| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gungankllr
Caldari
STK Scientific
M. PIRE
   |
Posted - 2007.10.04 02:16:00 -
[1]
How about we throw some ideas around on ways that gameplay can be used to reduce lag in systems and have less people needed to win fights.
1. Overview settings: There is already a "Mining" and a "Standard" setting. Introduce a drop-down list of fleet settings. (The standard stuff we all do for less lag, just available to everyone in one click for the clicking impaired)
2. Victory Conditions: if anybody is familiar with the mechwarrior series, there was a system in place to limit losses and increase martial pride called "Batchall" where the defender states what they are defending with and the attacker "bids" to attack. Each player should represent a point value, with their shiptype added. Larger ship = more points. The winner of each specific fight, as decided by the victory conditions set forth in the system agreement, should get a bonus to something static, to be determined by CCP after balancing. The rewards would be along the lines of the loyalty point system, with larger rewards imbued based on the amount of points won.
3. Sabotage: small deadspace battlegrounds around POS moons that allow players to blow up anchoring points, or something along those lines. POS if sabotaged would lose a percentage of shields, or use more resources for a period of weeks, or have an incorrect stront timer. Only a specific number of friendly and hostile players would be able to enter at the same time. For instance, a friendly beacon would go up advising you that a hostile force had entered XXXX area. Based on right clicking, you would be able to see what the limitations were in that area and quickly assemble a gang to defend based on the deadspace restrictions.
I'm not saying sabotage should be able to completely be able to kill a POS, but it should be able to make things a little more interesting perhaps?
Anyhow, these are just a few ideas I came up with in the last 5 minutes, I'm sure there is more out there.
Do I think they are perfect? No, I don't. if you have thoughts or ideas please post and help CCP make things better.
|
BuIIseye
Amarr
Pax Amarria Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 02:56:00 -
[2]
Edited by: BuIIseye on 04/10/2007 03:01:05
The more people you cram in one system from your Gang and Nap/Friend list (add any posible work around), the more HP the neutral/hostile POS/Ship/Station Service has.
Might help, might not, maybe, only have this when the node needs to go into "reinforce mode" perhaps?
Also a "Loyality Sovereignty Point" system might be interesting, speeding up the sov level gain/contest in paralel with your fleets ship class's and numbers vs the opposing fleet.
That way it won't make sence to bring in people and stay afk or bring alot of throw-away cheap ships and such.
Also adding "Sov Imunity Days" when you have delivered a huge blow (killing loads dreads with a bunch of battleships) to the atacking force with lower numbers?
Ofc it all needs to be seriously balanced and thought thru to prevent any boarder-game mechanics advantage / exploit.
------------------------------
Yes i am hax0r
Because of the name I have a higher chance of a wrecking shot, please don't tell the GM's or they'll nerf me =/ |
gaz widdow
Caldari
FATAL Inquisition
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 04:17:00 -
[3]
Well one idea came to mind what about a time out so to speak, lose a ship a hour, a pod 24 hours, or on those lines.
This in my opinion has no effect on the initial battle but will make players think twice before going in, lets face it its a game of risk, if you lose a pod or ship your out for xx.xx amount of time also stops jumping back into what I call the lag lottery and making things worse.
My 2cents anyway not much and its a start and not to hard to apply I would imagine.
|
Pilk
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 05:05:00 -
[4]
Find a better way of determining sov than counting up large POS's.
--P
Kosh: The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. |
Cailais
Amarr
VITOC
Fang Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 09:29:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Pilk
Find a better way of determining sov than counting up large POS's.
--P
Exactly.
C.
- sig designer - eve mail |
Andargor theWise
Collateral Damage Unlimited
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 12:51:00 -
[6]
I think it's related to the code architecture. Making the client lighter and focused on combat might help.
I don't like tooting my own horn, but I have a suggestion to offload features from the client using the API and third-party apps. Link in sig.
-
Stop the Feature Glut: Take the API to the Next Level
|
Overqueen
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 14:24:00 -
[7]
How about a 24-hr delay between pod-death and clone activation?
Say there's 200-250 ships on each side in system, slugging it out with drones and fighters and what-not causing fps to drop closer to the fpm range. As the battle to see what is happening continues, one side gains an advantage and manages to kill more of their opponents. What happens? Their clone activates, they jump into another ship and go right back out to the fight.
With a 1-day delay, the player that was pod-killed cant get back into the game for a day. This cuts down on the fleet size by 1 player. Repeat 200 or 300 times and the lag in system should improve dramatically (until tomorrow).
And of course, how many egos would be bruised by being primaried in every engagement? You are eager to lose that decked-out Tech-II uber-DPS ship, but are you willing to lose a day of playtime? Will your gang/corp/alliance be able to live without you until your clone activates?
Just an idea :)
|
Pilk
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 18:22:00 -
[8]
Well, my serious suggestion from quite some time ago was to implement "bullet-time" when the server can't keep up.
For instance, if there are 400 billion drones on the field, and each second's-worth of drone interaction alone is taking three seconds to process, then make each second take four. Everybody slows down, the battle becomes more tactical rather than merely reactive, and module activation lag goes away completely. You're still dealing the same DoT, it just takes longer in RL time to do it. From a code perspective, this is stupidly-easy if the code's written well; you just change the length of ticks in the game (not OS!) kernel and everything sorts itself out from there.
The only downside I've thought up is that it allows for and encourages more micromanagement with all your free time, so it'll actually make the lag problem slightly worse, but I'd rather have slightly-worse lag and a playable game than the current situation in big fleet fights.
--P
Kosh: The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. |
Manufakturka
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 21:40:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Manufakturka on 04/10/2007 21:40:16
Pilk wins the cookie and a title of poster of the week.
Please, post your suggestion in SHC - this forum is nto read by anyone:(
|
Pilk
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.06 15:53:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Manufakturka
Edited by: Manufakturka on 04/10/2007 21:40:16
Pilk wins the cookie and a title of poster of the week.
Please, post your suggestion in SHC - this forum is nto read by anyone:(
Feel free to repost it on my behalf. I'm more interested in results than credit.
--P
Kosh: The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |