Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Wrong Wong
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 15:51:00 -
[1]
I would like to express an idea that could change how combat unfolds in EVE for the better. Please forgive me if this idea has already been done to death, as I don't have the time to research the forums.
It is mainly interested in increasing the duration of combat, since extra hit points did little to help this. This addition is proposed to prolong the battle phase, increase tactical game play, and to prevent "blobbing" to a major degree.
OK, the theory is tentatively named " SIGNATURE SATURATION "
Please feel free to add constructive comments, or simply rate (read:bump) the idea if you feel you may support it.
Simply put, SIGNATURE SATURATION - Limits the amount of ships that can lock onto a given targets signature radius.
This is not a hard given number of ships but rather a number derived from the number of ships and their SIZES.
For example: A battleship has a signature radius of 400, this allows 4 battleships each with a "Signature Acquisition Sensor Strength": (now referred to as SASS for the duration of this thread) of 100 each to lock and engage this battleship.
It could also mean that one battleship (100 SASS), 2 battle cruisers (75 SASS each) 4 cruisers (30 SASS each) 2 frigates (15 SASS each) to engage this battleship before its signature radius becomes SATURATED and a target lock can no longer be acquired.
Obviously the numbers are an example, and would have to go through intensive testing, but I feel this could also be used as a fine balancing tool, for example, to make ships such as HACS achieve the extra value they deserve over tier 2 battle cruisers, given their huge price difference, by taking advantage or their smaller SASS, thus allowing more of them to lock a target.
This would open up the combat model to a much greater degree of tactical game play, as Fleet Commanders (FC's) have to take note and balance how many ships they have on each target and their respective SASS figures or risk locking out the ships that may have a large tactical impact, such as tacklers, EW or heavy damage dealers.
It would also provoke a little more thought amongst FC's as to which target is actually viable for being called "primary" depending on his fleet ships available at the time, their sizes, and also which gang members will need specific primary, secondary, tertiary etc. targets, and whether they have room on the signature.
I realise this would effect large fleet warfare in a major way, as well as medium to large gangs, which I don't see as a bad thing at all. Small skirmish sized gangs may not be affected at all with a bit of planning, which is also intentional, rewarding small "ELITE" task forces.
No skills need to be added to the game (although they could be, e.g.: gang bonus to reduce SASS) and all ships original signature radius sizes could stay the same.
Please discuss, and either show your support, add to the idea, or challenge the idea through CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, thanks.
|
Eleana Tomelac
Gallente Through the Looking Glass
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 16:23:00 -
[2]
I idn't read all, but...
If a fleet was all locking each other, what would happen?
Limiting on gang is not an option, people would make several gangs and lock each other.
Then this fleet is invulnerable and when another comes, they just can't fight. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast !
Assault Frigates MK II |
Wrong Wong
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 16:47:00 -
[3]
Thanks for the reply and yes sorry about the longish post, I tried to keep it as concise as possible and still get my point across.
In regard to your query though: It doesn't really have a direct effect at a GANG or FLEET level as such, it effects ships individually, and how many individual ships can lock the one target, relative to their size (or roughly their destructive capacity).
So if there is one gang, or fifty, doesn't make a difference, the same number of ships can lock onto one individual ship.
|
Verys
The Black Ops Black Core Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 17:04:00 -
[4]
As the first replier posted this plan of yours has a major flaw which i like explain to you. The minimal that each ship can lock is say about 5 for an average if everyone locks a everyone in a fleet battle and has the ability to lock an enemy they saturate their own signals so that the enemy cant lock them.
BTW i dont know what this theory of yours is based on seeing as the signature radius is a wave of energy radiating from the ships modules and systems i would like to know exactely this theory of your would work.
Blobbing will never be prevented as it looks like now.
Supplier Class - Freighter XL |
Wrong Wong
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 17:32:00 -
[5]
OK, to clarify the SASS has absolutely no effect whatsoever on how many ships you can target as long as the targeted ship's sig radius isn't already saturated by other ships targeting computers.
And if you are looking for a roleplay/engineering explanation of how this signature becomes saturated it might be because too many incoming waves from allied electronic target acquisition sensors are scrambling the out-going waves of the target ships signature radius, making a reliable target lock impossible. The risk of targeting your own gang members sigs by mistake or even your own, makes your ships own electronics system abort targeting procedures on that particular target.
|
Javeoon
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 17:43:00 -
[6]
Not sure how this would reduce blobbing as lets say you have 200 person gang and for number purposes only 100 ships could lock onto a primary in the enemy fleet. All the FC would have to do is say, ok, wing 1 (100 people) shoot this guy, wing 2 shoot this guy. Granted takes more tactics, I'll give you that but blobbing will not be reduced.
|
Wrong Wong
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 18:29:00 -
[7]
Cheers mate for your input - to respond; I'd like to add that SASS could significantly reduce blobbing by allowing only about 4 large ships, 5-7 medium ships or about 8-13 small ships to lock an average sized large ship. (read: Battleship).
Obviously these numbers would need to be tweaked on a "per ship" level, as even I have a few ships that could tank this much damage without too much trouble; but to be fair these "tank" ships couldn't break a peanut!
The hint is in the "medium" ships :)
Without being rude, I might ask you to expand on how you think this model doesn't reduce blobbing, I don't quite understand what you are getting at. If you could add more info, I'm sure the EVE community would really appreciate it for the sake of the thread, and the game.
Blobbing can be cured... and quite easily, reduce the amount of ships that can shoot at the one INDIVIDUAL ship... it's simple really.
|
Rhaegor Stormborn
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 18:32:00 -
[8]
I like this idea, though it would have some issues, but it is not something which should be overlooked, those issues could be worked through.
Volition Cult Recruitment Post |
Wrong Wong
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 18:44:00 -
[9]
I agree it would have major issues; as stated ^ could be worked through.
Agree it would need massive community/player input and dev appreciation.
Agree it would add MASSIVE dimension to the combat model in EVE.
oh wait, nobody said that yet..
c'mon guys, add your creative input, think and expand :)
|
d3vo
The Core Doctrine Covenant of Prophecy
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 19:44:00 -
[10]
very interesting, this would make it very much more tactical but kind of hard to manage especially in fleet battles with over 100 ships looks fun though. it would prevent 20 ships pwning 1 ship at a time in a fleet battle or something like that
but one thought, what about logistic ships. if their gang mate is being targetd to the max signature saturation, then how would they beable to lock on to them and rep them?
|
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente Cadien Cybernetics
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 19:59:00 -
[11]
I would say it's a bit artificial. I'm all for reducing blobs and the effect of focused fire a bit. Why? Because normally line of sight would solve many current issues, but since LoS isn't implemented, a different way of adding tactics and complexity, a way to kinda 'fake' the effects of LoS, would be nice.
A similar approach has been suggested some time ago: signal interference. Signal interference would reduce scan resolution if many ships are close to one another and start to lock targets. The bigger the ship, the larger the interference radius and the stronger the interference. It would hardly be noticeable on small groups. But if for example 50 ships are tightly packed together and all of them start to lock onto some targets, their scan resolution would be significantly lowered. Why is it less artificial? Because LoS would have similar negative effects on a pack of ships. Not being able to shoot due to blocked LoS, having to maneuver into a better position, etc. All of that would cost precious time. And a (locking) time penalty is what signal interference would bring.
Big blobs would probably have to break up and employ more refined tactics. Small ships would get some advantage in this regard.
___________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well -
Please stop using the word 'nerf' Nothing spells 'incompetence' or 'don't take me serious' like those four letters |
Wrong Wong
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 20:09:00 -
[12]
d3vo, very nice thought! Much overlooked by myself and exactly the questions we need solutions for. Maybe we could not count SASS waves from allied gang members because they have the correct frequency modulation?! They have infinite access to target allied vessels? ... good call mate!
anyone?
|
Wrong Wong
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 20:12:00 -
[13]
Interesting, thanks Tarron, I'll have to look up this LoS theory.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 22:40:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Eleana Tomelac I idn't read all, but...
If a fleet was all locking each other, what would happen?
Limiting on gang is not an option, people would make several gangs and lock each other.
Then this fleet is invulnerable and when another comes, they just can't fight.
this can be easily solved just make you loose lokcign performance the more targets you haev locked as well.
So if you lock your gang mates you are neutralizing yourself. At end becomesa a rathert stupid strategy.
------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar The Unseen Company
|
Posted - 2008.02.23 01:04:00 -
[15]
Spider tanked carrier fleets become totally invincible - bad.
Locking allies becomes a valid and efficient defensive tactic - stupid.
Uber ships become more uber and noobs harassed by vets can do even less - bad.
It also does not solve any problems because there are no problems :)
Focused fire is not a problem. Its a proper tactic and its often nercesary against harder foe. Lack of good alternative tactical choices is a problem.
Blobs are not a problem. This is a natural result of having people available. You cannot solve blobs like you cannot "solve" peoples will to fight when its most needed. Lack of attractive tactically alternative formations and tasks for smaller fleets in territorial warfare is a problem.
|
Arcayan
|
Posted - 2008.02.23 02:46:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon Spider tanked carrier fleets become totally invincible - bad.
I was thinking this myself.
5 Battleships, each targetting the other 4 - following the example numbers used in the original post. None of the 5 Battleships can be targetted by anyone else, but each can target 3 enemy ships. They would be unstoppable. (CONCORD slaughtering runs for fun? lol)
This idea also ignores the concept of passive targeting modules which "Use advanced acoustical and visual targeting to identify threats." Although I'm not sure what kind of acoustics exist in space?
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |