These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#441 - 2015-01-08 17:23:50 UTC
all that being said the whole "goons control the csm" thing is yet another example of folks assuming the most ingratiating position of surrender possible

i love it very much yes please keep posting in this regard
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#442 - 2015-01-08 17:38:42 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
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.


It will not fix the exact thing you mention because it does not try to fix that. The server load mention in the OP is an added benefit as the drop/scoop cycle won't be used to do what the change is trying to fix.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#443 - 2015-01-08 17:47:57 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, the answer is that currently FB do not have the same load on the server that short cycle time sentries have, and that increasing that load to be more like sentries is a bad idea. It would solve the launching/scooping/launching exploit, but it would create more load on the servers than it needs to. Fighterbombers were created with high alpha and longer cycle times intentionally iirc.

FWIW, you wrote decrease rate of fire and decrease volley - that would be a pretty huge nerf, so we'll assume you meant increase rate of fire.

I thought of this solution too, but thought beyond that point to see why it might be a bad idea as well. I'm willing to bet CCP thought of it as well, and discarded it for the same reasons. They're just not going to publish every single idea they thought of and why they shot it down.

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.
Mario Putzo
#444 - 2015-01-08 17:50:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Frostys Virpio wrote:

It will not fix the exact thing you mention because it does not try to fix that. The server load mention in the OP is an added benefit as the drop/scoop cycle won't be used to do what the change is trying to fix.


Quote:
The primary goal of this change is to ensure that rapidly scooping and relaunching fighters and fighter bombers never gives a dps advantage. 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.


Not secondary.

Quote:
The changes will also have the effect of delaying the initial alpha strike of fighters and fighter bombers, especially against subcaps. Although it is not the primary purpose of the change we are not displeased by this effect, and we do not believe that it will make fighters or fighter bombers underpowered.


All secondary.

CCP is worried about drone spam causing server load. It is of a primary concern as laid out in the OP. This does not fix that issue at all.

A timer on the drone bay however
1) Stops Carriers and Supers from using this "exploit"
2) Stops all ships with a drone bay from being able to spike server load.

My fix fixes the primary issue, without impacting where Fighters and Bombers currently are in the hierarchy of the game, its secondary impact will make it slightly more strenuous to fly a sentry based fleet that relies on abandon/deploy mechanics
(Ishtars, Vexors, Vexor Navies, Domis for example). and a slight delay in mission run time for PVE guys who typically need to recall drones several times in a mission.

I just want to know why CCP once again is kicking the can on this one.

I said the same thing last year when CCP tried to use HED-GP as the reasoning behind the drone bunny change. "Drones cause to much server load so we want to increase the number of people who have to F1 drones"

CCPs idea of fixing an issue means making something unappealing to use, and hope for the best.

They hoped drone bunny change would reduce drone use...it didn't.
Now they hope this will reduce drone spam...it won't.

As long as a ship has a drone bay people will use it, and if 1K dudes can spam drones to make a node unplayable (HED-GP) the problem will always exist.
DaeHan Minhyok
Logical Outcomes
#445 - 2015-01-08 17:54:54 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
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.


But the scan res changes effect more things negatively than the minor change in server load of an rof/dmg change
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#446 - 2015-01-08 17:56:53 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

It will not fix the exact thing you mention because it does not try to fix that. The server load mention in the OP is an added benefit as the drop/scoop cycle won't be used to do what the change is trying to fix.


Quote:
The primary goal of this change is to ensure that rapidly scooping and relaunching fighters and fighter bombers never gives a dps advantage. 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.


Not secondary.

Quote:
The changes will also have the effect of delaying the initial alpha strike of fighters and fighter bombers, especially against subcaps. Although it is not the primary purpose of the change we are not displeased by this effect, and we do not believe that it will make fighters or fighter bombers underpowered.


All secondary.

CCP is worried about drone spam causing server load. It is of a primary concern as laid out in the OP. This does not fix that issue at all.


It's worried about drone spam giving a DPS advantage. The drone load is something cause by the behavior they want to curb, not the reason why they want to curb it.

I underlined the real "primary goal" sentence in your quote. Not a single word about server load in it. The server load they want to kill is a result of the spam used in order to achieve higher dps so killing the DPS gain will also make people stop overloading the server in the name of higher dps.

You can still try to overload the server with drone scoop/deploy which is sad but it is NOT the issue they are trying to fix with this change.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#447 - 2015-01-08 17:59:23 UTC
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
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.


But the scan res changes effect more things negatively than the minor change in server load of an rof/dmg change


What other things are affected beside what I already listed in the thread, namely target swapping between pre-locked targets?
DaeHan Minhyok
Logical Outcomes
#448 - 2015-01-08 18:10:33 UTC
The scan res changes decrease the drones ability to deal damage to smaller targets without changing the ability to defend against them, thus increasing the risk.
Mario Putzo
#449 - 2015-01-08 18:16:13 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

What other things are affected beside what I already listed in the thread, namely target swapping between pre-locked targets?


Thats a pretty huge change when ultimately fleet fights come down to Alpha vs Logistics.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#450 - 2015-01-08 18:32:26 UTC
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:
The scan res changes decrease the drones ability to deal damage to smaller targets without changing the ability to defend against them, thus increasing the risk.

no it doesn't

the drones do the same damage as before

they just don't start doing damage until a small period of time has passed
Mario Putzo
#451 - 2015-01-08 18:44:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Promiscuous Female wrote:
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:
The scan res changes decrease the drones ability to deal damage to smaller targets without changing the ability to defend against them, thus increasing the risk.

no it doesn't

the drones do the same damage as before

they just don't start doing damage until a small period of time has passed


Or until you need to switch targets because Logi.

CFC spends a year whining about logi, now applauds an increase to effectiveness of Logi.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#452 - 2015-01-08 18:49:44 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:
The scan res changes decrease the drones ability to deal damage to smaller targets without changing the ability to defend against them, thus increasing the risk.

no it doesn't

the drones do the same damage as before

they just don't start doing damage until a small period of time has passed


Or until you need to switch targets because Logi.

CFC spends a year whining about logi, now applauds an increase to effectiveness of Logi.

capital ships have enough buffer to survive for the 20 seconds of extra dps that would have been afforded by reverting this change

and yeah it is 20-22 seconds worst case — http://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e1cabig6plr here is a graph of a mantis locking a variety of targets upon which it is intended to shoot
Mario Putzo
#453 - 2015-01-08 18:57:37 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:
The scan res changes decrease the drones ability to deal damage to smaller targets without changing the ability to defend against them, thus increasing the risk.

no it doesn't

the drones do the same damage as before

they just don't start doing damage until a small period of time has passed


Or until you need to switch targets because Logi.

CFC spends a year whining about logi, now applauds an increase to effectiveness of Logi.

capital ships have enough buffer to survive for the 20 seconds of extra dps that would have been afforded by reverting this change

and yeah it is 20-22 seconds worst case — http://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e1cabig6plr here is a graph of a mantis locking a variety of targets upon which it is intended to shoot



Ok cool now lets see how that looks against Battleship Fleets.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#454 - 2015-01-08 19:00:18 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:

capital ships have enough buffer to survive for the 20 seconds of extra dps that would have been afforded by reverting this change

and yeah it is 20-22 seconds worst case — http://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e1cabig6plr here is a graph of a mantis locking a variety of targets upon which it is intended to shoot



Ok cool now lets see how that looks against Battleship Fleets.

you don't use fighters against battleship fleets, you use sentries

but hey sure why not

http://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e5o5ft4vmq2

a staggering 9 second delay, if the battleships are right on top of the carriers

otherwise whoops travel time takes care of that
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#455 - 2015-01-08 19:01:03 UTC
unless you meant using fighterbombers against battleship fleets in which case L M B O
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#456 - 2015-01-08 19:03:31 UTC
and hey for shits and giggles we'll do the same pre-nerf fighter

http://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427en2evd7tn8l

so the nerf is adding an earth-shattering 4.5 seconds to the lock time of the fighters

truly we have seen the last straw for fighters, may they RIP in peace
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#457 - 2015-01-08 19:07:27 UTC
Oh snap, you went all Wolfram on them!

Math ftw!

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.
DaeHan Minhyok
Logical Outcomes
#458 - 2015-01-08 19:09:45 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:
The scan res changes decrease the drones ability to deal damage to smaller targets without changing the ability to defend against them, thus increasing the risk.

no it doesn't

the drones do the same damage as before

they just don't start doing damage until a small period of time has passed

Pretty sure scan res also effects tracking?
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#459 - 2015-01-08 19:12:05 UTC
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:
The scan res changes decrease the drones ability to deal damage to smaller targets without changing the ability to defend against them, thus increasing the risk.

no it doesn't

the drones do the same damage as before

they just don't start doing damage until a small period of time has passed

Pretty sure scan res also effects tracking?

nope

you are thinking of signature resolution

which fighterbombers don't even use on account of firing pseudo-missiles
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#460 - 2015-01-08 19:12:35 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
and hey for shits and giggles we'll do the same pre-nerf fighter

http://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427en2evd7tn8l

so the nerf is adding an earth-shattering 4.5 seconds to the lock time of the fighters

truly we have seen the last straw for fighters, may they RIP in peace


rest in peace in peace?

Boom headshot!

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...