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 : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : last (15)

Author Topic

Shoukei
Caldari
Boobs Ahoy
Posted - 2007.09.08 13:50:00 - [181]
 

Originally by: Zombie Network
Because it is a serious issue with the game, and one that needs to be addressed.


in all seriousness, only issue is the fact that servers cant cope with 800 people fighting on the same grid. stop trying to cram as many people as possible into one system.

Suseki Koi
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:01:00 - [182]
 

Same damage, but less lag? Sounds good to me.

/signed

Zombie Network
Perkone
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:07:00 - [183]
 

Edited by: Zombie Network on 08/09/2007 14:08:01
Originally by: Shoukei
Originally by: Zombie Network
Because it is a serious issue with the game, and one that needs to be addressed.


in all seriousness, only issue is the fact that servers cant cope with 800 people fighting on the same grid. stop trying to cram as many people as possible into one system.


I will admit that the server being unable to cope with 800 people fighting on the same grid is definately an issue that needs to be addresses, but is is not the ONLY issue, and is definately not related to the content of this thread which is the obscene amount of lag caused by the several hundred fighters that can be produced by a couple of dozen players. So please take your complaints and discussion about the need for the blob to the relevant thread.

Pociomundo
Gallentean Gynaecologists
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:08:00 - [184]
 

Edited by: Pociomundo on 08/09/2007 14:12:07
If this would mean that atm.

Carrier V, Fighters V Thanatos with 12 Fighters does 1500 dps with each fighter doing 125 dps x 12 = 1500.

And the new system would mean 125 x 2 (drone interfacing 5) = 250 + 25dps extra per Fighter per Drone Control Unit.

So a Fighters V Carrier V Thanatos with 5 Fighters and 2 Drone Control's would still do 1500 dps.

Then /signed.

BrightWater
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:09:00 - [185]
 

/signed

As long as motherships and carriers have the same firepower, but somehow generate less lag (making drones non-collidable or reducing their numbers but increasing their strength) it is a great idea.

There was already a fix for a very similar problem in exodus when players could control more than 5 drones. The problem that they had was an immense amount of lag caused by the drone blobs. I don't think anyone disagrees with that decision. Now that we are having the exact same problem I think it would be prudent to look at the past and see what can be done to fix it.

ChoppinBrocolli
ElitistOps
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:15:00 - [186]
 

Wether or not the overhead of drones is exponential, it is quite safe to say they have a crippling effect on a grid/node as anyone with experience in fleet battles will attest to.

Limiting the amount of drones is absolutely the right course of action. Perhaps in addition to this, fighters could somehow also be affected by lag? For instance not having them aggress the next target for a X seconds, where X is the average ping to each player?

Ling Xiaoyu
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:18:00 - [187]
 

/signed

I fly a carrier, and I love being able to use 10 fighters in my ratting setup, but the lag it causes is just too much. I got in a carrier for the cap fights, but there aren't any anymore and (though there are other factors) I think a big part of it is the lag caused by fighters makes it impossible.

Please fix somehow tia

HatfulOfHollow
Synetix Engineering
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:18:00 - [188]
 

Originally by: Shoukei
Originally by: HatfulOfHollow
This guy has a point. We should stop flying all frig fleets.

look at the killboard statistics. even if they are slightly off, they still show rather accurately what are the most flown ships.



lol ur dum

Chrisis Fae
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:19:00 - [189]
 

Originally by: HatfulOfHollow
Originally by: Shoukei
bring 400 less useless frigs into the fight.

This guy has a point. We should stop flying all frig fleets.


This isn't getting enough attention. Goon leadership needs to explain why haven't we been told this before!

In all seriousness, though, I like the suggestions in this thread that buff fighters in exchange for reducing their number. Damage output stays the same for the high skill players, but now everyone in the fleet battle gets to play the game.

BuIIseye
Amarr
Rossum Technology
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:19:00 - [190]
 

Edited by: BuIIseye on 08/09/2007 14:28:50

IMO if you want to improve game performance, instead of nerfing drones in hope of less lag in 600 man systems, switch to discourageing the forming of blobs.

Adding a limit of non-positive standing players that can lock your ship in combat would be a step in the right direction.

For example: only # hostiles can target your frigate
only ## hostiles can target your cruiser
.
.
.
only ### hostiles can target your titan
(replace # with a number that balance things depending on the ship class)

As server performance improve, increase the numbers. Not sure how doable it is in terms of codeing, but adding this when there is more than 4 gangs of 200+ players in surrounding systems might help with the blobing trend that we all do, even if we want it or not.

Nerfing drones for the sake of game performance won't deal with the main problem and that is the tendence to blob.

Having the option to turn off missile effects, ship explosion effects and wreck/can's from the grid would also help in 150+ vs 150+ clashes.

Just my 2 cents.

ChoppinBrocolli
ElitistOps
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:33:00 - [191]
 

Originally by: BuIIseye
Edited by: BuIIseye on 08/09/2007 14:21:06
IMO if you want to improve game performance, instead of concentrated on improveing fights in 600 man systems, switch to discourageing forming of blobs.

Adding a limit of non-positive standing players that can lock your ship in combat would be a step in the right direction.

For example: only # hostiles can target your frigate
only ## hostiles can target your cruiser
.
.
.
only ### hostiles can target your titan
(replace # with a number that balance things depending on the ship class)

As server performance improve, increase the numbers. Not sure how doable it is in terms of codeing, but adding this when there is more than 4 gangs of 200+ players in surrounding systems might help with the blobing trend that we all do, even if we want it or not.

Nerfing drones for the sake of game performance won't deal with the main problem and that is the tendence to blob.

Having the option to turn off missile effects, ship explosion effects and wreck/can's from the grid would also help in 150+ vs 150+ clashes.

Just my 2 cents.



I understand what you're saying about blobbing and you are right in that this is part of the lag problem but seriously, what you propose would constitute an enormous upheaval in balance and has such far reaching complications that make it absolutely unfeasable to implement. Aside from that, your suggestion would actually do nothing to stop blobbing as such. It would only nerf calling primaries and instead promote spreading your DPS.

Better solutions are:
- more strategic objectives so that fleets are forced to split up their forces.
- better scalability; the option to have multiple servers/nodes per system etcetera. I believe this was announced as 'under development' some time ago.
- lower POS HP so that it is more effective to split up a BS fleet and hit multiple POS at once

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:41:00 - [192]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 08/09/2007 14:46:26
Originally by: Shoukei
Originally by: Zombie Network
Because it is a serious issue with the game, and one that needs to be addressed.


in all seriousness, only issue is the fact that servers cant cope with 800 people fighting on the same grid. stop trying to cram as many people as possible into one system.


Exactly, and drones/fighters are essentially people in the servers eyes. It has to do ALL the calculations for all of them that it has to if the drone was a character in a frigate.

This means that if the server cant handle 500 people on grid, when 100 people are on grid and have drones/fighters out, the server is 100 people over limit instead of 400 people under limit!

20 carriers produces on average about 248 fighters. So 20 carriers provide a full half the capacity of the servers if the servers could handle 500 people on grid[they cant as far as i can tell]

Here is a good example.

Two days ago when RSF was sieging 0oyz, BoB warped 16 carriers and 4 motherships on grid to bust up the camp so they could jump through the gate and get battleships in system[at least as i saw it]. This should be a legitimate tactic, 16 carriers and 4 motherships are going to spider-tank like a nothing and dump out plenty of DPS to melt a battleship before it knows whats happening.

So our battleships are scattering and our support are loading anti-fighter overviews. It took me about 5 minutes to lock the fighters. At which point i believe i was called primary[t2 battlecruiser], i dont know. All i know is that a single megathron started shooting me, and his entire rack of guns clearly didnt activate because i was taking very little damage. I warped out at about half armor, it took me about 1 minute to do so.

