Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mirima Thurander
Sarajevo Syndicate True Reign
219
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:48:00 -
[31] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote: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.
it would still be stacking for ever one not in your fleet so hows that exploited
i like this idea and there NO way it would not work if implemented all the people that says it wont work are just dumb and have given to facts to why it would not work.
any reason so far has been debunked by simply programming in ""if its in fleet and is locking you no locking time increase"" that's something that would of be added from the start
this would be striking down the main way fleet fight s have been fought from the time eve started
we would no longer see
700 * 1
in stead we would see something along the lines of
50 * 1 50 * 1 50 * 1 50 * 1 50 * 1 50 * 1 50 * 1 50 * 1 50 * 1 50 * 1 50 * 1 50 * 1 50 * 1 50 * 1
and it would make for a better game for it I love the the smell of victory in the morning. It smells like... Blood, vomit and burning flesh. I Like You. I'll Kill You Last. |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1253
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:50:00 -
[32] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote: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.
I understand it. It should be implemented so there will be several rooms in voice-coms and coordination will become not achievable in large fights .. And fights 1k vs 600 will take about 600 hrs straight. And some other stuff. .
Just dont know what EVE physics law would allow such disadvantage.. Same as stack penalty on dps and RR .. not sure what EVE physic law would create such disadvantage .. Its all against any logic..
You invest time you create empire and you cant use it. ... because someone somewhere decided that large numbers means nothing and should be penalized.
Fights and such is good as it is.
It is certainly briliant for some group but not for other, and why the one group should be preferred is beyond me. And as stated above its against EVE.
At least that is my opinion. You dont have to agree, and i accept that you wont agree. We just see it differently. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
493
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:52:00 -
[33] - Quote
i would rather like to take a look at sensor noise as anti blob tactic.
blobs create noise which increases lock time
counter: don't create blobs, organize the fleet in formations (small groups of ships, e.g. wing size or squad size).... a new bounty system for eve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Potamus Jenkins
The Lucky Bible Company
42
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 01:54:00 -
[34] - Quote
Jimi Crackcorn wrote: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?
thats the worst reply ever and completely unrelated analogy
so going by our discussion here you basically just added a DISADVANTAGE to being in a fleet. if you are gonna use your fleet status for the server to determine who is "Friendly" to you and who is "Enemy" then why would you not take advantage of that and confuse the server and have your whole group (or a specific group whos sole purpose is to increase lock times of the "Enemy" fleet) not in the same fleet
fleet A fighting fleet B
fleet a sitting on a gate, fleet b jumps in
fleet A has UNFLEETED group A already locking them up, while fleet B is scrambling trying to lock the guys they are getting smoked by fleet A.
that took 5 minutes of me thinking about how to exploit that scenario and i am by no means some master strategist. trust me people will come up with even more creative ideas.
its a bad idea. |
Mirima Thurander
Sarajevo Syndicate True Reign
221
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:00:00 -
[35] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Miss Whippy wrote: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. I understand it. It should be implemented so there will be several rooms in voice-coms and coordination will become not achievable in large fights .. And fights 1k vs 600 will take about 600 hrs straight. And some other stuff. . Just dont know what EVE physics law would allow such disadvantage.. Same as stack penalty on dps and RR .. not sure what EVE physic law would create such disadvantage .. Its all against any logic.. You invest time you create empire and you cant use it. ... because someone somewhere decided that large numbers means nothing and should be penalized. Fights and such is good as it is. It is certainly briliant for some group but not for other, and why the one group should be preferred is beyond me. And as stated above its against EVE. At least that is my opinion. You dont have to agree, and i accept that you wont agree. We just see it differently.
if you can adapt and keep your space with your massive fleets you don't get to keep it HTFU, there's no law saying you still cant bring 1000 people to your fight its just saying all 1000 people can target 1 ship and vaporize it
I love the the smell of victory in the morning. It smells like... Blood, vomit and burning flesh. I Like You. I'll Kill You Last. |
Galega Ori
Assero Argentum
4
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:02:00 -
[36] - 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?
+++111 to the idea and linked thread.
To Potamus, The game can decide who is friend and foe if one side or the other is in a actual fleet.
I assume your thinking of maybe a gate camp of players that are actually not in a fleet together making it so they could abuse this idea by locking each other up to make it more of a pain for incoming fleets/targets. Their is several things that make this a pain/impractical to do.
1)finding targets in your overview that have jumped through gate so you can lock them and kill them suddenly becomes a huge chore as you need to filter through all your own fleet members (who are not actually in a fleet) to find the one who just jumped in. This would be less of a problem if all members are blue to everyone but would still cause a problem of cluttering up the overview. This could also be completely avoided if all members of the gate camp were apart of the same corp allowing you to remove corp members from overview.
2)You need to either A) get all supposed fleet members into a group chat so instructions can be passed out to everyone by the FC or B) choose your flavor of the month (mumble,TeamSpeak,or Ventrilo) and get all fleet members on voice coms.
3)Logistics becomes almost completely impossible as no watch list can be set up by the logi pilots and broadcasts are no longer available. This creates more voice traffic over coms or more text spam in group chat that the logis need to filter through to decide who actually needs the reps. This might be overcome by creating a second chat group that all fleet members join and just x up in when they need shield/armor.
If a group of people are willing and able to overcome these problems I pointed out to your complaints to the idea, then they are more than welcome to play the game that way. I see no reason to try and create some game mechanic that would keep them from doing this do to the inherent problems in this approach.
Again, +++111 to the idea/linked thread.
|
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
16
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:02:00 -
[37] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote: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.
I disagree, the penalty wouldn't be so severe that 2 or 3 ships would make a target unlockable. You'd have to use up all your targeting on your own ships in order to make it effective. Leaving no room to target the enemy. As long as the maths is done in such a way that the balance is correct, this isn't an issue.
That's just one way around the problem, there's many other solutions to this problem. |
Mirima Thurander
Sarajevo Syndicate True Reign
221
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:03:00 -
[38] - Quote
Potamus Jenkins wrote:Jimi Crackcorn wrote: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? thats the worst reply ever and completely unrelated analogy so going by our discussion here you basically just added a DISADVANTAGE to being in a fleet. if you are gonna use your fleet status for the server to determine who is "Friendly" to you and who is "Enemy" then why would you not take advantage of that and confuse the server and have your whole group (or a specific group whos sole purpose is to increase lock times of the "Enemy" fleet) not in the same fleet fleet A fighting fleet Bfleet a sitting on a gate, fleet b jumps in fleet A has UNFLEETED group A already locking them up, while fleet B is scrambling trying to lock the guys they are getting smoked by fleet A. that took 5 minutes of me thinking about how to exploit that scenario and i am by no means some master strategist. trust me people will come up with even more creative ideas. its a bad idea.
looks like your logies are taking 10 mins to lock 1 of your ships to bad your dead now if you would of just stayed in fleet your logi would of had a normal lock time, see how that works?
or they use lock breaking mods and force a relock
adapt or die HTFU I love the the smell of victory in the morning. It smells like... Blood, vomit and burning flesh. I Like You. I'll Kill You Last. |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
16
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:05:00 -
[39] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Miss Whippy wrote: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. I understand it. It should be implemented so there will be several rooms in voice-coms and coordination will become not achievable in large fights .. And fights 1k vs 600 will take about 600 hrs straight. And some other stuff. . Just dont know what EVE physics law would allow such disadvantage.. Same as stack penalty on dps and RR .. not sure what EVE physic law would create such disadvantage .. Its all against any logic.. .
Is that the same logic that allows ships to come to a complete stop in space?
|
Potamus Jenkins
The Lucky Bible Company
42
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:05:00 -
[40] - Quote
Mirima Thurander wrote:Potamus Jenkins wrote:Jimi Crackcorn wrote: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? thats the worst reply ever and completely unrelated analogy so going by our discussion here you basically just added a DISADVANTAGE to being in a fleet. if you are gonna use your fleet status for the server to determine who is "Friendly" to you and who is "Enemy" then why would you not take advantage of that and confuse the server and have your whole group (or a specific group whos sole purpose is to increase lock times of the "Enemy" fleet) not in the same fleet fleet A fighting fleet Bfleet a sitting on a gate, fleet b jumps in fleet A has UNFLEETED group A already locking them up, while fleet B is scrambling trying to lock the guys they are getting smoked by fleet A. that took 5 minutes of me thinking about how to exploit that scenario and i am by no means some master strategist. trust me people will come up with even more creative ideas. its a bad idea. looks like your logies are taking 10 mins to lock 1 of your ships to bad your dead now if you would of just stayed in fleet your logi would of had a normal lock time, see how that works? or they use lock breaking mods and force a relock
in your scenario the logis would be IN FLEET with the main attacking force. |
|
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
16
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:08:00 -
[41] - Quote
Mirima Thurander wrote:Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Miss Whippy wrote: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. I understand it. It should be implemented so there will be several rooms in voice-coms and coordination will become not achievable in large fights .. And fights 1k vs 600 will take about 600 hrs straight. And some other stuff. . Just dont know what EVE physics law would allow such disadvantage.. Same as stack penalty on dps and RR .. not sure what EVE physic law would create such disadvantage .. Its all against any logic.. You invest time you create empire and you cant use it. ... because someone somewhere decided that large numbers means nothing and should be penalized. Fights and such is good as it is. It is certainly briliant for some group but not for other, and why the one group should be preferred is beyond me. And as stated above its against EVE. At least that is my opinion. You dont have to agree, and i accept that you wont agree. We just see it differently. if you can adapt and keep your space with your massive fleets you don't get to keep it HTFU, there's no law saying you still cant bring 1000 people to your fight its just saying all 1000 people can target 1 ship and vaporize it
This. |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1253
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:09:00 -
[42] - Quote
question is : Why it need to be changed ? Whats wrong with 1k ships targeting one and one shotting it ? |
Daneirkus Auralex
The Foreign Legion Test Alliance Please Ignore
18
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:09:00 -
[43] - Quote
a change such as this would shephard in a new era of fleet commanding and strategy. If carefully implemented and tested, it might be worth a serious try.
Why not, anything that makes space combat better and more realistic is something I'm game to try. |
Mirima Thurander
Sarajevo Syndicate True Reign
221
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:10:00 -
[44] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote:
Is that the same logic that allows ships to come to a complete stop in space?
or it could be the logic that allows are ships to go multiple times faster than the speed of light
or it could be the one that makes are ships behave as if there in water while in space
maybe its the same one that lets stars be billions of years older than the universe
many things have no logic or do not follow the laws of physics in eve, 1 more thing will not hurt the game
i like this idea so much because i was just thinking about it not 3 days ago I love the the smell of victory in the morning. It smells like... Blood, vomit and burning flesh. I Like You. I'll Kill You Last. |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
16
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:12:00 -
[45] - Quote
Mirima Thurander wrote:Miss Whippy wrote:
Is that the same logic that allows ships to come to a complete stop in space?
or it could be the logic that allows are ships to go multiple times faster than the speed of light or it could be the one that makes are ships behave as if there in water while in space maybe its the same one that lets stars be billions of years older than the universe
Exactly. |
Potamus Jenkins
The Lucky Bible Company
42
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:13:00 -
[46] - Quote
first.
people are wililng to over come alot if it means a decisive advantage
now on to your points specifically
Quote: 1)finding targets in your overview that have jumped through gate so you can lock them and kill them suddenly becomes a huge chore as you need to filter through all your own fleet members (who are not actually in a fleet) to find the one who just jumped in.
standings like you mention in your next point? enemys, friendlies and your... we'll call them "stackingexploiter" friendlys wouuld have all different standings. filter overview as needed.
Quote:2)You need to either A) get all supposed fleet members into a group chat so instructions can be passed out to everyone by the FC or B) choose your flavor of the month (mumble,TeamSpeak,or Ventrilo) and get all fleet members on voice coms.
you mean there are capable fleets out there not using voice comms? this isnt happening right now?
Quote:3)Logistics becomes almost completely impossible as no watch list can be set up by the logi pilots and broadcasts are no longer available. This creates more voice traffic over coms or more text spam in group chat that the logis need to filter through to decide who actually needs the reps. This might be overcome by creating a second chat group that all fleet members join and just x up in when they need shield/armor.
im not sure how logistics has any tougher time than they already do. use of standings and watch lists and of course your logistics would be INFLEET with the guys needing reps to avoid the stacking penalty no? who says the SE (stacking exploiters) are even involved in the battle? why cant they all just be sitting 100k away from the fleet on grid?
so breaking it down all thats really needed to "overcome" as you say is simple fleet organization which already exists today. I do not participate in large fights nor have a wish to but as a neutral observer using the server to determine who is friendly and foe based on fleet which results in such a huge disadvantage is a bad bad idea. i |
Galega Ori
Assero Argentum
4
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:14:00 -
[47] - Quote
After reading some of the previous posts made before mine I still think that this idea has merit and needs to be looked into in more depth such as implementing it for a time on SISI to see if some of these proposed exploits of the idea would be to big of a problem. It would also be interesting to see if it would actually encourage squads to lock individual targets instead of the typical 700 v 1. |
Mirima Thurander
Sarajevo Syndicate True Reign
221
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:18:00 -
[48] - Quote
given the amount of organization this needs is that not part of the skill
and any way, bring a 2nd fleet of your own to pew pew there other fleet, or bring stealth ships with lock breaking mods and fly then in the locking fleet or use bombers with lock breaking bombs
and whos going to commit a hole 2nd fleet that could be doing dps to sitting back and being lockers when they could be dpsing other ships?
I love the the smell of victory in the morning. It smells like... Blood, vomit and burning flesh. I Like You. I'll Kill You Last. |
Potamus Jenkins
The Lucky Bible Company
42
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:25:00 -
[49] - Quote
Quote:given the amount of organization this needs is that not part of the skill
it doenst sound like it requires any more organization than is already required in game
Quote: and any way, bring a 2nd fleet of your own to pew pew there other fleet, or bring stealth ships with lock breaking mods and fly then in the locking fleet or use bombers with lock breaking bombs
so now we've moved to forcing the players to counter an exploit. thats not how it should work instead if you want to introduce stacking penalties you need to do it some other way than relying on the server to determine who gets the penalty based on fleets OR make it such an advantage to be in a fleet that the advantage of increasing your enemy's lock time is not worth it the disadvantage of not being in a fleet
Quote:and whos going to commit a hole 2nd fleet that could be doing dps to sitting back and being lockers when they could be dpsing other ships?
but if the attacking fleet is gonna be half dead before they even have anything locked up then the extra dps isnt necessary. |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
16
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:30:00 -
[50] - Quote
Potamus Jenkins wrote:Quote:given the amount of organization this needs is that not part of the skill it doenst sound like it requires any more organization than is already required in game Quote: and any way, bring a 2nd fleet of your own to pew pew there other fleet, or bring stealth ships with lock breaking mods and fly then in the locking fleet or use bombers with lock breaking bombs
so now we've moved to forcing the players to counter an exploit. thats not how it should work instead if you want to introduce stacking penalties you need to do it some other way than relying on the server to determine who gets the penalty based on fleets OR make it such an advantage to be in a fleet that the advantage of increasing your enemy's lock time is not worth it the disadvantage of not being in a fleet Quote:and whos going to commit a hole 2nd fleet that could be doing dps to sitting back and being lockers when they could be dpsing other ships? but if the attacking fleet is gonna be half dead before they even have anything locked up then the extra dps isnt necessary.
Ever heard of ECM and ECCM? |
|
Potamus Jenkins
The Lucky Bible Company
42
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:33:00 -
[51] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote:Potamus Jenkins wrote:Quote:given the amount of organization this needs is that not part of the skill it doenst sound like it requires any more organization than is already required in game Quote: and any way, bring a 2nd fleet of your own to pew pew there other fleet, or bring stealth ships with lock breaking mods and fly then in the locking fleet or use bombers with lock breaking bombs
so now we've moved to forcing the players to counter an exploit. thats not how it should work instead if you want to introduce stacking penalties you need to do it some other way than relying on the server to determine who gets the penalty based on fleets OR make it such an advantage to be in a fleet that the advantage of increasing your enemy's lock time is not worth it the disadvantage of not being in a fleet Quote:and whos going to commit a hole 2nd fleet that could be doing dps to sitting back and being lockers when they could be dpsing other ships? but if the attacking fleet is gonna be half dead before they even have anything locked up then the extra dps isnt necessary. Ever heard of ECM and ECCM?
again force the playerbase to COUNTER an exploit. not good.
if you were the group using the exploit wouldnt you want them to focus their ecm on non dps (the stackingexploit) ships while your dps ships went to work?
|
Kha'Vorn
Kha'Toum
65
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:36:00 -
[52] - Quote
Nope.. |
Cyzlaki
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
173
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:43:00 -
[53] - Quote
Deriah Book wrote: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. No. All I see happening is the pace of the game becoming even slower. Fleet fights on comms would turn into a clusterf*ck. Multiple FC's would be needed per fleet, which might look nice in theory but simply is not going to happen as the scrub to FC ratio in EVE is 10000:1. Overall a bad idea for EVE, though it might work fine in a different game. |
Ai Shun
State War Academy Caldari State
111
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:53:00 -
[54] - Quote
The idea seems interesting. I can see how having a smaller, skirmish style warfare could be appealing. At the same time, while it seems like a quick and easy solution it really needs to be evaluated and checked thoroughly. Don't be so quick to dismiss suggestions that it might be exploitable.
It could be the idea is not described in sufficient detail or with enough explanation to show WHY it is not exploitable. Or it could be that there really are easy ways to exploit it. And once you get into a scenario where every second post is one of "But you can counter that exploit by changing it to this ..." you're just building an idea of complexity with a terrible amount of loopholes and potential risks in terms of bugs.
|
Mirima Thurander
Sarajevo Syndicate True Reign
221
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:53:00 -
[55] - Quote
Cyzlaki wrote:Deriah Book wrote: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. No. All I see happening is the pace of the game becoming even slower. Fleet fights on comms would turn into a clusterf*ck. Multiple FC's would be needed per fleet, which might look nice in theory but simply is not going to happen as the scrub to FC ratio in EVE is 10000:1. Overall a bad idea for EVE, though it might work fine in a different game.
looks like you need to get some more FCs and HTFU
I love the the smell of victory in the morning. It smells like... Blood, vomit and burning flesh. I Like You. I'll Kill You Last. |
Galega Ori
Assero Argentum
4
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:55:00 -
[56] - Quote
Potamus Jenkins wrote:Miss Whippy wrote:
Ever heard of ECM and ECCM?
again force the playerbase to COUNTER an exploit. not good. if you were the group using the exploit wouldnt you want them to focus their ecm on non dps (the stackingexploit) ships while your dps ships went to work?
I don't see why having a group of players take the time to separate into two or more separate fleets to lock each other up to increase lock times for future enemy fleets should be considered an exploit. It takes more organization to do that then to just setup one fleet and it doesn't stop you from needing to decide whether or not it would be more productive to lock one ship and take the extra lock time penalty or lock separate ships and mitigate it.
Secondly, Miss Whippy was pointing out more ECCM rather than the ECM I think. The whole idea for ECCM is to add another use for the module by adding an extra benefit to having a stronger sensor strength rather than it just being a counter to jamming. Having this stronger sensor strength would help to mitigate some of the locking penalty on a ship that already has several other ships locking it.
|
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
206
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 02:58:00 -
[57] - Quote
I think this idea fails on a couple of levels.
Theoretically, it should be easier to lock a target a team mate has locked as your ships computers could interface and communicate the info.
An obvious tactic in a fleet would be use every lock slot except one to lock all your team mates making them unlockable to the enemy.
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
Potamus Jenkins
The Lucky Bible Company
42
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 03:02:00 -
[58] - Quote
Galega Ori wrote:Potamus Jenkins wrote:Miss Whippy wrote:
Ever heard of ECM and ECCM?
again force the playerbase to COUNTER an exploit. not good. if you were the group using the exploit wouldnt you want them to focus their ecm on non dps (the stackingexploit) ships while your dps ships went to work? I don't see why having a group of players take the time to separate into two or more separate fleets to lock each other up to increase lock times for future enemy fleets should be considered an exploit. It takes more organization to do that then to just setup one fleet and it doesn't stop you from needing to decide whether or not it would be more productive to lock one ship and take the extra lock time penalty or lock separate ships and mitigate it. Secondly, Miss Whippy was pointing out more ECCM rather than the ECM I think. The whole idea for ECCM is to add another use for the module by adding an extra benefit to having a stronger sensor strength rather than it just being a counter to jamming. Having this stronger sensor strength would help to mitigate some of the locking penalty on a ship that already has several other ships locking it.
do you understand what an exploit is?
using an existing game mechanic for to gain an unintended (as designed) advantage. the purpose of the game mechanic in question is to reduce "blobbing" so to speak or more specifically force fleets to engage many targets at once in stead of one at the same time?
for our example in this post we are using fleet as the determining factor as to where the stacking penalties apply or not. for a friendly "fleet" to use another friendly "fleet" to make it even more dificult for the enemy fleet to lock them based on this mechanic is exploiting that game mechanic.
and im pretty sure miss whippy didnt say anythign other than "Ever heard of ECM and ECCM?" so whatever you gained from that is more insightful than i. how that applies to what we are discussing here (using fleet status to determine whether the stacking penalty applies i do not know).
again i have literally no vested interest in this and like the idea of more dynamic game mechanics to de-homogenize (i think i just made that up) large fleet combat however using the discussed game mechanics is a terrible idea IMO.
peace |
Mirima Thurander
Sarajevo Syndicate True Reign
221
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 03:02:00 -
[59] - Quote
TIDI got implemented even tho people had reasons to say it would be full of exploits the biggest one people has was not even addressed, reshipping and flying back to the fight because the fights so slowed down.
why cant this idea be put in the testing faze like tidi was, I love the the smell of victory in the morning. It smells like... Blood, vomit and burning flesh. I Like You. I'll Kill You Last. |
Ai Shun
State War Academy Caldari State
111
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 03:05:00 -
[60] - Quote
Professor Alphane wrote:Theoretically, it should be easier to lock a target a team mate has locked as your ships computers could interface and communicate the info.
I could suspend disbelief on that, if required. Let's say those brilliant Caldari scientists have discovered a highly reflective coating that scatters locking signals and makes it more difficult for multiple systems to lock on as the previous tracking beams are interfering with the subsequent attempts. Or something sciency ... |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |