EVE Search - focusing fire is the problem in pvp

All Channels

Ships and Modules

focusing fire is the problem in pvp

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
TWD	Posted - 2005.06.20 17:18:00 - [61] Focusing fire is NOT the problem, it is THE most important thing in a fleet battle. It requires player skills to do properly. which is good.
Weirda	Posted - 2005.06.20 18:40:00 - [62] Originally by: TWD Focusing fire is NOT the problem, it is THE most important thing in a fleet battle. It requires player skills to do properly. which is good. cough skill cough Originally by: Weirda Weirda then pictures some 15 year old pimplehead on Teamspeak shouting H3llR41s0r666 over and over until it dead... then Sm4shr4g..... etc... Not quite the same picture... plus... where is the flanking? where is the tactic? Maybe should have said skill? -- Thread Killer <END TRANSMISSIO
Gyrn Fzirth	Posted - 2005.06.20 18:42:00 - [63] you're kidding, right? Remove a tactic that gives a small, well-coordinated force some strength against a larger force? Focused fire is critical any time you engage a larger foe. It requires a level of teamwork most pilots don't have and is one of the few differentiators of Pilots from pilots. My suggestion? Think a bit. There are tactics to use that could misdirect focus fire which can decrease it's usefulness when done right. If your tactic doesn't work, take yer losses like a man and try again with different tactics. =============== Killboard: http://www.celeskills.com
TWD	Posted - 2005.06.20 19:05:00 - [64] Originally by: Weirda cough skill cough English is not my primary language. Try out PvP sometime, its fun.
Meridius	Posted - 2005.06.20 19:12:00 - [65] Originally by: TWD Originally by: Weirda cough skill cough English is not my primary language. Try out PvP sometime, its fun. You're a at heart twd, don't deny it ________________________________________________________
Aegis Osiris	Posted - 2005.06.20 20:06:00 - [66] Edited by: Aegis Osiris on 20/06/2005 20:07:56 Originally by: DrunkenOne snip Drunken, I agree with your view of PvP. Battles such as you describe would be fantastic, adding great depth to combat in the game. However, I don't agree that removing insurance will get us there. Its a difficult point. On the one hand, increasing risk and cost in PvP might move cruisers back to a useful role. On the other, it might greatly increase the differences between the 'haves' and 'have nots', actually lowering PvP. The alternative seems to be a pilot history-based approach to insurance. I think, however, that it should go one step further. Make insurance player controlled. Sell it on the market, and let the market decide the value. This would need a few things, of course.... 1. Make the insurance tab similar to the courier mission/escrow/market GUI, with tabs and regions. Necessary for both buyers and sellers. 2. A certain amount of automation. For example, when an insured ship is destroyed, the lossmail is sent to both the pilot AND the insuring corp. Reduces the risk of false claims. 3. The above would, of course, be a potential move towards and internal kill tracker, something many in the community have wanted for a while anyway. Would also allow other corps to check a pilots track record, so they couldn't claim they only few that BS to church on Sunday :) 4. Some means to protect the insured from corps going 'bankrupt'. This would require a certain amount of transparency for the insuring corp. For example, lets say an insurance corp gets a large number of claims at once (maybe they insured many pilots in a corp/alliance, and that group hit a large battle). If the corp account is unable to pay the insurance, I think it would be only fair to 'freeze' the personal wallets of all corp members and make up the difference. If there is still a shortfall, the game (Concord? Empire Faction the corp registers with?) would make up the difference. If that were to occur, the corp should then have its insurance license revoked, either temporarily or permanently ('registered' corps, base on skills or something like the formal alliance system?). Granted, more complex then what we have now, by a long shot. And yes, the potential for a small number of players to strike it megarich does exist....but that holds true now, as well (lottery for bp's anyone?). And yes, handling insurance in EVE might not exactly give many a thrill, but neither does mining, agent running, market trading..... What would it do for EVE? 1. This idea adds greater player control and player depth to the game. It would almost surely increase the cost of insurance, particularly for those with a history of losing ships. 2. Corps could even use the system to internalize their insurance, or insure their alliance, etc. Insurance corps would have to compete for contracts, keeping prices from totally skyrocketing. 3. Would allow pilots to haggle/bargain for best deals, again, competition is good. 4. To make pirates happy, pilots might be more willing to pay tolls then watch their 'premiums' increase by getting shot down. 5. I smell RP value here too: scandals, pirates working for insurance companies, insurance wars (literally!!!) 6. Finally, if you don't like how your insurance was handled, you could always declare war on your insurance agents!! Now hows THAT for a payoff, eh? Yes, there's holes in this idea that could allow for exploits. However, that doesn't mean its impossible or without value. What do you think?
Discorporation	Posted - 2005.06.20 20:09:00 - [67] Player run insurance does not work. They would go bankrupt in days unless they receive funds from NPC's. [Heterocephalus glaber]
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2005.06.20 20:18:00 - [68] aoe weapons like the good old torp would be interesting... though the devs told us that there is no way that their server can handle that... anyway AOE weapons would be a really nice addition to this game... so I'm all for it... eg. special ammo for artys (splash dmg) and a torp that does splash dmg (again) another idea which comes to mind is the following: each ship that tries to lock another ship which already recives dmg is penalized... eg. every ship trying to lock another ship which recives 200 + dmg/sec will get a harsh locking penalty of lets say -75%... which would mean that a frig takes instad of 1 sec, 1.75 sec to lock a BS which wont hurt it that much ... it would be more harsh for cruiser due to their lower sig resolution and it would be really a huge penalty for BS due to their pretty low sig resolution... you could wait to let all your mates lock that primary target first tho but that could already mean your own death meanwhile ... so no problem there... the real issue I see is the calculations the sever has to make ... anway these are prolly dumb ideas which I havent thought through at all, so dont blame me if you find ways to exploit them... Greetings Grim
MineallMine	Posted - 2005.06.20 20:56:00 - [69] Hindering multiple targeting is not a good idea. 1) There should be no help for someone who is incredibly outnumbered. As was said earlier, why penalize 20 frigates for getting the jump on a lone BS, why help the lone BS that foolish jumps into a 20 BS gate camp? 2) Making it harder to target damged ships is counterintuitive: wouldn't it be easier to lock on to a ship spewing flames and leaking radiation etc etc. 3) As has been pointed out, these types of game mechanics are very exploitable. Even untentionally, a support scorp or logistics cruiser should have its own gang memebrs. targeted. If anything, you can add a small delay to turret whose targets have been switched (after all it should have to re-aim right?) But there is no need to nerf massing fire. It is a tactic, a powerful one, but one that can still be countered. And as a side note, player owned insurance could work rather well in theory, but would require an active stock market and access to a lot more information about pilots.
Caya	Posted - 2005.06.20 21:11:00 - [70] insane idea. i rather pray not to be the primary target.
Vigilant	Posted - 2005.06.20 21:31:00 - [71] Originally by: Discorporation Player run insurance does not work. They would go bankrupt in days unless they receive funds from NPC's. Agree....Player owned insurance would drive full time PvP'er broke....and only Miners/Mission'ers would be able to buy insurance... Since they don't loose ships by the dozen.. This thread is so dead folks... Does PvP work now I say Yes.. can it be improved... I say Yes again... but, lets improve it... Not nerf the heck out it... Like most MMO's tend to do... NERF then ask 's later... Let CCP drive foward on Missiles and New World Order... and then lets see where or if this thread applies
Weirda	Posted - 2005.06.20 21:59:00 - [72] Originally by: TWD Originally by: Weirda cough skill cough English is not my primary language. English is not Weirda primary language either - sadly no one but Weirda speak primary language anymore... Fortunate though - that this not what Weirda commenting on. Screaming primarys into teamspeak/chat/setting tags/etc is NOT Weirda definition of SKILL. Originally by: TWD Try out PvP sometime, its fun. Perhaps you should try out PvP sometime. Weirda certainly does... Hiding behind blobs and fleet operations - only skill involved hoping not primary not Weirda idea of PvP though... Try going out flying solo and kill a bunch on you own... then we talk... A meeting can be arranged! On side note though - don't know anything about you, or you skill... so the above is joke (except arrange meeting)... Would not want to make assumption about you experiences... as you gladly (and wrongly) make about Weirda. -- Thread Killer <END TRANSMISSIO
MineallMine	Posted - 2005.06.20 22:05:00 - [73] Maybe corps should start using hard to pronounce names ... I hear Xhosi is quite difficult for westerners.
Meridius	Posted - 2005.06.20 22:25:00 - [74] Originally by: Weirda Screaming primarys into teamspeak/chat/setting tags/etc is NOT Weirda definition of SKILL Well it's not screaming that takes skill. There is a lot of information that has to be gathered and processed by the fleet commander to determine which targets need swift gankage. Everyone under his command has to be able to follow those orders to the T while still remaining aware of there surroundings (impending gankage). ________________________________________________________
Weirda	Posted - 2005.06.20 22:47:00 - [75] Originally by: Meridius Originally by: Weirda Screaming primarys into teamspeak/chat/setting tags/etc is NOT Weirda definition of SKILL Well it's not screaming that takes skill. There is a lot of information that has to be gathered and processed by the fleet commander to determine which targets need swift gankage. Everyone under his command has to be able to follow those orders to the T while still remaining aware of there surroundings (impending gankage). Weirda <3 Merdius... Honestly though - and base on these discussion... there seem to be no shortage of people with ability to call primaries... and hence the constant debate. TBH - Weirda is glad that RL doesn't permit for time to do fleet operation! Quote: Maybe corps should start using hard to pronounce names ... I hear Xhosi is quite difficult for westerners. ROFLWAO! *quickly changes name to C'Htor.... -- Thread Killer <END TRANSMISSIO
Meridius	Posted - 2005.06.20 22:55:00 - [76] Originally by: Weirda Weirda <3 Merdius... Honestly though - and base on these discussion... there seem to be no shortage of people with ability to call primaries... and hence the constant debate. TBH - Weirda is glad that RL doesn't permit for time to do fleet operation! Not my cup of tea either but oh well. Operations like that are more like social operations tbh as most of the time you end up shooting the **** on TS ________________________________________________________
Isonkon Serikain	Posted - 2005.06.20 23:44:00 - [77] This idea would end up creating more lag, besides, nothing wrong with focused fire. You get blasted, thats life.
Noriath	Posted - 2005.06.21 00:02:00 - [78] Focussing fire is not a problem, it's a legitemate strategy to take out single targets. The problem is that there is no reason not to use this strategy, because ships under fire perform just as well as ships that aren't being bothered. In order to make battles more interesting there has to be a system that rewards you for keeping all enemies under atack at all times instead of just one ship at a time...
SoltonGris	Posted - 2005.06.21 00:03:00 - [79] Insurance... Ship destroyed by the enemy in a recognized war - Void Ship destroyed whilst engaging in acts of piracy - Void Ship destroyed whilst owner carries a bounty on them - Void insurance pricing for use in - 1.0 > 0.7 - cheap insuarance for use in up to 0.5 - slightly more for use in up to 0.3 - expensive for use in up to 0.1 - slightly more expensive for use in all including 0.0 - YOU WANT HOW MUCH !!! lose a ship in a system you are not insured for - insurance void No claims bonus system, you last the term of insurance without a loss, reduced cost. loose a ship a week and become an uninsurable risk until losses are reduced bit more realistic maybe ? financialy damaging to those that deserve it but not to the little old lady who only uses her BS to fetch the groceries once a week :) Just a thought Solton.
Gaius Kador	Posted - 2005.06.21 00:16:00 - [80] Focused fire is NOT the problem ;) ----------------------------------------------
Nomen Nescio	Posted - 2005.06.21 01:17:00 - [81] Edited by: Nomen Nescio on 21/06/2005 01:18:23 Not to flood the topic in "ships", here is one in the "ideas" Blazing Ships
Hawk Firestorm	Posted - 2005.06.21 02:23:00 - [82] The biggest problems I think is one they put in 'focal' points such as gates etc where everyone crowds around, rather than combat being spread though the entire system. And also a overly simplistic control method, locking out the z-axis and going for a SFC sytle combat, with turn rates arcs of fire etc so to allow dogfighting would be a far better way to go overall I think as combat would stray away from objects and more into the system. Especially if you couple it with a proper sensor model and the ability to jump anywhere in system, via a system overview.
Teibidh Saoi	Posted - 2005.06.21 05:51:00 - [83] Focused fire, however, is a real world battlefield strategy. It's also one that most successful RPG players and especially traditional MMORPG players use. You concentrate on one target at a time thereby eliminating that target's presence on the battlefield. The more single targets you gang up on and take out the less people there are shooting at you and thus your survivability increases dramatically. It's almost an undisputable fact that if all else is equal a group that picks single targets and concentrates on them will overcome a group that scatters and engages multiple targets without a clear goal of what is supposed to die first... Changing these simple natural laws to make a video game easier doesn't sit well with me :P
Odin Tahmorrex	Posted - 2005.06.21 06:04:00 - [84] Roger that... teamwork = bad. We should penalize people for working together. I mean, in a game where the dev's are trying desperately to forge a comradery and actual MMO experience... let's swing the nerfbat so hard we all scatter to every end of the universe and never come back to see the light of day in Yulai. God I'm tired.
Rex Martell	Posted - 2005.06.21 08:24:00 - [85] I appreciate the views of players who prefer 1v1 combat to large fleet engagements. 1-1 pVp is a measure or personal tactics and Character skills and unpredicability and in large measure the quality of Moduals used. Fleet pVp is neither a measure of character skill nor is it a place for expensive mods and unpredicabile individual behaviour, fleet engagements are a test of team work skills cordination and group reaction, In fleet engagements each pilot regardless of personl skill or skills is just a number and when that number is called its time to check out. Focused fire is the most obvious aspect of a cordinated attack against a single ship. Quote: Weirda then pictures some 15 year old pimplehead on Teamspeak shouting H3llR41s0r666 over and over until it dead... then Sm4shr4g..... etc... Fleet combat is becoming more complex not less as each ship class finds its niche and players learn to utilise that ship in fleet to full effect. In truth fleet combat can be as involved and skillful as players want it to be. Quote: cough skill cough But it is not a character skill based event the only skills that count here are player team skills. "The object of war is not to die for your corp, but to make the other b@##@#d die for his"

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.