[POLL] What do you think about... performance and moles

HWS General Discussion
, , ,
83

@RexXxuS rly cool idea for PvP-zones - Indestructible ground on planets. More battles, less wine about 100500 tonnels and other exploits.

84
  1. [quote=“CNDBaconWarrior, post:82, topic:5206”]
    A barren planet they can tunnel out and leave hundreds of wrecked ships laying all over the place but still have a playable/connectable playfield after they do so
    [/quote]Current design of the game won’t allow it from what I understood from the first post.

[quote=“RexXxuS, post:1, topic:5206”]
Because these monster planets we have right now (the origin planets) dragging the whole server performance down to hell - in every playfield.
[/quote]Your idea shouldn’t even work from what I understood unless it is on a separate server. But Rex can’t exactly afford a server cluster unless every player pays him 30-60$+ a month for server costs. But you would still run into client performance problems then.

  1. [quote=“CNDBaconWarrior, post:82, topic:5206”]
    I would love to see a playfield with a triangle limit(if possible to track it) on all builds allowed into it.
    [/quote]Erm but every playfield already has that in several forms (classes, lights, devices, triangles, blocklimit). It should be low enough. But yea once the amount of players increases (like we could clearly see on PKA planet) then just having 1 small BA&SV with 1 combat CV per player already totally destroys performance. Even with limits and whatnot. No matter how low the limit, once playercount increases on that planet you will lose performance because basic optimization is absent in this game. The only way to make it work is to get a donator planet and set your own limits and design your planet to cost less performance (who needs stones and grass when they eat up FPS).
    And even if you only allow a 17 block ship max per player, performance would still go down once people start massively digging from what I understood due to how they implemented the terrain code-wise.
    And we have no limits for worklights but this is only a problem in rare cases.

Also most workshop items are > class 4 which means that most workshop items aren’t even allowed on HWS. So a ‘workshop-planet’ that performs well… Not gonna happen. Workshop items drain MORE performance than most structures on HWS and I often have to adjust them to even be allowed to spawn them here.

Yes the global chat during and after pvp battles (from what I remember) was indeed full of toxic or just rule-breaking behavior (like false accusations/no proof). But admins usually allow it for a short period and only punish if you continue it. If it’s roleplay, fine. If not, imo not okay!

PVP is not remotely balanced and therefor battles are always gonna follow some meta (be it donuts designs, borderline-exploits, long ships, a zillion turrets, core in odd places, 5mil ingot ships, inside-out-designs, corner-shooting, a zillion HV’s, docked ships, etc). Anyone not following the meta will lose and when you follow it, pray you won’t get DC-ed too often or you also lose. And the meta always follows the imbalance in PVP (which is allowed and you get rewarded for following it). So any smart pirate will follow it and a casual gamer will always lose to them. This game is not casual-friendly in any way (for PVP server).

85

I think you are thinking of cv’s. Workshop sv’s that I have come across have on a whole been small, aesthetic, and useless in pvp. But I dont think a triangle limit will make the viable, because someone will come along with a ship that is small and built for combat, op4’s gnats for example. Workshop ships dont stand a chance not because they are small or lack lagshot protection, rather it is because they are frequently soft steel, have chaining rcs, and similar issues.

86

You can replace the steel blocks with armor using console commands. But workshop items don’t follow the current meta for PVP and you will have to gut them yourself and redecorate them completely and remove lights and you end up putting a lot of work into it making them viable (even if they don’t exceed the class limit) like you mentioned.

BA’s also are almost always > class 4. Mainly due to windows&lights alone even if they are small. Yeah okay SV&HV are not. But SV&HV are only good as backup (like your CV got destroyed but you brought some extra backup SV along) or for using some borderline-expoit. CV rules PVP since the 3.0 rework I think. But that is just another balance-problem. So yes I was mainly thinking of CV’s. CV frontguns alone > SV

Anyway, I feel that this game is not ready for casual-PVP in it’s current state and probably won’t be in the next year and perhaps not ever. And on top of that “an active big faction beats any casual player” anytime. I guess that’s why Thranir had to work together with SWP to survive against PKA that was getting insane member-numbers. And performance on PKA planet was going down the drain from the high member count alone.

good performance can not be obtained simply by adding more limitations to structures due to high player/structure count in a playfield (and then there is the digging). The problem is: lack of good optimization.

