| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
BaJaiah
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
   |
Posted - 2007.05.16 08:53:00 -
[1]
I heard the question about stacking penalty of combined fire in the last live dev blog.
The answer was that it didn't make sence that more attackers should cause themselves to do less damage. Well I beg to differ. IMHO it makes perfect sense that a multitude of attackers engaging one target just might have problems acquiring target lock due to interference. Same thing would most likely be the case for tracking computers and missile guidance systems.
Hence my suggestion is to make the targets signature radius decrease considerable for each additional aggressor.
This would result in additional aggressors taking much longer to acquire the same target as everybody else, and cause all attackers to make "fewer hits", which of course translates to less damage.
Good or bad 
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Cadien Cybernetics
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 12:32:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 16/05/2007 12:33:06
Yes I agree. Even if it only serves as a replacement for Line of Sight.
EVE doesn't have LoS, thus some different restriction might be needed.
There was a nice discussion some time ago about focused fire etc.: Linkage
Unfortunately most of the time you meet with criticism on these forums, instead of agreeing on the problem and goal, which could result in a productive development.
_________________________________
- People are people wherever you go - |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 12:38:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 16/05/2007 12:37:22
 Originally by: BaJaiah
I heard the question about stacking penalty of combined fire in the last live dev blog.
The answer was that it didn't make sence that more attackers should cause themselves to do less damage. Well I beg to differ. IMHO it makes perfect sense that a multitude of attackers engaging one target just might have problems acquiring target lock due to interference. Same thing would most likely be the case for tracking computers and missile guidance systems.
Hence my suggestion is to make the targets signature radius decrease considerable for each additional aggressor.
This would result in additional aggressors taking much longer to acquire the same target as everybody else, and cause all attackers to make "fewer hits", which of course translates to less damage.
Good or bad
How do you differentiate if a lock is an aggressor or not ? And how do you make it abuse-proof ?
Tarron: People do agree on the goal, just the means and implementation so far lack.
Originally by: JP Beauregard
The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls.... 
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Cadien Cybernetics
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 12:51:00 -
[4]
Hugh, watching some 'discussons', I sometimes really doubt that. Many people are very obsessed with being 'more right' than others.
Ok, regarding aggressor or not. It's an old and known problem. You actually can't and it is indeed prone to abuse.
You could do it on a per-gun basis, though.
_________________________________
- People are people wherever you go - |
BaJaiah
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 14:02:00 -
[5]
Edited by: BaJaiah on 16/05/2007 14:02:12
Thanks for the link Tarron - I saw quite a few interesting points made there.
I still think my solution would be the most simple and - erhm logical. A few other guys seems to be on the same track as me.
Just to clarify - I would count anybody locking me who is in a hostile gang/corp/alliance and possible who has kill rights as an aggressor.
Furthermore I think you would run into some serious timing issues when calculating the penalty if this is done per gun/launcher/EW module. Say 20 BS's target you at the same time and fire their guns more or less at the same time - thats quite a few modules ;o)
Open for abuse? Give my restrictions on who to count as an aggressor I don't see any way to abuse this...
Keep it simple - and it just might work 
I also saw a voice raised that this would nerf ships using MWD. Which it would - but as far as I can tell no more than they are nerfed allready (?)
Putting a hell of a lot of extra hitpoints on hull/shield/armor is simply put stupid. It would destroy whatever balance/challenges there currently is in 1vs1 and PvE, or call for considerable maintenance in that department. For instance Capacitor is not an issue if you are using a passive shield tank...
All things said and done - this has to be related to the amount of weaponry bearing down on a single target. I simply don't see any other solution that will not effect every other aspect of the EVE universe.
Finally I'd like to quote Xianthar:
Quote:
there no problem with fleet combat(25-30 ships on a side), you simply need to know what your doing, normal "tank" setups are not for fleet fighting, in a fleet fight you need fast dmg dealers (tempest has best alpha strike, and is arguably the best fleet BS).....don't fit a damn tank, its useless, i mean it no armor reps and no shield boosters...NONE...you should have a carrier or a logistics ship of some sort at a safe for remote armor repping...fit plates in lows and ECM in mids, when your overviews turns yellow you warp out, if you wait to get hit you will die.
now as for your situation i don't consider 5 BS on a side to be much of a fleet fight, in a group that sized you should have been able to tank for a couple of minutes, and if 3-4 of the enemy BS weren't jammed or damped i suggest you rethink your setups, there should not be a pvp BS setup in eve without a few multi specs and/or damps on board.
This is very much a good guide as to how fight fleet battles, and the exact reason to why I don't play PvP for the time being. It's simply not fun IMHO 
|
Aneroi
Amarr
VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 14:31:00 -
[6]
so everyone would fly around shooting everyone in the own fleet with civilian guns? wouldnt work that way either
http://aneroi.tk |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 14:40:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 16/05/2007 14:41:38
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
Hugh, watching some 'discussons', I sometimes really doubt that. Many people are very obsessed with being 'more right' than others.
Ok, regarding aggressor or not. It's an old and known problem. You actually can't and it is indeed prone to abuse.
You could do it on a per-gun basis, though.
Sometimes it is better to maintain a broken status quo than introduce a bigger problem when solving one. See the Titans and DDDs as example.
This game is run by alts. There is NO WAY to decide on friend/foe. Trust me, that's how it is. The only way would be to introduce a kind of IFF module.
Originally by: JP Beauregard
The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
|
BaJaiah
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 15:01:00 -
[8]
Aneroi & Hugh Ruka both your points are invalidated by the hostile gang/corp/alliance filter. Friends and neutral alts would cause no difference in this system... 
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Cadien Cybernetics
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 15:33:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Aneroi
so everyone would fly around shooting everyone in the own fleet with civilian guns? wouldnt work that way either
Who said that civilian guns would even count? Perhaps 1/10th of a small turret. Small turrets 1/3 of large turrets, 1/2 of medium turrets.
Penalties starting at about 15 large turrets for a battleship.
Now try using civi guns..
_________________________________
- People are people wherever you go - |
Ovno ConSyquence
Amarr
The Plebians
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 16:08:00 -
[10]
I suggested a very similar idea in this thread...
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=520287&page=1
(without ever hearing the blog which one was it?)
And as the claims that by using a hostile corps/friendly corps filter would prevent expoits, well i'd just set my standings so that everyone had -ve standings and use -5 => -10 to differenciate real nmes from fake ones, that way all my friends could prevent peeps attacking me.... |
BaJaiah
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 16:18:00 -
[11]
Edited by: BaJaiah on 16/05/2007 16:24:55
Ovno you can download the blog here.
Regarding filtering valid aggressors I didn't mention friendlies as being part of the filter now did i ? But it doesn't really matter since it won't work vs alts in 0.0 anyway. I'll revert if I find a solution that can handle that "exploit"...
EDIT: Tarron I finally got your point, and yes it does seem like the most valid solution. IMHO it should include vampires, EW, dampners etc as well which makes it more complicated. However I am worried about the computational overhead in the per module solution.
|
Sir Drake
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 19:26:00 -
[12]
I have the ugly feeling that any stacking penalty to multiple attackers will most likely end in a horrible lag.
As much as i appreciate the idea of nerfing large blobs but if it means any chance for more lag i say no.
CCP is doing pretty well in reducing lag and i certainly dont want ppl asking for anything that would create more.
Priorites are pretty clear for me:
1. less lag
2. everything else
-------------------------------------------------------
Sig was removed due to derogatory comments towards a group of people. -Karl Chroimcer
I like that. 
|
Gamesguy
Amarr
E X O D U S
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 23:45:00 -
[13]
Quote:
Who said that civilian guns would even count? Perhaps 1/10th of a small turret. Small turrets 1/3 of large turrets, 1/2 of medium turrets.
Penalties starting at about 15 large turrets for a battleship.
Now try using civi guns..
As someone else have posted on another thread, is that mega neutron blaster II shooting at you from 80km friendly, neutral, or hostile?
How about that 1400mm artillery shooting at a inty orbiting at 500m?
This is why such a system would never work. Eve is too complex.
|
BaJaiah
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.05.17 00:57:00 -
[14]
good point Gamesguy
This convince me that combined fire nerf has to be based on targeting, as I initially suggested. Though I'm still at a loss regarding interfering alts in low security areas.
However I'm a bit in doubt if this is actually a real or a theoretical problem (?) Would the number of alts really be(come) great enough for this system to fail ? I guess it probably would, but coordinating attacks from a lot of alts not in a hostile gang might just be nerf enough, making them sufficiently inefficient (?) That could possible be avoided by teamspeak or similar tools, but are we not taking it to the extreme here. I mean would players actually deploy such methods ?
If so, I see no solution. Alts have always been a direct feed for exploits of any system. Nonpunishable scams, suicide squads, recon without causing suspicion due to the fact that all recon characters are in noob corps etc etc. In other words I simply think we would have to disregard alts altogether as they are disregarded under all other circumstances... There is currently no rule set in EVE that include alt association so I fail to see why this should be the first. At some point we simply have to trust that people are not playing to win under all circumstances, yes
|
Ghostwarden
|
Posted - 2007.05.17 04:47:00 -
[15]
Base the amount of sig radius reduction on the TOTAL number of ships trying to lock/fire in a given area. Then give that sig radius reduction to all the ships in the given area. That way if you had people targeting folks on their side it would affect them equally.
Also if you had a larger fleet attacking a smaller one the reduction would be across the board favoring neither group over the other.
Then to promote the idea of cluster fireing over the entire blob fireing you could create a module that would allow you to tie in all the ships in a group/wing (whatever) to the targeting computer of a single command ship, thus reducing the number of ships actually targeting/fireing. Dont know about this last part tho....might break the idea.
Ghost
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Cadien Cybernetics
|
Posted - 2007.05.17 11:17:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 17/05/2007 11:24:01
Originally by: Gamesguy
As someone else have posted on another thread, is that mega neutron blaster II shooting at you from 80km friendly, neutral, or hostile?
How about that 1400mm artillery shooting at a inty orbiting at 500m?
This is why such a system would never work. Eve is too complex.
Hm, never say never. I think that's not a good approach regarding game mechanics.
1. As has been mentioned in one of the old threads, cap the penalty. Probably at 50%. So no way to make any ship invincible.
2. Something along the lines of: either only count weapons that actually hit, or exclude weapons with a to-hit probability below 1% and/or those which are completely out of range.
That mega blaster would be ruled out pretty easily. The 1400mm arti probably .. well, actually even if they weren't ruled out, you're free to shoot whomever you want. I guess your enemy will aim their 1400mm's at you meanwhile..
Sir Drake, of course a certain "only, if it's technically doable and doesn't worsen the situation" preamble applies to all suggestions being made.
But as we players can only guess about that, I'd rather keep it the way it is - us suggesting stuff and CCP doing the dirty work 
_________________________________
- People are people wherever you go - |
Minigin
Ganja Labs
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.05.17 11:26:00 -
[17]
how do you know what is realistic or not for the EVE Universe? have you been there?
if you want this game to be realistic in physics and such your out of your mind... if you want it to be socialy realistic then im with you!
Your signature <----- My awsome Sig
Real men PVP on the Forums. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |