| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Scarabeus Sacer
   |
Posted - 2009.12.19 01:42:00 -
[121]
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE END OF INSTA KILL PRIMARY STUFF...Primary --> Boom, Primary 2---> boom..etc.
In EVE Smaller fleets cannot use "terrain" to their advantage. You cannot make use of anything which would ameliorate the numbers advantage. This should be remedied. You cant hide behind roids or stations or gates or what have you to prevent the enemy fleet from using their full firepower, as you would in real life, so im of the opinion that CCP should artificialize this by limiting ganking ability.
Some EVE players have argued that well, in RL you can shoot as many as you want at a target. Well, that is not so. EVE has eliminated line of sight firing, obstacles, friendly fire, friendly splash damage and a great number of things which would make it next to impossible for 100 ships to fire at a single one without shooting through each other, in roids, stations, etc. They would have to be in perfect formation, but lets not get into that because if you actually had to have a clear line of sight to your target otherwise whatever was in front of you got shot first, it would get ugly. We would see crazy friendly fire casualty rate, as your lasers would have to slice through the friendly BS in front of you to get to the target.
The point of this is not to equal real life but to make the game more fun, battles to last longer, introduce a new dimension to the strategic and tactical planning of fleet combat.
There are a few options for EVE. This is I think the one that would suit EVE the best in order to balance the ships vs their capabilities.
Assign to each ship type two types of points:
AGGRO POINTS - how many points of AGGRO the ship inflicts on its target.
DEFENSE POINTS - from these points the AGGRO points of attacking ships get subtracted until the ship's defense points reach ZERO. When ZERO is reached each additional ship attacking the target will receive a 70% damage penalty and stacking with each additional one. So basically you will be dealing next to zero damage if you are the second ships over max aggro. FC's will have to plan what to shoot and who to shoot what in order to make the best possible use of the available firepower. If you have a sorry FC or bad planning, your 100 strong fleet could be easily killed by a 25 strong fleet.
THE NUMBERS BELOW ARE FOR ILLUSTRATION ONLY AND NOT ACTUALLY COMPUTED FOR BALANCE.
AGGRO POINTS - this would give a whole new meaning to DPS.
Carrier: 10 points
Dread: 9 points
BS: 8
BC: 7
Cruiser: 6
Destroyer: 3
Frigate: 2
DEFENSE POINTS:
Carrier: 40 points
Dread: 35 points
BS: 28
BC: 18
Cruiser: 15
Destroyer: 11
Frigate: 8
I have excluded the other types of ships from this for simplicity's sake.
So basically, no more than 4 carriers would be able to attack 1 carrier no more than 5 battleships.
How this would work would be as follows, the aggro points do not get subtracted from your target's defense points until you actually fire on them. When you have locked target, there will be a number over the target indicator and on the main screen showing you how many defense points the target ship has left. That way you know if it would be useful to fire on that ship or not. Getting fired on by your own corp or alliance members or fleet members DOES NOT REDUCE YOUR DEFENSE POINTS. This would prevent people from making their ships invisible. Now in order to disengage and remove your AGGRO Points from the target's defense points (making room for someone else to fire at him) you need to stop your guns and not fire at him for 10 seconds. After this cooldown, anyone else in the fleet may fire at him.
|
Scarabeus Sacer
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 01:50:00 -
[122]
This system would pose one other problem as follows, overlapping points:
1. AGGRO POINTS SHOULD ONLY COUNT FROM SHIPS WHICH ARE: NOT IN YOUR FLEET, NOT IN YOUR ALLIANCE, NOT IN YOUR CORPORATION - this would prevent abuse by having friendlies shoot you with blanks in order to render you invulnerable.
2. OVERLAPPING POINTS
BC of 18 DP is attacked by 3 BS totaling 24 AG (Aggro points), the BC would take full damage from 2 of the BS's which would be equal to 16 points. The third BC would only be able to fit 2 of its total 8 aggro points in the remaining DP of the BC. So as a result ( 2 is 25% of 8) the third BS will do (1-0.75) x full damage, or take a 75% penalty on damage dealt to the BC because he is exceeding the remaining Defense points of the BC by 75%. It may be more productive to fire at something else.
In terms of ganking power, i think that 1 BC vs 2.25 battleships in terms of firepower is about as ganky as it should get.
Players should get a warning when they are doing partial damage or they have exceeded the defense points of the target so they would not waste ammo/timefirepower on it.
People would say that this would open up all kinds of portals for abuse, however if you say this, please back it up. There may be an easy solution to it.
It is a well documented fact of history that big firepower/manpower if not distributed and used effectively in combat can lose a battle as easily as it can win it. (Thermopylae is a prime example)
3. SPLITTING FIREPOWER
May want to consider being able to split aggro points based on the ship. What i mean a ship has two ways to aggro something, guns (its high spots) and drones. Lets that maybe a gun based battleship will have all its AGGRO POINTS assigned to its guns while a dominix would have about half and half or whatever % based on how gun dependent or drone dependent the ship is. These points can either be assigned as standard or be assigned as you fit your ships. I would recommend they be assigned automatically as you fit your ship because I may use utility drones on a drone boat and only use guns for damage. This would be so that I can attack one target with my drones and another with my guns.
Needless to say, none of this would work against NPC's, no points, they can gank you to hell.
|
Arcelian
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 03:56:00 -
[123]
Awesome.
|
Honoria Vaas
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 17:19:00 -
[124]
I love it, i love it a lot. Bump to top.
|
Ameratsu
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 17:39:00 -
[125]
I think this idea is great and would allow a greater variety of ship setups on the field instead of pure dps.
+++
|
Zero Temperature
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 19:44:00 -
[126]
The problem of friendly spider locking can be easily resolved by adding a new rule. It does not matter whether it's a friendly or hostile lock. That is Letting ships' scan resolution decreases with each locked target. A ship which already acquired a target, when it is going to acquired the second target, will suffer a less scan resolution in doing so, and so on so forth. In the end, yes, a gang may pre-lock their own gang members for their own benefit, but only at the expense of their own locking time.
|
Scarabeus Sacer
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 20:17:00 -
[127]
 Originally by: Zero Temperature
The problem of friendly spider locking can be easily resolved by adding a new rule. It does not matter whether it's a friendly or hostile lock. That is Letting ships' scan resolution decreases with each locked target. A ship which already acquired a target, when it is going to acquired the second target, will suffer a less scan resolution in doing so, and so on so forth. In the end, yes, a gang may pre-lock their own gang members for their own benefit, but only at the expense of their own locking time.
I really would not want to have support ships affected by this. I would like to see more use of support ships than just pure alpha strike DPS ships to insta kill players.
|
Genocide Machine
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 21:52:00 -
[128]
JOHN HAND****, so CCP won't have to put on their spectacles to read it
needs some specifics worked out (spider locking), but i like it
|
Captain Vampire
Caldari
None of us are free
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 22:38:00 -
[129]
Anything that removes the lock-shot-pop primary show is awesome in my book. Signed+
This idea is simple, yet could work pretty well. Tbh, I'd say it should only affect ships of the same size, and the effect should diminish over time to prevent abuse(say 20 friendlies target a friendly T3 prior to an engagement to make sure it's not primed). Also, 10x battleships locking a target should not affect a ceptor locking the same target.
What I like about this idea the most, is that there is no "perfect" number of locks per ship. So, some FCs might prefer to order 10 ships per target, while other prefer 5. Diversity and flavor ftw
|
Avernus
Gallente
Imperium Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 23:38:00 -
[130]
Wow... this is actually an impressive original idea. Definate kudos to you, hopefully CCP will take a gander at it and have some discussion on its merits.
|
Jazz Myne
DEATHFUNK
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 04:04:00 -
[131]
I like the idea of reducing blobs and nerfing instapopping targets with overwhelming numbers. The target locking penalty and the agro point penalty are good ideas -- in theory. But, this would give U.S. TZ pilots almost no ability to lock a target or inflict any damage before the target gets destroyed. It would give the Euro players even more of an advantage in kill ability than they have now due to lag. I don't think CCP would be willing to port throttle all the Euro players to offset this effect.
So, I would have to say, No, Not a good idea.
|
Scarabeus Sacer
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 07:16:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Jazz Myne
But, this would give U.S. TZ pilots almost no ability to lock a target or inflict any damage before the target gets destroyed. It would give the Euro players even more of an advantage in kill ability than they have now due to lag. I don't think CCP would be willing to port throttle all the Euro players to offset this effect.
So, I would have to say, No, Not a good idea.
With the target log idea yeah, that would be a problem but I do not see how it is different now. With the points solution, you would not get this, you would actually get MORE time to lock targets before they get blown up, IF they do. The target locking penalty is directly time dependent, please explain how the points are time dependent so they are affected by lag?
As it is now everyone gets insta killed by those who lock the fastest and fire. I dont see why you like it better now as it seems that now US players get the shaft even more.
|
HD Jita
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 20:02:00 -
[133]
I like the idea, hopefully it'll catch on and add an interesting new dimension to fleet combat!
|
Avernus
Gallente
Imperium Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 00:58:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Scarabeus Sacer
Originally by: Jazz Myne
But, this would give U.S. TZ pilots almost no ability to lock a target or inflict any damage before the target gets destroyed. It would give the Euro players even more of an advantage in kill ability than they have now due to lag. I don't think CCP would be willing to port throttle all the Euro players to offset this effect.
So, I would have to say, No, Not a good idea.
With the target log idea yeah, that would be a problem but I do not see how it is different now. With the points solution, you would not get this, you would actually get MORE time to lock targets before they get blown up, IF they do. The target locking penalty is directly time dependent, please explain how the points are time dependent so they are affected by lag?
As it is now everyone gets insta killed by those who lock the fastest and fire. I dont see why you like it better now as it seems that now US players get the shaft even more.
Seems like having a spread of squads again helps this problem rather than hinders.
|
Alpha195
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 15:38:00 -
[135]
if you guys want to see anything done about this, then you need to bring it up in the Assembly hall or in the channel "CSM Public".
|
Sara Zaristos
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 10:33:00 -
[136]
Suggestion in OP is simple and good, I fully agree. Though small ships should have a smaller effect than big ships.
|
Lorn Cholaxu
Gallente
Taggart Transdimensional
Virtue of Selfishness
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 21:50:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Lear Hepburn
With respect to rear-shots, it depends on what the projectile/missile is tracking. A heat-seaking missile may well get a better hit because of this, but other forms of missile may not.
There's another area that this flanking tactic might help--it could make shield tanks more useful for PvP engagements, because of the skill Tactical Shield Manipulation. Shields can be diverted to different sides of the ship by use of this skill, whereas there is no analogue for armor. This could effectively reinforce shield tankers' roles as "siege" vessels, which are more resistant to maneuver tactics. It also could help shield tanking assault ships keep their hulls intact as they sweep through opponent fleets by guarding their underbellies and backsides.
----
"The Creed is Greed."
|
Van Haulen
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 22:31:00 -
[138]
Excellent, lots of good ideas!
/Signed
Move to assembly hall so we can all sign it and get some attention
|
Lord AtTiLAs
Legion Du Lys
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 01:47:00 -
[139]
This is a simple and great Idea !!
100 vs 1 (99 others waiting to be called primary) fight is what most people that doesn't play EVE anymore hate. I was playing, im still learning but playing something else since 2 years... can't stand that focused fire fight. CCP need idea to have 100 vs 100 fight spread focuse on many ship as possible.
|
Ender Wiggan
H A V O C
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 20:36:00 -
[140]
Elegant and fluffy way of spreading combat out, simple and to the point.
I recommend you raise it to the CSM as previously mentioned, post a link to your CSM suggestion in this thread and I'll support (or I'll just try and find it sometime).
Issues to consider (as previously mentioned):
How to deal with spider locking?
How to deal with defensive locking, i.e. friendlies locking important ships to keep them alive?
Once these have been addressed satisfactorily I say we push it.
In my opinion, I don't think the intuitive nerf to spider tanking is actually a bad thing. As incoming alpha will be scaled down by the fact that hostiles are effectively barred from all targeting the same thing, it seems right that friendly RR shouldn't be as effective as it is now either.
Could deal with defensive locking perhaps by implementing a system similar to warp core strength, maybe based off skills, so that a ship has a certain number of lock points, and for each lock point taken off by locking another ship, the sensor strength of your ship is reduced correspondingly.
So ship A has 5 lock points and a sensor strength of 500
Ship A locks ship B, losing one lock point and thus 100 sensor strength (for example).
Ship A goes on to lock ship C, losing another lock point and more sensor strenght.
etc.
That was just brainstorming off the top of my head, but something along those lines might work.
|
Daedalus II
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 21:33:00 -
[141]
If you check a bit after the first post (second page mainly) you'll see suggestions for solutions to the spider locking and similar issues. The best solution imo is the one where we drop the idea of stopping locks and instead have the signature radius of the ship shrink the more it's attacked, and increase when remote repped. This will both make the ship harder to lock, and will make it harder to hit for those that already have a lock.
Imagine the signature radius working like the shield with it's passive recharge. While under attack it will diminish, but if left alone it will replenish itself again. If it's getting repaired it replenishes quicker (and in this case might even go beyond the base value, ie will be easier to hit than normal).
|
Avernus
Gallente
Imperium Technologies
Sodalitas XX
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 00:58:00 -
[142]
This needs a bump.
|
Zirse
Minmatar
Mongbait
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 03:58:00 -
[143]
 |
unloadedx16
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 04:17:00 -
[144]
Bump
Absolutely love this idea. Simple yet elegant and will make fleet fights epic.
/signed
|
Kata Amentis
Quantum Drift
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 18:33:00 -
[145]
I've skim read a fair chunk of this thread, I like a lot of the concepts behind it.
My main concern with suggestions such as these is how these changes would affect communications in pvp. By breaking up the blobs you create a need for better communication tools to accommodate far more complex orders and structures. There might be a need to work on a far better voice comm system along side changes such as these to actually make large scale combat workable. |
Ephemeron
Retribution Corp.
Initiative Associates
|
Posted - 2010.02.09 19:35:00 -
[146]
While I want to encourage small gang pvp, I find this idea counter-intuitive and fundamentally flawed.
If the time to target lock a ship increases with number of target locks already acquired then that would greatly benefit gate campers. Here's how:
Lets say every ship can lock 6 targets, you bring 5 friends with you to gate camp. All of you lock each other, so now every ship in your gang has 5 locks acquired already. Whenever some new hostile enters your system, you can lock him relatively quickly, while the poor hostile is struggling to obtain a 6th target lock on any one of your ships. To top it off, you are all ready for remote rep.
Large blobs would always benefit more, since they can defend their members with friendly target locks.
Did I say this idea is highly counter intuitive? if anything, the opposite would happen - when one friendly targets someone, technology would make it easier for you to acquire the same target lock
|
Aedon Savaar
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 21:29:00 -
[147]
I haven't read this thread all through, but imo, another way to prevent this is to use a projected module that shouds the signature radius of the target ship to make it harder to lock on.
This might seem a bit hard to use, but logically you should be able to predict which ship will become primary. This way, a genuine "non-primary" ship like a frigate can be specialized in dispersing the sig raduis of larger ships.
The multi-lock penalty has my thumbs up though!
|
Meredith Midnight
|
Posted - 2010.02.10 22:56:00 -
[148]
I like this idea, as long as it scales. Dreadnoughts and such shouldnt be affected as much since hitting them is like hitting the broad side of a barn with a shotgun at 5 paces. Interceptors and other such small ships should take forever to lock.
Though I really wish Eve had the mechanics for friendly fire and cover system. Maybe have a system that causes computers to think the enemy is in one place but is really 1km nearby (reducing all damage by 80%) or so. Sort of like RL chaff and flares. To prevent RR blobs from being king, maybe have a projection module that causes the target's remote repairs to accidently overload and do EM damage for a set amount of time.
|
Rigory
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 14:00:00 -
[149]
I have an idea that's similar to the aggro point system in an earlier post. This might help with the spider locking issue. Natural ship ECM.
Basically you give all ships a point 1-10 based on CPU strength. When the ship gets locked on and aggro begins the ECM kicks in to throw off additional locks. It can do this by whatever means you think cause it's irrelevant right now.
Now this is where the relationship tracker can come into play. Anyone who you, your Corp, or your alliance has as neutral or hostile (no symbol or red negative sign) will be affected by this ECM. Any one who is positive 0.1 to 10.0 (blue plus sign) is not affected by this ECM.
Now back to that ECM rating. The higher the rating the longer it takes neutral/hostiles to target lock after the first lock. So small ships with a low rating will not receive a large bonus but larger ships will.
|
Cassidy Solo
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 16:35:00 -
[150]
Ephemeron - First off, if you are going to waste your time posting in a thread about something, at least read the thread, to see how the idea has evolved. Otherwise your comments sound silly, and parrot what has already been said pages and pages back, and thus, already been worked through.
Scarabeus Sacer - I think your numbers would REALLY need to be reworked, because I'm pretty sure that 4 BSes would have a hard time taking out a Dreadnaught, and 5 BSes taking out a Carrier is possible, but very unlikely. The point is to give tactics to PVP, not cause a 20 hour fleet battle, to kill two ships.
Pian Shu - I really like the idea you had, although I think there has to be a decrease in the "signature resolution" of a module when used against a larger ship. Assuming you had 6 ships with 8 hostile modules of 125 signature resolution (HM-sized modules, which are medium weapons, I can imagine the large weapons would have a higher signature resolution.) you would bring a Titan down to BS-sized signature radius. I doubt that 6-8 cruisers are going to kill a Titan, and the more ships you add trying to shoot him, it really drops fast, so you are looking at taking 20-30 seconds to get your aggressive lock on a Titan!
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |