Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dasfry
Caldari Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 11:05:00 -
[1]
Introducing new Tactics into eve warfare.
I would love to see new tactics added into eve warfare
Such as flanking.
Currently eve is lacking the benefit of flanking in a tactical sense.
There is ZERO benefit to hitting an enemy ship from the front, side, top, bottom, or rear.
I would like to see this ability added to the game.
Simply make it so that with all solutions to the current damage calculation take into consideration from which direction the incoming damage came from.
My solution assume the following.
Damage hitting * the front of the ship takes a 1.0 multiplier * The top & bottom takes a 1.15 multiplier * The Sides of the ship takes a 1.1 multiplier * The aft/rear takes a 1.2 multiplier
The actual numbers would be apart of the ships description. And could be default for most ships, but some ships could have slight differences. Perhaps based on the ships race type? (Amarr/Gallente/Caldari/Minmatar)
So let's say your ship today gets hit from behind in the engines, for 100 damage. You would only take 100.
Now let's say these changes are implemented. and again you get shot at, from behind in the engines, for 100 damage. but now your enemy is rewarded for taking the time to flank you and hits you for 120.
*********** Dasfry, Director Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Freyya
Inner Vort3x Vort3x.
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 11:18:00 -
[2]
While it would make sense in a scientific kinda way (since plating on tanks for instance isn't the same on every front) it's kinda hard to implement. Shields engulf the ship completely on all sides for instance so that would make shield tanking a better one than armor tanking. Other than that EvE uses resistance to calculate the damage taken so while you could say armor might not be as thick on the front as opposed to the rear of a ship it doesn't matter really. High tech science is used to make the plating on a ship equally strong no matter the thickness of the plating. Lastly the ships are virtually always moving and turning such as when you're orbiting someone. The technical nature of how combat is handled makes it kinda useless and impossible to implement in any reasonable fasion.
Fun idea though but imo not doable due to above reasons. ___________
NOW COLLECTING ISD AND CCP AUTOGRAPHS It'll be worth something someday. -Rauth
|
Dasfry
Caldari Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 11:38:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Freyya plating on tanks for instance isn't the same on every front
Agreed on this point.
Originally by: Freyya it's kinda hard to implement. Shields engulf the ship completely on all sides for instance so that would make shield tanking a better one than armor tanking.
I disagree on this point.
Shields are based on shield emitters, which are apart of a ships construction. These will not always be necessarily evenly distributed. They may intentionally be slightly stronger forward by design, due to expecting the enemy being being ahead of you during your attack.
Originally by: Freyya tech science is used to make the plating on a ship equally strong no matter the thickness of the plating.
I disagree on this point
Some ships by design would have different armor setups based on who is designing the ship. For example lets say you are designing a sniper ship. That is the role it is specialized for you would naturally expect the target to be in one direction. It would make the ship less expensive to manufacture with armor/shield's from that direction, forward.
As opposed to making a ship heavier more expensive covering all angles.
Originally by: Freyya the ships are virtually always moving and turning such as when you're orbiting someone. The technical nature of how combat is handled makes it kinda useless and impossible to implement in any reasonable fasion.
This would be again apart of the design. Lets say you are designing an interceptor or an assault ship. Where the primary role involves orbiting than it would benefit you as a ship designer/manufacturer to set your defenses toward sides.
*********** Military Tactics Dasfry, Director Demio's Corporation
|
Zaiyo Modi
Minmatar Republic University
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 11:50:00 -
[4]
I feel this idea is suitable for capital ship warfare. Limited to damage output done with capital ship weaponry (exluding fighters and everything else, to limit server load and shape a capital-ship-warfare paradigm).
Shields & armor & hull: Front = stronger shields (favours an on approach vector) Rear = weaker shields (penalty to ships advancing in the outbound direction) Sides/top/bottom = normal shields (same effect over, unless there could be slight idiosyncratic penalties)
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 11:50:00 -
[5]
This is an excellent idea and would add a tactical element to combat. This is similar to, but simpler than an idea I voiced before. My idea also included the possibility of a module to allow the player to adjust the modifier so they could surprise the enemy with unconventional shield/armour setups.
I think the advantages of this are enormous in terms of making battles tactical rather than simple blobfests where he with the most ships wins.
|
Bevil Smyth
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 11:56:00 -
[6]
I also like the idea.
FC - right the enemy fleet is mostly composed of apocalypse class battleships which have weak armour on the underside i need a covops to get me a warpin point from the bottom of the gate.
Enemy FC on ambush - enemy below everyone align down and listen to the target caller.
It would make a tactical decision between surviving and slugging it out between fleets or staying aligned out and hoping you dont get bubbled for warpout if needed.
also closer range ships could get more viability in fleet engagements by being better able to cash in on enemy ships vulnerabilities, or by having massive armour on front and sides for their approach. ============================ 2003 and still alive! |
Dasfry
Caldari Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 12:07:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Lear Hepburn This is an excellent idea and would add a tactical element to combat. This is similar to, but simpler than an idea I voiced before. My idea also included the possibility of a module to allow the player to adjust the modifier so they could surprise the enemy with unconventional shield/armour setups.
I think the advantages of this are enormous in terms of making battles tactical rather than simple blobfests where he with the most ships wins.
Interesting idea regarding RCS. Also Thank you for the positive comments.
*********** Military Tactics Dasfry, Director Demio's Corporation
|
Dasfry
Caldari Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 12:11:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Bevil Smyth I also like the idea.
FC - right the enemy fleet is mostly composed of apocalypse class battleships which have weak armour on the underside i need a covops to get me a warpin point from the bottom of the gate.
Enemy FC on ambush - enemy below everyone align down and listen to the target caller.
It would make a tactical decision between surviving and slugging it out between fleets or staying aligned out and hoping you dont get bubbled for warpout if needed.
also closer range ships could get more viability in fleet engagements by being better able to cash in on enemy ships vulnerabilities, or by having massive armour on front and sides for their approach.
100% agree.
Another tactic would be to split up into 2 sniper blobs to attack an enemy sniper blob from 2 different directions. Forcing the enemy to choose which group to expose their rear, side, or belly too. *********** Military Tactics Dasfry, Director Demio's Corporation
|
Valandril
Caldari Ex-Mortis
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 13:25:00 -
[9]
I suggest OP to read what flanking, because it's not about hitting (in matter of exact action of shooting projectiles toward hostile) him from behind or from right side. And there are already flanking manouvers in eve which give you advantage. Signature graphics that may only contain your character name, corporation logo, corporation or personal slogan or other text that is directly related to your in-game persona, or content directly related to Eve Online. All content must be in good taste.Applebabe |
McEivalley
Fallen Angel's Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 13:55:00 -
[10]
IMO, you're both right and wrong. You're wrong about not having any tactical dvantage by flanking, especially when you're talking about tacklers (and Its not just inteceptors and dictors, but just about everything that can put a point on the target). It's especially obvious in combat near regional gates and POSes.
With that said, I think this idea will bring some realism to the game. However, some ships seem to be more vulnerable from the front or one of its sides (consider caldari and minmatar ships, which have a lot of asymetric designs), or even from above or below rather than the rear.
Bottom line is, this idea is a simplified but crud suggestion for targeting sub systems/inflicting module damage on ships. Personally, I don't like this solution.
Insert clever remark where?? |
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 14:17:00 -
[11]
Originally by: McEivalley IMO, you're both right and wrong. You're wrong about not having any tactical dvantage by flanking, especially when you're talking about tacklers (and Its not just inteceptors and dictors, but just about everything that can put a point on the target). It's especially obvious in combat near regional gates and POSes.
With that said, I think this idea will bring some realism to the game. However, some ships seem to be more vulnerable from the front or one of its sides (consider caldari and minmatar ships, which have a lot of asymetric designs), or even from above or below rather than the rear.
Bottom line is, this idea is a simplified but crud suggestion for targeting sub systems/inflicting module damage on ships. Personally, I don't like this solution.
Not at all. If you gain damage to the target by hitting it from the side then you will try to do so, surely? Therefore flanking has an advantage.
|
Dasfry
Caldari Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 14:17:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Valandril I suggest OP to read what flanking
I'm fully aware of what flanking is...
Actually I've done and still am doing my research on flanking for over a year. I have been writing about Military Tactics and have been putting together a eve wiki page on it.
Feel free to take a look.
Dasfry's guide to Military Tactics & Military Strategy
Also the whole point of flanking is to hit the weaker side of an enemy.
Currently eve does not receive a benefit from flanking. Yes, you can do the action of flanking, but theres no benefit. No reward. Its like going to work all week and not receiving a paycheck. There is no current incentive to tactically flank your opponent.
*********** Military Tactics Dasfry, CEO Demio's Corporation
|
Dasfry
Caldari Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 14:22:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Valandril And there are already flanking manouvers in eve which give you advantage.
Can you explain?
I am most interested in adding these maneuvers to my tactics page. Because as of right now from my point of view, their pretty close to non existent. *********** Military Tactics Dasfry, CEO Demio's Corporation
|
Valandril
Caldari Ex-Mortis
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 14:53:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Dasfry
Originally by: Valandril I suggest OP to read what flanking
I'm fully aware of what flanking is...
Actually I've done and still am doing my research on flanking for over a year. I have been writing about Military Tactics and have been putting together a eve wiki page on it.
Feel free to take a look.
Dasfry's guide to Military Tactics & Military Strategy
Also the whole point of flanking is to hit the weaker side of an enemy.
Currently eve does not receive a benefit from flanking. Yes, you can do the action of flanking, but theres no benefit. No reward. Its like going to work all week and not receiving a paycheck. There is no current incentive to tactically flank your opponent.
So because its not on some random wiki (this page got more titles than conent which makes me lol) then there is no benefit from flanking ? I beg to differ and i dare to ask you about your previous FC experience in large 0.0 battles (where there is enought ppl for actualy proper flank). And you apparently do now know what falnking is as you wrote: Quote: Currently eve is lacking the benefit of flanking in a tactical sense.
There is ZERO benefit to hitting an enemy ship from the front, side, top, bottom, or rear.
And flanking got nothing to do with hitting enemy from behind or side, none whatsoever. It's a manuver which goal is to engage side force of the opponent (which is ie. waiting as reinforcments) and reduce maneuverability of hostile. In eve it's very easly and commondly executed by dropping tackler forces (including short range fighters) on sides of hostile gang (+ bubbles) while rest is engaged in frontline sniperfire. Does sound like textbook definition of flanking to me, but what do i know as i don't keep "tactic page", instead i play the game. Signature graphics that may only contain your character name, corporation logo, corporation or personal slogan or other text that is directly related to your in-game persona, or content directly related to Eve Online. All content must be in good taste.Applebabe |
Ariso
Disiecta Membra
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:14:00 -
[15]
EVE needs things kept simple, you have all the tools at your disposal right now to carry out advanced maneuvers in EVE.
If your sniping generally once you take damage you warp out then back in if you have time before dying to focus fire of a fleet. This idea wouldnt change any of that except make it hard for the attacking force because they would have to face the defenders and this would mean they have to have a warp out directly behind the defenders.
If its close range fighting generally theres going to be a group and your going to be shot at from all sides anyway. One on one these changes would make it harder for small skirmish ships.
|
Zaiyo Modi
Minmatar Republic University
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:17:00 -
[16]
You score a point with explaining what a so called flanking manouver is usually known, someting which OP is not clarifying against, but it becomes silly to dictate what is and is not to be called "flanking".
Even labeling an attack, in hitting someone on their flank or something similar, as "a flanking manouver" is not barring one from seeing the whole thing in context, which you would have to do anyway to give meaning to the phrase "flanking manouver".
Though OP might have been wise to clarify this difference of these two views.
|
Washell Olivaw
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:30:00 -
[17]
Not going to happen until there's spare CPU power on the node during major fleet battles.
Originally by: Signature Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just don't have film.
|
Dasfry
Caldari Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:33:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Valandril So because its not on some random wiki ... then there is no benefit from flanking ?
No, this is not reverse causality.
Eve lacks benefits to flanking. Where you actually pay attention to which direction the enemy is facing and take it into consideration when deciding how to approach your enemy.
Right now, when you go into a fight what do you pay attention to? If you look at this, you'll notice you are not paying attention to which direction they are facing or to where you are hitting your enemy. Forward/side/rear/top/bottom? What you do see is, Where are they and how far away they are.
Originally by: Valandril this page got more titles than conent which makes me lol
You are exaggerating, and the page setup is done by design. Only a paragraph or two is written in with a link to a full page article about the subject. For example with the sniper tactics section, only a quick summary of about a paragraph followed up with a link directly to the full page article. Otherwise the entire Military Tactics page would be over 10x larger than it is today.
Again it is by design.
Originally by: Valandril And flanking got nothing to do with hitting enemy from behind or side, none whatsoever.
I disagree, it has a lot to do with it.
Originally by: Valandril It's a manuver which goal is to engage side force of the opponent (which is ie. waiting as reinforcments) and reduce maneuverability of hostile. In eve it's very easly and commondly executed by dropping tackler forces (including short range fighters) on sides of hostile gang (+ bubbles) while rest is engaged in frontline sniperfire. Does sound like textbook definition of flanking to me, .
That is just maneuvering, not flanking.
What you described does not take into consideration which direction the approach is from. Your attacking force does not care which direction your enemy is facing. All that is of major importance to the snipers + tacklers + damage dealers, is range.
Just because you have 1 group attacking at sniper range and a second group attacking up close does not somehow turn it into flanking. *********** Military Tactics Dasfry, CEO Demio's Corporation
|
McEivalley
Fallen Angel's Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:36:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Lear Hepburn
Originally by: McEivalley IMO, you're both right and wrong. You're wrong about not having any tactical dvantage by flanking, especially when you're talking about tacklers (and Its not just inteceptors and dictors, but just about everything that can put a point on the target). It's especially obvious in combat near regional gates and POSes.
With that said, I think this idea will bring some realism to the game. However, some ships seem to be more vulnerable from the front or one of its sides (consider caldari and minmatar ships, which have a lot of asymetric designs), or even from above or below rather than the rear.
Bottom line is, this idea is a simplified but crud suggestion for targeting sub systems/inflicting module damage on ships. Personally, I don't like this solution.
Not at all. If you gain damage to the target by hitting it from the side then you will try to do so, surely? Therefore flanking has an advantage.
Read my post again. Then read it again if you haven't figured out why. If you still haven't got it, here's a hint: I said that regardless of this idea, flanking is already something worth doing, for other reasons.
Insert clever remark where?? |
Dasfry
Caldari Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:40:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Dasfry on 04/06/2009 15:40:48
Originally by: Lear Hepburn If you gain damage to the target by hitting it from the side then you will try to do so, surely? Therefore flanking has an advantage.
Exactly!
Another reason not to just blob up but to spread out. That gives you a reward to do so. *********** Military Tactics Dasfry, CEO Demio's Corporation
|
|
Dasfry
Caldari Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:48:00 -
[21]
Originally by: McEivalley I think this idea will bring some realism to the game.
Agreed.
Originally by: McEivalley However, some ships seem to be more vulnerable from the front or one of its sides (consider caldari and minmatar ships, which have a lot of asymetric designs), or even from above or below rather than the rear.
Very true. Perhaps minmatar being fast ships, could benefit from having stronger side armor/shields than forward. *********** Military Tactics Dasfry, CEO Demio's Corporation
|
Dasfry
Caldari Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:51:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Dasfry on 04/06/2009 15:51:20
Originally by: Washell Olivaw Not going to happen until there's spare CPU power on the node...
That's a different issue. *********** Military Tactics Dasfry, CEO Demio's Corporation
|
McEivalley
Fallen Angel's Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 15:52:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Dasfry
Originally by: McEivalley I think this idea will bring some realism to the game.
Agreed.
However, I'm not sure that it would make the game more fun.
Insert clever remark where?? |
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 16:45:00 -
[24]
Originally by: McEivalley Read my post again. Then read it again if you haven't figured out why. If you still haven't got it, here's a hint: I said that regardless of this idea, flanking is already something worth doing, for other reasons.
We meant flanking in different ways. I am talking about the effect of crossfire. I have explained this in the other thread.
|
Dasfry
Caldari Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 17:31:00 -
[25]
Originally by: McEivalley However, I'm not sure that it would make the game more fun.
True, just because something is more realistic does not mean it will be more fun.
However in this particular example, I believe it will make pvp more fun because battles will encourage players to do more than blob up and simply get with in attack range. *********** Military Tactics Dasfry, CEO Demio's Corporation
|
Inglix Redhammer
Gallente All Tactical Telemetry
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 19:52:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Washell Olivaw Not going to happen until there's spare CPU power on the node during major fleet battles.
This is the real point. You'd also have to have better collision detection and much tighter control over where the server is recording people. While it's not haphazard now, the computational requirements would get staggering very quickly. |
Dasfry
Caldari Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 08:14:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Dasfry on 05/06/2009 08:15:46
Originally by: Inglix Redhammer
Originally by: Washell Olivaw Not going to happen until there's spare CPU power on the node during major fleet battles.
This is the real point. You'd also have to have better collision detection and much tighter control over where the server is recording people. While it's not haphazard now, the computational requirements would get staggering very quickly.
I hope you're not seriously suggesting the eve sever isn't capable of handling such a small addition to the damage caculation formula such as...
1.1(x) where x is the current damage calculation solution, and the 1.1 is derrived from the direction of the incoming fire.
Now lets compare that addition to what a missile damage calculation currently looks like.
As stated by Electrofreak on this thread...
Originally by: Electrofreak If Target Signature Radius >= Missile Explosion Radius, then ( Target Signature Radius / Missile Explosion Radius ) = 1.0
If Target Velocity <= Missile Explosion Velocity, then ( Target Velocity - Missile Explosion Velocity ) = 0.0
Missile Damage * (Target Signature Radius / Missile Explosion Radius) * e^( -1 * (Target Velocity - Missile Explosion Velocity )^2 / (1500^2) ) = Final Missile Damage
Inglix Redhammer, your telling me eve can handle all that math and more but i cannot handle the addition of a 1.1 multiplier added into the damage calculations, based on the direction of incoming fire?
*********** Military Tactics Dasfry, CEO Demio's Corporation
|
Washell Olivaw
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 11:17:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Dasfry I hope you're not seriously suggesting the eve sever isn't capable of handling such a small addition to the damage caculation formula such as...
1.1(x) where x is the current damage calculation solution, and the 1.1 is derrived from the direction of the incoming fire.
It can handle that fine. What will bring it to its knees is the part where he checks ship orientation vs direction of fire times several thousand in a big fleet battle in order to get that modifier. 3D math, very expensive CPU calculations. |
something somethingdark
|
Posted - 2009.06.05 12:10:00 -
[29]
technicaly im all in favor but for me that automaticaly brings the need for me of being capable of being able to flip my ship lets say in the apoc example .... ships are arriving underneeth everybody turn yourselves upside down
the ships that can model wise (not all engines in the back) would get a "reverse gear" but the rest would be stuck in forward ?
if we get these damage zones i want fireing arcs on my guns aswell!! thats just adds to the whole ship orientation thing (but what about the guns on the other side ?... )
not only would all that make eve a completly diffrent game in my eyes (not that i would mind) but from the technical perspective alone i dont think we quite have that processing power yet to make 500 people in system fights smooth (not a freak occurence anymore) and then thers the whole are you confident in CCP being able to deliver an intuitive UI for all of this that doesnt involve 5 mile deep rightclick menus ?
dont get me wrong ... id love to see this and more but i dont think we can have that in the next 5-10 years |
Dasfry
Caldari Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.06 00:09:00 -
[30]
Originally by: something somethingdark if we get these damage zones i want fireing arcs on my guns aswell!!
Haha,
The firing arcs already exist... it just well they are all Omnidirectional. *********** Military Tactics Dasfry, CEO Demio's Corporation
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |