| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company
RAZOR Alliance
   |
Posted - 2011.01.06 15:26:00 -
[1]
A.) Introduction
Lag can obviously not avoided in a single system ! This is a flaw, that is caused by a false design assumption of EVE, i.e. that moore's law will provide hardware improvements, which scale with a growing number of pilots. And this turned out to be false in terms of a single processor core. EVE nodes do not benefit from multi-core processors.
Changes in hardware architecture to distribute a solar system on several CPUs might be on CCP's drawing board, but they do not improve the situation for a specific grid and my impression is, that the technical hurdles will keep this concept for quite a time from implementation into EVE.
The following concept for sov mechanics is trying to achieve the following objects:
- provide a game mechanic for sovereignty that is conductive to a reduction of the average number of pilots per grid and per system, while keeping fleet fights meaningful and fun.
- provide a game mechanic for sovereignty, that gives territorial conflicts a more strategic depth than the current system, more stability for "builders", while retaining the volatility, i.e. giving "conquerors" the same chances to fully take over a space as they have now.
- provide a game mechanic for sovereignty, that is tactically more interesting and not a boaring grind
|
Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 15:32:00 -
[2]
*spaceholder* |
Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 15:46:00 -
[3]
*spaceholder*
________________________________________________
Some days i loose, some days the others win ... |
Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 15:52:00 -
[4]
*spaceholder* |
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 18:40:00 -
[5]
Nice post, the topic has certainly been forefront in our minds for some time that we need to make design changes alongside the current ongoing optimisations in team gridlock now to turn things up a notch. Moving SBUs to the adjoining systems has come up previously and is being explored currently.
A longer term view is a general change to add more pacing and influence factors to the sovereignty system so its less about a small number of epic flashpoints and more about diffuse objectives inter-twinned with flashpoints which naturally encourage a fleet to break into smaller units even if some continue to blueball their way around "voltron style" which is a natural strategy.
There is of course many factors which come to affect fleet battle frequency, composition and size beyond the sovereignty mechanics and this is one part of the cosmic puzzle towards a better experience for us all.
Some interesting ideas here though and worthy of discussion.
|
|
mchief117
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 21:27:00 -
[6]
Rule 1 about extremely long posts, IE more than a brief paragraph. Add a "in a nutshell" line near the top , other wise 95% of the posters will skip it entirely.
that said using a system of SBU on the border of the system vs in the system and then using a system that says, hey system X has 2 SBu units effecting it good chance there will be a fleet fight there soon i better reinforce it, would be a very good idea, as this is eve a fight can shift systems in seconds and you can unfortunately jump out of the reinforced systems doing so
|
Megan Maynard
Minmatar
Out of Order
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 22:07:00 -
[7]
Allow control of gates by controlling alliances and make the TCU the log that knocks the door down and I'll by a giddy school girl.
 Originally by: F'nog
Originally by: Stareatthesun
No no no ... Polaris is where CCP keeps the death star that will destroy eve when the servers shut down.
Thankfully I've got Interceptors trained to V. S
|
Camios
Minmatar
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2011.02.17 03:33:00 -
[8]
1. Bump because the idea deserves it.
2. Just pointing out a little flaw/consideration.
The fact that SBUs must be placed outside the target system is going to entail force splitting only if a certain condition is achieved, that is:
The time to kill an SBU must be smaller than the time required to travel between 2 different SBUs, otherwise the fleets will not split.
Some math
As a rough consideration, the time to kill an SBU usually goes as the inverse of the number of people involved (more people -> more DPS -> less time), but the travel time does not depend on the local count. This means that for a small number of people involved, fleets will not split; but when the total DPS increases enough you'll see fleets splitting.
If you take these assumptions:
- every pilot does around 500dps (HAM drake);
- the local limit for lagless play is (damn those missiles) 300 players (150vs150);
- the travel time from gate to gate is around 1 minute;
that means that
a SBU must have less than 4.5m EHP to stimulate a fleet split
(that is: 150 player * 500 raw DPS * 60 seconds of travel time). Now they have 41M EHP, so I don't think that your proposal will actually change the attitude of fleets to stay together.
Are 4.5m EHP too little?
Well, if SBU ehp were reduced at such level, a single blitzing force of dreadnoughts or short range battleships could actually be devastating (wouldn't it be a good thing? Dreads and BSes would turn to be useful again).
A possible solution to this problem: the SBUs EHP are kept in the 5m range but with (maybe greatly) increased resists (less hp & higher resists = same EHP).
In this situation, if the attacker plays actively he can defend his SBUs with logistics or maybe even triage carriers.
Anyway the key is that splitting your fleet will become an interesting tactic only if the SBUs have very little EHPs. And if the little EHPs are a problem, then increase the resists (while keeping EHP constant) to boost RR effectiveness.
So the attacker will have to bring a decent load of damage, but also logistics and jammers to protect his SBUs.
Some numbers: a Guardian is able to repair 341HP per second. If resistances are 50%, it can repair 681EHP/s, if resistances are 75%, it can repair 1364EHP/s. That's just to show how changing the resistances can help the attacker in defending his SBUs while keeping the SBU EHP constant. A triage carrier would be more powerful but far more risky.
|
Camios
Minmatar
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2011.02.17 03:49:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Camios on 17/02/2011 03:50:34
Another obvious consideration: the SBUs having about 5M EHP is a requirement to have the attacking fleet splitting.
But there's nothing forcing the defender fleet to split, so the game will be even more unbalanced than now (attacking a system will be even more dificult).
Unbalanced: how much? In the best case of a system having only one gate, the defender must defend a single TCU, while the attacker must defend a single SBU. That sounds fair.
But if the system has more gates, the attacker will have multiple weak spots to cover, while the defender will have only one. The attacker needs a lot of people for every SBU he has placed.
Moreover, if the attacker succeed in killing the TCU, then he wants to place his own, or to prevent the defender to replace his one. In this situation the battle will happen only in one system, around a TCU, and we will have lag.
|
Kieron VonDeux
|
Posted - 2011.02.17 08:34:00 -
[10]
Forcing an attacker to have far more pilots than a defender is not bad.
Classical RL attacking armies normally start at a 3 to 1 ratio over the defender, and go up from there.
I like the idea of the SBUs being in the adjacent starsystems.
|
Daedalus II
Helios Research
|
Posted - 2011.02.17 09:31:00 -
[11]
I like this idea 
Originally by: Camios
1. Bump because the idea deserves it.
2. Just pointing out a little flaw/consideration.
The fact that SBUs must be placed outside the target system is going to entail force splitting only if a certain condition is achieved, that is:
The time to kill an SBU must be smaller than the time required to travel between 2 different SBUs, otherwise the fleets will not split.
I was thinking the same thing myself, but then I was thinking, what if an SBU isn't defeated by being killed but there rather had some sort of hold the area mechanic?
If each pilot at the SBU declared his stance in some way (select the SBU and click on choise perhaps?) either with the attackers or with the defenders. Then for each attacker on grid the SBU will strengthen 1 point, and for each defender on grid the SBU will weaken 1 point per time unit (only players in ships count, not pods).
This way the strongest (with most ships) force will win the SBU. When the SBU is at 100% strength it will contest the system, if it's at 0% strength it will be destroyed.
As it's the number of people who's important and not the ships, this will promote a large number of small ships over a small number of large ships and you'll have frigate/destroyer battles around the SBUs. Having said that, if alliance A has a lot more pilots than alliance B and can field a lot more ships, nothing says those ships will survive if A jumps in 10-15 carriers full of T2 warriors.
___________
Interested in incursions? Join Helios Research! |
Camios
Minmatar
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2011.02.17 17:14:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Daedalus II
If each pilot at the SBU declared his stance in some way (select the SBU and click on choise perhaps?) either with the attackers or with the defenders. Then for each attacker on grid the SBU will strengthen 1 point, and for each defender on grid the SBU will weaken 1 point per time unit (only players in uncloaked ships count, not pods or cloaked ships). Also there should be diminishing returns, if one army tries to overwhelm the other by numbers during a short time period the amount of points they get should be much lower than 1 per time unit. Only when the armies are roughly equal size will each ship count as 1 point.
This way the strongest (with most ships) force will win the SBU. When the SBU is at 100% strength it will contest the system, if it's at 0% strength it will be destroyed.
As it's the number of people who's important and not the ships, this will promote a large number of small ships over a small number of large ships and you'll have frigate/destroyer battles around the SBUs. Having said that, if alliance A has a lot more pilots than alliance B and can field a lot more ships, nothing says those ships will survive if A jumps in 10-15 carriers full of T2 warriors.
I don't think that binding the victory to sheer numbers is a good idea. It sounds a bit lame to me.
Moreover, such a mechanic would not entail that players will fight in frigates. Usually player count is fixed, so in order to be more powerful all the players will take the ship that can survive and kill the best (and that's hardly a frig or destroyer, perhaps a swarm of assault ships backed with logistics could survive, but you will lack range and DPS to try killing the other side).
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |