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?
|
|
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 ... |
|
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. |
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
494
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 14:14:00 -
[91] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:you disband your fleet once in position ..
Feature which beats other feature.. is bad feature.. aka... longer lock defeats fleet forming..
thats why it really shouldn't be fleet based. Not even lock based.
what it wants to reach is to discourage blobs, right? So do that, nothing else! Put a penalty on blobs. To many ships on one place -> sensor noise. (This even makes somewhat sense from the sifi perspective) Doesn't matter if friendly or not.
this will encourage splitting large fleets into groups (wings, squads etc).
edit: http://i.imgur.com/dfTcH.jpg 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 |
Mal Mandrake
Procellum Militis Veneratio
9
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 14:29:00 -
[92] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote:Mal Mandrake wrote:[quote=Miss Whippy] the whole point of Chess is to send ALL of your guys after the King.
EDIT: Oh and clearly you have no idea about chess.
You think chess ISN"T about taking the king? Just because you might strategise and take out a queen and position yourself to control the board doesn't mean the point of the game isn't to take the king.
As for focus fire sucking, good luck changing that one. When you play battleship do you try and find all boats first BEFORE sinking any of them?
|
Metal Icarus
xHELLonEARTHx Rookie Empire
78
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 14:42:00 -
[93] - Quote
this thread makes no sense... Wouldn't it be that if a ship is getting lit up by another ships sensors, it would be shorter not longer to lock them? |
Halcyon Ingenium
Infomorph Research and Technology
125
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 14:47:00 -
[94] - Quote
Metal Icarus wrote:this thread makes no sense... Wouldn't it be that if a ship is getting lit up by another ships sensors, it would be shorter not longer to lock them?
Lots of noise makes things harder to hear, and see if we're talking about electro-magnetic noise. So maybe, maybe not. We don't have to worry about that because we are talking game mechanics here, not actual science. As long as the fictional explanation is logically consistent within the game lore, who the **** cares?
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 |
Pinaculus
Insanely Twisted
130
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 15:34:00 -
[95] - Quote
Rather than increasing lock time, why not increase miss chance exponentially over a certain number of people?
Then CCP could arbitrarily decide what the "optimal" number of fleet members was, without out and out forcing it.
And think about any large firefight. Sure, the first guy probably knows exactly what he hit. But does the 50th guy have any clue? How about the 100th? Would the 150th guy even know what he was shooting at beyond general direction? Or would he be just aiming at the big ball of explosions and flying lead? I know sometimes it's difficult to realize just how much you spend on incidental things each month or year, but seriously, EVE is very cheap entertainment compared to most things... If you are a smoker, smoke one less pack a week and pay for EVE, with money left over to pick up a cheap bundle of flowers for the EVE widow upstairs. |
Mirima Thurander
Sarajevo Syndicate True Reign
222
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 15:44:00 -
[96] - Quote
Jafit McJafitson wrote: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?
i all ready covered this go re read the thread
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. |
Mirima Thurander
Sarajevo Syndicate True Reign
222
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 16:11:00 -
[97] - Quote
you scream exploits they all screamed exploits with TIDI to, it still got added and want to know something funny the biggest exploit in TIDI didn't even get addressed half your fleet gets killed and poded back to the staging system with TIDI the have time to reship and titan bridge back to the fight with out missing much, see how this will make a never ending fight?
and yet people are happy with TIDI, i see the main reason people don't even want this looked at is because it changes the way null wars will have fights done, the biggest blob might no longer win and people hate that they have to think of new ways to fight
get over it and accept its a good idea to
try and split up the blobs fire to more ships
that is what the idea is, that is what CCP needs to take and run with let them find out how to make it work.
EDIT
damage that's the answer, locking someone up causes a locking delay over a set number of ships, and in less thos locked ships are doing damage ever 12(longest fire rate of a gun in EvE that i know) seconds or less the locking penalty goes away and it allows more ships to lock it and shoot.
it works as such
when X ships start locking it starts the delay. unless thos ships start shooting after 12 seconds more ships can lock it up. then you throw in the bit of if x Ships are shooting the same target they start to do less damage/or miss more, so it counters the staggering your locking and firing.
and if your in fleet you don't get a locking delay on friendly's
pick that apart now and find me the loop hole
------------------------------------------------------------ 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. |
Pinaculus
Insanely Twisted
130
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 16:17:00 -
[98] - Quote
After a little thought, it would probably be more effective to incrementally reduce a ship's effective sig based on the number of ships firing weapons at it such that after X number of attackers the aggregate dps is reduced to negate the rough dps of everything over X. This would mitigate the power of super blobs, but reward intelligent fleet composition, and still allow target painters to counteract the blob penalty to a degree. I know sometimes it's difficult to realize just how much you spend on incidental things each month or year, but seriously, EVE is very cheap entertainment compared to most things... If you are a smoker, smoke one less pack a week and pay for EVE, with money left over to pick up a cheap bundle of flowers for the EVE widow upstairs. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
256
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 16:32:00 -
[99] - Quote
How about this exploit: In your fleet you want a few ships to be invulnerable. So what you do is drop those from fleet and have everyone in the fleet lock them up. Now when the enemy comes along those ships cannot be targeted in any practical time.
Other issue: Will it add lag by making the server check the number of locks? What happens if the number of locks on a target changes while I'm targeting?
Also, don't big fleets already use firing groups? After all there is no reason to use 200 ships on one target when 50 will alpha it. CCP employees should never proclaim a feature to be awesome. Only subscribers should. Subscribers can never answer a question posed to CCP. Only CCP can. |
Nullbeard Rager
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
50
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 16:55:00 -
[100] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote: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=1043696In 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?
So...penalize players to "encourage", (force), them to use more disciplined fleet tactics and operational methods and protocols that most players, despite hating on/crying about blob warfare, aren't already implementing themselves because they lack the patience and discipline to do so in the first place as they want OTHER people to do so instead.
Bad idea, imo. |
|
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
42
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 17:03:00 -
[101] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Logic would be the electronic interference caused by so many locking signals.
Think of your ships targeting system as a laser enhanced sight. If you hit the ship with one, it creates a splash effect, which acually makes the ship more visible.
Most basic targeting systems are either camera or laser oriented, or a combination of both. |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
25
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 17:29:00 -
[102] - Quote
seany1212 wrote: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.
Countless to you maybe. I guess I can just count higher than you. If I'm an idiot you must be positively ********. So no point reading the rest of your post.
|
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
25
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 17:32:00 -
[103] - Quote
Mal Mandrake wrote:Miss Whippy wrote:Mal Mandrake wrote:[quote=Miss Whippy] the whole point of Chess is to send ALL of your guys after the King.
EDIT: Oh and clearly you have no idea about chess. You think chess ISN"T about taking the king? Just because you might strategise and take out a queen and position yourself to control the board doesn't mean the point of the game isn't to take the king. As for focus fire sucking, good luck changing that one. When you play battleship do you try and find all boats first BEFORE sinking any of them?
I think chess is taking about the King yes. However that's not what you said. |
Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp
195
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 17:35:00 -
[104] - Quote
how is the server gonna deal with 150 ships all locking a primary, then recalculating 149 lock times once one has got lock, then recalculating 148 when the 2nd got lock?
thought the idea to reduce lag, not add to it? CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
25
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 17:35:00 -
[105] - Quote
Halcyon Ingenium wrote:Metal Icarus wrote:this thread makes no sense... Wouldn't it be that if a ship is getting lit up by another ships sensors, it would be shorter not longer to lock them? Lots of noise makes things harder to hear, and see if we're talking about electro-magnetic noise. So maybe, maybe not. We don't have to worry about that because we are talking game mechanics here, not actual science. As long as the fictional explanation is logically consistent within the game lore, who the **** cares?
This.
Funny how you don't see them whining about the impossible things that happen in EvE all the time. I think they just to try and look clever for a little bit, or they just like whining about irrelivant points. |
Mirima Thurander
Sarajevo Syndicate True Reign
223
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 17:37:00 -
[106] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:how is the server gonna deal with 150 ships all locking a primary, then recalculating 149 lock times once one has got lock, then recalculating 148 when the 2nd got lock?
thought the idea to reduce lag, not add to it?
TIDI there to reduce lag, this is here to reduce the blob
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. |
Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp
195
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 17:41:00 -
[107] - Quote
Mirima Thurander wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:how is the server gonna deal with 150 ships all locking a primary, then recalculating 149 lock times once one has got lock, then recalculating 148 when the 2nd got lock?
thought the idea to reduce lag, not add to it? TIDI there to reduce lag, this is here to reduce the blob
this wont reduce the blob, just make it harder for the server to cope with the really large battles. as they would still happen
CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
256
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 17:42:00 -
[108] - Quote
TiDi does not reduce lag, TiDi makes lag fair, at least once its working. CCP employees should never proclaim a feature to be awesome. Only subscribers should. Subscribers can never answer a question posed to CCP. Only CCP can. |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
26
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 17:44:00 -
[109] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:Mirima Thurander wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:how is the server gonna deal with 150 ships all locking a primary, then recalculating 149 lock times once one has got lock, then recalculating 148 when the 2nd got lock?
thought the idea to reduce lag, not add to it? TIDI there to reduce lag, this is here to reduce the blob this wont reduce the blob, just make it harder for the server to cope with the really large battles. as they would still happen
Based on what? You're unproven programming and maths skills? |
Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp
195
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 17:49:00 -
[110] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:Mirima Thurander wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:how is the server gonna deal with 150 ships all locking a primary, then recalculating 149 lock times once one has got lock, then recalculating 148 when the 2nd got lock?
thought the idea to reduce lag, not add to it? TIDI there to reduce lag, this is here to reduce the blob this wont reduce the blob, just make it harder for the server to cope with the really large battles. as they would still happen Based on what? You're unproven programming and maths skills?
4 years of null sec blobbage. if something is worth fighting for you will bring the kitchen sink if you have too. this would make it even more important to cram ever thing you coudl into one system. have multiple fc's/fleets hitting key targets in the hostile fleets. so whats you're view based on, unproven programming and math skills? CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
|
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
42
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 17:53:00 -
[111] - Quote
I think people should stop liking ideas because they seam like an easy fix to a bad situation that nobody likes. Granted the mechanics would change the dynamics; but that doesn't mean they are the best solution to the problem.
The simple fact is, it's not possible to do this without it being extremely exploitable. We should have learned that with the numerous other exploitable factors in game. Many of those took some time to discover the exploits inherent in the system and abuse them to the point they were eventually nerfed or mechanics were modified to remove some of that exploit.
Fact is, some things just cannot be fixed.
We could fix mines, and make them a functional part of the game and a reliable and interesting mechanic to help combat other fleet mechanics and gate camps. The answer is simple.
Make a specific ship that deploys mines, and has to remain on grid for them to remain active. This would be a stealth ship, like the Bomber, only Destroyer or Cruiser sized; and would require similar skills as any equivalent Tech 2 ship.
Once on grid, it would have to manually move around and deploy mines with anchoring mechanics; including a short timer for each mine, requirements to decloak on initial deployment, and limitations on proximity for those mines. Following that the ship would cloak, move off to a safe distance, and turn to face the mine field like a Bomber would.
Mines would show up on a Tactical overlay with an explosion radius, and have significantly less damage than a bomb, though their fields could overlap.
The ship would be limited to an arc in front of the ship, with mines outside that arc showing up as no more than blips, and have a maximum distance for activation. This would control spread pattern, while also allowing the ship to change facing and activate a secondary field outside of, and possibly inclusiveof, its initial arc.
There would also be a limit to maximum deployment, activation, and control. You could have, for example, both a T2 Destroyer class, and a T2 Cruiser Class of mine deployment ship; the latter with greater capabilities, cargohold, and potentially higher Alpha mines than the former.
Leaving grid would cause the mines to unanchor and become standard 2 hour timer objects in space; collectible, but with a limited time in which they can exist like wrecks, jetcans, and the rest.
That could be made to balance in game without being completely exploitable. It's also a mechanic that has been removed from the game for years.
I don't think anyone can think of a way to remove exploit from this proposed mechanic; short of not being able to target anything. Even limiting targeting capabilities to war targets and negative standings is exploitable. |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
26
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 18:10:00 -
[112] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:Miss Whippy wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:Mirima Thurander wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:how is the server gonna deal with 150 ships all locking a primary, then recalculating 149 lock times once one has got lock, then recalculating 148 when the 2nd got lock?
thought the idea to reduce lag, not add to it? TIDI there to reduce lag, this is here to reduce the blob this wont reduce the blob, just make it harder for the server to cope with the really large battles. as they would still happen Based on what? You're unproven programming and maths skills? 4 years of null sec blobbage. if something is worth fighting for you will bring the kitchen sink if you have too. this would make it even more important to cram ever thing you coudl into one system. have multiple fc's/fleets hitting key targets in the hostile fleets. so whats you're view based on, unproven programming and math skills?
Nope, it's based on the fact that I haven't seen a single argument against it which hasn't easily been proven wrong. Pretending you know the first thing about how this will effect server speed is just laughable. Let me hear it from CCP then I'll think again. |
Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp
195
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 18:14:00 -
[113] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote:
Nope, it's based on the fact that I haven't seen a single argument against it which hasn't easily been proven wrong. Pretending you know the first thing about how this will effect server speed is just laughable. Let me hear it from CCP then I'll think again.
forget the server issue. this wont reduce the blob, it woule actually make it bigger. 1 fleet v logi's, 1 fleet v bs fleet a-f,1 fleet v bs fleet g-l etc etc. it would make it a must to bring more people to negate the effects of this.
CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
Xercodo
Train Brigade
781
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 18:32:00 -
[114] - Quote
-Good guys are decided by fleet, alliance member, corp member, blue (new ally system? see below) OR -Logi have counter measures to the "static" or "noise" and there need not be a mechanic that can be flawed like the way overview glitches result in ppl showing up wrong color
-The "noise" is generated based on the number of people on grid, and the stacking penalty will scale as such. The start of noise generation can start when there is 100+ (or similar) people on grid, meaning that 20vs20 fights will be left un-changed. Or instead of a finite number that can be argued as to the definition of a "blob", the equation is made exponential so that there is still a penalty for small gang warfare but it's so low that you probably not even notice but the larger the blob the worse the static gets and even adding "just one more ship" can make things that much more crippling
-Being in or out of fleet will not really effect this mechanic at all unless you have neutrals with you, and if you do then unfleeting them is detrimental to you, not the enemy, you waste target locks on your own allies and you increase the potential for friendly fire
-This is not an automatic nerf to large numbers of players or large alliances, large alliances that play smart will still win, but they will now be more likely to fall under their own weight as they would get so large as to not be able to coordinate well enough to fend of a lighter, faster fleet.
New Ally System: Maybe instead of just setting them blue there can be a new "ally" system that gives an ally special privileges that just liking them (setting them to +10 blue) wouldn't have, for instance separate the mechanic that allows blue to freely take form jetcans. In the new system there will be 3 types of blue: Alliance blue (star icon), Ally Blue (Person icon, like we have with fleets now), +10 Liked blue (+ icon)
-Alliance blues are obviously in alliance with you -Ally Blues are blues that can get access to POS shields and JB networks and be part of this new sensor mechanics as being discussed in this thread -+10 Blues will have almost no functionality, can still be flagged for stealing but their main purpose will be to act as a marker for people you probably don't wanna shoot or just people you like that you might not necessarily want to give any rights to
This will help especially with high sec newbs that wanna do a 1v1 jetcan fight that get all confused when their blue isn't being flagged for stealing. lol The Drake is a Lie |
FeralShadow
CenGen Armament
28
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 21:02:00 -
[115] - Quote
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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this. The locking delay is only on people currently locking the target, not people who have already locked it. That means that everybody can alpha one single ship, but people will have to stagger their lock times. It also gets rid of all the mess of friendlies already locking up targets, because it only affects people who are currently locking the target when you are locking.
This also means smaller ships are more useful because the time they take to lock targets is much smaller, so they'll only incur the penalty for a short amount of time. This also makes ECCM's more useful because targets will take longer to lock you, ensuring that more people can get the penalty. This also means you might as well just spread people around to several different targets to avoid the penalty altogether. This also means that smaller targets will be harder to lock, thus giving them more survivability in large fleet fights.
The key difference between this idea and the first idea is that this idea only has the penalty for all people currently IN THE PROCESS OF LOCKING the target. It doesn't matter if 300 people have already locked the target in the past. Honestly it seems like the perfect solution for preventing rediculous 300 man fleets alphaing one person, while at the same time making it non-exploitable without the exploiters being overwhelmed by tons of crap on their screen.
As an edit: For those who are going to play the "this will cause lag" card, don't you think the server is already keeping track of who is locking who? How hard would it be to tag a counter with it, counting the number of ongoing locks? |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
30
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 23:15:00 -
[116] - Quote
Xercodo wrote:-Good guys are decided by fleet, alliance member, corp member, blue (new ally system? see below) OR -Logi have counter measures to the "static" or "noise" and there need not be a mechanic that can be flawed like the way overview glitches result in ppl showing up wrong color
-The "noise" is generated based on the number of people on grid, and the stacking penalty will scale as such. The start of noise generation can start when there is 100+ (or similar) people on grid, meaning that 20vs20 fights will be left un-changed. Or instead of a finite number that can be argued as to the definition of a "blob", the equation is made exponential so that there is still a penalty for small gang warfare but it's so low that you probably not even notice but the larger the blob the worse the static gets and even adding "just one more ship" can make things that much more crippling
-Being in or out of fleet will not really effect this mechanic at all unless you have neutrals with you, and if you do then unfleeting them is detrimental to you, not the enemy, you waste target locks on your own allies and you increase the potential for friendly fire
-This is not an automatic nerf to large numbers of players or large alliances, large alliances that play smart will still win, but they will now be more likely to fall under their own weight as they would get so large as to not be able to coordinate well enough to fend of a lighter, faster fleet.
New Ally System: Maybe instead of just setting them blue there can be a new "ally" system that gives an ally special privileges that just liking them (setting them to +10 blue) wouldn't have, for instance separate the mechanic that allows blue to freely take form jetcans. In the new system there will be 3 types of blue: Alliance blue (star icon), Ally Blue (Person icon, like we have with fleets now), +10 Liked blue (+ icon)
-Alliance blues are obviously in alliance with you -Ally Blues are blues that can get access to POS shields and JB networks and be part of this new sensor mechanics as being discussed in this thread -+10 Blues will have almost no functionality, can still be flagged for stealing but their main purpose will be to act as a marker for people you probably don't wanna shoot or just people you like that you might not necessarily want to give any rights to
This will help especially with high sec newbs that wanna do a 1v1 jetcan fight that get all confused when their blue isn't being flagged for stealing. lol
You see, this is the difference between people with vision and the cynics. +1 |
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
32
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 23:26:00 -
[117] - Quote
I think it is worth a test on Duality. |
Finde learth
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 00:53:00 -
[118] - Quote
Mirima Thurander wrote: 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
You can do it now even no this rule. The rule force players must do , i think that's terrible. |
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
742
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 01:14:00 -
[119] - Quote
Mars Theran wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Logic would be the electronic interference caused by so many locking signals. Think of your ships targeting system as a laser enhanced sight. If you hit the ship with one, it creates a splash effect, which acually makes the ship more visible. Most basic targeting systems are either camera or laser oriented, or a combination of both. V I D E O G A M E S In EVE: -Space is a liquid -We can warp through planets -Lasers have recoil -Ships travel FTL -Hybrid ships and weapons were suddenly buffed -There's no sound in space -Weapons fire through friendly ships and random space objects
You know the thing about all the things above? There's a fiction explanation about all of them. This idea is no different.
Would you like to know the simplest explanation for the reason we can warp through planets. The warp tunnel changes. The game admits we are doing the seemingly impossible. Therefore, the player knows it isn't a bug or unintended effect, so the suspension of disbelief is maintained.
EVE is a game, I don't know why you're complaining now. |
Potamus Jenkins
The Lucky Bible Company
42
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 01:35:00 -
[120] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote:Xercodo wrote:-Good guys are decided by fleet, alliance member, corp member, blue (new ally system? see below) OR -Logi have counter measures to the "static" or "noise" and there need not be a mechanic that can be flawed like the way overview glitches result in ppl showing up wrong color
-The "noise" is generated based on the number of people on grid, and the stacking penalty will scale as such. The start of noise generation can start when there is 100+ (or similar) people on grid, meaning that 20vs20 fights will be left un-changed. Or instead of a finite number that can be argued as to the definition of a "blob", the equation is made exponential so that there is still a penalty for small gang warfare but it's so low that you probably not even notice but the larger the blob the worse the static gets and even adding "just one more ship" can make things that much more crippling
-Being in or out of fleet will not really effect this mechanic at all unless you have neutrals with you, and if you do then unfleeting them is detrimental to you, not the enemy, you waste target locks on your own allies and you increase the potential for friendly fire
-This is not an automatic nerf to large numbers of players or large alliances, large alliances that play smart will still win, but they will now be more likely to fall under their own weight as they would get so large as to not be able to coordinate well enough to fend of a lighter, faster fleet.
New Ally System: Maybe instead of just setting them blue there can be a new "ally" system that gives an ally special privileges that just liking them (setting them to +10 blue) wouldn't have, for instance separate the mechanic that allows blue to freely take form jetcans. In the new system there will be 3 types of blue: Alliance blue (star icon), Ally Blue (Person icon, like we have with fleets now), +10 Liked blue (+ icon)
-Alliance blues are obviously in alliance with you -Ally Blues are blues that can get access to POS shields and JB networks and be part of this new sensor mechanics as being discussed in this thread -+10 Blues will have almost no functionality, can still be flagged for stealing but their main purpose will be to act as a marker for people you probably don't wanna shoot or just people you like that you might not necessarily want to give any rights to
This will help especially with high sec newbs that wanna do a 1v1 jetcan fight that get all confused when their blue isn't being flagged for stealing. lol You see, this is the difference between people with vision and the cynics. +1
first you say no one presented valid reasons why its a bad idea, then you call the rest cynics.
several did, others did not provide valid reasons (ie its not "Realistic which is never a good reason) but several of us provided very valid reasons why this is exploitable. you make a post that says this is your favorite idea and its something that is easily exploitable people are gonna tell you.
its not our job to come up with variations on your favorite idea to make it not exploitable. thats on you.
the guy that came through and added his thoughts on how to get around the exploiting did a great job which is what you should have been doing since YOU are presenting the argument that this is a good idea, instead of you refusing to believe that it can and will be exploited. To write off the others because they are not coming up with ways to make your favorite idea work is not the way to go and is not furthering the discussion. |
|
Mirima Thurander
Sarajevo Syndicate True Reign
233
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 03:35:00 -
[121] - Quote
everything can be exploited till work starts on it that's what test phases are for, give ccp has a lot of people working on EvE right now would this not be the time to start work on changing the game up and giving combat more flavor that
shoot ghfddg
everyone shoots ghfddg
everyone hates the blob but nothings going to get done about it if everyone shoots down every idea that comes up because it might be exploited during the testing phase and if it cant be fixed they scrap it and move on.
let ccp decide if something cant work or not, the players can only talk about it, and it dose no good fighting over something that only ccp can decide
it took the CSM to get ccp to get TIDI going why cant we get them to look in to fixes to limit the 1000 shoots 1
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
31
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 18:23:00 -
[122] - Quote
Potamus Jenkins wrote:Miss Whippy wrote:Xercodo wrote:-Good guys are decided by fleet, alliance member, corp member, blue (new ally system? see below) OR -Logi have counter measures to the "static" or "noise" and there need not be a mechanic that can be flawed like the way overview glitches result in ppl showing up wrong color
-The "noise" is generated based on the number of people on grid, and the stacking penalty will scale as such. The start of noise generation can start when there is 100+ (or similar) people on grid, meaning that 20vs20 fights will be left un-changed. Or instead of a finite number that can be argued as to the definition of a "blob", the equation is made exponential so that there is still a penalty for small gang warfare but it's so low that you probably not even notice but the larger the blob the worse the static gets and even adding "just one more ship" can make things that much more crippling
-Being in or out of fleet will not really effect this mechanic at all unless you have neutrals with you, and if you do then unfleeting them is detrimental to you, not the enemy, you waste target locks on your own allies and you increase the potential for friendly fire
-This is not an automatic nerf to large numbers of players or large alliances, large alliances that play smart will still win, but they will now be more likely to fall under their own weight as they would get so large as to not be able to coordinate well enough to fend of a lighter, faster fleet.
New Ally System: Maybe instead of just setting them blue there can be a new "ally" system that gives an ally special privileges that just liking them (setting them to +10 blue) wouldn't have, for instance separate the mechanic that allows blue to freely take form jetcans. In the new system there will be 3 types of blue: Alliance blue (star icon), Ally Blue (Person icon, like we have with fleets now), +10 Liked blue (+ icon)
-Alliance blues are obviously in alliance with you -Ally Blues are blues that can get access to POS shields and JB networks and be part of this new sensor mechanics as being discussed in this thread -+10 Blues will have almost no functionality, can still be flagged for stealing but their main purpose will be to act as a marker for people you probably don't wanna shoot or just people you like that you might not necessarily want to give any rights to
This will help especially with high sec newbs that wanna do a 1v1 jetcan fight that get all confused when their blue isn't being flagged for stealing. lol You see, this is the difference between people with vision and the cynics. +1 first you say no one presented valid reasons why its a bad idea, then you call the rest cynics. several did, others did not provide valid reasons (ie its not "Realistic which is never a good reason) but several of us provided very valid reasons why this is exploitable. you make a post that says this is your favorite idea and its something that is easily exploitable people are gonna tell you. its not our job to come up with variations on your favorite idea to make it not exploitable. thats on you. the guy that came through and added his thoughts on how to get around the exploiting did a great job which is what you should have been doing since YOU are presenting the argument that this is a good idea, instead of you refusing to believe that it can and will be exploited. To write off the others because they are not coming up with ways to make your favorite idea work is not the way to go and is not furthering the discussion.
It's not your job to shout "Exploit" ever post either, yet here you are. I don't need to defend the idea for several reasons, I and most sensible people can see plenty of ways around your so-called exploits. No matter what we say to you it's going to fall on deaf ears, because it's obvious you're not here to be constructive. Also, there are people on here who are considerably more knowledgeable about the game then me, who have already put brilliant arguments and ideas forward, far better than I could manage.
Some people have even grown the idea into something different, which achieves the same goal and yet is more simple. There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism, but again, it's clear that's not what you've come here to achieve, by your own admission. |
BLF
Initium Malum 0ccupational Hazzard
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 18:54:00 -
[123] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:you disband your fleet once in position ..
Feature which beats other feature.. is bad feature.. aka... longer lock defeats fleet forming..
how about it doesn't apply to people in your fleet , corp or allaince ?
|
Potamus Jenkins
The Lucky Bible Company
42
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 19:07:00 -
[124] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote:Potamus Jenkins wrote:Miss Whippy wrote:Xercodo wrote:-Good guys are decided by fleet, alliance member, corp member, blue (new ally system? see below) OR -Logi have counter measures to the "static" or "noise" and there need not be a mechanic that can be flawed like the way overview glitches result in ppl showing up wrong color
-The "noise" is generated based on the number of people on grid, and the stacking penalty will scale as such. The start of noise generation can start when there is 100+ (or similar) people on grid, meaning that 20vs20 fights will be left un-changed. Or instead of a finite number that can be argued as to the definition of a "blob", the equation is made exponential so that there is still a penalty for small gang warfare but it's so low that you probably not even notice but the larger the blob the worse the static gets and even adding "just one more ship" can make things that much more crippling
-Being in or out of fleet will not really effect this mechanic at all unless you have neutrals with you, and if you do then unfleeting them is detrimental to you, not the enemy, you waste target locks on your own allies and you increase the potential for friendly fire
-This is not an automatic nerf to large numbers of players or large alliances, large alliances that play smart will still win, but they will now be more likely to fall under their own weight as they would get so large as to not be able to coordinate well enough to fend of a lighter, faster fleet.
New Ally System: Maybe instead of just setting them blue there can be a new "ally" system that gives an ally special privileges that just liking them (setting them to +10 blue) wouldn't have, for instance separate the mechanic that allows blue to freely take form jetcans. In the new system there will be 3 types of blue: Alliance blue (star icon), Ally Blue (Person icon, like we have with fleets now), +10 Liked blue (+ icon)
-Alliance blues are obviously in alliance with you -Ally Blues are blues that can get access to POS shields and JB networks and be part of this new sensor mechanics as being discussed in this thread -+10 Blues will have almost no functionality, can still be flagged for stealing but their main purpose will be to act as a marker for people you probably don't wanna shoot or just people you like that you might not necessarily want to give any rights to
This will help especially with high sec newbs that wanna do a 1v1 jetcan fight that get all confused when their blue isn't being flagged for stealing. lol You see, this is the difference between people with vision and the cynics. +1 first you say no one presented valid reasons why its a bad idea, then you call the rest cynics. several did, others did not provide valid reasons (ie its not "Realistic which is never a good reason) but several of us provided very valid reasons why this is exploitable. you make a post that says this is your favorite idea and its something that is easily exploitable people are gonna tell you. its not our job to come up with variations on your favorite idea to make it not exploitable. thats on you. the guy that came through and added his thoughts on how to get around the exploiting did a great job which is what you should have been doing since YOU are presenting the argument that this is a good idea, instead of you refusing to believe that it can and will be exploited. To write off the others because they are not coming up with ways to make your favorite idea work is not the way to go and is not furthering the discussion. It's not your job to shout "Exploit" ever post either, yet here you are. I don't need to defend the idea for several reasons, I and most sensible people can see plenty of ways around your so-called exploits. No matter what we say to you it's going to fall on deaf ears, because it's obvious you're not here to be constructive. Also, there are people on here who are considerably more knowledgeable about the game then me, who have already put brilliant arguments and ideas forward, far better than I could manage. Some people have even grown the idea into something different, which achieves the same goal and yet is more simple. There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism, but again, it's clear that's not what you've come here to achieve, by your own admission.
i thought i was very clear and constructive with why using fleet status as a determining factor for the server to determine "friendly" or not combined with your stacking idea was not a good one. I didnt flame or troll or anything.. I dont know how im shouting exploit every post as this is the only time ive ever engaged in a discussion like this.
My last comment was about your defensiveness towards people with differing opinions than yours on the topic. To present a topic for discussion and not be willing to engage in constructive conversation which is exactly what you are doing and then claim its the others (read people that disagree with you) who are not being constructive is helping the discussion. I broke down why this is easily exploitable and even offerred ideas on what could possibly be done to lessen the likely hood of exploitation (enhance the function of a fleet to make it more worthwhile to counter the benefits OF NOT being in a fleet that will appear if a game mechanic such as this was introduced.)
Anyways none of that matters I shouldnt have called you out for your reaction to people disagreeing with you, it did not move the discussion forward.
peace |
Nyssa Litari
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
19
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 19:15:00 -
[125] - Quote
First of all, increasing the lock time because someone else has the target locked is ridiculous. If anything, if one ship in the fleet has a target lock, that ship's computer ought to communicate the lock to all the other ships in the fleet through sensor linking. Artificially making it take longer just makes your game easier while defying expectations about how ships with targeting computers ought to work.
How about instead we fix E-War and make it a bigger part of the game? Make ECM something like an RR function. Make sensor damping work properly again. There ought to be a way to balance e-war and sensor / tracking so that it yields something like the hoped for results.
Another thing CCP talked about at one point was formations. That could also be used to make squad-on-squad battles more common. Having said all that...
Focused fire just makes sense. Deal with it. |
Deviana Sevidon
Jades Falcon Guards
214
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 19:36:00 -
[126] - Quote
I might be interesting to a have a stacking penalty on incoming damage, the more ships are firing on a single ship, the less damage actually gets through, with fleet commander and squad commander skills reducing the penalty for their own squads and wings.
Balancing this would be far from easy, especially when you have to consider remote repair effects, because with them some targets might become near impossible to destroy.
Edit:
If at the same time the effects of remote repair are also limited then it become viable again to use local armor repairers or shield boosters. |
Rath Kelbore
The Six-Pack Syndicate EVE Animal Control
10
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 19:40:00 -
[127] - Quote
Disclaimer: I didn't read the whole thread, this may be redundant.
I am in favor of doing things that reduce the effectiveness of the blob and the simplistic fleet battles where everyone shoots the primary. However it seems too easily exploitable.
How would you prevent people from not fleeting and everyone targeting each other up thereby increasing the lock time for the persons trying to engage them?
I saw something about how that would clutter up the overview or whatever, no it wouldn't. Have blues not show up on one overview tab, have only blues show up in another, click blue tab, target people up, click non blue tab, fight.
This problem may have already been addressed but as I said before, I didn't read the whole thread.
Even in the above situation, it would at least make it more difficult for everyone to shoot at 1 ship, which is probably a good thing.
Overall it seems like a decent idea but there would have to be a better way of determining "friendly" locks.
Edit: Using fleet corp alliance, and/or standings to determine friendly might be a move in the right direction. I imagine someone can come up with a way to exploit it though. Anyone? |
Zyress
Deaths Head Brigade Gryphon League
21
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 22:18:00 -
[128] - Quote
I don't like it, in small gang fights you may have tackle, dps, and ewar, and the reason you brought this nice balanced fleet is because they all have a role to do in killing the prey, making it harder for multiple ships to lock one target hinders these specialty roles in small gangs as well as blobs. I understand the hatred of blob warfare but don't harsh the small gang warfare trying to fix it. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
854
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 22:27:00 -
[129] - Quote
DarkAegix wrote: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.
Which brings us back around to the potential uses of a "Formation" system in EVE. Revenge should not stop at the ship!
It's not so much a mission statement,-áit's more like a family motto. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
854
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 22:34:00 -
[130] - Quote
Rath Kelbore wrote:Disclaimer: I didn't read the whole thread, this may be redundant.
I am in favor of doing things that reduce the effectiveness of the blob and the simplistic fleet battles where everyone shoots the primary. However it seems too easily exploitable.
How would you prevent people from not fleeting and everyone targeting each other up thereby increasing the lock time for the persons trying to engage them?
I saw something about how that would clutter up the overview or whatever, no it wouldn't. Have blues not show up on one overview tab, have only blues show up in another, click blue tab, target people up, click non blue tab, fight.
This problem may have already been addressed but as I said before, I didn't read the whole thread.
Even in the above situation, it would at least make it more difficult for everyone to shoot at 1 ship, which is probably a good thing.
Overall it seems like a decent idea but there would have to be a better way of determining "friendly" locks.
Edit: Using fleet corp alliance, and/or standings to determine friendly might be a move in the right direction. I imagine someone can come up with a way to exploit it though. Anyone?
If everyone locked each other up in advance simply to slow down the opposing fleet the sheer volume of friendly fire incidents would be overwhelming... overwhelmingly hilarious. Revenge should not stop at the ship!
It's not so much a mission statement,-áit's more like a family motto. |
|
FeralShadow
CenGen Armament
31
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 23:16:00 -
[131] - Quote
Yes, it's been commented about before..... Think of if you have a fleet and instead of allowing a hodgepodge of ships to fill the fleet, the fleet's composition is set. For example what if for a fleet where a squad has 11 members (1 squad command, 10 members) not everybody can bring a dps boat. The squad has slots to fill, one command slot, 3 logistics slots, 2 EWAR spots, and 5 dps slots. Ships can have a pre-designated role... if you fly a drake for instance, it will always take a dps slot, even if you fit it all out with ewar. Flying a guardian would always take a logistics slot, even if you fit it all out with autocannons for some stupid reason. In this way, if you have 20 people with drakes wanting to fly, you must split them into 4 separate fleets.
On first glance you might think "what a pain in the ass" but we're talking about making fleets variable and trying to find ways to incentivize non-blob warfare. This does just that, where they could coordinate in 4 separate fleets if they were good, but maybe 9 times out of 10 they would just go with a command ship, logistics, ewar, and dps ships.
TL;DR - Forcing certain fleet role ratios may be a way to counter LOLBLOBage |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1257
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 23:24:00 -
[132] - Quote
FeralShadow wrote:Yes, it's been commented about before..... Think of if you have a fleet and instead of allowing a hodgepodge of ships to fill the fleet, the fleet's composition is set. For example what if for a fleet where a squad has 11 members (1 squad command, 10 members) not everybody can bring a dps boat. The squad has slots to fill, one command slot, 3 logistics slots, 2 EWAR spots, and 5 dps slots. Ships can have a pre-designated role... if you fly a drake for instance, it will always take a dps slot, even if you fit it all out with ewar. Flying a guardian would always take a logistics slot, even if you fit it all out with autocannons for some stupid reason. In this way, if you have 20 people with drakes wanting to fly, you must split them into 4 separate fleets.
On first glance you might think "what a pain in the ass" but we're talking about making fleets variable and trying to find ways to incentivize non-blob warfare. This does just that, where they could coordinate in 4 separate fleets if they were good, but maybe 9 times out of 10 they would just go with a command ship, logistics, ewar, and dps ships.
TL;DR - Forcing certain fleet role ratios may be a way to counter LOLBLOBage
variability by forcing cookie-cutter setups ? Dont know but it seems wrong. |
FeralShadow
CenGen Armament
31
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 23:26:00 -
[133] - Quote
Yes, I won't argue that it seems wrong and, in a way, not in the spirit of the Eve sandbox, but it would work effectively. |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1257
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 23:32:00 -
[134] - Quote
FeralShadow wrote:Yes, I won't argue that it seems wrong and, in a way, not in the spirit of the Eve sandbox, but it would work effectively.
well there is several ideas which will work effectively against "some features". Question is why its needed ? Sure null blobwars, hotdrops 500 ships on one drake in null/low etc. is really boring .. but it is the way it is.. |
Aestivalis Saidrian
SplitPush Mercantiles
17
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 23:41:00 -
[135] - Quote
No.
Just no.
If your fleet is linked up to the point of knowing what someone else's hull, armor and shield amounts are, you WILL be sharing targeting data. In fact, if anything, you'd get better lock on times as the amount of sensors on target would light up the target like a goddamn christmas tree in the middle of July.
I mean, let's go with the basics.
There are four sensor types in EVE that can be boiled down to this. Gravometric - LOOKIT THAT. THAT SHIP HAS ENOUGH MASS TO DISTORT GRAVITY. ITS RIGHT THERE. LADAR - IT SHOOTS A LASER AT THE TARGET. DOES THE LASER COME BACK? YES? TARGET LOCKED. RADAR - SHOOT SOME RADIOS AT IT. BLAST THEM WITH BAD JPOP. DOES IT COME BACK EVEN WORSE? YES? TARGET LOCKED. whateverthefuckthe Minmatar use... Probably a guy in a crow's nest or something with a telescope screaming rage and obscenities down a copper tube to the guys in gunnery who use hand cranks to rotate and align the turret. REGARDLESS. IS IT THERE? YES. SHOOT IT. WHAT DO YOU MEAN ITS NOT ****** THERE YOU ******************* SHOOT IT. ****!
As for "Blob Tactics." All I hear is "Baww, the enemy had more people and a good doctrine."
Which is to say, They fight like Soldiers. Professionals who use proven gear using proven tactics. Stop fighting like warriors who are in it for the dickwagging contests. Want to fight the blob? Get your own fleet together. Establish a doctrine, get people in the ships that are required for the doctrine and go from there.
"But that's blob warfare!" So? Deal with it. Stop playing WoW in a fleet fight and start playing Soldiers in a Fleet Fight and you might actually get somewhere.
Killmails are the worse feature in EVE. |
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
742
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 00:15:00 -
[136] - Quote
Aestivalis Saidrian wrote: If your fleet is linked up to the point of knowing what someone else's hull, armor and shield amounts are, you WILL be sharing targeting data. In fact, if anything, you'd get better lock on times as the amount of sensors on target would light up the target like a goddamn christmas tree in the middle of July.
It's a game.
Quote:Gravometric - LOOKIT THAT. THAT SHIP HAS ENOUGH MASS TO DISTORT GRAVITY. ITS RIGHT THERE. LADAR - IT SHOOTS A LASER AT THE TARGET. DOES THE LASER COME BACK? YES? TARGET LOCKED. RADAR - SHOOT SOME RADIOS AT IT. BLAST THEM WITH BAD JPOP. DOES IT COME BACK EVEN WORSE? YES? TARGET LOCKED. whateverthefuckthe Minmatar use... Probably a guy in a crow's nest or something with a telescope screaming rage and obscenities down a copper tube to the guys in gunnery who use hand cranks to rotate and align the turret. REGARDLESS. IS IT THERE? YES. SHOOT IT. WHAT DO YOU MEAN ITS NOT ****** THERE YOU ******************* SHOOT IT. ****!
Use your imagination. Gravimetric - The micro-scale gravimeter probes used to measure their own acceleration towards the target ship, thus calculate gravity, begin to collide with other probes due to the gravity field drawing them together.
Ladar - The huge number of lasers colliding with the target ship interferes with the wavelengths of each beam. The changed wavelength leads to unexpected diffraction occurs as the lasers pass through the gaps of the target ship's shields, leading to scrambled data.
Radar - Radio waves, upon passing through the target ship's shields, slightly deteriorate in their consistency and trajectory, as they are refracted. As this deterioration takes place, the shields of the target ship begin to vibrate ever so slightly, leading to greater deterioration experienced per extra radio wave.
Magnetometric (Measuring magnitude and direction of EM field) - Electromagnetic pulses fired off by the ship targeting interfere with other ships attempting to target. False EM fields are detected as target ships, but cannot be verified, leading to a greater amount of target validation being necessary, thus increasing lock time.
Use your own imagination to link these together, too. EM fields destroying gravimetric probes, ladar beams diffracting further when radio waves vibrate shields, EM fields altering the consistency of shields as ladar beams pass through them, etc.
Honestly, anyone attempting to attack this idea based on 'It doesn't make any sense based on my understanding of EVE'S PERFECT PHYSICS SIMULATION' is foolish beyond any description. |
Aestivalis Saidrian
SplitPush Mercantiles
18
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 00:40:00 -
[137] - Quote
Nothing that wouldn't be accounted for after hundreds of years of using the same damn tech and ships. Hell, it'd be a simple software update. Add in visual detection methods such as cameras with object recognition software, and there you go. Main sensor suite to go find it, camera to make sure its there.
And, to completely shut down every one of your ideas, the concept of "Listen-Kill."
Listen-Kill is a system of tracking where the target's emissions to lock-on guide the aggressor's sensors and missiles. The only way to not get owned by a Listen-Kill system is to not lock on at all.
An idea of how Listen-Kill works today is let's take two jet fighter craft today. They are fighting for whatever reason. Both fighters turn their radar on, and thus find eachother blazingly quick and proceed to blow eachother up. (Remember, radar detetcts by broadcasting. Software today can pick up someone else's radar waves and tell you where they are.)
Someone using Listen Kill would just look for the radar waves, find them, ping them once and launch a missile. The other guy usually died before he knew the first guy was there.
So, unless the denizens of the EVE universe forgot how to do basic math or forgot common sense, none of the ideas you presented work.
Want an irl example? Wild Weasel missions. You use radar guided missiles that lock on to the detector's electronic emissions and there you go. Dead Sam site. |
That Handsome Frog
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 01:09:00 -
[138] - Quote
This is a game moron? |
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
742
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 01:16:00 -
[139] - Quote
Aestivalis Saidrian wrote:Shameless marketing of Listen-Kill technology. EVE is a perfect simulator of everything. Derp. I honestly can't believe how idiotic you are. And you just continue to embarrass yourself.
EVE is a game. Games require balance.
Go have a cry about how EVE's space shows liquid-like properties. This game is not a space simulator.
Do you want your own idea completely destroyed? Where is Listen-Kill in EVE, right now? Oh, it's not there. There must be a reason it is not there. It doesn't matter why it's not in EVE. Balance or fiction, who cares? Balance is more important than fiction, and fiction can be changed to meet balance.
STFU, and take your idiocy somewhere else. EVE is not a simulator, and your foolish tears won't change a single thing. |
Bischopt
Ice Fire Warriors
55
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 01:16:00 -
[140] - Quote
While I very much hate being the victim of overkill, this solution seems just too arbitrary. It doesnt belong in eve. In eve everything goes and this feature would limit the possibilities.
Besides, people would find a way to abuse this feature as well. Always having an alt lock you so someone who's actually trying to tackle you cant get a lock in time etc.
And no, I dont enjoy blobs. Not being in them or fighting them. Still this is my honest opinion. |
|
That Handsome Frog
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 01:21:00 -
[141] - Quote
AOE Titan says: |
Zangorus
Anquer Mentula
585
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 02:02:00 -
[142] - Quote
Lady Spank wrote:It didn't work in Perpetuum so what makes you think it would work here? its a ******** fix for a ******** problem Like my comment and recieve 1 million isk ingame! |
Lady Spank
GET OUT NASTY FACE
912
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 02:06:00 -
[143] - Quote
It's not a fix unless it works. So far it's just a poorly thought out suggestion. (a¦á_a¦â) ~ http://getoutnastyface.blogspot.com/ ~ (a¦á_a¦â) -áGÖÑ New Years Resolution ~ Cease thy Smacktalk GÖÑ |
Sicex
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 02:06:00 -
[144] - Quote
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.
Been playing this game since the beginning of '04... what an ingenious way to combat blobs in favor of more effective small fleets that maximize lock time while not sacrificing DPS due to a lack of blobbage.
Scaling a fleet back to increase lock time could be very tactical if you have a small strike fleet jump in to quick lock logi ships, etc followed up by a more blobby force for a final punch.
This idea is great, I love it, it adds dynamic and smarts back to fleet makeups and engagements, it also presents the idea of a small strike force going up against a large blob and having an ounce of hope... Isn't that the biggest payoff of this idea? Always giving the little guys the chance to climb the ladder too? |
Stabs McShiv
MINUS4
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 02:22:00 -
[145] - Quote
What about if all ship could only lock one target? But ships in a squad can lock as many as they have members in a squad?
or
Have each additional lock on a ship create a 'sphere of noise' that grows making the ships closer by take longer and longer to lock and eventually disappear from the overview entirely base it on ship sig radius so hundreds can lock a titan but a squad of frigates in the same area of space will disappear into the noise if more then a few people lock up one of the frigates in the group . Make logistic and ewar mods increase a ships susceptibility to the noise. Yay Target painters are actually useful now.
i dunno just a idea probably dosnt make any sense anyway.
|
Sicex
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 02:37:00 -
[146] - Quote
I think the root of the idea is key and I hope a dev takes note:
To curb the blob effect of fleet battles you have to find a may to make it disadvantageous to have a constantly bigger fleet (currently there is no down side to an unlimited number of pilots). The solution to curbing the crowds lies in the locking...
DPS of a blob can't be done en masse if the ships of the blobs can't lock their targets - sounds like ECM would be the ticket but it seems to be the system MOST susceptible to lag interference, besides the inherent flaw in it.
Slowing lock times, hard capping number of locked targets (making targeting more than one object a big deal), influencing overview readings to augment lock times - these are all solutions based around the idea that the locking mechanic can be played with to level the playing field of small corp fleets versus big boy blobs.
Ultimately the goal would be to encourage mix up along borders and prevent perpetual NAPs and stalemates in 0.0. |
Mirima Thurander
Sarajevo Syndicate True Reign
233
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 03:10:00 -
[147] - Quote
Im glad more people have come along that under stand the base idea.
now if we could get the support to get the devs to even look at it, that's the biggest problem.
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. |
Wot I Think
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 03:35:00 -
[148] - Quote
This would fix many things. |
Bayushi Tamago
Killer Carebears Inc.
