| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ivy Axisur
   |
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:43:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Ivy Axisur on 06/06/2008 18:43:50
NERF Focused Fire
If I had to pick one issues with EVE to fix it would be this.
My suggestion is to nerf it in correlation to the weapon size of the attacker to the attacked.
How this would work:
EXAMPLE 1: Frigate vs. Battleship: Frigates would be able to attack in groups without being nerfed until their DPS is roughly equivalent to that of a Battleship. To avoid complex, on-the-fly server calculations and to endure proper effectiveness of quality configs; this would need to be a pre-determined number of attacking frigates based off standard T1 configs.
EXAMPLE 2: Battleship vs. Battleship: 2 Battleships attacking 1 the second would be nerfed by %50 a 3rd attacker by %75, 4th by 87.5% and so on. Still providing an advantage to focused fire, but not making it as much of a ôI winö button as it is right now.
As far as storyline goes, the nerf is attributed by conflicting targeting data as generated by multiple ships and ôstaticö caused by the volume of fire, thus degrading tracking accuracy.
Also this is probably how it should work. The nerf numbers arenÆt set in stone but rather a ever increasing chance of missing as attackers are stacked (nerf to targeting speed or sig rad).
|
Pezzle
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:48:00 -
[2]
I can appreciate the sentiment but this is really against the spirit of cooperative gaming. Not only that, it would be exploited :P No thank you =)
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:56:00 -
[3]
Don't think so.
|
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:58:00 -
[4]
Incredibly bad idea.
|
Ivy Axisur
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 19:02:00 -
[5]
You actually like the way it works right now or is it that my suggestion is technically/tactically unfeasible?
|
Fallorn
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 19:02:00 -
[6]
If a was a muggle I would post something like EPIC FAIL.
But I'm not so how about you get some friends and learn how to call primaries and stop whining.
Sig removed. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] with a link to your signature. - Elmo Pug
|
Windjammer
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 19:02:00 -
[7]
Not supported. I just don't think this is workable. Also, it's already in the game to a degree. The implementation is found in the higher tracking of small weapons, the speed differences between large and small targets, the size dependent target lock times, the decreased damage large missiles do to smaller targets, etc.
Best regards,
Windjammer
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 19:10:00 -
[8]
 Originally by: Ivy Axisur
You actually like the way it works right now or is it that my suggestion is technically/tactically unfeasible?
Both, actually. Big fleets aren't a bad thing, and I don't want to force everybody to go capital to dodge the nerf. Similarly, implementing it in a way that is both technically feasible and easy for players to understand, without producing perverse incentives or stupid outcomes is near-impossible.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Ivy Axisur
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 19:22:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Ivy Axisur on 06/06/2008 19:25:13
The last thing this game needs is more capitals.
On the contrary to your point, I think this would insure less capitals by making smaller ships more viable defensively. We already have tracking penalties which balance large vs small.
What was overlooked is how easy it is to ôAlphaö one target and simply eliminate it.
IÆve done this myself and had it done too me. ItÆs just not fun outside of controlled conditions like the tournament.
Also, IÆm not against large fleets. Although IÆve never participated in one myself, IÆd imagine my idea would work even better there, with squadrons and battle groups attacking in patterned formations, rather than everyone just eliminating 1 or 2 targets at a time then moving on to the next. ItÆs just lame combat IMO.
|
Dani Leone
A Dark Cloud
Unaffiliated
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 20:06:00 -
[10]
Against this personally.
-----------------------------
|
Yorda
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 20:32:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Ivy Axisur
Edited by: Ivy Axisur on 06/06/2008 19:25:13
The last thing this game needs is more capitals.
On the contrary to your point, I think this would insure less capitals by making smaller ships more viable defensively. We already have tracking penalties which balance large vs small.
What was overlooked is how easy it is to ôAlphaö one target and simply eliminate it.
IÆve done this myself and had it done too me. ItÆs just not fun outside of controlled conditions like the tournament.
Also, IÆm not against large fleets. Although IÆve never participated in one myself, IÆd imagine my idea would work even better there, with squadrons and battle groups attacking in patterned formations, rather than everyone just eliminating 1 or 2 targets at a time then moving on to the next. ItÆs just lame combat IMO.
This would be a terrible idea because motherships can hit 200k dps tanks and could just be completely indestructible solo (not to mention RR blobs).
Pretty terrible troll imo.
|
Allaria Kriss
Elipse Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 20:35:00 -
[12]
This just in. More damage = more damage.
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 20:35:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Ivy Axisur
Edited by: Ivy Axisur on 06/06/2008 19:25:13
The last thing this game needs is more capitals.
On the contrary to your point, I think this would insure less capitals by making smaller ships more viable defensively. We already have tracking penalties which balance large vs small.
What was overlooked is how easy it is to ôAlphaö one target and simply eliminate it.
IÆve done this myself and had it done too me. ItÆs just not fun outside of controlled conditions like the tournament.
Also, IÆm not against large fleets. Although IÆve never participated in one myself, IÆd imagine my idea would work even better there, with squadrons and battle groups attacking in patterned formations, rather than everyone just eliminating 1 or 2 targets at a time then moving on to the next. ItÆs just lame combat IMO.
Actually focus fire is a integral part of "combat" You focus on the target that will hurt you the most and work your way down.
|
Frecator Dementa
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 00:18:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Frecator Dementa on 07/06/2008 00:25:13
good idea, the numbers are just off
- assuming same ship sizes:
90% for the second ship
75% for 3rd
60% for 4th
50% for 5th
30% for 6th
25% for 7th and all subsequent ships focusing fire
- for BSs shooting frigates it should be more like:
50% for the second ship
25% for 3rd
15% for 4th
10% for 5th
5% for 6th and all subsequent ships focusing fire
the bigger the attacking ships compared to the target, the more "nerf" you get
-----------------------
forum ate my post again |
Frecator Dementa
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 00:21:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Frecator Dementa on 07/06/2008 00:22:10
Originally by: Yorda
This would be a terrible idea because motherships can hit 200k dps tanks and could just be completely indestructible solo (not to mention RR blobs).
Pretty terrible troll imo.
read the OP properly
smaller ships (BSs, dreads) will be able to gang up on larger ships without penalties. the nerf should only apply for same-size, or smaller-sized vessels
-----------------------
forum ate my post again |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 00:40:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Frecator Dementa
Edited by: Frecator Dementa on 07/06/2008 00:22:10
Originally by: Yorda
This would be a terrible idea because motherships can hit 200k dps tanks and could just be completely indestructible solo (not to mention RR blobs).
Pretty terrible troll imo.
read the OP properly
smaller ships (BSs, dreads) will be able to gang up on larger ships without penalties. the nerf should only apply for same-size, or smaller-sized vessels
Yes, because battleships have the firepower to take down capital spider tanks 
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Allaria Kriss
Elipse Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 03:53:00 -
[17]
Subcapitals have a hard enough time taking out carriers in Triage/dreadnoughts in Siege as it is, even if they're by themselves (I see this a lot on Sisi - It's doable, but it takes forever) and if you take away or limit their ability to focus huge amounts of damage on them, they'll never go down - It takes a few thousand DPS just to break these tanks.
If you don't want to get instapopped in a fleet battle, don't fly something that'll be called primary. 
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 03:58:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Allaria Kriss
Subcapitals have a hard enough time taking out carriers in Triage/dreadnoughts in Siege as it is, even if they're by themselves (I see this a lot on Sisi - It's doable, but it takes forever) and if you take away or limit their ability to focus huge amounts of damage on them, they'll never go down - It takes a few thousand DPS just to break these tanks.
If you don't want to get instapopped in a fleet battle, don't fly something that'll be called primary.
Yea she said she has never been in a fleet battle.
Originally by: Ivy Axisur
Also, IÆm not against large fleets. Although IÆve never participated in one myself, IÆd imagine my idea would work even better there, with squadrons and battle groups attacking in patterned formations, rather than everyone just eliminating 1 or 2 targets at a time then moving on to the next. ItÆs just lame combat IMO.
|
Tesseract d'Urberville
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 04:21:00 -
[19]
What do you see that needs rebalancing here? If you're able to outnumber your opponent, why shouldn't you be able to get the full advantage (and the opponent the full disadvantage) of your numbers?
---------------------------------
Thomas Hardy is going to eat your brains. |
Lucias Trask
Shadows of the Dead
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 06:19:00 -
[20]
no... you suck
THUMBS DOWN!!!
[PANIC] |
Lord WarATron
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 11:42:00 -
[21]
People focus fire because a ship with 1% structure is just as powerful as a ship with 100% shield/arm/struct.
If you are saying something like structure damage has modules being damaged and offlined, then that would be intresting. However current structure values are too low on current ships for that to matter.
--
Billion Isk Mission |
Beaverid Tesu
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 12:03:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Beaverid Tesu on 07/06/2008 12:03:19
This is so incredibly stupid. Are you the kind of kid that got double teamed in fist fights or something? If any nerf should happen it should be a nerf to the target ship. ie. being surounded by explosions and turned into swiss cheese by projectiles and lasers should make it harder to fire acurately on the other ships.
|
Frecator Dementa
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 16:51:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Yes, because battleships have the firepower to take down capital spider tanks
are you reading the post incorrectly on purpose ?
notice up there where I said DREADS should be able to shoot moms and titans without penalties? the purpose of the nerf is to protect SMALLER ships from focused fire.
the numbers are obviously pulled out of my ass, so there's really no need to go ballistic over them
-----------------------
forum ate my post again |
RuleoftheBone
Ataraxia.
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 22:23:00 -
[24]
This is an awful idea.
Focus fire is how small skilled gangs wipe the floor with larger gangs.
And how a few inty's can pick off BS's.
And vice versa....sometimes  .
I cannot believe this has even been suggested. If you don't like getting one-volleyed in crappy 0.0 blobfests fly small gang ops to appreciate the mechanic you are complaining about.
As far as storyline....if contemporary military forces can manage to correctly guage TOT and dump it all in the pickle barrel...I should think things would improve quite nicely in the future as far as "target designating" for fleet guns.
Get a quality target caller and do it to your OPPONENTS  .
"Lead Me..Follow Me..Or get the **** out of my way"
General George Patton USA
|
Adonis 4174
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 07:01:00 -
[25]
I can see the RL logic behind it. Two lumberjacks do not cut down a tree in half the time because they get in each other's way and have to coordinate their swings. Likewise, projectiles racing toward a ship can get in each other's way, lasers might catch on missiles heading towards the same target and if you blow a hole in a ship just as someone's shooting at that same spot then they're going to go straight through and hit nothing.
Game balance? Well, it seems it's focus-fire or lose these days. I can see the argument.
I do not however support nerfing focus fire against bigger ships. tiny little shells against a massive battleship have plenty of places to impact without getting in each other's way.
----
Infiniband can do more than just prevent lag |
GIGAR
Astrum Contract Services Group
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 08:10:00 -
[26]
So you're basically saying, if you have double the guns you don't have double the firepower?
Apart from that not making any sense AT ALL, it must be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard..
|
Jasharin
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 08:35:00 -
[27]
i wholeheartedly support this idea. it will help eliminate the blob warfare that is ruining eve online
|
EdFromHumanResources
BobFromMarketing's Alt
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 08:54:00 -
[28]
This would make a blob nearly unkillable, you wouldn't even have to call primaries anymore. A logistic ship here and there, a tank on every ship and bam, you're entire blob is unkillable barring lag.
-------------------------------------------------
Everyone hates goonswarm for one reason or another. ... And they promote****gotism -Zurrar
|
Grarr Dexx
Naval Protection Corp
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 09:24:00 -
[29]
Absolutely surrealistic, you should die a fiery death if you're being primaried, that's the whole point. If you don't want to lose your ship in pew pew anymore, go nano or go home.
|
Adonis 4174
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 10:12:00 -
[30]
I propose we get mythbusters in on this. They can have multiple remote-controlled trucks driving past multiple remote-controlled machine guns and see if the speed of stopping the trucks is directly proportional to the number of machine guns.
----
Infiniband can do more than just prevent lag |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |