EVE Search - Focus Fire Mitigation and Alpha discussion thread

Velicitia wrote:

Buzzy Warstl wrote:

Momoyo wrote:

I think the only change that could make a difference and make sense would be to make it so shots do not pass through things to get to their target. This would make friendly fire an issue and fleets would have to fly in smaller squads or in formation (CONGA Line!!!)to avoid hitting each other. Fleets could also use in space structures to shield themselves from incoming fire. Firing at enemies, instead of insta popping a ship (though it could) would hit multiple ships that are in the way or hit other ships with missed shots.

Given that they have a team putting the final polish on a FPS where the server needs awareness of terrain and cover, this should actually be within the realm of possibility now.

Additionally, unlike the OP, it is applying realism to mitigate the problem.

indeed. One thing that I loved (to hate) from other space games (Homeworld series mostly ... can't remember Freelancer combat too much anymore) was the idea of ships having firing arcs. Though, with the way things work here, that might be far too much effort for too little gain (although, seeing 200x abaddon/rokh/etc firing broadside at the other guy would look pretty).

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Reply to Topic \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ines Tegator Towels R Us 155	Posted - 2012.03.14 05:27:00 - [31] - Quote Blatant Forum Alt wrote: I like to troll Dumbass. Anyway, I don't care about real world tactics, I'm quite aware of them. But as a game, it's just not that much fun. The FC calls targets, you find them in a list and hit f1. Very exciting. Also, I stopped flying in fleets about a year ago. They were boring. I almost quit EVE. I sold my combat character on the bazaar and do trading now instead. This whole thing is to try to make combat more interesting so I have a reason to go back to it.
Ines Tegator Towels R Us 155	Posted - 2012.03.14 06:32:00 - [32] - Quote Incoming wall of text. There's no way to tl:dr this either because it includes hard info. Ok here's a preliminary stab at a mitigation formula. It's actually not that complex and only involves a few operations per attack. It doesn't account for time elapsed yet, and I've only done a handful of test scenarios with arbitrary numbers, but it's a starting point. It's showing the behavior I want. That behavior is, when attacked by multiple attackers doing the full damage expected if the attackers were of the same ship class as the target (making the assumption that the fight is battleship vs battleship for example) by reaching a predetermined minimum, the maximum mitigation is reached. When attacked by multiple attackers the damage is below expected based on the targets ship class a predetermined minumum, the mitigation is reduced proportionately. 0 damage results in 0 mitigation, there is no penalty for exceeding the predetermined minmum. This allows mixed ship fleets to engage without the fleet being penalized for any given ship having lower damage the rest. I havn't accounted for drones yet; I'm thinking I'll count each drone as 1/5 of an attacker and leave the formula the same. Definition of Terms: Damage Recieved (DR) Number of Attackers (AT) Time Elapsed Mitigation Amount (MIT) Mitigation Per Attacker Base (MBE) Damage Minimum Baseline (DB) The Formula: If DR >= DBAT Then MIT= (MBE AT) else MIT=(MBE * AT)(DR/DB) Proposition 1: Hard Damage Baseline* Assume: MBE=5% DB(BS)=500 Target=Battleship Scenario 1: 10 ships where total damage equals 5000 DR>=DB10 ; True MIT = (.05 10) = .5 or 50% Scenario 2: 10 ships where total damage equals 4000 DR>=DB10; False MIT= .5(4000/5000) = .5(.8) = 40% Proposition 2: Damage Baseline determined by targets Signature Radius* Assume: MBE=5% DB= Target Sig Radius * 2 Target=Armageddon (370 sig) Note for Consideration: Drake with 3 Shield Purger I's and 2 LSE II's is similar, with a sig of 378. Is this a penalization of shield tanks? Or reasonable considering the speed penalty of armor? Scenario 3: 10 ships where damage totals 10000 DB=(3702) = 740 DR>=DB10 ; True MIT=50% Scenario 4: 10 ships where damage totals 6000 Db = 740 DR>=DB10 ; False MIT= (MBE10)(6000/7400) = .5(.81) = 40.5% Scenario 5: 10 ships where damage totals 1000* DB = 740 DR>=DB10 ; False MIT = .5(1000/7400) = 13.5% Scenario 6: 10 ships where damage totals 10000; Geddon with MWD II Active (sig=2.2k)* DB=4400 DR>DB*10; False MIT=.5(10000/44000) = 22.72% This does not scale gracefully between the ship classes; the DB equation may have to be different for every class. None of this as I have it here would affect fleets where the alpha is enough to destroy the ship in a single shot. That, I think, is a lost cause due to the nature of EVE, and can only be addressed by changing Artillery. In smaller engagements, it would start to take effect and alter the way fleet fights play out. My hope is this system or one like it would make gang warfare more engaging from the individual pilot's perspective. Whether it will work or not will depend on both mechanics and psychology, knowing that people will always take the easiest path. Hopefully I've proven (tear it apart and prove me wrong! this is SCIENCE!) that a fair mitigation formula is popular, the other question is whether it will have the intended result. And now, my troll minions, I command thee to begin thy art.
Wolodymyr Breaking Ambitions 72	Posted - 2012.03.14 07:09:00 - [33] - Quote Ines Tegator wrote: I don't care about real world tactics. This is probably the root of the problem here. If you are trying to introduce weird game mechanics to combat the logistical realities of shooting dudes then eve is going to get more bizarre and nonsensical. This is especially true if you are worried about game balance. You should move closer to reality and not further from it, because the physical realities of our universe form the most balanced systems we can observe. But getting back tot he game there are actually current in game counters to blobbing. Unfortunately it may be a little too complicated for your average FC who can only fleet warp and call primaries. A while ago I was flying logi in one of those 200+ dudes vs 200+ dudes fights out in null. The enemy FC was predictably calling primaries one after another. As our guys would get locked up and shot at, they'd broadcast for reps, our logies would lock them up and keep them alive. Things were going smoothly and we were taking zero casualties because we could out rep their DPS and lock up our own dudes faster than the other fleet. Then a flight of bombers did a bombing run on our fleet. Everyone took damage, not enough to really pop anyone not in a frigate, but enough to make everyone panic and call for reps. Our nice and manageable broadcast window flooded with panicked battleships, and the people who actually were being primaried got lost in the flood of RR requests. And we started losing people because their fleet did something other than just calling primaries. An emergent solution to an emergent challenge. One day I'd like to see an FC say, "We can't break their logi, you know what? Screw it! I am still going to call primaries, but I want a couple of you to un-group your guns and just shoot whatever, let's see if we can't throw them off balance." Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't. But it is possible to try and solve real problems with real tactics, not weird game mechanics changes.
Momoyo Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension 5	Posted - 2012.03.14 07:39:00 - [34] - Quote I think the only change that could make a difference and make sense would be to make it so shots do not pass through things to get to their target. This would make friendly fire an issue and fleets would have to fly in smaller squads or in formation (CONGA Line!!!)to avoid hitting each other. Fleets could also use in space structures to shield themselves from incoming fire. Firing at enemies, instead of insta popping a ship (though it could) would hit multiple ships that are in the way or hit other ships with missed shots. However Im pretty sure this is impossible with the current engine so no use talking about it. Move along, Move along...
Blatant Forum Alt Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 25	Posted - 2012.03.14 13:57:00 - [35] - Quote Ines Tegator wrote: Hopefully I've proven (tear it apart and prove me wrong! this is SCIENCE!) that a fair mitigation formula is popular, the other question is whether it will have the intended result. And now, my troll minions, I command thee to begin thy art. You are the reason we cant have nice things. You propose a stupid idea, wrap it up in long words and formulae, and then ignore the dozens of people telling you (as they have done to countless other people on other threads on this topic) that this is a stupid idea. You then claim to have 'proven' that this is popular, despite the sheer number of people telling you that this idea is stupid. Its a stupid idea, it is not popular. Knowing this does not make me a troll, it means I have an IQ above my shoe size.
Carmizan DOCS RUFF RIDERS Free Beer. 15	Posted - 2012.03.14 14:23:00 - [36] - Quote Ines Tegator wrote: update: people new to the thread may want to skip ahead to here A great many people do not like the gameplay of Alpha fleets. Yes, I'm among them. Various ideas have been knocked around by various people for years, but one that keeps coming back and has the most potential is mitigating damage based on the number of attackers. Sins of a Solar Empire does a version this. Basically, the more enemy ships are hitting your ship, the higher your mitigation goes up. From a lore standpoint this is not a problem, since attacks generate debris either from broken armor and hull, debris from the impactors, or thick gasses from energy weapons vaporizing hull material. These could reasonably be considered to reduce the effectiveness of subsequent attacks, and would disperse when the volume of attacks is reduced. This would not happen in an Alpha fleet though. They are designed to lock the target and all fire at the same time, so every ship's rounds hit you at the same time, therefore any debris will not effect the first salvo at which point your ship has already been destroyed. Which make this argument null and void
Buzzy Warstl Huron Syndicate 53	Posted - 2012.03.14 14:36:00 - [37] - Quote Momoyo wrote: I think the only change that could make a difference and make sense would be to make it so shots do not pass through things to get to their target. This would make friendly fire an issue and fleets would have to fly in smaller squads or in formation (CONGA Line!!!)to avoid hitting each other. Fleets could also use in space structures to shield themselves from incoming fire. Firing at enemies, instead of insta popping a ship (though it could) would hit multiple ships that are in the way or hit other ships with missed shots. Given that they have a team putting the final polish on a FPS where the server needs awareness of terrain and cover, this should actually be within the realm of possibility now. Additionally, unlike the OP, it is applying realism to mitigate the problem.
Velicitia Open Designs 786	Posted - 2012.03.14 14:50:00 - [38] - Quote Buzzy Warstl wrote: Momoyo wrote: I think the only change that could make a difference and make sense would be to make it so shots do not pass through things to get to their target. This would make friendly fire an issue and fleets would have to fly in smaller squads or in formation (CONGA Line!!!)to avoid hitting each other. Fleets could also use in space structures to shield themselves from incoming fire. Firing at enemies, instead of insta popping a ship (though it could) would hit multiple ships that are in the way or hit other ships with missed shots. Given that they have a team putting the final polish on a FPS where the server needs awareness of terrain and cover, this should actually be within the realm of possibility now. Additionally, unlike the OP, it is applying realism to mitigate the problem. indeed. One thing that I loved (to hate) from other space games (Homeworld series mostly ... can't remember Freelancer combat too much anymore) was the idea of ships having firing arcs. Though, with the way things work here, that might be far too much effort for too little gain (although, seeing 200x abaddon/rokh/etc firing broadside at the other guy would look pretty).
Buzzy Warstl Huron Syndicate 53	Posted - 2012.03.14 15:01:00 - [39] - Quote Velicitia wrote: Buzzy Warstl wrote: Momoyo wrote: I think the only change that could make a difference and make sense would be to make it so shots do not pass through things to get to their target. This would make friendly fire an issue and fleets would have to fly in smaller squads or in formation (CONGA Line!!!)to avoid hitting each other. Fleets could also use in space structures to shield themselves from incoming fire. Firing at enemies, instead of insta popping a ship (though it could) would hit multiple ships that are in the way or hit other ships with missed shots. Given that they have a team putting the final polish on a FPS where the server needs awareness of terrain and cover, this should actually be within the realm of possibility now. Additionally, unlike the OP, it is applying realism to mitigate the problem. indeed. One thing that I loved (to hate) from other space games (Homeworld series mostly ... can't remember Freelancer combat too much anymore) was the idea of ships having firing arcs. Though, with the way things work here, that might be far too much effort for too little gain (although, seeing 200x abaddon/rokh/etc firing broadside at the other guy would look pretty). An Abaddon wall of battle would be a truly awe inspiring sight to behold. It would also give tackles an additional role of breaking up the opponent's formation to expose their otherwise well protected logistics.
Zyress Deaths Head Brigade Vanguard. 37	Posted - 2012.03.14 17:20:00 - [40] - Quote The only thing that makes sense for mitigating the blob incoming dps is requiring line of site between attacking ships and targets, currently you can shoot right through the guys around you if you are in the center of a blob, that apparently requires too much server resources to be practically implemented though.


	Reply to Topic
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page