Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
djenghis jan
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 08:04:00 -
[1]
here's an idea
if more than four or five bs start locking a single bs there should be a stacking penalty on lock time. This would be an interesting feature in blob combat since the fleet commander has no option but to delegate fire control to small subgroups. As a side effect prioritizing targets is more interesting since the subgroups should not cross target because that would lose them time.
Perhaps this could be introduced in combination with an improved target designation overview. Perhaps a keyboard controlled sort with range/shiptype.
Another idea would be to incorporate a proximity rule. In a bs is near other bs and all are locking a stacking penalty could apply. Suppose that any given sphere of 10 km could only contain 5 bs locking before the penalty would apply. This would mean that the battle would be more spread out and things like flanking tactics could become an issue. I know that this would be hard to program, but its just an idea.
|
Zarch AlDain
The Blackwater Brigade HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 08:56:00 -
[2]
So everyone in my gang locks each other 4 times.
Good plan batman...
Zarch AlDain The Blackwater Brigade Huzzah Federation
|
Blueshell
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 09:25:00 -
[3]
your reply makes no sense to me... Could you elaborate on how you think this would help? locking each other only makes the situation worse for everyone. Thus you might as well lock an enemy. Also it is for locking only, once locked its different since you ships systems switch to narrow beam tracking. Its in your manual look it up :-)
|
Cathandra
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 09:29:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Blueshell your reply makes no sense to me...
He thinks the idea is to make it harder to lock something that is already being locked by a bunch of targets, so he's saying that everyone in the gang will just lock eachother to make it harder for their enemies to lock them.
|
Blueshell
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 09:38:00 -
[5]
That doesn't matter since you can only lock so much targets, and besides having friendlies and enemies in the same row when targeting is a very bad idea in blob warfare becuase you end up shooting each other. Also this would mean that a tactick of say locking ones own interdictor only means that attention is distracted from the task at hand. If the locking friendlies is a problem simply decrease the penalty or make it ship dependent.
|
SlyPanther
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 09:46:00 -
[6]
I am against this, the idea is to concentrate your firepower on one target to take it out as fast as you can. This has been done in war for a long time and will never change over time.
If you have a locking penalty, think about how that would work if you had to shoot a Dread or when they are produced, a Titan. Trying to damage a Titan on SiSi was hard enough with 15+ battleships (I think we had 20+ firing) and not doing enough damage to it. With a penalty this would make it pointless. ----------
Steve Erwin - He's like Fosters, only for export and never for use in Australia |
Blueshell
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 10:47:00 -
[7]
True, but a little creativity on the part of the devs is required to make this work as well. There are a few situations where this could lead to a defensive strategy.
On the plus side, if there ever would be an EVE in reality you could be sure there was more to blob warfare than a commander shouting primary and secundary. With all the computer power available your weapons would be more effective. The saturation in firepower is so large that after the 6-7 bs there is no point in putting in more. I know that fleet commanders would reply that only one in five actually fires their weapons. But still i think a lot is left to be desired
|
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 12:30:00 -
[8]
So when the enemy start locking a ship, the fleet commander tells all his guys to do it too, leading to massive lock times for the enemy. Ugh. It WOULD be done.
PS, the manual is worse than inaccurate on almost everything.
This also makes tacklers a liability when they're locking, etc.
|
Blueshell
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 12:34:00 -
[9]
Exactly, so the counter strategy would be to lock several ships and not one. Thus to be effective one needs to break up the fleet in smaller groups.
|
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 12:35:00 -
[10]
In small group combat, you can't "lock several ships". There's one or two enemies who are the major danger. The idea won't impact fleet since they CAN just split up into fireteams, and it cripples small group combat. As do all these ideas.
|
|
Blueshell
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 12:37:00 -
[11]
That's why we need to apply a threshold to the stacking penalty. If it affects small groups to much, lift it to 10+ ships or so. That would work i think
|
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 12:50:00 -
[12]
How des this magic boundary get placed? You're setting arbirary limits in game to the viable size of organisation. Making it a high limit won't change anything at all (fleet BS lock qucjkly with their sensor boosters, with a little lag and a high limit it's not going to bother them at all), and it does have huge impliations for fighting capitals, POS, etc. As well as being "hey, I'll slow the lock of BS 11 but not 10" magic.
|
Blueshell
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 12:58:00 -
[13]
Ok, then make the threshold target signature dependent, that should work :-)
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 14:45:00 -
[14]
Arbitrary limits FTW.
In a similar vein, lets ditch locking all together. If the enemy is more powerful, as judged by the game, your whole fleet simply explodes. ----------
Always Up To SomethingÖ One of us is really thick, and I hope its you - Kalaan Oratay |
Blueshell
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 15:10:00 -
[15]
Hmm that is not realy my style, however your idea is crude but effective.I don't think that would work though. People would claim that its more fun to outsmart your opponent rather than outgank him.
but still, thanks for your contribution
|
Gabriel Demetrium
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 15:11:00 -
[16]
I like this idea, so I'm going to defend it.
First, lots of people locking their gangmates. Yes, that is an issue. That's the only argument against it that I think holds any water. But that could be fixed by introducing the "friendly lock" that I've seen requested. Sure it might be a tad unrealistic, but no idea, no expansion or addition to any game with thousands of players is going to happen without people taking advantage of the system. It happens all the times in every area of this game in its already existing form, so exploits like that shouldn't stop an idea from being good.
Next is perhaps a slight alteration. Instead of having a threshold that is passed where the lock times are increased, perhaps something more like an exponential thing. I'm not amazing at math so bear with me. If 2 ships lock 1 ship, there would be nothing noticeable, and if a 3rd were to add to it, you still probably won't, but the more that lock, the higher lock times become... the rate of increase could be made so that at a certain number of ships locking a single target, the lock times will make blobs and focused fire much less effective. This is vague for a reason, so all the other complex details of this game can be used to fill it in.
And if you think this is going to be a problem when attacking capital ships, perhaps factor in sensor resolution versus sig radius. Yes I know it's already factored in for lock times, but make it so the exponential increase in lock times is less with smaller ships attacking larger ships (to greater effect when the size difference is larger), and more with larger attacking smaller.
So in essence, this wouldn't effect small gangs at all. If you're in a gang of like 5 frigs and maybe a couple cruisers, locking one target is feasable, and the lock stacking effects would be barely noticeable above the normal lock times. But fleets of a 100 trying to lock the primary ship will have quite the wakeup call.
/signed :)
|
Blueshell
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 15:19:00 -
[17]
Yes there are lots of perameters to play with,
Sig radius, Scan resolution, Gang size, Time interval between lock attempts by different ships. Range to target etc.
Also it would be fun to decrease the sig radius of a ship locked by many or to increse the sig radius of ships that has a lock on a ship locked by many.
|
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 17:36:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 18/07/2006 17:38:46
Originally by: Blueshell Ok, then make the threshold target signature dependent, that should work :-)
So now the ships which use a MWD, like most frigates and the blaster-using Thorax and Megathron take it in the neck compared to everything else? Sigh.
Gabriel Demetrium, "friendly lock"? And how are you going to stop people locking each other? If you dictate that they can't do it in the sae corp, then they won't BE in the same corp out in 0.0. Heck, there are ways to do it with alliances in Empire space if you make that what the game mechanics *require*.
And noticeable effects from the 4th ship on? Again, that's a pure and plain nerf to small group combat! Factoring sig radius? Makes MWD's suicidal.
Fleet will split into fireteams. Smaller engagements get the shaft. Period.
Blueshell, gang size? So now we have to split the gang into artificially small groups now? All you're doing is adding uncessary and bulky complexity which will get newer players slaughered en-mass since they cannot work the system in the way which it demands, and annoy older players.
|
XoPhyte
Out Siders Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 19:29:00 -
[19]
From reading the subject I thought you where talking about if 1 ship tries to lock 3 ships at the same time then that 1 ship would be penalized (which would make sense as your targeting subsystems are busy targeting multiple ships and therefore have to timesplice between the different target aquisitions).
But now reading your actual post I cannot say I agree. Gangs should get bonuses targeting 1 ship, not be penalized. I think CCP is trying to encourage gang warfare, not the solo ganker.
|
Blueshell
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 20:42:00 -
[20]
True but they also want to change the massive blob shootouts, and that's what this idea was about
|
|
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 22:56:00 -
[21]
Except sure, you make them split into fixed-sized fireaquads. Smaller combat? Er.. well, yea, that's nerfed too.
|
SlyPanther
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.19 02:50:00 -
[22]
You would still have blob warfare though. Think about it for a second, you would have fleets breaking up into smaller gangs and still targeting one ship because they would be using Teamspeak or Ventrilo. So in hindsight, instead of one massive gang, you would have 10 small ones that wouldn't get the penalty.
I would love to see a fleet battle first hand, I am sure there is nothing like it in any game. Until CCP can look at finding a fix for the lag issues and server crashes it can cause, I will wait. ----------
Steve Erwin - He's like Fosters, only for export and never for use in Australia |
djenghis jan
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.07.19 07:57:00 -
[23]
I was in a huge fleetbattle once, stain empire invaded cloud ring with about 150-200 ships. The stain leadership organised us in bs , cruiser and frigate groups and when that didn't help they just orderded us ahead with a smaller group making a pathway. We did capture a concerable station but the locals were quick to react and had a fleet of about 80 bs blocking up the rear. This way the hauler fleet with the posses could not get through. At last there was a standoff at a gate somewhere.
This battle was a huge dissapointment in game terms. Not only the lag was killing but also the battleships were not more than floating gun platforms. I would like to see the action become more homeworld style with a little more tactical skermishes. I like the smaller engagements with 5-10 bs at each side. Those are exciting. With tricks and surprises and even mixed frig-cruiser-bs action.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |