| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6365
   |
Posted - 2015.03.07 20:45:53 -
[1] - Quote
We see a lot of changes going on these days - for better or worse. But I would like to propose that the mechanics of targeting see a change that I think would have an effect on fleet engagement, blobbing, and ship arrangement.
That is, such a simple approach to one thing would ripple outward.
In my experience in working on RL radar and tracking systems for fighter aircraft, we would see a lot of funny things happen in the field. While today's fighter jets can burn through ECM (without a module har har) and track more targets than most Eve ships, one thing that was noticeable was how the lock would fall off if there were too many aircraft locked up on a target.
Mind you this was not supposed to happen. We had to troubleshoot these systems. But it did happen. But I recall it happened more with smaller targets.
One thing that would affect this game towards more interesting engagement would be an incorporation of mechanics that consider these factors:
Size of the ship performing the lock (this is already done, hence the battleship takes a while to lock a frigate)
Number of ships locking up a target.
Size of the target.
Scan res of target and signal strength (as already with item 1).
So given that the mechanics partially address this, by what mechanics or logic then makes it possible for scores of ships to successfully lock and maintain tracking on a target?
Hence the "fleet -F1" monkey stuff that I see being complained about often.
Imagine if there was a limitation built into the considerations and factors that ruled out the "blobbing/primary" effect such that in large fleet engagements, wings and squads would have to go up against wings and squads?
In smaller engagements 20 frigates locking one frigate would not be possible but maybe a "few" (hey more use for the target painter). This would also give us more accurate statistical reporting as well since there will be no jumping in on kills. And if you have frigates on frigate and a cruiser with it's more powerful signal locks, the frigates get less reliability maintaining it (falls off) or maybe even entirely loses it.
Whether there would be intermittent lock loss, or total loss, or perhaps simple degradation in tracking, would be left up to the math I guess.
So the bigger the ship the more ships can lock it, the smaller the less. Attributes are already in place. I think this would make for more interesting engagement and less mindless blobbing.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Madd Adda
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 20:52:37 -
[2] - Quote
please no, targeting isn't broken, don't touch it.
Carebear extraordinaire
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
849
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 21:58:48 -
[3] - Quote
so discourage group play in an MMO?
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
Iain Cariaba
1111
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 22:19:09 -
[4] - Quote
Oh look, it's this idea again.
One argument made last time this exact idea was mentioned: logi. Pick the important fleet members, logi prelocks them like they're supposed to, then it is pretty much impossible to headshot the fleet's FC or anchors. The rest of the fleet prelocking just two logi each makes logi also just as invulnerable.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
|
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Brawlers Inc.
1490
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 00:58:51 -
[5] - Quote
Interesting reasoning behind this. I don't think it would function well in eve though. The largest issues is that that game can't differentiate between allies an enemies for this, so a fleet with more logistics ships not only would have more potential reps, but also prevent as many enemy ships from targeting that ship.
New Player Placement Specialist and Scope Project FC.
Contact me for a free consultation.
|
Sigras
Conglomo
1014
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 01:41:16 -
[6] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:so discourage group play in an MMO?
please learn the difference between "discouraging" and "balancing"
That said, the problem with this idea is that people would game the system, as others have already stated. a fleet of 50 would have each of their fleet members lock 3 friendlies generating 150 friendly locks to prevent the enemy from legitimately locking onto them. |
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
871
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 01:50:27 -
[7] - Quote
I can't say for certain because I don't know who you work for or even your nationality, but talking about the limitations of real world military radar systems on a public internet forum is probably not OK, m'kay?
Additionally, making something more realistic does not necessarily make it more fun or more balanced. This is a game, not an aerial combat simulator.
Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6371
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 05:37:37 -
[8] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:I can't say for certain because I don't know who you work for or even your nationality, but talking about the limitations of real world military radar systems on a public internet forum is probably not OK, m'kay?
Additionally, making something more realistic does not necessarily make it more fun or more balanced. This is a game, not an aerial combat simulator.
Let's talk about Jet Engine Modulation and Home on Jam while we are at it. Just because you don't like the idea, don't mean you have to threaten me with "the state".
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Tusker Crazinski
Delta vane Corp.
Mordus Angels
35
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 08:24:26 -
[9] - Quote
first off all the locking mechanics are fine, no change needed in that department, and realistically speaking there would be no radar on spaceships, just a bunch of IR receivers.
the background temperature of space is about 3 degrees kelvin, meaning an Ice cube is going to flair up like a blow torch through a FLIR.
pretty much space is the most sensor friendly environment imaginable, there is no stealth, and you can be seen for several AU out. |
Tusker Crazinski
Delta vane Corp.
Mordus Angels
35
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 08:33:58 -
[10] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Hence the "fleet -F1" monkey stuff that I see being complained about often.
argg, actually any game that involves HPz focus fire is the most efficient way beat another force. whether it be a Shooter, RTS, table top, or MMO in the 1990s or 2010s. that is not going to change
|
|
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6373
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 09:09:18 -
[11] - Quote
Tusker Crazinski wrote:first off all the locking mechanics are fine, no change needed in that department, and realistically speaking there would be no radar on spaceships, just a bunch of IR receivers.
the background temperature of space is about 3 degrees kelvin, meaning an Ice cube is going to flair up like a blow torch through a FLIR.
pretty much space is the most sensor friendly environment imaginable, there is no stealth, and you can be seen for several AU out.
Actually they differ by race.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Kazaheid Zaknafein
Mara's Hounds
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 11:02:08 -
[12] - Quote
Regardless, due to the lack of atmosphere and other interference; targeting systems in space are basically fool proof barring hostile ecm.
In Eve we have RADAR, LADAR, Magnetic, and Gravimetric targeting systems. The only one of these that would theoretically have interference is RADAR.
That being said, I'm sure the hundreds of years of spaceflight have debugged 99.99999% of targeting issues, we even have (sorta) counters to ECM. |
Sisohiv
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
294
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 11:13:48 -
[13] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:so discourage gank play in an MMO?
Fixed that for you.
There are 25 squads in a fleet in EVE and they mean nothing because there is one FC and everyone does what he says. That's not group play. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
12046
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 12:44:28 -
[14] - Quote
There are a lot of reasons to not do this, and the only reason to do it would be to add verisimilitude with the limitations of real life electronic equipment.
Gonna give you a big old no on this one.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Tusker Crazinski
Delta vane Corp.
Mordus Angels
35
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 14:23:52 -
[15] - Quote
Kazaheid Zaknafein wrote:Regardless, due to the lack of atmosphere and other interference; targeting systems in space are basically fool proof barring hostile ecm.
In Eve we have RADAR, LADAR, Magnetic, and Gravimetric targeting systems. The only one of these that would theoretically have interference is RADAR.
That being said, I'm sure the hundreds of years of spaceflight have debugged 99.99999% of targeting issues, we even have (sorta) counters to ECM.
not to mention in the late 70s when the voyager probe was somewhere around jupiter, it could spot RCS thrusters around earth.
just sayin there are lots of issues to deal with in space, targeting is not one of them. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |