| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sphit Ker
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
40
   |
Posted - 2011.12.09 16:24:00 -
[31] - Quote
I'll support your thing once you successfully justify why having greater manpower is good enough of a reason to justify a nerf in capabilities. |
Outz Xacto
Echelon Munitions
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 16:59:00 -
[32] - Quote
Actually this is counter to anything logical.
If you have something targetted and know its location, you'd share that information with your fleet, allowing for FASTER target acquisition, not slower.
Also to the comparison of flashlights, thats not how it works, you dont point and light in space and hope to find your target, you bounce a signal off it that your sensors pickup and fine tune. Thus with multiple ships all using the same frequency you would find targets FASTER not slower.
Everything about this smells of ******.
Yes I get your point that it is meant to create better fleet dynamics, however your examples and comparisons to reality are so ignorant its appauling.
Your concept is fine, its just your reasoning for why it would be this way is something the shallow end of the gene pool would produce. |
Pinaculus
The High and Mighty
69
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 17:47:00 -
[33] - Quote
So, do bomber squadrons do nothing to mitigate massed fleets?
I know sometimes it's difficult to realize just how much you spend on incidental things each month or year, but seriously, EVE is very cheap entertainment compared to most things... If you are a smoker, smoke one less pack a week and pay for EVE, with money left over to pick up a cheap bundle of flowers for the EVE widow upstairs. |
Ral Darkmoon
Enlightened Industries
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 18:30:00 -
[34] - Quote
All I see here is someone crying about the fact that he gets primaried often and doesnt like "blobs" because he is in a terrible alliance that cant get people to pvp.
Or something like that |
Aestivalis Saidrian
SplitPush Mercantiles
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 21:35:00 -
[35] - Quote
Pinaculus wrote:So, do bomber squadrons do nothing to mitigate massed fleets?
Not really, no. Most fleets scatter so that you can only hit 2-3 targets with a bomb.
Some fleet learned that the hard way when a Bomber wing wtfraped a 100+ man fleet on a gate. |
OllieNorth
Recidivists Incorporated
18
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 23:07:00 -
[36] - Quote
I'm not sure if I agree with this proposal, but do all you leet PVPers calling him out as a whiner REALLY enjoy blob warfare that much? I mean, the results are effective, but is it really fun to go around with 50 of the exact same ship fighting 50 other of the exact same ship? |
Rharkon
Askari Mining Co.
New Genesis Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 06:27:00 -
[37] - Quote
Personally, I like the feelings behind this idea. Anti-blobbing is, in my opinion, a good thing. Still, I can't claim that this would be completely healthy for the game, as I'm not a game developer. Again, though, I think it's a good idea, from my untrained point of view. |
Aestivalis Saidrian
SplitPush Mercantiles
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 20:50:00 -
[38] - Quote
OllieNorth wrote:I'm not sure if I agree with this proposal, but do all you leet PVPers calling him out as a whiner REALLY enjoy blob warfare that much? I mean, the results are effective, but is it really fun to go around with 50 of the exact same ship fighting 50 other of the exact same ship?
Problem is, results are far more important then 'Fun.' when it comes to Sov warfare. If I had a personal stake in some territory, you better believe I will use the most effective set up in a completely identical fleet to defend it. |
Hyrath Rotineque
Twilight Astro Miners
Vanguard Venture Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 18:48:00 -
[39] - Quote
Nikollai Tesla wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws
This is an important read. Currently we have in blob warfare, you call primary and everyone shoots at it. This counts as aimed fire, and is covered under Lanchester's square law.
Where the square of the ration of the forces determines the inverse casualty ratio.
example (A)100 vs (B) 50. Ratio is 2:1, So casualty is 1:4. A looses 12 ships, B looses 50
Whats important here is that the skill ratio is linear based while #s is square based. Note that Lanchester's Square Law does not apply to technological force, only numerical force; so it takes an N-squared-fold increase in quality to make up for an N-fold increase in quantity.
So if you are out number 2:1 you need to be 4 times as skilled to take down your opponent.
By limiting the Number of Combatants, were you can only engage and be engaged by X, similar to your 18th century warfare. This follows the linear laws.
In this case the same battle of 100(A) vs 50(B), you'd have a 1:1 ration. Where A looses 50 ships and B looses 50 ships.
It's really unfortunate that your post hasn't gotten all that much attention. Things might work better overall if things were a lot closer to this. |
Outz Xacto
Echelon Munitions
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 23:35:00 -
[40] - Quote
Hyrath Rotineque wrote:
It's really unfortunate that your post hasn't gotten all that much attention. Things might work better overall if things were a lot closer to this.
Perhaps its overlooked because everyone else saw what a gimmick it was. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |