The proposed changes to dps and drone hp means that it would take a lot more damage to start affecting total fighter dps. Fighter swarms would be more resilient to smart bombs among other things.

Ar'tee
DarkStar 1
Posted - 2007.09.09 17:35:00 - [283]
 

Originally by: Kerfira

So, in conclusion, your figures are extremely inaccurate (unless CCP really HAS implemented the worst possible collision detection algorithm).



Which wouldn't surprise me in the least, tbh. Knowing where to find and how to use/write efficient algorithms is not exactly CCP's strongest point, as far as I can tell. (Neither is user interface design, but I digress.)

For example, try to optimize (for least number of jumps) a route of 9+ waypoints. The client will give you a warning because it will take a very long time. When you experiment with this, it is rather obvious that they use the most naive implementation possible: try every possible ordering of the waypoints and see which one has the least jumps. There are n! possibilities (n=number of waypoints) - this is the worst solution imaginable (worse than exponential, in fact).

However, optimizing waypoint ordering is known as the Traveling Salesman problem, which is one of the best known computer science/graph theory problems. It should take at most a couple hours of searching the internet (or even CS textbooks) to find solutions using heuristics that are orders of magnitude faster - including a specification of how to implement the algorithm so you can just rip it off. No real thinking required even.

From the amount of lag caused as a function of the number of players in a system, I suspect that similar problems occur in CCP's codebase in numerous other places as well, on-grid collision detection is likely to be one of them. (I'm not saying efficiently implementing collision detection is easy btw - because it most certainly isn't).

Postmaster Generale
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.09 17:56:00 - [284]
 

Was going to make a stupid CAOD style rebuttal to Kerfira but thought better of it because hey, look at that forum title.

I don't think anyone in here knows exactly how fighters are coded or how the servers run that code, but anyone who has been in major battles involving fighter swarms can attest to the enormous server lag associated with them.

Fighters are a major source of lag in large engagements, and are currently making capital fleet fights extinct because neither side will risk sending their dreads into such an uncontrollable situation. In sub-capital fights fighters often have the unfortunate and frustrating effect of immobilizing players through server lag while continuing to fight themselves. This leads to more unhappy "stared at loading screen for 10 minutes then loaded station in a pod" player experiences and ultimately makes the game less fun for everyone involved.

The only reason I can think of that anyone would oppose reducing fighter lag is that they currently derive some benefit from its continued existence, but I caution those people that the same fighter lagging tactics can be against them in the future.

So please, CCP, look into this issue. Nobody wants a nerf to fighters or carriers, in fact we want fights involving fighters and carriers to become a normal, smoothly integrated part of fleet warfare, rather than a monster that ruins the fight with lag. We at Goonfleet and around the EVE galaxy appreciate the stellar work you've put out in the past year, and hope that, with our input, you can continue to make EVE a better place to play.

Jinmie
Posted - 2007.09.09 18:02:00 - [285]
 

This would technically be a buff to Carriers with them having to spend half as much on Fighters and having each Fighter last 2x as long to damage than they currently do.

Apparantly some of you can't see that are are crying nerf, I don't see how given the above and the fact that 5 Fighters will do as much dps as 10...

Dimirti
Posted - 2007.09.09 18:06:00 - [286]
 

/signed.

Vyres
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.09 18:07:00 - [287]
 

Originally by: Zenst
Originally by: Two Knives
Originally by: Zenst

ROFLMFAO


Oh no were dieing again, call for nerf. Seriously you chaps need to adpat and not cry nerf everytiume the tides change.



This is a petition to reduce lag, not to nerf carriers in any way.



Well you completely fooled.


Please stay out of this thread since you are bringing in game politics to a place where it dose not belong. We propose the same dps for carriers with less lag helping both alliances. If you dont have anything contructive go to COAD we would be more then glad to troll with you there. Untill then your just making your alliance just as bad as we look in COAD except this isnt COAD...

Orion Moonstar
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.09 18:08:00 - [288]
 

/signed

GHAD Empire
Posted - 2007.09.09 18:43:00 - [289]
 

Same carrier DPS? Check.
Prevents lag? Hopefully so.
Signed? Check.

Welfare State
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.09 19:27:00 - [290]
 

Originally by: Zenst

ROFLMFAO


Oh no were dieing again, call for nerf. Seriously you chaps need to adpat and not cry nerf everytiume the tides change.

Issue is numbers involved not fighters and frankly 1 fighter per ship and limit 5 to a carrier is frankly akain to smoking your own fesius.

NOT SIGNED - BUT I'M NOT A GOON ALT NOW AM I

I'll leave you folks to spam now.


I'm sorry you don't agree with my position, but I believe that the game could be improved if lag was reduced and this seems like a plausible source of lag in large fleet battles.

If you disagree, your best bet would be to direct your attention to the original post (OP) and provide some rational counter-arguments to his post. Otherwise, please refrain from posting personal attacks and flaming someone because they happen to hold a different opinion about the game. Thank you!

Shadow Leigon
Royal Enterprise
Vanguard Imperium
Posted - 2007.09.09 20:11:00 - [291]
 

/signed

Edith
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.09 20:15:00 - [292]
 

/signed

Kaldaine
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.09 20:22:00 - [293]
 

Originally by: Zenst
Originally by: Two Knives
Originally by: Zenst

ROFLMFAO


Oh no were dieing again, call for nerf. Seriously you chaps need to adpat and not cry nerf everytiume the tides change.



This is a petition to reduce lag, not to nerf carriers in any way.



Well you completely fooled.


Lets try something new here. Instead of not reading a single post in the thread and going straight to insulting us because lawl goonies, lets have a discussion on why having 5 fighters doing the DPS of 10, with increased hitpoints and thus harder to smart bomb and finally having less lag in fleet battles is a bad thing? How exactly are the proposed changes a nerf to fighters? Do you have better ideas aside from fly smaller gangs nub? This stuff may be obvious to an experienced vet such as yourself however I am quite new and could use the help. I havent noticed anyone in FAT or the north proposing it as a realistic possibility. Anyone who still thinks it somehow is with the current game mechanics is a much bigger noob then any Goonswarm pilot.

If I am to understand Kerfira we should actually increase lag and make it harder to fight with smaller numbers of people in system. This will prevent people from having large fleet battles and lagging out. Im not sure I agree with this.

Gyle
Caldari
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.09.09 21:22:00 - [294]
 

Its kinda of a hard one. there is something so overwhelmingly cool about large numbers of fighters from carriers and MS swarming hostiles. But it definitely adds significant stress.

it would be a pity to reduce carriers to launching 5 fighters.

Not signed on the proposal. But the issue needs significant thought

Deadly Fear
Posted - 2007.09.09 22:43:00 - [295]
 

/signed

Serendipity007
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.10 01:21:00 - [296]
 

Signing this.

I fly a carrier btw, not happy with giving up fighters, but if its to reduce lag, i'm all for it.

Also, make them smarter and faster so we won't need 20 of them to get the job done.

James Duar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.09.10 03:15:00 - [297]
 

Originally by: Gyle
Its kinda of a hard one. there is something so overwhelmingly cool about large numbers of fighters from carriers and MS swarming hostiles. But it definitely adds significant stress.

it would be a pity to reduce carriers to launching 5 fighters.

Not signed on the proposal. But the issue needs significant thought

Bear in mind that there is no technical reason that a "fighter" couldn't be replaced with "fighter squad" and rendered with a model containing 3-5 individual fighters that are simply treated as a single ship by the game. Carriers launching 5 fighter squads would actually make a lot more sense IMO.

Orangir
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.10 03:55:00 - [298]
 

Kerfira, I'm not going to bother breaking down your post again and refuting it point by point because you've devolved into political maneuvering and name-calling, so I'll just leave you with a quote from CCP themselves that completely refutes your position. This is from a dev blog regarding the reduction of the amount of deployable drones:

Originally by: CCP Oveur
I'd just like to point out that the optimizations are being done from not one, not two but from THREE sides. It may come as a surprise to some players but we are actually optmizing code, optimizing content (this change) and buying more hardware.

Drones take a lot of resources on the client and the server and although it may seem very little to some of you, doing this change alone actually reduces the resource usage by almost half. I think that's quite a lot ;)



I think someone has already linked the blog itself early in the thread if you want to look at it.


Oh, and let's not forget this quote:

Originally by: CCP Oveur
We always want to evolve the gameplay in EVE and in many cases, like Drones, there is no way to do that without optimizing the bejesus out of the system. An easy fix isn't always possible since the system is already so resource intensive that we are directly prohibited from evolving them.

Optimizing it usually means exterminating the factor which causes the most load - and in the case of Drones, the number of drones in space was #1, using heavy resources on the Client and the SOL servers. Exterminating the factor meant reducing the number of drones, plain and simple.


http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=286


Dagam
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.10 09:55:00 - [299]
 

Edited by: Dagam on 10/09/2007 10:28:59
It's too bad Kerfira's trolling/spamming is only bumping this thread giving this issue more attention than it normally would while his posts are buried in the 8th page and after. Not to mention he's wrong on pretty much every point. His arguments: goons delibrately cause lag, drones don't cause that much lag, I'm a very important software designer so I know what I'm talking about. The first two are flat out wrong and the third, lol.

Back on topic I liked when drones were reduced from 15 to 5 because it let you micromanage them much better. The change actually buffed drones while reducing lag. Fact is if goons proposed this change you would have the same BoB members and alts kneejerk opposing it because they're goons and dammit they're trying to get their way! They don't care or want to consider if it will make the game better. If you want an example take the time to read all of Kerfira's posts.

Miss KillSome
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2007.09.10 10:40:00 - [300]
 

Edited by: Miss KillSome on 10/09/2007 10:43:20
well, the fighters may be the cause for extra lag as drones were 1 year back BUT!

I remember 6-7months ago when LV was still alive. That JV1V battle at the 4am in th emorning for me..there was no fighters (or very little!) there was just a massive defensive fleet (400 in system) and THE massive offensive fleet (1000man gang) approaching JV1V.


And node crashed, and crashed. And GM didnt do anything. nor he couldnt do anything except lock the system. But he didnt.

So, there is still a problem with massive fleets engaging eachother apart from fighters and drones.

I think that they will solve this problem, when they implement that system for distributed NODE processing, but till then, we cannot do anything. If there is 150fighters in air, i'm sure that both parties have ALOT of ships there also, making lag anyway, having fighters or not.

Fighters are good for defending force, coz they work even if everything is lagged. Jumpins have priority over logins into system, making crashed defenders unbale to help in fight, at least fighters can do some work, when offensive blob jumps into system.

Solve the problem at roots: UI redesign. Overview into threads. g8s jump limit (there is always some other route into system..). Logins into system have priority over jumpins. GMs should be informed by someone that big fleet fight is going to happen or they can be autoinformed by system if there is gang of over 200ships moving around. More JITA nodes available for strategic 0.0 systems. Jumping delay when uncloaking needs to be eliminated. (Are?) Gang bonuses still calculated from every gang members on uncloking. (Is?) Grid updating for all ships when one offensive module is activated on one ship only.


Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (15)

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