Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Guy LeDuche
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 21:30:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Earthan
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida It works fine in a game like SoSE where you don't have a ton of database queries and server chatter going back and forth .. just imagine the extra information needed for you proposal, lag can be bad as is - this would make it truly epic CCP mentioned something about a field defense shield they were working on, so it would seem that they to are getting fed up with blob-on-blob action and are looking for ways to discourage it.
Originally by: Nuts Nougat I would support the **** out of removing names of anyone not in your fleet (make it like d-scan).
It's an awesome idea but needs more tools for FC's and/or squad/wing commanders, adding the ability to automatically transmit targets for instance. Combined with the equally bad-ass idea of formations and we suddenly have fleets with semi-independently operating squads and wings wreaking havoc across the stars.
Yea that might be problem , the computation power could be unrealisitc for this. But maybe ccp magicians can coem up with something alike but needing little computing power?
No offense, but did you just pull that fresh out of your ass? Computation for damage curve is done every time anyone shoots anyone else, based on a lot of factors, like range, speed, sig, vector, etc. What reason do you have in assuming a simple mitigation curve would require "unrealistic" amount of computation power? If anything, it would help easy lag by breaking up blobs.
|
Nub Sauce
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 21:42:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Guy LeDuche
No offense, but did you just pull that fresh out of your ass? Computation for damage curve is done every time anyone shoots anyone else, based on a lot of factors, like range, speed, sig, vector, etc. What reason do you have in assuming a simple mitigation curve would require "unrealistic" amount of computation power? If anything, it would help easy lag by breaking up blobs.
Excellent point about there already being tons of factors... one more wouldn't make much difference. I don't know if it would do away with blobs, but at least people could have more fun than being instapopped in larger battles.
|
HOwareyoutoday
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 21:57:00 -
[33]
Edited by: HOwareyoutoday on 15/09/2010 22:08:19
Originally by: Nub Sauce
The problem with this is that a bunch of your own team could have you targetted already and cause enemies huge problems. VERY exploitable in a bad way.
Since you are well aware that computers have no trouble computing simple Integers (and reals), would it be too hard to implement an integer multiplier for the "Noise" system. Here is the basic and simple programming that would be needed to fix this.
Event - A pilot targets another Pilot Variables C = Targeting Pilot D = Targeted Pilot S = Current Stacks of Noise Conditions - NONE Actions IF - [OR] 1) Pilot C is flagged red to Pilot D 2) Pilot D is flagged red to Pilot C Then 1) Apply one stack of Noise to Pilot D with multiplier (1) 2) Increase targeting time from Pilot C to Pilot D by "S" seconds. Else 1) Do nothing 2) Do nothing
Any problem you point out, there is a basic counter to via programming.
EDIT: It also wouldn't take much programming to change to change the noise multiplier according to the signature radius of the ship. The larger the ship, the less noise protection it enjoys. A battleship should still benefit greatly from noise though. A carrier should see some some protection from noise, but not much. SC's and Titan's should not be included at all.
|
Sigras
|
Posted - 2010.09.16 00:24:00 -
[34]
But with blues not adding to the noise you throw RP out the window, as well as introduce a whole bunch more problems IE if I'm red to you but you're blue to me, does the targeting noise only work one way? What about neutrals? The problems go on and on
Additionally would the targeting noise work retroactively like a sensor disruptor or would it be calculated when the targeting sequence is initiated.
Honestly I know that this would not reduce blobs, it would just make more primary targets, as an FC I would just call "primary targets are the falcons, secondary targets are the guardians" and everyone would just spam lock on all of those classes of ship, whoever got locked first would be the one who gets shot.
I like trying to break up blobs but neither of these ideas are the ways to do it.
As I said in another thread, if you want to eliminate blobs you need to find something that only small groups can do or do far better than blobs
|
Skarfase
|
Posted - 2010.09.16 02:27:00 -
[35]
I can't say I'm much of a fan of the targeting noise idea, but reduced damage when shot by large numbers of enemies would make sense. Obviously you would have to do the same to RR's, (Less RR per person RRing). I'd also like to agree that this would break up blobs, and I'm sure that it would help, but I can't see that it would honestly end anything. More people would still always be better, and that's the point of a blob. It would certainly make fleet fights more interesting, without everything just getting alpha striked and perhaps a bit more skillful in requirements for coordination.
|
Tornicks
Caldari U-208 Blade.
|
Posted - 2010.09.16 14:52:00 -
[36]
Supported. This is the primary concern that needs balancing in EVE. -- 'Non-essential personnel, abandon ship.' Admiral Yakiya Tovil-Toba's last command, CE23155
|
Vladimiru
Gallente Nanite Industries Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2010.09.16 15:49:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Vladimiru on 16/09/2010 15:56:16
Originally by: Sigras I'm red to you but you're blue to me, does the targeting noise only work one way?
The answer to this question is found in the post above yours. There is an OR condition.
EDIT: In fact asking people to look for an answer on this forum is pointless, allow me to give it to you.
If he targets you, noise will apply because this condition is fulfilled: Pilot D is NOT flagged blue Pilot C = true
If you target him, noise will still apply because the other condition is now fulfilled (you are now pilot C since you are the targeting pilot): Pilot C is NOT flagged blue to Pilot D = true
|
Vladimiru
Gallente Nanite Industries Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2010.09.16 16:29:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Sigras I'm red to you but you're blue to me, does the targeting noise only work one way?
The answer to this question is found in the post above yours. There is an OR condition.
If he targets you, noise will apply because this condition is fulfilled: Pilot D is NOT flagged blue Pilot C = true
If you target him, noise will still apply because the other condition is now fulfilled (you are now pilot C since you are the targeting pilot): Pilot C is NOT flagged blue to Pilot D = true
EDIT
Quote: Additionally would the targeting noise work retroactively like a sensor disruptor or would it be calculated when the targeting sequence is initiated
Yes the Noise Trigger would fire when the target sequence is initiated. However your failure to read the "Event" that fires the trigger is your failure again. Please don't criticize someone's post if you didn't even read it. By the way thanks Howareyoutoday for showing people how simple the programming would be, if only they would read it.
Quote: Honestly I know that this would not reduce blobs
Of course you don't, you don't even know how to read.
|
Nub Sauce
|
Posted - 2010.09.16 16:46:00 -
[39]
The least exploitable method of calculating the diminished returns of having tons of people firing at one target is basing it on how many modules are firing at them.
This brings another level of strategic depth with ships that have lower weapon hard points but get a bonus to damage.
Another level of this would be to take into consideration the size of the module that is firing on the target. So perhaps 3 smalls would be equal to 2 medium or something along those lines.
This brings in another strategic level of depth which brings purpose to intercepting smaller ships with smaller ships. A single battleship could cause as much interference as 3 cruisers or something.
This applies to both harmful and helpful modules. If it's a flat count of ships firing or modules firing without accounting for module size, smaller RR modules will be shunned for taking up RR interference.
The details aren't really important at the moment, more so that the devs get the concept and implement something along these lines in a balanced manner.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2010.09.16 17:01:00 -
[40]
introduce line of sigh, problem solved... make it so missiles always hit intended target, turrets shoot los. omg problem fixed, too bad it's 2004 tech, oh wait... it's 2010.
time to update archaic gameplay.
|
|
Nomistrav
|
Posted - 2010.09.16 17:38:00 -
[41]
To sum up my opinion: I like small gang warfare but I love large fleet warfare. Don't give them a reason to absolutely annihilate one or the other, and I'm happy. This damage mitigation talk will indeed make large fleets useless as the micromanagement wouldn't be worth the effort.
|
Earthan
Gallente GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2010.09.16 19:17:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Earthan on 16/09/2010 19:20:49 Edited by: Earthan on 16/09/2010 19:20:00
Originally by: Nomistrav To sum up my opinion: I like small gang warfare but I love large fleet warfare. Don't give them a reason to absolutely annihilate one or the other, and I'm happy. This damage mitigation talk will indeed make large fleets useless as the micromanagement wouldn't be worth the effort.
I dont think it will make it useless.
I like the thrill of big fleet but i am not to impressed with the tactics that atm you can use in it mostly its shoot x shoot y.
If soemthing along the shield/armor/hull mitigation would be timplemented im pretty sure blobs would still be on , a 150 man fleet would still kill nicely a 50 man fleet, just slower and maybe to be effective owould have to divide into 5-10 squads to maximise firepower.Also both sides would have a chance to think wahts happening and maybe come up with a clever tactic.
Also people getting primaried would have achance to do soemthign before dying , woudl have moire fun out of the game.
|
HOwareyoutoday
|
Posted - 2010.09.16 20:42:00 -
[43]
Edited by: HOwareyoutoday on 16/09/2010 20:43:31
Originally by: Nub Sauce The least exploitable method of calculating the diminished returns of having tons of people firing at one target is basing it on how many modules are firing at them.
This brings another level of strategic depth with ships that have lower weapon hard points but get a bonus to damage.
Another level of this would be to take into consideration the size of the module that is firing on the target. So perhaps 3 smalls would be equal to 2 medium or something along those lines.
This brings in another strategic level of depth which brings purpose to intercepting smaller ships with smaller ships. A single battleship could cause as much interference as 3 cruisers or something.
This applies to both harmful and helpful modules. If it's a flat count of ships firing or modules firing without accounting for module size, smaller RR modules will be shunned for taking up RR interference.
The details aren't really important at the moment, more so that the devs get the concept and implement something along these lines in a balanced manner.
This is interesting, I'll adapt my rather "primitive" idea to this and see if I can come up with something that works.
EDIT: The most difficult thing with these ideas/proposals are avoiding exploits, and not nearly as easy to avoid as I had originally envisioned in my previous post.
|
Sigras
|
Posted - 2010.09.16 22:14:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Vladimiru
Quote: Additionally would the targeting noise work retroactively like a sensor disruptor or would it be calculated when the targeting sequence is initiated
Yes the Noise Trigger would fire when the target sequence is initiated. However your failure to read the "Event" that fires the trigger is your failure again. Please don't criticize someone's post if you didn't even read it. By the way thanks Howareyoutoday for showing people how simple the programming would be, if only they would read it.
I'm sorry but #1 these were only a few of the questions that would haves to be answered and the tip of the iceberg for the problems here #2 that is epic fail programming [Quote=vladimiru]
Quote: Honestly I know that this would not reduce blobs
Of course you don't, you don't even know how to read.
Who can't read now?
As I said, I do know that this would not reduce blobs
More still equals better for instance, if the absolute max people who can target any given battlenull ship is 10 and our fleets fight, I bring 10 battleships and you bring 20, I get to nuke one of your ships, and you nuke one of mine and put a second in deep armor in 20 seconds (attrition due to confusion of having two primaries) more is still far better and thus people will always bring more
Additionally to the request about line of sight, I REALLY like this idea but even with an octary sorting tree where the calculations are reduced to N*log(n) that's still hundreds of calculations per gun per shot with only 30 people on grid its sad but can't be done with today's server tech :(
|
Vladimiru
Gallente Nanite Industries Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2010.09.17 02:08:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Sigras Edited by: Sigras on 16/09/2010 22:18:05
Originally by: Vladimiru
Quote: Additionally would the targeting noise work retroactively like a sensor disruptor or would it be calculated when the targeting sequence is initiated
Yes the Noise Trigger would fire when the target sequence is initiated. However your failure to read the "Event" that fires the trigger is your failure again. Please don't criticize someone's post if you didn't even read it. By the way thanks Howareyoutoday for showing people how simple the programming would be, if only they would read it.
I'm sorry but #1 these were only a few of the questions that would haves to be answered and the tip of the iceberg for the problems here #2 that is epic fail programming
Originally by: vladimiru
Quote: Honestly I know that this would not reduce blobs
Of course you don't, you don't even know how to read.
Who can't read now?
As I said, I do know that this would not reduce blobs
More still equals better for instance, if the absolute max people who can target any given battlenull ship is 10 and our fleets fight, I bring 10 battleships and you bring 20, I get to nuke one of your ships, and you nuke one of mine and put a second in deep armor in 20 seconds (attrition due to confusion of having two primaries) more is still far better and thus people will always bring more
Additionally to the request about line of sight, I REALLY like this idea but even with an octary sorting tree where the calculations are reduced to N*log(n) that's still hundreds of calculations per gun per shot with only 30 people on grid its sad but can't be done with today's server tech :(
I don't want to reduce blobs with noise. I like large fleets. I simply want people to ENJOY large fights by not being insta-popped with 70million EHP. Noise helps this.
|
Sigras
|
Posted - 2010.09.17 04:25:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Vladimiru I don't want to reduce blobs with noise. I like large fleets. I simply want people to ENJOY large fights by not being insta-popped with 70million EHP. Noise helps this.
ah, well if thats you're goal, this would certainly slow down large fleet fights, you are correct
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2010.09.17 05:06:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Sigras
Additionally to the request about line of sight, I REALLY like this idea but even with an octary sorting tree where the calculations are reduced to N*log(n) that's still hundreds of calculations per gun per shot with only 30 people on grid its sad but can't be done with today's server tech :(
No need to calculate physical properties of individual projectiles. All that needs to be done is determine if something is in-between the the target and the shooter. Closest person/object Intersecting the line between the shooter and target takes dmg.
|
Sigras
|
Posted - 2010.09.17 08:07:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Fistme
Originally by: Sigras
Additionally to the request about line of sight, I REALLY like this idea but even with an octary sorting tree where the calculations are reduced to N*log(n) that's still hundreds of calculations per gun per shot with only 30 people on grid its sad but can't be done with today's server tech :(
No need to calculate physical properties of individual projectiles. All that needs to be done is determine if something is in-between the the target and the shooter. Closest person/object Intersecting the line between the shooter and target takes dmg.
well my idea was to make the guns not fire to prevent cloak griefing missioners in high sec, but aside from that, the calculation you just mentioned is the problem
Essentially any program trying to do this calculation would draw a line (preferably a cone or frustum rather than a line so a megathron could not be occluded by a taranis) and ask every object on grid "Do you or any part of you lie within the area of this frustum?"
the REAL difficult part would be determining if the target were partially occluded by one object and partially occluded by another if there was anywhere to aim or if it was completely in the shadow of those two objects in the forefront
Allow me to illustrate, youre in a sniper Apoc at 200k shooting at a megathron. There are two supercarriers in the way but neither of them fully covers the megathron youre targeting yet you still arent technically in LOS, why? because one supercarrier covers half the ship and the other one covers the other half leaving you nowhere to target, however this calculation is ridiculously difficult to process
the calculations run in the tens of thousands per shot in a large fleet battle even if you use signature radius instead of ship model for your hit faces . . . i wish it were possible, I really do, but there is a reason very few current MMOs work this way its just too darn difficult.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |