Legends of the Jedi Forums General Chat Squadrons lagging/crashing
This topic has 23 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 1 month ago by Gathorn.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 24 total)
    • Kebron Participant
      February 27, 2013 at 5:07 pm #21122

      So this was a pretty hot topic last night and seeing as I am probebly the least related to the issue I figured it might be best addressed by somebody who isn’t emotionally invested in it..

      The basic issue comes down to being that when you autolaunch a bunch of fighter squadrons at the same time (or have a rediculously huge capital ship fleet going) It seems to cause massive amounts of lag I was watching it where my keystrokes weren’t going through for about 10 seconds last night before finally the mud took a big old crash dump.

      Ideas for fixxing this:

      1) Severely limit the number of fighter squadrons allowed.

      2) Group “Squadrons” as a single entity instead of multiples. So instead of having 30 individual tie fighters you’d have 3 that were “A squad of tie fighters” representing 10.

      3) No more of the automated battlegroup stuff, you have to have a pilot on the capital ships to do fleet battle. This would artificially limit the size of the fleets producable per clan as you could only field as many pilots as you actually had so 1 or 2 people couldn’t operate a 15 ship fleet anymore. Perhaps limit battlegroups to 3-4 cap ships with accompanying squadrons so to field say a 12 cap ship fleet you would need at least 3-4 pilots coordinating together.

       

      Going to admit that I’ve never used the battlegroup stuff or squadron stuff as I’ve only run pretty much stock versions of SWR code so I’m not really sure of the intricacies just think that it would probebly be better if a ship battle in orbit involving 3-4 players didn’t have to stop all RP and interaction for the other 30-40 players caught up in the lag. Especially if there is a coinciding ground battle going on. I could see some very sticky situations comming up or some very upset players. It would be very easy to have lag hit at a critical moment and have someone become disconnected or give someone time to do something that they otherwise wouldn’t have been able to do and change the entire outcome of a situation in lethal ways. Off the top of my head I can think of 2 examples, 1) You’re fighting on the ground while a space battle happens, you are in a sure fire win situation having taken the enemy completely by surprise suddenly 10 second lag hits and they lose link voiding your victory or that 10 seconds of lag give them more than enough time to flee e e e e e e e or spam struggle or use shield on/whatever, and command stack like crazy 2) The opposing sides fleet commanders get disconnected and now a fair fight turns into a battle between autopilots as you both struggle to see who has the better connection and can keep your missiles and chaff firing.

       

      Thoughts?

       

      Any other ideas?

    • Walldo Keymaster
      February 27, 2013 at 5:13 pm #21124

      Fun fact, the ‘A squadron of TIE Fighters’ concept was the original idea behind squadrons.

      Straight up removing battlegroup would be a serious misstep in the wrong direction I think, taking out a key fun component to LOTJ.

      Interested to see what ideas the commons comes up with in this thread.

    • Alevious Participant
      February 27, 2013 at 5:26 pm #21125

      I think it may just be a good idea for builders not to make caps that can hold 62 fighters.  Have fewer or smaller bays, make the lead ship in a squadron have to be piloted and buff the starfighters by adding shipdodge when attacked by turrets.  This will limit the amount of starfighters in space while possibly adding to their capabilities.  I’d say bays for caps should have about 36  space in total, this could fit three starfighter squadron of six each that a cap can have assigned to them and they’d be able to pull in a frigate if all that space was in one bay.  Having 4 bays with 30-35 space on one cap is a tad ridiculous imo.  I think the battlegroup is fine in that a pilot has to command the cap ships from a cap ship, but I think it would be good to have a pilot command the starfighter  squadrons from a starfighter.  All in all this is just to say that something needs to be done to make it impossible to field over 100 fighters and disrupt the mud.

    • Gathorn Participant
      February 27, 2013 at 6:40 pm #21128

      Honestly, the only plausible ideas that come up in my head are:

      1) Imm enforcement, which isn’t ideal for a lot of reasons, the most prominent being it’s a reactive enforcement.

      2) Disable aconfig +post on starfighters that are autolaunched. This only solves part of the problem, because you can still spam out the enemy/you by fielding a ton of starfighters, and if you launch them all first, you’ll win.

      The problem I see with reducing bays to 36 total, or reducing them at all, is that that’s still 18 starfighters per ship, and each fleet can hold 4 ships. It adds up pretty quickly still. Maybe not 200 high, but still ridiculously high. The other side effect of that, not even looking at starfighters, is when freighters/corvettes start to be considered, because that’s what 90% of the mud flies when they come out. The high bay space makes it manageable to be deal with blockade runners, or multiple blockade runners for that instance, or deal with them over consecutive days.

      Alternatively, you can just deal with the very select few who decide to use this tactic.

    • Alevious Participant
      February 27, 2013 at 7:19 pm #21129

      The 36 bays for ships would have 72 ships in total for a fleet.  This is opposed to 248… I think it’s a step in the right direction…

      Edit: Total starfighters

      Edit edit: They would also need have have someone on -each- cap ship to launch that many ships.

    • Zeromus Participant
      February 27, 2013 at 7:29 pm #21130

      The issue wasn’t the amount of squadrons used, it was the fact that one side was filling their bays to the brim with starfighters and autolaunching so many it disconnected everyone involved and by the time the lag/spam sorted itself out the people who launched all the fighters won regardless of being connected. The squadron command factored very little into this. It didn’t help that they were also abusing a bug/exploit/oversight in that they found out they could autolaunch every ship all at once and the ships would stay autolaunching with the hangars closed, so when they opened the hangar it would be akin to opening a floodgate of spam. I just want to make sure the background on this is absolutely correct before we have a discussion about it.

    • Alevious Participant
      February 27, 2013 at 7:39 pm #21131

      Making the bays smaller would help remedy that.

    • Gathorn Participant
      February 27, 2013 at 7:48 pm #21132

      72 ships times two or three, or even four fleets still add up. Reducing the bays won’t do anything but add so many inconveniences to the rest of normal fleet activities.

    • Zeromus Participant
      February 27, 2013 at 7:50 pm #21133

      My only worry is that I don’t want to eliminate autolaunching ships as a valid tactic. I will admit it’s one I’ve used, but not nearly on the scale it’s been used. I’m struggling to come up with a good solution to regulating something that should be valid but the MUD and people’s clients/connections aren’t capable of handling.

    • Alevious Participant
      February 27, 2013 at 7:55 pm #21134

      That would require that many fleets.  Making lead starfighters in squadrons require pilots would also help.

    • Gathorn Participant
      February 27, 2013 at 7:56 pm #21135

      I’m in the same boat, honestly. It isn’t something that has as much as an easy fix as a lot of people think it does.

    • Gathorn Participant
      February 27, 2013 at 7:57 pm #21136

      Alevious, the only thing easier than having “Squadron launch all” for numbers, is giving people with 10 piloting and immunity in a starfighter the ability to bring a couple dozen per person.

    • Kebron Participant
      February 27, 2013 at 8:13 pm #21137

      I could see making it necessary to have someone who is in a starfighter command the starfighters that would make sense.

      I could also see having it coded to where if the hangers are closed and you launch you blow up. That would take care of that glitch pretty easily. Someone does that they lose their entire fighter group without even getting into the fight. Sort of like crashing into a planet.

    • Alevious Participant
      February 27, 2013 at 8:16 pm #21138

      I don’t understand what you are trying to say, Gathorn.  Not sure if I’m reading wrong, or just words jumbled together.  They would need at least 80 in piloting for shipdodge… But yeah, just not sure what message you are trying to get across.

    • Kebron Participant
      February 27, 2013 at 8:20 pm #21139

      Actually, as a side note I think it would be AWESOME if you could control a squadron FROM the squadron entirely aside the point from this topic. In the rogue squadron books they use a squadron of X-wings, it would be pretty freaking awesome if you could put together a pirate crew using starfighters. For non-huge organizations it would probebly even be easier, the loss of 1-2 fighters is much less devestating than the loss of a capital ship (putting all your eggs in 1 basket) and you can still install tractor beams and board ships using docking. Plus a squadron of starfighters packs a pretty good punch damage wise so while you’re spreading out the damage over all of them you’re increasing the firepower. I really like that idea , would be awesome to see some outer rim pirate types using X-wings and not interdictors.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 24 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.