20
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 03:37:00 -
[149] - Quote
Lock time increase based on current number of targets you have - Yes. Lock time increase on targets based on number of established locks - I see the logic, but not the right way to do it |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1257
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 03:43:00 -
[150] - Quote
DarkAegix wrote:Aestivalis Saidrian wrote:Shameless marketing of Listen-Kill technology. EVE is a perfect simulator of everything. Derp. I honestly can't believe how idiotic you are. And you just continue to embarrass yourself. EVE is a game. Games require balance. Go have a cry about how EVE's space shows liquid-like properties. This game is not a space simulator. Do you want your own idea completely destroyed? Where is Listen-Kill in EVE, right now? Oh, it's not there. There must be a reason it is not there. It doesn't matter why it's not in EVE. Balance or fiction, who cares? Balance is more important than fiction, and fiction can be changed to meet balance. STFU, and take your idiocy somewhere else. EVE is not a simulator, and your foolish tears won't change a single thing.
No .. players require game change to suit their needs. Game does NOT require balance.. This whole idea of "fixing" "imaginary" problem is prove of that.. You cant defeat your enemy by normal means because "insert the reason there" and therefore the game needs to be changed..
If its all about balance then why have different ships for different roles... balance wise it would be just great if there was just one prefitted ship .. you get for free everytime it gets destroyed..
But it will certeinly be more fun .. with regular squads .. small engagement .. fleets within fleets etc. And people engaging in such will have to actually know something about "PvP", which will reduce numbers of people engaging in mass fleet fights, therefore there will be no mass fleet fights However .. IF there will be massive fleets and everyone will try to engage in acutall "PvP" not ctrl click brodacsted press F1 continue... then it will be not so fun because of lag.. you cant navigate your ship adequately and cant go your way to your target in heavy lag enviroment.. |
|
Aestivalis Saidrian
SplitPush Mercantiles
18
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 04:52:00 -
[151] - Quote
Simple: Its why you don't have the problem of this completely arbitrary mechanic that does absolutely nothing for the game other then make the following happen.
1) Only Logistics are found in small gangs. 2) Small gangs all lock each other to abuse this mechanic. 3) Blobs Do Not Change. Targeting is handed down to squad level, leaving squad leaders to designate targets. People still get alpha'd out of existence. 4) x8 Large Smart Bomb Titans hotdrop into fleets, erase everything when 200 people can't lock it. 5) SeBo II with Lockon script becomes standard issue on all ships. 6) Haters gonna hate Falcons even more. 7) Everyone will carry shield/armor rep drones. After all, those lock onto people as well.
Status Quo preserved.
There's a reason why this thread died in Ships And Modules. |
Shalee Lianne
Imperial Outlaws
62
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 07:23:00 -
[152] - Quote
+1 I like this idea. http://amarrian.blogspot.com/ -á~ Roleplay blog.http://sovereigntywars.wordpress.com/ ~ Faction War blog. |
Rel'k Bloodlor
Mecha Enterprises Fleet
52
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 08:39:00 -
[153] - Quote
The idea makes no sense at all. Like if we all look at some thing it takes people longer to find it? One lots of computers all try to do the same thing it takes longer? That is just not how it works. If any thing it should be the other way around if Im in fleet and our computers are talking then mine should be augmenting yours, or just telling you were they are because my ship already knows. As a solution to a problem its still half assed. No way to make bigger and bigger fights last longer and longer, if any thing just make it so they have to split up and hold multiple points simultaneously in system to take sov and BAMB smaller longer fights |
Aestivalis Saidrian
SplitPush Mercantiles
18
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 09:02:00 -
[154] - Quote
They already have to. Gotta control the gates you drop Sovereignerity Blockade Units at more then half of the star gates, then you have to fight at the Cynojammer, Infrastructure, etc.
From my understanding, current doctrine is to completely smash the defenders, secure the system via gate camasgmps, THEN drop SBUs, smash poses, etc. Which is why no multiple fights occur in system. |
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
757
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 09:09:00 -
[155] - Quote
Aestivalis Saidrian wrote: Simple: Its why you don't have the problem of this completely arbitrary mechanic that does absolutely nothing for the game other then make the following happen.
1) Only Logistics are found in small gangs. 2) Small gangs all lock each other to abuse this mechanic. 3) Blobs Do Not Change. Targeting is handed down to squad level, leaving squad leaders to designate targets. People still get alpha'd out of existence. 4) x8 Large Smart Bomb Titans hotdrop into fleets, erase everything when 200 people can't lock it. 5) SeBo II with Lockon script becomes standard issue on all ships. 6) Haters gonna hate Falcons even more. 7) Everyone will carry shield/armor rep drones. After all, those lock onto people as well.
Amazing. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a prime example of an idiot. Don't make too much noise! They are easily startled and may attempt to spew verbal diarrhoea over you. Please do not stick your limbs inside the cage, as the idiot may defecate on them. Refrain from throwing peanuts at the idiot. Thank you.
1) Look how wrong you are. Logistics will be *useful* in large fleet fights, because ships won't be WTF-ALPHA'd by hundreds of ships at once. In fact, they'll be MORE USEFUL. You are wrong. 2) Have you read this thread? Can you read? Link the mechanic to fleet/corp/alliance/a new friendly system and since lock time will depend on number of targets currently lockING, not already lockED, the system becomes unexploitable. Wait, too many syllables for you. Sorry. 3) Sounds good to me. There'll still be blobs, but they can't WTF-pwn smaller fleets while taking no casualties. The splitting of target priorities sounds good. People will still be alpha'd, but not by hundreds of ships at once. 4) When no one can lock? Really? The idea is to stop EVERYONE from locking ONE. Not EVERYONE from EVERYONE. 5) Look at your stupidity increase. Suddenly, the time for 800 Maelstroms to lock a Rifter decreases from 5 minutes to 4! Astounding! Meanwhile, the other (intelligent) fleet has about 50 Maelstroms already locked and being fired at! 6) Hate for the Falcon will be equal. Locks will be equally easy to obtain for a competent fleet. The secret is to have dozens of targets, instead of one. 7) OH CHRIST. THE IDIOCY. THE SHEER IDIOCY. I. CAN'T. WITHSTAND IT. AAAARGHHHHHHHH. What if shield/armour rep drones don't count towards the locked target count? Oh, but that's too obvious and you're clearly as dense as a singularity.
TL;DR You are a terrible poster and human being.
And, Rel'k, this is a video game. It makes sense as long as fiction supports it. Gameplay is secondary to logic, and logic can change in games. Fights won't necessarily last longer. Tactics will change. Squads need targets each, and multiple targets will be dying at once instead of one at a time. You know, like every single EVE trailer, naval warfare, aerial warfare, ground warfare and everything else. |
Rel'k Bloodlor
Mecha Enterprises Fleet
52
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 09:23:00 -
[156] - Quote
As for how it works now, I guess I meant to say in constellation(more of a hold the front/line thing not a you stand on the corners side of the room thing.
SI-FI!!!! It gots the word SCIENCE, make it make sense like science. Don't tell me it works the opposite of real life like magic. This is not fantasy.
|
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
757
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 09:29:00 -
[157] - Quote
Rel'k Bloodlor wrote:SI-FI!!!! It gots the word SCIENCE, make it make sense like science. Don't tell me it works the opposite of real life like magic. This is not fantasy.
Here's your required serving of science for the day:
Quote: Gravimetric - The micro-scale gravimeter probes used to measure their own acceleration towards the target ship, thus calculate gravity, begin to collide with other probes due to the gravity field drawing them together.
Ladar - The huge number of lasers colliding with the target ship interferes with the wavelengths of each beam. The changed wavelength leads to unexpected diffraction occurs as the lasers pass through the gaps of the target ship's shields, leading to scrambled data.
Radar - Radio waves, upon passing through the target ship's shields, slightly deteriorate in their consistency and trajectory, as they are refracted. As this deterioration takes place, the shields of the target ship begin to vibrate ever so slightly, leading to greater deterioration experienced per extra radio wave.
Magnetometric (Measuring magnitude and direction of EM field) - Electromagnetic pulses fired off by the ship targeting interfere with other ships attempting to target. False EM fields are detected as target ships, but cannot be verified, leading to a greater amount of target validation being necessary, thus increasing lock time.
I'll tell you that the above explanations are more scientific than some other things in EVE. I didn't even need to pull out the 'nanites & Jovians' wildcard. |
Rel'k Bloodlor
Mecha Enterprises Fleet
52
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 09:42:00 -
[158] - Quote
But what about the human angle? The reactors and propulsion we use release radiation, but the first thing the humans of Eden obviously did was shield them selves from it. If in the devilment stage this problem came up it would have had to have been dealt with before governments and markets would endorse it. As it stands to day all electronics in most places fallow guidelines about interfering with other devises. Its not just as simple as fluffing up some theory of the how, you also need to explain how Billions of scientist, engineers, politicians, and sales reps went along with it as well. Even if its just a new development the people would still begin stepping in and fixing it as its a problem to both safety and security.
