EVE Search - Stack nerf for focused fire (big fleet shoot one target)

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Stack nerf for focused fire (big fleet shoot one target)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ravenal The Fated	Posted - 2007.04.25 09:50:00 - [1] Quote: Hammerhead: "What do we think about adding a stacking penalty to focused fire?" - I don't really have a great answer to that, we have a lot of discussions about how... more numbers you bring to a fight the more you damage people, and this is kind of a problem in most MMO games really that numbers just win, and stacking penalty is one solution that we've talked about, and my biggest issue with it is that it just doesn't seem logical to me that the more guns shooting at something the less damage they do but it is a suggestion in the right direction to combating a problem that we do see exists. well, I had a suggestion that might work quite a while back (ne wanna bother digging up the thread so i'll just post the idea again). Effectively activating an offensive module does two things: - increases your own ships signature radius - decreases your targets ships signature radius (mods include: guns, launchers, ecm, painters, damps, disruptors, nos...) Effectively acivating a defensive module does two things: - increases the signature radius of your own ship - increases the signature radius of the target ship (if any) (mods include: remote reppers, projected eccm, cap transfer arrays, tracking links...) The increase or decrease is applied BEFORE the module actually affects the target The effect of increased/decreased signature radius see affect of halo implants .... This means less signature radius = less damage taken = results achived. This has no effect on 1vs1 - cause both ships activate their offensive modules, decreasing the opponents sig rad and increasing their own... and activate their defensive mods ... increasing their sig rad even more. Some might see a tactical advantage, for example shooting a friendly from outside your guns range ... for it to be of any real value you would have to have alot of help doing that really. anyway, suggestion presented - again. Would be nice if it reached the eyes/ears of people that agree and can do something with this. .
Sienis Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.04.25 09:55:00 - [2] lets call the game Stack Online? seriously, some stacking penalty on some modules is necessary. but a stacking penalty on "focused fire" is kinda ridiculous... sounds like "stacking penalty on drones when more than 5 attack me" i mean wtf ? ____________________________________________
Ravenal The Fated	Posted - 2007.04.25 10:31:00 - [3] think about it, massive amounts of explosions and EW surrounding a single target... effectively making it difficult for targeting comps to lock on to the actual target. is there a point in having 20 ships shooting you at once other than you will most surely perish? (not 20 noob ships vs a titan situation) 5 ships shooting one will accomplish the same thing - taking a bit longer doing it of course, but the results are the same. please think before you pass judgement. .
Mr Li	Posted - 2007.04.25 10:33:00 - [4] Edited by: Mr Li on 25/04/2007 10:33:09 it's already stacking nerfed by nature. for example- Blob A engages Blob B. Both have an equal blobbage of massive proportions. Blob A uses it's entire blob to focus fire on a primary target and takes 2 seconds to kill one BS. Blob B is split up into B1, B2, B3 and each calls a different primary target and takes 3 seconds to each kill a BS. But that's 3*BS in 3 seconds while A is killing one per 2 seconds. it takes more FCs that must be competent and more preparation. But if the real issue the OP is getting at isn't nerfing focused fire because it works too well and rather wants it more to break blobs then that is a completely different development strategy.
Prall	Posted - 2007.04.25 10:37:00 - [5] Edited by: Prall on 25/04/2007 10:33:44 Originally by: Mr Liit's already stacking nerfed by nature. ..... it takes more comepetent FCs and more preparation. agreed. with this idea all that would happen would be people running around in gangs with 8 small reppers fitted locking thier gang mates so the whole thing gets cancelled out. Eve is too old to worry about this no, you cant just change the game that drastically and expect the playerbase to like it. Why do you think the ammar problem and NOS arent being fixed?
Ravenal The Fated	Posted - 2007.04.25 11:04:00 - [6] Originally by: Prall agreed. with this idea all that would happen would be people running around in gangs with 8 small reppers fitted locking thier gang mates so the whole thing gets cancelled out. you obviously did not read the OP - i specifically state that activating a defensive module increases the signature radius of your ship and your targets (if any) 1 vs 1 and blob vs blob will basically stay the same. In blobs a not competent FC will lose if he can not delegate targets - just as he will in the current system. the purpose of the suggestion in the OP is to provide some sort of a geometric series for blob vs few Here effective FC will kill off the few, but an ineffective FC might as well lose vs the few. This equals added stragedy and tactical thinking which imo = good stuff. .
fire 59 Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.04.25 11:25:00 - [7] the idea about targetting and trying to kill multiple bs instead of a primary is a cool idea but wouldnt ork too well in a large engagement. Your not including locking time in your equation either. One fleet will be calling primary, secondary and tertiary while theother is calling a different target for a different grp of bs in the same fleet. Confusion in an intense fleet fight = death. The focus group will be melting them instantly, switch to 2nd , melt etc etc, the other grp will start to drag behind, if there is any coinfusion you will get people talking over the fc and more people will get confused, people will shoot the wrong target's and it will all fall apart faster than a fast thing. Not to mention of course, all those extra calculations' will undoubtedly cause even more lag. Your idea sound's good in theory but in reality it just wouldn't work ( the split fire between different bs target's ) Not to mention either, what happen's when a fleet gets an oppurtunity to kill a supercap but because so many try to shoot it up, they are all affected in whatever way you mentioned. BoB vs the coalition of family value's
dalman Finite Horizon	Posted - 2007.04.25 11:28:00 - [8] I've been at it before, as I frankly find blobcombat boring as ****. Dimminishing returns by having sig radius of a ship lowered by every the ammount of other ships locking it is one of the things I've said before. Though dimminishing returns aren't all that great. I'd rather have it to be more difficult to focus fire, which indeed is quite radical... One thought would be if it's possible to remove player names from the overview (for sure it doesn't make much sense that it can take a minute for my ship to lock the target, but I somehow already know who the pilot is). Removing the possibility to sort the overview by name would be another option making it harder to focus fire. Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me
fire 59 Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.04.25 11:29:00 - [9] Trying to find the target through a sea of drones, fighter's , friggie's and support craft and bs, friend and enemy and lag ? Shudder BoB vs the coalition of family value's
Mr Li	Posted - 2007.04.25 11:30:00 - [10] If preventing blobs is what is really desired then let's try to keep it simple. The most simple way, i believe, to nerf focus fire would be to limit the amount of ships that are able target another ship. The explanation being that with all of the signals flying through space then ship computers get jammed or are unable to distinguish. The amount of targeting ships per targetted ship can be an arbitrary number or base the number on sig radius, solving problems with not being able to get enough damage on passive shield tanks since the sig radius is huge, and it some sense. If we complicate things for the sake of backstory then maybe limit the number of targeting ships by signal type (i.e. magnometric, ladar, etc). But this would seriously gimp RP corps. it would take a lot of testing since a magic number wouldn't be evident right off. I'm not really sure this would work or that nerfing focus fire in any way, shape or form would be great. As it stands i like it the ways things are.
fire 59 Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.04.25 11:41:00 - [11] Well, i personally love fleet combat, it get's my heart pumping no matter hat my job is in that particular fight. I love how it take's a life onto itself, and seem's to come alive, order's and ship movement has to adaptt o the enemy movement or possible reinforcement's, even post battle, there is fight's happening across the system as straggler's are chased and pulled down. I don't think blob's are a problem too much personally because they can be overcome, be it with superior tactic's, hit and run's or just a good old fashioned supercap blast to the face. I also used to think a small part of the blob mentality was because of the price of ships and stuff, people were more worried to lose them so would bring as many as possible so that they could win without a fight or just a good hard gank. BoB vs the coalition of family value's
welsh wizard 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.04.25 11:45:00 - [12] Edited by: welsh wizard on 25/04/2007 11:43:28 The major factor causing alliances to blob is comfort in numbers, ie,, human nature. Stack nerfing damage won't do a bloody thing to stop people bringing massive fleets. Completely ridiculous idea, there are some sacrifices that have to be made in order to keep the balance at the expense of 'realism' (yes I'm aware we're talking about a computer game) but this just takes it too far. These imposed universe altering rules do the game no favours imo. This is one that I hope never sees the light of day but don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of blobs
VanNostrum The Legion. Requiem-Aeternam	Posted - 2007.04.25 11:56:00 - [13] Can fleets actually focus fire? That's news to me, every time i get in a fleet battle i just have a slideshow with lotsa explosion noises, then i wake up in a station far, far away... Could they just fix the lag issues instead?
l'ga Rathorn	Posted - 2007.04.25 11:57:00 - [14] Ideally you'd want something that applies a slight stacking nerf. To fit in with the current gang system you'd want fleet fights to be each squad picking a seperate target and pounding on it. This can reducing effect can be explained away by the increased em field (from em weapons), the increased heat distortion (from thermal weapons), an increase in chaff/floaty bits (from kin/exp). As a potential bonus, EM weapons could have a less effect thus helping to boost amarr! One other thing would be to allow the use of TP's to help offset this stacking effect which would make minmatar EW ships have a pretty decent use
fire 59 Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.04.25 12:01:00 - [15] Originally by: VanNostrum Can fleets actually focus fire? That's news to me, every time i get in a fleet battle i just have a slideshow with lotsa explosion noises, then i wake up in a station far, far away... Could they just fix the lag issues instead? Well for starter's, in a fleet situation you should have all effect's off/sound, buffer's, zoomed out etc. And yes, you can focus fire in fleet's, you just need to optimise your setting's it seem's BoB vs the coalition of family value's
Awox Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2007.04.25 12:03:00 - [16] What the hell is wrong with focused fire? - BOOST OUTLAWS (-10.0 and proud of it)
dalman Finite Horizon	Posted - 2007.04.25 12:06:00 - [17] Originally by: welsh wizard The major factor causing alliances to blob is comfort in numbers, ie,, human nature. Absolutely! Always has been, always will be. The only ways to "stop" blobbing are: AoE weapons A need to defend multiple objectives AoE has been added with Titans. The other one is harder, but I hope that what CCP is working on with outposts/POS may take it a little bit on the way. But from my perspective, this thread is not about stopping blobbing. It's about making blob fights more fun. The simple fact is that the game is not balanced around blobs. A battleship would not be like it is if it was meant that 100 other battleships would be firing on it. Originally by: fire 59 Trying to find the target through a sea of drones, fighter's , friggie's and support craft and bs, friend and enemy and lag ? Shudder Thanks for reading my post without reading it I'm not saying "it should be like this, period". I'm saying I think there's a problem that makes the game less fun, so I'm looking for possibilties. Anyone who has played this game since launch has experienced "threat windows" and using the scanner to target people. The UI has constantly been improved to make it easier to focus fire. And I'm saying that this is not the way to go, as the game is not balanced for that. I mean, look at the "tag function". Who has ever used that? That was introduced to make focus fire extremely easy, but it was already easier than that so none used it. There's plenty of options to make very small changes to the game, but "balance" focus fire. Look at the "new" fleet system for example. Give squad leader the option to point out a target for his squad (but none else in the fleet). Then it would be very easy for a squad of 11 pilots to focus fire on one ship, but very hard to focus more ships on one target in blobcombat. My opinion is that such a change would make blob warfare much much more fun and interesting. Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me
n0thing Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.	Posted - 2007.04.25 12:14:00 - [18] Agreed with above, stacking nerf isnt a solution. People first of all cant deny others from participating in same big op just because they cant damage or dont want to blob. The best idea and soultion imo, is the multiple objects defence. Maybe make some sort of POS network that would need a POSes to be operating within 4 region borders in order to maintain station invulnerability or something like that. Pretty much once the 'pos on every moon' tactic will be re-balanced, then we will see an improvement. ---
Ravenal The Fated	Posted - 2007.04.25 12:27:00 - [19] Quote: Your not including locking time in your equation either. yes I am. A ship that is being bombarded by heavy enemy fire will be difficult to target because of a low signature radius. Quote: Confusion in an intense fleet fight = death. good stuff - bring an effective FC and you win. Results are you dont automatically win by blobbing. Quote: Not to mention of course, all those extra calculations' will undoubtedly cause even more lag. Your idea sound's good in theory but in reality it just wouldn't work ( the split fire between different bs target's ) calculations are at minimum because the signature radius is already applied to your to hit or to damage formula of turrets and missiles. Results are you dont automatically win by blobbing Quote: If preventing blobs is what is really desired then let's try to keep it simple. The most simple way, i believe, to nerf focus fire would be to limit the amount of ships that are able target another ship. this equals a bunch of mining ships all targeting each other and being effectively immune to any forms of assault bar smartbombs. Results got nothing to do with blob combat. Quote: I don't think blob's are a problem too much personally because they can be overcome, be it with superior tactic's, hit and run's or just a good old fashioned supercap blast to the face. Not everybody have a supercap available, and its not that old fashioned. This just describes current blob vs smaller blob ... I already explained how my suggested changes would not change the way blobs fight other blobs. Quote: The major factor causing alliances to blob is comfort in numbers, ie,, human nature. you can still bring a blob for comfort, you will just need an effective FC to make the blob as effective as possible. Results are that you dont automatically win by blobbing. Quote: Completely ridiculous idea, there are some sacrifices that have to be made in order to keep the balance at the expense of 'realism' (yes I'm aware we're talking about a computer game) but this just takes it too far. These imposed universe altering rules do the game no favours imo. There is nothing unrealistic about these suggested changes (RP perspective), as i said (if you had bothered to read the entire thread), the huge number of explosions and EW going around at the targets area make it difficult for the tracking computers and further EW to actually lock on to the target (debris, static... whatnot). Quote: What the hell is wrong with focused fire? nothing at all, its the primary method of getting rid of targets as fast as possible. Problem is that with silly number of ships this happens too fast. Important, please read this: This suggestion leaves blob vs blob and 1 vs 1 fighting virtually unchanged. In blob vs blob the more effective FC wins and in 1 vs 1 ... unchanged. This ONLY affects situations where a blob encounters one to a small number of pilots. .
Ravenal The Fated	Posted - 2007.04.25 12:45:00 - [20] Originally by: n0thing The best idea and soultion imo, is the multiple objects defence. Maybe make some sort of POS network that would need a POSes to be operating within 4 region borders in order to maintain station invulnerability or something like that. multiple objects defence? possibilities are: 1. Attacker has to split up to take down simultaneously a certain number of structures. Results: Defender only needs to protect one area. 2. Attacker only needs to take down the defence structures one after another. Results: Attacker can blob the structures. Doomsday device is a "fix" to the blobbing yes... but i repeat. My suggestion is NOT MEANT TO FIX BLOBBING, its meant to bring tactics into blob warfare VERSUS a SMALL GANG OF DEFENDERS. again: BLOB VS BLOB = NO CHANGE 1 VS 1 = NO CHANGE BLOB VS FEW = slightly more even ground for the "few" ... meaning each ship survives for at least long enough so that you can blink. Please consider ONLY the BLOB VS FEW tactical issues and the attempt made to increase the surviability of ships being focus fired at. Effects "should" be that if the blob is unable to warp scramble their target, they might have a hard time killing it while it aligns and warps away. (no formula or nothing, just very rough numbers to indicate what happens when multiple ships shoot a single target) 1 ship shooting 1 ship = 100% damage 2 ships shooting 1 ship = 195% damage 5 ships shooting 1 ship = 410% damage 10 ships shooting 1 ship = 600% damage ... or something each additional ship does add some amount of damage, but not its full potential. This too means that multiple smaller ships can shoot a larger ship without actually suffering any penalties (their tracking and missile explosion radius are small enough to begin with) so for example 10 battleship shooting a carrier or a dread suffer no penalties at all (1000% damage total) Target painters are of course interesting in this equation, they allow for additional blobbing, but having their effect applied last only means a small increase. Hypothetically 10 ships are shooting a single target, all their focused firing has brought the defending ship down from 400 signature radius to a sig radius of 100, now a target painter would increase this sig radius to 150ish instead of starting the defending ship at 600. again, please consider only blob vs few tactics. .
Tearavygh Quillam Caldari Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.04.25 12:49:00 - [21] Focused fire is a good principle of bringing down targets and it works just fine. No need to change it. The old POS warfare in the new era of supercapitals is what ruins the game. Bring more, because the enemy will bring more motherships/carriers/dreadnoughts/titans/support... Big cap fleets of equal sizes don't even engage anymore.
VanNostrum The Legion. Requiem-Aeternam	Posted - 2007.04.25 12:50:00 - [22] Originally by: fire 59 Originally by: VanNostrum Can fleets actually focus fire? That's news to me, every time i get in a fleet battle i just have a slideshow with lotsa explosion noises, then i wake up in a station far, far away... Could they just fix the lag issues instead? Well for starter's, in a fleet situation you should have all effect's off/sound, buffer's, zoomed out etc. And yes, you can focus fire in fleet's, you just need to optimise your setting's it seem's That was an exaggeration example, it still is a slideshow with all sounds turned off I'd like to have your version of the client
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves	Posted - 2007.04.25 12:50:00 - [23] Disregarding computerization, in naval history there have been cases where too many ships shooting at the same target have lessened accuracy as it became hard for the artillery spotters to tell their own shots from those of their fellow ships, resulting in poor performance. In one spectacular case, HMS Tiger fired 255 shells and scored only one hit in the Battle of Doggerbank, because she interpreted HMS Lion's shell splashes as her own and kept on firing 3000 yards off the target. So there is precendent, and game balance > realism, so why not do it... --------- There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Kestrel There is no 'e' in Caldari
Thanos Mortis Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.04.25 12:51:00 - [24] I vote no to Stack Online
Ravenal The Fated	Posted - 2007.04.25 12:58:00 - [25] Originally by: Thanos Mortis I vote no to Stack Online reasoning and counterexamples are for losers. .
fire 59 Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.04.25 13:00:00 - [26] Originally by: dalman Originally by: welsh wizard The major factor causing alliances to blob is comfort in numbers, ie,, human nature. Absolutely! Always has been, always will be. The only ways to "stop" blobbing are: AoE weapons A need to defend multiple objectives AoE has been added with Titans. The other one is harder, but I hope that what CCP is working on with outposts/POS may take it a little bit on the way. But from my perspective, this thread is not about stopping blobbing. It's about making blob fights more fun. The simple fact is that the game is not balanced around blobs. A battleship would not be like it is if it was meant that 100 other battleships would be firing on it. Originally by: fire 59 Trying to find the target through a sea of drones, fighter's , friggie's and support craft and bs, friend and enemy and lag ? Shudder Thanks for reading my post without reading it I'm not saying "it should be like this, period". I'm saying I think there's a problem that makes the game less fun, so I'm looking for possibilties. Anyone who has played this game since launch has experienced "threat windows" and using the scanner to target people. The UI has constantly been improved to make it easier to focus fire. And I'm saying that this is not the way to go, as the game is not balanced for that. I mean, look at the "tag function". Who has ever used that? That was introduced to make focus fire extremely easy, but it was already easier than that so none used it. There's plenty of options to make very small changes to the game, but "balance" focus fire. Look at the "new" fleet system for example. Give squad leader the option to point out a target for his squad (but none else in the fleet). Then it would be very easy for a squad of 11 pilots to focus fire on one ship, but very hard to focus more ships on one target in blobcombat. My opinion is that such a change would make blob warfare much much more fun and interesting. Wasn't intended as a flame or anything although i think i misread what you meant. I wasn't around during the early time's so have always had the overview, never known eve without it. My apologie's if what i said came across wrong BoB vs the coalition of family value's
korrey Amarr	Posted - 2007.04.25 13:02:00 - [27] I have this great new idea. Fleet A engages Fleet B. Fleet A all locks one Battleship in Fleet B. That Battleship then combusts from having more than 25 people lock it, before they even begin to fire... Seriously, the day the put a stacking nerf on Damage is the day EvE combat ends. ----------- Amarr- If you like to handicap yourself before the fight begins, then Amarr may suite your needs surprisingly well.
Hephaesteus Gallente	Posted - 2007.04.25 13:05:00 - [28] Originally by: Leandro Salazar she interpreted HMS Lion's shell splashes as her own and kept on firing 3000 yards off the target. We fight in space no sea to cloud our vision. As for the original idea, it sucks. Being able to setup and coordinate a fleet is what separates good commanders from brilliant ones.
fire 59 Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.04.25 13:07:00 - [29] Originally by: Tearavygh Quillam Focused fire is a good principle of bringing down targets and it works just fine. No need to change it. The old POS warfare in the new era of supercapitals is what ruins the game. Bring more, because the enemy will bring more motherships/carriers/dreadnoughts/titans/support... Big cap fleets of equal sizes don't even engage anymore. Cap fleet battle's are just (picture homer simpson slouched on the couch doing that drooling thing he doe's when someone say's donut's ) . I don't think it's a case that they don't engage anymore, it's just that typically, cap fleet a will be doing something, and cap fleet b will ty to have double the number's to 'Blob' them. BoB vs the coalition of family value's
Ravenal The Fated	Posted - 2007.04.25 13:15:00 - [30] Edited by: Ravenal on 25/04/2007 13:11:10 Originally by: Hephaesteus As for the original idea, it sucks. Being able to setup and coordinate a fleet is what separates good commanders from brilliant ones. i said something about reasoning earlier, i might want to add that this quote makes no sense at all because the original idea has got NOTHING to do with setting up and coordinating a fleet. If implemented then just as now, you will need to setup and coordinate your fleet to be effective. Results = no change. Quote: Seriously, the day the put a stacking nerf on Damage is the day EvE combat ends. - sorry, had to laugh at this... riddle me this then, what does the current stacking nerf do? What do halo implants, skirmish warfare links, traversal velocity and speed do to damage? What happened when they stack nerfed the damage mods? Anybody remember armageddons back in the days of 7x pulse + 8x heatsinks?? proclaim all you want about the end of eve combat, you will still be wrong. .

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.