EVE Search - The concentrating fire nerf -when will it come?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The concentrating fire nerf -when will it come?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
sejdi	Posted - 2006.03.20 15:58:00 - [31] Edited by: sejdi on 20/03/2006 16:01:42 Edited by: sejdi on 20/03/2006 16:01:04 Edited by: sejdi on 20/03/2006 16:00:08 Edited by: sejdi on 20/03/2006 15:59:34 Any direct way of limiting the number of ships that can lock you or even limiting the damage according to the number of active shooting ships is exploitable. I had an idea which I think is easy to implement, would encourage real fleet tactics and would help out the concentrating fire problem only so far without limiting anything ingame. The idea would also make the game look better on the cosmetical side: Ships should always keep a minimal distance to other objects and ships. You would simply have an invisible sphere surround your ship and that sphere would have clipping attribute on, roleplaying excuse would be to blame your navigation computer and some security protocols. The result would be that in small gangs nothing would change. In huge battles though the distance from the first and the furthers away ship would be dramatically increased. That would mean that if the fleet commander does not split his fleet and position them tactically so that they cover the same area at the same range, he would have to split fire. This security protocol would be only overridden by docking and undocking procedures. As a side effect all ranges for remote modules would need an increase in range according to the sphere's radius. Small ships would have a small and big ships a big sphere, this would also increase the strategic value of small vessles slightly. Edit: Since the last time I participated in fleet battles has been over 2 years ago, I would need the opinion of active fleet commanders on this.
Roshan longshot	Posted - 2006.03.20 16:02:00 - [32] Originally by: j0sephine "Longer version: There is absolutely no sense whatsoever in having multiple attacks on one single target do less damage, just because they're firing at the same target at the same time." Well... there is some logic to that, actually. I mean, picture ten guns shooting the same target. Chances are, more than single shell will hit roughly the same area (say, same turret or same hull section) ... if the first shell hitting that part of ship is enough to destroy it, then the second shell fired right after by another ship and landing there ... is pretty much wasted, there's nothing left to "kill" there. Also (which was the main reason why RL combat typically had ships spread their fire rather than focus it on single target) with more than single ship shooting at the same target it becomes increasingly difficult to figure out whose shells actually missed in the last salvo, and who should correct their aiming to actually score a hit... leading to less accuracy in general. This is aside from the whole "should focused fire be nerfed" discussion, though. Ahhh...RL does not apply here.... and.. Have you heard of a "gunline" Or crossing the "T" Where the entire fleet would shoot at one target? Well maybe before your time...mine also...but WWII "Salvo Island" rings a bell.... Free-form Professions, ensure no limetations on professions. Be a trader, fighter, industialist, researcher, hunter *pirate* or mixture of them all. [i]As read from the original box. We are not ebil forum police, for one thing I don't have a hat :( - Cortes
Dirtball	Posted - 2006.03.20 16:04:00 - [33] Edited by: Dirtball on 20/03/2006 16:05:44 I found a work around to your problem. DONT BLOB and dont fight anyone who does. edit: BEST POST EVERRRRRR Originally by: Ishquar Teh'Sainte the FC is the master of puppets - while the rest are the F1-F8 drones Quote:
Hohenheim OfLight	Posted - 2006.03.20 16:05:00 - [34] that's just silly, what logia reason would ever cause more fire power to do less dmg? ----------------------------------------------
Wheya	Posted - 2006.03.20 16:08:00 - [35] Originally by: Cvuos As for soloers not getting kills. I have little sympathy for that, even if I've missed many myself. If you remove the option to avoid combat, you eventually remove the opportunity to get solo combat, because there will be too much risk in travelling alone. This discourages solo 0.0 travel and encourages use of hauler/scout alts in Empire wars. Yes, unfortunatly this is one of two counter-arguments I can think of. The other one is that this so called 'fair' combat with diminishing returns (enforcing 1:1 in most extreme settings) would be more 'fair' for veterans than for new players. I am aware of this problems. I am good in criticizing but bad with offering solutions. All I know is that combat in EVE in my personal situation flying most of my time solo is getting worse and worse over the last years. I neither fly in gank squads nor do I hunt noobs to boost my killboard statistic. I can only enjoy challenging fights. People who know what they are doing can easily avoid me or try to gank me with superior numbers. Rarely I have an enjoyable fight where the outcome of the fight is not clear before it has started. Even in this situations its most of the time only luck in EW who makes the winner.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.03.20 16:12:00 - [36] "Ahhh...RL does not apply here.... and.. Have you heard of a "gunline" Or crossing the "T" Where the entire fleet would shoot at one target?" Well wasn't me who invoked "sense" as argument against this mechanics. ^^ and as far as crossing the T goes... sorry, but that tactics was intended to minimize incoming fire as the enemy ships could only use either forward or rear turrets, while your own fleet could fire full broadsides. They were not focusing on single target, though: "Each ship in the line generally engaged its opposite number in the enemy battle line."
Razin	Posted - 2006.03.20 16:12:00 - [37] If CCP did decide to nerf concentrated fire, hereÆs one proposal on how to do it. The RP justification basis for this is that energy and debris discharge resulting from ordinance and beam impact on the target create interference that impedes that ability of the firing ships to keep a lock on that target. Basically, when a target looses some predefined percentage of its hit points per some unit of time an event is triggered that causes some or all of the attacking ships to loose the lock on that target. The loss of a lock probability would be based on many factors such as distance from target, size of target, transverse velocity, sensor strength, etc. This would probably be a beotch to balance, but the result will be smaller gangs within a fleet concentrating on multiple targets and a higher importance of alpha strikes.
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2006.03.20 16:14:00 - [38] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 20/03/2006 16:15:37 I'd be extremely dissapointed if nerfing of concentrated firepower is the best thing CCP could come up with to prolong battles. And why is ti that the same people that would like to see this happen, also want to change EW to be less viable ? Isn't EW the best current method of prolonging fights ? If there's any way to make your enemy do less damage it's by not having them shoot in the first place isn't it ? I pray CCP come up with something more logical then to artificially limit this logical combat tactic so as to make another more viable. btw, even if they do nerf concentrated fire while at the same time giving us better tools to assign duiffernt targets to for example different sub-gangs so that firepower is distributed more evenly, the net effect will actually be *more ships dying per minute*. Or have you never wondered how much more effective you'd be when focusing those 40 BS evenly on 4 targets rather then just one ? We all know that the firepower would be enough to down all 4 before they warp (and btw, say hello to my new friend interdictor too while you're at it). The only thing stopping us from accelerating combat even more is the fact that the gain in absolute time would be too small to bother when compared to the difficulty of attaining the extra effectivity. (or: too little extra kills for the required coordination improvement to make that work). What do you think will change to that when the gain in absolute time increases, or when the difficulty iof spreading the fire better decreases ? Exactly, no net improvement to combat duration. Power to the players !
Rimhawk	Posted - 2006.03.20 16:17:00 - [39] Isn't this just a matter of efficiency? If your objective is to destroy the enemy and at the same time have as many of your assets survive as possible, wouldn't you prioritise targets, say for example like this: 1. Enemy jammers (If they do their job, they prevent your biggest damage dealers from targeting enemy ships, making them ineffective). 2. Gankers; Reduce enemy firepower by selecting those ships that do the most damage but are the easiest (well relatively speaking) to take down. E.g. take down gankers first, rather than tankers, since gankers typically do more damage but tank less well. Of course this is a balance issue. 3. And so forth. It makes sense to me that anyone would prioritize targets, and then concentrate firepower to take those targets down first. Of course using your entire fleet to take down one target is not efficient, so sub-units (like squadrons with individual commanders) would be more efficient than having your entire fleet concentrate on one target. But wouldn't that be the most economical application of your forces, rather than having each ship fire at other individual ships? I'm no fleet commander, but that just seems to make sense.... so if that is what's happening, why change it? Certainly, it's not good for the person on the receiving end, but was is never fair. Rimhawk V8 Interceptors
Lifewire	Posted - 2006.03.20 16:36:00 - [40] I guess everybody would agree on that in a 50 vs 50 actual PVP is limited to the fleetcomanders naming 2 targets. This is really PVP for kids. I guess the "best MMOG" should offer some more options. Forum:http://www.tundragon.com/forum/ Movies:http://www.tundragon.com/pub/eveclips Killboard:http://www.tundragon.com/

Calenth	Posted - 2006.03.20 16:39:00 - [41] One thing we do have experience with in Goonfleet is large fleet fights. Normally, we find that mounting large fleets is counter-productive -- nobody will engage you if you have 4x their numbers. The sort of fleet engagements you're talking about, with 50+ ships on a side, are comparatively rare. The vast majority of the time, one side or the other will refuse to engage once you get that many ships on the table and at risk.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.03.20 16:40:00 - [42] "I guess everybody would agree on that in a 50 vs 50 actual PVP is limited to the fleetcomanders naming 2 targets. This is really PVP for kids. I guess the "best MMOG" should offer some more options." Fly one of the supports in that 50 v 50. Try to take out their support and defend your heavy ships while avoiding up to 20-30 people taking interest in getting you in the pod. Tbh i prefer this over sitting in a sniper and pressing f1-f6... maybe am childish, dunno.
Lexor SLice	Posted - 2006.03.20 16:41:00 - [43] Originally by: Da Death I think it would be good to nerf the concentrated fire in fleet battles. It would prolong the battle (more RUSH!) and could have help the use of tanking capabilities of different ships. Also I think it is not wise to go with expensive t2 gear in fleet battles where we cant tank anything due to concentrated fire. Tt would give the best pilots their rewards for their 'know how', how to fight. If you don't know what I talking about, please look at Nyphur's site which explaines it more thoroughly- click here ok....so because either you or your corp cant field a fleet worth a damn i suppose, and cant learn to concentrate fire....you want to ruin it for those who can? And you dont decided to bring t2 stuff into fleet work, point? i'm lost.... ____________________________________________
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2006.03.20 16:42:00 - [44] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 20/03/2006 16:43:15 Originally by: Lifewire I guess everybody would agree on that in a 50 vs 50 actual PVP is limited to the fleetcomanders naming 2 targets. This is really PVP for kids. I guess the "best MMOG" should offer some more options. That I can agree with. The last part that is, the first part only really applies to the non-EW battleship component of any fleet. However, why always look at it from a firepower perspective only ? How about the gang mods, hitpoint increases, speed increases maybe, additional electronic warfare options, changes to warp mechanics (like needing only 50km distance instead of 150km in order to warp to something ?). Making combat more dynamic can be done by ways more suited then nerfing direct firepower in a way that would imo not even be effective anyway. Power to the players !
Lifewire	Posted - 2006.03.20 16:47:00 - [45] Rod, as long it is efficient to call one target - it will be done. And this is PVP for kids. There are only 2-3 people that have some challange in this kind of battles: fleetcomanders and covert ops pilots that create the warp-spots. All others are doing the job of a sentry gun...lol Forum:http://www.tundragon.com/forum/ Movies:http://www.tundragon.com/pub/eveclips Killboard:http://www.tundragon.com/
sejdi	Posted - 2006.03.20 16:49:00 - [46] Nobody thinks my idea could work?
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.03.20 16:52:00 - [47] "Nobody thinks my idea could work?" I think the potential issue is, if you make these collision spheres large enough to actually matter in the way you'd like them to, then everyday things like undocking or jumping through gate become a real can of worms ^^;;
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2006.03.20 16:52:00 - [48] Originally by: Lifewire Rod, as long it is efficient to call one target - it will be done. And this is PVP for kids. There are only 2-3 people that have some challange in this kind of battles: fleetcomanders and covert ops pilots that create the warp-spots. All others are doing the job of a sentry gun...lol Well, I'd not entirely agree. But that more diveristy and dynamics are wanted I guess one could say regardless of how you see current fleet combat. I mean, the roles of EW pilots, interdictors, support ships, anti-support ships, covops, target callers, taggers and capital ship pilots as well as their direct support are somewhat more varied then pressing F1 thru F8 i'd say. But yeah. What do you think about allowing people to warp to objects from as little as 50km btw ? Just thought of it as a possibility, but what do you think ot would lead to ? It would allow for far more diverse positioning and manouvring during fights tbh. But what else and how much would it change ? Power to the players !
sejdi	Posted - 2006.03.20 16:58:00 - [49] Edited by: sejdi on 20/03/2006 17:00:57 Quote: I think the potential issue is, if you make these collision spheres large enough to actually matter in the way you'd like them to, then everyday things like undocking or jumping through gate become a real can of worms ^^;; Undocking would be an exception, like I already wrote it in my other post. The collision spheres only collide with other collision spheres, on undocking you will not have one until you warp for the first time. I don't see a big problem on "everyday" jumping, unless you mean fleet jumping, which I would not consider an everyday thing. It would need coordination, yes. If you mean the gate traffic at hig hubs though, I already though about it before making the idea, that is the reason why you lose the sphere on docking and jumping procedures (forgot to mention the jumping part).
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2006.03.20 17:00:00 - [50] How about tackling those ships then ? Big can of worms, and I dont really see the effect on combat tbh. Power to the players !

sejdi	Posted - 2006.03.20 17:05:00 - [51] Originally by: Rod Blaine How about tackling those ships then ? Big can of worms, and I dont really see the effect on combat tbh. The effect would be that, if you don't coordinate (split) your fleet, concentrating targets for the whole gang would be pointless or just not effective because half the team would not be able to target the ship or just be out of range to deal any considerable damage. Ultra long sniping could cross the plan though...
SengH	Posted - 2006.03.20 17:13:00 - [52] any system would be super exploitable, people would either just coordinate to lock each other up so they could not be hit OR in the case of the spheres, do you have any clue how suicidal that would be for a fleet jumping into a system? Or heck even for any average gang warp since it automatically clusters everyone together.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.03.20 17:15:00 - [53] "Undocking would be an exception, like I already wrote it in my other post. The collision spheres only collide with other collision spheres, on undocking you will not have one until you warp for the first time." Aye, i didn't see that addition to your post until i posted the reply, sorry ^^ what i mean is though, something like simply parking a battleship or a few between the warp-in point and the station (they already warped somewhere first, so they have the collision spheres) Which pretty much forces anyone who warps in after and wants to dock either crawl gods know how many km to move around them, or warp out and see alternate warp in point, etc... same thing for approaching the jump gate close enough to trigger the jump option. There's also issue with close range ships being indirectly nerfed -- not being able to approach the target close enough to produce enough transversal, or even hit them for that matter...
Jennifae	Posted - 2006.03.20 17:16:00 - [54] yeah that's it! Nerf good tactics 4tw!!!111!!!!!eleven
sejdi	Posted - 2006.03.20 17:17:00 - [55] Originally by: SengH any system would be super exploitable, people would either just coordinate to lock each other up so they could not be hit OR in the case of the spheres, do you have any clue how suicidal that would be for a fleet jumping into a system? Or heck even for any average gang warp since it automatically clusters everyone together. Both sides would be spread out so nothing suicidal about it. Tbh. I don't think this system is perfect, I simply don't like any hard set limits that make no point at all, so I was trying to think of a more "natural" cure.
Zaldiri	Posted - 2006.03.20 17:17:00 - [56] Why is fire concenrated now anyway? correct me if I'm wrong but 10-15 tech 2 sniper BS can kill most ships in one volley anyway. So whats the point of having a whole fleet of 50-100 BS all hitting the shooting the same target? I havent been in a fleetbattle for a while though, it may be that most commander split their fleets now. ----------------------------------------------- Admiral of King Frieza's Super Saiyan fleet.
Cummilla	Posted - 2006.03.20 17:22:00 - [57] Originally by: j0sephine "I guess everybody would agree on that in a 50 vs 50 actual PVP is limited to the fleetcomanders naming 2 targets. This is really PVP for kids. I guess the "best MMOG" should offer some more options." Fly one of the supports in that 50 v 50. Try to take out their support and defend your heavy ships while avoiding up to 20-30 people taking interest in getting you in the pod. Tbh i prefer this over sitting in a sniper and pressing f1-f6... maybe am childish, dunno. nope, not childish. There are unimaginative, cough ascn cough fleet strategists out there who think fleet combat is nothing more than sniping\concentrated fire exercises. In fact, at one point, and perhaps this is still the case w/ ascn, they actually forbid scorps, blasterthrons, and domi's in fleet actions. Such shortsightedness. Such a failure to appreciate the breadth of experience of actual fleet actions of the past. But whatever the case, that is just one instance of shortsightedness and unimaginative thinking. The same ethos, to a degree, permeates dread usefulness theory. My take is to just let the unimaginative be unimaginative and continue to use these deficiences against them and to my advantage. Eve will always reward that.
SengH	Posted - 2006.03.20 17:23:00 - [58] Originally by: sejdi Originally by: SengH any system would be super exploitable, people would either just coordinate to lock each other up so they could not be hit OR in the case of the spheres, do you have any clue how suicidal that would be for a fleet jumping into a system? Or heck even for any average gang warp since it automatically clusters everyone together. Both sides would be spread out so nothing suicidal about it. Tbh. I don't think this system is perfect, I simply don't like any hard set limits that make no point at all, so I was trying to think of a more "natural" cure. never jumped through a gate with a 100 ship fleet before? and heres another question... do we REALLY need any more calcuations to add to server lag.
sejdi	Posted - 2006.03.20 17:26:00 - [59] Originally by: j0sephine Aye, i didn't see that addition to your post until i posted the reply, sorry ^^ what i mean is though, something like simply parking a battleship or a few between the warp-in point and the station (they already warped somewhere first, so they have the collision spheres) Which pretty much forces anyone who warps in after and wants to dock either crawl gods know how many km to move around them, or warp out and see alternate warp in point, etc... same thing for approaching the jump gate close enough to trigger the jump option. There's also issue with close range ships being indirectly nerfed -- not being able to approach the target close enough to produce enough transversal, or even hit them for that matter... I haven't been in game for a while, so I am not sure how the docking procedure works today. It used to be that way: you have the dock option at any range from the station, on clicking it you would automatically approach the station first and then dock once in range. The same system should be applied on gates and on clicking on either docking or jumping one would lose the sphere. The close range problem I already noticed and mentioned (edited) in my post. I have no clear solution on that one. Also you might not have noticed it, but there is even another negative effect on close range ships on my system. I know that most fleets are at long range, but lets assume you have part of the fleet warping on the other fleet at close range and engaging. On my system it would be not even closely possible to do that, because of the distances the ships have from each other a lot of close range ships would be in optimal range of other long range enemies. Would be even more of a suicide run that today. Just trying to add a bit of variety to the discussion, I don't think we should limit ourselves on the "decrease damage / attacking ship" thing, because that will never work.
Adjodlo	Posted - 2006.03.20 17:33:00 - [60] I very much hope this never happens. It makes absoloutely no sense. 6 ships shooting at one SHOULD DO 6x DAMAGE! its pretty simple. I think you're going to have to think out of the box here. If your enemy has more ships than you, you should figure out a way to even the ground. ECM maybe or logistics cruisers? A better tank? Fitting each member of your fleet with a remote rep and repairing eachother? Please don't let this ever happen.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: 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.