+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: Dear devs and admins: (/showthread.php?tid=84350)
Dear devs and admins: - Govedo13 - 07-25-2012
' Wrote:Before player bases, the Gamma/Alpha/Texas/Hamburg/Leeds large cap engagements did much the same. The issue is not playerbases, but the HUGE excess of capital ships in the game. If we're going to snip something, let's start there:This is indeed good idea, it is great idea actually, however if the battleships get faction restricted and buffed they should be also able to deal with the snub swarm.
- All pirate factions restricted to cruisers and below. Poorly supplied pirate factions not even a cruiser.
- All house corporate factions, civvy stuff only.
- All unaffiliated factions (Zoner, BHG, IMG, GMG and other non-house lawful factions) limited to cruiser and below.
- Restrict the amount of battleships house navies may field by making those one per official player faction (meaning you -can- have more of them, just need more player factions on the ID. Also means you have to have a group of players working together and generating activity, to be able to field one).
Then make their main guns and shields significantly more powerful (the ones that drive away cruisers but are pointless against snubs) and the problem is largely solved.
Dear devs and admins: - Jack_Henderson - 07-25-2012
' Wrote:It would be a good idea to note which fleets cause lag. IE which types of ships are involved in the heavy lag generating events. This can then be used to identify the specific ships that have a tendency to create high lag. I got a fair idea which ones are the most problematic (the Legate and the Zoner jug topping the list) but it would help to note which are the worst.
Will do so next time I see a siege. But from my experience so far, the Hessian and the Sair ones rank high. But that is likely biased because I have hardly seen other faction caps in masses in sieges.
Quote:The issue is not playerbases, but the HUGE excess of capital ships in the game. If we're going to snip something, let's start there:
- All pirate factions restricted to cruisers and below. Poorly supplied pirate factions not even a cruiser.
- All house corporate factions, civvy stuff only.
- All unaffiliated factions (Zoner, BHG, IMG, GMG and other non-house lawful factions) limited to cruiser and below.
- Restrict the amount of battleships house navies may field by making those one per official player faction (meaning you -can- have more of them, just need more player factions on the ID. Also means you have to have a group of players working together and generating activity, to be able to field one).
Then make their main guns and shields significantly more powerful (the ones that drive away cruisers but are pointless against snubs) and the problem is largely solved.
I like the way the problem is approached. It's something that actually can be done. All points except the last one will also be rather easy to implement. I mean, IMG lost the Battleship in the last version and there was no really bad QQ about it.
I like the idea that the Cruiser becomes the main tool for most factions.
However, if the Cruiser is meant to become the "main tool" of many factions, they need some buff against snubs. Cruisers (except the small, agile ones, e.g. the CR one) die much too easily against nova bombers.
Dear devs and admins: - AeternusDoleo - 07-25-2012
No Jack, they do not need a buff against snubs. Cruisers are not antisnub, that's the gunboat's role. Cruiser should in fact be very vulnerable to bombers, but should be capable of surpressing enemy gunboats with ease, and now that they can engage transports in piracy, they can effectively blockade a location against those slower ships. Cruiser primaries may need a minor projectile speed increase (since turretsteered gunboats are a bitch to hit with the current cruiser weapon speed) but that's about it.
Dear devs and admins: - Jetro Willems - 07-25-2012
' Wrote:Before player bases, the Gamma/Alpha/Texas/Hamburg/Leeds large cap engagements did much the same. The issue is not playerbases, but the HUGE excess of capital ships in the game. If we're going to snip something, let's start there:
- All pirate factions restricted to cruisers and below. Poorly supplied pirate factions not even a cruiser.
- All house corporate factions, civvy stuff only.
- All unaffiliated factions (Zoner, BHG, IMG, GMG and other non-house lawful factions) limited to cruiser and below.
- Restrict the amount of battleships house navies may field by making those one per official player faction (meaning you -can- have more of them, just need more player factions on the ID. Also means you have to have a group of players working together and generating activity, to be able to field one).
Then make their main guns and shields significantly more powerful (the ones that drive away cruisers but are pointless against snubs) and the problem is largely solved.
This would end battleship spam. This would end the server crashing from battleship spam. It would also cause an insane amount of Q_Q from every capwhore in the game. But it would address the problem mentioned in the top post.
On another note though - it may be just the complexity of the capship hitboxes being an issue - not sure. We're looking into those as well. No quick fixes.
This is really funny. Why were the devs giving "poorly supplied pirate factions" Battleships and Dreadnoughts then? The great example is the Hessian BS.
Why fighting consenquences of your decisions instead of making right decisions? It's senless to start "balancing the factions towards each other so the fights will be balanced", like you did with the Corsairs/Hessians, and then restricting their rights to cruisers and below.
Dear devs and admins: - AeternusDoleo - 07-25-2012
*shrug* Probably because people desperately wanted these battlebricks, and the consequences to server load were not known until some 20 of them got together in pewage. That happens more frequently now that playerbases require mass cap fielding to be sieged - and the counter tends to be mass cap fielding as well. The request for more caps came from the playerbase as I recall, we simply gave the players what they asked for. We should have known better then to do that, I guess.
Incidentally, whiney pointless remarks like yours, totally devoid of any kind of constructive comment or potential other solution, are one of the main reasons devs tend to burn out, myself included. If you've got nothing useful to say, kindly shut the frack up.
Dear devs and admins: - Jetro Willems - 07-25-2012
' Wrote:*shrug* Probably because people desperately wanted these battlebricks, and the consequences to server load were not known until some 20 of them got together in pewage. That happens more frequently now that playerbases require mass cap fielding to be sieged - and the counter tends to be mass cap fielding as well. The request for more caps came from the playerbase as I recall, we simply gave the players what they asked for. We should have known better then to do that, I guess.
Incidentally, whiney pointless remarks like yours, totally devoid of any kind of constructive comment or potential other solution, are one of the main reasons devs tend to burn out, myself included. If you've got nothing useful to say, kindly shut the frack up.
Whiney? Pointless? Ohh, sorry if I said something bad or whatever. There is a clean point about uselessness of restricting capital ships.
I hope you find this "remark" useful and count it as constructive point etc.
1. "Splitting" the Sirius, the idea of Ursus and Agmen of Eladesor.
2. Removal of Conn (which is definetely not going to happen, it's an alternate solution).
Player bases themselves don't harm the server, instead, activity is bigger etc. Big clusters of caps were always causing server lags and crashes, so the reason is not exactly in playerbases.
Dear devs and admins: - Govedo13 - 07-25-2012
' Wrote:*shrug* Probably because people desperately wanted these battlebricks, and the consequences to server load were not known until some 20 of them got together in pewage.I was participant in many brawls with more then 20 caps and 20-30 snubs in Alpha/Gamma/Leeds/Texas etc in 4.85 with full server that never crashed since the german paid host was introduced. The same Datacenter started to crash while 2 servers were on at the same time- the main one full with 200 people and the Kusari/Gallic one with 30-40 caps and around 80 people shooting each other- it was summer '10 same server- a lot more load then any base siege and no problems:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Peo7nhZ2IoA
4.86 have problem with that not the server itself. I personally prefer battleships restricted but damn powerful but it have nothing to do with the sever bugs obviously. It would be nice enough not to blame caps and bases etc for the crashes because they are not the reason. Some of the 4.86 changes are the reason- and I guess some ship changes.
' Wrote:1. "Splitting" the Sirius, the idea of Ursus and Agmen of Eladesor.1 was done but it didn't worked well with the character data exchange between the 2 servers. Rewriting of the FLserver.exe can change it but it is damn hard task and none is capable to do it except Cannon. Discovery just need more Devs that can code stuff and such people just does not work for free, we have more then enough for 10 years old game anyway so even half solutions that work would be good enough.
2. Removal of Conn (which is definetely not going to happen, it's an alternate solution)
2 wont change much.
Dear devs and admins: - Hidamari - 07-25-2012
POB dont cause lag, battleships firing at them do, they also cause lag firing at just about anything. want to reduce lag?
Make all capital ships anti cap weapons fire in no less than 5 - 10 - 20 second intervals.
remove primarys and cerbs, more projectiles, more lag.
this might also make cap fighting way more interesting. because i could swear turret splitting was supposed to do that? (could be wrong) but all it did was make cap fighting suck even more, in .85, caps had practically all primary's and a mortar or two, and would just fly at the other ship spamming all guns killing the other ship in seconds if it wasn't careful. a real snooze and lag fest, also tacticless.
in 86 i dont see any difference in battleship combat, in fact i think ships die even faster now and mortars are hardly used at all because you can do the same damage as a heavy mortar in the same time with just 1 cerb turret, so most caps just go full cerbs and primarys and stuff dies by holding down the mouse button (once again)
isnt the reason the purple goddess chain-gun got its refire nerfed due to lagging the server with hundreds of projectiles per second?
Fighter pvp seems to resemble more old school methods, shooting other ships down with short range cannons rather than missiles, why not do the same for battleships.
make them more like old school battleships, double the damage, speed and range of all "mortar" type weapons and change their name to "Heavy Main battery" "Standard Main Battery" "Light Main Battery" instead of 'Mortar' which never made much sense anyway.
this way makes movement more important and conservation of fire also important, with a 'putting all your eggs in one basket' kind of firepower will make it more more gripping than just "spray in that direction", since if you get hit by a Heavy Main Battery if buffed as i suggested, your ship would really feel the impact.
though there are always inherent issues with re balancing things again, i think it could be better than it is.
Dear devs and admins: - Wafellini - 07-25-2012
' Wrote:POB dont cause lag, battleships firing at them do, they also cause lag firing at just about anything. want to reduce lag?
Make all capital ships anti cap weapons fire in no less than 5 - 10 - 20 second intervals.
remove primarys and cerbs, more projectiles, more lag.
this might also make cap fighting way more interesting. because i could swear turret splitting was supposed to do that? (could be wrong) but all it did was make cap fighting suck even more, in .85, caps had practically all primary's and a mortar or two, and would just fly at the other ship spamming all guns killing the other ship in seconds if it wasn't careful. a real snooze and lag fest, also tacticless.
in 86 i dont see any difference in battleship combat, in fact i think ships die even faster now and mortars are hardly used at all because you can do the same damage as a heavy mortar in the same time with just 1 cerb turret, so most caps just go full cerbs and primarys and stuff dies by holding down the mouse button (once again)
isnt the reason the purple goddess chain-gun got its refire nerfed due to lagging the server with hundreds of projectiles per second?
Fighter pvp seems to resemble more old school methods, shooting other ships down with short range cannons rather than missiles, why not do the same for battleships.
make them more like old school battleships, double the damage, speed and range of all "mortar" type weapons and change their name to "Heavy Main battery" "Standard Main Battery" "Light Main Battery" instead of 'Mortar' which never made much sense anyway.
this way makes movement more important and conservation of fire also important, with a 'putting all your eggs in one basket' kind of firepower will make it more more gripping than just "spray in that direction", since if you get hit by a Heavy Main Battery if buffed as i suggested, your ship would really feel the impact.
though there are always inherent issues with re balancing things again, i think it could be better than it is.
this actualy sounds intresting - i mean the turret idea cause I don't agree that the cap fights are the same as they have been..I find them more intresting now but yeah - it's the caps causing the lags.
Dear devs and admins: - Govedo13 - 07-25-2012
I think that it have to do more with the ships itself not with the refire/rate/guns numbers.
May be some of the new battleship/cruiser projectives are buggy and cause lag or the ships itself.
There should be not so bigger difference in fired protectives by 10 battleships or by 20 snubs/GBs etc. The lags show up together with Battleship swarm any other swarm cause no lag. Also mega pwn guns would make cap fights not so funny removing all of the skill- the Capital ships guns are perfect- only the anti-snub ones are bad but sadly this is intentional.