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

Author Topic

Kaldaine
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.15 19:19:00 - [391]
 

Originally by: Jesus HChrist
lag sucks? try NOT bringing 400 ppl, 50 of which are in noob ships.

fecking whiners


Checking out BoBs killboard looking for rookie ship losses I am having trouble finding 50 rookie ship kills other then yesterday when we started suiciding into 0OY as it was seen as a lost cause. The number of shuttles killed in the last year is almost negligible. Checking frigate losses I also see that aside from yesterday in the past several weeks frigate losses are at an all time low. I am forced to conclude BoB is either unable to handle our rookie shuttle gangs, we are not fighting BoB or (the most likely scenario) we havent had much more then 200 people in gang and they are flying much more then frigates for the past while.

I guess we can put the rookie ship, bookmark bomb and intentional lag myths to rest now using your own killboard.

Slaatibartfast
Forty Two
Posted - 2007.09.15 19:23:00 - [392]
 

Edited by: Slaatibartfast on 15/09/2007 19:24:17
Edited by: Slaatibartfast on 15/09/2007 19:23:17
Originally by: Nova Cygni
Originally by: Slaatibartfast

Must just be to create lag which indiscriminately affects all and therefore would serve to shoot them in their own feet. Sheer tactical genius!

Rolling Eyes

Yes, because we all know that fighters dont auto target in lag or anything, so clearly where would the advantage be!


They respond to agression....think about what that actually means before you claim it's an advantage in big fights where you're trying to focus fire on caps...

Warp into a fight/mission etc, nothing targets you, nothing aggros you, you launch your drones, your drones will do nothing.

Seriously, where are you guys getting all these wierd ideas about how drones work from? Or do you order all your pilots to make sure they each fire a shot at every carrier just to make sure they get fighters auto-aggro'ing them?

Bon Ali
Bon's Ecological Recycling
Posted - 2007.09.15 19:31:00 - [393]
 

Originally by: Slaatibartfast

They respond to agression....think about what that actually means before you claim it's an advantage in big fights where you're trying to focus fire on caps...

Warp into a fight/mission etc, nothing targets you, nothing aggros you, you launch your drones, your drones will do nothing.

Seriously, where are you guys getting all these wierd ideas about how drones work from? Or do you order all your pilots to make sure they each fire a shot at every carrier just to make sure they get fighters auto-aggro'ing them?

Chimp Logistics, at the forefront of fleet battles on a daily basis, ready to dish out the hard earned knowledge! ps you are dumb.

1Of9
Gallente
The Circle
White Noise.
Posted - 2007.09.15 19:53:00 - [394]
 

Originally by: Bon Ali
I really hope english is your 9th language.


it is Cool

fire 59
Destructive Influence
KenZoku
Posted - 2007.09.15 20:39:00 - [395]
 

Have they understood that fighters DO NOT auto aggro like drones do yet and only respond to aggression or commands?


Cyleth
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.09.15 20:52:00 - [396]
 

Goons having close to 300 posts out of 400 tells quite a lot.Laughing

BOldMan
Reikoku
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.09.15 21:32:00 - [397]
 

Edited by: BOldMan on 15/09/2007 21:32:39
Originally by: Nova Cygnioh
wait? whats this picture i just found:
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/3491/fightersvr0.jpg

hmmmm.


You forgot to phoshop the local number chat, dude!

fire 59
Destructive Influence
KenZoku
Posted - 2007.09.15 21:45:00 - [398]
 

Edited by: fire 59 on 15/09/2007 21:49:07
Edit - meh



Admiral Trask
freelancers inc
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2007.09.15 23:09:00 - [399]
 

Edited by: Admiral Trask on 16/09/2007 03:49:48
a) Fighters don't autoaggro unless the FIGHTER has been shot at or the order to attack has been given.
b) Each pilot who had fighters assigned had as many of his own drones in bay so the same thing would occur with normal drones making a fighter nerf pointless to say the least
c) Carriers and Motherships do cause a little bit of lag, but they are very expensive and so no where near as common as bs's and support, because those are the ships cause the majority of the lag
d) If you think fighter are an unfair advantage train those characters in frigates to use carriers instead of relying on your allies capitals and then whining about ours.

Fighters are fine. leave them be Evil or Very Mad

EDIT:- I was there at the time. Heard no order to create lag. Heard more orders trying to reduce it, and as for the carriers having fighters out, THEY WANT KILLS TOO Twisted EvilTwisted Evil

Machanara
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2007.09.16 03:03:00 - [400]
 

You know....its pretty funny, yet sad...that all yo Goons come here and whine up a storm when you got WTF PWND in a fleet fight.

Did ANYONE MAKE you jump through that gate into all those carriers, which you KNEW were there in the first place?? Don't think so.

Do fighters agress on their OWN without either being fired upon or their owners being fired on or commanded to?? Nope, not there either.

The ONLY thing I see here is a bunch of immature LOSERS who try to blame someone else for their STUPID decisions! Yea, lag SUCKS! We've all delt with it over and over and over.

YOU and YOU made the decision to JUMP into the froth and you got your WHINY arses PWND. You and ONLY YOU have yourselves to blame for it. If you can't deal with the lag EVERYONE IN THIS GAME knows is there, then I suggest you go find another game where you can't blame mechanics on your EPIC failure.

I know a good day-care down the street you guys can stay in if you need to, btw....

James Duar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.09.16 03:16:00 - [401]
 

Edited by: James Duar on 16/09/2007 04:25:18
nt.

KISOGOKU
Posted - 2007.09.16 08:02:00 - [402]
 

/Not signed
when will goons stop crying evrytime their ** handed to them in a fleet battle?Noone trained carriers and other *** load skills to uncompetent goons crying for nerf.
start training capitals ,train fighters dont cry.


Erotic Irony
0bsession
Posted - 2007.09.16 08:46:00 - [403]
 

this thread, and this forum in the future, is in dire need of moderation

Mihailo Great
Dublin Core
Posted - 2007.09.16 09:06:00 - [404]
 

Don't worry, the devs only read the intelligent posts, and cringe when they see smacking.

1Of9
Gallente
The Circle
White Noise.
Posted - 2007.09.16 09:41:00 - [405]
 

Originally by: Mihailo Great
Don't worry, the devs only read the intelligent posts, and cringe when they see smacking.


So true, and so sad, because you guys making dev's wasting hours reading 14 pages of useless posts about how goons lost a battle and they r out blobed.
This time they could used to actually fix lag instead of reading this crap...

Brunswick2
coracao ardente
Posted - 2007.09.16 22:09:00 - [406]
 

Edited by: Brunswick2 on 16/09/2007 22:10:11
Well, I at least agree that fighters should be made immaterial. Wouldn't imbalance anything and would reduce lag, which is always good.

And also, attack the idea, not the person.

HaulandHaul
Gallente
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2007.09.17 10:12:00 - [407]
 

Edited by: HaulandHaul on 17/09/2007 10:13:08
ROFLCOPTERLMAO MORE GOON TEARS LaughingLaughing

Edit; this is almost worse then the threatnaught! ahaha

-

Cmdr Sp0ck
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2007.09.17 14:21:00 - [408]
 

Originally by: Mihailo Great
Don't worry, the devs only read the intelligent posts, and cringe when they see smacking.


Then we can rest assured they won't read any Goon posts. Laughing Laughing

Anyways, back on topic.

Fighters don't create the massive lag you Goons are inventing on these forums. They contribute to lag indeed, but not more than all the other things that exist in game: jumping, module activation, the fleet structure, all the other ships in game, all the other drones in game, all the calculations involved in all the different types of actions that come from using all these features/items, and so on.
It is all these things combined - which increase as the number of pilots in any one node increases - that causes the load on the servers, NOT fighters in any specific and unique way as Goons try to put it.

Fighters are nothing more than drones with specific characteristics. If you say fighters cause insane amounts of lag, then you are saying that ALL DRONES cause that insane lag. In which case Goons themselves destroy their own arguments as it is common knowledge that fighters ARE NOT the most common drones in EVE.

Being serious about solving the lag issues in EVE means that CCP need to revisit the coding in virtually everything, from ships to modules, to try and make calculations more efficient (if possible). This is nothing short of a monumental task for the devs i'm sure.
Fighters are merely a VERY small part of the problem. There are many other things in EVE that cause much more lag than fighters.

This thread and Goons' arguments are mute. And like Mihailo stated, devs only read intelligent posts. Wink

Toffles
Pod'em All
Not Found.
Posted - 2007.09.17 16:07:00 - [409]
 

Originally by: 1Of9
Originally by: Nova Cygni
Edited by: Nova Cygni on 15/09/2007 18:56:53
you guys are right, those goons are complaining for no reason!

its not like BoB has ever been known to abuse broken game mechanics! they would never use the aggression timer to kill a titan, or abuse the clearly broken titan game mechanic, or POS bowl. And they CERTAINLY wouldnt use an absurd number of fighters just to lag nope nope. you guys are right.

oh wait? whats this picture i just found:
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/3491/fightersvr0.jpg

hmmmm.


yeah .. finally u admiting you whining because u got OWNED and u had to win to come to the forums scream victory.. oh wait .. u cant can u ?
TO THE WHINEMOBILE you all read in the goons forum right?



Check the date this thread was created, then check the date the 0oyz battle happened. Then shoot yourself in the head for being a ****ing moron. That goes for the rest of you bob + bob pets ****ting on this thread by being willfully ignorant despite the number of times people have tried to slowly explain to you that this isn't about nerfing carriers or fighters. This could just as easily be a discussion about simplifying missile physics in large fleet battles or some other change that would allow the battle to play out as it normally would, just not as pretty and with less lag.

Toffles
Pod'em All
Not Found.
Posted - 2007.09.17 16:24:00 - [410]
 

Originally by: Cmdr Sp0ck
Originally by: Mihailo Great
Don't worry, the devs only read the intelligent posts, and cringe when they see smacking.


Then we can rest assured they won't read any Goon posts. Laughing Laughing

Anyways, back on topic.

Fighters don't create the massive lag you Goons are inventing on these forums. They contribute to lag indeed, but not more than all the other things that exist in game: jumping, module activation, the fleet structure, all the other ships in game, all the other drones in game, all the calculations involved in all the different types of actions that come from using all these features/items, and so on.
It is all these things combined - which increase as the number of pilots in any one node increases - that causes the load on the servers, NOT fighters in any specific and unique way as Goons try to put it.

Fighters are nothing more than drones with specific characteristics. If you say fighters cause insane amounts of lag, then you are saying that ALL DRONES cause that insane lag. In which case Goons themselves destroy their own arguments as it is common knowledge that fighters ARE NOT the most common drones in EVE.

Being serious about solving the lag issues in EVE means that CCP need to revisit the coding in virtually everything, from ships to modules, to try and make calculations more efficient (if possible). This is nothing short of a monumental task for the devs i'm sure.
Fighters are merely a VERY small part of the problem. There are many other things in EVE that cause much more lag than fighters.

This thread and Goons' arguments are mute. And like Mihailo stated, devs only read intelligent posts. Wink


Then it's nice to know they won't read your post. I can't see where anyone ever said reducing fighter numbers would completely fix the lag, just that it might help reduce it, so maybe stop putting words in other people's mouths. You state that fighters are only a small cause of the lag and then vaguely say that there are other things causing much more lag... Like what? What is your reasoning based on other than guessing.

At least with carrier fighters we have anecdotal evidence as anyone who's been around a "fighter cloud" can tell you that it makes things noticeably more laggy. I know for our own alliance when we are shooting a tower/station with a support fleet the order will go out to pull drones back in when things get too laggy. After winning an engagement in a laggy system its not uncommon for the fc to order the enemy drones left behind be killed to reduce lag.

HydroSan
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.18 03:47:00 - [411]
 

Edited by: HydroSan on 18/09/2007 04:57:41
If any of the BoB/BoB pets posting in this thread would actually read the OP, they'd know that we aren't asking for a nerf, but a rework of the code so it isn't as laggy.

We're not asking for the damage or capabilities of carriers to be nerfed, we're asking for CCP to rework the code so fighters don't completely destroy the server when they're used.

Here, let me spell it out for you guys again:

WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR CARRIERS TO BE NERFED IN ANY WAY. WE WANT CCP TO REWORK THE CODE SO THE LAG ISN'T AS BAD.

And just in case you don't get it:

WE, THE GOONS, DO NOT, EN OH TEE, WANT TO NERF, OR LESSEN, THE CAPABILITIES OF CARRIERS IN ANY WAY AT ALL.

Is that better for you? Do you guys get it now? Or will you continue to chestbeat and bring politics into a forum where politics are not allowed?

edit: Oh, and for the record, I own a carrier and use it every single day.

Butter Dog
Gallente
The Monocled Elite
Posted - 2007.09.18 10:28:00 - [412]
 

Edited by: Butter Dog on 18/09/2007 10:32:09

Sorry Goons but you lose all credibility with regard to a stance about lag-reduction, whenever you jump in hundreds of T1 frigs/noobships into an already lagged system.

The sole point of doing that is lag creation. We all know such ships cannot contribute to the fight in any meaningful way. Also your assumptions about fighter auto-aggression are simply wrong. Your whole logic is fundamentally flawed.

Its a little bit like going into my local butchers, who proceeds to tell me how cruel meat is and that I should convert to vegetarianism. Your stance is little short of preposterous given your in-game actions vis-a-vis lag.




Qual
Gallente
Cornexant Research
Posted - 2007.09.18 10:35:00 - [413]
 

Originally by: HydroSan

WE, THE GOONS, DO NOT, EN OH TEE, WANT TO NERF, OR LESSEN, THE CAPABILITIES OF CARRIERS IN ANY WAY AT ALL.



Well, then your suggestions have a few problems. Main one I see is that when you turn 5 drones into 1 drone, you take out the ability to combine damage types. You also take away the ability to spread out damage. (Yes, that actaully have uses in some situations. Especialy with targets far removed from each other.)

Allready there you have a significant nerf of the carrier capabilities.

While I will accept that you intention might not be to nerf the carriers, you actual suggestions do nerf them.

Lady Caeser
Open Fist of Castallus
Posted - 2007.09.18 10:55:00 - [414]
 

Originally by: Butter Dog
Edited by: Butter Dog on 18/09/2007 10:32:09

Sorry Goons but you lose all credibility with regard to a stance about lag-reduction, whenever you jump in hundreds of T1 frigs/noobships into an already lagged system.

The sole point of doing that is lag creation. We all know such ships cannot contribute to the fight in any meaningful way. Also your assumptions about fighter auto-aggression are simply wrong. Your whole logic is fundamentally flawed.

Its a little bit like going into my local butchers, who proceeds to tell me how cruel meat is and that I should convert to vegetarianism. Your stance is little short of preposterous given your in-game actions vis-a-vis lag.






Butterdog talking about credibility? +1 Fail point.

Noob ship fun is irrelevent to the issue, as you stated they arent capable of affecting the fight much so don't see your point there (the noob ships in 00y were after the fight and purely to let off steam): +2 Fail points.

There aren't "assumptions about fighter autoaggression" as you put it, if you read the post (yes I know expecting a lot from you isnt it?) the poster talks about DRONE auto aggression (15 heavy t2 ogres on a thanatos isn't peanuts after all). It is your reading comprehention that is flawed: +1 Fail point.

Why do you think drones were limited to 5 per ship in the first place butterdawg? Oh yeah I remember now, because people used it to LAG out their opponents at gatecamps and win the fight. Not remembering your eve history properly: +1 Fail point.

ANALYSIS COMPLETE: FAILED.

Butter Dog
Gallente
The Monocled Elite
Posted - 2007.09.18 11:33:00 - [415]
 

Originally by: Lady Caeser
Originally by: Butter Dog
Edited by: Butter Dog on 18/09/2007 10:32:09

Sorry Goons but you lose all credibility with regard to a stance about lag-reduction, whenever you jump in hundreds of T1 frigs/noobships into an already lagged system.

The sole point of doing that is lag creation. We all know such ships cannot contribute to the fight in any meaningful way. Also your assumptions about fighter auto-aggression are simply wrong. Your whole logic is fundamentally flawed.

Its a little bit like going into my local butchers, who proceeds to tell me how cruel meat is and that I should convert to vegetarianism. Your stance is little short of preposterous given your in-game actions vis-a-vis lag.






Butterdog talking about credibility? +1 Fail point.

Noob ship fun is irrelevent to the issue, as you stated they arent capable of affecting the fight much so don't see your point there (the noob ships in 00y were after the fight and purely to let off steam): +2 Fail points.

There aren't "assumptions about fighter autoaggression" as you put it, if you read the post (yes I know expecting a lot from you isnt it?) the poster talks about DRONE auto aggression (15 heavy t2 ogres on a thanatos isn't peanuts after all). It is your reading comprehention that is flawed: +1 Fail point.

Why do you think drones were limited to 5 per ship in the first place butterdawg? Oh yeah I remember now, because people used it to LAG out their opponents at gatecamps and win the fight. Not remembering your eve history properly: +1 Fail point.

ANALYSIS COMPLETE: FAILED.


Maybe you don't fly much PvP, or maybe you weren't around before the drone number reduction - but I can tell you it made sweet FA difference to lag.

How can you possibly say the T1 frig/noobship thing is not an issue? By jumping hundreds of them into an already laggy system you will conly to create more pressure on the node. You create more lag, you add nothing, you can only die and make more wrecks/lag.

The Goons have zero credibility on a lag-reduction stance. It is amusing to watch, though. You lose a fight or two then cry en-masse to change game mechanics despite previously using said mechanics to your advantage.

Maybe next time they won't be insane enough to deploy capitals in an *already* lagged out system with 50 carriers in. Jumping in, dying as anyone could have told you that you would have, then whining on this epic scale is bordering on the comedic.

One can only assume it was done specifically to create such a whine-thread, as God knows there is no other logical reason to suicide capitals like that on a gate.





Lady Caeser
Open Fist of Castallus
Posted - 2007.09.18 11:49:00 - [416]
 

I'm not a goon but thanks for playing!

HydroSan
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.18 23:09:00 - [417]
 

Edited by: HydroSan on 18/09/2007 23:10:16
Originally by: Butter Dog
How can you possibly say the T1 frig/noobship thing is not an issue? By jumping hundreds of them into an already laggy system you will conly to create more pressure on the node. You create more lag, you add nothing, you can only die and make more wrecks/lag.


Yes because it wasn't a single, lone frigate who decloaked Shrike and got him killed. Not to mention that frigates can fit a MWD, a warp disruptor and a stasis webifier: something that can pin down anything from another frigate to a dreadnought. Every ship counts.

Quote:
The Goons have zero credibility on a lag-reduction stance. It is amusing to watch, though. You lose a fight or two then cry en-masse to change game mechanics despite previously using said mechanics to your advantage.


Yes, we've abused Titans, POS bowling, and fighter spamming in the past. Absolutely right. Oh no, wait, you're wrong.

Quote:
Maybe next time they won't be insane enough to deploy capitals in an *already* lagged out system with 50 carriers in. Jumping in, dying as anyone could have told you that you would have, then whining on this epic scale is bordering on the comedic.

One can only assume it was done specifically to create such a whine-thread, as God knows there is no other logical reason to suicide capitals like that on a gate.


So you just admitted that 50 carriers made the system unplayable and disallowed a reasonable tactic (jumping capitals on top of capitals) from working, and then turn around and say the tactic is unreasonable because lagging a system out with 50 carriers is perfectly acceptable?

Butter Dog your posting is better when you're whining like a baby and committing political suicide.

B Glorious
Posted - 2007.09.18 23:39:00 - [418]
 

Originally by: The Opening Post
What we 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. Combat cannot occur as the game was designed without distinct and effective action from CCP.

The quote below is just an example of what could work, though whatever happens is not as important as making sure something happens. This idea can be scrapped if a better idea works just as well.



I had feared we had strayed from issue at hand.

Acacia Everto
INTERNET HARBLRAGE
Posted - 2007.09.19 01:26:00 - [419]
 

In my opinion, the fact that a Carrier can field multiple smaller drones is one of its greatest assets, making it much much harder to take down its DPS. I say we wait for Rev3 and Trinity 2 before we start whining for fighter reduction. A Carrier just doesn't have the same punch or feel if you can field only 5 drones, uber as they may be.

/not signed

Herring MacGuffin
Amarr
Ice Breaker Industries
Posted - 2007.09.19 02:49:00 - [420]
 

Originally by: Acacia Everto
In my opinion, the fact that a Carrier can field multiple smaller drones is one of its greatest assets, making it much much harder to take down its DPS. I say we wait for Rev3 and Trinity 2 before we start whining for fighter reduction. A Carrier just doesn't have the same punch or feel if you can field only 5 drones, uber as they may be.

/not signed


Whoa, yeah...lets not get crazy here and do anything about lag for a good 3 months...gotta let this thing simmer a bit and see what comes out of it.

50 ships in local usually doesn't = lagged out.

50 carriers in local with 10+ drones out each = lagged out.

Man, I wonder where that lag is coming from...must be the goons and their infernal T1 frigates. Rolling Eyes


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