These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Recent changes to ships with Ship Maintenance Arrays

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Noot Khorhar
1st Mining and Industrial Logistics Foundation
#121 - 2011-09-13 22:53:56 UTC
Bladewise wrote:
They just nerfed scanning again.


in what way , how ?
Luvvin McHunt
The Church of Awesome
#122 - 2011-09-14 02:31:45 UTC
This change is good - it forces the pirates to commit to a ship for battle just as the mission runner has when they decide to fire.

This only evens the playing field. Hopefully the pirates start using better ships now that they can't bait in a cheap frigate.

PvP should increase as more mission runners will open fire now.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#123 - 2011-09-14 04:33:29 UTC
Luvvin McHunt wrote:


PvP should increase as more mission runners will open fire now.


This is the funniest thing I've read all day.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Aessaya
Independent treasure hunters
#124 - 2011-09-14 05:46:19 UTC
Aamrr wrote:
And on the subject of remote assistance and docking games...This isn't just a subject of out-of-corporation logistics. It's relevant to any nullsec station docking games as well. The thing is, you can't just slap an aggression timer on a logistics pilot that reps someone with a timer. Here's why:

A gang must be able to withdraw from a fight. Presently, if a battleship shoots something, they can cease fire and still run their local tank modules while they wait out their aggression. They can shoot something and receive remote reps while they wait out their aggression. And when the timer is done, the gang (logistics included) can safely dock or use the jump gate. The important part here is that you can still tank while the timers tick down -- you just can't undertake offensive action.

Now suppose that remote assistance incurred an aggression timer in the normal sense. The logistics pilot would receive an aggression timer for repping an aggressed pilot. This timer would quickly spread to the entire logistics chain via their capacitor transfer modules. If these incurred aggression in the normal sense, then these timers would be continually refreshed and the gang would not be able to withdraw without stopping their tanks for a full 60 seconds. I shouldn't have to explain why that isn't a survivable option.

Suppose, on the other hand, that remote assistance didn't give you a fresh timer, but rather gave you a timer equal to that of the pilot you're assisting. That is, repping a pilot that hasn't shot anyone for 10 seconds would give you a 50 second timer. This timer would still spread among the logistics gang -- but it wouldn't be refreshed every time a module cycled.

If the timers worked as I described, where you inherited the target's timer, the logistics gang would be able to dock or jump out at precisely 60 seconds from their gang's last combat action -- which prevents logistics pilots from being able to dock up immediately, as described, but also allows the gang as a whole to cease offensive action and still withdraw effectively.

This seems to be the most reasonable compromise to the complaints of remote assistance, from hisec to nullsec.

Well, this is an interesting idea, however from developement perspective it may be quite hard to implement (programmer myself) or may impose performance drops. Neither of those are good.

Bladewise wrote:
No docking while pointed IMO. C'mon CCP, are you just hugging carebear nuttsack or are you listening to the entire community? Regardless of what pea-brained mission runners say, we do not want WoW in space, all the people who do will be jumping ship to World of Star Wars soon anyways.

Pirates would be hit with it as much as their prey. This is the proverbial stick with two ends.

This has been a very interesting discussion so far.

Ah, you seek meaning? Then listen to the music, not the song.
Aamrr
#125 - 2011-09-14 07:04:08 UTC
Aessaya wrote:
Well, this is an interesting idea, however from developement perspective it may be quite hard to implement (programmer myself) or may impose performance drops. Neither of those are good.


I'm a programmer myself. If the aggression counter mechanics were programmed properly, this sort of change should be entirely reasonable. Now, it's presently my understanding that Crimewatch is a wreck of spaghetti code and bandaids...and that it's also something they're looking at re-implementing for performance and reliability reasons.

Given the circumstances, I think that a few modifications are in order, don't you?
Sutskop
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#126 - 2011-09-14 10:29:27 UTC
Zavulon Sukkot wrote:
said, we should call a spade a spade. There are some people who just want ganks, but our slogan is, 'Not Anchored? TAKE IT!' We're really here for the loots, not aggro. We're still EVE players though, and if someone aggresses us, we like to be able to respond. It's just unfortunate (for us!) that CCP's business interest demands that that be made as difficult as possible. Speaking for TEARS, I just wish CCP's stated intentions and priorities actually meshed with their actions, which they do not. That's all that we are really trying to point out here. Well, that and that our tactics still work.


Or, you know, you could just change ships in station, like real men do. It's not like the victims that shoot you usually have scrams fitted..
I think it is enormously lame that you can (still) basically switch your current ship to almost anything else instantly, risk free. And please tell me you would not just dock up your T3 in the Orca in the rare case the carebear corp mans up and does fight back.
Furb Killer
#127 - 2011-09-14 11:06:25 UTC
Quote:

Well, this is an interesting idea, however from developement perspective it may be quite hard to implement (programmer myself) or may impose performance drops.

