Re: Gamma revamp testing

DEV Zoom wrote:

I'm not talking about friendly corporations, not even about alliances smile
Is it really so unthinkable that 3 opposing corporations occupy the same island? Much like beta outposts?

...

102 (edited by Inda 2014-05-15 06:27:44)

Re: Gamma revamp testing

NO WAY FOR ASSAULTS

No way for Assaults go through a defended wall. Until the turrets cant shoot assaults, because you need to increase the hit dispersion that much you effect the Mechs also, and you need to walk 3000 m with assults to go through the T3 turrets in an open terrain, this is not gonna happen, until the rules is change.

Energy to Earth!

18.01.2014. [12:57:58] <BeastmodeGuNs> after that i remembered all those warning about 1v1 you lol, and i found out why xD

Re: Gamma revamp testing

DEV Zoom wrote:

My question wasn't about why you want to terraform such a structure, I was asking why do you want to terraform into it (as an attacker) if you can simply go up with assaults?

I see we still haven't reached ancient Roman times over here. The sieges of Masada, Alesia and Numantia totally forgotten.

Let's cut the bullshit. You want players to have basically the same mechanics as in saps. How about then gamma consists in some slope limited terraforming, players place their sap structures, and an outpost placement slot activates depending on the location of the three saps. No turrets, no reinforcing, no nothing. Happy now?

Re: Gamma revamp testing

BandwagonX9000 wrote:
DEV Zoom wrote:

My question wasn't about why you want to terraform such a structure, I was asking why do you want to terraform into it (as an attacker) if you can simply go up with assaults?

I see we still haven't reached ancient Roman times over here. The sieges of Masada, Alesia and Numantia totally forgotten.

Let's cut the bullshit. You want players to have basically the same mechanics as in saps. How about then gamma consists in some slope limited terraforming, players place their sap structures, and an outpost placement slot activates depending on the location of the three saps. No turrets, no reinforcing, no nothing. Happy now?


I actually suggested that once, I think it can work big_smile

RIP PERPETUUM

105 (edited by Malsier Dabian 2014-05-15 10:47:24)

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Not to be a naysayer Zoom, but it seems to me that these changes are being met with a resounding... NO! (for the most part) Although some of the ideas are great, while most of the actual proposed changes are horrible ideas.

Honestly though:

* Leave gammas as they were (mostly). (If your reasoning for limitations is a server issue... Upgrade your servers, Players experiences should not suffer because of a hardware or software issue that could be fixed with new and better equipment.)

* Fix the TFing bugs without screwing up Tfing entirely.
* Fix exploits without screwing up the entire colony system in general.
* Some of these changes are good. Most are horrible ideas that will never work once actually released.
* You may desire players to have competing terminals on islands.... Well unfortunately players will decide what players will do with their island as well as the betas. How long does an enemy terminal last on a Corps island? It doesn;t. within a month one or the other owns the entire island.

* No corp wants to share their resources and island with an enemy. (Maybe an alliance memebr) but never an enemy. And it never will happen. So don't try and make them.

**** This game is small. With a small player base. There are plenty of gammas for every single corp to have an island of it's own. (if they wanted). And if you change that little tidbit, then your going to just have a few corps holding all the gammas.

Every corp having the opportunity to experience gamma? = Good
Every gamma being held by a few corps = Bad

Your trying to do a good thing, Great, we love you for it. But if you can fix the gammas without destroying them in the process that would be awesome.

106 (edited by Norrdec 2014-05-15 10:47:44)

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Malsier Dabian wrote:

Not to be a naysayer Zoom, but it seems to me that these changes are being met with a resounding... NO! (for the most part) Although some of the ideas are great, while most of the actual proposed changes are horrible ideas.

Honestly though:

* Leave gammas as they were (mostly). (If your reasoning for limitations is a server issue... Upgrade your servers, Players experiences should not suffer because of a hardware or software issue that could be fixed with new and better equipment.)

You don't know much about software and hardware, not to mention any type of programming, don't you John Snow?
If Perp devs had gov't funding this could happen, but not with a private company. Throwing more ram, CPU and disk space is the WRONG way to fix problems with any type of software.

<GargajCNS> we maim to please

107 (edited by Malsier Dabian 2014-05-15 11:00:20)

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Norrdec wrote:
Malsier Dabian wrote:

Not to be a naysayer Zoom, but it seems to me that these changes are being met with a resounding... NO! (for the most part) Although some of the ideas are great, while most of the actual proposed changes are horrible ideas.

Honestly though:

* Leave gammas as they were (mostly). (If your reasoning for limitations is a server issue... Upgrade your servers, Players experiences should not suffer because of a hardware or software issue that could be fixed with new and better equipment.)

You don't know much about software and hardware, not to mention any type of programming, don't you John Snow?
If Perp devs had gov't funding this could happen, but not with a private company. Throwing more ram, CPU and disk space is the WRONG way fix problems with any type of software.

I know a lot about hardware actually but that's besides the point. Zoom already stated that the reason for most of these changes to limitation was because the "Server" couldn't handle the load"

So Zoom already stated the why, I was simply replying to it. You should learn to read.

My corp actually has several It and programmers in it, One is a software engineer.  Hardware wise, if your server is having issues with the "load", then you upgrade it. Period. If it's a "software issue" you reprogram it or patch it.

Both solutions have absolutely nothing to do with the in game experience, except that.. Oh my... the bugs and exploits disappear. Changing the game mechanics themselves (Such as limiting structures) is a workaround to an issue (Too many structures = overloaded server)... Not a fix. Workarounds are temporary  things put in place until an actual fix can occur. The problem occurs when no fix is actually in the works and the workaround becomes the final solution, and then later on causes a *** load of more issues and time wasted that could have simply been avoided by... Fixing the *** right, in the first place.

In a fix, the game mechanics remain the same, but the problems are "Fixed". Game mechanics should never permanently be changed because of a software or Hardware issue. Only because the game is going in another direction, or player demand / request, or simply because whoever the developers are want it to be changed (The later 3rd option of which has killed *** loads of games in the past).

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Malsier Dabian wrote:
Norrdec wrote:
Malsier Dabian wrote:

Not to be a naysayer Zoom, but it seems to me that these changes are being met with a resounding... NO! (for the most part) Although some of the ideas are great, while most of the actual proposed changes are horrible ideas.

Honestly though:

* Leave gammas as they were (mostly). (If your reasoning for limitations is a server issue... Upgrade your servers, Players experiences should not suffer because of a hardware or software issue that could be fixed with new and better equipment.)

You don't know much about software and hardware, not to mention any type of programming, don't you John Snow?
If Perp devs had gov't funding this could happen, but not with a private company. Throwing more ram, CPU and disk space is the WRONG way fix problems with any type of software.

I know a lot about hardware actually but that's besides the point. Zoom already stated that the reason for most of these changes to limitation was because the "Server" couldn't handle the load"

So Zoom already stated the why, I was simply replying to it. You should learn to read.

My corp actually has several It and programmers in it, One is a software engineer.  Hardware wise, if your server is having issues with the "load", then you upgrade it. Period. If it's a "software issue" you reprogram it or patch it.

Both solutions have absolutely nothing to do with the in game experience, except that.. Oh my... the bugs and exploits disappear. CHanging the game mechanics themselves is a workaround to an issue... Not a fix.

Test first before jumping into conclusions that the changes mentioned our going to be a disaster , the servers they have is all that they have got atm, this is a small indy company.

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: Gamma revamp testing

The changes are definitely not met with a "resounding NO". They're a good step forward that needs some refining and adapting before there's a finished solution presented.

The idea isn't to recreate Gamma 1.0 with it's snowballing problems and fortress islands. That would result in a required wipe months or years down the line.

The system's functionality cannot hinge on population size or corporation size. If it hinges on that, it will break in the long run and it will break HARD.

Aside from Zoom's lack of practical know-how on game reality, the biggest problem is the pushing of personal/corporate agendas with little to no interest in viability of the system itself. It really is time for people to put that stuff aside and consider what is best in the long-term without personal agendas and subjective interest.

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

110 (edited by Ludlow Bursar 2014-05-15 10:59:43)

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Malsier Dabian wrote:

.. if your server is having issues with the "load", then you upgrade it. Period.

I won't be putting you in charge of my IT infrastructure budget that's for sure.

Really? Are you sure? Upgrade, period? Is that the only solution you can think of?

111 (edited by Norrdec 2014-05-15 11:00:53)

Re: Gamma revamp testing

And you don't grasp the idea that when the server doesn't handle the load, it might not be because of 20 year old hardware or because it's just plain cheap/slow, but because what it does is complex.

And the old gamma was complex and it gave the players the possibility to make nearly unlimited amount of entities the system had to track. (limited only by the terrain). The software had a "bug", this is the remedy and patch.

Throwing more hardware would work. For 15 minutes. You might work with hardware, but you have the old and inefficient way of thinking that more is always better.

<GargajCNS> we maim to please

112 (edited by Malsier Dabian 2014-05-15 11:06:34)

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Your right, I am not a developer, But one of my corp members could explain what I am trying to in very technical detailed manner. With all the correct words and lingo  that his masters degree provides.

My point was simply that the problems should be fixed. Not duct taped.

113 (edited by Malsier Dabian 2014-05-15 11:22:32)

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Norrdec wrote:

And you don't grasp the idea that when the server doesn't handle the load, it might not be because of 20 year old hardware or because it's just plain cheap/slow, but because what it does is complex.

And the old gamma was complex and it gave the players the possibility to make nearly unlimited amount of entities the system had to track. (limited only by the terrain). The software had a "bug", this is the remedy and patch.

Throwing more hardware would work. For 15 minutes. You might work with hardware, but you have the old and inefficient way of thinking that more is always better.

Actually the old limit was based on room, terain, adn how mcuh time you actually wanted to spend on it.

I used to roam the gamma islands, and I have been to every single one of them. The old colonies were not massive with 1000's of turrets. They were generally small to medium, with maybe 30-50 turrets and not even all the structures.

So while yes there was and is the possibility that a corp could plant 10,000 turrets, and fill the island with structures..... Why would they? That would be... ***.

Saying something "Might" happen. Doesn't mean it will.
Saying something can happen, Doesn't mean it's going to.
Saying we should do this so players wont build colonies with 10,000s of turrets and crash the server... is paranoia when it never even happened to begin with.

If the server can't handle a 20 corps placing say.. 500 structures each.... For 10k structures total. Thats a server issue, not a game issue.

Whats the difference between 20 corps placeing 500 structures each. and 1000 corps placing 20 structures each?


Answer:

Absolutely nothing, the server will still crash.. Because it is a "Server" issue" not a game mechanic issue. So why the hell would you change the game mechanics to fix a server issue? Which wont even be fixed by the change only bypassed?

Fix the server - Fix the problem.

114 (edited by Malsier Dabian 2014-05-15 11:19:35)

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Malsier Dabian wrote:
Norrdec wrote:

And you don't grasp the idea that when the server doesn't handle the load, it might not be because of 20 year old hardware or because it's just plain cheap/slow, but because what it does is complex.

And the old gamma was complex and it gave the players the possibility to make nearly unlimited amount of entities the system had to track. (limited only by the terrain). The software had a "bug", this is the remedy and patch.

Throwing more hardware would work. For 15 minutes. You might work with hardware, but you have the old and inefficient way of thinking that more is always better.

Actually the old limit was based on room, terain, adn how mcuh time you actually wanted to spend on it.

I used to roam the gamma islands, and I have been to every single one of them. The old colonies were not massive with 1000's of turrets. They were generally small to medium, with maybe 30-50 turrets and not even all the structures.

So while yes there was and is the possibility that a corp could plant 10,000 turrets, and fill the island with structures..... Why would they? That would be... ***.

Saying something "Might" happen. Doesn't mean it will.
Saying something can happen, Doesn't mean it's going to.
Saying we should do this so players wont build colonies with 10,000s of turrets and crash the server... is paranoia when it never even happened to begin with.

If the server can't handle a 20 corps placing say.. 500 structures each.... For 10k structures total. Thats a server issue, not a game issue.

Whats the difference between 20 corps placeing 500 structures each. and 1000 corps placing 20 structures each?


Answer:

Absolutely nothing, the server will still crash.. Because it is a "Server" issue" not a game mechanic issue.

Fix the server - Fix the problem.


WAIT but you say "There are not enough gamma islands or players to make that many corps!"

I say:

.......Yet.

So go ahead but until the actual issue is solved, years down the road when there are that many players and corps, another gamma reset is and will be due for some more "work arounds".

Re: Gamma revamp testing

On another note,

Despite my conflictual nature above.. I realize this is an exceedingly complicated and difficult project and the devs are doing the best they can with what they have, and they have my full support in whatever the do eventually decide.

I love Perpetuum and I'm not going anywhere.

I am however going to point out obvious flaws where I see them, whether people like it or not. And whether or not they agree with me.

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Malsier Dabian wrote:

Actually the old limit was based on room, terain, adn how mcuh time you actually wanted to spend on it.

I used to roam the gamma islands, and I have been to every single one of them. The old colonies were not massive with 1000's of turrets. They were generally small to medium, with maybe 30-50 turrets and not even all the structures.

So while yes there was and is the possibility that a corp could plant 10,000 turrets, and fill the island with structures..... Why would they? That would be... ***.

Saying something "Might" happen. Doesn't mean it will.
Saying something can happen, Doesn't mean it's going to.
Saying we should do this so players wont build colonies with 10,000s of turrets and crash the server... is paranoia when it never even happened to begin with.

If the server can't handle a 20 corps placing say.. 500 structures each.... For 10k structures total. Thats a server issue, not a game issue.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

Bergers, Landers, Langhrum, Imidero, Emperth, Xiantor - Gamma Fortress islands with thousands of turrets you claim never happened.

Why are you pretending to know something when you have no clue about it?

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

Re: Gamma revamp testing

I would rather have some limits than TiDi at 10% on the island. (https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Time_Dilation).
Also like Syndic mentioned, 1000's of turrets already happened.

Successful troll is successful?

<GargajCNS> we maim to please

Re: Gamma revamp testing

I feel like my brains being trolled.

119 (edited by Hunter 2014-05-15 14:08:56)

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Malsier Dabian wrote:

So while yes there was and is the possibility that a corp could plant 10,000 turrets, and fill the island with structures..... Why would they? That would be... ***.

Lol.. Good one big_smile

You mean like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClqVR9ZFyhg

The theory of mutual interests
Why the crybabies wins?
Где Ханя - там победа (с)
DEV Zoom: No need to speculate...

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Hunter wrote:
Malsier Dabian wrote:

So while yes there was and is the possibility that a corp could plant 10,000 turrets, and fill the island with structures..... Why would they? That would be... ***.

Lol.. Good one big_smile

once upon a time, an east german politician said "noone has the intention to build a wall"
history has shown what happend after that fuuu

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear

121

Re: Gamma revamp testing

-We need a way to attack:  If you wish it to be with plasma bombs that's cool, you just need to test it via T1-T3 turrets, that are range boosted and some that are repaired.
-We need a way to attack:  Deployable wall tiles are acceptable except we can't build them.
-We need a way to attack:  Is it time to deploy the gamma/beta only artillery Bot?

-Increasing the base cap:  It needs to be more than 3.  3 bases allows alliances of many to hold more territory easily.  It really needs to be increased so one corp can't trollollo plop three bases down and GG island.

-Tweeks:  If networks go offline and stop working when control is lost(command) I see some problems with this.  Spy shoots reactor.  Network goes down.  Players log off sequers plated to the teeth with plasma bombs.  Mass login/staggered login and with its 1 reinforced timer.  Shut the network down again.  Attacking force turns into who brought the most guys /win.

-Gates:  I like it.

-Turret reinforcement timer:  +1

-I like automatic towers powering reactors.

Steam achievement Unlocked:  Being a Badass
http://www.perp-kill.net/kill/239407
Dev Zoom: I think its time to confess, Ville is my alt
Dev Zoom: Ville can be sometimes so sane it's scary.

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Malsier Dabian wrote:

Your right, I am not a developer, But one of my corp members could explain what I am trying to in very technical detailed manner. With all the correct words and lingo  that his masters degree provides.

My point was simply that the problems should be fixed. Not duct taped.

With all due respect, your suggestion is the one that feels like brute-force duct-taping. And I didn't say this was purely a server issue, you might have missed this:

DEV Zoom wrote:

Malsier: the suggested building limitations serve not just some balancing goals. If players are free to build a theoretically infinite number of buildings then that brings serious server processing issues, not to mention client performance issues, which was quite painful already on certain densely populated islands.

We may spend half of our monthly income on server infrastructure, but will you upgrade your machine to 3-way SLI just to be able to play on gammas? This isn't about optimization, you can't optimize something that has no limits. You don't need a masters degree to see that, common sense is enough.

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Ville wrote:

-Tweeks:  If networks go offline and stop working when control is lost(command) I see some problems with this.  Spy shoots reactor.  Network goes down.  Players log off sequers plated to the teeth with plasma bombs.  Mass login/staggered login and with its 1 reinforced timer.  Shut the network down again.  Attacking force turns into who brought the most guys /win.

Right. I mean you're not right since we have emergency shields, but that reminded me that we might have to exclude reactors and energy transmitters from the emergency-offline thing smile

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Zoom. maybe you and the other Devs could build a base on the test server? Just to demonstrate what you are trying to achieve.

Makes sense?

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Merkle wrote:

Also, I suggest you take the time to optimize your structure code, when you open the colony management it would always be quite laggy and such.

Suggestion.

+1

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23