1 Like
87

If you havent yet, and It sounds like you have not, try taking a few heavily armed sv’s against a cv. You might be surprised at the results…
Plus the post that started this sidetracking conversation was talking about a planet for combat, and cv’s are not even remotely a match for sv’s in atmo anymore, all else being equal. CV forward firing, and most turrets, do not fire on planets.

88

They are good as a tank - absorbing lots of damage - firing out 15/30mm rounds while you fly around in a SV/HV kicking a***. 2 of us have used that strategy to good effect against larger factions.

89

Dont get me wrong, yes they can be effective. I started using them explicitly for atmo purposes when op4 started using their gnats, with varying degrees of effectiveness, generally finding them getting lag shotted more frequently once the combat load gets large. But the same amount of resources put into an sv as in a cv, and the sv will win in atmo. The cv wins mostly when they are larger, as large sv’s still rely on a relatively small amount of firepower. A heavily armored cv can outlast, and protect its turrets. But it will likely cost several times as much to make one of them. And that many resources put into multiple sv’s, attacking at once, and it becomes more level again. Hence why I said[quote=“mcprouty, post:87, topic:5206”]
cv’s are not even remotely a match for sv’s in atmo anymore, all else being equal
[/quote]
:yum:

1 Like
90

Something people may not have considered.

Any BA completely above ground has ZERO chance.
Planets will be less active than they are now.

1 Like
91

Wait a second. Did we just agree on something?

2 Likes
92

It all depends if people are online to defend it, if it’s Armageddon conditions then the bases on planets will be fine above ground. If they attack your base with sv’s your BA guns will wreck them hard unless they are really well built SV’s, if they try out ranger your guns with cv’s and weird angles where your arties can’t hit, then you can fly up SV’s to take those CV’s Down, the hardest part of defence will be defending against HV Arty now as you cant dig a trench just passed your maximum arty range to stop hv’s from sitting there. The more I think about it the more i wan’t a 4th option that doesn’t remove digging for base defence.

1 Like
93

Yeah that’s what all the complaining is about.

Bases in the current state are broken until they can be protected and not raided offline or the population finally figures out that that’s just how it goes. In any case, bases today on PVP are temporary, sooner ppl figure that out the sooner they can enjoy the game. Keeping all your stuff in a base when it’s just this easy to destroy bases is foolish, even underground. Expecting that to change without OP or some mechanism, it’s just not gonna get a whole lot better.

I’d rather see indestructible small hoarding stations to give folks who absolutely want no risk in this high risk game a safe place to stash their stuff than suffer performance issues as a result of catering to this crowd. Don’t get me wrong I love to build. But I love to play the game more.

We’re caught in the middle of a game who want so hard to be PVP and deadly hard and a game that caters to care bears and bob the builder with the only threat being your O2 and hunger.

Don’t get offended, I love to build too. I just also love to play the game, and until we find balance, having 20% fun < having 80% fun.

Edit: note I’m not saying I want there to be a planet full of indestructible apartments for all players.m as a feature of this game. Just saying I’d rather that then not make any changes to help improve the game performance.

94

If “all else is equal” then whomever made that CV failed. I still put all my faith in CV’s for just about everything PVP. For PVE SV’s have their uses yes, but really only to cheese the AI and for their cheaper cost… Actually there are still exploits for SV’s that still work I believe to cheese the AI like no tomorrow…

Anyway yes but BA’s have always been a problem in PVP. Underground they are safer, above ground they get outranged and what not. But if you are not there to defend the base, underground or not, it will be gone. Offline prot = broken and people spamming HV’s (must be awesome for performance and core count) only delays it in a cheesy way to circumvent turret limit on BA.
Building underground does not safe your base. But I agree that building underground and making tunnel-networks to avoid airstrikes and whatnot is a great way to practice for reallife… I mean… Is a fun way to play the game. I personally like digging as well (PVE only) and I HATE it in PVP. But I’d sacrifice digging for a massive performance boost any time.

1 Like
95

Hmm I guess option 3 would be a lot more appealing if it was accompanied with a promise for BA turret upgrades to range and damage, maybe a little more projectile speed.

3 Likes
96

I like this idea. If Ba are where we expect to live, they should be harder to kill than a CV. They have much more room for logistics than a CV should, and thus, should have a tactical advantage over anything else. Numbers should be the key to BA killing, not plinking with a rail gun.

2 Likes
97

Tell ya what, if you are so sure of that, bring one of your CV’s that you have so much faith in to a pvp planet, and fight against a comparable amount of resources, put into sv’s instead. Otherwise this is all just idle talk coming from two players with different experiences in empyrion combat, and irrelevant to the OP.

1 Like
98

I can confirm that SV’s are highly underestermated in atmo, in space they junk thou xD

99

Agreed. Its a much harder fight in space sv on cv. But possible. Definitely takes special circumstances though. For example if you have cv’s chasing another cv, one sv can catch up, and destroy enough engines for the following cv’s to finish the job. We have also taken down a large cv, ring thing size, with a group of about 5 or more sv’s, provided you work well as a team, and have backup sv’s.

100

Interesting idea iv never really gotten a sv under a cvs guns before but in theory it should work with its speed and high angular velocity.

101

Again:

[quote=“SquirtingElephant, post:94, topic:5206”]
If “all else is equal” then whomever made that CV failed.
[/quote]So equal resource battle = nonsense. Both should be built to the maximum limit allowed by HWS obviously. I just noticed that the 20k block limit is gone from the guide so that means we can exceed it (haven’t played in a while). Just 0 lights, minimal devices and use blocks with the least polygons while still preventing lag-shots.

SV:

  • Can kite
  • Is faster
  • Does NOT rotate faster than CV. This is a very serious flaw.
  • Is harder to hit
  • Is cheaper. But with the 5.0 HWS limits it does not really matter anymore because CV are also cheap now.
    CV:
  • More damage output
    - 1000% more HP per armor block. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
  • Can warp out to safety if in orbit
  • Can goto orbit for the safety of it’s turrets
  • Has multiple medbays&cockpits to remain in the fight
  • Is larger and thus easier to spread out important components
  • Can be built max-length to keep critical components out of range of SV at all times simply by rotating the ship around.

But in worst case the CV is like “fuck this I’m going to orbit good luck chasing me!” or a ‘certain even lamer tactic’. And the SV can always just fly away because it’s faster. So neither will win it will always be a draw when 2 good pilots in 2 good ships would fight.

Who cares about ship cost with the sizeclass 4 limits… They are so relatively small compared to the enormously sick amounts of ores we were getting each day in 4.0. Only if there was no limit would we have to worry about cost. And 10 small blocks are more expensive than 1 large combat block AND increase the sizeclass faster. So each EHP of an SV is more expensive than that of a CV (which is broken yes). So cost-wise a SV would actually lose as well (not counting ammo/fuel).

So yes due to how sizeclasses work, CV’s get ANOTHER effective bonus to hitpoints which stacks multiplicative with teh 1000%. Wow… How can an SV win while also having less firepower? I can’t even imagine how. Well without kiting, bugs, lag, dc, running away, lame tactics, both good designs, both good pilots, CV should always win. But mostly it’s just about luck (who will bug-out/dc) and who uses the lamest tactics. Therefor option #3.

This was my last post about it for it being too far off-topic. And I dislike posting on the forum it takes up too much time.

P.S.
One more thing. I noticed in the last patch how artillery turrets work (in orbit only) but also applies to other explosions I bet. They go through each layer of armor in range until all of the damage has been soaked. So having a window-block to absorb a bullet will not work vs explosions. Yes a 1hp block will tank a whole projectile including overkill damage. But with explosions the overkill damage is transferred to the next block. That’s why explosions do so much damage to SV’s and another reason not to use them in orbit. SV’s are horrible at tanking explosive ammo. And probably the reason so many people stopped making window-ships :P. I remember them being meta a looooong time ago when turrets were useless. 10x less hp and smaller blocks makes explosions even better vs SV’s and increases the damage radius relatively by 800%.

102

See above

2 Likes