These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Fixing Mines.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#101 - 2015-05-25 13:23:53 UTC
Skorn Blacksword wrote:
I think these could be worked back in. So long as the damage is small and the explosion radius is big (less damage to small ships), It would not be over powered. A possible solution is:

1. Deploy an object that includes a Detonator sensor at the center and then it deploys a spread of mines after its timer.

2.This limits the placement of mines within the sensors radius. Keeps people from putting a dozen on the same exact spot.

3. Then make restriction to how close the detonators can be from one another. like 10km. That would limit a bubble camp from deploying a dozen on the point where people are dragged into the bubble. But you could possible set another one on the direct path back to the gate.


By this you could control most of the variables that caused the original problems. I think there are other solutions that would be viable, and that implementing mines again is worth taking a look at.


This is progress.

A wonderfully provocative idea.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#102 - 2015-05-25 13:38:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Donnachadh
Deep Nine wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Deep Nine wrote:
There's no proof it would create massive server lag.

Then prove it wouldn't. I could lag out a cluster by undocking in unison before the ISboxer nerf.


You made the claim, as your basis for not having mines, that they would lag out the server.

The burden of proof lies on those who make the claim.

And you made the claim that they would not produce server lag, so following your logic where is YOUR PROOF.
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#103 - 2015-05-25 17:57:02 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Deep Nine wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Deep Nine wrote:
There's no proof it would create massive server lag.

Then prove it wouldn't. I could lag out a cluster by undocking in unison before the ISboxer nerf.


You made the claim, as your basis for not having mines, that they would lag out the server.

The burden of proof lies on those who make the claim.

And you made the claim that they would not produce server lag, so following your logic where is YOUR PROOF.


Reread the thread.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#104 - 2015-05-25 18:29:41 UTC
Deep Nine wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:
Deep Nine wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Deep Nine wrote:
There's no proof it would create massive server lag.

Then prove it wouldn't. I could lag out a cluster by undocking in unison before the ISboxer nerf.


You made the claim, as your basis for not having mines, that they would lag out the server.

The burden of proof lies on those who make the claim.

And you made the claim that they would not produce server lag, so following your logic where is YOUR PROOF.


Reread the thread.

Done. repeatedly. No proof of anything, no math done on the numbers given. A deployable is a fully fleshed entity. spawning 70 of them, like with my ships undocking, was sufficient to cause 85% tidi for ~5s while the server caught up. With the increased numbers we are talking about, like use in fleet combat where tidi is already a concern, this can be a major issue.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#105 - 2015-05-25 22:10:32 UTC

Quote:
Done. repeatedly. No proof of anything, no math done on the numbers given. A deployable is a fully fleshed entity. spawning 70 of them, like with my ships undocking, was sufficient to cause 85% tidi for ~5s while the server caught up. With the increased numbers we are talking about, like use in fleet combat where tidi is already a concern, this can be a major issue.


So you deployed mines, including the new mines, with your 70 ships?

If so, that's proves your argument, if not, well, it doesent prove anything.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#106 - 2015-05-25 22:21:49 UTC
Deep Nine wrote:

Quote:
Done. repeatedly. No proof of anything, no math done on the numbers given. A deployable is a fully fleshed entity. spawning 70 of them, like with my ships undocking, was sufficient to cause 85% tidi for ~5s while the server caught up. With the increased numbers we are talking about, like use in fleet combat where tidi is already a concern, this can be a major issue.


So you deployed mines, including the new mines, with your 70 ships?

If so, that's proves your argument, if not, well, it doesent prove anything.



Without mines to deploy, this is a pointless line of reasoning. I stated that it is a concern for server lag, and stated how easy it is to create.

Lovely non-sequitor there though.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Specia1 K
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#107 - 2015-05-26 00:39:31 UTC
A little research goes a long way.

1. The argument against mines is supported by the Storyline of the game.
With the development of robotics and Drones, mines were deemed ineffective by the Gallente Federation and were no longer used after the battle for Caldari Prime.

"Finally, the solution evolved from the stationary defenses of all things. The Gallenteans had employed mines for a long time with so-so results, but with the massive advances in robotics technology taking place at this time the mines were slowly transformed into a far deadlier object. The first drones were little more than mines with proximity detonators and some limited moving capabilities, but soon they had advanced to the level that a single drone almost rivaled a solo-fighter’s capabilities."
Source

2. Game History
The ability to deploy mines was removed from the game over 10 years ago, I believe it was Patch 1403 (the specifics have been lost in the patch notes):
"Many optimizations to reduce combat lag have been introduced"
Source

To re-introduce an item that is inherently against the game Storyline and was removed due to Server lag, the NEED of the item must be clearly demonstrated before the mechanics can even be presented.

The fact that 4 mine types still exist in the game inventory (Anaconda, Python, Asp, Cobra) does not require additional catalogue items to be created. What is lacking is the ability to deploy those mines, and the justifications for it.

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome
Silk Garrot
State War Academy
Caldari State
#108 - 2015-05-26 11:47:23 UTC
This thread needs a bump.

I'm not sayin' that's what this is.

But I am saying it needs one.
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#109 - 2015-05-26 16:34:28 UTC
Quote:
the NEED of the item must be clearly demonstrated before the mechanics can even be presented.


No, it doesn't.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#110 - 2015-05-26 17:21:45 UTC
Deep Nine wrote:
Quote:
the NEED of the item must be clearly demonstrated before the mechanics can even be presented.


No, it doesn't.


Mechanics must flow from purpose to be worth dev time.
Purpose must meet a need to be worth theory crafter time (unless the idea is just plain neat)
Thus, a need must be shown before a coherent proposal can be made.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
The Boogieman
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#111 - 2015-05-26 20:00:28 UTC  |  Edited by: The Boogieman
Quote:

James Baboli: Mechanics must flow from purpose to be worth dev time.
Purpose must meet a need to be worth theory crafter time (unless the idea is just plain neat)
Thus, a need must be shown before a coherent proposal can be made.


>>The entire thread:
>>Suggest absolutely nothing of value.
>>Try to sound intellectual.
>>Use words out of context.
>>Impotent anger, limp argument, no proof.
>>Incoherent rage so obvious its embarrassing.
>>Lies, misinformation, derailing on epic scale.
>>Make no sense, throw words around.
>>Totally destroyed.
>>Used like a condom to bump threads.

Amateur hour is over, it's time for you to go to bed.
FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#112 - 2015-05-26 20:09:44 UTC
I can honestly not tell if you are trolling or if you are too dumb to realise when someone is smarter then you are...

Anyway this idea is stupid and we have clearly shown why...
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#113 - 2015-05-26 20:33:36 UTC
Deep Nine wrote:
Quote:
the NEED of the item must be clearly demonstrated before the mechanics can even be presented.


No, it doesn't.


Dev time has to be justified before being invested. A mechanic that was removed because of how broken it was would need to be remade from the ground up in a new way and that takes time. You can't just say "fixes mines and let us use them". There need to be a meaningful use for them before devs even put though into it beyond wild dreamy though.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#114 - 2015-05-26 20:47:14 UTC
Quote:

Forum rules

15. Bumping outside the EVE Marketplace and Alliance & Corporation Recruitment channels is prohibited.

The bumping of posts to alter the order of the thread listing on a forum is prohibited outside the EVE Marketplace and Alliance & Corporation Recruitment forum channels. Within the EVE Marketplace section of the forums, each forum category has its own rules regarding acceptable bumping for sales threads clearly listed in the stickies.

Similarly the Alliance & Corporation Recruitment channel also has its own rules. Please be aware that the rules vary from forum to forum. Please review the sticky threads in these forum channels for specific details.

27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.


Thread closed.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department