| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Brian Kith
The White Star Consortium
   |
Posted - 2007.05.15 13:20:00 -
[1]
One problem I heard Hammerhead having trouble justifying in his head is applying a stacking nerf to focused fire on a ship. Basically, his question was "why does it make sense that the more guns firing on a ship do less damage?" The obvious answer is that it doesn't make sense. More guns mean more incoming damage, but that still leaves the problem of focused fire from "teh blawb" melting ships and taking a lot of the fun out of large fleet engagements.
The solution seems rather obvious to me. Limit how many people can lock any given target. Let's say you've got a Merlin Frigate get called primary (ok, I have no idea why, but work with me here!). Concentrated fire from the blob would probably melt this ship in oh say 5 seconds. That sucks. Instead, look at how many targets the Merlin ship (not the pilot in it!) can lock. 4 targets. Fine, sounds good. No more than four enemy ships can lock that Merlin. Additional locks that try to land get the message "Targeting interference prevents you from locking that target". The correct four ships locking the Merlin will still take it down quickly, but it won't "melt" now. The Merlin pilot could get away, if he isn't tackled quickly.
This adds a lot more strategy to encounters as each squad will end up having its own primary target. Squad commanders become more important as the Fleet Commander simply assigns "tasks" to the Squad or even Wing Commanders. It makes the sub-commanders much more important. Fleet engagements aren't necessarily won by the side with more players. Smart players are more important. Numbers are still a huge advantage, but not nearly so much. Combined with some of the upcoming anti-blob weapons, this would greatly improve the strategic part of large fleet encounters.
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 13:46:00 -
[2]
4 friends lock that merlin and taddaaa it becomes invulnerable !!! nobody else able to lock it. and there is NO WAY to distinguish freindly and enemy locks.
 Originally by: JP Beauregard
The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls.... 
|
Aneroi
Amarr
VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 16:01:00 -
[3]
why couldnt there be a way to distinguish friendly and hostile locks?
http://aneroi.tk |
Valandril
Caldari
Reiketsu.
Hitchhiker's Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 17:07:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Aneroi
why couldnt there be a way to distinguish friendly and hostile locks?
U tell me it, by standing ? So ppl will switch that they wil tract friends as -5 and +5 as enemy and still exploi it.
By ppl in the same gang ?
Heh who need gang anyway...
---
Cheap paint ftw |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 18:53:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Aneroi
why couldnt there be a way to distinguish friendly and hostile locks?
why are you asking me ? I said there is none. to prove me wrong you have to come up with a working one ... then we have something to build on ...
Originally by: JP Beauregard
The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
|
Tankerbell
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 22:32:00 -
[6]
So basically all i would have to do is tank out a ship with a low max target limit and become invincible because I can take fire from 4 ships all day long?
Or you could have a bunch of alts in a war-deccd corp sit off to the side targeting your whole group. Since they are not war-deccd with who you are fighting you become invincible again.
This idea has exploit written all over it
|
Vincent Almasy
Gallente
The Underground
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 03:25:00 -
[7]
max targets to 7-10 which or normally one less or more then the max of ships a BS can lock. but then again the alpha of 7-10 ships is normaly leathal either way..
All this will do is not the FC and wing commanders ir cordinate things while each gang focuses fire onto one target, and 10targets die and not 1 uber death
|
Vorok
Silver Aria
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 04:24:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Vorok on 16/05/2007 04:32:58
It simply wouldn't work, as the others have stated.
First there's the fact that not every action that follows locking is actually shooting. Consider remote assistance, tackling, electronic warfare, etc. There's a lot of non-shooting to mess up by fiddling with a lock limit. But let's consider the real deal killer: Computer intelligence.
To work fairly, "friendly" locks can't be counted, or else friends will all just lock each other to become invulnerable. The server is incapable of making an accurate friend-or-foe determination in this case. The game is controlled by algorithms with predictable and repeatable results. Once you understand how the rules work, you can work around the rules.
A computer may be faster, but a human is much smarter. The machine can monitor our *ACTIONS* in game and dole out consequences based upon pre-set rules. It cannot divine *HUMAN INTENT* in an action. Consider trying to redesign CONCORD to always kill "the bad guy" in a high-sec confrontation, such that no innocent person is ever attacked by CONCORD (oops locked the wrong dude!) and no ebil piwate ever gets away with the various standard empire lures ("free stuff" cans, war gangs, jet can swapping, etc). It can't be done. CONCORD will respond based on your ACTIONS, not your INTENTIONS.
No matter how you implement a lock limit, it won't work. Base it on standings, aggression flags, gang memberships, or corporations, it's all the same. It will be exploited straight from day one because the loopholes are readily apparent. A computer cannot out think a human. We're pretty darned creative, while the machine is static.
Bottom Line
Unless we enslave all of the GMs and force them to make thousands of friend-or-foe decisions per second, this won't work. CCP will need to develop REAL pods to interface with the server in order to keep up. They will also need remote telepathy capabilities just in case some players are really sneaky (limited data = limited decision making ability).
Unfortunately, this process will create a new breed of super-GMs, who most likely will attach their brains to giant mecha spider bodies and conquer the Earth. If we kiss up enough to the GMs now, and we might have a chance of becoming their loyal servants instead of delicious brain dinners. 
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |