| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arban Staz
   |
Posted - 2011.03.03 20:57:00 -
[1]
From what I've read, in a real world firefight one of the signifcant factors is often supressing fire; shooting at the bad guys to make them keep their heads down rather than with a specific intent to hit them.
What would happen if this was added to Eve? If there is more than a certain amount of incoming fire on a ship, its outbound damage potential is reduced (for example).
Would this encourage people to shoot at something other than the primary? A fleet that spreads its fire might get an advantage over one that doesn't, for example.
Would this be a good thing?
|
Hostile Chicken
|
Posted - 2011.03.03 21:35:00 -
[2]
Perhaps if the suppressing fire is more directed.
A manual aim so screwups are allowed. Fire all guns/missiles in a general direction.
Use the cursor to designate a general fire zone. The weapons will then fire in a cone outwards.
Could be interesting to have a fleet firing agains a blob... A lot of damage dealt to grouped targets.
This could also be used as flack... that is exploding warheads detonated after a certain distance. using smartbomb mechanics on a smaller scale.
Oh the poor hamsters...
|
shady trader
|
Posted - 2011.03.03 22:08:00 -
[3]
I can see it working in a infantry fire fight since now one want to get their head blown off to see were to fire at. However when you are using sensors, its not so much an issue especially if you have plenty of redundant sensors and shields to protect them.
However, all this heavy ordinance detonating on your ships shields or armour should generate some localised distortions. However this could work both ways, its harder for them to see you to fire back but it also harder for you to see to keep a target lock.
so in stead of suppressing fire, keeping peoples heads down is more like smoke/chaff fouling there sensors.
The end result would be spreading your fire helps reduce the volume of return fire and you are not oversaturate one target and wasting shots due to losing lock. A balance would then be struck for the optimum number of ships to use per target.
Macrointel, the place were the nature order of the universe does not hold sway. Pirates and ore thief's are congratulated by carebears for the actions. |
Arban Staz
|
Posted - 2011.03.03 22:15:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: shady trader
so in stead of suppressing fire, keeping peoples heads down is more like smoke/chaff fouling there sensors.
I was thinking more of the chaos aboard a ship that is taking heavy fire making it difficult for the crew to operate effectively.
Quote:
The end result would be spreading your fire helps reduce the volume of return fire and you are not oversaturate one target and wasting shots due to losing lock. A balance would then be struck for the optimum number of ships to use per target.
Exactly.
Then the FCs (and hopefully the wing & squad leads as well) have to co-ordinate more. Well, more than "Primary is Sumdumshmuk, secondary is Outtaluk" anyway.
|
Baaldor
Igneus Auctorita
Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.03.03 22:27:00 -
[5]
You are obviously thinking about a game with dice and wizards.
|
Arban Staz
|
Posted - 2011.03.03 23:12:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Baaldor
You are obviously thinking about a game with dice and wizards.
I hadn't thought of that. I'll need to rethink the entire idea.
|
Cailais
Amarr
Neo-Tech Solutions
|
Posted - 2011.03.03 23:34:00 -
[7]
Its not a completely bizarre idea. You could envisage a mechanism whereby a player could "take cover" and in the process get a significant boost to a ships defences (resists, hp's etc) but at the penalty of not being able to take any offensive action.
Its hard to say if it would reduce 'focused fire' - I can certainly see how some would argue that making anything tougher to kill encourages bigger fleets in order to achieve the same effect.
Worth consideration however...
C.
the hydrostatic capsule blog
|
Phosphofuctokinase 1
|
Posted - 2011.03.04 01:33:00 -
[8]
Missed shots should have a chance to hit targets nearby (in a projective sense). An interceptor flying between two battleships should be able to make them hit each other if they are dumb enough to use large weapons on him.
|
Ranud Sunraker
Minmatar
Brothers of Destiny
|
Posted - 2011.03.04 13:08:00 -
[9]
Taking cover could work more in the sense of:
"Redirect all available power to defensive systems!"
Or propulsion...
Or offense 
________________________________
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds the most discoveries,
is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but
"That's funny..."
~Isaak Asimov |
Arban Staz
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 14:37:00 -
[10]
What I'm aiming for with gameplay is essentially this:-
Fleet A has everyone shoot the primary. Fleet B has wing 1 shoot the primary, wing 2 provide suppressing fire.
Fleet B should win.
Obviously Fleet B's target is taking less damage because only half the fleet is shooting at it. However, the suppressing fire mechanic should reduce Fleet A's effectiveness by even more.
So, assume that each fleet can in theory put out 10,000 DPS, and that the fleets are split into 2 exactly equal wings, so 5K DPS each.
Fleet B's wing 1 can put 5K DPS onto the primary target. Fleet B wing 2 is putting down 5K of suppressing fire.
The whole of Fleet A is firing on the primary, which would normally be 10K DPS, but with 5K of incoming suppressing, this is reduced by 55%, so the actual DPS Fleet A delivers is only 4.5K which is less than the amount Fleet B is delivering.
|
Gnean Tyrova
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 16:18:00 -
[11]
Always an interesting idea.
Personally like what Arban has suggested. The only downside would be determining when these factors really take affect ( so as to not completely cripple small gangs ). So some sort of dps counter system then maybe? Perhaps have it related to ship class as well. IE: A capital ship being shot at with 2k dps is not going to be supressed as much as a cruiser being shot at with 2k dps. Should follow the standard penalties though to prevent have a 100% suppressed ship.
Good idea though.
|
Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 19:26:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Nova Fox on 05/03/2011 19:28:21
This game can use a lot of things but the way combat is managed positioning is almost irrelevant other than distance. This is however done for the sake of performance as well if this game was smaller in terms on how many ships can show up then well windows of opportunity would and should show.
Things like:
Actual Damaged Areas
Rolling Ships
Firing Arcs
Line of Fire
Shared Fire Support Links
Spinal Mounted Weapons
Suppression Fire
Area of Denial Systems
Broadsides
Shifted armor or shields
Ship Collisions
The list goes on but these are things that can over extrapolate combat to make it even more unbearable in the environments we face today, maybe as technology progresses we can start interacting some of these ideas.
I did highlight line of sight for once reason.
Siege Breaker Ships would be designed to have other ships follow behind it to break though a field of fire. Similar to a tank rolling between the two lines of trenches with infantry behind it.
Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 25FEB11
|
Arban Staz
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 19:45:00 -
[13]
The suppressing fire thing would not have to depend on the relative positions of ships or any of that malarky. It should be simply a function of the numbers that the game engine is already working with.
Now, if I could only come up with a reasonable formula for it.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 20:04:00 -
[14]
It would just be yet another insurmountable tool in the blob-box. As long as you have more people than the enemy you can delegate any excess to suppression and take even fewer losses than now.
Sustained AoE eWar .. no thanks.
|
kerradeph
Gallente
Devil's Ascendents
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 23:24:00 -
[15]
Actual Damaged Areas (would be hard to do since they would need to re render alot of images of the ships. but would be cool.)
Rolling Ships (what?)
Firing Arcs (no [or negligable] gravity to do this, they would go straight)
Line of Fire (I have always thought this would be cool. like being in a BS and swooping in to take fire so a smaller ship can get away or repair)
Shared Fire Support Links (what?)
Spinal Mounted Weapons (doomsday? mini doomsday kind of thing? either way this has been brought up and dropped)
Suppression Fire (against a ship piloted by a single person, I don't think it would work. my thought is they would run instead of losing control of their offensive systems)
Area of Denial Systems (what?)
Broadsides (you already can, you are just not in those situations generally)
Shifted armor or shields (what?)
Ship Collisions (this could be abused if it were at all set up properly)
|
Ulfsark Vegtamson
|
Posted - 2011.03.05 23:27:00 -
[16]
I don't see how you could possibly make an excuse for supression fire. We're in spaceships, not on foot shooting around a building. "Taking cover" ? Where? behind the vacuum of space? Hiding behind the stargate? What exactly would prevent the ships from behing more effective in combat? The crew? Most of the ships functions, including firing the guns, is done by the pod pilot, and he's floating in near susspended animation in an eggful of ectoplasm.
There already is a mechanism for causing people to reduce their effectivness in combat. Its called EWAR.
|
Illucius Thantium
|
Posted - 2011.03.06 00:31:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Ulfsark Vegtamson
I don't see how you could possibly make an excuse for supression fire. We're in spaceships, not on foot shooting around a building. "Taking cover" ? Where? behind the vacuum of space? Hiding behind the stargate? What exactly would prevent the ships from behing more effective in combat? The crew? Most of the ships functions, including firing the guns, is done by the pod pilot, and he's floating in near susspended animation in an eggful of ectoplasm.
There already is a mechanism for causing people to reduce their effectivness in combat. Its called EWAR.
I must agree with this man simply because the nature of space battle is not conducive to supressive fire. Supressive fire invloves driving a vulnerable enemy into cover. There is no cover in space. The only way I could see supressive fire as being a viable option would be if they somehow added an action oriented space battle mechanic to eve. Even then, it would only work if they made the settings of these battles amongst asteroid belts and other areas with objects to hide behind. When there is no cover there is no reason not to shoot directly at your intended target.
|
shady trader
|
Posted - 2011.03.06 01:14:00 -
[18]
Originally by: kerradeph
Firing Arcs (no [or negligable] gravity to do this, they would go straight)
I believe you are mistaking firing arcs for indirect fire that uses gravity to make the object follow an arc.
A Firing are is the amount of traversal a gun has. In eve all guns can hit any target no mater that part of your ship is in the way.
Know if look at say an Apache helicopter's mini gun, it can say pivot 130 degrees to each side of centre and say 60 degrees down.
So its firing arc would be 230 by 60. anything outside that arc and the pilot will have to reposition the helicopter if he wants to hit it.
What this means that positioning of the your ship becomes impotent, for example you could cross their T, were you whole broadside armament is available to fire, but your opponent can only file the guns that can traverse sufficiently to point directly forward giving you a fire power advantage.
Macrointel, the place were the nature order of the universe does not hold sway. Pirates and ore thief's are congratulated by carebears for the actions. |
Danghor
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.03.06 01:23:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Arban Staz
From what I've read, in a real world firefight one of the signifcant factors is often supressing fire; shooting at the bad guys to make them keep their heads down rather than with a specific intent to hit them.
What would happen if this was added to Eve? If there is more than a certain amount of incoming fire on a ship, its outbound damage potential is reduced (for example).
Would this encourage people to shoot at something other than the primary? A fleet that spreads its fire might get an advantage over one that doesn't, for example.
Would this be a good thing?
Suppressing fire only exists as an infantry term, i doubt destroyers on sea or a F-22 will use suppressing fire in 3d space. They just lock the target and fire.
|
Rafael Freeman
|
Posted - 2011.03.06 01:46:00 -
[20]
Terrible idea. Suppressive fire requires the shot to actually hit something, which there is nothing of in space.
It is also a psychological effect which ships don't experience.
|
Arban Staz
|
Posted - 2011.03.06 09:28:00 -
[21]
Recent posts in this thread have been (imho) missing the point a bit.
I'm going to basically ignore posts responding to Nova Fox and his list. If you'd like to discuss that lot could you make a separate thread?
For posts saying "the suppressing fire concept doesn't make sense with spaceships" I'll just refer back to...
Originally by: Arban Staz
I was thinking more of the chaos aboard a ship that is taking heavy fire making it difficult for the crew to operate effectively.
|
Danghor
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.03.06 13:42:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Arban Staz
I was thinking more of the chaos aboard a ship that is taking heavy fire making it difficult for the crew to operate effectively.
This will only make the kill go faster and possibly incapaciting the ship so he can't get out of web range with its speed.
When the odds are against you on the battlefield you'll die quickly anyway and "suppressing fire" on a ship wouldn't have any effect until you reach structure, 'cause that's when internal fires start. Also since you don't have long to live when reaching structure what's the point of incapaciting the ship on top of that ?
When I started playing this game i was told we were alone in a pod inside the ship, now a chronicle told the tale of a crew inside the ship and suddenly we should be aware of them in the game ? 
|
Arban Staz
|
Posted - 2011.03.06 15:51:00 -
[23]
You wouldn't use suppressing fire on the primary, you'd use it on the rest of the fleet. Read the earlier posts to see what I'm talking about.
|
Danghor
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.03.06 16:39:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Arban Staz
You wouldn't use suppressing fire on the primary, you'd use it on the rest of the fleet. Read the earlier posts to see what I'm talking about.
I know what you mean and I still think the effect of suppressing fire is pointless when the crew in this game is imaginary and suppressing fire on shields and armor wouldn't have any effect.
|
Arban Staz
|
Posted - 2011.03.06 17:18:00 -
[25]
Isn't that like arguing that suppressing fire on infantry won't have any effect unless they are hit in the chest?
|
Danghor
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.03.06 20:45:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Arban Staz
Isn't that like arguing that suppressing fire on infantry won't have any effect unless they are hit in the chest?
If you want to go with analogies, let say that infantry are naked, just like ship structure so of course any kind of "suppressing fire" would cause more psychological effects. However let say you spray a Tiger Tank with a machine gun, the crew will only be annoyed by the sound of ricochet until something really goes through the armor.
Like I said, once you get to the hull you're already in a very bad position that doesn't need to get worst with penalties.
|
Arban Staz
|
Posted - 2011.03.06 21:21:00 -
[27]
How does the effective damage output of that Tiger Tank compare when
a) it is sitting on a training ground
b) it is on a battlefield with 100 enemy tanks firing towards it
Regardless, because this is an idea for improving the game rather than a thesis on the realities of starship combat, the "cover story" doesn't have to be any more accurate than inertia-less spaceships. What is really important is that there is a mechanic designed to make "everyone shoot the primary" not automatically the best strategy.
|
Iris Saavedra
|
Posted - 2011.03.06 22:11:00 -
[28]
Your logic doesn't follow, Arban.
You said at the beginning that suppressive fire is used to suppress infantry (which is correct). But then you throw it out the window by coming up with a poorly-explained mechanic that doesn't even follow what suppressive fire is.
Suppressive fire is effective against infantry because it doesn't take a lot to kill or disable a soldier. A single successful hit essentially takes them out of action.
It takes a lot more to incapacitate a warship, and it depends on effective fire, that is firing to hit your target. Just throwing random fire at a warship isn't going to be effective, because a miss doesn't do anything, and a single hit likely won't take the ship out of action.
I can't figure out if your idea is a taunt, a debuff, or an AoE.
Taunts are only effective against AI, a human opponent has a better chance of not falling for it. A smart opponent will ignore it completely and following the direction of his fleet commander.
Debuffs already exist in the form of EW.
I could see this working as an AoE, but it would actually do less damage than directed fire, and wouldn't have any effect on incoming fire.
Originally by: Arban Staz
I was thinking more of the chaos aboard a ship that is taking heavy fire making it difficult for the crew to operate effectively.
This assumes the ship's crew is extremely unprofessional.
Ask any soldier or sailor. When faced with stressful situations like this, one's training tends to take over. This is an integral part of military training, and it stands to reason the crew of any combatant starship would have gone through this training.
It's an interesting idea and an interesting attempt to add something to the dynamics of EVE combat, but it's poorly thought out at this stage.
|
mkmin
|
Posted - 2011.03.06 22:11:00 -
[29]
The issue I'm seeing here is adding drastically more calculations, vastly increasing lag. What if to simplify this, all guns have a small bit of all ewar effects in addition to their damage (except maybe warp disruption since it's either on or off)?
And how would this idea in general apply to NPCs firing on players? Missions in general would need to be rewritten for them to still be doable.
|
Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2011.03.06 22:31:00 -
[30]
Naval Supressing Fire is better known as Area of Denial where the whole idea is to prevent penetration of an area, its best used against somone you seriously outrange though and supporting forces that are alot closer but still in the at risk range. This system would almost require a new type of gun/missile class though across the board.
Eve wise I dont see this feature being useful unless you want to stop the enemy from sending smaller tackler ships though but in an era in 250km or less combat and interceptors and drons clocking in a good 14km/s this supression fire is almsot useless. The combat in eve would have to seriously evolve into a more tatical (currently we're theatrical and operational minded in combat where actions of the entire war plan and war groups count the most not individual units)
Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 25FEB11
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |