These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New Omni nerf- why exactly was it needed? (CCP: to fix lag)

First post
Author
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#101 - 2014-04-29 08:30:14 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


Actually, I was thinking of how to deal with the problem of the blob over beer and wings tonight.
The only real approach I could take to tackle the problem is "if the cartels cannot counter the solution, then it has potential".
Fundamentally , it comes down to this: You have to carve out their economic hearts in a manner where scaling to immense size is incredibly inefficient. I am talking not so much on the blob in a a battle, but on the size of an organization.

But naturally, any conversation about limiting the size of a cartel is a non-starter with CCP and especially the CSM.

There are ways to do it, but there is zero chance that cartel leaderships will allow their income streams to be eviscerated.


So there are one of a few ways that can play out.

Either you simply make nullsec itself totally unviable to live, manufacture, and sustain anything in, or you attack corporation and alliance scaling itself, which places artificial limits on everyone.

The first you may as well just delete null security space entirely. The second you have crippled anything besides solo players, casuals, and small penny ante corporations. Which while I'm sure those results would suit you just fine, those suggestions pretty much show that you're no better than the supposed cartels, you're just less well organized.

The not so well hidden point of the exercise was that your soluton not eliminate a third of the subs in the game, bro.


This is of course assuming that what Dino fears is actually bad, and not the best thing that could ever happen in an MMORPG

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann

E Thatcher
Perkone
Caldari State
#102 - 2014-04-29 08:32:59 UTC
Who wants my stuff?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#103 - 2014-04-29 08:36:18 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:

This is of course assuming that what Dino fears is actually bad, and not the best thing that could ever happen in an MMORPG


I'm playing Devil's advocate, of course.

I fully suspect that, if he replies to the point where his suggestion would basically eliminate either a huge number of subs or functionally remove an entire area of space, he'll say something along the lines of "break a few eggs".

So what he would be doing then, is suggesting that CCP toss aside an established, long term loyal, and paying playerbase in exchange for a purely theoretical one (casuals) that he promises is bigger than ones who are being told they aren't welcome in the game anymore.

So... Trammel.

Nevermind the fact that he would be fundamentally shattering the sandbox as well, by setting upper limits, saying "you are only allowed to win this much".

This is how destructive, insidious, and evil carebear thought is, ladies and gentlemen. Repent now, and be saved.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#104 - 2014-04-29 08:37:06 UTC
E Thatcher wrote:
Who wants my stuff?


Dibs.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#105 - 2014-04-29 08:54:37 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Ramona McCandless wrote:

This is of course assuming that what Dino fears is actually bad, and not the best thing that could ever happen in an MMORPG


I'm playing Devil's advocate, of course.

I fully suspect that, if he replies to the point where his suggestion would basically eliminate either a huge number of subs or functionally remove an entire area of space, he'll say something along the lines of "break a few eggs".

So what he would be doing then, is suggesting that CCP toss aside an established, long term loyal, and paying playerbase in exchange for a purely theoretical one (casuals) that he promises is bigger than ones who are being told they aren't welcome in the game anymore.

So... Trammel.

Nevermind the fact that he would be fundamentally shattering the sandbox as well, by setting upper limits, saying "you are only allowed to win this much".

This is how destructive, insidious, and evil carebear thought is, ladies and gentlemen. Repent now, and be saved.


Oh I know.

As someone heavily in favour of fully-fledged player Empires (I dont care if its CFC, the Soviet Union, DinoCareBareStare or :snerk: SOLAR) I cant really see what Dino sees in his great vision of the EvE version of Homesteading nullsec

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann

Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#106 - 2014-04-29 08:55:24 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
E Thatcher wrote:
Who wants my stuff?


Dibs.


Can I have some of his stuff, y'know, cos I have bombs to pay for?

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#107 - 2014-04-29 08:57:15 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
E Thatcher wrote:
Who wants my stuff?


Dibs.


Can I have some of his stuff, y'know, cos I have bombs to pay for?


Woman we all got bombs to pay for!

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#108 - 2014-04-29 11:42:49 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
It's been stated elsewhere, but the point is that the only viable solution is a mechanic for sov battles that encourages MULTIPLE, SIMULTANEOUS battles to occur across multiple systems. If the mechanic requires 5 victories in 5 systems then current blob tactics are no longer viable; or at least not until the average null entity gets 5x larger.

What would such a mechanic look like? I have no clue. But presumabky paid game designers should be able to come up with SOMEthing. Constellation control hubs or something, I dunno. Regardless, the point is not to gimp a large fleet thru artificial penalties or weird stacking mechanics. If you want to blob, blob away. The point is to change sov mechanics so that the entity with five smaller fleets wins the strategic victory over the giant blob fleet every time, at least when it comes to the fights people care about (sov/ownership stuff).


It's also been refuted elsewhere why this is a very dumb idea and won't achieve what you want it to achieve. For instance - you're trying to make numbers be less effective? Great. Now who do you think is better posed to defend 5 targets, the smaller entity or the larger one?
This solution seems to exist in a fantasy world, where the defender wouldn't just do the obvious and gang up on one fleet, then the next, then the next. No, you don't lose 2 or 3 5ths of your fleets wholesale in a one-sided slaughter, come out of it with maybe 2 of 5 objectives taken, and consider it a victory.

Dumb ideas like this would have prevented most of the conflict in the past ~18months from happening at all.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#109 - 2014-04-29 11:54:34 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Maaaaaaaaaaaan this thread pretty much confirms Dinsdale is actually just a very high effort troll. I honestly thought he believed that ****.


Frankly, I gave up using sentry drones as soon as the Omni was trashed the first go-around.



That's because you're a reactionary, not a reasoning thinker. Sentries work just fine and I'm using them more now than before.

Stop trying to make facts fit your pre-drawn conclusions.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#110 - 2014-04-29 11:55:55 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Maaaaaaaaaaaan this thread pretty much confirms Dinsdale is actually just a very high effort troll. I honestly thought he believed that ****.


Frankly, I gave up using sentry drones as soon as the Omni was trashed the first go-around.



That's because you're a reactionary, not a reasoning thinker. Sentries work just fine and I'm using them more now than before.

Stop trying to make facts fit your pre-drawn conclusions.


If he could do that, he wouldn't say 80% of the stuff he says.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#111 - 2014-04-29 12:06:29 UTC
Magnus Cortex wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
We made this change because of server performance.

Interesting, any details on the improvements/metrics?



I think the most important statistic is there hasnt been any dead nodes since.


That would have nothing to do with nerfing your afk F1 monkeys would it? Followed by nerfing fully AFK drone gameplay?

Infact thats a brilliant maneuvre by CCP - by raising the barrier to entry for even a rudimentary 1000 man fight, they quickly cull the doe-eyed and reduce server load through Darwinian forces.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#112 - 2014-04-29 12:09:06 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Magnus Cortex wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
We made this change because of server performance.

Interesting, any details on the improvements/metrics?



I think the most important statistic is there hasnt been any dead nodes since.


That would have nothing to do with nerfing your afk F1 monkeys would it? Followed by nerfing fully AFK drone gameplay?

Infact thats a brilliant maneuvre by CCP - by raising the barrier to entry for even a rudimentary 1000 man fight, they quickly cull the doe-eyed and reduce server load through Darwinian forces.


Next they can add loot spew to mining, to cut down on the last remaining afk F1 monkeys.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#113 - 2014-04-29 12:46:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Nevermind the fact that he would be fundamentally shattering the sandbox REAL WORLD and it's economy as well, by setting upper limits, saying "you are only allowed to win this much".


Saw your post, realized it was a universal truth. Fixed.



Some people can't deal with their own impotence. So they try to use other means (in games it's the developers or trying to get players to 'see the light' with a bunch of doomsday predictions, in real life it's the government or trying to get other citizens to 'see the light' with a bunch of doomsday predictions.....) and most times fail due to lack of support and an inability to get their point across to others without making those other people really really dislike them. At the end of the day, they fear failing more than they hate their enemies, so they don't even try.

The more these 'crusaders' talk the stronger there enemy gets. I spent a whole gaming career shooting at Goons and Goon allies (across multiple games, come on my bridge and dance while shooting me will you StarFleet Dental, screw you!!!!!! Twisted), it didn't take me but a week of reading forums to change my mind and make me think I might want to join Goons myself lol.

If someone really wanted to get the goons, they wouldn't be posting conspiracy theories about Mittani RMTing his way to real life riches on forums and blogs on the internet. They'd stop sounding crazy, go to other games to recruit people victimized by Goons (of which there are many), bring them to EVE, put them in rifters and use the combination of anger and fun to do to Goons what Goons did to BoB.

That, of course, will never happen, because it's easier and safer for some people to keep praying that EVE eventually fails enough that 'new investors' buy the game and through some anti-capitalist magic decide that they don't want 45,000 constantly paid subs but would rather gamble on the fickle and easily bored carebear crowd.....
TheButcherPete
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#114 - 2014-04-29 12:52:45 UTC
The CFC abandoned the drone assist doctrine entirely when the limit to Assisting was introduced, now we use Megathrons with TCs.

Nobody I know, other than perhaps TRI / MOA are still using Omnis for fleet warfare.

[b]THE KING OF EVE RADIO

If EVE is real, does that mean all of us are RMTrs?[/b]

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#115 - 2014-04-29 12:58:30 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Lena Lazair wrote:
It's been stated elsewhere, but the point is that the only viable solution is a mechanic for sov battles that encourages MULTIPLE, SIMULTANEOUS battles to occur across multiple systems. If the mechanic requires 5 victories in 5 systems then current blob tactics are no longer viable; or at least not until the average null entity gets 5x larger.

What would such a mechanic look like? I have no clue. But presumabky paid game designers should be able to come up with SOMEthing. Constellation control hubs or something, I dunno. Regardless, the point is not to gimp a large fleet thru artificial penalties or weird stacking mechanics. If you want to blob, blob away. The point is to change sov mechanics so that the entity with five smaller fleets wins the strategic victory over the giant blob fleet every time, at least when it comes to the fights people care about (sov/ownership stuff).


It's also been refuted elsewhere why this is a very dumb idea and won't achieve what you want it to achieve. For instance - you're trying to make numbers be less effective? Great. Now who do you think is better posed to defend 5 targets, the smaller entity or the larger one?
This solution seems to exist in a fantasy world, where the defender wouldn't just do the obvious and gang up on one fleet, then the next, then the next. No, you don't lose 2 or 3 5ths of your fleets wholesale in a one-sided slaughter, come out of it with maybe 2 of 5 objectives taken, and consider it a victory.

Dumb ideas like this would have prevented most of the conflict in the past ~18months from happening at all.


Some folks like to grasp at straws i guess. They get so caught up in the 'problem' or thing they don't likke that ANY solution sounds good, which is why they miss the obvious.

The obvious in the case is basically Malcanis' Law. ANYTHING they try to do to artificially help some downtrodden group (new players, small alliances, whatever) will end up only enriching the people they were trying to nerf (vets, big alliances, the evil cartels).

What would happen if CCP ever tried to do anything like this is that when it failed (and it would), the agitators who saw the change as a chance to beat you people (damn that sounded racist, good thing "Goon' isn't a racer lol) would simply blame it's lack of success on some conspiracy or some lack of 'DEVskill' on the part of CCP rather than realizing that it was their own beliefs that are at fault.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#116 - 2014-04-29 13:04:15 UTC
Sal Landry wrote:
Meandering Milieu wrote:

Any reason why Omnis hurt server load but Tracking Comps don't?


Presumably because they need to update the attributes of 5 objects in space every cycle instead of 1

i think you meant numbers range from 2 to 8 actually?

Hint: ships have 2 to 8 physical guns/turrets

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2014-04-29 13:13:02 UTC
TheButcherPete wrote:
The CFC abandoned the drone assist doctrine entirely when the limit to Assisting was introduced, now we use Megathrons with TCs.

Nobody I know, other than perhaps TRI / MOA are still using Omnis for fleet warfare.


ok. so where is that "huge server load from using drone modules" present then? Shocked

Don't say me please that when i play my lvl4 with Rattlesnake some server node is dying Lol

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#118 - 2014-04-29 13:16:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Ramona McCandless
March rabbit wrote:


Hint: ships have 1 to 8 physical guns/turrets


Sorry my OCD was bothering me on that one

EDIT: removed "no offense" as I have been now informed that this has been causing people to become offended, sorry.

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann

Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2014-04-29 14:18:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Grimpak
Lena Lazair wrote:
It's been stated elsewhere, but the point is that the only viable solution is a mechanic for sov battles that encourages MULTIPLE, SIMULTANEOUS battles to occur across multiple systems. If the mechanic requires 5 victories in 5 systems then current blob tactics are no longer viable; or at least not until the average null entity gets 5x larger.

What would such a mechanic look like? I have no clue. But presumabky paid game designers should be able to come up with SOMEthing. Constellation control hubs or something, I dunno. Regardless, the point is not to gimp a large fleet thru artificial penalties or weird stacking mechanics. If you want to blob, blob away. The point is to change sov mechanics so that the entity with five smaller fleets wins the strategic victory over the giant blob fleet every time, at least when it comes to the fights people care about (sov/ownership stuff).

tried to do that a few times.

whoever had the bigger blob still won.

Jenn aSide wrote:
The obvious in the case is basically Malcanis' Law. ANYTHING they try to do to artificially help some downtrodden group (new players, small alliances, whatever) will end up only enriching the people they were trying to nerf (vets, big alliances, the evil cartels).


Case in point: all the changes CCP made over the years to break down the blob, actually made them bigger, better, badder. Titan doomsday AOE? shove 10 titans and start DD'ing multiple carriers. Sov mechanics? all they did was make the blobs bigger.

Untill CCP manages to counter the "Call friends" card, which is pretty much impossible, you can't counter blobs, period.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#120 - 2014-04-29 16:51:45 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If he could do that, he wouldn't say 80% of the stuff he says.


Only 80%?

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff