Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jas Dor
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 15:16:00 -
[1]
When I started playing EvE we had ISS running for profit outposts. We had MC still doing there merc thing. The map was filled with alliances that might be blue to the guy next door but that was about it. If your alliance had 1200 guys you were a MAJOR power.
Fast forward to today. Seems the question isn't what corp are you in or even what alliance but what power block does your alliance belong to. Everybody's trying to put together a huge block of capships and supercaps.
I think alliances and power groups and capblobs are getting too big. I think CCP needs to do something about it. I don't think they're going to though until they end up with a major black eye (my guess is that factional warfare will end with some group moving in, taking over the thing, and telling everybody else that they are not allowed to play). Names, Dates, Times, Engagements, Losses, Op-Tempo or STFU! |
Sharp Feather
Gallente Ministry of Natural Resources OPUS Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 15:31:00 -
[2]
I totaly agree.
|
Gone'Postal
Minmatar Vengeance 8 Interceptors
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 15:34:00 -
[3]
How do you stop alliances making NAPs ?
A game like this powerblocks are unstoppable.
Hell even most forums users gave CCP hell until the released the skill that allowed alliances to grow in number IIRC.
Questions, Comments, Problems, Please address them to the CSM.. Now CCP Never have to visit the forum. -V8I-
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 15:40:00 -
[4]
well there is still my idea about making each lock on a ship take longer than the last based on how many ships the ship locking is locked on to and how many ships have locked to the target.
but this wouldn't stop cap blobs just in a way cap how many ships are useful in a fleet having a backup force, or 10 doesn't hurt no matter what CCP does.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 15:44:00 -
[5]
Neah, just decrease signature of target being fired on with each additional ship that fires, and add a ECM-like effect (much smaller random chance) the more people are firing. Basically, the more people fire, the longer it takes to lock a target, and the higher the chance for one of the firing ships to lose lock.
Anti-focus-fire method ? Check
1|2|3|4|5. |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 15:45:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Akita T Neah, just decrease signature of target being fired on with each additional ship that fires, and add a ECM-like effect (much smaller random chance) the more people are firing. Basically, the more people fire, the longer it takes to lock a target, and the higher the chance for one of the firing ships to lose lock.
Anti-focus-fire method ? Check
hmmm so it the sig would only get lower WHEN you fired?
because one of the issue with my idea someone pointed out was what is to stop friendly form locking each other.
|
Diek Ran
Amarr Autonums
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 15:46:00 -
[7]
Even if it may offend may capblob-lovers I have to say it:
A capship should still be an extraordinary ship like they were in the days they came up.
Limit the numer of capships so that it actually makes sense. Let's say something like
- only can fly capship when in ally - 1 capship per 100 ally members
This may not be easy to do (Logon/Logoff/Disconnect issues, peeps try to exploit it), but something has to be done.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 15:51:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Akita T on 05/05/2008 15:53:06
Yup, only actually shooting the ship lowers the sig in my proposal. To refine it further, you could also have the sig reduction / jam chance affected by actual number of weapons firing and weapon caliber (i.e. 8 small guns a lot more sig reduction than just 2 small guns, one large gun a lot more sig reduction than one small gun, and so on and so forth).
Of course, this also does mean you will lock a friendly that's already under fire slower. But only ships firing have a chance to lose lock on the target that's being fired upon. Therefore, if you have the friendly pre-locked, you have nothing to worry about (logistics A-OK).
Checks and balances
P.S. Capships would still be easily lockable by battleships when fired upon by a good deal of other capitals, but other capitals might start having problems locking and maintaining a lock on the primaried cap with this system. It promotes de-blobbing / spread-fire quite effectively (and ships attacking same-sized or higher-sized ships primarily too).
1|2|3|4|5. |
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 15:53:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Akita T Yup, only actually shooting the ship lowers the sig in my proposal. To refine it further, you could also have the sig reduction / jam chance affected by actual number of weapons firing and weapon caliber (i.e. 8 small guns a lot more sig reduction than just 2 small guns, one large gun a lot more sig reduction than one small gun, and so on and so forth).
Of course, this also does mean you will lock a friendly that's already under fire slower. But only ships firing have a chance to lose lock on the target that's being fired upon. Therefore, if you have the friendly pre-locked, you have nothing to worry about (logistics A-OK).
Checks and balances
Ill fire at my main with 6 noob alts in ibis with civvy gatling guns then
SKUNK
|
Emily Evermore
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 15:57:00 -
[10]
Why are you guys trying to go against the natural order of things? People will always group together like in RL.
|
|
Jimmae
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 16:00:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Gone'Postal How do you stop alliances making NAPs ?
A game like this powerblocks are unstoppable.
Hell even most forums users gave CCP hell until the released the skill that allowed alliances to grow in number IIRC.
Thats simply not true. Look at the North right now. Insurgency took space from the Northern napsters and is holding onto it. Major alliances united to drive them away and failed. The only thing they achieved is that Triumvirate and Phalanx Alliance who have been enemies of Insurgency before joined in on their side just to **** on the plate of the napsters.
The big blocks grow fat and lazy. Their numbers mean little. Their urge to fight is low. Thats why they nap everyone. When forced to fight they tend to crumble fairly quickly.
|
Everyone Dies
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 16:01:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Emily Evermore Why are you guys trying to go against the natural order of things? People will always group together like in RL.
dear ******** idiot go end yourself. EVE =/= RL.
|
Sabrin Kulu
Caldari Kismet Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 16:03:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Emily Evermore Why are you guys trying to go against the natural order of things? People will always group together like in RL.
Because in real life we don't lag when we group together. -----
|
Emily Evermore
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 16:06:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Sabrin Kulu
Originally by: Emily Evermore Why are you guys trying to go against the natural order of things? People will always group together like in RL.
Because in real life we don't lag when we group together.
Oh we don't? Have you ever been in automobile traffic or leave a large national sporting event?
|
Scoutette
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 16:09:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Akita T Yup, only actually shooting the ship lowers the sig in my proposal. To refine it further, you could also have the sig reduction / jam chance affected by actual number of weapons firing and weapon caliber (i.e. 8 small guns a lot more sig reduction than just 2 small guns, one large gun a lot more sig reduction than one small gun, and so on and so forth).
Even with this balancing point you would not prevent abuse.
Alt with long range turrets oribitting your main at high speed and close range would give you a damage free reduction to your sig radius. The activated turrets would reduce the sig radius, further ensuring that they would miss because of tracking.
You also need to concider the effect of logistics and tanking. If a ship cannot be killed within the cycle time of a remote rep then it could be possible to keep the ship alive by using blob-logistics.
Attempting to cap how fast a ship can be killed by a blob will not solve the blobbing problem anyways. At best it would encourage FC to manage and spread their firepower better. The bigger fleet still maintains an advantage over a smaller one, thus blobbing continues.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 16:18:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Scoutette Alt with long range turrets oribitting your main at high speed and close range would give you a damage free reduction to your sig radius. The activated turrets would reduce the sig radius, further ensuring that they would miss because of tracking.
Easily solved by only counting hits that connect as "guns firing"
Quote: You also need to concider the effect of logistics and tanking. If a ship cannot be killed within the cycle time of a remote rep then it could be possible to keep the ship alive by using blob-logistics.
And you'd need to actually use EWar to break the logistics blob, and since the target is under fire, re-acquiring it would give you enough time to eliminate it. It significantly boosts the effectiveness of EWar boats in fleet combat, a role where they lacked badly (mainly because of how fast they can be primaried and killed, but alas, with this change, they actually have a chance to survive).
Quote: Attempting to cap how fast a ship can be killed by a blob will not solve the blobbing problem anyways. At best it would encourage FC to manage and spread their firepower better. The bigger fleet still maintains an advantage over a smaller one, thus blobbing continues.
Of course the blobbing will continue, there's absolutely no question there. But at least fighting in a blob-vs-blob WILL be a bit more fun than just "all 200 ships, primary X, fire"... and poor pilot X goes home.
1|2|3|4|5. |
Frug
Repo Industries R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 16:19:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Le Skunk
Ill fire at my main with 6 noob alts in ibis with civvy gatling guns then
Good luck with that. Are you going to bring 6 noob alts for every ship in your fleet or have even a quarter of the ships in your fleet constantly being shot at by alts to reduce the sig radius by some inconsequential amount?
Have fun managing 6 accounts warping and targeting you constantly just for that. I don't think that would be an issue. As I understand the proposal, 6 ships won't make much difference.
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles |
spanky herman
Gulfonodi Industries
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 16:22:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Jas Dor
I think alliances and power groups and capblobs are getting too big. I think CCP needs to do something about it.
Jove's gone wild "the slaughter in New Eden" ? ? ? ?
|
Rib0
coracao ardente Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 16:33:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Akita T Neah, just decrease signature of target being fired on with each additional ship that fires, and add a ECM-like effect (much smaller random chance) the more people are firing. Basically, the more people fire, the longer it takes to lock a target, and the higher the chance for one of the firing ships to lose lock.
Anti-focus-fire method ? Check
like this alot, only problem i can see is that you might see gangs of highly tanked (faction/officer gear, t2 impants) being truly invincible? ie, say damage became neglible above 10 ships firing, a golem can be fitted to tank 5k dps easy enough thus no number of 500 dps would ever be able to kill it. im sure you could work out a solution to this issue however.
|
Gone'Postal
Minmatar Vengeance 8 Interceptors
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 16:37:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Jimmae
Originally by: Gone'Postal How do you stop alliances making NAPs ?
A game like this powerblocks are unstoppable.
Hell even most forums users gave CCP hell until the released the skill that allowed alliances to grow in number IIRC.
Thats simply not true. Look at the North right now. Insurgency took space from the Northern napsters and is holding onto it. Major alliances united to drive them away and failed. The only thing they achieved is that Triumvirate and Phalanx Alliance who have been enemies of Insurgency before joined in on their side just to **** on the plate of the napsters.
The big blocks grow fat and lazy. Their numbers mean little. Their urge to fight is low. Thats why they nap everyone. When forced to fight they tend to crumble fairly quickly.
please explane how any of your post stopped the naps ?
it wasn't about taking space from naped alliances, it was about the NAP being there in the 1st place.
Questions, Comments, Problems, Please address them to the CSM.. Now CCP Never have to visit the forum. -V8I-
|
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 16:38:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Rib0 like this alot, only problem i can see is that you might see gangs of highly tanked (faction/officer gear, t2 impants) being truly invincible? ie, say damage became neglible above 10 ships firing, a golem can be fitted to tank 5k dps easy enough thus no number of 500 dps would ever be able to kill it. im sure you could work out a solution to this issue however.
Further counter, as time progresses, the sig reduction and de-targetting power could decrease slowly
1|2|3|4|5. |
Jimmae
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 16:39:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Gone'Postal
please explane how any of your post stopped the naps ?
it wasn't about taking space from naped alliances, it was about the NAP being there in the 1st place.
Please explain to me where I claimed it would.
|
Scoutette
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 16:43:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Akita T Of course the blobbing will continue, there's absolutely no question there. But at least fighting in a blob-vs-blob WILL be a bit more fun than just "all 200 ships, primary X, fire"... and poor pilot X goes home.
The point I was trying to make, is that your mechanic doesn't really accomplish this.
All 200 ships get their lock, and then fire after they have their lock.
Either the target goes pop instantly, or the reduced sig radius nerfs tracking enough that nobody can hit any more.
The question then is how much DPS can be delt to a target at once before their sig radius is reduced to the point where no more damage can be delt?
If you set that limit too high, the DPS still allows for insta-popping targets, which defeats the purpose of making the change in the first place.
If you set that limit too low, it might be possible to tank that DPS either using highend solo tanks or logistics.
So the problem becomes the delicate balancing of how much DPS is too much and how much is not enough.
If you just want to ensure that people don't go home too soon, give ships a delayed death: let them continue shooting and being shot for a few seconds after they are dead. The better skilled fleet will move onto the next target after the ship is doomed. Less skilled fleets will waste DPS shooting an already dead ship.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 16:51:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Scoutette All 200 ships get their lock, and then fire after they have their lock. Either the target goes pop instantly, or the reduced sig radius nerfs tracking enough that nobody can hit any more.
Then you misunderstood something. As each ship starts firing (server-side you get each turret shot computed individually), sig radius starts decreasing, hit chance decreases therefore quality of hits decreases, and each additional shot fired brings an increasing chance of losing the lock instead of actually shooting the next gun... the next volley, the "unlock" chance is equally high for the remaining firing ships, and more of them lose locks... those that lost lock have to re-target, and it takes longer to target since primary now has a smaller sig... it effectively "stacking-nerfs" incoming DPS in a fluid manner.
Now, the trick is to balance the sig decrease and "jam chance" well enough so the target can still be killed in a timely fashion if unassisted, but is hard to kill if assisted (as time goes on, it gets easier to put in more DPS, but the logistics guys also have more chances to put repping power on it, and the enemy EWar has to focus on logistics disruption and so on).
1|2|3|4|5. |
Ashina Sito
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 16:56:00 -
[25]
Battle of Agincourt, Lag in real life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt
|
Scoutette
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 16:59:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Akita T Now, the trick is to balance the sig decrease and "jam chance" well enough so the target can still be killed in a timely fashion if unassisted, but is hard to kill if assisted (as time goes on, it gets easier to put in more DPS, but the logistics guys also have more chances to put repping power on it, and the enemy EWar has to focus on logistics disruption and so on).
Ya, I missed the part about jamming and was just think of the effect of reduced sig radius.
To me it still sounds far to complicated to balance effectively.
Unless someone takes the time to work out all of the details and possibilities with that mechanic, I don't see it as being practical.
There is something to be said for keeping it simple.
|
000Hunter000
Gallente Missiles 'R' Us
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 17:01:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Diek Ran Limit the numer of capships so that it actually makes sense. Let's say something like
- only can fly capship when in ally - 1 capship per 100 ally members
Erm... can i have my skilltime and investment back then please? _______________________________________________________ CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!!
|
Gone'Postal
Minmatar Vengeance 8 Interceptors
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 17:02:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Jimmae
Please explain to me where I claimed it would.
you never did, I stated that powerblocks AKA making naps is unstoppable, you stated that it wasn't true and proceeded to ramble on about how one alliance took space from another using pew pew.
you disagreed with me, showed no proof and had a ramble. I was just interested in why my statement is "Simply not true" if you disagree then i'm all up for a discussion but to disagree then just ramble on about something is kinda.. meh.
Questions, Comments, Problems, Please address them to the CSM.. Now CCP Never have to visit the forum. -V8I-
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 17:03:00 -
[29]
I started playing eve in 2004 and let me tell you it was a whole different game back then. We'll always look back on our early years with nostalgia, it's only natural. When I started playing, eve was a very peaceful place compared to today. We had our share of corporate wars but 0.0 was very empty. In my early times, I went down to 0.0 in a thorax with mining lasers on and joined in an ad-hoc group mining event with a few pilots. We mined Crokite in Delve (long before the blood raiders moved in) and at the time there was either an NPC station or an open-access conquerable station there. I think the space was controlled by a group called CFS or something along those lines. They allowed the space to be open to all pilots as long as they followed certain rules like leaving 500 ore in each asteroid.
Everyone was on a rush to get into a battleship back then. This was before capital ships, tier 3 battleships, battlecruisers, destroyers and tech 2 ships or modules were in the game. The only tech 2 module at the time was the Miner II. There weren't many (or any, I don't recall) missions to do and the main thing corps did was work together to get everyone geared up and then go to war over silly reasons for fun. For the most part, we had to make our own fun and one of my earliest in-game memories was making up my own profession. Everyone else was content to mine scordite but I was out brokering in real estate. I would buy up labs and offices, then arrange with people to unrent them after they'd paid a fee.
We didn't have POS or outposts at the time and I can say for sure that I'm disappointed I didn't get involved in PvP back then. The game started getting more and more complex over time and it wasn't really needed. New ship categories, new modules, dozens of new tech 2 ship varieties and tech 2 equipment came out of nowhere and the face of PvP changed. Aguably it changed for the better but I can't help but think it would have been nice to get involved before all of that.
I could go on and probably will later but I think that's enough for one post.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Diek Ran
Amarr Autonums
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 17:13:00 -
[30]
Originally by: 000Hunter000 Erm... can i have my skilltime and investment back then please?
Nobody wants to give that up, sure. But 30 vs 30 capships and nothing else just doen't feel right somehow.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |