EVE Search - FC Headshot per Fan-Fest

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

FC Headshot per Fan-Fest

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Glitch Online Coffee Lovers Brewing Club Silent Infinity 5	Posted - 2016.05.15 20:04:58 - [91] - Quote For those of you (if any) keeping tabs on this thread, i've added a 4th edit.
Lyra Gerie Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 94	Posted - 2016.05.15 21:11:03 - [92] - Quote Considering how far so many have taken this game as it is, I'm surprised most groups don't realize this has always been a military strategy. I get that it's frustrating, especially once you're a well known FC, but it's just how it is. Again, given how far other parts of this game have been taken, the organization and execution why are these FC's such linchpins in your fleets? Have some redundancy in your fleets. No one officer should doom the fleet because he was lost. I guess im just wondering why there isn't a fleet chain of command for situations like this and why it needs a game mechanic.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2538	Posted - 2016.05.15 22:10:43 - [93] - Quote Glitch Online wrote: For those of you (if any) keeping tabs on this thread, i've added a 4th edit. with idea 1 and 2 you could literally make invulnerable ships with less than 10 people that's a lot of ships in the fleet that are unable to be killed at all Citadel worm hole tax
Glitch Online Coffee Lovers Brewing Club Silent Infinity 5	Posted - 2016.05.15 22:21:14 - [94] - Quote Lyra Gerie wrote: Considering how far so many have taken this game as it is, I'm surprised most groups don't realize this has always been a military strategy. I get that it's frustrating, especially once you're a well known FC, but it's just how it is. Again, given how far other parts of this game have been taken, the organization and execution why are these FC's such linchpins in your fleets? Have some redundancy in your fleets. No one officer should doom the fleet because he was lost. I guess im just wondering why there isn't a fleet chain of command for situations like this and why it needs a game mechanic. Casual game play prevents this in many cases. Redundancy can be obtained in certain groups/alliances. But this is for the masses that are casual players and alliances/Coalitions that cannot rely on their trained people to be on when needed. As mentioned before, this 'game mechanic' is to prevent what would other wise be a great fleet vs fleet fight from ending fast (yes i know it is a tactic) BECAUSE the rest do not or will not take charge, and flee. Keep in mind that keeping the FC alive even in our current time IS possible. Current task force sent out to patrol the Oceans are surrounded by support ships that keep any and all threats from reaching the Flag Ship. This ( takes some imagination in a make believe space ship game) can be thought to be applies here as well.
Glitch Online Coffee Lovers Brewing Club Silent Infinity 5	Posted - 2016.05.15 22:23:46 - [95] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Glitch Online wrote: For those of you (if any) keeping tabs on this thread, i've added a 4th edit. with idea 1 and 2 you could literally make invulnerable ships with less than 10 people that's a lot of ships in the fleet that are unable to be killed at all Yes, i know. These are the 3 possible way i could envision. But i didn't think i'd have to post them because I know that being a base idea tweaks would be a must.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2538	Posted - 2016.05.15 22:34:55 - [96] - Quote these three ideas are vastly differant from your original post that was a simple 1% bonus to shields armor and hull something far smaller and incapable of making an invulnerable ship than resists your new three all can make things invulnerable the first two can be done in under 10 on some ships where the third will take no more and no less than 100 Citadel worm hole tax
Glitch Online Coffee Lovers Brewing Club Silent Infinity 5	Posted - 2016.05.15 22:40:46 - [97] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: these three ideas are vastly differant from your original post that was a simple 1% bonus to shields armor and hull something far smaller and incapable of making an invulnerable ship than resists your new three all can make things invulnerable the first two can be done in under 10 on some ships where the third will take no more and no less than 100 See... i wrote Edit#4 for people like you...
Lugh Crow-Slave 2538	Posted - 2016.05.15 22:52:13 - [98] - Quote what? edit 4 is what makes your idea worse Citadel worm hole tax
Glitch Online Coffee Lovers Brewing Club Silent Infinity 5	Posted - 2016.05.15 22:54:54 - [99] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: what? edit 4 is what makes your idea worse Well.. you've been ranting non-stop about how bad it is so it really doesn't change much as i see it.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2538	Posted - 2016.05.15 23:01:25 - [100] - Quote how is making truly indestructible ships not much of a change from practically indestructible? Citadel worm hole tax

Glitch Online Coffee Lovers Brewing Club Silent Infinity 5	Posted - 2016.05.15 23:05:40 - [101] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: how is making truly indestructible ships not much of a change from practically indestructible? I'd explain this to you but a) it's already been explained, and b) i doubt you'd "comprehend" it if i wrote it for you again. You seem to have a knack for missing the point.
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy 9902	Posted - 2016.05.15 23:46:47 - [102] - Quote Glitch Online wrote: As mentioned before, this 'game mechanic' is to prevent what would other wise be a great fleet vs fleet fight from ending fast (yes i know it is a tactic) BECAUSE the rest do not or will not take charge, and flee. Which is more of a personal issue on the part of the FC in charge and the fleets that fly under them. And counter your "learn to read" comeback (which is getting a little old)... I have read your idea. I understand the concept of your idea. I do not agree the concept of your idea because I fail to see an issue with "decapitating" a fleet. Having a "centralized command" allows for faster and more efficient decisions... that is the benefit of it. However the inherent tradeoff is that if "central command" is nuked, then everything goes to hell. On the other end of the spectrum, a decentralized command structure allows for greater redundancy and flexibility when things don't go according to plan. The tradeoff is less efficiency and slower decision making. It balances itself out. Quite basically... what you are attempting to do is provide a buff for one command style because, for whatever reason, you don't think the other is viable. Decentralized command is viable and is done quite often. Methinks you need to learn how to utilize it rather than say "nononono... it isn't an option. I don't want to do it. It isn't my thing." Guess what? No tactic should be superior to the other and not have some kind of caveat. How did you Veterans start? "Learn how things work. The intricacies, interactions, and hard limits... knowing these things will grant you far more power in the long run."
Glitch Online Coffee Lovers Brewing Club Silent Infinity 5	Posted - 2016.05.15 23:55:14 - [103] - Quote ShahFluffers wrote: And counter your "learn to read" comeback (which is getting a little old)... ... that's because you continue to miss the point.
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy 9902	Posted - 2016.05.15 23:56:47 - [104] - Quote Glitch Online wrote: ShahFluffers wrote: And counter your "learn to read" comeback (which is getting a little old)... ... that's because you continue to miss the point. I get the point you are trying to make. I don't agree with it. That's the issue. How did you Veterans start? "Learn how things work. The intricacies, interactions, and hard limits... knowing these things will grant you far more power in the long run."
Glitch Online Coffee Lovers Brewing Club Silent Infinity 5	Posted - 2016.05.16 00:04:34 - [105] - Quote ShahFluffers wrote: I get the point you are trying to make. I don't agree with it. That's the issue. That 'issue' sounds more of a personal problem. Not every one will agree with what you find to be right and/or pleasing. I respect your opinion, but don't expect the world to jump at your every command just because you don't like it.
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy 9904	Posted - 2016.05.16 00:15:31 - [106] - Quote Glitch Online wrote: ShahFluffers wrote: I get the point you are trying to make. I don't agree with it. That's the issue. That 'issue' sounds more of a personal problem. Not every one will agree with what you find to be right and/or pleasing. I respect your opinion, but don't expect the world to jump at your every command just because you don't like it. Fair enough. But what you are proposing has wider implications beyond what you are trying to accomplish. Implications which may not have very positive effects in other areas of the game (which other people having been pointing out to you through various ways THEY would abuse the mechanics you propose). The way I see it, the current system is balanced as is. If you want a more centralized fleet structure, cool. But you have to accept that "decapitation" and the fleet "imploding" is a very real risk. If you want a more decentralized fleet structure, cool. But you have to accept that poor decisions on the part of other commanders is a very real risk. From my perspective, your system puts more protections / advantages for one style of commanding simply because you seem to personally do not like the risk that comes with it. To which I say, "so what?" How did you Veterans start? "Learn how things work. The intricacies, interactions, and hard limits... knowing these things will grant you far more power in the long run."
Glitch Online Coffee Lovers Brewing Club Silent Infinity 5	Posted - 2016.05.16 00:22:27 - [107] - Quote ShahFluffers wrote: The way I see it, the current system is balanced as is. And again, I agree with you. I'll say this one more time. The only reason i came up with this 'idea' was because in the Video ccp mentioned a 'special' ship for FCs. I personaly do not like the idea of a ship that will have the same tank regardless of the fleet size. I am not demanding/requesting a change, just adding my 2 cents with "what if instead of X idea we do Y idea".
Lugh Crow-Slave 2538	Posted - 2016.05.16 00:24:17 - [108] - Quote Because y is worse than x Citadel worm hole tax
Glitch Online Coffee Lovers Brewing Club Silent Infinity 5	Posted - 2016.05.16 00:27:39 - [109] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Because y is worse than x And here we go again...
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy 9904	Posted - 2016.05.16 00:45:11 - [110] - Quote Glitch Online wrote: ShahFluffers wrote: The way I see it, the current system is balanced as is. And again, I agree with you. I'll say this one more time. The only reason i came up with this 'idea' was because in the Video ccp mentioned a 'special' ship for FCs. I personaly do not like the idea of a ship that will have the same tank regardless of the fleet size. I am not demanding/requesting a change, just adding my 2 cents with "what if instead of X idea we do Y idea". Looking at the history of CCP and EVE Online... What the DEVs say they would like to do, them actually doing it, and them doing it properly are three fundamentally different things. I would not take the musings of a DEV seriously until I see them moving forward with the concept. They talked about "ambulation" (see: Walking in Station) for years and look how that turned out. Flying down to planets in our current ships... that was another thing that DEVs talked about a few years back as "something they would like to do." The idea was never heard of again. Docking in capital ships and being transported by them gets thrown about as well. In fact, the DEVs originally wanted to do just that. Then technical limitations with the base code of the game got in the way and so now we have jump bridges/portals. Drone ships were supposed to look and feel like ships that could summon up hordes of little bees. Then lag and the very code that drones are based on got in the way (drone code is supposed to be especially bad and buggy). tldr; just because a DEV says something or wants something to be a certain way... it doesn't mean it will be that way or even be at all. Be patient. Keep your expectations and fears in check. You can't "get ahead of something" that doesn't exist in the first place or is a big, fat unknown. It is okay to muse about an idea and toss it about. But it is also okay to call it out for what it is. Also... the concept of a "Special Ship JUST for Fleet Commanders" has been thrown about quite a bit on this very forum (usually under the subject line of "Ship of the Line" or "Fleet Commander Battleship" or "Super Battleship" or some other cliche naming scheme). The idea tends to get shot down pretty quickly because balancing such a ship would be extremely difficult given how computer code cannot discern intent or meta-gaming. How did you Veterans start? "Learn how things work. The intricacies, interactions, and hard limits... knowing these things will grant you far more power in the long run."

Lugh Crow-Slave 2538	Posted - 2016.05.16 00:52:24 - [111] - Quote ShahFluffers wrote: Docking in capital ships and being transported by them gets thrown about as well. In fact, the DEVs originally wanted to do just that. Then technical limitations with the base code of the game got in the way I really hope they look at this again now that they fixed one of the biggest technical hurdles Citadel worm hole tax
Glitch Online Coffee Lovers Brewing Club Silent Infinity 5	Posted - 2016.05.16 00:53:06 - [112] - Quote Right you are. I know odds of them doing something with not just my 'idea' but their own is a long shot. This was more of a mention so that in the even they ever do try to do something with it, another option would be there in the back of their minds. For all i know some one has already mentioned this very same idea if not something similar. But as i see it, no harm done, after all, its just an idea.
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy 9904	Posted - 2016.05.16 01:01:07 - [113] - Quote Being openly ambivalent about an idea and not telling others "please re-read" can go a long way in a debate. Also... if you did not like the idea to begin with then you could have made it more open ended and not defended it so passionately/aggressively. It is okay to say "I head about a DEV talking about this idea, I personally do not like it, but I would like to see thoughts about it." Then sit back and let the fireworks happen. How did you Veterans start? "Learn how things work. The intricacies, interactions, and hard limits... knowing these things will grant you far more power in the long run."
Lugh Crow-Slave 2538	Posted - 2016.05.16 01:04:22 - [114] - Quote now that's just no fun i need entertainment when i'm at work Citadel worm hole tax
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy 9904	Posted - 2016.05.16 01:08:23 - [115] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: now that's just no fun i need entertainment when i'm at work psssssst ... Lugh... give the man an "out." How did you Veterans start? "Learn how things work. The intricacies, interactions, and hard limits... knowing these things will grant you far more power in the long run."
Glitch Online Coffee Lovers Brewing Club Silent Infinity 5	Posted - 2016.05.16 01:12:04 - [116] - Quote lol, i actualy thought about just posting and forgetting about it btw. Just didn't work out that way.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 2036	Posted - 2016.05.16 11:39:00 - [117] - Quote OP this is going well. You just need to consolidate all the support you've collected in this thread and push forward. Ignore these nay-sayers and keep going. The summit is in sight. GO GO GO!
Glitch Online Coffee Lovers Brewing Club Silent Infinity 5	Posted - 2016.05.16 12:40:24 - [118] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: OP this is going well. You just need to consolidate all the support you've collected in this thread and push forward. Ignore these nay-sayers and keep going. The summit is in sight. GO GO GO! With support like yours, how could i say no. ONWARD!!!
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 2036	Posted - 2016.05.16 12:49:43 - [119] - Quote Glitch Online wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: OP this is going well. You just need to consolidate all the support you've collected in this thread and push forward. Ignore these nay-sayers and keep going. The summit is in sight. GO GO GO! With support like yours, how could i say no. ONWARD!!! That's because I'm a super awesome forum FC. I should be protected at all costs.
Lyra Gerie Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 96	Posted - 2016.05.16 14:00:16 - [120] - Quote Glitch Online wrote: Lyra Gerie wrote: Considering how far so many have taken this game as it is, I'm surprised most groups don't realize this has always been a military strategy. I get that it's frustrating, especially once you're a well known FC, but it's just how it is. Again, given how far other parts of this game have been taken, the organization and execution why are these FC's such linchpins in your fleets? Have some redundancy in your fleets. No one officer should doom the fleet because he was lost. I guess im just wondering why there isn't a fleet chain of command for situations like this and why it needs a game mechanic. Casual game play prevents this in many cases. Redundancy can be obtained in certain groups/alliances. But this is for the masses that are casual players and alliances/Coalitions that cannot rely on their trained people to be on when needed. As mentioned before, this 'game mechanic' is to prevent what would other wise be a great fleet vs fleet fight from ending fast (yes i know it is a tactic) BECAUSE the rest do not or will not take charge, and flee. Keep in mind that keeping the FC alive even in our current time IS possible. Current task force sent out to patrol the Oceans are surrounded by support ships that keep any and all threats from reaching the Flag Ship. This ( takes some imagination in a make believe space ship game) can be thought to be applies here as well. Of course screening the flagship is a good idea for support ships, but you can't do that sorta thing in eve. Meanwhile your excuse of casual players can't count on members falls flat for two reasons. 1. if you're a pvp alliance you should focus on recruiting those who fit the bill, regardless even small corps have the ability to teach basic fleet command so they can keep fighting even if their FC dies. 2. Smaller entities are lesser known as well. 90% of the time a small entities FC WONT be headshot. Might die in the fight but won't be headshot because no one knows who your FC is. Headshotting is much more a problem in the larger groups that have established FCs that everyone knows about. Sure the occasional small group might end up being spied on having their FC's names dropped and run into trouble in their next fight, but if you're engaging that kind of enemy they likely have resources and you probably should have picked your target better.



Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2024, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,05s, ref 20241223/1901
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF

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.