Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
6
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 00:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
So I was looking through CCP's list of regularly suggested ideas, and this came up.
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1043696
In Short the idea is this: The more locks that are on a target the longer it will take for another lock to be established. Sounds simple, but the it is utterly game changing for the better - In my opinion and several others. It would bring more ships into play on the battlefield, end blobs in their current form, make use of many many forgotten modules, will make 'Squad Commander' mean something, and will encourage creative strategy and fairer gameplay.
The best part is that it isn't a seriously radical change. Pilots aren't going to have to re-learn how to fight in fleets, they will just have to learn how to do it properly.
I thought this idea was so good that it needed to be thrown out to a wider audience. Mainly because I want to see what people's reaction would be to such a game-changing idea. Would you be a hater/rage quitter or a lover? |
Cyzlaki
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
173
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 00:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sounds great. Would change the combat dynamics especially with alpha and sniper fleets. Taking longer to lock secondary and tertiary targets would make it easier for tacklers to get in point range. |
Rixiu
North Star Networks The Kadeshi
65
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 00:14:00 -
[3] - Quote
Yes. It should take longer for logistic pilots to lock up the primary target, great idea :) |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
6
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 00:17:00 -
[4] - Quote
Rixiu wrote:Yes. It should take longer for logistic pilots to lock up the primary target, great idea :)
As mentioned in the thread I linked, it doesn't take a creative genius to think of a solution to that. Cynics gonna cynic. |
Implying Implications
Broski Enterprises Elite Space Guild
5
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 00:18:00 -
[5] - Quote
nope |
Potamus Jenkins
The Lucky Bible Company
42
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 00:19:00 -
[6] - Quote
so would your fleet just lock each other up first ? |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
905
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 00:19:00 -
[7] - Quote
I'd love the idea and suggested similar things in form of stacking penalties on RR and DPS.
Whatever - it would take serious balancing work, but anything would be better than the current atrociously asinine 'ctrl-click braodcast window/find name in overview-ctrl+click and hit F1' fleet fight mechanics eve currently has. The good thing is, if time dilation really works, this may finally do as well. morons- sting like a butterfly and-ápost like a bee. |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
6
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 00:26:00 -
[8] - Quote
Potamus Jenkins wrote:so would your fleet just lock each other up first ?
You could do that, but it would be extraordinarily stupid as a tactic, as the enemy will also be locking onto your ships. By the time you've realised how dumb your tactic actually is, the enemy has completed locking your ships and is opening fire. Meanwhile you're desperately locking their ships upon the realisation of how catastrophically dumb your tactic was.
|
Rellik B00n
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers The 0rphanage
121
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 00:36:00 -
[9] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote:I'd love the idea and suggested similar things in form of stacking penalties on RR and DPS.
Whatever - it would take serious balancing work, but anything would be better than the current atrociously asinine 'ctrl-click braodcast window/find name in overview-ctrl+click and hit F1' fleet fight mechanics eve currently has. The good thing is, if time dilation really works, this may finally do as well.
pretty much +1
my war dec solution |
Syphon Lodian
Fabled Enterprises
26
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 00:39:00 -
[10] - Quote
I like this idea.
My idea of fleet fights is basically 50 Maelstroms picking a primary, then 50 people press F1. Then you go to secondary, Press F1. It's really stupid, and eliminates the whole point of having a Fleet with Wings, and Squadrons.
Like you said, fleet flights should consist of squadrons fighting other squadrons. Every time I see a video of a fleet fight.. it's just like I said before.. 50 Maelstroms humping each other shooting at 50 other Maelstroms humping each other. |
|
Potamus Jenkins
The Lucky Bible Company
42
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 00:41:00 -
[11] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote:Potamus Jenkins wrote:so would your fleet just lock each other up first ? You could do that, but it would be extraordinarily stupid as a tactic, as the enemy will also be locking onto your ships. By the time you've realised how dumb your tactic actually is, the enemy has completed locking your ships and is opening fire. Meanwhile you're desperately locking their ships upon the realisation of how catastrophically dumb your tactic was.
unless of course your fleet is on grid before their fleet....like a gate |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
9
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 00:48:00 -
[12] - Quote
Potamus Jenkins wrote:Miss Whippy wrote:Potamus Jenkins wrote:so would your fleet just lock each other up first ? You could do that, but it would be extraordinarily stupid as a tactic, as the enemy will also be locking onto your ships. By the time you've realised how dumb your tactic actually is, the enemy has completed locking your ships and is opening fire. Meanwhile you're desperately locking their ships upon the realisation of how catastrophically dumb your tactic was. unless of course your fleet is on grid before their fleet....like a gate
In that case it would make no difference, as has already been pointed out, the penalty would only have to apply to enemy ships. So you can't penalise (LOL) the locking time on your own fleets ships. |
Cryten Jones
Advantage Inc The Matari Consortium
25
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:06:00 -
[13] - Quote
Makes a bucket load of sense to me. The sensor booster issue is not such a biggie as fitting a load of sensor boosters limits your other options so in a fight that is more intimate fighting a small gang with well fitted ships with your 5 sensor boosters is not going to help you much...
Basically we need 120 pilot fights to be 30 * 4 pilot fights with squad and wing leaders actually having a reason to be there not 60 people waiting for the overlord to call targets and be the anchor.... I mean seriously, the fact that people form up on a single 'anchor' ship and just shoot at targets tell you something is wrong.
Every pilot should be fighting for his optimal tooth and nail and paying attention to radial and transversal like their lives depended on it...
Think of any of the major star wars space fights Think the battle of Britain Think the Shadow war in B5 (probably more reliant given they were bigger ships like ours)
Didn't get everyone firing at the same poor dude in any of these fights did you?.... well other than the Death Star...and look how that turned out for the Empire :-)
-CJ
|
stoicfaux
638
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:15:00 -
[14] - Quote
Drastically increase firepower to the point that primarying a target results in massive, tactically crippling overkill, thus encouraging fleets to select primaries at the squad level.
Since things die much faster, fleet lag is reduced as well.
Or not. Probably not.
You can tell me what is and isn't true when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Lady Spank
GET OUT NASTY FACE
858
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:17:00 -
[15] - Quote
It didn't work in Perpetuum so what makes you think it would work here? (a¦á_a¦â) ~ http://getoutnastyface.blogspot.com/ ~ (a¦á_a¦â) -áGÖÑ New Years Resolution ~ Cease thy Smacktalk GÖÑ |
Jimi Crackcorn
Directed Evolution Corp
68
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:21:00 -
[16] - Quote
YOu know what would really make Eve a better place? If double clicking items opened the show info window. |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
15
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:22:00 -
[17] - Quote
Lady Spank wrote:It didn't work in Perpetuum so what makes you think it would work here?
How about you just tell us what makes you think it won't work? Otherwise I'll just make the rather obvious point that they're two completely different games. |
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
732
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:24:00 -
[18] - Quote
Syphon Lodian wrote:I like this idea.
My idea of fleet fights is basically 50 Maelstroms picking a primary, then 50 people press F1. Then you go to secondary, Press F1. It's really stupid, and eliminates the whole point of having a Fleet with Wings, and Squadrons.
Like you said, fleet flights should consist of squadrons fighting other squadrons. Every time I see a video of a fleet fight.. it's just like I said before.. 50 Maelstroms humping each other shooting at 50 other Maelstroms humping each other. Yes. One thousand times yes.
There should also be a penalty for ships humping each other in a very close blob. It looks stupid, requires no tactical thought and breaks the suspension of disbelief for players. |
Jimi Crackcorn
Directed Evolution Corp
68
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:25:00 -
[19] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote:Lady Spank wrote:It didn't work in Perpetuum so what makes you think it would work here? How about you just tell us what makes you think it won't work? Otherwise I'll just make the rather obvious point that they're two completely different games.
Thank you! This always happens. Everyone says something won't work but they for some reason always forget to post the actual reason it won't work. Weird right? |
Potamus Jenkins
The Lucky Bible Company
42
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:30:00 -
[20] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote:Potamus Jenkins wrote:Miss Whippy wrote:Potamus Jenkins wrote:so would your fleet just lock each other up first ? You could do that, but it would be extraordinarily stupid as a tactic, as the enemy will also be locking onto your ships. By the time you've realised how dumb your tactic actually is, the enemy has completed locking your ships and is opening fire. Meanwhile you're desperately locking their ships upon the realisation of how catastrophically dumb your tactic was. unless of course your fleet is on grid before their fleet....like a gate In that case it would make no difference, as has already been pointed out, the penalty would only have to apply to enemy ships. So you can't penalise (LOL) the locking time on your own fleets ships.
so now the game can easily determine who is "enemy" and who is "friend" even before the shooting started? |
|
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1253
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:33:00 -
[21] - Quote
Any artificially created rules which does not have any "logic" and seriously affect people who invest a lot of time and effort to create an working empire does not seem sound to EVE principles. |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
16
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:36:00 -
[22] - Quote
Potamus Jenkins wrote:Miss Whippy wrote:Potamus Jenkins wrote:Miss Whippy wrote:Potamus Jenkins wrote:so would your fleet just lock each other up first ? You could do that, but it would be extraordinarily stupid as a tactic, as the enemy will also be locking onto your ships. By the time you've realised how dumb your tactic actually is, the enemy has completed locking your ships and is opening fire. Meanwhile you're desperately locking their ships upon the realisation of how catastrophically dumb your tactic was. unless of course your fleet is on grid before their fleet....like a gate In that case it would make no difference, as has already been pointed out, the penalty would only have to apply to enemy ships. So you can't penalise (LOL) the locking time on your own fleets ships. so now the game can easily determine who is "enemy" and who is "friend" even before the shooting started?
Yes, it's called a "Fleet." |
Bootleg Jack
Potters Field
15
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:36:00 -
[23] - Quote
Cyzlaki wrote:... Taking longer to lock a target that is already locked by others is not such a great idea, as that means locking a primary will take far longer. Basically it will come down to fleet ships fitting one or two more sensor boosters than usual to mitigate this mechanic.
This is the whole idea, there would not be just one primary fleet wide, it would more likely become squad wide targets.
I think this simple idea has awesome potential.
And as far as logis go, the penalty could be applied to hostile tartgets only, or any number of other suggestions.
|
Vyl Vit
Cambio Enterprises
197
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:38:00 -
[24] - Quote
It actually began as a lag solution for large fleet fights. Staggering target locks allows the server to process the info faster, rather than trying to process a hundred simultaneous locks. It also discourages an entire fleet targeting one ship at a time, attempting to force ships to spread the targeting load, as the last fifty ships would have to wait all weekend for a lock on the primary.
To her it doesn't matter much.-á It's chasms have been leapt, and she leans upon the skepticism of her chosen fate. |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
16
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:40:00 -
[25] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Any artificially created rules which does not have any "logic" and seriously affect people who invest a lot of time and effort to create an working empire does not seem sound to EVE principles.
It's only artificial if you lack the imagination to come up with a plausible scenario for why it should exist. Read the thread I linked, it's covered. Disregarding something which is potentially brilliant, just because you can't envision a realistic concept for it, seems short-sighted at best. |
Potamus Jenkins
The Lucky Bible Company
42
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:43:00 -
[26] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote: Yes, it's called a "Fleet."
this is eve
if it can be exploited it will be, do you not see how easily exploitable this is?
|
Deriah Book
Fox Clan Inari Kimon
4
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:45:00 -
[27] - Quote
Cyzlaki wrote:At first I read that as "The more targets you have locked, the longer it takes to lock another" which I thought was a good idea.
Taking longer to lock a target that is already locked by others is not such a great idea, as that means locking a primary will take far longer. Basically it will come down to fleet ships fitting one or two more sensor boosters than usual to mitigate this mechanic.
Wait... don't imagine fighting the battle using current strategies. Instead, imagine the fight under the restrictions mentioned. Let it flow from there. See what happens. What might be new and exciting? Better.... ?
In my opinion fleet, wing, and squad dynamics would be beautiful. Everyone in fleet would have a much more important role to play. The satisfaction quotient of a fight well fought, win or lose, would go up dramatically.
|
Large Collidable Object
morons.
910
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:45:00 -
[28] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote:
Yes, it's called a "Fleet."
He has a point though - people could just break down in muliple fleets that are squad sized in order to avoid that.
I love the idea and spent some time thinking about it, but it's really hard to implement an a way that wouldn't be heavily exploited. morons- sting like a butterfly and-ápost like a bee. |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
16
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:46:00 -
[29] - Quote
Potamus Jenkins wrote:Miss Whippy wrote: Yes, it's called a "Fleet."
this is eve if it can be exploited it will be, do you not see how easily exploitable this is?
No I can't, guess you're just going to have to explain it to us. |
Jimi Crackcorn
Directed Evolution Corp
69
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:47:00 -
[30] - Quote
Potamus Jenkins wrote:Miss Whippy wrote: Yes, it's called a "Fleet."
this is eve if it can be exploited it will be, do you not see how easily exploitable this is?
Is that like the default argument for something players don't like around here? It's too much effort to actually think of a reason so you just resort back to the good ole exploit cop out?
Mining can be exploited by botters, it should be removed m i rite?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |