Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Earthan
Gallente GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 19:49:00 -
[1]
1-Problem
Imho Eve pvp fights are pretty good and offer good tactical choices at about 20-30 man.
When the fleets goes up to 50 good dps ships and more , the fights start more and more consist of both sides just killign ships in one volley. You dont have time to think , it stops to matter so much if you are good pilot , its not fun for anyone.
2-Proposition
While playing sins of solar empire these last days i really liked the way they solved this problem, even when you got a 100+ ships blob there and you focus on 1 target it still will last a bit:
They intoduced something called shield mitigation , the more ships shoot on same target, the more dmg is absorbed by the shield of a ship , so the mroe you focus the loss return you see.
Im not saying this is exactly the solution but its really workign there, maybe somethign similar.
3-Benefit
Even if you got primaried you still last a bit so its mroe fun for you and those that try to kill you.
Maybe it will be beneficial to split fleet into few squads with target callers , making another layer of tactical complexity, involving more poeple.
Killing will slow down so overall you can think a bit more during battle
|
Goose99
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:04:00 -
[2]
Supported. This would reduce the incentive to raise blobs to as big as possible and give a reason to split up. Would also alleviate lagging.
|
Alara IonStorm
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:18:00 -
[3]
That is crazy!
So crazy it just might work!
what about armor tankers thou!
-- Tactical Responder who is Organized and a Leading-edge Linguist |
Goose99
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:24:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Goose99 on 13/09/2010 20:25:08
Originally by: Alara IonStorm That is crazy!
So crazy it just might work!
what about armor tankers thou!
I'm sure they can come up with some kind of sci-fi rp explanation for the armor version. Just a matter of making up fiction to justify good game mechanics.
Would be nice if mitigation fades after a certain amount of time, or does not apply for supercaps though. Would be nice to be able to take down a titan before next DT.
|
Earthan
Gallente GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:24:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Alara IonStorm That is crazy!
So crazy it just might work!
what about armor tankers thou!
:)
I was talking about the orginal idea, ofc for eve it would have ot be both shield/armor/hull mitigation
Its just a concept to work on , you woudl have to balance a lot of things im sure.
|
Earthan
Gallente GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:27:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Goose99
Originally by: Alara IonStorm That is crazy!
So crazy it just might work!
what about armor tankers thou!
I'm sure they can come up with some kind of sci-fi rp explanation for the armor version.
Would be nice if mitigation fades after a certain amount of time, or does not apply for supercaps though. Would be nice to be able to take down a titan before next DT.
good point. Or take into account ship class for each mitigation level, so you can pour much more dmg on capitals before its starts working
|
Alara IonStorm
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:33:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Earthan
Originally by: Goose99
Originally by: Alara IonStorm
good point. Or take into account ship class for each mitigation level, so you can pour much more dmg on capitals before its starts working
Maybe it can work based on Signature Radius, or Mass!
-- Tactical Responder who is Organized and a Leading-edge Linguist |
Nub Sauce
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:35:00 -
[8]
Some time ago, I suggested weapons fire interference as a way to prevent instant death when getting attacked by tons of people.
Depending on the size of ship (bigger takes more attackers), after so many ships are firing at it, targetting interference comes into play. The interference doesn't preventing target locks, but the effectiveness of the weapons firing upon the target. Projectile weapons would score lesser hits, missiles would explode off target a bit doing less damage.
Pretty similar to what you are proposing, just a good in-game reason for it to occur.
|
Bhattran
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:59:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Alara IonStorm That is crazy!
So crazy it just might work!
what about armor tankers thou!
-------------------------------------------------------------- Fanboys would make great cult members. |
Earthan
Gallente GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 21:00:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Nub Sauce Some time ago, I suggested weapons fire interference as a way to prevent instant death when getting attacked by tons of people.
Depending on the size of ship (bigger takes more attackers), after so many ships are firing at it, targetting interference comes into play. The interference doesn't preventing target locks, but the effectiveness of the weapons firing upon the target. Projectile weapons would score lesser hits, missiles would explode off target a bit doing less damage.
Pretty similar to what you are proposing, just a good in-game reason for it to occur.
yep pretty same , i would be as happy with this.
|
|
Reeno Coleman
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 11:23:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Nub Sauce Some time ago, I suggested weapons fire interference as a way to prevent instant death when getting attacked by tons of people.
Depending on the size of ship (bigger takes more attackers), after so many ships are firing at it, targetting interference comes into play. The interference doesn't preventing target locks, but the effectiveness of the weapons firing upon the target. Projectile weapons would score lesser hits, missiles would explode off target a bit doing less damage.
Pretty similar to what you are proposing, just a good in-game reason for it to occur.
i like that, as long as this is limited to sub-capital ship sizes. Maybe this could be accompanied by a wing or squad-based target calling / broadcasting mechanism, to give more incentive for the right tactical choice of spreading fire. All in all it would increase tactical depth, because it adds a new decision layer and maybe this even calls for new target-call-specialists in fleets.
|
Wyke Mossari
Gallente Staner Industries
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 12:10:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Wyke Mossari on 15/09/2010 12:11:28 The general principle of this suggestion makes good sense. It is anti-blobbing and realistic.
It seems likely that pouring all types of offensive fire on one ship would mitigate some of the damage.
Hybrid & Projectile damaging missiles, missiles colliding, beams vaporising missiles & ammo and absorbing some beam energy.
|
Ned Black
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 12:27:00 -
[13]
A solution to the blobfesting problem could be to remove the names from people that are not in your fleet.
With the current situation where anyone whos name begins with an A or a Z is in deep trouble I think this approach may appeal a great deal.
Removing the names would make it a lot harder to actually focus fire on a specific ship... unless some poor ******* decides to come in a ship that nobody else flies in that fleet.
In small fleets distances between fighting parts are normally much lower so broadcasting targets in those fleetw would be viable.
|
Nomistrav
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 12:49:00 -
[14]
Stating from actual large fleet combat experience:
A.) We already have a wing/squad broadcast system. In the bottom right corner of your fleet window is what looks like four arrows connected in the center. This is your ability to choose who to broadcast to (everyone, my group, superiors). Depending on whether or not you are a wing or squad commander this applies to you.
B.)Mitigation is unrealistic, as you are all targeting the same target and at different distances/angles. It's like saying you and a friend are both shooting pool balls from different sides of the table. Unless by some astronomical means of physical coincedence (sp) those pool balls aren't going to hit each other and suddenly obliterate one/the other/themselves.
C.) I like where the topic is going, and it would solve a lot of issues (albeit perhaps more than cause physics/realism wise) but it doesn't natural and would require incredible amounts of micromanagement that would add problems. In fact it would probably add more lag with both sides barking out broadcasts (especially spamming them if lag was preventing the command issued)
Mostly the reason 'blob' tactics are in effect is because logistics are fielded and it takes a lot of DPS to counter 20 logistics healing one person. I'll support it if this 'mitigation' were to counter the mass affect of the logistics.
|
Skex Relbore
Gallente Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 15:06:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Skex Relbore on 15/09/2010 15:07:36
Originally by: Nomistrav Stating from actual large fleet combat experience:
B.)Mitigation is unrealistic, as you are all targeting the same target and at different distances/angles. It's like saying you and a friend are both shooting pool balls from different sides of the table. Unless by some astronomical means of physical coincedence (sp) those pool balls aren't going to hit each other and suddenly obliterate one/the other/themselves.
Actually this isn't quite correct. The fact that you are shooting from multiple vectors actually makes the alpha make less not more sense. Because both armor and shield coverage are 360 degrees and in three dimensions so an attack from a slightly different angle is going to be hitting a different physical location of a ship. In the case of armor it may be hitting a fresh undamaged plate rather than one that has already taken damage in the case of shields there is a balancing factor as the shield protection equalizes across it's surface.
Now the problem with such an idea is the problem that is always faced by any defensive system. It's easier to just throw more firepower at a target than to defend it. If you introduce damage mitigation as suggested the most likely solution would not be to reduce the number of ships brought into a fight but rather increase it as you work to overwhelm the newer mitigated defense.
So while this idea sounds good in theory in practice I suspect it would have rather the opposite effect from it's intended, and as such would encourage more blobbing not less.
|
Nuts Nougat
Perkone
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 15:12:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Ned Black A solution to the blobfesting problem could be to remove the names from people that are not in your fleet.
With the current situation where anyone whos name begins with an A or a Z is in deep trouble I think this approach may appeal a great deal.
Removing the names would make it a lot harder to actually focus fire on a specific ship... unless some poor ******* decides to come in a ship that nobody else flies in that fleet.
In small fleets distances between fighting parts are normally much lower so broadcasting targets in those fleetw would be viable.
I would support the **** out of removing names of anyone not in your fleet (make it like d-scan). ---
|
Goose99
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 15:12:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Goose99 on 15/09/2010 15:13:51 Edited by: Goose99 on 15/09/2010 15:12:41
Originally by: Skex Relbore Edited by: Skex Relbore on 15/09/2010 15:07:36
Originally by: Nomistrav Stating from actual large fleet combat experience:
B.)Mitigation is unrealistic, as you are all targeting the same target and at different distances/angles. It's like saying you and a friend are both shooting pool balls from different sides of the table. Unless by some astronomical means of physical coincedence (sp) those pool balls aren't going to hit each other and suddenly obliterate one/the other/themselves.
Actually this isn't quite correct. The fact that you are shooting from multiple vectors actually makes the alpha make less not more sense. Because both armor and shield coverage are 360 degrees and in three dimensions so an attack from a slightly different angle is going to be hitting a different physical location of a ship. In the case of armor it may be hitting a fresh undamaged plate rather than one that has already taken damage in the case of shields there is a balancing factor as the shield protection equalizes across it's surface.
Now the problem with such an idea is the problem that is always faced by any defensive system. It's easier to just throw more firepower at a target than to defend it. If you introduce damage mitigation as suggested the most likely solution would not be to reduce the number of ships brought into a fight but rather increase it as you work to overwhelm the newer mitigated defense.
So while this idea sounds good in theory in practice I suspect it would have rather the opposite effect from it's intended, and as such would encourage more blobbing not less.
It depends on how steep the stacking penalty curve is. If you apply a flat % mitigation to 2 attackers and 100, it'll encourage blobs. If you curve it to a point where 5 attackers suffer almost no penalty, but anything more than 50 does almost no additional dps, huge blobs you see today will no longer exist.
Stacking penalty can apply to blob rr as well. No reason why it shouldn't.
|
Glyken Touchon
Gallente Independent Alchemists
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 15:35:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Glyken Touchon on 15/09/2010 15:37:21 would it be based on number of ships shooting/number of weapons shooting.
how would it take into account drones? would it treat frigate weapons the same as capital ones? would it affect ecm?
if it treats frigates the same as BS/caps, then it would just encourage people to supersize into cap ships.
Good concept, but the devil could be in the detail.
could have the leadership skills make an impact on the mitigation point/level.
|
Floating Lemming
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 17:38:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Floating Lemming on 15/09/2010 17:40:54 Edited by: Floating Lemming on 15/09/2010 17:38:41
Originally by: Goose99 It depends on how steep the stacking penalty curve is. If you apply a flat % mitigation to 2 attackers and 100, it'll encourage blobs. If you curve it to a point where 5 attackers suffer almost no penalty, but anything more than 50 does almost no additional dps, huge blobs you see today will no longer exist.
Stacking penalty can apply to blob rr as well. No reason why it shouldn't.
Thing is , you can run logistics chains not breakable by less than 50-60 ships.
Add a bit of lag and you need 100+ people shooting the same target to break the logistics. These setups have in a ton of engagements proven that an 80 man fleet can crush forces 3-4 times their size.
So instead of blobs you would just have groups of invulverable ships. It was seen during Max2 in the north when certain closerange/rr logistics builds under laggy conditions only was countered by bringing in the capitals and doomsdaying the logistics.
Regular BS fleets and battlecruiserbased support fleets couldnt stop that.
PL has proven that ahacs can counter it but then armorhacs is also a setup where you depend on the power of logistics ships. This has also proved that a 50-80 man gang can engage forces 3-4 times their number and win , again and again and again.
Edit , typo's and more info
|
Vladimiru
Gallente Broken Cannon
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 17:42:00 -
[20]
Something more realistic would be better, the proposal:
Noise
For every ship that targets you, targeting time for other ships is now increased by X%.
|
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 18:31:00 -
[21]
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.
|
Goose99
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 18:54:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Floating Lemming Edited by: Floating Lemming on 15/09/2010 17:40:54 Edited by: Floating Lemming on 15/09/2010 17:38:41
Originally by: Goose99 It depends on how steep the stacking penalty curve is. If you apply a flat % mitigation to 2 attackers and 100, it'll encourage blobs. If you curve it to a point where 5 attackers suffer almost no penalty, but anything more than 50 does almost no additional dps, huge blobs you see today will no longer exist.
Stacking penalty can apply to blob rr as well. No reason why it shouldn't.
Thing is , you can run logistics chains not breakable by less than 50-60 ships.
Add a bit of lag and you need 100+ people shooting the same target to break the logistics. These setups have in a ton of engagements proven that an 80 man fleet can crush forces 3-4 times their size.
So instead of blobs you would just have groups of invulverable ships. It was seen during Max2 in the north when certain closerange/rr logistics builds under laggy conditions only was countered by bringing in the capitals and doomsdaying the logistics.
Regular BS fleets and battlecruiserbased support fleets couldnt stop that.
PL has proven that ahacs can counter it but then armorhacs is also a setup where you depend on the power of logistics ships. This has also proved that a 50-80 man gang can engage forces 3-4 times their number and win , again and again and again.
Edit , typo's and more info
Again:
Quote: Stacking penalty can apply to blob rr as well. No reason why it shouldn't.
|
Earthan
Gallente GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 19:46:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Nomistrav Stating from actual large fleet combat experience:
A.) We already have a wing/squad broadcast system. In the bottom right corner of your fleet window is what looks like four arrows connected in the center. This is your ability to choose who to broadcast to (everyone, my group, superiors). Depending on whether or not you are a wing or squad commander this applies to you.
B.)Mitigation is unrealistic, as you are all targeting the same target and at different distances/angles. It's like saying you and a friend are both shooting pool balls from different sides of the table. Unless by some astronomical means of physical coincedence (sp) those pool balls aren't going to hit each other and suddenly obliterate one/the other/themselves.
C.) I like where the topic is going, and it would solve a lot of issues (albeit perhaps more than cause physics/realism wise) but it doesn't natural and would require incredible amounts of micromanagement that would add problems. In fact it would probably add more lag with both sides barking out broadcasts (especially spamming them if lag was preventing the command issued)
Mostly the reason 'blob' tactics are in effect is because logistics are fielded and it takes a lot of DPS to counter 20 logistics healing one person. I'll support it if this 'mitigation' were to counter the mass affect of the logistics.
Id ont care so much about realism , you can justify however you want the effect.I mean its unrealistic atm that eveyone is shooting past each other in blobs, we should be shoooting each othe rint he back most of time...
I just know in sins of solar empire that effect works great and adds lots to fun.
The logisitcs have nothing to do with blobs, blobs were long long before the logostocs were even introduced to the game.
|
Earthan
Gallente GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 19:52:00 -
[24]
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?
|
EmpireOfDust
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 20:13:00 -
[25]
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?
Just base it on the number of people in the system then?
Once X people are in the system, a system-wide effect comes into effect causing - damage or some other useful effect such as +cycle time on all modules? along with a -damage which increases with number of people this would discourage such large blobs i think, But even then your going to just have someone trying to bring a bigger blob, meaning the only real solution is a cap on the number of people in the system per alliance.
|
Earthan
Gallente GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 20:16:00 -
[26]
cap on the number of peopel per allince will never work and any other such ideas, poeple will just form few allinces and use them...
only way imho is to nerf the benefit of focusing fire on one target from to many ships or over a certain levle somehow.
|
HOwareyoutoday
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 20:23:00 -
[27]
Edited by: HOwareyoutoday on 15/09/2010 20:24:44
Originally by: Vladimiru Edited by: Vladimiru on 15/09/2010 17:48:13 Something more realistic would be better, the proposal:
Noise
For every ship that targets you, targeting time for other ships is now increased by X%.
Whether or not this should effect friendly ships is up for debate. If this didn't effect targeting ships in your fleet, the simple lore reason could be that your ship is "communicating" with your fleet, and is thus already targeted by you, although hidden.
I also find this to be a more "realistic" and more easily implemented coding wise. In all this idea is a good evolution of the OP's idea. I would imagine that when it takes a Cruiser 90 seconds to lock a large target, it would be no longer effective to target it.
|
Arklan1
Dunedain Rangers
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 20:27:00 -
[28]
while i'm not sure if this is the proposal to do it, i'd love to see something break up blobs and introduce, you know, tactics. right now it seems to be "everybody shoot x! ok, now shoot y!" etc, but something more like "wing 1, take out the frigs. wing two, cover the logitstics. wing three, use your crusiers to cover wing 1. wings 4 and 5, split up, and starting picking off the DPS boats."
random, pointless tactics mention, obviously. just trying to make an example.
|
Nub Sauce
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 21:22:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Vladimiru Edited by: Vladimiru on 15/09/2010 17:48:13 Something more realistic would be better, the proposal:
Noise
For every ship that targets you, targeting time for other ships is now increased by X%.
Whether or not this should effect friendly ships is up for debate. If this didn't effect targeting ships in your fleet, the simple lore reason could be that your ship is "communicating" with your fleet, and is thus already targeted by you, although hidden.
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.
|
Sigras
|
Posted - 2010.09.15 21:29:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Sigras on 15/09/2010 21:32:02 The problem I have with the OP is that it doesn't really discourage blobs, it would just discourage focused fire; I guess there would be no reason to have more than 10x (or wherever the stacking penalty gets really steep) the number of ships as the opposition but that's rarely a problem
The other idea, the targeting noise one, is even worse though as it would just end up with gate campers all targeting eachother to make lock times longer for their enemies making being first on the field critical for victory.
I think the only way you're gonna get rid of blobs is to add/improve the AOE weapons that are available as that is the only true direct nerf to blobs
Edit: darn you nub sauce you beat me to it!!!
|
|
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] |