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 : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : last (15)

Author Topic

Posted - 2007.09.08 03:16:00 - [121]


Gregorio McAwesomeness
Posted - 2007.09.08 03:33:00 - [122]


Machine Epsilon
Posted - 2007.09.08 03:39:00 - [123]


Malloc Memrel
Posted - 2007.09.08 04:02:00 - [124]

I don't believe that motherships and carriers should have their number of available drones/fighters reduced (That's half of the point of having them) but I will agree that the code for them needs to be seriously optimized. Having 3/4 of the active attackers/defenders on grid be unmanned and making the last quarter unresponsive in the process is just plain old bad design.

I don't think politics should come into it- if the tables were reversed I'm sure BoB would be just as unhappy and the situation just as untenable- because this is just a plain and simple example of "This doesn't work."

Again, I'm opposed to reducing the number of drones/fighters capitals should be able to have, but *something* needs to be fixed.

So, although somewhat hesitantly...


Matrices Sunbound
Posted - 2007.09.08 04:04:00 - [125]


There's no way the developers could have anticipated capital and super capital blobs on this scale. The doomsday one-button win was nerfed back into its proper place. One-button "release drones, introduce crippling lag, while free lag for these here fighters" option should be no exception.

More Eve Online less Capitals Online (again),


Matrices Sunbound
Posted - 2007.09.08 04:07:00 - [126]

Edited by: Matrices Sunbound on 08/09/2007 04:07:08

Umbrella Terror Inc.
White Angels.
Posted - 2007.09.08 04:15:00 - [127]

This is a very good idea. People joke about lag generators, but in this case it is what fighters are. This isn't something that only one side has a problem with, its a universal problem. A fighterblob is the ultimate defense because it can kill anything that jumps into it, and nothing that jumps into it can defend itself. I don't think that this is working as intended and as long as the new change wouldn't effect the overall strength of carriers or motherships, but reduced lag I'm all for it


Mr Broker
Posted - 2007.09.08 04:25:00 - [128]

even if you used a titan to clear the fighters, the carriers and motherships can launch new fighters and relag the system

assembling 40 carriers and deploying drones isn't a show of skill nor tactics

any medium sized alliance can do this, and as soon as people realize it, they will start doing it to defend their systems from any attackers

it's a failproof defense

Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.09.08 04:43:00 - [129]


Posted - 2007.09.08 04:59:00 - [130]

This is a genuine issue and should be looked into as soon as possible


Posted - 2007.09.08 05:04:00 - [131]



Keldjos Falzir
Posted - 2007.09.08 05:12:00 - [132]


Morris Falter
The Collective
Posted - 2007.09.08 05:23:00 - [133]

Unplayable fighter lag is not something that can be swept away conveniently. As more people use blobs of carriers, I hope this issue will be looked at, and something will be done.

Don't let us down CCP!

Posted - 2007.09.08 06:00:00 - [134]

To me, it makes sense that things get harder when carriers and moms enter the battle. From a role playing perspective, giant ships launching squads of fighters at your fleet should cause a significant amount of disarray. Obviously CCP can't come to your house and hit you in the headTwisted Evil, but the lag kind of has the same effect. Sounds fine to me.Very Happy

Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.09.08 06:14:00 - [135]

/Signed. As a person who is in the finishing stages of training for carriers please change it so that it requires something other than push button.

Life. Universe. Everything.
Posted - 2007.09.08 06:19:00 - [136]

Very well presented, with good reasoning. I have had the firsthand pleasure of dealing with a largely capital based battle, and the lag was unacceptable. As a carrier pilot I would prefer a solution, be it code based or hardware based, that would not decrease the total number of drones a carrier pilot can control, yet still reduce lag. In short, I have spent 16 months and hundreds of dollars in subscriptions to get my carrier, and I feel the drone control bonus, which sets carriers apart from all other ships, should not be taken away from people who dedicated the time and isk required to field such ships. Maybe if there was some kind of compromise for carrier pilots not rooted in extra bonuses this idea would be more appealing. Kudos to you for presenting your idea in such a cohesive and well explained fashion, you do not see that much anymore.

Posted - 2007.09.08 06:42:00 - [137]

I do believe this happened before, but with normal drones.


Posted - 2007.09.08 06:47:00 - [138]

I support this. Drones and Fighters simply create too much work for the server. Simplify it.

Life. Universe. Everything.
Posted - 2007.09.08 06:50:00 - [139]

"Since the number of interactions with the server is a value of n^3, lag increases exponentially with each new drone launched."

How did you determine drone lag increases exponentially for every drone deployed? I am hardly the best coder in the world, but my limited experience would tell me that server calculations would just stack non exponentially for every drone fielded.

Posted - 2007.09.08 06:58:00 - [140]


fighter lag really sucks

Posted - 2007.09.08 07:30:00 - [141]

Edited by: jeffb on 08/09/2007 07:30:29
Getting killed by fighters while the node wont take any of my navigation commands is pretty lame :(

Could also move to a system where drones are deployed in fixed wings, instead of having to make individual calculations for each drone you could just do one for that whole group. Would be a big performance increase with minimal change to mechanics.

Now that wrecks and cans aren't collidable doesn't really make sense for drones or fighters to be, thats potentially another big performance increase there.

Remove all the "drone ai" from serverside, people will probably see it as an improvement that their drones actually do what they tell me, you can add it back in later when the servers can handle it.

Mentis Fidelis
Un-Natural Selection
Posted - 2007.09.08 07:36:00 - [142]


Posted - 2007.09.08 07:45:00 - [143]


Seras Haruko
Posted - 2007.09.08 07:46:00 - [144]


Jack Archer
Posted - 2007.09.08 07:55:00 - [145]


Postmaster Generale
Posted - 2007.09.08 08:06:00 - [146]

As someone pointed out, a change from fighters to squadrons wouldn't be a nerf to carriers, it would actually strengthen them by making fighters less susceptible to area of effect damage. I don't really think this would ruin smartbombing battleship tactics, since a decent group of sb battleships already kill fighters so fast that the group often can't deactivate smartbombs fast enough to avoid useless friendly fire.

Also remove collision, and change the rules of auto-aggression. While the number of calculations performed by the server is the cause of fighter lag, auto-aggression is the real game-breaker, since, as people have pointed out, launching a fighter cloud not only renders every player helpless but also destroys them as the fighters auto-aggro and pound on essentially unpiloted ships.

Lady Caeser
Open Fist of Castallus
Posted - 2007.09.08 08:10:00 - [147]


Captain Drees
Posted - 2007.09.08 08:12:00 - [148]

signed. Why should fighters be allowed to dictate the outcome of a battle while the players are still loading the grid? Either stop treating fighters and drones as individual ships or find some other way to allow players to actually determine the result of fights.

Vladimir Tinakin
Wife Aggro Productions
Posted - 2007.09.08 08:34:00 - [149]

Lag sucks.

/signed, though using other means of balancing than mentioned if possible; its nice to be able to pop out a bunch of drones....but lets face it, if that drone bunch causes lag, we're at the scaling point where that will kill the game for whoever's in the vicinity.

Posted - 2007.09.08 08:55:00 - [150]


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : 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

These forums are archived and read-only