Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Galega Ori
Assero Argentum
4
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 03:06:00 -
[61] - Quote
Professor Alphane wrote: 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.
Problem, not everyone in the fleet can be locked up by the same person and still have a lock space left over unless your in a really small fleet more commonly known as a gang. In this case taking the time to lock your own gang wouldn't actually add that big of a stacking penalty to any other fleet/gang trying to lock your own members. Secondly you would need to be separated into two or more fleets/gangs locking each other up as stacking doesn't count for locking your own members up.
|
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
772
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 03:14:00 -
[62] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote: 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.
This could be abused on so many ways that I would get hungry and feel urged to order some pizza while counting 'em all.
besides... 3vs1 pvp isn't supposed to be fair.
Get |
Professor Alphane
Alphane Research Co-operative
206
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 03:16:00 -
[63] - Quote
Galega Ori wrote:Professor Alphane wrote: 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.
Problem, not everyone in the fleet can be locked up by the same person and still have a lock space left over unless your in a really small fleet more commonly known as a gang. In this case taking the time to lock your own gang wouldn't actually add that big of a stacking penalty to any other fleet/gang trying to lock your own members. Secondly you would need to be separated into two or more fleets/gangs locking each other up as stacking doesn't count for locking your own members up.
1.You don't need to lock everyone, everyone just needs to lock your most likely targets.
2.And So you run with multiple fleets instead of multiple wings.
If the bonus is worth it people WILL find ways to abuse it
Also doesn't explain WHY it should be harder to lock, in fact theoretically once one ship has a lock it should be able to be instantly passed to any fleet mate, you now have all the tracking data needed why not just send it to your buddies targeting computer.
YOU MUST THINK FIRST.... |
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
39
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 03:23:00 -
[64] - 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.
Using mechanics like that to increase lock times would be a valid use of the mechanics as they are outlined here; but that doesn't make it any less an exploit. Just because something is a functional part of game mechancis, doesn't mean it is okay.
The idea doesn't really have any merit anyway, in my opinion; due to there not being any solid reason why this would be the case.
Analogous example: If you put a 10 gram weight on an egg sitting on a table, then proceed to stack similar weights on that; will the egg eventually break?
The answer is yes, and the function of targeting a ship is much the same. When you target a ship, you are defeating its tactical processor and defense mechanisms; the more this is done, the more load applied to the tactical processor, and lesser the capability that it will be able to defeat a second attack.
An alternative notion is DDOS. However DDOS functions differently. As the number of PCs trying to access the Server increases and pings get more repetative, the servers ability to handle all those calls and maintain security becomes much less. This causes the server to disconnect from the access point by closing its ports and preventing all connections.
Ships cannot do this, as the electronic defense system is really just trying to create either an interference in the targeting ships targeting systems, or attempting to mask its signature. The signature is a function of the ships mass, energy use, and various other factors.
Masking the ships signature requires shutting down essential systems, disabling weapons, shutting down drives, and reducing power output in the ships power cores. At best, a ship can hope to mask its presence and signature only a little without very specialized electronic systems, shielding materials, and cooling.
This is already accounted for.
That leaves interference with another ships targeting systems; and for this, we have ECM, which can be countered by ECCM. ECCM does not counter targeting systems in game.
There may be reasons why it could; but it is not intended for that purpose. It does-to some degree-counter Probes, which is somewhat ironic when considering probes and targeting systems use similar means to find or target a ship. This indicates that ECCM is a dual purpose mechanism in game, and may be modified to increase the difficulty of a ship aquiring target.
If it actually had this function, I'm sure we'd see it included in a lot more fits; and a lot more people would be using it.
Personally, I'm for making ECCM more functional. Electronic defensive systems are awesome, and I was under the impression that most people consider them absolutely useless for countering ECM.
As far as this idea goes, I'd rather see ships lose targeting capability, (scan resolution), as they increase the number of targets. That would mean boost the bottom end for one target ever so slightly, and apply stacking penalties for every additional target.
Might make target selection a little more of a thought process; though it will not affect the current selection of primaries and blob mechanics. Something else has to be done about that.
Any mechanic that is exploitable, is not worth putting in the game.
|
Cyzlaki
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
173
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 03:29:00 -
[65] - Quote
Mirima Thurander wrote: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 Nope, don't need to as this half-baked idea will never fly |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
2725
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 03:38:00 -
[66] - Quote
Logic would be the electronic interference caused by so many locking signals.
|
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
733
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 03:52:00 -
[67] - Quote
The potential for exploit can be reduced even further by adding the locking time penalty only when locking on is currently in progress. If 1000 Maelstroms try to lock a Rifter all at the same time, it will take forever. If 1000 Maelsroms try to lock a Rifter one by one, it will take the normal amount of time.
A gatecamp which pre-locks all friendly fleet members will have no advantage. Add a mechanic where locking up members of your own fleet will not affect the lock time of enemies will help, too.
The only way to 'exploit' this will be to split your blob into dozens of mini-fleets. There will be no advantage of logi broadcasts, target broadcasts or universal watchlists, so they'll each need their own logi chain. Already, things don't look swell for the players trying to exploit. Already, blobbing and absurd focus fire is becoming difficult.
An enemy fleet warps in, and in massive confusion the dozens of mini-fleets begin locking each other and the enemies. Varied lock times leave everything confusing, the the mini-fleets begin friendly fire between each other. Meanwhile, locked targets lost due to ECM and sensor dampeners mean that logis can't repair friendlies because the mini-fleets are busy locking and shooting each other. DPS can't find targets to prioritise because their overview is clogged with friendly members of other mini-fleets.
For continued exploitation and hilarious friendly fire, the mini-fleets will need to constantly unlock and relock friendly members of other mini-fleets. The overview will be impossible to manage, and the players attempting to exploit will die horribly. |
I'thari
35
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 08:04:00 -
[68] - Quote
Mirima Thurander wrote: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 Or can simply make that penalty apply on fleet level - no "pre-locking" would work that way... ofc, then we might actually see no fleets at all to counter it |
seany1212
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
67
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 08:42:00 -
[69] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote: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.
That's not even a way around the problem though, anyone from base skills can lock 2 targets, one can be the primary, the other friendly logi, given a 300-400 man battle this would make logi unlockable under your idea. Then its not even viable to direct it at people in fleet, because people will just wise-up and fine tune the overview settings (not showing blues, etc.) just making actual fleets obcelete so realistically its hard to implement without it being exploited one way or another |
Mal Mandrake
Procellum Militis Veneratio
8
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 08:48:00 -
[70] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote: 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.
In short... this makes no sense whatsoever.
If I point a laser pointer at my friends forehead... why would it take my other friend longer to aim at his forehead to? I mean really? If anything lock on would be faster because my friend can aim for my point and have less error in movement. And we aren't even talking about networked computers.
If I have four computers that are wifi networked together (which you imagine ships in a fleet would be) and one of them shoots a laser pointer at my friend forehead. The other 3 computers wouldn't even have to lock on, they would be networked and locked automatically.
**** modern war technology on earth, which isn't as advanced as Eve does this. A soldier points a target and the missile goes there without having to lock, it just follows the first guys pointer.
I bet when you play an RPG you attack each enemy once then switch to another enemy, that way they all stay alive longer and die at the same time? No.. you mean you have all your guys attack one enemy at a time? Weird how natural strategies exist. I mean **** the whole point of Chess is to send ALL of your guys after the King.
|
|
Cryten Jones
Advantage Inc The Matari Consortium
27
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 09:31:00 -
[71] - Quote
Mal Mandrake wrote:Miss Whippy wrote: 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.
In short... this makes no sense whatsoever. If I point a laser pointer at my friends forehead... why would it take my other friend longer to aim at his forehead to? I mean really? If anything lock on would be faster because my friend can aim for my point and have less error in movement. And we aren't even talking about networked computers. If I have four computers that are wifi networked together (which you imagine ships in a fleet would be) and one of them shoots a laser pointer at my friend forehead. The other 3 computers wouldn't even have to lock on, they would be networked and locked automatically. **** modern war technology on earth, which isn't as advanced as Eve does this. A soldier points a target and the missile goes there without having to lock, it just follows the first guys pointer. I bet when you play an RPG you attack each enemy once then switch to another enemy, that way they all stay alive longer and die at the same time? No.. you mean you have all your guys attack one enemy at a time? Weird how natural strategies exist. I mean **** the whole point of Chess is to send ALL of your guys after the King.
RL - You have a point
EVE - Not real life, and focus fire sucks big hairy balls game play wise.
-CJ
|
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
733
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 09:55:00 -
[72] - Quote
Mal Mandrake wrote: In short... this makes no sense whatsoever.
If I point a laser pointer at my friends forehead... why would it take my other friend longer to aim at his forehead to? I mean really? If anything lock on would be faster because my friend can aim for my point and have less error in movement. And we aren't even talking about networked computers.
If I have four computers that are wifi networked together (which you imagine ships in a fleet would be) and one of them shoots a laser pointer at my friend forehead. The other 3 computers wouldn't even have to lock on, they would be networked and locked automatically.
**** modern war technology on earth, which isn't as advanced as Eve does this. A soldier points a target and the missile goes there without having to lock, it just follows the first guys pointer.
I bet when you play an RPG you attack each enemy once then switch to another enemy, that way they all stay alive longer and die at the same time? No.. you mean you have all your guys attack one enemy at a time? Weird how natural strategies exist. I mean **** the whole point of Chess is to send ALL of your guys after the King.
Dear fool,
EVE is a video game.
Sincerely, DarkAegix |
Jenshae Chiroptera
409
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 10:01:00 -
[73] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote:... 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, ...
I like the sound of that idea. Ideas and stuff EVE - the game of sand castles, either building them or kicking them down. |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers Galactic-Rangers
37
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 10:07:00 -
[74] - Quote
it's a good idea, but still i think we can all agree that is would be a ***** to get working. i've been sitting writing this thinking of ways to get it to work.
limit on how many ships can target you. ( people will use alts to max out the targeting limit )
limit on dps incoming per ship hull. ( whats fair ? upper limit vs lower limit. could kill off smaller vs larger targets)
limit on ships in system. ( we all know people will have a fit over that one, but our empire is bigger, we should be able to blob )
limit on ships in system. ( attacking fleet or defending fleet brings in a stupid amount of alts to lock system down )
we all know as an FC with a large fleet, it makes no sense to have more than a certain number of ships shooting at one single target, wings and squads are already in use and working.
the system in place works as intended, a few tweeks might be needed.
so yea,,,, a good idea for the smaller corp's/alliances/attacking ships to become more effective in a fight vs a larger corp/alliance/attacking ships. but very hard to get a fair working mechanic that people wouldn't exploit. |
Halcyon Ingenium
Infomorph Research and Technology
124
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 10:16:00 -
[75] - 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.
Trusting a subordinate with leadership responsibility, oh the horror! Battles actually being battles and not lame slap fights, NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! That which always was, and is, and will be everlasting fire, the same for all, the cosmos, made neither by god nor man, replenishes in measure as it burns away. -Heraclitus |
Cryten Jones
Aliastra Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 10:24:00 -
[76] - Quote
DarkAegix wrote:Mal Mandrake wrote:
Some Tripe
Dear fool, EVE is a video game. Sincerely, DarkAegix
I congratulate you on a highly efficient use of words there friend :-)
-CJ
|
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
21
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 11:10:00 -
[77] - Quote
Potamus Jenkins wrote:
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?
Just because you call it an exploit doesn't make it so. Other people might just call it game mechanics.
|
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
21
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 11:15:00 -
[78] - Quote
Grey Stormshadow wrote:Miss Whippy wrote: 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.
This could be abused on so many ways that I would get hungry and feel urged to order some pizza while counting 'em all.
Yet you can't even name one.
Quote: besides... 3vs1 pvp isn't supposed to be fair.
[/quote]
This wouldn't make it a great deal fairer, it's not going to allow one ship to take on three unless that ship had a good chance of winning anyway. Three locks wouldn't not incur a massive penalty. |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
21
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 11:25:00 -
[79] - Quote
Mal Mandrake wrote:Miss Whippy wrote: 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.
In short... this makes no sense whatsoever. If I point a laser pointer at my friends forehead... why would it take my other friend longer to aim at his forehead to? I mean really? If anything lock on would be faster because my friend can aim for my point and have less error in movement. And we aren't even talking about networked computers. If I have four computers that are wifi networked together (which you imagine ships in a fleet would be) and one of them shoots a laser pointer at my friend forehead. The other 3 computers wouldn't even have to lock on, they would be networked and locked automatically. **** modern war technology on earth, which isn't as advanced as Eve does this. A soldier points a target and the missile goes there without having to lock, it just follows the first guys pointer. I bet when you play an RPG you attack each enemy once then switch to another enemy, that way they all stay alive longer and die at the same time? No.. you mean you have all your guys attack one enemy at a time? Weird how natural strategies exist. I mean **** the whole point of Chess is to send ALL of your guys after the King.
Yawn,. Try using your imagination. Like the same way you have to when you realise ships can't come to a dead stop in space, there's no sound in space, flying too close to a star will kill you yet it doesn't in EvE, etc.
Trying to compare EvE to the real world is a massive cop out, and a poor excuse for not using a potentially great new game mechanic.
EDIT: Oh and clearly you have no idea about chess. |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
21
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 11:31:00 -
[80] - Quote
A simple answer to people's concerns is that it would take a lot of locks to significantly lengthen the lock time. Again it's just a matter of getting to maths right. For instance it would take at least 8 people to lock onto the same ship to cause serious problems. This means that:
1. Small skirmishes would be largely unaffected. 2. Fleets would gain no advantage to locking each other, as it would take up all their targeting to make it effective. If it means they all target their primary ship, then don't target their primary ship. |
|
B DeLeon
DeLeon Industries
20
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 12:07:00 -
[81] - Quote
With the possibility to counter somehow the exploit what others mentioned, this is the best idea I've heard a while. |
Jafit McJafitson
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
114
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 12:10:00 -
[82] - Quote
Eve has a horrible interface and is terrible for the pilot's spacial awareness. The only way you're really going to know where you are in a large fleet battle is by zooming all the way out, and the most you can really do when zoomed out like that is align to a celestial and lock a target, both of which are done via the overview list. But in a real battle you probably won't see much of what is going on around you because you will have turned off your brackets to minimise lag.
If Eve gameplay were actually like the Dominion trailer then that'd be pretty sweet, but we have to be aware of certain realities in this game. Fleet battles are about clicking items on a list, simply because that's all you can physically do in a high-lag environment. so you can forget all these fancy ideas about being Starbuck with your Viper squadron in the middle of a huge battle being all fancy
But for the sake of argument let's say we did implement this. How long should it take a sub-cap fleet of 300 welpcanes to lock and engage a titan? |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1253
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 12:20:00 -
[83] - Quote
you disband your fleet once in position ..
Feature which beats other feature.. is bad feature.. aka... longer lock defeats fleet forming.. |
Cryten Jones
Aliastra Gallente Federation
29
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 12:25:00 -
[84] - Quote
Jafit McJafitson wrote: But for the sake of argument let's say we did implement this. How long should it take a sub-cap fleet of 300 welpcanes to lock and engage a titan?
I would say that the sig radius vs scan res mechanics that already exist would provide the solution to that issue.
Thinking on my feet I would say that each lock on a target reduces is's sig radius a tiny amount so that 300 cains locking a Apoc for example would make it the size of a pod but 300 locks on a titan would make no difference really.
Like I say thinking on my feet so please lets not descend into "ah ha you missed this or that" you get the spirit of my point I am sure, the exact mechanics.... who knows.
-CJ
|
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
263
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 12:59:00 -
[85] - Quote
I like the idea.
However, if group of friendlies is already on grid and NOT fleeted they would be able to target eachother in advance and adding to multiple targetting penalties before the enemy fleet arrives. Of course, it would hamper own logistic operations too but benefit might outweight this. Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
735
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 13:10:00 -
[86] - Quote
Jowen Datloran wrote:However, if group of friendlies is already on grid and NOT fleeted they would be able to target eachother in advance and adding to multiple targetting penalties before the enemy fleet arrives. Of course, it would hamper own logistic operations too but benefit might outweight this. Being un-fleeted, they'd miss out on broadcasts, fleet boost bonuses, a neat overview, and other benefits.
Besides, if lock time were slowed depending on the number of ships locking onto a target, rather than currently locked, then targeting in advance will do nothing.
If, in the middle of a fight, the group of friendly ships (Not in fleet, for aforementioned reasons) constantly locks/unlocks its members, then their overviews will be a disaster, friendlies will be accidentally fired upon, enemies accidentally unlocked, and logistics will be both massively unorganised (No fleet!) and have trouble actually locking up ships which need repairing.
There's a way to plug all the potential exploits |
seany1212
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
67
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 13:14:00 -
[87] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote:A simple answer to people's concerns is that it would take a lot of locks to significantly lengthen the lock time. Again it's just a matter of getting to maths right. For instance it would take at least 8 people to lock onto the same ship to cause serious problems. This means that:
1. Small skirmishes would be largely unaffected. 2. Fleets would gain no advantage to locking each other, as it would take up all their targeting to make it effective. If it means they all target their primary ship, then don't target their primary ship.
You either shun or ignore the countless arguments against your unimplementable idea. OP is an idiot. If you set it so that people in fleet gain no advantage to locking each other fleets will just roam outside of the "fleet"ing concept, there's overview settings and standings for that...
As for "It would take up all their targeting" I'm not sure for yourself but I as are many of us able to target more than 1 person... In a scenario of a 50 man engagement assume 10 are logi, you could have 4 players locking each logi, that means there's already a deficit in how many of the opposition fleet can then use to lock said logi before they begin seeing a drawback, when you amplify that to a 400 man fleet that'll mean there would already be a locking penalty before the opposition begins locking.
Don't get me wrong, in a small skirmish fight it would be a small advantage, especially in the 20vs1 scenario, but even if you allow 8 before a penalty 8vs1 still results in the 1 being ******, then if you drop that limit your back to the 50+ arguement. |
Cpt Tirel
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 13:17:00 -
[88] - Quote
i like the sound of this idea |
seany1212
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
67
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 13:18:00 -
[89] - Quote
DarkAegix wrote: Being un-fleeted, they'd miss out on broadcasts, fleet boost bonuses, a neat overview, and other benefits.
Don't know about you but i listen to my FC on comms, not by broadcast...
DarkAegix wrote:Besides, if lock time were slowed depending on the number of ships locking onto a target, rather than currently locked, then targeting in advance will do nothing.
If, in the middle of a fight, the group of friendly ships (Not in fleet, for aforementioned reasons) constantly locks/unlocks its members, then their overviews will be a disaster, friendlies will be accidentally fired upon, enemies accidentally unlocked, and logistics will be both massively unorganised (No fleet!) and have trouble actually locking up ships which need repairing.
That's what tab's are for also, the server takes load from an entire fleet locking onto a single target anyway, processing 100+ commands to lock onto a single target takes a slight delay as it is.
|
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
735
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 13:32:00 -
[90] - Quote
seany1212 wrote: Don't know about you but i listen to my FC on comms, not by broadcast...
And what if it's a blob and the FC yells 'Everyone! Target ARHA55-XXNRGAHZ!'? What if some poor soul is bleeding into armour damage and needs reps? Will they yell into comms, spam into chat, die, or wish they were fleeted so they could broadcast for reps? What if the overview is chock-full of ships and the FC calls a target, and you'd waste seconds searching for it. Much longer, amidst the busy locking/unlocking of your own fleet.
Besides, being unfleeted you'd miss out on fleet boost bonuses, which are nothing to be sneezed at.
Quote:DarkAegix wrote:Besides, if lock time were slowed depending on the number of ships locking onto a target, rather than currently locked, then targeting in advance will do nothing.
If, in the middle of a fight, the group of friendly ships (Not in fleet, for aforementioned reasons) constantly locks/unlocks its members, then their overviews will be a disaster, friendlies will be accidentally fired upon, enemies accidentally unlocked, and logistics will be both massively unorganised (No fleet!) and have trouble actually locking up ships which need repairing. That's what tab's are for
Sorry, tabs won't help. Undock at Jita 4-4 and ctrl-click all the ships you can, while constantly flicking between tabs. Remember that each time a locked target icon appears, you must close it right away if it's a friendly ship. Also, your FC just said: '*static*Hanargh*static*blae piloting the Dra*static* primary *static* exotic dancers *static* ARMOUR HACS'. What do you do? Also, primarying and all-vs-one no longer works under the new mechanics, so you're going to have listen carefully as the FC yells out 10 different targets. Furthermore, he'll be yelling out which squad needs to attack which targets. Unfortunately, no one is fleeted, and so there are no squads. Also, you're in low armour so you need to yell your name and ship into comms and/or type it into chat several times, because other people will be doing it too.
Quote:also, the server takes load from an entire fleet locking onto a single target anyway, processing 100+ commands to lock onto a single target takes a slight delay as it is. At first I was like Then I was like Then I was like And then I felt pity Apparently, this slight delay isn't stopping blobs and stupid 'All target one' tactics. I think what everyone is looking for is a large delay. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |