EVE Search - How to make gang warfare the norm and fix so much else.....I think.

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

How to make gang warfare the norm and fix so much else.....I think.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Rogue Lilly Caldari Lords Of Filth	Posted - 2009.04.06 21:38:00 - [1] Most of the changes to eve I've read were brought about for what can be summed up into one overarching reason. To make combat in eve function more realistically and dynamically while still being fun and not destroying gameplay. Many times the devs have stated they are working to make combat longer, more intelligent, less blob, more gang warfare, eliminate cheese ways of winning, make tactics scale better for large fleets, and make ships have their own unique roles in combat instead of everyone just bringing a BS. These are also the main complaints from the player base(other than falcon nerfs), which shoes that CCP does listen, more than most devs. I have a very simple proposal for a change that in one swoop i believe would bring about every one of these things. The plan: The more locks that are on a target the longer it will take for another lock to be established. yeah, that's it. What this would do: It would bring more realism to combat. Suspend disbelief and imagine eve was reality, in real combat you don't have two fleets of 60 ships show up and all 60 ships target one enemy, fire-destroy, then all target the next. This is just silly and basically is the core of the issue why fittings and tactics don't scale. At a certain point "good" ship fittings become completely useless and the cheese set ups take over. With this change fleet battles would be more like many small gang battles happening together. They would last longer because everything wouldn't insta-pop, but this would be achieved through tactical changes rather than just making everyone have more HP. spider-RR would not become the only way to win a large battle and wouldn't be OP in smaller battle. It would not eliminate the tactic, only make it something that functions more like a tactic and less like a cheesy loophole. Fleets would be more likely to use specialized role ships like in small gang warfare because no longer would the winner be whoever brought the most BS with the most damage to out insta-pop the other guy. Teamwork would reign. No longer would "teamwork" consist of only calling a primary. It would actually require real teamwork because breaking a tank no longer consists of aiming everyone at it and hitting fire. ships would need support in order to gain an edge instead of just superior numbers. I really think this would be a great change. I love playing eve but when I first started playing I thought it was going to be battleships slowly floating along firing huge blasts broadside of each other with frigates zooming between them protecting those battleships and engaging each other and tactical maneuvers being barked out and adjusted by the FC. But time and again eve breaks all the rules of the many space battles we've read about and seen in movies. The battles are won and lost by cheese builds sitting in a non moving blob, no tactics beyond being good at calling out what ship to blow up first. 80% of the ships having no place whatsoever and being laughed out of a fleet. This would also generate new tactical decisions. Such as at what point it would be worth it to wait the extra lock time to get that extra bit of damage on a ship already being slammed or just to switch to a new target. Squad commanders would actually gasp become squad commanders because there would now be a reason to have squads function together. Oh and as a closing note, if you're wondering how the heck to explain this all it's really simple and realistic. When a ship locks on to a target it generates electronic "noise" around the target. The more of these locks on the target the greater this white noise is that the next ship has to cut through to achieve a lock. So even though I'm fairly new to eve my deductive reasoning skill had been trained prior to flying an internet spaceship. Please leave any suggestions of ideas or reasons this wouldn't work at all.
Rogue Lilly Caldari Lords Of Filth	Posted - 2009.04.06 21:43:00 - [2] Maybe it's just because I like the idea so much but I keep seeing so many other side benefits of this change to every annoying little thing people complain about. ECCM could be modified to give a bonus for cutting through this electronic noise (since that's technically how it allows you to resist ECM) allowing ships mounting ECCM to achieve locks against overlocked opponents easier than other ships. Giving the module a reason to use it. Every other counter to Ewar has a use outside countering that Ewar except ECCM. Now there is some tactical advantage to ECCM. whole new tactics would come with this like mounting ECCM on certain sniper ships so they could snipe at targets who need that little extra damage to finish them off.
Rogue Lilly Caldari Lords Of Filth	Posted - 2009.04.06 22:21:00 - [3] Edited by: Rogue Lilly on 06/04/2009 22:26:16 Originally by: Lear Hepburn Quote: When a ship locks on to a target it generates electronic "noise" around the target. The more of these locks on the target the greater this white noise is that the next ship has to cut through to achieve a lock. In reality the opposite occurs. I know this because of my job. What happens is the target reflects energy in all directions. This means that one beam of energy onto the target creates a scattering of energy in all directions, all emnating from the target, allowing what are effectively passive (but really semi-active) seeker heads to home in on the reflecting source (i.e. the target). The more energy the target reflects the easier it is to home in, and the more energy the target has fired at it the more it reflects. Ah thank you for clearing up that mistake, I'm going to edit it in the original post. I'm a web designer so my knowledge of such things is limited to what i can google in my down time. Originally by: Lear Hepburn Quote: That said, I think your idea has merit in terms of gameplay. It's a massive change to the way EWAR in particular and fleet battles in particular work. Good fleet management and effective squadron leaders would be essential for large fleet battles, as would effective makeup of the squadrons themselves - you wouldn't lump the EW together in one squad, for example, as it would be of more use spread throughout the squads, reducing EW and overall squad lock time. This is exactly what I want to happen and I'm glad you saw this benefit too. I really want the combat in eve to function like real combat (or as real as something completely fictional can be) a fleet would need to be assembled like a real fleet would with planning and structure. Suddenly you would hear FCs saying "squad 1 engage incoming ceptors, squad 2 pull close to the carrier and watch for warp ins behind us. Squads 3 and 4 select target at your own discretion." I have never once heard "man that guy was a great squad commander." or "squad 2 really pulled their weight and turned a failed op around." A fleet would be a fleet instead of a blob.
Rogue Lilly Caldari Lords Of Filth	Posted - 2009.04.07 14:53:00 - [4] Originally by: Markus Reese what does this mean? DOGFIGHTS! Good god, can you imagine fleet warfare? Things like target painters increasing even more usefulness. And one other tool.... Passive targetters. Want to blob, better start using that passive targetter. I want to keep this one up, fights will become epic, huge survival matches, will be amazing! Individual inties chasing bombers, and bomber squads actually able to move in as groups on large ships.... Epic, I love it Lilly! YES for dogfights! I'm not sure of the scientific validity of your explanation, but it makes complete sense to me and even if it doesn't hold water in real life it sounds good which is really the basis for science fiction. If you can explain it in a way that sounds good it's possible. I also really like the idea of the fuzzy sphere, that way you have a visual identifier to how hard it's going to be for you to lock a target and then have to pick your targets not based on who is primary, but where you can do the most good. wonderful additions.
Rogue Lilly Caldari Lords Of Filth	Posted - 2009.04.07 17:50:00 - [5] Lear Hepburn back again to give us the real scoop. I think CCP should hire you as a consultant because this is some good stuff. The only problem I foresee is currently the design of ships serves only the purpose of looking good. But there would have to be a whole lot of rebalanced because certain ships would by design have a higher signature on different planes which could lead to a ship being better just because the graphic designer made it sleek and slim. I do love the idea of your position in relation to your enemy factoring in though. Would it also make sense that it's easier to lock and get better hits from the rear of a target because of the heat from the engines? I know this is a standard in movies but I was wondering if it's a reality also?
Rogue Lilly Caldari Lords Of Filth	Posted - 2009.04.07 18:00:00 - [6] Edited by: Rogue Lilly on 07/04/2009 18:01:25 Originally by: McEivalley In one swoop I believe I would bring down every one of your reasons... What has any of them got to do with the ability of individual uber-smart space platforms to lock on the same object? You know what? I have a better one... why do you think that various ways to kill other people, including the cheesy ways, are undesirable? heck, reality is not homogenic with combat being longer, more intelligent, less blob, more gang warfare, no cheese ways of winning, tactics don't scale better for large fleets or rather beyond anyone's expectations, and ships don't always have their own unique roles in combat... sometimes you gotta step up and be the bait in a ship with no tank. Sometimes you're the provider of dps by default, so even if you could scout better we'd rather you to be there when it is caught and you have enough time to kill it... Yes, life are a mess, and not fair all the time (or even a little part of the time) and eve is going (usually) that way. And THAT's how I like it. I may just have read this wrong because it's apparent english isn't your primary language, not that this is a problem because english is a pretty crappy language anyway. so I won't argue too much as I don't believe you understand well what we are talking about here. You basically support everything I have said, I want various ways to kill someone. I want eve to be more realistic. I never said anything about it not being "fair." This has nothing to do with fairness or crying because too many people shoot me. None of this would change the dynamic of eve being a harsh unforgiving game with lots of death. It would only make those deaths more achievable through great tactics and logical builds rather than massive cheese that is completely unrealistic.
Rogue Lilly Caldari Lords Of Filth	Posted - 2009.04.07 18:09:00 - [7] Originally by: Narcil Starwind Edited by: Narcil Starwind on 07/04/2009 17:52:23 This is related to an Idea I proposed a while back. Thread oh man, sorry for ganking your idea. I think the fact that this idea has spawned in several places independently shows that it's got some merit.(even another guy who had the same idea and linked it in your thread.) Do you know if anyone at CCP has responded to this idea in the past anywhere because apparently it's been floating around for a while. and most people have seemed to reach the same conclusion that battles would now rely on real tactics and be more intelligent.
Rogue Lilly Caldari Lords Of Filth	Posted - 2009.04.07 18:11:00 - [8] Edited by: Rogue Lilly on 07/04/2009 18:13:58 Originally by: Lear Hepburn smart stuff thanks for answering that. I was wondering how that would work.
Rogue Lilly Caldari Lords Of Filth	Posted - 2009.04.07 22:24:00 - [9] Just wanted to say thank you guys for all the support on this topic and for evolving the idea with all the excellent input. Having seen the links to people proposing ideas like this long before I even played eve, and receiving the same amount of support from other players I'm trying to find a way to get this noticed by devs. All of the statements I've read from them about how they would like the game to play seem to lean towards them wanting this same thing. Oh and thank you for not dismissing my opinions and thoughts just because I'm a newbie. Too often I've seen good ideas get attacked in forums just because veteran players think their opinions are the only ones that matter.
Rogue Lilly Caldari Lords Of Filth	Posted - 2009.04.07 22:29:00 - [10] Edited by: Rogue Lilly on 07/04/2009 22:34:33 Edited by: Rogue Lilly on 07/04/2009 22:33:20 Originally by: Clansworth While i too, would like combat to be a little more variable, i don't see how this meets any sort of realism check. If you could focus your fire on a single target, to ensure it's destruction, before it could repair or receive aid, why wouldn't you? very valid objection. the answer being the same reason you don't focus fire like that in real life combat. It is impractical, causes too much cross fire, and leaves yourself wide open. It would also oversaturate the target because trying to maintain that many firing solutions on a single target is not physically possible. Trying to concentrate so much fire on a single point would not allow for open lanes of fire for everyone. If this idea didn't pass the realism check then why don't real navel fleets and armies fight like in eve where a primary is called, fired upon until it is destroyed and then a new primary called. and Lear Hepburn says it correctly above. We aren't proposing you can't fire, more that it would take longer to achieve the firing solution, therfore giving you more tactical decisions such as when those extra 20 seconds to achieve a lock(or however long it is) is worth it. Which strangely enough your objection has given me another idea for how to explain this mechanic. What if the added time to lock was because there was such a saturation of fire and ships already engaging your target that it takes your targeting computer longer to achieve a stable lock and calculate the trajectory to hit the target without blasting all your friends that are trying to do the same. Turrets in eve are supposedly computer controlled and aim based on calculations, the more variables you introduce into the equation of "how to hit this target without hitting anything else" the longer those calculations take to run through and find the right angle and trajectory to hit the target.
Rogue Lilly Caldari Lords Of Filth	Posted - 2009.04.08 14:55:00 - [11] Originally by: rodensteiner Edited by: rodensteiner on 08/04/2009 12:58:50 Originally by: cucac Spider locking problem. etc. etc. etc. This is one of the first things that popped up in my mind, too. However, I think you could probably cut most of it down by implementing a mechanic based upon who is in your fleet or not. If you're in the same fleet, there is no penalty/bonus to locking a gang member. Other than that, I think this is a brilliant idea and I support it 100% Now, as much as I like the idea of RCS and quadrants, I think it might be a bit too complex to add. I think the basic idea of lock times increasing depending on number of locks on a target is a very, very good one. Not trying to stir up sh*t, but sometimes I wonder if CCP even reads this forum. It would be nice to get an actual response from one of them, see what their thoughts on the subject are, maybe get a reality check from them if necessary, etc. The spider locking problem is one I didn't think of at all. Seems like you guys came up with a good solution for that one though. I was envisioning it effecting friendlies also just because I've seen a lot of rumbling about RR-gangs lately which is going to become the new flacon soon I feel. But the reality of it is in order for this to work, you're right, friendly targeting would have to not effect the system of unfriendly locks. I really like the RCS and quadrant ideas also, but I agree that it would become too complex, mainly because the servers we play on would have a ton more data to deal with. Perhaps in a few years when the cluster has evolved.
Rogue Lilly Caldari Lords Of Filth	Posted - 2009.04.08 17:49:00 - [12] Edited by: Rogue Lilly on 08/04/2009 17:55:16 Edited by: Rogue Lilly on 08/04/2009 17:53:49 Originally by: Clansworth the above post that I will not quote, not because it isn't all good stuff, but because you can scroll up if you want to read it. The problem here is you're using mechanics beyond what I'm suggesting to dispute the idea. You're also arguing against the faux-scientific excuse of why this mechanic would exists rather than the mechanic itself. I didn't say it would take into account every object and relate it to ability to lock, that would be insane. I merely offered a shallow suggestion for how to explain the mechanic. You're disagreement is like saying "Missiles are reduced in damage by target velocity so turrets have to also." because if you carried the physics reasoning behind explosive velocity vs sig-radius to the extreme and applied those same physics to everything in the game there would be a million instances of those laws of physics being broken. So you can't say that excusing the mechanic of limiting target locks based on difficulty in achieving a firing solution means you have to take that explanation to the extreme and add whole new calculations to everything that could be affected by the amount of "stuff" in space. In fact that was just one explanation for why this mechanic could exist and really the explanation is much less important than the application. All science fiction comes up with a good idea, then figures out a way to make it sound plausible with semi-scientific explanations. If you want a solid scientific reason that this mechanic could exist ask Lear Hepburn, he's got the brain to explain these things to you and could probably come up with several real life based reasons why this mechanic could exist. As for me I'll leave that to him because it hurts my brain :) I'll stick to figuring out if people would like this in play and if it would improve the fun.
Rogue Lilly Caldari Lords Of Filth	Posted - 2009.04.08 19:27:00 - [13] Edited by: Rogue Lilly on 08/04/2009 19:27:43 Originally by: Narcil Starwind Originally by: Narcil Starwind Edited by: Narcil Starwind on 07/04/2009 17:52:23 This is related to an Idea I proposed a while back. Thread Spider Tanking and Spider-locking are addressed in my proposal. I think the main reason these ideas are popular is because the most fun in eve is the smaller gang combat. These ideas would force larger fleet fights to become multitudes of smaller conflicts. Which I think everyone would find more fun and engaging. and this gentleman in one short concise sentence laid out the entire reason behind this proposed change. If you have questions as to why this should happen just read this sentence.
Rogue Lilly Caldari Lords Of Filth	Posted - 2009.04.08 21:01:00 - [14] rodensteiner I have to disagree with you here. Only because Eve players will do anything for the win, think about the amount of effort we all put into this game. No other game that i've ever seen has people so dedicated to finding a way to squeeze out an extra .05% of damage. If there is even any chance of some cheesy way of bypassing a game mechanic to achieve a result unintended the player base here will be the ones to figure out how to do it. So yes, we're all hungry for kills but I still think people would exploit all getting locks before firing to avoid the penalty. Any ideas on how to get around this because I'm not too sure how to keep the spider locking from happening other than just not having friendly locks count. Although I do think this mechanic might work if applied to friendly locks and spider tanking also because if the primary=boom is fixed then spider tanking gangs really will become invincible because unlike the attackers they can focus all of their "fire" on whatever target they want.
Rogue Lilly Caldari Lords Of Filth	Posted - 2009.04.09 14:34:00 - [15] Edited by: Rogue Lilly on 09/04/2009 14:43:11 good suggestions all. Keep the ideas coming because I plan on consolidating all the ideas you guys came up with and putting them in the assembly forum once we've got a few more things pinned down. So to sum up the two issues we are trying to work out for anyone else who jumps in. 1. How do we stop people from abusing the mechanic by either all targeting each other to increase lock time, or having alts follow them around locked to them to increase the enemies lock time. 2. The issue behind this is the current system has no way to distinguish enemy lock from friendly lock until a module has been activated, and even then an enemy could activate a small hull repair or something to flag itself as a friendly lock.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.