EVE Search - Diminishing Return on DPS

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Diminishing Return on DPS

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Monomorium Mnemonic Enterprises 5	Posted - 2011.12.23 14:34:00 - [1] - Quote I hate blobs. They kill the very soul of this game IMO. So in that light here's a suggestion. Why not have a diminishing return on DPS that gets applied to a ship when attacked by multiple trgts ? Any damage applied by X number of ships gets reduced, factored by the target size. This could be explained by shells, lasers, missles, etc... hitting each other going into, and at, the target.
Epofhis StarFckers Inc. The Jagged Alliance 8	Posted - 2011.12.23 14:43:00 - [2] - Quote This is an awful idea for the following reasons: -Supercaps become invincible. -POS bashes will take weeks. -Any well tanked ship will own. -1. Not supported. Before posting in Features and Ideas, please remember that Eve is in no way obligated to change based on your stupidity, ineptitude, or well honed sense of personal butthurt.
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet 214	Posted - 2011.12.23 15:08:00 - [3] - Quote I don't claim to know exactly what the soul of EVE is, but it's not about fights being fair. If anything it's about dark and ruthless capitalistic system where everything goes as you try to compete for dominance and survival. Having more people on your side than what your enemies can deploy seems to fit quite well in my version of EVE. You do also understand, that the blobbers will still win against you in the new system just like they do in the old system. Ignoring the obvious balancing issues, larger numbers is always an advantage and should always be one all other things being equal. If it isn't DPS, it's going to be RR, Ewar, or whatever mechanic you can think of. The people who have been able to make the most out of the current game mechanics aren't going to continue doing what they do now. They'll adapt and still be on the top in the new system and we will be back to square one with these complaints how unfair it is, that others have more allies than some people and how fights against some foes simply can't be won with the resources you have. Not supported.
Monomorium Mnemonic Enterprises 5	Posted - 2011.12.24 07:09:00 - [4] - Quote Epofhis wrote: This is an awful idea for the following reasons: -Supercaps become invincible. -POS bashes will take weeks. -Any well tanked ship will own. -1. Not supported. You missed the part about "..factored by the target size.." When it comes to ship size, so -1 for reeading ability. POS were never mentioned, but could easily fall under the factor for size portion, so another -1 You never asked, I dunno, relevant questions like number of ships that this would effect, amount of DPS actually getting omitted, etc... so you get yet another -1. Thanks for trying anyways and for your input
Monomorium Mnemonic Enterprises 5	Posted - 2011.12.24 07:21:00 - [5] - Quote Destination SkillQueue wrote: I don't claim to know exactly what the soul of EVE is, but it's not about fights being fair. If anything it's about dark and ruthless capitalistic system where everything goes as you try to compete for dominance and survival. Having more people on your side than what your enemies can deploy seems to fit quite well in my version of EVE. You do also understand, that the blobbers will still win against you in the new system just like they do in the old system. Ignoring the obvious balancing issues, larger numbers is always an advantage and should always be one all other things being equal. If it isn't DPS, it's going to be RR, Ewar, or whatever mechanic you can think of. The people who have been able to make the most out of the current game mechanics aren't going to continue doing what they do now. They'll adapt and still be on the top in the new system and we will be back to square one with these complaints how unfair it is, that others have more allies than some people and how fights against some foes simply can't be won with the resources you have. Not supported. Yet another low wattage bulb thats A: not reading and B: reading into what I said. Where oh where did I say antyhing about fair ? Please point it out and we'll go from there. Instead you go on some day trip about capitalism and the "dark and ruthlessness" of the system..Dominance and survival !...Blah blah and so forth and then go to talk about balancing and how it won't matter anyways ? Are you daft ? People in this game spend BILLIONS on their ships trying to eke out a few extra percentage points of resists, damage, speed, etc.. and yet you say fleets will ignore totally the effect - which is easily explainable and makes sense by the way - of numbers of their shots getting wasted ? Measurable percentages ? You seem to think I am advocating nullifying one side having more ships than another. Where the hell you get that in my simple statement I haven't the slightest. Thats probably one of the biggest reasons I can think of that people don't post more is that TROLL like creatures with preconceptions spew on other peoples posts, babling about things the poster never. Even. Said. So kindly point out where I advocated or said what you implied, or retract, please.
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 332	Posted - 2011.12.24 11:28:00 - [6] - Quote Lasers wouldn't care if they hit each other, and the chances of slugs hitting eachother on the way to a target is fairly small as well. Missiles I would assume were programmed with proximity detection so they also wouldn't hit eachother. Add to that the fact that most ships are fairly large, and you'd have to look at a lot of ammo heading its way for any to "hit each other".
Cryten Jones Advantage Inc The Matari Consortium 11	Posted - 2011.12.24 13:06:00 - [7] - Quote Personally I like it. As it stands any ship regardless of how well tanked is dead as soon as it gets called primary... so why bother with a tank at all, may as well delete the modules from the game. And don't get me started on Armour reps. IMHO there needs to be something introduced that discourages a 400 VS 1 fight war of attrition every time fleets engage, a 500 man fight should be 40 or 50 separate fights with a unified goal.
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 332	Posted - 2011.12.24 13:16:00 - [8] - Quote That's called "fixing the sov system to encourage 100v100 or 200v200 (or thereabouts) rather than 1000v1000 fights".
Jiska Ensa Unour Heavy Industries 34	Posted - 2011.12.24 13:43:00 - [9] - Quote This will not diminish blobs. Instead, blobs will simply stop "primarying" targets. You'll end up with either 10 wings targeting 10 different ships, or 10 different fleets targeting 10 different ships. Either way, a larger blob will still defeat a smaller one faster. Without seriously changing the way eve works, there is absolutely no way to stop blobbing. Human nature is to join together in large groups for security. A bit of a hold back to our herding instincts from long before the monkey days, I would imagine. You can't fight human nature. There may be one way to diminish blobbing - change sov such that you must attack multiple targets simultaneously, and any undefended target becomes incredibly easy to kill (i.e. if no ally is on grid with the target when it comes out of reinforced, its hp drops by 90% and stays that low until allies show up. Make up some BS about the crew abandoning it when they realize their masters aren't going to save them). This won't reduce the numbers of the large coalitions but it might (MIGHT) make fights smaller and more numerous (and will certainly make steamrolling alliances that refuse to fight a lot easier)
Simi Kusoni HelloKittyFanclub 7	Posted - 2011.12.24 15:04:00 - [10] - Quote Monomorium wrote: Are you daft ? People in this game spend BILLIONS on their ships trying to eke out a few extra percentage points of resists, damage, speed, etc.. and yet you say fleets will ignore totally the effect - which is easily explainable and makes sense by the way - of numbers of their shots getting wasted ? Measurable percentages ? People rarely spend billions for ships to be used in "blobs". If it is a multi-billion isk blob fleet, chances are they'll have heavy RR and e-war. In which case, as is pointed out above, the blob still wills. Monomorium wrote: You seem to think I am advocating nullifying one side having more ships than another. (...) So kindly point out where I advocated or said what you implied, or retract, please. Below? Monomorium wrote: I hate blobs. So you hate blobs, and want to "fix" it. But you don't want to nullify one side having more ships than the other? So you're not going to fix blobs? tl;dr: learn to scout.
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 332	Posted - 2011.12.24 15:32:00 - [11] - Quote Monomorium wrote: Are you daft ? People in this game spend BILLIONS on their ships trying to eke out a few extra percentage points of resists, damage, speed, etc.. and yet you say fleets will ignore totally the effect - which is easily explainable and makes sense by the way - of numbers of their shots getting wasted ? Measurable percentages ? I'd be surprised if this was done regularly on anything other than supercaps.
Misanthra Alternative Enterprises 21	Posted - 2011.12.24 16:55:00 - [12] - Quote Blobs would target each other to cut down dps. Your dps/alpha nerf would be based on numbers of targetting ships, not actual incoming fire. Or else this a wast of time as with good/lucky timing...you'll get several canes to fire not at the same time. And then you have the drakes whose missiles hit wheh they hit. If 50 canes and 50 drakes do not hit at same time...no nerf. Ships active trargetiing being the counter fo this nerf takes this away...but now you have 400 people spider targetting themselves.
Goose99 Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 382	Posted - 2011.12.24 16:59:00 - [13] - Quote Add AOE dmg on ship pop. Down with blobs and pods. Problem solved.
Aglais Liberation Army BricK sQuAD. 35	Posted - 2011.12.24 19:43:00 - [14] - Quote Better idea, if there is anything in the line pointing from your gun to your target, your shot/missile will hit the thing between you and the intended target instead. In addition, add subsystems to all ships that can be modified, though not to the extent of T3s. Add subsystem targeting skill and the ability to target a ship and then specify a part that you want to start breaking. Make it so that depending on the angle you're at, that part might be easier to damage. So if your drake is right behind another drake and you fire, your missiles hit your bro's engines and he may suffer a velocity loss. Or your artillery volley could sail right through another Mael's solar panels and wreck their capacitor recharge, wrecking their tank.
Ines Tegator Towels R Us 71	Posted - 2011.12.24 20:13:00 - [15] - Quote It's been suggested before. Best implementation idea I've seen is to reduce the sig radius of a target being hit by multiple foes. Any remote rep will bloom the sig back up to it's natural state. This would allow DPS application and pressuring of logi to be efffective tactics, and not merely alpha. It would have to be balanced by ship size (no effect on capitals in particluar) and be PVP only. A lore explanation is easy, since even in RL vaporized material from the target reduces the effectiveness of lasers. Easy to explain how debris and vaporized armor from a ship under fire would interfere with targeting.
Danika Princip Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team 116	Posted - 2011.12.24 20:22:00 - [16] - Quote Aglais wrote: Better idea, if there is anything in the line pointing from your gun to your target, your shot/missile will hit the thing between you and the intended target instead. In addition, add subsystems to all ships that can be modified, though not to the extent of T3s. Add subsystem targeting skill and the ability to target a ship and then specify a part that you want to start breaking. Make it so that depending on the angle you're at, that part might be easier to damage. So if your drake is right behind another drake and you fire, your missiles hit your bro's engines and he may suffer a velocity loss. Or your artillery volley could sail right through another Mael's solar panels and wreck their capacitor recharge, wrecking their tank. And when the fireball that used to be a server is put out...
Aglais Liberation Army BricK sQuAD. 35	Posted - 2011.12.24 21:31:00 - [17] - Quote Danika Princip wrote: Aglais wrote: Better idea, if there is anything in the line pointing from your gun to your target, your shot/missile will hit the thing between you and the intended target instead. In addition, add subsystems to all ships that can be modified, though not to the extent of T3s. Add subsystem targeting skill and the ability to target a ship and then specify a part that you want to start breaking. Make it so that depending on the angle you're at, that part might be easier to damage. So if your drake is right behind another drake and you fire, your missiles hit your bro's engines and he may suffer a velocity loss. Or your artillery volley could sail right through another Mael's solar panels and wreck their capacitor recharge, wrecking their tank. And when the fireball that used to be a server is put out... Running checks to see if there's anything in these lines will cause servers to catch fire? I suppose if it was as in-depth as I initially stated it would be, maybe, but it doesn't have to START like that. If that's too heavy-duty for servers to handle then it can start with hits occurring like they do now.
Simi Kusoni HelloKittyFanclub 8	Posted - 2011.12.24 21:36:00 - [18] - Quote Aglais wrote: Running checks to see if there's anything in these lines will cause servers to catch fire? I suppose if it was as in-depth as I initially stated it would be, maybe, but it doesn't have to START like that. If that's too heavy-duty for servers to handle then it can start with hits occurring like they do now. Yeah, calculating line of fire would be hell for a server. So would calculating trajectories, accuracy and the effects of hitting specific components. Also, the interface... how do you "aim" at certain modules? It gets messy pretty quickly. It's a nice idea, but it would be more suited to a genuine flight simulator game than Eve.
Monomorium Mnemonic Enterprises 7	Posted - 2011.12.24 22:50:00 - [19] - Quote Okay, again I am going to point out to the low wattage types that are responding to my original suggestion by quoting or implying that I am somehow trying to fix, make fair, or somehow nullify superior ship numbers... I did not do that, nor is it in my post at any point. you are reading something that is not there, so either go get some help with reading comprehension or stop friggin posting here. Thank you, Now to others arguing merits of the idea, thanks for your input and thoughts. my idea is based on what I see as actually happening to and around a ship under fire. You have a target that has missles, shells and such exploding around it, lasers that are coming in thru a cloud of debris and other solids, etc... These are going to interact to a degree. If you can't picture that happening, well, not sure what I can say about that tbh. ..And no I don't think you would have to calculate every shot coming in. This is why they use algorithms, etc.. I don't wish to see the server burst into flames either.
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 90	Posted - 2011.12.25 00:01:00 - [20] - Quote Different weapon systems fire at very different rates, depending on character skills, ship types, weapon classes, etc. How would this damage reduction work? - First hit, full damage - Seond hit, 98% damage - Third hit, 95% damage... - Fourth hit, 92% damage... etc... Over what time window though? Arties fire at a rate on the order of 15 seconds, blasters on the order of 2 seconds. Damage received is not constant, like the dps graphs in EFT suggest but is arrives in a random and discrete manner. It varies in the incoming rate, it varies in the incoming quantity, it varies in the incoming type of damage... How on earth can you balance Large Neutron Blasters aren't nerfed for taking 10 rounds to output the damage of 1400 Howitzers? What happens when a fleet self targets the primary with 50 civilian gattling guns.... does this suddenly reduce the enemies incoming dps? This just isn't feasible...
Monomorium Mnemonic Enterprises 8	Posted - 2011.12.25 08:23:00 - [21] - Quote Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Different weapon systems fire at very different rates, depending on character skills, ship types, weapon classes, etc. How would this damage reduction work? - First hit, full damage - Seond hit, 98% damage - Third hit, 95% damage... - Fourth hit, 92% damage... etc... Over what time window though? Arties fire at a rate on the order of 15 seconds, blasters on the order of 2 seconds. Damage received is not constant, like the dps graphs in EFT suggest but is arrives in a random and discrete manner. It varies in the incoming rate, it varies in the incoming quantity, it varies in the incoming type of damage... How on earth can you balance Large Neutron Blasters aren't nerfed for taking 10 rounds to output the damage of 1400 Howitzers? What happens when a fleet self targets the primary with 50 civilian gattling guns.... does this suddenly reduce the enemies incoming dps? This just isn't feasible... You know whats funniest about this post ? The principal I am advocating - one which you and others are saying is so horrible and impossible to impliment - is already being used in this game. Thats right. When a certain parameter is met, damage delivered to a target is modified. Already being done, albeit in a different form than what I am suggesting, but none the less the principle is used. Tactical Shield Manipulation - " Skill at preventing damage from penetrating the shield, including the use of shield hardeners and other advanced shield modules. Reduces the chance of damage penetrating the shield when it falls below 25% by 5% per skill level, with 0% chance at level 5. " Now this may be much simpler than what I am suggesting, true, but its similar. When a certain threshhold is met ( X amount of incoming fire volume/ area of ship ) then Y amount of damage will be reduced. Once you think about it its the same thing.
Mfume Apocal Origin. Black Legion. 168	Posted - 2011.12.25 09:22:00 - [22] - Quote Monomorium wrote: I hate blobs. They kill the very soul of this game IMO. In that light, I could perhaps point you in the direction of literally any MMO with instanced PvP? (in other words, go back to WoW)
Jask Avan Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 17	Posted - 2011.12.25 09:29:00 - [23] - Quote Monomorium wrote: Tactical Shield Manipulation - " Skill at preventing damage from penetrating the shield, including the use of shield hardeners and other advanced shield modules. Reduces the chance of damage penetrating the shield when it falls below 25% by 5% per skill level, with 0% chance at level 5. " Now this may be much simpler than what I am suggesting, true, but its similar. When a certain threshhold is met ( X amount of incoming fire volume/ area of ship ) then Y amount of damage will be reduced. Once you think about it its the same thing. It doesn't reduce damage. It stops armor/hull from taking damage when being shot while your shields are below X%.
Monomorium Mnemonic Enterprises 8	Posted - 2011.12.25 10:14:00 - [24] - Quote Mfume Apocal wrote: Monomorium wrote: I hate blobs. They kill the very soul of this game IMO. In that light, I could perhaps point you in the direction of literally any MMO with instanced PvP? (in other words, go back to WoW) Exactly wtf does that have to do with this discussion ? I state that I don't like blobs and you...thats right, somehow make the connection that I am some former WoW player ( which for the record I'd like to state now that I have never played. Something you probably can't say, since you seem to think you can readily recognize said players, a condition you likely developed thru long term WoW exposure ). Would you turds that have nothing to add to the discussing of an idea please go have a pillow fight somewhere else? Consider yourself flushed.
Monomorium Mnemonic Enterprises 8	Posted - 2011.12.25 10:21:00 - [25] - Quote Jask Avan wrote: Monomorium wrote: Tactical Shield Manipulation - " Skill at preventing damage from penetrating the shield, including the use of shield hardeners and other advanced shield modules. Reduces the chance of damage penetrating the shield when it falls below 25% by 5% per skill level, with 0% chance at level 5. " Now this may be much simpler than what I am suggesting, true, but its similar. When a certain threshhold is met ( X amount of incoming fire volume/ area of ship ) then Y amount of damage will be reduced. Once you think about it its the same thing. It doesn't reduce damage. It stops armor/hull from taking damage when being shot while your shields are below X%. Uh, yeah. Thats why I quoted it so we could be clear on the effect. My point was that the principle - the idea that when X event happens, then Y formula is applied - is already used in game.
Simi Kusoni HelloKittyFanclub 9	Posted - 2011.12.25 10:34:00 - [26] - Quote Anyone wishing to locate and blob Monomorium please join "Mono hearts blobs" channel after today's DT. Monomorium wrote: Exactly wtf does that have to do with this discussion ? I state that I don't like blobs and you...thats right, somehow make the connection that I am some former WoW player ( which for the record I'd like to state now that I have never played. Something you probably can't say, since you seem to think you can readily recognize said players, a condition you likely developed thru long term WoW exposure ). Would you turds that have nothing to add to the discussing of an idea please go have a pillow fight somewhere else? Consider yourself flushed. On a serious note, anyone who disagrees with you sucks. According to you. Everyone disagrees with you. In short, you suck, according to everyone.
PinkKnife Garden Of The Gods Divinity. 27	Posted - 2011.12.25 11:50:00 - [27] - Quote Your whole thought process about this is wrong. If you want to avoid blobbing your best bet is not to change the gameplay, it is to decentivise being in large groups. As it is, the easiest way to own space, and make tons of isk doing it, is to own giant regions of space with huge alliances. The plethora of Capital ships makes it super easy for a large alliance to attack and take space from a smaller player. Essentially, once you secure your borders, the inside systems of an alliance are relatively safe. Leaving whoever to do whatever they want and make oodles of isk doing it. If you want to see less blobbing, split up the giant alliances that are blobbing. Make it so that sov systems are exponentially more difficult to maintane and fund, and you'll see alliances shrinking their borders, allowing for new branches to come in, allowing for more pvp action between smaller groups of people, and less giant blobs. All this talk about diminishing returns and altering sig radius is just treating symptomatic problems caused by the ease of maintaning a huge alliance in eve.
Danika Princip Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team 116	Posted - 2011.12.25 17:37:00 - [28] - Quote PinkKnife wrote: If you want to see less blobbing, split up the giant alliances that are blobbing. Make it so that sov systems are exponentially more difficult to maintane and fund, and you'll see alliances shrinking their borders, allowing for new branches to come in, allowing for more pvp action between smaller groups of people, and less giant blobs. All this talk about diminishing returns and altering sig radius is just treating symptomatic problems caused by the ease of maintaning a huge alliance in eve. No, you'd see TNT, TNT., TNT.., TNT.., T.N.T., T..N..T.. and a thousand other variations, each holding a handful of systems. The way to disincentiveise blobs is to change the sov system away from shooting millions of HP of structures, but, not being a game designer, I don't pretend to know how to do that.
Ines Tegator Towels R Us 72	Posted - 2011.12.25 17:56:00 - [29] - Quote Danika Princip wrote: The way to disincentiveise blobs is to change the sov system away from shooting millions of HP of structures, but, not being a game designer, I don't pretend to know how to do that. You swap to a system requiring you to take multiple tactical objectives. These could be based off of traditional pvp game formats; king of the hill, capture the flag, zone control, etc. How to design them for EVE would be a good topic for a threadnaught. The main idea being that there are many, smaller objectives, and sov is won when a particular critical mass is reached. This gives flexibility and doesn't require an attacking force to engage all types of objectives, but to choose the ones they are most effective against.
Monomorium Mnemonic Enterprises 9	Posted - 2011.12.25 18:29:00 - [30] - Quote Simi Kusoni wrote: Anyone wishing to locate and blob Monomorium please join "Mono hearts blobs" channel after today's DT. Also, hahahaha: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=12757282#lostLoadout That is probably one of the funniest things I've seen in a while. I thought you were trolling, so I checked your KB, turns out you're just exceptionally bad at Eve. Monomorium wrote: Exactly wtf does that have to do with this discussion ? I state that I don't like blobs and you...thats right, somehow make the connection that I am some former WoW player ( which for the record I'd like to state now that I have never played. Something you probably can't say, since you seem to think you can readily recognize said players, a condition you likely developed thru long term WoW exposure ). Would you turds that have nothing to add to the discussing of an idea please go have a pillow fight somewhere else? Consider yourself flushed. On a serious note, anyone who disagrees with you sucks. According to you. Everyone disagrees with you. In short, you suck, according to everyone. No. I just despise when a forum post aimed at a suggestion, and its following discussion gets answers that are either non sequitor, trolling of the lamest sort or mis-characterize what I said. Ones that are constructive and have a point to make that follows with said original post are happily welcome. You post for instance is nothing but a ill thought attack on me for doing nothing but trying to keep the convo going in the right direction. The post in question , the guy said- and let me paraphrase a bit - " Blah blah blah, go back to WoW ". That fell, IMO, into the 'flush instantly' department. Much like your post. And why use battleclinic ? We have our own KBs in MNEE. Heres the link http://mnee.eve-kill.net/ .And to explain that one particular loss ? A few of us had been sitting at a Core site waiting for the spawn, shooting at each other in boredom, when the spawn arrived and we then noticed the logi boat was nowhere in site . Hey, **** happens. I may not put up those astounding numbers some do. We live in W-Space after all, and tbh don't go after sheer numbers. We defend our space when we can, and attack people in adjoining systems when the opprotunity arises. edit : Tried to join that channel for blobbing me, and it didn't exist. Am so sad now....
Velicitia Open Designs 244	Posted - 2011.12.25 18:36:00 - [31] - Quote Monomorium wrote: Jask Avan wrote: Monomorium wrote: Tactical Shield Manipulation - " Skill at preventing damage from penetrating the shield, including the use of shield hardeners and other advanced shield modules. Reduces the chance of damage penetrating the shield when it falls below 25% by 5% per skill level, with 0% chance at level 5. " Now this may be much simpler than what I am suggesting, true, but its similar. When a certain threshhold is met ( X amount of incoming fire volume/ area of ship ) then Y amount of damage will be reduced. Once you think about it its the same thing. It doesn't reduce damage. It stops armor/hull from taking damage when being shot while your shields are below X%. Uh, yeah. Thats why I quoted it so we could be clear on the effect. My point was that the principle - the idea that when X event happens, then Y formula is applied - is already used in game. without Tactical Shield Manipulation, when you reach 25% shields, you start getting damage bleed to your armour With Tactical Shield Manipulation: Lv 1 - x% chance of bleedthrough at 20% or lower shield HP Lv 2 - x% chance of bleedthrough at 15% or lower shield HP Lv 3 - x% chance of bleedthrough at 10% or lower shield HP lv 4 - x% chance of bleedthrough at 5% or lower shield HP lv 5 - your shields have to hit 0% before any damage is applied to your armour. (at least I can't find any changes to it since after Revelations 2.2, so late 2006-ish. In '08 there was additional discussion that seems to solidify this stance. Still can't find what the damage profile for bleed through is though, but from the discussion it seems static, maybe 20-25%. Will edit if I can find the info.) from having the skill not trained, up to level four if the bleedthrough chance is "successful", you will always take the same percentage of damage. There is no "modification" of the incoming damage at all, with the exception that different resists are applied. say you're shooting me with EM missiles. I have 12.5% resists on the shield (or whatever you get from a DCU II running). My armour has 70% resists. For ease of numbers, the missiles have a base damage (on paper, after your skills are applied) of 100. when my shields are above 25%, 100% of your damage is being applied to my shield (less shield resists) 100 - 12.5 = 87.5 damage per missile being applied to the shields. when my shields are at or below n%, the "bleedthrough" check is true (i.e. damage bleeds through). Where "n%" will change based on Tactical Shield Manipulation skill 75 * 0.875 = 65.6 damage to the shield 25 * 0.3 = 7.5 damage to armour The only "reduction" to damage being done is that my higher armour resists mitigate the incoming damage better. To better show this, let's say you were hitting for EX, with 70% resists on the shields, and 0% in armour. shield takes everything -- you're hitting for 30. Bleed through: 75 * 0.3 = 21 25 * 1 = 25 you're doing 46 damage per volley because of the bleed through.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 200	Posted - 2011.12.25 20:05:00 - [32] - Quote Artificially limiting the ability to apply damage would not diminish the blobs one iota, more like quite the contrary. It would force fleets to employ multiple target callers, could be done on a wing/squad base (need a lot better tools for optimal solution) and the super-efficient (ie. one-in-a-miliion) fleets would have "just enough" per caller to max out possible DPS whereas the bulk of fleets would have groups with high'ish excess of DPS per caller (same number of callers) because it is just easier => overall blob increase. The only way to achieve what you want is to design the mechanics in a way that does not solely benefit "MOAR!" but allows skill, both personal and collective, to triumph. First order of business would be to get rid of EHP based systems - there is no mechanic more blob friendly/encouraging than EHP grinds. Second would be to spread objectives out (ex. station ownership dependant on sov in constellation rather than system). Third you'd probably want to introduce some more AoE disruption abilities (ex. Bombs Mk.II, Remote Burst Mk.II etc.) to further discourage FCs from putting all eggs in one basket as it were. .. and so on Problem is that it will takes a phenomenal amount of work to do so chances of it ever happening are slim to none, I am hopeful that some things are changed when Sov gets it Mk.III (or however high it is now) but it is very likely that the blob will remain the alpha-omega for as long as Eve persists simply due to the nature of the beast (single shard).
Mfume Apocal Origin. Black Legion. 168	Posted - 2011.12.27 00:38:00 - [33] - Quote Monomorium wrote: Exactly wtf does that have to do with this discussion ? I state that I don't like blobs and you...thats right, somehow make the connection that I am some former WoW player ( which for the record I'd like to state now that I have never played. Something you probably can't say, since you seem to think you can readily recognize said players, a condition you likely developed thru long term WoW exposure ). Would you turds that have nothing to add to the discussing of an idea please go have a pillow fight somewhere else? Consider yourself flushed. If you hate blobbing, you could play literally any other MMO with instanced PVP. You cannot blob someone in WoW's Arena. This is relevant to the discussion.
CobaltSixty The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 36	Posted - 2011.12.27 01:12:00 - [34] - Quote -1 Don't like the OP's post. One, considering he hasn't said otherwise it'd screw with PvE royally and make taking full aggro easier since it actually hurts less than it does now. Two, he doesn't seem to accept criticism and expects everyone who stops by to be a "bright" conversationalist like him (a nod to the constant lightbulb references), a mark of douchebaggery if you ask me. I started writing an alternative, but it got to be too good, so I think I'll open my own thread soon with a proposal which counters blobs AND addresses some other issues. Keep your eyes peeled, folks. You too, OP. Assault Ships - Retribution Fix and Balancing Proposal for Upcoming 4th Bonus
Misanthra Alternative Enterprises 21	Posted - 2011.12.27 01:53:00 - [35] - Quote Monomorium wrote: Uh, yeah. Thats why I quoted it so we could be clear on the effect. My point was that the principle - the idea that when X event happens, then Y formula is applied - is already used in game. but the efffect nothing that you have in mind. You stop bleedthrough....not the actual damage. means that ship doing say 300 deeps rf emp is now putting 300 deeps on shields only, not doing split bleedthrough to armour. Ain't no damage restriction....you are getting full blast. its jsut on your shields only. Also worth noting if you read the numerous threads on this skill.....getting this skill level to 5 can actually be bad for you. You actually wwant the bleedthroough so the shields get a small breather to get a good full passive or active recharge cycle. At TSM 5.....that rf emp or amarr lazer is basically sticking a fork in your shields. Let some damge hit armour....shields get a second wind if lucky somewhat. Sort of like this primary your are on about. Its actually bad to use sometimes. If the enemy has a strong tight logi support chain going....focus fire is not the smartest ting to do. As many smart Fc's have found....if logi'd out like its cool, best to spread fire out. Logi's cna't get the reps out as well and stuff goes boom faster. When you focus fire with good logi support....you make their life much easier just repping like 2 ships vice 8 if you spread the fire out.
Ines Tegator Towels R Us 76	Posted - 2011.12.27 02:01:00 - [36] - Quote The OP and you are not thinking on the same scale. Blob warfare features enough alpha to destroy the primary before it (or any logi) even knows it's being shot.
Monomorium Mnemonic Enterprises 9	Posted - 2011.12.27 03:02:00 - [37] - Quote CobaltSixty wrote: -1 Don't like the OP's post. One, considering he hasn't said otherwise it'd screw with PvE royally and make taking full aggro easier since it actually hurts less than it does now. Two, he doesn't seem to accept criticism and expects everyone who stops by to be a "bright" conversationalist like him (a nod to the constant lightbulb references), a mark of douchebaggery if you ask me. I started writing an alternative, but it got to be too good, so I think I'll open my own thread soon with a proposal which counters blobs AND addresses some other issues. Keep your eyes peeled, folks. You too, OP. I'm always willing to accept discussion of an idea. The problem is that the posts I answered to generally weren't constructive in any form or fashion. They were just simply attacks that are too often the norm for forums. Those I will always answer with the sarcasm and disdain they deserve. So as far as you implying I am a 'douchebag' for defending my post , GFY. As to your idea, I look forward to it. Anything that can improve the game is encouraged and welcome by me.
Monomorium Mnemonic Enterprises 9	Posted - 2011.12.27 03:04:00 - [38] - Quote Mfume Apocal wrote: Monomorium wrote: Exactly wtf does that have to do with this discussion ? I state that I don't like blobs and you...thats right, somehow make the connection that I am some former WoW player ( which for the record I'd like to state now that I have never played. Something you probably can't say, since you seem to think you can readily recognize said players, a condition you likely developed thru long term WoW exposure ). Would you turds that have nothing to add to the discussing of an idea please go have a pillow fight somewhere else? Consider yourself flushed. If you hate blobbing, you could play literally any other MMO with instanced PVP. You cannot blob someone in WoW's Arena. This is relevant to the discussion. What I would or would not play was ever under discussion except in yoru mind. So again you are dismissed.
Bearilian Man Eating Bears 52	Posted - 2011.12.27 05:58:00 - [39] - Quote Mfume Apocal wrote: Monomorium wrote: Exactly wtf does that have to do with this discussion ? I state that I don't like blobs and you...thats right, somehow make the connection that I am some former WoW player ( which for the record I'd like to state now that I have never played. Something you probably can't say, since you seem to think you can readily recognize said players, a condition you likely developed thru long term WoW exposure ). Would you turds that have nothing to add to the discussing of an idea please go have a pillow fight somewhere else? Consider yourself flushed. If you hate blobbing, you could play literally any other MMO with instanced PVP. You cannot blob someone in WoW's Arena. This is relevant to the discussion. this is not relevent because the mechanics of fighting are worlds apart. do you know how sad it is every time someone tries to quote WoW??? and for everyone who is completely discounting this idea; this thread was created off the idea of how to ballance, or to word better, innovate new methods of diversifying combat. granted Monomorium is very opinionated, as are many of the people disagreeing with him, but he does have a good point on how the ways in which wars are fought could use more interesting tactics. so instead of aggreeing or disagreeing i will offer a suggestion. what if there was a new ship stat that was added as well as skills to go along with it. this stat could limit the amount of targets allowed to lock it. this would of course be effected by ship class etc.. I'm sure this wouldnt work and that most of you would not like it, but rather that bicker like gradeschoolers lets throw ideas back and forth.
Misanthra Alternative Enterprises 21	Posted - 2011.12.27 07:23:00 - [40] - Quote Bearilian wrote: so instead of aggreeing or disagreeing i will offer a suggestion. what if there was a new ship stat that was added as well as skills to go along with it. this stat could limit the amount of targets allowed to lock it. this would of course be effected by ship class etc.. I'm sure this wouldnt work and that most of you would not like it, but rather that bicker like gradeschoolers lets throw ideas back and forth. no need to bicker....ain't happening. A ships magical locking number is say 5. 5 blues lock it and unless in space where bombs allowed, a brave soul kamikaze's with smarties....its invincible. Blue locks count for live locks. Remember its eve...want to shoot blues go right ahead. the fc forming the max size fleet with uber leadership levels, this would be their ship. Or make it ghetto logistics. Not a logi but 5 locks later it can't be shot or ecm'd (unless you ecm burst it). It wil most likely live longer than a true logi to out rep based on time to live.
Mfume Apocal Origin. Black Legion. 168	Posted - 2011.12.27 08:30:00 - [41] - Quote Monomorium wrote: What I would or would not play was ever under discussion except in yoru mind. So again you are dismissed. If you hate blobbing, why do you play EVE where it's encouraged? You say it ruins the "soul" of EVE, but at it's heart, EVE is all about being unfair and very unfun to the losing side. Allowing twentry people to gank one is, quite honestly, the best thing about this game and your idea would take that away to replace it with a half-assed version of what every other MMO has.
Bearilian Man Eating Bears 53	Posted - 2011.12.27 12:11:00 - [42] - Quote Misanthra wrote: A ships magical locking number is say 5. 5 blues lock it and unless in space where bombs allowed, a brave soul kamikaze's with smarties....its invincible. Blue locks count for live locks. Remember its eve...want to shoot blues go right ahead. the fc forming the max size fleet with uber leadership levels, this would be their ship. Or make it ghetto logistics. Not a logi but 5 locks later it can't be shot or ecm'd (unless you ecm burst it). It wil most likely live longer than a true logi to out rep based on time to live. ok, i understand this is your argument, however what i would love to see is people like you offering an idea as to why or how something could be controlled as to avoid abuse. because you are right, there would have to be some form of exception as far friendly targeting. just saying it is refreshing to see a thread that is trying to think of ways that the combat of eve can grow diversity. as enjoyable as blobbing can be, if we had to use more involved tactics, that would be awsome. and as far as the next post Mfume Apocal (troll?), you dont seem to understand the point of this thread. i dont remember seeing Monomorium mention what the limits would be. so you could still very well get to 20 v 1 it, however if it takes twenty people in your fleet to take down "one" of anything, then............... i would like the discussion to have people input how they think the mechanics should be effected. such as the dimishing level based on ship hull class. what would be the effect of having not "attacking" locks and incoming damage effect (maybe an obvious exploit?). maybe it could be based on a rounded off number of when a turret fires so much damage (might help the issue with to much information processing if it only delt with 10's and 100's) and yes, go ahead and say unsupported, but yes im sorry, most of you are just bickering.
Mfume Apocal Origin. Black Legion. 168	Posted - 2011.12.27 13:06:00 - [43] - Quote Bearilian wrote: and as far as the next post Mfume Apocal (troll?), you dont seem to understand the point of this thread. I understand it perfectly, I've seen it before time and time again. Quote: i dont remember seeing Monomorium mention what the limits would be. so you could still very well get to 20 v 1 it, however if it takes twenty people in your fleet to take down "one" of anything, then... Then it means the target is getting reps from 7 logis. That isn't at all unreasonable in medium gang PvP. Viewed separately from specific numbers, I'm against any mechanic that shields the few from receiving the full wrath of the many. It's goes completely against the sandbox nature of EVE to say, "oh 5 guys shooting you is fine, but 10? that's just unfair!" It's like taking out corp-theft or API harvesting.
Juliana Stinger Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2011.12.27 13:26:00 - [44] - Quote Actualy i like this idea for one reason, Fleet fights looks less real compare to what we used to see in movies, the major reason there's no LOS in eve online.
Fidelium Mortis Quantum Cats Syndicate 5	Posted - 2011.12.27 17:28:00 - [45] - Quote I don't think it's the blob that really is the issue. I think it's a matter of finding effective counters or alternatives to blob vs blob warfare (perhaps the some are available but widely underused). For instance effectively using bombers, probers, etc to run coordinated bombing runs on a fleet of BSs (probably should increase the resistances on bombs btw). Also it seems a lot of the ewar options are underutilized in fleet combat. ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon
Mfume Apocal Origin. Black Legion. 168	Posted - 2011.12.28 09:27:00 - [46] - Quote Fidelium Mortis wrote: For instance effectively using bombers, probers, etc to run coordinated bombing runs on a fleet of BSs (probably should increase the resistances on bombs btw). Good FCing sidesteps that limitation. http://killboard.gypsyband.ru/battle/b3151/#overview Think Venn diagrams. http://i.imgur.com/QrS6h.jpg
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 349	Posted - 2011.12.28 10:16:00 - [47] - Quote So which point of "incentivize splitting up of blobs" wasn't an acceptable suggestion from the "low wattage types"? Because from my POV, all suggestions of limiting number of people who can lock a target, or diminishing returns on the number of people shooting a target go against the "soul of eve", regardless of the RP invented to justify it.

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.