I agree with almost all of your videos and I too hate the X-wing syndrome. I would go even further and say size 5 weapons do nothing to size 7 armor. Guns can shoot 1 UP and everything down where as the smaller stuff will just be harder to hit. IMO this also helps to balance ships a bit better when you really only have to plan around 1 up and 1 down size match ups. 2 up you don't do any damage and 2 down they move a bit fast for your guns but you can get lucky shots and when it does hit it hurts MUCH more. If you REALLY wanted to let them plink away at larger ships reduce it to 5-10%. We have to agree to disagree about shields doing their 1 job and stopping things until they are down. EDIT: No matter what I see your system working MUCH better than CIG's. and look forward to a sort of Ewar/repair video because I love the non damage dealing ships in EVE.
are you free for a voice chat? i assume you're the same mullins that joined discord last night also what did i say about the shields that you didnt agree with?
Currently on shift without my headset but I'll jump in chat tomorrow. The shield thing was from another video comment but we disagree on the use of shields. I think they should block all damage until down and make weapons choice a bigger deal. Lasers would be -50% damage against armor but do full damage to shields and vise versa for ballistic weapons. Maybe instead of having a full stop effect to certain weapon damage size the shields would take all the damage but just refill faster than certain weapons size DPS, this would also help in letting small ships swarm bigger ships to help bring the shields down for boarding / let the bigger ballistic guns with limited ammo hit with full force to kill or knock out certain areas like the engines. I know everyone will have ideas and this is just my 2cents. @@TheAngriestGamer.
@@Mullins23 ah i see. yeah that's another common and functional way to do it. im not knocking the idea, it has merit, it all depends what systems they want to go for.
CIG really needs to decide what they want missiles to actually do. Are they supposed to kill stuff? Or are they supposed to be a sort of consumable tool in battle that lets you do something beyond your normal loadout? I can't even tell what they would even intend as the main purpose for them or how they're intended to be countered in the long run because they never even worked reliably.
I agree. I was tempted to add a segment at the end of the video about missiles and how id set them up. Ironically id do what CIG was doing/headed too back in the day, which is what id do cuz i agreed with it and it made sense. But this video was too long and i didnt have a detailed missile segment ready. now i don't even know anymore because of how clown world things are ingame right now. I might make a small 10-15 min or less "weapons pt 3" just about missiles. Im still working on it, part of the problem is how to convey that info. I just wanted to have this out there and feel done with it so i can get onto the other shorter vids i wanted to make. If im going to do missiles then im going to have to talk about their sensor capability, decoying them, agility and speed reworks, their intended damage, their ideal targets.. Im still working on it, part of the problem is how to convey that info -Vs targets they can potentially hit, but might have difficulty locking onto them or hitting because the missile is alittle too large/overkill for that target and might not have the agility or speed to catch it. -Vs targets that they can hit no problem but their damage and penetration might be abit lacking to do meaningful damage.
I do not think that CIG wants the weapon damages to have range falloff for the simple fact it would use server processing to do so. They are already working towards server frames of 20 when games like Counter-Strike have used 64 Tick servers for over 20 years. CIG Server Side Processing is at a max. The Server calculating weapon damage for all ships and distances would be too much for their server side resources.
those calculations are minimal, and if you lower the ROF and bring up the damage to the inverse so you preserve DPS, you have even less calculations, you would be shocked to find out how well game engines handle those types of calcs (when the server isnt dying i mean). SC haves performance bleeds everywhere else, though with them breaking the servers into smaller mini chunks alot of that should be less impactful. their main performance issues are from crappy ship/asset/level 3d models with open geometry and tares in the model. the conny is 1 example of this but their are many others. Game engines HATE dealing with open geometry. another issue they have is deciding they want every chunk of trash and random part from ships that are destroyed to stay in the game forever instead of despawning/getting culled/cleaned up by the engine to avoid exactly this crap from happening, not only do you have to draw and track all these random/abandon bits as they are destroyed and pile up over time. but they all have their own physics stats too, which is INSANE to model all of that junk and keep it. we could have 30 fps servers with 120 people on them right now if they would do away with items that have been abandoned for 6 hours or more. This is why Fresh new servers after a wipe/patch, preform good and 48 hours later they run like crap. we use to have great servers before they started rolling out junk related to meshing. 30k error codes not withstanding. the other issue they have is backend crashes due to errors in the code or sloppy inefficient handling of processes. were also still waiting for most of the game to be offloaded to GPUs, so its not so CPU bound to draw and do everything. CIG is talking about 1.0 now and they are insane tbh.
@@TheAngriestGamer.I agree with all of what you just said. I am only focusing on the data the server would need to handle in the heat of battle. I would love to see weapon damage falloff, but I fear they are using server authoratative processing where you tell the server you shoot from point A to Point B, and the server does its own verification calculation on the server before telling enemy ship was hit at X distance. The more ships in a battle the more broadcast domains between ships to take up bandwidth. In a massive server to server environment where cross server damage happens they are greatly amplifying the data needed to send to each client to render the fight around them and not just their ship to ship damage. I think they are trying to cut down on server to server to client data transfers, and one way to do that is to just shot a ray line and damage type with no damage reduction calculation required, only because the damage does not fall off. The only thing the server needs to calculate is if your ship was in position to get hit and if the shots fired no longer exist because of set ranges before they disappear.
I agree with almost all of your videos and I too hate the X-wing syndrome. I would go even further and say size 5 weapons do nothing to size 7 armor. Guns can shoot 1 UP and everything down where as the smaller stuff will just be harder to hit.
IMO this also helps to balance ships a bit better when you really only have to plan around 1 up and 1 down size match ups.
2 up you don't do any damage and 2 down they move a bit fast for your guns but you can get lucky shots and when it does hit it hurts MUCH more. If you REALLY wanted to let them plink away at larger ships reduce it to 5-10%.
We have to agree to disagree about shields doing their 1 job and stopping things until they are down.
EDIT: No matter what I see your system working MUCH better than CIG's. and look forward to a sort of Ewar/repair video because I love the non damage dealing ships in EVE.
are you free for a voice chat? i assume you're the same mullins that joined discord last night
also what did i say about the shields that you didnt agree with?
Currently on shift without my headset but I'll jump in chat tomorrow. The shield thing was from another video comment but we disagree on the use of shields. I think they should block all damage until down and make weapons choice a bigger deal. Lasers would be -50% damage against armor but do full damage to shields and vise versa for ballistic weapons.
Maybe instead of having a full stop effect to certain weapon damage size the shields would take all the damage but just refill faster than certain weapons size DPS, this would also help in letting small ships swarm bigger ships to help bring the shields down for boarding / let the bigger ballistic guns with limited ammo hit with full force to kill or knock out certain areas like the engines.
I know everyone will have ideas and this is just my 2cents. @@TheAngriestGamer.
@@Mullins23 ah i see. yeah that's another common and functional way to do it. im not knocking the idea, it has merit, it all depends what systems they want to go for.
CIG really needs to decide what they want missiles to actually do.
Are they supposed to kill stuff? Or are they supposed to be a sort of consumable tool in battle that lets you do something beyond your normal loadout?
I can't even tell what they would even intend as the main purpose for them or how they're intended to be countered in the long run because they never even worked reliably.
I agree. I was tempted to add a segment at the end of the video about missiles and how id set them up. Ironically id do what CIG was doing/headed too back in the day, which is what id do cuz i agreed with it and it made sense. But this video was too long and i didnt have a detailed missile segment ready.
now i don't even know anymore because of how clown world things are ingame right now. I might make a small 10-15 min or less "weapons pt 3" just about missiles. Im still working on it, part of the problem is how to convey that info. I just wanted to have this out there and feel done with it so i can get onto the other shorter vids i wanted to make.
If im going to do missiles then im going to have to talk about their sensor capability, decoying them, agility and speed reworks, their intended damage, their ideal targets.. Im still working on it, part of the problem is how to convey that info
-Vs targets they can potentially hit, but might have difficulty locking onto them or hitting because the missile is alittle too large/overkill for that target and might not have the agility or speed to catch it.
-Vs targets that they can hit no problem but their damage and penetration might be abit lacking to do meaningful damage.
I do not think that CIG wants the weapon damages to have range falloff for the simple fact it would use server processing to do so. They are already working towards server frames of 20 when games like Counter-Strike have used 64 Tick servers for over 20 years.
CIG Server Side Processing is at a max. The Server calculating weapon damage for all ships and distances would be too much for their server side resources.
those calculations are minimal, and if you lower the ROF and bring up the damage to the inverse so you preserve DPS,
you have even less calculations, you would be shocked to find out how well game engines handle those types of calcs (when the server isnt dying i mean).
SC haves performance bleeds everywhere else, though with them breaking the servers into smaller mini chunks alot of that should be less impactful.
their main performance issues are from crappy ship/asset/level 3d models with open geometry and tares in the model.
the conny is 1 example of this but their are many others. Game engines HATE dealing with open geometry.
another issue they have is deciding they want every chunk of trash and random part from ships that are destroyed to stay in the game forever instead of despawning/getting culled/cleaned up by the engine to avoid exactly this crap from happening, not only do you have to draw and track all these random/abandon bits as they are destroyed and pile up over time. but they all have their own physics stats too, which is INSANE to model all of that junk and keep it.
we could have 30 fps servers with 120 people on them right now if they would do away with items that have been abandoned for 6 hours or more.
This is why Fresh new servers after a wipe/patch, preform good and 48 hours later they run like crap.
we use to have great servers before they started rolling out junk related to meshing.
30k error codes not withstanding.
the other issue they have is backend crashes due to errors in the code or sloppy inefficient handling of processes.
were also still waiting for most of the game to be offloaded to GPUs, so its not so CPU bound to draw and do everything.
CIG is talking about 1.0 now and they are insane tbh.
@@TheAngriestGamer.I agree with all of what you just said. I am only focusing on the data the server would need to handle in the heat of battle. I would love to see weapon damage falloff, but I fear they are using server authoratative processing where you tell the server you shoot from point A to Point B, and the server does its own verification calculation on the server before telling enemy ship was hit at X distance.
The more ships in a battle the more broadcast domains between ships to take up bandwidth. In a massive server to server environment where cross server damage happens they are greatly amplifying the data needed to send to each client to render the fight around them and not just their ship to ship damage.
I think they are trying to cut down on server to server to client data transfers, and one way to do that is to just shot a ray line and damage type with no damage reduction calculation required, only because the damage does not fall off.
The only thing the server needs to calculate is if your ship was in position to get hit and if the shots fired no longer exist because of set ranges before they disappear.