These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Wow! that grid!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lugh Crow-Slave
#21 - 2015-03-14 01:20:49 UTC
Kabark wrote:
Agondray wrote:
Reina Xyaer wrote:
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Born 2008, 2700 kills, doesn't know about grid-fu. Shocked


His point is still extremely valid you troll

Time to remove the "grid" from EVE.


and with the capability to snipe even longer ranges ranges because my tempest is stuck at 249.99kms for range no matter how many sensor boosters are on it.

but in reality the grid being centered around each ship isn't feasible as you would have lots of grids overlap on things like undocks and massive fights. im sure that would cause a massive server problem. in reality all games have a grid because you can only see something for so far rather its people on a land based mmorpg or a ship in space

I'm just here to support expanding the grid. I love my Rokh. I would love my Rokh even more if I could snipe from 250km to 500km. 1000km grid. Oh please give me a max range of 500km! Oh the sniping potential!


this has nothing to do with the current grid its a hard lock limit you can get grids out over 2000km

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Gaan Cathal
Angry Mustellid
#22 - 2015-03-14 02:05:34 UTC
Kabark wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:
I think they limited it partly due to the what the server can handle, but there is the balance issue too. there is what people say above me saying "i want to snipe from 250km+" which is scary enough as is.

I can effectively apply around 300 dps at 250km which is good for rail guns at that distance. I barely have the tracking to hit a cruiser at transverse of 500m/s which is about the limit for rail gun at that range. At 500km you should be able to apply around 100 dps on a battleship sized target moving. Anything smaller and you just couldn't hit. I don't think there is any balance issue with extending the range, only a programming issue.


This is completely the reverse of the actual mechanics. The further an object of a given velocity the lower it's transverse velocity and ergo the easier it is to track.
Kabark
Schilden
#23 - 2015-03-14 03:13:36 UTC
Gaan Cathal wrote:
Kabark wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:
I think they limited it partly due to the what the server can handle, but there is the balance issue too. there is what people say above me saying "i want to snipe from 250km+" which is scary enough as is.

I can effectively apply around 300 dps at 250km which is good for rail guns at that distance. I barely have the tracking to hit a cruiser at transverse of 500m/s which is about the limit for rail gun at that range. At 500km you should be able to apply around 100 dps on a battleship sized target moving. Anything smaller and you just couldn't hit. I don't think there is any balance issue with extending the range, only a programming issue.


This is completely the reverse of the actual mechanics. The further an object of a given velocity the lower it's transverse velocity and ergo the easier it is to track.

Explain that to my tracking computers. 247km optimal, can hit a cruiser moving at 500m/s at 200km but miss half the shots same senario at 250km.
Colette Kassia
Kassia Industrial Supply
#24 - 2015-03-14 05:18:00 UTC
I've noticed that some posters are talking about the 'common simulation volume' and others about 'visual range'. Currently these are synonymous. You can see anything (no cloaked) that is in the same "room' as you, regardless of distance. The talk of removing grids in the thread is really just a suggestion to decouple the two. I support that idea.

The maximum distance that you can detect another ship and see them on Overview should be determined by your ships sensor strength (or resolution) and the signature size of the other ship. You should be able to detect a titan from further out than a frigate. And it's fine if some ships can see an object from greater distances than others.

It makes some sense that the placement of jet cans, or other objects, may affect the size of the simulation volume. But this increasing your visual range just feels like something in the game design is broken. The technical details of how the server creates the illusion that is simulating a whole solar-system should be totally transparent to the players; and poking at it should not be a component of battle strategy.

(This is the vision I had in my mind when I wrote my previous post).
Gaan Cathal
Angry Mustellid
#25 - 2015-03-14 12:50:18 UTC
Kabark wrote:

Explain that to my tracking computers. 247km optimal, can hit a cruiser moving at 500m/s at 200km but miss half the shots same senario at 250km.


If you've got an optimal of 247km then that doesn't surprise me, a target at 250km is in falloff and if you don't have much falloff (say, railguns) then it can have a dramatic effect very quickly. That will be what's increasing your miss rate.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#26 - 2015-03-14 13:06:33 UTC
Gaan Cathal wrote:
Kabark wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:
I think they limited it partly due to the what the server can handle, but there is the balance issue too. there is what people say above me saying "i want to snipe from 250km+" which is scary enough as is.

I can effectively apply around 300 dps at 250km which is good for rail guns at that distance. I barely have the tracking to hit a cruiser at transverse of 500m/s which is about the limit for rail gun at that range. At 500km you should be able to apply around 100 dps on a battleship sized target moving. Anything smaller and you just couldn't hit. I don't think there is any balance issue with extending the range, only a programming issue.


This is completely the reverse of the actual mechanics. The further an object of a given velocity the lower it's transverse velocity and ergo the easier it is to track.


not once you realize you are dealing with fall off Roll

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Promiscuous Medusa
Doomheim
#27 - 2015-03-14 13:31:47 UTC
250km, 500km, its all the same when autoprobing lands tackle on you.

Why 500 anyway? Is 200 not safe enough? :/
Kabark
Schilden
#28 - 2015-03-14 17:08:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Kabark
Promiscuous Medusa wrote:
250km, 500km, its all the same when autoprobing lands tackle on you.

Why 500 anyway? Is 200 not safe enough? :/

For the lulz. I've lost a couple snipers to probes but it is tremendous fun to sit 200 off gate and a frig jumps in and doesn't warp off right away. Then realizes he just got locked and poped. But can someone give me a run down on how optimal and falloff work together? Or link the page that explains it. I still don't have a full understanding on how the targeting system works.
LT Alter
Ryba.
White Squall.
#29 - 2015-03-14 17:47:51 UTC
Reina Xyaer wrote:
What's to stop the "grid" from being the whole system? You lack imagination.


Legacy code, hardware limitations, client information intake limitation... lots of other reason that I cannot think of because I am not a developer?

That comment has completely shown your ineptitude, and ending it with, "You lack imagination." Makes you look the fool rather than him.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2015-03-14 18:55:57 UTC
LT Alter wrote:
Reina Xyaer wrote:
What's to stop the "grid" from being the whole system? You lack imagination.


Legacy code, hardware limitations, client information intake limitation... lots of other reason that I cannot think of because I am not a developer?

That comment has completely shown your ineptitude, and ending it with, "You lack imagination." Makes you look the fool rather than him.


Thank you for defending me. I appreciate it. If you look 2 comments below his, you'll see that I provided a complete answer (and a rebuttal of the accusation).

The devs read these forums but they ignore people who regularly insult each other, so if we are looking for positive change, that's a counterproductive approach.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Promiscuous Medusa
Doomheim
#31 - 2015-03-15 21:20:15 UTC
Kabark wrote:
Promiscuous Medusa wrote:
250km, 500km, its all the same when autoprobing lands tackle on you.

Why 500 anyway? Is 200 not safe enough? :/

For the lulz. I've lost a couple snipers to probes but it is tremendous fun to sit 200 off gate and a frig jumps in and doesn't warp off right away. Then realizes he just got locked and poped. But can someone give me a run down on how optimal and falloff work together? Or link the page that explains it. I still don't have a full understanding on how the targeting system works.

Optimal = 100% DPS
Optimal + Falloff = 50% DPS
Optimal + 2xFalloff = 0 DPS

So 500dps, op 10km, falloff 5km

10km - 500dps
15km - 250dps
20km - 0dps
19.9km - like... 1 dps.

Not including all the other factors.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#32 - 2015-03-15 21:23:56 UTC
Promiscuous Medusa wrote:
Kabark wrote:
Promiscuous Medusa wrote:
250km, 500km, its all the same when autoprobing lands tackle on you.

Why 500 anyway? Is 200 not safe enough? :/

For the lulz. I've lost a couple snipers to probes but it is tremendous fun to sit 200 off gate and a frig jumps in and doesn't warp off right away. Then realizes he just got locked and poped. But can someone give me a run down on how optimal and falloff work together? Or link the page that explains it. I still don't have a full understanding on how the targeting system works.

Optimal = 100% DPS
Optimal + Falloff = 50% DPS
Optimal + 2xFalloff = 0 DPS

So 500dps, op 10km, falloff 5km

10km - 500dps
15km - 250dps
20km - 0dps
19.9km - like... 1 dps.

Not including all the other factors.


A bit more info found here if the above didn't help

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#33 - 2015-03-15 23:49:45 UTC
Last I heard anything about the matter, the use of Grid-Fu had been deemed an exploit by CCP. If you encounter it in the future and can supply reasonable evidence that your target is aware of and taking advantage of a manipulated grid, it should be reported.

Perhaps one day CCP will fix the grid so that it cannot be manipulated in this way, but today is not that day.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#34 - 2015-03-16 00:09:35 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Last I heard anything about the matter, the use of Grid-Fu had been deemed an exploit by CCP. If you encounter it in the future and can supply reasonable evidence that your target is aware of and taking advantage of a manipulated grid, it should be reported.

Perhaps one day CCP will fix the grid so that it cannot be manipulated in this way, but today is not that day.

I believe it's more exactly grid boundary use? To bounce 100m back over a boundary to cause all locks to drop and escape, or lay a massive trap.
Not general grid fu to extend or shape a grid.
Cardano Firesnake
Fire Bullet Inc
#35 - 2015-03-16 11:48:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Cardano Firesnake
I know the grid problems since a long time ago. It is not the first time It hapens to me.
But I still don't find it OK.

I don't mind how, but this should be fix.

And the fact is that neither me or my openent did this grid modification on purpose. I don't even understand what happened as I just put a bubble @ 100km from a gate and engaged there.

Posted - 2010.07.01 11:24:00 - [4] Erase learning skills, remap all SP. That's all.
Caphriel Airuta
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#36 - 2015-03-16 12:22:40 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
LT Alter wrote:
Reina Xyaer wrote:
What's to stop the "grid" from being the whole system? You lack imagination.


Legacy code, hardware limitations, client information intake limitation... lots of other reason that I cannot think of because I am not a developer?

That comment has completely shown your ineptitude, and ending it with, "You lack imagination." Makes you look the fool rather than him.


Thank you for defending me. I appreciate it. If you look 2 comments below his, you'll see that I provided a complete answer (and a rebuttal of the accusation).

The devs read these forums but they ignore people who regularly insult each other, so if we are looking for positive change, that's a counterproductive approach.



You're the hero this forum needs, but doesn't deserve. Would you say that increased server power and efficiency improvements could possibly allow for the fix you postulated with minimal lag at this stage?
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2015-03-16 18:14:40 UTC
Caphriel Airuta wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
LT Alter wrote:
Reina Xyaer wrote:
What's to stop the "grid" from being the whole system? You lack imagination.


Legacy code, hardware limitations, client information intake limitation... lots of other reason that I cannot think of because I am not a developer?

That comment has completely shown your ineptitude, and ending it with, "You lack imagination." Makes you look the fool rather than him.


Thank you for defending me. I appreciate it. If you look 2 comments below his, you'll see that I provided a complete answer (and a rebuttal of the accusation).

The devs read these forums but they ignore people who regularly insult each other, so if we are looking for positive change, that's a counterproductive approach.



You're the hero this forum needs, but doesn't deserve. Would you say that increased server power and efficiency improvements could possibly allow for the fix you postulated with minimal lag at this stage?


The ability to merge two overlapping grids, or to allow grids (and target locks) at extreme range should have almost no impact on server load, for two reasons:

a) The grid merge is a once-only operation. In effect it would be transferring the contexts of both grids in a third new one and then destroying the two old ones. All players would experience some lag (similar to emerging from a gate) and that would be it. I suspect the vast majority of that pause would be the time it takes to communicate the new grid layout down to all interested clients, and for the client at the end of the slowest connection to confirm that the grid has been received (to keep it fair).

b) Server load is a function of the number of nearby objects being tracked, not their distances. Computing and communicating the co-ordinate set for three spaceships would take the same time whether they were 100km or 100,000 km apart. The nature of floating-point arithmetic is such that the computations take the same time but become less accurate as the scale of the numbers grow (but we're talking some very big numbers for that to begin to matter).

Of course there is a caveat:

If we were to allow grids to grow, and players had sufficient time, we'd also have to allow them to break up at some point - there's always going to be a limit as to how big they can reasonably be allowed to get, otherwise determined players could conceivably zoom off in different directions in overclocked frigates and spend a few weeks making a ridiculously large grid.

Server downtime might be a good time to detect these candidates and compute the breakoff points.

This would probably be a good project for a Summer Intern at CCP, if they have such things.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Reina Xyaer
Tha Lench Mob
#38 - 2015-03-17 00:18:02 UTC
LT Alter wrote:
Reina Xyaer wrote:
What's to stop the "grid" from being the whole system? You lack imagination.


Legacy code, hardware limitations, client information intake limitation... lots of other reason that I cannot think of because I am not a developer?

That comment has completely shown your ineptitude, and ending it with, "You lack imagination." Makes you look the fool rather than him.



Completely hollow arguments.

Legacy Code? Again... code can be updated. That is the EXACT definition of making a change to a game.

Hardware limitations? I doubt it. EVE servers running everything they currently do, but then they can't compute "object within X range? yes=ongrid, no=offgrid

Client information intake limitation? Seriously? Do you use made up things like that at work to impress your boss? "Well Sir, as you can see here by the synergetic emergent information protocol..." idiot. The EVE clients get sent the info for 1000vs1000 man fleet battles, and you think it would be impossible to send them the data from objects 1000km away instead of 400km away?

Completely shown my ineptitude, right. This comment completely shows your need to troll the forums and make things up to argue against ideas you don't like for no reason.

Me: "Remove (or make seamless) the grid because it's a silly mechanic that has no place in a 3D space sim."

You: "No that's stupid and you're stupid because that's impossible to do with EVE's current code (which I admittedly have no idea how it works because I'm 'not a developer')"

Don't go calling people "inept" if you're arguments are baseless and almost certainly wrong.


Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#39 - 2015-03-17 00:25:05 UTC
Actually most of us do have a very good idea how EVE's current grid code works.
Because it works in a logical coherent fashion designed to prevent lag.
And your proposal to remove grids is terrible as it would mean vast amounts more lag.

Could grids be made to be able to merge. Now that is possible in theory, but it certainly isn't a summer intern project. I don't want some new programmer who doesn't care about their long term job hacking out some monkey code on a system which is utterly integral to the base gameplay of everyone no matter what activity they do.
Are the very few edge cases it's likely to deal with worth changing the grid code fundamentally for and the Dev hours involved in that project, most likely not.
Reina Xyaer
Tha Lench Mob
#40 - 2015-03-17 00:48:01 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Actually most of us do have a very good idea how EVE's current grid code works.


Oh really buddy? Please explain. I'm honestly interested in hearing how you think EVE's code works.

Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Because it works in a logical coherent fashion designed to prevent lag.
And your proposal to remove grids is terrible as it would mean vast amounts more lag.


Oh really? Please explain... seriously, in depth. Tell me why it would mean vast amounts more lag. Utter hogwash.

I say: baseless claims.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Neither do I, but at least I don't claim to.
Previous page123Next page