open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [PROPOSAL] Should some modules (such as Damage Control) be Passive?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Lemmy Kravitz
Minmatar
Rebirth.
Posted - 2010.09.14 08:25:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Lemmy Kravitz on 14/09/2010 08:35:48
I disagree with this. Personally I think your time can be spent on more important issues like dual monitor support, or the creation of an assault class destroyer.

After reading the other link, i say bring it up at your next meeting to run a mass test on the test server. If it can be shown that DCU produce noticable lag, then I'll vote yes to making it passive. Otherwise it's still a no.

Bo Tosh
Posted - 2010.09.14 10:01:00 - [32]
 

While I support this I feel that there are more important issues that the CSM should be dealing with.

Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.09.14 10:34:00 - [33]
 

It would be nice to have it passive. As CCP finally figured out how to implement module limitations on ships without using the stupid -99% CPU penalty workaround this shouldn't be hard to implement.

Jin Labarre
Posted - 2010.09.14 12:39:00 - [34]
 

Damage controls and drone control units should be passive, yes.

ChrisIsherwood
Posted - 2010.09.14 15:18:00 - [35]
 

Very strongly supported.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2010.09.14 15:35:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Bo Tosh
While I support this I feel that there are more important issues that the CSM should be dealing with.


I can't think of a more important issue than fixing lag. Maybe I have different priorities. Remember, that's the whole reason for this change, reduce lag. Improving the tank of foolish people autopiloting Orcas is an unfortunate side effect.

steave435
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.09.14 17:24:00 - [37]
 

Quote:
I know it'd be great for afk hauling in my Orca, with the huge structure on that thing.

Hmm, this just turned me from "yeah, make them passive" to "hmm". It would be a big boost for any AFK haulers.

Quote:
TBH thinking about it, couldn't all hardeners be 'passive'? ... I can't think of a ship I use with active hardeners that don't just get them activated after every session change and left running til the next one.

No. Active hardeners can most definitely be neuted off, unlike DCs, and there are several ships I use that doesn't turn on the invul until it's needed to save cap. Additionally, passive mods can't be overheated.

Quote:
One issue that will arise for certain is the bonuses (bonii/whatever) that will occur from passive boosting skills such as armor and shield compensation.

No, that shouldn't be a problem. Active mods are also supposed to get a 3%/level bonus when they are not turned on, so if that had to be the case, an offline DC should already give 15% armor and 15% shield resist when turned off.

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Bagehi
1 MW every 30 seconds? the likelihood of keeping anyone's cap drained to absolutely 0 at the right time for a DCU to continue running is pretty low.

In the lagfest that is a super cap takedown, it is likely that the module will be stuck on without using any cap anyway. Most smaller ships will be dead inside 30 seconds so even trying to keep their cap at 0 at the right time is just plain silly.

No reason to have this an active module instead of a passive one.



It's actually pretty likely if there's a significant number of neuts on you.

-Liang

Not really considering how fast you will get back 1 unit of cap, and even if you manage it, it will be back on about a second later. It may affect the chance of killing a super cap that tried saving itself by logging off, but that is a separate issue that should be fixed some other way by either automatically turning off all hardeners when logging out or increased log off time for ships with extreme buffers or something.

Quote:
I disagree with this. Personally I think your time can be spent on more important issues like dual monitor support, or the creation of an assault class destroyer.

This should be a very easy tweak, I'd be surprised if it took more then 15 minutes for a single programmer to make the change.


darius mclever
Posted - 2010.09.14 17:31:00 - [38]
 

while i would welcome my 250k EHP afk hauling orca (structure tank FTW), i still think the DCU should be active so you can neut it off.

Pharos Pharos
Posted - 2010.09.14 19:35:00 - [39]
 

Confirming that my DCU is neuted off quite often in pvp, and it's been when using a bc against two or three other opponents max, not even with capital warfare. Not that I'd object to not having to worry about this, but it has made a significant difference in the fights where it has occurred, including one painful 1v1.

Blazde
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.09.14 21:43:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: Blazde on 24/09/2010 12:17:10
I think people are underestimating how common it is for a DCU to be neuted off. There's a couple of reasons:

- The way your cap recharge works, when it's nailed to 0 you're getting way less cap/second than you do at your peak. In practise getting that 1 cap back in any subcap ship often doesn't happen. I've sure been in that situation quite a few times. In a supercap I don't know... but I'm sure it's not inevitable with dozens of neuts properly staggered on you.

- When DCU is neuted off I at least often don't notice immediately, it's not the kind of thing I'm expecting. Result is it's definetely not going back on 1 second later. More like 20-30 seconds or never. Watch FRAPS back later -> oh **** my DCU was off that whole time.

I'd rather see the code fixed and optimised so it can handle the game as-designed before dumbing down gameplay in the name of lag. That said, this is a very minor aspect of gameplay. If it turns out it helps significantly, then that's probably a sign of a deeper performanc issue, but nor is it exactly going to ruin gameplay to make em passive.

The other thing it would help mitigate is people dying while blackscreened on jump/log-in before they can activate DCU/hardeners. But again I'd rather see those cases reimbursed properly, in the interim until blackscreening is 100% fixed.


Any dumbing down to fix lag that approaches anything like this:

Originally by: Chuck Skull
TBH thinking about it, couldn't all hardeners be 'passive'?

Needs to be avoided.

wr3cks
Reliables Inc
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2010.09.14 22:41:00 - [41]
 

Could they also fix this by somehow grouping/synchronizing/batching module cycles?

What about letting us group more kinds of modules (sensor boosters, invulns, hardeners, reppers)?

Or even grouping different kinds of modules into 'units' (different kinds of hardeners, hardeners and reppers, invuln + damage control or whatever)

Surely you can do some sort of optimizations to reduce the back-and-forth and calculations when dealing with grouped modules. If that comes at the expense of some granularity, so be it.

This would have the advantage of making the UI better. Bonus points if you figure out a way to make the overheating interface not terrible, while you're at it.

Also, this would be way more fruitful than taking a couple of kinds of modules and making them passive (granted DCU is on almost every ship in a fleet fight). If you could reduce the effective number of active modules to 3 or 4 per ship (guns grouped, a 'tank' group, propulsion module, and theoretically an 'active tank' group but nobody uses those in fleet fights anyways), I think that'd be more effective, and would, yknow, make the game better while you were at it.

Blazde
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.09.14 23:59:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: wr3cks
Could they also fix this by somehow grouping/synchronizing/batching module cycles?

Modules with identical cycle times tend to self-syncronise over time already. I guess it's just a quirk of the system, but it could perhaps be taken advantage of.

steave435
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.09.15 00:22:00 - [43]
 

Quote:
- The way your cap recharge works, when it's nailed to 0 you're getting way less cap/second than you do at your peak. In practise getting that 1 cap back in any subcap ship often doesn't happen. I've sure been in that situation quite a few times. In a supercap I don't know... but I'm sure it's not inevitable with dozens of neuts properly staggered on you.

After 2 years of PVPing, I've never ever had it happen to me.

Quote:
- When DCU is neuted off I at least often don't notice immediately, it's not the kind of thing I'm expecting. Result is it's definetely not going back on 1 second later. More like 20-30 seconds or never. Watch FRAPS back later -> oh **** my DCU was off that whole time.

If I notice I'm under the kind of extreme neuting that would be required to turn it off, I'd sure as hell be watching my mods carefully, just like any half decent PVPer would...

For the rest of your post, it wouldn't be dumbing down anything - you don't need a very high IQ to be able to activate a module that there are no disadvantages with. It would simply be improving the UI and making it smoother.

Thinking more about it, I'll support this despite the afk DC Orcas that made me hesitate earlier since it wouldn't really be boosting them - it would simply mean that we'd return it to what it was supposed to be from the start, but couldn't be due to technical restraints.

Sakaane Eionell
Intaki Liberation Front
Posted - 2010.09.15 00:47:00 - [44]
 

Supported.

If your fleet's ability to take down a capital or any other target hinges on being able to neut off this one module, I think you need to re-evaluate your attack strategy.

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.

Posted - 2010.09.15 00:50:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: BlahBlahBlah exwife
I know it'd be great for afk hauling in my Orca, with the huge structure on that thing.

This is a much bigger concern than supercap kills, AFK hauling means the DCU is of no use to you. If DCU are completely passive it will nerf suicide ganking.

Talmeric Eratirel
Posted - 2010.09.15 02:06:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Lord Wilding
I'm going to have to disagree with this statement.

One issue that will arise for certain is the bonuses (bonii/whatever) that will occur from passive boosting skills such as armor and shield compensation. [...]


This was the first thing who come to my mind when reading the proposition.

Either way, I'll support this thread, because I think CCP are enought smart to think about it too.

Kariem Mahkasad
Minmatar
Star Frontiers
Ignore This.
Posted - 2010.09.15 03:00:00 - [47]
 

I am in support of this, because I honestly think it will help the UI,and the UI could use all the help it could possibly get at this point...

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2010.09.15 03:12:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Lord Wilding
One issue that will arise for certain is the bonuses (bonii/whatever) that will occur from passive boosting skills such as armor and shield compensation.


Why would the resistance calculations be any different to what they are now?

This proposal is about making the Damage Control Unit and Drone Control Unit not require capacitor (and thus need to be turned on) in order to function.

Nothing else will change except that the module will no longer require cap to be activated.

Melchior Grimm
Caldari
Posted - 2010.09.15 05:13:00 - [49]
 

Supported. Anything that lowers the number of unnecessary clicks gets my support. There is no reason for a DCU to be active.

I can't really think of any other modules. I wish we could say sensor boosters, but those need to be able to be neuted. I am just lazy :)

Leneerra
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.09.15 06:58:00 - [50]
 

I am not sure that making this module passive is a good idear.
They are already pretty much a must fit on many setups.

Maybe if the mod also introduced a hard cap limit, or a percentage recharge reduction, or perhaps if it increased (doubled?) neut/nos damage.
I like the idea of having it as a rig instead of a module.

As for passive hauling, might even be interesting to force someone to choose between a cargo extender, a DCU or maneuverability enhancements.

But I think what irks me most that it is a suggested change only to reduce lag, not because people thought it ought to be a passive mod to begin with.

It's basically the same as suggesting removing halve the weapon slots from all ships and doubling the damage output from each weapon (with some added fitting changes for the ships or the weapons), or basicallly removing seperate hit and damage calculations from grouped weapons.
Sure it would reduce lag, but would it enhance eve?


Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.09.15 10:13:00 - [51]
 

First of all, thanks for the intelligent discussion of the topic. This is exactly the kind of feedback CCP needs, and CCP Veritas has said he's monitoring this thread.

One item that I have found particularly interesting:

* If it turns out that this change would not significantly reduce server load, there may be an argument for a game improvement that automatically restarts modules like DCUs and hardeners after decloaking from a manual jump.

Please keep the comments coming.

Serpentine Logic
Posted - 2010.09.15 12:17:00 - [52]
 

+1 for change to passive. IMO it just adds unnecessary chores to flying around.

As if you'd ever want it turned off.

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.09.15 13:49:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
* If it turns out that this change would not significantly reduce server load, there may be an argument for a game improvement that automatically restarts modules like DCUs and hardeners after decloaking from a manual jump.


That would be an idea which i could support. unprojected modules remembering their activity state.

Laura Duran
Posted - 2010.09.15 14:32:00 - [54]
 

Yes. Restarting the hardener modules after jump is tedious.

Nuts Nougat
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW
Posted - 2010.09.15 15:29:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Nuts Nougat on 15/09/2010 15:33:54
Originally by: Sakaane Eionell
Supported.

If your fleet's ability to take down a capital or any other target hinges on being able to neut off this one module, I think you need to re-evaluate your attack strategy.
Have fun killing a 60million ehp ship in a cyno jammed system. If you do not neut off it's dcu and hardeners, they can just log off and will disappear after 15 minutes unless you bring more than 250 dps battleships. By bringing a neut on every battleship, the number is cut down to 80-100 instead. I think that's good enough reason to NOT have it be a passive module.

Originally by: darius mclever
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
* If it turns out that this change would not significantly reduce server load, there may be an argument for a game improvement that automatically restarts modules like DCUs and hardeners after decloaking from a manual jump.


That would be an idea which i could support. unprojected modules remembering their activity state.
This I can support.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2010.09.15 15:37:00 - [56]
 

To those making the argument that a DCU is easy to shut off: I have been on the receiving and giving end of a curse neuting a ceptor. It most definitely bottoms out the cap in a ceptor, whether it is a Heavy neut curse or a curse with a pile of mediums, it instantly empties the cap in a ceptor. Despite that, a ceptor is still able to get enough cap to initiate warp within the cycle time of the neuts. That cycle time is less than 30 seconds. So, no, if a DCU gets shut off, there are either so many ships against the DCU ship that he's dead anyway or the neut ship just gets really, really, lucky.

I don't think that is a valid argument.

Nuts Nougat
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW
Posted - 2010.09.15 15:49:00 - [57]
 

Edited by: Nuts Nougat on 15/09/2010 15:55:48
Originally by: Bagehi
To those making the argument that a DCU is easy to shut off: I have been on the receiving and giving end of a curse neuting a ceptor. It most definitely bottoms out the cap in a ceptor, whether it is a Heavy neut curse or a curse with a pile of mediums, it instantly empties the cap in a ceptor. Despite that, a ceptor is still able to get enough cap to initiate warp within the cycle time of the neuts. That cycle time is less than 30 seconds. So, no, if a DCU gets shut off, there are either so many ships against the DCU ship that he's dead anyway or the neut ship just gets really, really, lucky.

I don't think that is a valid argument.

Good sir. Have you read my post at all?

Edit: to put things into perspective, neuting off an aeon's DCU lowers it's ehp from 28mil (with all hardeners neuted off already) to 23mil. That's 5mil less ehp. And if you have 50 battleships neuting it, it's going to go down in a couple cycles.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2010.09.15 18:33:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: Bagehi on 15/09/2010 18:39:58
Originally by: Nuts Nougat
Good sir. Have you read my post at all?

Edit: to put things into perspective, neuting off an aeon's DCU lowers it's ehp from 28mil (with all hardeners neuted off already) to 23mil. That's 5mil less ehp. And if you have 50 battleships neuting it, it's going to go down in a couple cycles.


Yup. Someone had posted a solution to that. One that should already exist. CCP is aware that people log out in super caps to avoid dying. The solution was "if you log, your modules no longer impact the ship" I think this is what happens when you eject anyway, and a logoffski is basically the same kind of thing, i.e. bailing.

I've never been involved in a successful titan take-down, so I have to claim ignorance when it comes to that topic. But if making DCUs passive can shave off some noticeable server load in all cases, I'm willing to see more titans slip through my fingers.

You're also talking about a remote situation after all. Not only is a titan tackled, but you only have enough firepower to take it out with the DCU off before it disappears. That is an exceedingly rare occurrence.

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.09.15 18:52:00 - [59]
 

bagehi: when you log off the first time, all your modules keep running, when you try to log in again and log off again ... then they turn off.

atleast from my experience.

Arklan1
Dunedain Rangers
Posted - 2010.09.15 20:58:00 - [60]
 

supported.


Pages: 1 [2] 3

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