| Author |
Fighter bay size changed to 5... |
Faustus
Marshal
Palestar
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 2748
From: Austin, Texas
|  Posted: 2004-03-09 09:27
Due to some of the lag being caused by fighters, the ammo count has been reduced from 10 to 5... this should help keep fighter numbers down a bit which has been bringing the servers to their knees lately.
-Richard
_________________
|
Eagleranger
Admiral
Joined: September 26, 2002
Posts: 342
From: Ozark mountains
| Posted: 2004-03-09 09:34
cool
_________________
never test the depth of the water with both feet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Juxtapose
Grand Admiral
Sundered Weimeriners
Joined: May 11, 2002
Posts: 1308
From: Give me your bullets!
| Posted: 2004-03-09 09:42
I hope this is only a temporary fix while a greater solution is being hammered out. Decreasing Fighter loads from 10 to 5 is not very effective when the majority of folks who use them are already orbiting around planets - - not to mention it seems that Carriers and folks who fly them are being penalized for playing this aspect of the game when it is Server that needs the fix.
_________________
I type with the tongues of my enemies, ascend from the backs of my friends, ignore the plight of innocents, and dance on the graves of my gods
|
Ashatwork
Cadet
Joined: April 03, 2003
Posts: 116
| Posted: 2004-03-09 10:17
Please keep in mind that the new fighters have limits on the numbers of figters in the field at once included in the patch.
Or at least that was part of the origional plan.
_________________
|
Flyer
Admiral
Joined: December 07, 2001
Posts: 143
From: Belgium
| Posted: 2004-03-09 10:39
and once again ugto loses a bit of power
_________________
|
Bobamelius
Grand Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: October 08, 2002
Posts: 2074
From: Ohio
| Posted: 2004-03-09 10:51
THIS WILL NOT FIX ANYTHING.
Those who launch billions of fighters and lag up the server do it orbiting planets where the fighters are constantly reloaded. All this does is give people more incentive to do THAT, rather than use the carriers right without constant reload.
_________________
|
Bobamelius
Grand Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: October 08, 2002
Posts: 2074
From: Ohio
| Posted: 2004-03-09 10:51
THIS WILL NOT FIX ANYTHING.
Those who launch billions of fighters and lag up the server do it orbiting planets where the fighters are constantly reloaded. All this does is give people more incentive to do THAT, rather than use the carriers right without constant reload.
_________________
|
Tbone
Grand Admiral
Joined: July 21, 2001
Posts: 1756
From: Vancouver
| Posted: 2004-03-09 11:20
I never, repeat, never use a carrier in open space. Even if there is a supply around, I will probably not use them mostly because of K'luth ELF and ICC Pulse.
Carriers, along with the Missile Dreadnought, are probably the best planetary defense there is. And probably the worst thing to attack with. Reducing the fighter bays to 5 won't help a thing. Even if this reduces the object limit each carrier has, fighters simply die too quickly for that to be an issue.
_________________
Fleet Admiral Tbone
Commander of the NSS Red Lobster
[ This Message was edited by: Tbone [NSS Pandora's Box] on 2004-03-09 11:21 ]
_________________
|
Photox [F|F|I]
Fleet Admiral
Joined: October 27, 2002
Posts: 176
From: Helsinki, Finland
| Posted: 2004-03-09 12:00
Reducing fighters to 5 dosent help, im afraid.
BUT if you remove for good them that would be much more helpfull for the lag problem.
but then you could also remove some asteroids, planets, systems, etc. to make MV run better....
MV isnt playable as it is ATM, some radical changes might be good to make while we still have BIG playerbase and plenty of new players. Otherwise we all will get bored and frustrated to this lag 
i say we remove Fighters so that lag is not stopping us to enjoy MV and maybe remove some Systems/planets/weapons....you have the numbers and can see which changes would help most to keep MV/game Runing
_________________
|
JackSwift
Cadet
Sundered Weimeriners
Joined: October 30, 2002
Posts: 1806
From: Where the Sun dont Shine (Seattle-ish)
| Posted: 2004-03-09 12:27
It's already been said by pretty much everyone here... but this won't help. At least my CC has a reload... 
_________________
(too lazy to rehost that old sig)
\"Errare Human Est.\"
|
Tiffy Rando
Grand Admiral
Joined: January 19, 2003
Posts: 354
From: Austin, Texas
| Posted: 2004-03-09 12:36
WAIT!!!! BRILLIANT IDEA!!! HEADACHE owwww
OK here it is, limit the number of fighters a carrier is able to have deployed at the same time, the same way you limited the bombs to stop clouding...
Thank You, I love you all! Except for you Dempy... 
_________________
Flagship: MCC-717: C.S.S Antaeus
|
TAZ
Cadet
Joined: July 04, 2002
Posts: 143
From: U.S.A.
| Posted: 2004-03-09 12:42
Quote:
|
On 2004-03-09 12:36, Lag KAT! wrote:
WAIT!!!! BRILLIANT IDEA!!! HEADACHE owwww
OK here it is, limit the number of fighters a carrier is able to have deployed at the same time, the same way you limited the bombs to stop clouding...
Thank You, I love you all! Except for you Dempy...
|
|
Yes, brilliant. A carrier should only be able to lauch its full complement of fighters (5x8=40) and unless a fighter gets destroyed or otherwise lost then he cant launch anymore. In fact I would take it one step further and say that he/she couldnt even reload a fighter bay unless a fighter launched from that bay gets killed. After all.....where are all these fighters gonna land when they are done fighting??
_________________
[ This Message was edited by: TAZ*FA* on 2004-03-09 12:43 ]
[ This Message was edited by: TAZ*FA* on 2004-03-09 13:06 ]
_________________
|
Gideon
Cadet
Joined: September 14, 2001
Posts: 4604
From: Oregon, USA
| Posted: 2004-03-09 13:00
I'm thinking this addresses NON-player created fighter lag.
Numbers of fighters active is calculated off of the same system as bombs and mines.
Now, level three fighter bases have three fighter launchers. Instad of haveing a max of 30 fighters up at a time, they would have a max of 15 up at a time.
I think that is the issue Faustus is trying to address.
_________________
...and lo, He looked upon His creation, and said, "Fo shizzle."
|
Pentara
Cadet
Joined: April 20, 2002
Posts: 327
| Posted: 2004-03-09 13:22
Very good, but in that case can we hope for a change so that bases and components are separate entities? Then you could give planets a reduction so they launch less fighters, and not nerf the ships that rely on fighters.
As stated, for most people this change doesn't help since they launch fighters while orbiting planets (and thus, constantly reloading).
I for example ONLY use the carrier dread when I play and I dogfight people with it away from planets. This reduction in ammo means I can no longer sustain a battle long enough to do anything other than scratch their armor.
_________________
|
Gideon
Cadet
Joined: September 14, 2001
Posts: 4604
From: Oregon, USA
| Posted: 2004-03-09 13:26
v1.482 proposal introduces discreet components for all planetary structures, so that we can tweak them without screwing up ships.
_________________
...and lo, He looked upon His creation, and said, "Fo shizzle."
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
