These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Proteus] Reduction in Fighter and Fighter Bomber scan resolution

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#421 - 2015-01-08 14:13:40 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Panther X wrote:



Didn't speak to me either. Not a troll, and actually am trying to get answers unlike some people.

I fly carriers and a supercarrier. So...yeah. Again, like I explained before, when something directly affects me and my play style, especially my big shiny thing, I want to know everything. Why, what, where, when etc. I want numbers, graphs, charts.

I don't take anything at face value, and don't like smoke being blown up my butt.

I have a fairly good sense of humour about it, regardless of what some people say *COUGH**PF**COUGH*


Like with every other change they do to fix something they label as an exploit, they won't give you more details. They won't even explain the current usage or give number because they want to kill it before it become more used.


Understandable; but still, curiosity killed the cat

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Malou Hashur
Enterprise Holdings
#422 - 2015-01-08 14:51:41 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
Malou Hashur wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Solaris Vex wrote:
Fighters and fighter bombers are fine. Subcaps can either outrun them or tank them with a moderate amount of logi.



They still are after this change but an exploit also happen to be fixed.


The "fix" to the exploit would be to introduce a re-deployment timer.

This is a nerf to fighters & FB's, NOT a fix to an exploit. You need to be pretty dumb not to spot that.


A more time-consuming fix to the exploit would be to introduce a re-deployment timer.

This is a nerf to fighters and FBs lock time, AND a fix to an exploit. You need to be pretty thick-headed to still be insisting otherwise.



Like I said in my post RIGHT AFTER the one you quoted....

Yeah, well I think that those weeks of work would be better spent, as according to Fozzie (below) the issue clearly is not urgent.

Quote:

This practice has not been widespread thus far, but any possible advantage gained this way would both provide imbalanced DPS and cause significant server load so we want to nip it in the bud.



Selective reading much ?

CCP Philosophy ==>>

  1. If it works, break it. If it’s broken, leave it and break something else.

  2. Ignore all Forum comments that raise issues and concerns about our "features", and bring said "features" in anyway.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#423 - 2015-01-08 15:02:17 UTC
Malou Hashur wrote:
War Kitten wrote:
Malou Hashur wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Solaris Vex wrote:
Fighters and fighter bombers are fine. Subcaps can either outrun them or tank them with a moderate amount of logi.



They still are after this change but an exploit also happen to be fixed.


The "fix" to the exploit would be to introduce a re-deployment timer.

This is a nerf to fighters & FB's, NOT a fix to an exploit. You need to be pretty dumb not to spot that.


A more time-consuming fix to the exploit would be to introduce a re-deployment timer.

This is a nerf to fighters and FBs lock time, AND a fix to an exploit. You need to be pretty thick-headed to still be insisting otherwise.



Like I said in my post RIGHT AFTER the one you quoted....

Yeah, well I think that those weeks of work would be better spent, as according to Fozzie (below) the issue clearly is not urgent.

Quote:

This practice has not been widespread thus far, but any possible advantage gained this way would both provide imbalanced DPS and cause significant server load so we want to nip it in the bud.



Selective reading much ?


No.

You discounting a data change as a fix to the exploit, and you agreeing that a coding solution would take too long to be effective do not cancel each other. The post I responded too was still heavily opinionated and stubbornly ignoring that a data change could fix the exploit.

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.
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#424 - 2015-01-08 15:09:24 UTC
Is this change though just a temporary fix, one that can or could be reversed if and when they ever decide to truly "fix" drones and or fighters/bombers?

We all talk about them reversing jump changes ad nauseum, but will these kind of bandaid solutions be permanent fixes or have only temporary solutions solved by coding.

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#425 - 2015-01-08 15:32:31 UTC
So the CFC cant counter the NC meta and decide to sick their pets (CSM) on CCP.


Just blob and risk your ships. Maybe the reward will be you win.

My bad....this would involve nullsec taking a risk.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#426 - 2015-01-08 15:41:06 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:
So the CFC cant counter the NC meta and decide to sick their pets (CSM) on CCP.


Just blob and risk your ships. Maybe the reward will be you win.

My bad....this would involve nullsec taking a risk.


So you can't understand what this change is about so you decide to start putting tinfoil hat propaganda in the thread.

Just read the OP correctly and you will understand what is being changed and why.

My bad.... this would involve you using your brain.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#427 - 2015-01-08 15:45:18 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:
So the CFC cant counter the NC meta and decide to sick their pets (CSM) on CCP.


Just blob and risk your ships. Maybe the reward will be you win.

My bad....this would involve nullsec taking a risk.


Troll detected. Ask him about his carrier experience and include him in the survey!


(Pst, Syn Shi, this change has nothing to do with ship to ship combat. At least pick a relevant thread to Grrr at the Goons.)

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.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#428 - 2015-01-08 16:01:59 UTC
Panther X wrote:

...and PF "Youmadbro" meme coming up in 3...2...1...


Panther X wrote:
I have a fairly good sense of humour about it, regardless of what some people say *COUGH**PF**COUGH*


i like that you've taken to invoking my name in a pre-emptive attempt to perform damage control on posts you instinctively know to be terrible, yet post anyways

"yea, may mine posts verily be accepted despite their obvious disingenuousness and poor construction, insha'promfem"
DaeHan Minhyok
Logical Outcomes
#429 - 2015-01-08 16:03:12 UTC
So if the problem is this relaunch exploit why not decrease rate of fire and volley damage? It seems unfair for a HIC/Dic to hold down a ship worth more than 100 times its cost with impunity (though smart bombs and neuts can help somewhat)
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#430 - 2015-01-08 16:03:54 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:
So the CFC cant counter the NC meta and decide to sick their pets (CSM) on CCP.


Just blob and risk your ships. Maybe the reward will be you win.

My bad....this would involve nullsec taking a risk.

if only the csm was a democratically elected body and anyone could put a representative on it with the appropriate amount of effort

i mean shoot y'all have the third most populous alliance in the game in Northern Associates., offer em a rent discount if they vote your ticket and you can have all the delegates you want
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#431 - 2015-01-08 16:09:29 UTC
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:
So if the problem is this relaunch exploit why not decrease rate of fire and volley damage? It seems unfair for a HIC/Dic to hold down a ship worth more than 100 times its cost with impunity (though smart bombs and neuts can help somewhat)


1- Because server load. You would have to make the ROF about the same as sentries and that is many more "fire" event for the server to handle. The current amount of drone doctrine pretty much already pushes nodes to the limit wo additionnal load is most likely entirely out of question.

2- The same HIC/Dic either already held you down because you could not kill him OR you currently can kill it and it will take you a few seconds more to kill it after the change because of the initial lock delay of your drones will be greater.
DaeHan Minhyok
Logical Outcomes
#432 - 2015-01-08 16:31:02 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:
So if the problem is this relaunch exploit why not decrease rate of fire and volley damage? It seems unfair for a HIC/Dic to hold down a ship worth more than 100 times its cost with impunity (though smart bombs and neuts can help somewhat)


1- Because server load. You would have to make the ROF about the same as sentries and that is many more "fire" event for the server to handle. The current amount of drone doctrine pretty much already pushes nodes to the limit wo additionnal load is most likely entirely out of question.

2- The same HIC/Dic either already held you down because you could not kill him OR you currently can kill it and it will take you a few seconds more to kill it after the change because of the initial lock delay of your drones will be greater.



So your answer in part 1) is that a carrier which can launch 6-15 sentry drones at a static 4 second rate of fire puts significantly less load on the server than a super that can launch 6-16 fighters/FB's at say 5 second rate of fire?

I think not, find another excuse.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#433 - 2015-01-08 16:45:40 UTC
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:
So if the problem is this relaunch exploit why not decrease rate of fire and volley damage? It seems unfair for a HIC/Dic to hold down a ship worth more than 100 times its cost with impunity (though smart bombs and neuts can help somewhat)


1- Because server load. You would have to make the ROF about the same as sentries and that is many more "fire" event for the server to handle. The current amount of drone doctrine pretty much already pushes nodes to the limit wo additionnal load is most likely entirely out of question.

2- The same HIC/Dic either already held you down because you could not kill him OR you currently can kill it and it will take you a few seconds more to kill it after the change because of the initial lock delay of your drones will be greater.



So your answer in part 1) is that a carrier which can launch 6-15 sentry drones at a static 4 second rate of fire puts significantly less load on the server than a super that can launch 6-16 fighters/FB's at say 5 second rate of fire?

I think not, find another excuse.


No they do not put any less load but making fighter and fighter bomber cause more load than they currently do is useless when you can stop the unintended behaviour of the scoop/deploy in a different way and reducing the F/FB scan res does just that.
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#434 - 2015-01-08 17:05:53 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Syn Shi wrote:
So the CFC cant counter the NC meta and decide to sick their pets (CSM) on CCP.


Just blob and risk your ships. Maybe the reward will be you win.

My bad....this would involve nullsec taking a risk.

if only the csm was a democratically elected body and anyone could put a representative on it with the appropriate amount of effort

i mean shoot y'all have the third most populous alliance in the game in Northern Associates., offer em a rent discount if they vote your ticket and you can have all the delegates you want


One of the CSMs went on a drunk tirade about the CSM on stream over the holidays.

1) He isn't returning
2) He mentioned that the CSM is not there for the general populace, they are there for the agenda set out by the coalitions they represent.
Mario Putzo
#435 - 2015-01-08 17:13:52 UTC
As much as I love seeing N3 and CFC throw feces at each other in every dev thread. Can we get a response as to why you are skirting around the actual fix to the proposed problem?

Is there a reason you can't just make a timer apply to the drone bay? Why or why not?

As it stands this doesn't change the fact that people can still recall spam to increase server load in hopes of crashing the node.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#436 - 2015-01-08 17:13:58 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:

One of the CSMs went on a drunk tirade about the CSM on stream over the holidays.

1) He isn't returning
2) He mentioned that the CSM is not there for the general populace, they are there for the agenda set out by the coalitions they represent.

given that a coalition represents the collective will of the players that comprise the coalition, I fail to see how this is a failure of the csm as an institution

any given csm member isn't beholden to represent the playerbase at large, they are beholden to represent the folks what voted him or her into power

this is why there are multiple seats

hell we can only reliably control two of the seats in any given csm thanks to the stv system; the other 12 are complete wildcards over which we have little control
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#437 - 2015-01-08 17:16:14 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
As much as I love seeing N3 and CFC throw ***** at each other in every dev thread. Can we get a response as to why you are skirting around the actual fix to the proposed problem?

Is there a reason you can't just make a timer apply to the drone bay? Why or why not?

As it stands this doesn't change the fact that people can still recall spam to increase server load in hopes of crashing the node.

putting a global cooldown timer on the drone bay disproportionately punishes both other kinds of drones, whose shot timer is too low to be affected by this sort of chicanery, and ships that can't field fighters/fighterbombers

adding a low scan resolution to the drones that are the most problematic in the scoop/relaunch scenario is objectively the best solution

ecm drones are an odd man out that could probably benefit from a similar treatment that fighters/fighterbombers are getting but this thread is not about ecm drones
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#438 - 2015-01-08 17:21:16 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:

any given csm member isn't beholden to represent the playerbase at large, they are beholden to represent the folks what voted him or her into power


I'm pretty sure any elected CSM member even if pushed by a coalition could technically try to push his own agenda even if it goes against the will of those who voted for him.
Mario Putzo
#439 - 2015-01-08 17:22:20 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
As much as I love seeing N3 and CFC throw ***** at each other in every dev thread. Can we get a response as to why you are skirting around the actual fix to the proposed problem?

Is there a reason you can't just make a timer apply to the drone bay? Why or why not?

As it stands this doesn't change the fact that people can still recall spam to increase server load in hopes of crashing the node.

putting a global cooldown timer on the drone bay disproportionately punishes both other kinds of drones, whose shot timer is too low to be affected by this sort of chicanery, and ships that can't field fighters/fighterbombers

adding a low scan resolution to the drones that are the most problematic in the scoop/relaunch scenario is objectively the best solution

ecm drones are an odd man out that could probably benefit from a similar treatment that fighters/fighterbombers are getting but this thread is not about ecm drones


That is great, i didn't ask that, I asked what CCP thinks this is going to accomplish in terms of reducing load on server caused by drones. It does nothing because the act of recalling and redeploying (which is the issue) is not being addressed at all.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#440 - 2015-01-08 17:23:05 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:

any given csm member isn't beholden to represent the playerbase at large, they are beholden to represent the folks what voted him or her into power


I'm pretty sure any elected CSM member even if pushed by a coalition could technically try to push his own agenda even if it goes against the will of those who voted for him.

sure, which is why you don't proffer folks that would be prone to such double-dealing

this again is not a failure of the csm as an institution