These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: HED-GP Technical Retrospective

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#121 - 2014-01-25 15:10:30 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Prior to the fight CCP had to take down G-0 (our staging) and HED. This was because they were both located on the same node. This has occurred many times and has been escalated before. Why have more nodes not been put in the reinforcement pool?
No, we did not live remap HED-GP. We only live remapped G-0Q86 because it was on the same node as HED-GP.

(We also live remapped Rens and Hysera at a similar time, but for completely different reasons.)


That is even worse. One side was completely screwed by this.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Tlat Ij
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#122 - 2014-01-25 15:36:17 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
Posted: 2014.01.25 14:19
Posted: 2014.01.25 14:21
Posted: 2014.01.25 14:25
Posted: 2014.01.25 14:30
Posted: 2014.01.25 14:33
Posted: 2014.01.25 14:36

Jeez man don't they teach you how to multiquote? ShockedUgh

fakeedit: I quote all those separately and find out "You can you quote 5 times per post." wat
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#123 - 2014-01-25 15:56:32 UTC
Veldar Reku wrote:


Unavoidable O(n^2) things don't exist.


This is just wrong.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#124 - 2014-01-25 17:44:36 UTC
Aryth wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Prior to the fight CCP had to take down G-0 (our staging) and HED. This was because they were both located on the same node. This has occurred many times and has been escalated before. Why have more nodes not been put in the reinforcement pool?
No, we did not live remap HED-GP. We only live remapped G-0Q86 because it was on the same node as HED-GP.

(We also live remapped Rens and Hysera at a similar time, but for completely different reasons.)


That is even worse. One side was completely screwed by this.


wait, your staging system got taken OFF the same node as the fight and you claim you got screwed by this ?
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#125 - 2014-01-25 17:58:01 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
Aryth wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Prior to the fight CCP had to take down G-0 (our staging) and HED. This was because they were both located on the same node. This has occurred many times and has been escalated before. Why have more nodes not been put in the reinforcement pool?
No, we did not live remap HED-GP. We only live remapped G-0Q86 because it was on the same node as HED-GP.

(We also live remapped Rens and Hysera at a similar time, but for completely different reasons.)


That is even worse. One side was completely screwed by this.


wait, your staging system got taken OFF the same node as the fight and you claim you got screwed by this ?


Exactly. Think it through.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
PinkPanter
Valhalla Drinking Team
#126 - 2014-01-25 18:14:59 UTC  |  Edited by: PinkPanter
Aryth wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
Aryth wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Prior to the fight CCP had to take down G-0 (our staging) and HED. This was because they were both located on the same node. This has occurred many times and has been escalated before. Why have more nodes not been put in the reinforcement pool?
No, we did not live remap HED-GP. We only live remapped G-0Q86 because it was on the same node as HED-GP.

(We also live remapped Rens and Hysera at a similar time, but for completely different reasons.)


That is even worse. One side was completely screwed by this.


wait, your staging system got taken OFF the same node as the fight and you claim you got screwed by this ?


Exactly. Think it through.


We did. One of the reasons your plan to crash the node got screwed. CCP - Gewnz 1:0
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#127 - 2014-01-25 18:46:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Sentient Blade
Batolemaeus wrote:
Sentient Blade wrote:
sustained beam projected AOE


In a thread about server performance, you want to introduce AOE.

Not sure if trolling or daft...


Implementing AOE drone tracking / optimal nerfs is an O(N) operation where N is the total number of disruption beams active and would be a significant step in balancing the slowcat / sentry meta.

In a small fleet fight nobody is going to go to the effort to deploy large cap logistics chains and dedicated drone disruption battleships, but as the size of the enemy sentry carrier / domi fleet increases, it would become more practical to dedicate fleet members to fielding them.

Hence there would be a natural counter to sentry blobs growing too big. Depending in how such a module was balanced, 5 to 10 AOE disruption beams in addition to 50+ subcap energy chain logistics ships to support them could potentially nerf a few hundred sentry carriers.
PinkPanter
Valhalla Drinking Team
#128 - 2014-01-25 19:31:16 UTC
Sentient Blade wrote:
Batolemaeus wrote:
Sentient Blade wrote:
sustained beam projected AOE


In a thread about server performance, you want to introduce AOE.

Not sure if trolling or daft...


Implementing AOE drone tracking / optimal nerfs is an O(N) operation where N is the total number of disruption beams active and would be a significant step in balancing the slowcat / sentry meta.

In a small fleet fight nobody is going to go to the effort to deploy large cap logistics chains and dedicated drone disruption battleships, but as the size of the enemy sentry carrier / domi fleet increases, it would become more practical to dedicate fleet members to fielding them.

Hence there would be a natural counter to sentry blobs growing too big. Depending in how such a module was balanced, 5 to 10 AOE disruption beams in addition to 50+ subcap energy chain logistics ships to support them could potentially nerf a few hundred sentry carriers.


Why another crap nerf instead of fixing lag?
Just curious.
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#129 - 2014-01-25 20:03:58 UTC
PinkPanter wrote:
Why another crap nerf instead of fixing lag?
Just curious.


Because if you "fixed lag" all they'd do is bring in more carriers and launch another 2000 drones until it did crash again?
Fix Sov
#130 - 2014-01-25 20:51:17 UTC
PinkPanter wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
wait, your staging system got taken OFF the same node as the fight and you claim you got screwed by this ?


Exactly. Think it through.


We did. One of the reasons your plan to crash the node got screwed. CCP - Gewnz 1:0

This is literally the dumbest post I've read in a long time.

The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#131 - 2014-01-25 22:01:35 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
wait, your staging system got taken OFF the same node as the fight and you claim you got screwed by this ?

They should have never been on the same node in the first place. Then the live remap disconnected everyone in G-0.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Findail
Quid Plorus
#132 - 2014-01-26 05:43:19 UTC
Really pleased that CCP is trying to fix the large fleet battle issues.

At the moment, winning large battles like this is more about knowing how to exploit server limitations than actual skill in-game, which spoils it.

BTW, there's been on ongoing trend for some time for some parties to spam local chat. mostly with text graphics, in the belief that they'll induce more system lag by doing so.

Is this still an issue? And if so, would CCP consider rate-limiting the local chat to mitigate it?
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#133 - 2014-01-26 05:46:43 UTC
Findail wrote:
Really pleased that CCP is trying to fix the large fleet battle issues.

At the moment, winning large battles like this is more about knowing how to exploit server limitations than actual skill in-game, which spoils it.

BTW, there's been on ongoing trend for some time for some parties to spam local chat. mostly with text graphics, in the belief that they'll induce more system lag by doing so.

Is this still an issue? And if so, would CCP consider rate-limiting the local chat to mitigate it?



Chat's handled by a different server than the node.
As it the market.

Only lag it could induce is in the clients.

Of course, you could petition people for deliberately trying to induce lag. That's a no-no. (Jumping in doesn't count)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#134 - 2014-01-26 07:49:07 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
wait, your staging system got taken OFF the same node as the fight and you claim you got screwed by this ?

They should have never been on the same node in the first place. Then the live remap disconnected everyone in G-0.

And did said people then have freeze screens on trying to log back into G-0, or other such crashes?
Yes, it was an inconvenience. But lets make sure we talk about it in the scale of things. A 5 minute disconnect and set up of fleets again isn't critical and it gave you a home system that you could do things in fast in order to prepare reinforcements to fight with.
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre
Goonswarm Federation
#135 - 2014-01-26 07:52:39 UTC  |  Edited by: AspiB'elt
Perhaps they are one thing to do to decrease a little the number of instance.

Archon
Amarr Carrier Skill Bonuses:
50% bonus to Capital Energy and Armor transfer range per level
4% bonus to all Armor resistances per level
Can fit Warfare Link modules
Can fit Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration modules
Can deploy 1 additional Fighter remove ]or Drone per level
100% drone damage bonus add
200% bonus to Fighter control range

Less sentry but more dps per sentry

you can only use 5 drones


Remove this item
Drone control Unit 1
Gives you one extra drone. You need Advanced Drone Interfacing to use this module, it gives you the ability to fit one drone control unit per level.

Can only be fit to Carriers and Supercarriers.

Add this item
Fighter control unit 1
Gives you one extra fighter or fighter bomber. You need Advanced Drone Interfacing to use this module, it gives you the ability to fit one fighter or fighter bomber control unit per level.

Can only be fit to Carriers and Supercarriers.

This is very easy to modify in the database.
CCP Explorer
C C P
C C P Alliance
#136 - 2014-01-26 15:36:19 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Explorer
Tlat Ij wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
Posted: 2014.01.25 14:19
Posted: 2014.01.25 14:21
Posted: 2014.01.25 14:25
Posted: 2014.01.25 14:30
Posted: 2014.01.25 14:33
Posted: 2014.01.25 14:36
Jeez man don't they teach you how to multiquote? ShockedUgh
No.

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Senior Development Director | EVE Online // CCP Games | @CCP_Explorer
PinkPanter
Valhalla Drinking Team
#137 - 2014-01-26 15:47:37 UTC
Sentient Blade wrote:
PinkPanter wrote:
Why another crap nerf instead of fixing lag?
Just curious.


Because if you "fixed lag" all they'd do is bring in more carriers and launch another 2000 drones until it did crash again?


So nerf blobs instead of game mechanics.
They will still bring more and more and more.
You don't need carriers to drop drones BTW.

Nonsense
stoicfaux
#138 - 2014-01-26 18:04:06 UTC
On a side note, we have gun drones, so why can't we have missile drones?

/ducks

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#139 - 2014-01-26 18:27:13 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
On a side note, we have gun drones, so why can't we have missile drones?

/ducks




You already have Missile Drones. They're called Missiles. Blink

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Fix Sov
#140 - 2014-01-26 18:46:39 UTC
How do you propose to do this:
PinkPanter wrote:
So nerf blobs


Without also doing this:
PinkPanter wrote:
instead of game mechanics.

The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change.