As programmer, how would you think this is hard to implement or would impose performance drops in any way? I forgot most C++ stuff again, but there it would simply be something like:

this.agroTimer=RRmodule.getTarget->getAgroTimer();
Aamrr
#128 - 2011-09-14 11:28:34 UTC
Presumably, that getAgroTimer() call might be associated with a database call, or it might be I/O restricted, or...

I can't really do any more than speculate without having the actual code to look at, but it's conceivable that the current infrastructure wouldn't allow it. However, the code you've given there is a rather naive approach. You've basically stated that you want the two values to be equal, so it would make more sense to have some kind of reference counter on one timer and simply set both pilot's aggression to that singular timer. This would prevent issues in which the two timers continually tried to synchronize with the other's value, which might cause them to tick down slower than normal.

In the event that one of the pilots took another aggression action that forced updating it (say, repping a pilot with a more recent timer, or hopping on a killmail), then you'd decrement the reference and initiate a new, independent timer again.

Ultimately, it's probably this sort of reference counting details that are too complicated to fix right now. Perhaps when Team Gridlock finishes all the lower hanging fruit, we'll see some progress in this department.
Furb Killer
#129 - 2011-09-14 11:47:24 UTC
Yet that is exactly what happens with other agro counters (like vulnerable to wardecs when repping people who are decced, GCC timers, etc).

Indeed continiously updating from each other might not be always the best approach, but having one timer is also a bad idea since it assumes you have a permanent cap chain, which is a kinda dangerous assumption. In principle it simply needs to update when a new repair/transfer cycle starts. The current timers can already do it, and it is only once per 5 seconds anyway for each module.
omgthisiscrazyomg
Doomheim
#130 - 2011-09-14 11:50:23 UTC
Sutskop wrote:

Or, you know, you could just change ships in station, like real men do. It's not like the victims that shoot you usually have scrams fitted..
I think it is enormously lame that you can (still) basically switch your current ship to almost anything else instantly, risk free. And please tell me you would not just dock up your T3 in the Orca in the rare case the carebear corp mans up and does fight back.


*facepalm* Have you even been reading this thread? Because you're obviously missing the point.
Solomar Espersei
Quality Assurance
#131 - 2011-09-14 14:56:21 UTC
Sutskop wrote:
Or, you know, you could just change ships in station, like real men do. It's not like the victims that shoot you usually have scrams fitted..
I think it is enormously lame that you can (still) basically switch your current ship to almost anything else instantly, risk free. And please tell me you would not just dock up your T3 in the Orca in the rare case the carebear corp mans up and does fight back.


We've done that, swapped in stations, but really, why the Hell not use a SMA if one is available? For almost a year we didn't do hot swaps but would simply warp to the nearby Orca (in a very close safe), switch ships, come back for pew pew only to have the MR already docked up or warping once anything remotely frightening hits grid. Sounds to me like a certain element in this thread will only be happy if they would nerf the Orca to the point that only mining ships can be stored in there. Roll

Dude, Zav is the last person to accuse of that. Look at his LOL-tastic T3 losses. You guys don't get that we like when MRs gang up to shoot at us and we either DIAF or get a few cool kills. As the Man said, we're not here for l33t PVP buff the KB sorts of stuff. We're in there to steal the deadspace mods off of the MR wrecks.

"Luvvin McHunt" wrote:
This only evens the playing field. Hopefully the pirates start using better ships now that they can't bait in a cheap frigate... PvP should increase as more mission runners will open fire now.

Nope, doesn't work that way. You can get kills via Akbar Ninja Ships, but you draw far less fire this way. As it happens, I do both and the frigates get aggro like crazy compared to the Trap ships.

Quality Assurance Recruiting intrepid explorers and BlOps/Cov Ops combat enthusiasts
Aessaya
Independent treasure hunters
#132 - 2011-09-14 16:15:02 UTC
Aamrr wrote:
Aessaya wrote:
Well, this is an interesting idea, however from developement perspective it may be quite hard to implement (programmer myself) or may impose performance drops. Neither of those are good.


I'm a programmer myself. If the aggression counter mechanics were programmed properly, this sort of change should be entirely reasonable. Now, it's presently my understanding that Crimewatch is a wreck of spaghetti code and bandaids...and that it's also something they're looking at re-implementing for performance and reliability reasons.

Given the circumstances, I think that a few modifications are in order, don't you?

Well, given these circumstances yeah xD And all other programmer chatter in this thread.

Ah, you seek meaning? Then listen to the music, not the song.
Zavulon Sukkot
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
#133 - 2011-09-15 16:52:14 UTC
Sutskop wrote:
Zavulon Sukkot wrote:
said, we should call a spade a spade. There are some people who just want ganks, but our slogan is, 'Not Anchored? TAKE IT!' We're really here for the loots, not aggro. We're still EVE players though, and if someone aggresses us, we like to be able to respond. It's just unfortunate (for us!) that CCP's business interest demands that that be made as difficult as possible. Speaking for TEARS, I just wish CCP's stated intentions and priorities actually meshed with their actions, which they do not. That's all that we are really trying to point out here. Well, that and that our tactics still work.


Or, you know, you could just change ships in station, like real men do. It's not like the victims that shoot you usually have scrams fitted..
I think it is enormously lame that you can (still) basically switch your current ship to almost anything else instantly, risk free. And please tell me you would not just dock up your T3 in the Orca in the rare case the carebear corp mans up and does fight back.


check my losses. i r BATTLE HONOUR WARRIUR.
Fighter26
Orion's Fist
#134 - 2011-09-16 02:14:49 UTC
Noot Khorhar wrote:
Screw you ccp. cant you announce future changes/nerfs that require long skilling for alts with ships and mechanics not long enough in advance. the second time you hit me with skilling for special things in eve and once i have skilled it is worthless. nice way you treat your paying customers.


This man has many tears.
Zanziba'ar
Wolf Brothers INC
United Neopian Federation
#135 - 2011-09-16 10:16:17 UTC
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:
GM Haggis wrote:
Hi Everyone

A method of using ships with Ship Maintenance Arrays in order to avoid combat was recently patched out, you will no longer be able to switch ships from a SMA (specifically the Orca) while you are under an aggression timer in High Security space. This will still work in Low and Null Security space.

Please use this thread to post any comments or questions you have about this change.


Oh gee, GM Haggis however will I deal? Oh wait, I'll just jettinson my combat vessel from the Orca and board it from my ninja frigate.

The thought of leaving 250k isk vigil floating in space for anyone to steal is truly more then I can bare. Oh wait it isn't...



and then they patch that to for your smart arse cocky comment?
  • Mulzvich "Zanziba'ar" Gorath
Lady PimpStar
Storm Chasers.
Pandemic Horde
#136 - 2011-09-20 21:02:43 UTC
So what has happened here?

If I'm mining and some one tries to gank me, I can't switch out to my drake and try to defend myself if they get one shot off and I'm agressed?

What if a NPC start shotting me can't I switch out to a combat ship for any reason if some one start can flipping me?
Handsome Hussein
#137 - 2011-09-20 23:05:38 UTC
Lady PimpStar wrote:
So what has happened here?

If I'm mining and some one tries to gank me, I can't switch out to my drake and try to defend myself if they get one shot off and I'm agressed?

What if a NPC start shotting me can't I switch out to a combat ship for any reason if some one start can flipping me?

This is a terrible post and you should be ashamed for writing it.

0/10

Leaves only the fresh scent of pine.
Tauren Tom
Order of the Silver Dragons
Silver Dragonz
#138 - 2011-09-20 23:50:22 UTC
too bad ccp didn't account for the fact that the orca pilot can just eject the needed ship and the aggresed player need only eject from their ship and let the orca scoop it :) you can't agress a capsule in high sec without concordoken and if you're smart you already realized this "fix" did nothing to stop the "High sec carrier" from serving it's intending GANK assist purpose.


Nice try though CCP, the trolls still win :D
In the grand scheme of things... You're all pubbies. So HTFU.   "It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses." - Elwood Blues
Shaidar Hussan
HelloKittyFanclub
#139 - 2011-09-21 02:56:40 UTC
Aessaya wrote:
War target or otherwise flagged person shoots you, gets assist from a neutral person, the person gets same flags as the person he is assisting, now there's nothing stopping you from kicking their asses as well.

Hmm, but if you fire at the neutral RR then you become red to them. They instantly dock, undock in vindicator, you explode.

Hell, there are people that just sit around Amarr/Jita repping random people for that very reason :D

Aamrr wrote:
Then again, I still think there should be a warning when you're going to rep a target that currently has an aggression timer (such as from can flipping). Presently, the logistics has no way of knowing whether they'll get aggression from doing it until they've actually done it.

I thought it does give you a warning, doesn't it? Or is that only if the player is at war?
Aessaya
Independent treasure hunters
#140 - 2011-09-21 03:55:11 UTC
Shaidar Hussan wrote:
Aessaya wrote:
War target or otherwise flagged person shoots you, gets assist from a neutral person, the person gets same flags as the person he is assisting, now there's nothing stopping you from kicking their asses as well.

Hmm, but if you fire at the neutral RR then you become red to them. They instantly dock, undock in vindicator, you explode.

Hell, there are people that just sit around Amarr/Jita repping random people for that very reason :D
*snip*

Well, that's the way of life in the hisec. Don't attack if you're not sure you can't either kill or tank whatever suprise they have up their sleeves :) I was speaking more of the wardec situation. There was a nice suggestion for assist aggro in this topic so i won't go into discussing it any further.

Ah, you seek meaning? Then listen to the music, not the song.