These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Sacrificing aesthetic for performance. Is it necessary?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Elysium Prime
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1 - 2014-06-03 14:16:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Elysium Prime
I will be taking on a particular issue I have with the latest patch.

Quote:
The maximum number of drones available to Supercarriers has been reduced to 10; the volume of Fighter Bombers has been doubled. Supercarriers have gained a new 100% damage bonus to Fighters and Fighter Bombers. Fighter and Fighter Bomber stats have been adjusted to ensure balance with the previous changes.


What is gained?

This has been done before. Reduce the massive amount of lag inducing crosses on screen

To many Fighters
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Your Ship x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x <- Enemy Drones
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

To many drones = to much lag , this is a fact until the time the eve engine can handle this easier we need less drones.


What is Lost?

When I first saw eve , I thought. ''Wow this game is awesome! I want to be a fighter pilot , and fly for someones carrier!'' . Sadly , that wasn't a possibility [At the time , <3 Valkyrie , cant wait!]. So i took the next best thing and trained to be a carrier pilot and am now a proud owner of under my own opinion the most sexy carrier is the game. [Hint , its Caldari] So I now have a nice score of 14 fighters and feel like a real captain with his own 14 ace pilots , I go so far as to form them into 'wings' if I need to micro manage targets. I have always aspired and am still working on getting the massive amount of ISK required to upgrade to a supercarrier.

But take a moment and look at these beauty's and tell me what you notice.

Nyx

Wyvern

Aeon

Hel

Ill tell you what I see.

They Are BIG

SCARY

BEASTS

They have multiple or massive runways that are designed to spew out massive amounts of fighters.

And now they can only 'spew out' 10... no more then a normal carrier can. What is lost is the Astectic of being a Supercarrier pilot. You have murdered the image of commanding massive flights of fighter for the sake of performance. And I have to ask myself because im writing this , am I the only one who thinks this is ok? Supercarriers are some of the biggest and coolest ships in the game and now there ascetically literally no different then there little sisters.....

What do we get as compensation for this loss.

Some passive... some numbers that state ''Here is what you had but our game could not run well enough to provide you with.''

It sucks...


What can change?

So I have an Idea. Imagine if you didn't have to sacrifice performance but you could double or even triple the amount of fighters you had on the field without reducing performance.

It is possible, but it would take some work. But it would be dam more gratifying then taking away what makes you a super carrier pilot and giving you a silly 100% number passive bonus as 'compensation'.

The idea is very simple. Take 2 fighters or fighter bombers. Merge them into one model , so the fly around together in a formation but are essentially one entity. If you thought a fighter looked cool spinning about by itself imagine if they could fly in formation in 2's or even 3's. The lag would not be an issue , because essentially you still only have 10 fighters. But you wouldn't , instead you'd have 10 'flights' . 10 'formations' . 20 fighters total.

I'm almost certain that this can become a reality. But it would take time. All of you that love the aesthetic and feeling of having many fighters would have to show the developers that this is something WORTH spending time on. Comment here , show them that we want to keep our fighter pilots , not lay them off. I belive the aesthetic of the supercarrier should be saved! Don't take away our fighters , innovate and give us new models! 'Formation' Models that keep a supercarrier unique and show people that yes , these huge runways are used!
wopolusa
Dire Circumstances
#2 - 2014-06-03 14:34:50 UTC
So... you want fighters to be remodeled into 'teams' of fighters but act as one entity, so that on the odd occasion you actually look at your drones there's some minuscule sense of pride about having a supercarrier? Why not look at the several kilometer long beast you're flying and stop worrying about how many near-invisible dots can orbit your ship.
Elysium Prime
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3 - 2014-06-03 14:42:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Elysium Prime
wopolusa wrote:
So... you want fighters to be remodeled into 'teams' of fighters but act as one entity, so that on the odd occasion you actually look at your drones there's some minuscule sense of pride about having a supercarrier? Why not look at the several kilometer long beast you're flying and stop worrying about how many near-invisible dots can orbit your ship.



Because it dosn't make sense to have a several kilometer long beast that is not actually holding and cant field a large amount of fighters.

Its like owning a neutered Samoyed [Expensive Breed of Dog].
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#4 - 2014-06-03 14:48:26 UTC
Elysium Prime wrote:
Because it dosn't make sense to have a several kilometer long beast that is not actually holding and cant field a large amount of fighters.

Its like owning a neutered Samoyed [Expensive Breed of Dog].

So if the Devs made the carriers only half a kilometer long, that would solve your issue as well.
Elysium Prime
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#5 - 2014-06-03 14:51:24 UTC
Komi Toran wrote:
Elysium Prime wrote:
Because it dosn't make sense to have a several kilometer long beast that is not actually holding and cant field a large amount of fighters.

Its like owning a neutered Samoyed [Expensive Breed of Dog].

So if the Devs made the carriers only half a kilometer long, that would solve your issue as well.


No , the issue is that what makes a Super carrier different from a carrier is that it can hold and field more fighters. The supercarriers are losing there defining identity.
Infrequent
Void Covenant
The Initiative.
#6 - 2014-06-03 14:57:04 UTC
No, they're not losing their defining identity, their defining identity is their ability to field fighter bombers.

As for having formations rather than just the single fighter, although having groups of fighters flying in formation may look cool, I don't really see the need to make that a reality, it would just end up looking awkward having formations of fighters clipping into each other while they orbit 1 target. Imagine a super fight if that was the case, it'd look way more messy than it already does.
Elysium Prime
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#7 - 2014-06-03 14:59:25 UTC
Infrequent wrote:
No, they're not losing their defining identity, their defining identity is their ability to field fighter bombers.

As for having formations rather than just the single fighter, although having groups of fighters flying in formation may look cool, I don't really see the need to make that a reality, it would just end up looking awkward having formations of fighters clipping into each other while they orbit 1 target. Imagine a super fight if that was the case, it'd look way more messy than it already does.



No there first and foremost defining identity is to churn out more fighters and fighter bombers , that why they have larger runways and are simply bigger then a normal carrier. There is no way you can justify them only being able to field 10 fighters or fighter bombers.

And in large scale battles like you mention I doubt clipping matters as most smart pilot will have turned off drone models.
wopolusa
Dire Circumstances
#8 - 2014-06-03 15:08:55 UTC  |  Edited by: wopolusa
The facepalm is strong with this one.

Even if Supercarriers were 'different' for being able to field a whole 20 fighter/bombers each (which is not their defining characteristic) your idea merely changes the effect if you somehow become bored enough to zoom in on your drones. Also the only way to have an entity contain 2+ fighters without totally ruining the performance increase intended by the change would be to simply change the model so that there would be 2 copies of the one model per entity, in exactly the same position relative to each other as they fly around... which would look stupid and worse than just the one fighter/bomber model.

summary: You're solving a problem that doesn't exist with a solution that wouldn't even solve the non-existent problem in the first place.
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2014-06-03 16:03:43 UTC
Performance > Aesthetics

That is all.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2014-06-03 18:19:25 UTC
Elysium Prime wrote:
Infrequent wrote:
No, they're not losing their defining identity, their defining identity is their ability to field fighter bombers.

As for having formations rather than just the single fighter, although having groups of fighters flying in formation may look cool, I don't really see the need to make that a reality, it would just end up looking awkward having formations of fighters clipping into each other while they orbit 1 target. Imagine a super fight if that was the case, it'd look way more messy than it already does.



No there first and foremost defining identity is to churn out more fighters and fighter bombers , that why they have larger runways and are simply bigger then a normal carrier. There is no way you can justify them only being able to field 10 fighters or fighter bombers.

And in large scale battles like you mention I doubt clipping matters as most smart pilot will have turned off drone models.



If a supercarrier's identity has nothing to do with fighter bombers, then why can't I use them in my Nag?
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#11 - 2014-06-03 18:28:32 UTC
ur picture shows lots of icons, not lots of fighters. So even if the fighters were made into a group, u could zoom in really far and maybe see them, but when u zoom out they'd still only have one icon per model. is that how u imagined this working?

i imagine the client could treat them as missiles, so they can still have individual movements. It should be very much doable.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Walter Hart White
Heisenberg Minings
#12 - 2014-06-03 18:30:13 UTC
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
Performance > Aesthetics

That is all.

Aesthetic > Performance
Get a better computer, scrub.
Ray Kyonhe
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2014-06-03 18:36:32 UTC
Walter Hart White wrote:
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
Performance > Aesthetics

That is all.

Aesthetic > Performance
Get a better computer, scrub.

The bottleneck isn't an end user's computer, but the EVE's server cluster, which is already most powerfull one in mmo industry, AFAIK.

Survey/voting system inbuilt to the game client: link_Reforming corp and taxation system: link_New PvE content (reward collective gameplay): link
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#14 - 2014-06-03 20:09:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Arya Regnar
wopolusa wrote:
So... you want fighters to be remodeled into 'teams' of fighters but act as one entity, so that on the odd occasion you actually look at your drones there's some minuscule sense of pride about having a supercarrier? Why not look at the several kilometer long beast you're flying and stop worrying about how many near-invisible dots can orbit your ship.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The make my super look awesome and scary posts are the equivalent of look at my big truck I have a small willy.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2014-06-03 21:11:47 UTC
Walter Hart White wrote:
Aesthetic > Performance
Get a better computer, scrub.

They don't make faster computers yet, elitist.