In all reality it should have taken me 10 seconds to warp out and the battleship should have gotten halfway through my armor in about 4 volleys[of which i recieved many more than 4].

I got to the gate and there was a fighter there, so i locked, targeted and aggressed it. It was close to me and so i really couldnt hit it well. But the aggression caused it to come and shoot me instead of returning to the carrier. It took my drones and some other ship maybe two to three minutes to kill the fighter. The Carrier pilot who ought to have been able to recall his drone and save it couldnt because the fighter lag was so bad he couldnt issue orders to his fighter to not die after following a ship into warp.

Do i want 16 carriers and 20 motherships to NOT be a potent force with ~30,000 dps? No. Do i want fighters to be easy to kill? No

But what i do want is for me to be able to operate my ship under those conditions, and for my enemy to be able to operate his ship under those conditions. Because 20 carriers dont have to release 250 drones in order to deal 20,000 dps. And 16 carriers and 4 motherships dont have to release 300+ to deal 30,000. At least, they dont so long as you fix fighters to lower numbers. They would only have to bring 100 fighters, which would save them a full 150-200 people on grid of power.

BuIIseye
Amarr
Rossum Technology
Posted - 2007.09.08 14:46:00 - [193]
 

Edited by: BuIIseye on 08/09/2007 14:48:34
Originally by: ChoppinBrocolli

Better solutions are:
- more strategic objectives so that fleets are forced to split up their forces.
- better scalability; the option to have multiple servers/nodes per system etcetera. I believe this was announced as 'under development' some time ago.



Agreed

My idea above needs more brainstorm to make it more practical and i wasan't saying to have it as a default thing, but more like a "supliment" to reinforceing nodes to at least descourage people massing up in a system since the idea that you will lag out but still manage to grind a way to victory if you just bring more only causes massive pilot buildups in a system until it gets unplayable.

Shihuangdi
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.08 15:21:00 - [194]
 

/signed

I don't think fighters should be nerfed (i.e. whatever changes should leave them as effective as before but without the omg lag effects they generate) but something needs to be done about the huge amount of lag they create.

Vio Geraci
Amarr
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.09.08 15:23:00 - [195]
 

Players pay for subscriptions, fighters do not. Yet players are crippled by fighter lag as the fighters kill with impunity.

/signed

Havoc GunStar
GoonWaffe
SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
Posted - 2007.09.08 15:37:00 - [196]
 

/Signed

Ignore the haters. Siege Mode lag was addressed recently, please CCP, give Fighters the same work-over you did to dreads. Whether that means a reduction in the number (and increase in damage) like when Drone Interfacing was nerfed down from letting me field 10 drones, or some sort of re-design, whatever, please just give fighter lag some focus.

Xenotic
Posted - 2007.09.08 15:44:00 - [197]
 

/SIGNED

I want to be able to pew pew :(

Morris Falter
Caldari
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2007.09.08 16:18:00 - [198]
 

Originally by: Shoukei
Originally by: Zombie Network
Because it is a serious issue with the game, and one that needs to be addressed.


in all seriousness, only issue is the fact that servers cant cope with 800 people fighting on the same grid. stop trying to cram as many people as possible into one system.


This is not a unique situation with any one player alliance or corporation. 100 carriers x 10 fighters each.. if that proves challenging for you to work out, please post again so we can assist further.

But I'd prefer it if you just kept quiet unless you have something useful to contribute.

Regards,


Hanns Choibman
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.08 16:50:00 - [199]
 

I just wanted to make the point that, The difference between Goonfleet blobs and fighter blobs, is that Goonfleet blobs have paying customers behind each ship and fighters do not.

Iceinferno
Corp 1 Allstars
PuPPet MasTers
Posted - 2007.09.08 16:58:00 - [200]
 

well the goal for the game here has obviously been big fleetfights - and now we have them but the secondary goal to keep it playable and lagfree has not succeeded yet. I wish to have lagfree fights but it gets alredady laggy when there are 100 ships in local jumping. this has nothing to do with drones at all - sure they will maximise the lag.
I am gonna sign the post but changes on drones are not the solution we need I am afraid.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.09.08 17:07:00 - [201]
 

Originally by: Hanns Choibman
I just wanted to make the point that, The difference between Goonfleet blobs and fighter blobs, is that Goonfleet blobs have paying customers behind each ship and fighters do not.


No, the difference between goonfleet blobs and fighter blobs is that goonfleet blobs cant take actions in huge lag because goonfleet blobs are made up of players, but fighter blobs continue to auto-aggress hostiles.

So if goonfleet blobs a system they get hit just as hard as anyone else. If you blob with fighters you dont get hit as hard as the other side.

This is why people dont launch drones in high lag situations, because it just makes it harder for them and everyone else to have a fight.

This isnt about which side has more paying customers, the lag affects everyone. Its about making changes that do not modify the primary balance considerations but do make the game playable for all involved.

This has advantages for both carrier pilots and the rest. Carrier pilots get bigger, heartier drones, that respond better to their commands. Motherships get ridiculously bigger, heartier drones, that respond better to their commands.

This makes it easier for them to save drones, makes it easier for them to change targets, and makes it easier for them, in general, to go about the business of being a carrier. If they need to bug out it makes it easier for them to scoop their fighters and launch expendable warriors to take down the tacklers.

Everyone else gains the ability to fight.

Its win win situation.

The Trixter
DarkStar 1
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.08 17:38:00 - [202]
 

/Signed

Cool

Kar Strike
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.08 17:42:00 - [203]
 

Signing this. Something needs to be done.

Jacques Cousteau
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.08 18:18:00 - [204]
 

/signed

Andre Carnegi
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.08 18:27:00 - [205]
 

/signed

Layla Shai
Posted - 2007.09.08 18:31:00 - [206]
 

Originally by: BuIIseye
Edited by: BuIIseye on 08/09/2007 14:48:34
Originally by: ChoppinBrocolli

Better solutions are:
- more strategic objectives so that fleets are forced to split up their forces.
- better scalability; the option to have multiple servers/nodes per system etcetera. I believe this was announced as 'under development' some time ago.



Agreed

My idea above needs more brainstorm to make it more practical and i wasan't saying to have it as a default thing, but more like a "supliment" to reinforceing nodes to at least descourage people massing up in a system since the idea that you will lag out but still manage to grind a way to victory if you just bring more only causes massive pilot buildups in a system until it gets unplayable.


If you can figure out a way to discourage large blobs without limiting anyones ability to play the game or discourage them from playing the game Im sure everyone would love to hear it. Seeing as the game was designed and advertised with large fleet battles in mind Im not really sure how easy it will be to actually accomplish this. Seeing how broken large fleet battles actually are theres really no reason not to look at every little idea to minimize lag or numbers.

Its also nice how the alt trolls still believe Goonswarm and RA are the root of all evil. How come they have no problems with such grand alliances as LV bragging about being the largest alliance in Eve or bragging about fighting with 10000 people vs RA's 1000?

Kiliana Kratanna
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.09.08 18:31:00 - [207]
 

/signed

It seems the only BOB response to this thread so far is that Goons are just attacking them . This is an incorrect assumption. I have no problems losing ship after ship to anything a hostile corp can throw at me. The problem i have is I want to at least put up some sort of fight between jumping into a hostile system to attack and seeing my pod back in station. As of this point it is impossible to even see my killer nevermind activate my guns or any module for that matter. Reduction of lag is essential for the further existence of this game and its subscribers regardless of faction.

Midshipman
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.09.08 18:47:00 - [208]
 

It seems like removing collision detection from fighters/drones would go quite a long way to reducing the lag generated by them. The only possible con to this idea that comes to mind is that it'll be a bit harder to decloak people, but that is a rather limited usage of drones compared to everything else that they are used for. Is there any other good reason for drones to have collision detection?

Regardless of the method, something definitely needs to be done to mitigate the lag caused by large numbers of drones.

Delvainar
Posted - 2007.09.08 18:51:00 - [209]
 

/sign on fighter lag being broken.

But I'd rather see reducing the numbers be something of a last resort. First fix should be to eliminate auto-aggression for fighters so that they are no longer immune to lag. That way they're not going to do anything if everyone is so lagged out that they can't target or shoot at anyone... just like everyone else.

Himo Amasacia
Minmatar
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.09.08 19:09:00 - [210]
 

Edited by: Himo Amasacia on 08/09/2007 19:19:38
I wrote this a while back as part of an essay about what is wrong with eve. Might as well put it here, as anywhere. This was part of my rant on capitals but a lot of it is relevant here. I guess i post this to show that people were already thinking of stuff like this months ago so the problems have been obvious.

What is the most valuable resource in eve? Isk? Promethium? Server speed? No, the most valuable thing in eve is the time of a player. To do anything, you need players to log on. Now what if a player can log on and you need 50 pilots online to counter him and destroy him. You have to work 50 times harder to get people online, who are willing to fight, get them organised and get them to work flawlessly, rather than player X who can just log on and you tell that player where to go and press a few buttons in their I-win button. Thats why Supercapitals are stupid. They cost a lot of isk but once they are online all you need is one player and he can just cause a ton of damage and counter the other guys 50 people. That gives you breathing room to create more isk and make more supercaps and it spirals.. basicly CCPs insistence the supercaps are anti-blob weapons is stupid because you need a blob to fight them, and the "way" to kill them is so stupidly difficult you may as well not bother without a superbly organized 300 man fleet. It basically requires that player X be all alone and a dumnass.

And there is another problem. More than anything else, Capital ship warfare is a numbers game.

Lets say 6 carriers (Team 1) are squaring off against 5 (team 2). Each carrier projects 1 point of kill strength. Lets also assume it takes 2 and a half kill strength points to overcome a carriers tank and kill it. So all sides launch fighters. One carrier has 6 kill points on it the other has 5. The one with 6 will die slightly before the one with 5 on it. Whereupon, the carrier in team 1 with 5 on it will suddenly have 4 on it, so it lasts slightly longer than it would with 5 kill points on it. So another carrier in team 2 now has 6 strength points on it for a while dropping to 5 after a short while but it will still take the damage of 6 points of kill strength while the carrier of team one still functions.. But the carrier on the team 1 is now taking damage more slowly... and so on and so on. According to my rough calculations, team 1 wins the fight with the loss of 1 with a generous possibility of losing 2 carriers, the other side is wiped out. Thats best case 2 for 5, just because you were silly enough to arrive with 1 less carrier than the opposition. Maneuvering is irrelevant as fighters move around with their targets. Thats what the tactics of carrier and capital warfare amounts to. Bo-ring. Of course the guy with the 6 carriers probably has more money than the other side with 5 meaning that they probably need 3 points of kill strength to kill one of their carriers, making it even worse.

Now you would argue that carriers are meant to be in the middle of a support fleet.. but that not how it works in eve. In all cases a capital carrier blob arrives with some interdictors and a small bunch of battleships. Unless you have a highly motivated swarm like Goonfleet thirsting for revenge over months and months of pos bowling, Doomsdays and forum crap, you simply cannot get the thousands of pilots needed into warships to counter the 50 or so cap pilots on the other side. Remember the most valuable resource in eve is players online, and if you have ships that the opposition cannot physically get enough people to fight you cannot be stopped. Thats what happened up north. People looked at the stupidity of the situation and went **** this.

*continues*


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