Also no wizards |
Elistea
G U N G N I R Y G G D R A S I L
29
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 10:30:00 -
[159] - Quote
Love the idea.
|
Rel'k Bloodlor
Mecha Enterprises Fleet
53
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 11:11:00 -
[160] - Quote
Ugg there are limitless ways to fix the problem other than "Im mad and don't like it so I want it smashed". This is after all a role playing game about humans, in the future, in space. So they should innovate, improve, invent. I would rather hear of a new T2 that employs some device that punish large groups buy reducing there Scan rez or incoming damage than stuppiding down the game so Timy stops crying about his ship loss. Because then Billy starts crying about how it was his turn and you can't change the rules now. We have to keep in mind that the problem that this is trying to fix is 60% our fault. We blob because its safer to be a fish in a big school than a wolf in a small pack. It's just easer to get 200 people to show up at the tower of London around noon with running shoes than to get 200 people to all dress like different pok'emon go in groups of 4 to 50 places at 3pm face south and say "the aristocrats" at 3:33pm. This fix will do no better than the HP buff did at not being the insta dead, all it will do is swing the pendulum in favor of armour tanks, as they can fit more SeBo II and Se Link II's. |
|
Defecanda
LulzWaffe
37
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 11:29:00 -
[161] - Quote
It doesn't have to be a linear or pure log penalty. You could set a minimum lock requirement to take effect that would not penalize small gang tactics, but would be detrimental to blobs. "You FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL to jump because you are cloaked . . . ." |
Defecanda
LulzWaffe
37
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 11:35:00 -
[162] - Quote
Actually, a good idea would be to set the penalty to every 3 targets; i.e. only modify lock time at 4th target lock, 7th target lock, 10 target lock ,etc . . .. "You FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL to jump because you are cloaked . . . ." |
Rel'k Bloodlor
Mecha Enterprises Fleet
53
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 12:18:00 -
[163] - Quote
Why so all fleet fits add Se Bo II and Se Link II's? You make and sell them......don't cha. |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
37
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 12:33:00 -
[164] - Quote
Aestivalis Saidrian wrote:No.
Just no.
If your fleet is linked up to the point of knowing what someone else's hull, armor and shield amounts are, you WILL be sharing targeting data. In fact, if anything, you'd get better lock on times as the amount of sensors on target would light up the target like a goddamn christmas tree in the middle of July.
I mean, let's go with the basics.
There are four sensor types in EVE that can be boiled down to this. Gravometric - LOOKIT THAT. THAT SHIP HAS ENOUGH MASS TO DISTORT GRAVITY. ITS RIGHT THERE. LADAR - IT SHOOTS A LASER AT THE TARGET. DOES THE LASER COME BACK? YES? TARGET LOCKED. RADAR - SHOOT SOME RADIOS AT IT. BLAST THEM WITH BAD JPOP. DOES IT COME BACK EVEN WORSE? YES? TARGET LOCKED. whateverthefuckthe Minmatar use... Probably a guy in a crow's nest or something with a telescope screaming rage and obscenities down a copper tube to the guys in gunnery who use hand cranks to rotate and align the turret. REGARDLESS. IS IT THERE? YES. SHOOT IT. WHAT DO YOU MEAN ITS NOT ****** THERE YOU ******************* SHOOT IT. ****!
As for "Blob Tactics." All I hear is "Baww, the enemy had more people and a good doctrine."
Which is to say, They fight like Soldiers. Professionals who use proven gear using proven tactics. Stop fighting like warriors who are in it for the dickwagging contests. Want to fight the blob? Get your own fleet together. Establish a doctrine, get people in the ships that are required for the doctrine and go from there.
"But that's blob warfare!" So? Deal with it. Stop playing WoW in a fleet fight and start playing Soldiers in a Fleet Fight and you might actually get somewhere.
Killmails are the worse feature in EVE.
Yeah, because every battle in history, everyone shoots at the same person, one at a time.
|
Rel'k Bloodlor
Mecha Enterprises Fleet
53
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 12:38:00 -
[165] - Quote
Nope, but in the modern ones they shure love to do that to tanks |
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
759
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 12:49:00 -
[166] - Quote
Rel'k Bloodlor wrote:Nope, but in the modern ones they shure love to do that to tanks Ahahahahha Ahahahahha Ahahhahaha Nope! |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
38
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 13:13:00 -
[167] - Quote
Rel'k Bloodlor wrote:Nope, but in the modern ones they shure love to do that to tanks
Yeah, war news reports are full of stories about 300 Stealth Bombers taking out one tank. |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1262
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 13:15:00 -
[168] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote:Rel'k Bloodlor wrote:Nope, but in the modern ones they shure love to do that to tanks Yeah, war news reports are full of stories about 300 Stealth Bombers taking out one tank.
Well if that tank can survive 299 Stealth Bombers .. then maybe.. depend on price tag of that flight |
Mirima Thurander
Sarajevo Syndicate True Reign
234
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 13:54:00 -
[169] - Quote
Aestivalis Saidrian wrote:Simple: Its why you don't have the problem of this completely arbitrary mechanic that does absolutely nothing for the game other then make the following happen. 1) Only Logistics are found in small gangs. 2) Small gangs all lock each other to abuse this mechanic. 3) Blobs Do Not Change. Targeting is handed down to squad level, leaving squad leaders to designate targets. People still get alpha'd out of existence. 4) x8 Large Smart Bomb Titans hotdrop into fleets, erase everything when 200 people can't lock it. 5) SeBo II with Lockon script becomes standard issue on all ships. 6) Haters gonna hate Falcons even more. 7) Everyone will carry shield/armor rep drones. After all, those lock onto people as well. Status Quo preserved. There's a reason why this thread died in Ships And Modules.
holy ******* **** man and the glass is half empty 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
1265
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 13:55:00 -
[170] - Quote
Mirima Thurander wrote:Aestivalis Saidrian wrote:Simple: Its why you don't have the problem of this completely arbitrary mechanic that does absolutely nothing for the game other then make the following happen. 1) Only Logistics are found in small gangs. 2) Small gangs all lock each other to abuse this mechanic. 3) Blobs Do Not Change. Targeting is handed down to squad level, leaving squad leaders to designate targets. People still get alpha'd out of existence. 4) x8 Large Smart Bomb Titans hotdrop into fleets, erase everything when 200 people can't lock it. 5) SeBo II with Lockon script becomes standard issue on all ships. 6) Haters gonna hate Falcons even more. 7) Everyone will carry shield/armor rep drones. After all, those lock onto people as well. Status Quo preserved. There's a reason why this thread died in Ships And Modules. holy ******* **** man and the glass is half empty
Real Questin is ? Does this glass exist or is it just projection of my brain ? I can touch it but do i really touch the object or is it just another projection
|
|
Mirima Thurander
Sarajevo Syndicate True Reign
234
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 14:13:00 -
[171] - Quote
understand CCP codes the game none of you do*, no one has the right to dictate how a part of it should work, unless there a dev, so unless you have a blue tag next to your name there's no way for you to know whether it would work or not.
*( and if you do man the hell up and voice your support/or say why it wont work and stop posting on an alt) 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. |
Roosterton
Shattered Star Exiles SpaceMonkey's Alliance
238
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 14:54:00 -
[172] - Quote
I'm no fan of blobs, but if blobbing is to be changed, it should be changed by giving players incentive to not blob - some sort of tactical advantage from splitting up your forces.
Implementing an illogical, fake "stacking penalty" system like this screams un-sandbox like and desperate. They were more prepared than you; they mustered up more might than you; why shouldn't they wipe the floor with you? |
Rel'k Bloodlor
Mecha Enterprises Fleet
55
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 15:03:00 -
[173] - Quote
Ya your right tanks taking heavy fire from multiple sources or ships taking heavy fire, or trucks, or...........the only things ever used on tanks are stealth bombers...................even though they couldn't hit a tank with there weapons..............and there payload over kills a tank................. Also consolidated fire is a common thing in modern warfare. Humans tend not to use it against other humans because we tank like **** so why wast the ammo. I'm sorry that you don't like human nature using the simplest and easiest tactics to succeed but changing core game mechanics will not change how people try to play. |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
38
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 15:08:00 -
[174] - Quote
Rel'k Bloodlor wrote:Ya your right tanks taking heavy fire from multiple sources or ships taking heavy fire, or trucks, or...........the only things ever used on tanks are stealth bombers...................even though they couldn't hit a tank with there weapons..............and there payload over kills a tank................. Also consolidated fire is a common thing in modern warfare. Humans tend not to use it against other humans because we tank like **** so why wast the ammo. I'm sorry that you don't like human nature using the simplest and easiest tactics to succeed but changing core game mechanics will not change how people try to play.
Wow, it's amazing how much utter garbage you just wrote there. Amazing. |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1267
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 15:08:00 -
[175] - Quote
Rel'k Bloodlor wrote:Ya your right tanks taking heavy fire from multiple sources or ships taking heavy fire, or trucks, or...........the only things ever used on tanks are stealth bombers...................even though they couldn't hit a tank with there weapons..............and there payload over kills a tank................. Also consolidated fire is a common thing in modern warfare. Humans tend not to use it against other humans because we tank like **** so why wast the ammo. I'm sorry that you don't like human nature using the simplest and easiest tactics to succeed but changing core game mechanics will not change how people try to play.
It is questionable.. majority of blob are carebears. They do it because its required .. Core "pvpErs" prefer real "fight" where the single pilot got its meaning. And they know what they are doing. They are good at it..
If the game-play was changed in the direction of "fun" than it could work. But many people take this game too seriously to allow something like fun into their "e-world"
Sure .. one of the most important rule for PvP is to know what and when engage .. and what you should avoid.. Getting upper hand is way for victory... But by adding "actuall competition" into the equation .. where some challenge is presented.. its more giving but less forgiving. People just try too hard to cut out the "challenge of combat" part .. and instead they are adding so called "meta-gaming" challenge.
PS. I am horrible pilot, i will always lose and die horribly. |
Grateler
The People's Liberation Front of Offugen
10
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 15:51:00 -
[176] - Quote
Why does this have to stop people fleeting ?
Why cant it jus tbe if you target an untargeted ship you do so at 100% speed, if you target a ship already tarteted you will target it at 101% speed, if it has 100 locks on it then its 200% etc
Doesnt matter if the ships doing the targetting are in the same fleet or not.
Or am I missing something obvious? |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1269
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 15:58:00 -
[177] - Quote
Grateler wrote:Why does this have to stop people fleeting ?
Why cant it jus tbe if you target an untargeted ship you do so at 100% speed, if you target a ship already tarteted you will target it at 101% speed, if it has 100 locks on it then its 200% etc
Doesnt matter if the ships doing the targetting are in the same fleet or not.
Or am I missing something obvious?
As i understand it its not about current locks on the target.. but about numbers which are currently locking said target.. So if 500 ships tries to lock one ship all of them will be penalized.. if the 10 people locks one target they do it at normal rate .. then other 10 people can lock it at same time window.. +/-
just as i understand it. |
Rel'k Bloodlor
Mecha Enterprises Fleet
56
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 16:20:00 -
[178] - Quote
Giving incentives to smaller groups will be the only successful way to brake up large fleets priming targets. Any form of decentive will just result in countering the penalty. This is why fleet fights are this big. The last time they did this they gave us the HP buff and now it takes even more ships for fights. Don't buy it look it up. Don't think concentrated fire is used on vehicles look it up. Don't think the easiest most efficient route will be used always buy a human, look it up. Think I'm a care bear, look it up. Think I fly in large groups, look it up. Or I guess we can just pretend that tomorrow if this happened the next day wouldn't be filled with new fleet fits full of Se Bo II's and Se Link II's, and fleet doctrine wouldn't change to locking up 4-6 targets instead of 2 at a time. |
Mirima Thurander
Sarajevo Syndicate True Reign
234
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 17:02:00 -
[179] - Quote
Rel'k Bloodlor wrote:Giving incentives to smaller groups will be the only successful way to brake up large fleets priming targets. Any form of decentive will just result in countering the penalty. This is why fleet fights are this big. The last time they did this they gave us the HP buff and now it takes even more ships for fights. Don't buy it look it up. Don't think concentrated fire is used on vehicles look it up. Don't think the easiest most efficient route will be used always buy a human, look it up. Think I'm a care bear, look it up. Think I fly in large groups, look it up. Or I guess we can just pretend that tomorrow if this happened the next day wouldn't be filled with new fleet fits full of Se Bo II's and Se Link II's, and fleet doctrine wouldn't change to locking up 4-6 targets instead of 2 at a time. '
u mad about something?
your posting seams like your mad someone is suggesting to change the way fighting is done away from the the now standard blob fighting we have now.
if you don't like this idea make your own to change the blob....
but i know the answer to that you don't want the blob to change its all you know how to do, and you all feel threatened by any change to the way fighting is done in YOUR world. no matter if its in the name of Fun.
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. |
Zyress
Deaths Head Brigade Gryphon League
22
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 19:07:00 -
[180] - Quote
On another note, does this effect the Passive targeting module? |
|
FeralShadow
CenGen Armament
32
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 19:34:00 -
[181] - Quote
It's funny, most of the posters who claim they don't support the idea all sound in their reasoning like: "HERP I DONT LIKE THINKING FOR MYSELF! THE BLOB IS PERFECT bECAUSE THE FC TELLS US WHAT TO SHOOT AND EVERYBODY SHOOTS IT THERES NO THINKING EXCEPT FOR FC. IF THE TACTICS WERE CHANGED TO BE MORE FUN AND ENGAGING I WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO SOMETHING AND I DONT LIKE IT DUURRRRR".
Ok well maybe not that many words. |
Mirima Thurander
Sarajevo Syndicate True Reign
234
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 03:20:00 -
[182] - Quote
WOW 5 hours wiht out a soul saying why this idea is TEH FAIL AND WONT FIX ARE BLOBS or someone trying to play dev and come up with a FLAWLESS IDEA,
so ever ones agrees to stick this out till the devs do something to curb the blobs are the answer to everything?
even if you don't like this idea and you don't like the blob you still need to put your support behind reducing the affect of 1000 VS 1 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. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
417
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 03:57:00 -
[183] - Quote
The zerg tactic combined with tank and spank is pretty lame. I hope something like this will be implemented and give rise to more tactics and maybe some actual strategy. Dare I say that squads and individuals might even begin to see their impact again? Ideas & Stuff EVE - the game of sand castles, either building them or kicking them down. -áStatus: Going phishing. |
Bernadea
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 05:03:00 -
[184] - Quote
Pinaculus wrote:After a little thought, it would probably be more effective to incrementally reduce a ship's effective sig based on the number of ships firing weapons at it such that after X number of attackers the aggregate dps is reduced to negate the rough dps of everything over X. This would mitigate the power of super blobs, but reward intelligent fleet composition, and still allow target painters to counteract the blob penalty to a degree.
Now you're moving in the right direction. |
IDN 20060377
The Dunamis Core
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 10:01:00 -
[185] - Quote
I wrote up a long and exhaustive post about how this could work (with some additional lag), but i got distracted and it refreshed the page on me.
I think the basic formula on how it could calculate it was like so
Base = Ship sensor strength * fleet status (1 alone, 2 fleet) Target time = (ship sig radius /10) * {[#locking(100)+#locked(50)] + [#Drone Locking(10)+Drone locked(5)]}* target fleet status (0.5 same fleet, 0.7 same alliance/corp, 1 alone, 2 fleet)
Calculates in Deciseconds
laggy, but worked more or less like so:
If your alone, and you target someone, you get a longer time if you were targeting something at the same time as something/someone else, then if you were targeting it alone. if you were in a fleet, it would take less time overall, but the more people that target one object, the more time it would take. if the target was in a fleet, but you weren't, it would take longer overall, with more time per target. if you were both in fleets, the benefits would balance out, but it would still take more time for every lock on the same target. if you were targeting someone in your fleet, the normal signals that pass between the ships would aid you in targeting, causing a shorter lock on time. With alliance/corp members outside a fleet, the bonus would carry, but be slightly reduced when out of fleet.
This would boost co-operative nature, while also encouraging people to make only one fleet, as the bonuses for not doing so are lessened for in alliance/corp, and dropped to nothing if not related. It would also discourage everyone targeting one target, unless they had a passive targeting module, which should allow them to bypass the target's locked/locking status, at the cost of greatly decreased range. The only negatives I could see to this would be someone using smart bombs, which would damage both sides indiscriminately, or people using a lot of sensor boosters, which would take from med slots.
The time would also be affected by things like target painters and such, but those usually require someone having targeted them in the first place.
As a note, math isn't my greatest subject, and thats just an example of how it could work. Also, it needs a bit of modification to calculate for ship size going up and down, as I had battleships in mind when I thought it up. (EX: easier to target a titan then a frigate while in a BS.) Also probably could use a mod to add in additional time for every additional target you, well, target.
tl;dr the summary would probably be longer, so read above
EDIT: I get the odd feeling I'm going to come back here with a more refined formula... EDIT2: I also seem to keep finding grammar errors in my post. |
seany1212
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
67
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 10:54:00 -
[186] - Quote
Mirima Thurander wrote:WOW 5 hours wiht out a soul saying why this idea is TEH FAIL AND WONT FIX ARE BLOBS or someone trying to play dev and come up with a FLAWLESS IDEA,
so ever ones agrees to stick this out till the devs do something to curb the blobs are the answer to everything?
even if you don't like this idea and you don't like the blob you still need to put your support behind reducing the affect of 1000 VS 1
Until they cant fit 1000 in system there will always be 1000vs1, you can reduce alliance size, corp size or even the amount in fleet but you'll always end up with blobs, its what wins space unfortunately. Also, slowing down lock time for everyone just drags out the battle, FC's will just call primary's, secondary's, tertiary's, etc. so that people will have the next target pre-locked and it still wont mean you wont get alpha'd, you can have 10 (insert logi of choice here) repping you but when everyone eventually locks, 1000 maelstroms will still alpha you |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1274
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 10:56:00 -
[187] - Quote
seany1212 wrote:Mirima Thurander wrote:WOW 5 hours wiht out a soul saying why this idea is TEH FAIL AND WONT FIX ARE BLOBS or someone trying to play dev and come up with a FLAWLESS IDEA,
so ever ones agrees to stick this out till the devs do something to curb the blobs are the answer to everything?
even if you don't like this idea and you don't like the blob you still need to put your support behind reducing the affect of 1000 VS 1 Until they cant fit 1000 in system there will always be 1000vs1, you can reduce alliance size, corp size or even the amount in fleet but you'll always end up with blobs, its what wins space unfortunately. Also, slowing down lock time for everyone just drags out the battle, FC's will just call primary's, secondary's, tertiary's, etc. so that people will have the next target pre-locked and it still wont mean you wont get alpha'd, you can have 10 (insert logi of choice here) repping you but when everyone eventually locks, 1000 maelstroms will still alpha you
And that is the marvel of it .. It does not nef anyone anywhere .. It just provides more complex code for engagements.. |
Wacktopia
Noir.
141
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 11:18:00 -
[188] - Quote
This is an awful idea. It really is. Putting in a mechanic like this will just introduce extra overheads on the server and annoy the hell out of everyone.
I'm not saying I'm against what this is trying to solve but no this way, really not this way. . |
Roosterton
Shattered Star Exiles SpaceMonkey's Alliance
238
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 16:05:00 -
[189] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
And that is the marvel of it .. It does not nef anyone anywhere .. It just provides more complex code for engagements..
Basically, this.
Not only is the idea fundamentally flawed - people are for some reason crying out to make the tactical element of the game more fun, while nerfing the strategic element - but it's not even going to succeed in its set goal to make the tactical element of the game more fun. Having a bigger fleet is still going to carry major advantages. People are still going to blob. You're still not going to take down 200 with 50 just because they're locking you at half the speed, unless you've won the strategic part of the game and arrived with a fleet composition that trumps theirs.
Strategy - the pre-battle preparation of fitting your ships and choosing your fights - always has and always will prevail over any weird tactical limitations that get imposed. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |