| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Ardamalis
Vanguard Corp Bounty Hunters
46
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 06:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
I searched around and I'm surprised that a topic on this hasn't been made already, but one of the things announced in the modules presentation was the concept of a target breaker module. Here is a quick run down of how it works:
Each time the module cycles, it has a % chance to break and reset all other target locks on your ship from other ships. This % chance is extremely low, but for each additional ship that locks your own ship, the target breaker has a bigger % chance of breaking and resetting everyone's lock on you. So if you're fighting one person, chances are the module will have negligible effect. If there are 200 people in a massive fleet fight targeting you, then you're likely to almost always reset their locks.
This sounds like it will have a huge impact on major fleet fights. It will become extremely impractical to fight by just primarying one target. My only concern is that capital ships should be excluded from fitting this module (or have a capital variant with much lower percent chance). Other than that, I'm excited.
What does everyone else think? |

Sin Meng
Synergetics
42
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 07:12:00 -
[2] - Quote
This pleases me. Elements of the past and the future combining to make something not quite as good as either. |

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
1006
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 07:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
My first thought is that large long engagements are now going to be large really, really long engagements.
Mr Epeen  Me too!-á I ate one sour, too! |

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
425
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 07:18:00 -
[4] - Quote
Sounds like a good idea. Might not be a bad idea with no module involved, just as a way to reduce the use of calling primaries and its effectivness. |

Solstice Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
1450
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 07:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
We already have this, it's called ECM Burst. Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |

Ardamalis
Vanguard Corp Bounty Hunters
46
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 07:30:00 -
[6] - Quote
Solstice Project wrote:We already have this, it's called ECM Burst.
Edit: Oh and, the ECM Burst also has a higher chance of breaking locks when more ships locked you, simply because there are more ships ...
They don't have the same functionality or role. Ecm Bursts only removes a few locks on you and any other targets they have locked within a small radius; the target breaker breaks every lock only on you.
Activate an ecm burst and you're still going to die in 2 seconds. Unless of course, you're flying in the middle of a giant sphere of blaster boats. |

Kain De'Stroi
Spiritus Draconis
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 07:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
anti blob module? 
<3 ! |

Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2132
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 07:39:00 -
[8] - Quote
Sounds like alpha strike is still king...one shot their ship before their shiny new lock breaker module can cycle. The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |

Endeavour Starfleet
725
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 07:41:00 -
[9] - Quote
An interesting concept. Done right it would ruin alpha fleets and bring back the roles of the older days. Done wrong and it will make some targets practically invincible.
Fine line between the two. |

Endeavour Starfleet
725
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 07:42:00 -
[10] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Sounds like alpha strike is still king...one shot their ship before their shiny new lock breaker module can cycle.
Depends on how fast it cycles. And If it is really cycle based by the time it hits TQ |

Ardamalis
Vanguard Corp Bounty Hunters
46
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 07:42:00 -
[11] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Sounds like alpha strike is still king...one shot their ship before their shiny new lock breaker module can cycle.
The announcer at the presentation didn't state it directly, but he made it sound like targets currently in the process of locking you count too (which, imho, would be a necessity if this is to work properly).
Also the stats of the module are not announced yet. We have no clue what the cycle time or what kind of slot this takes but we can still give feedback. |

Solstice Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
1450
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 07:48:00 -
[12] - Quote
Oh well, then.... i'll take it ! :D
Edit: Two !! Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |

DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
983
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 07:51:00 -
[13] - Quote
I don't remember seeing this... got a pic? It does sound interesting, though. The more modules the better, IMO. |

Ardamalis
Vanguard Corp Bounty Hunters
46
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 07:55:00 -
[14] - Quote
DarkAegix wrote:I don't remember seeing this... got a pic?
The guy running the presentation only had a slideshow with text (except for 2 pictures of the upcoming salvage drone). It was the "Brave New Module" presentation I think.
From it we had: - Microjump drives (warps you 110km in the direciton you're facing after a spool up time) - Salvage drones - modules that increase drone damage - extreme rigs (gives a much higher boost to a stat but also a much higher penalty, specifically he mentioned a 75% targetting range increase rig for frigates) - adaptive hardeners (gives +resists all across the board but much less than an invulnerability field, these resists adapt to incoming damage with each cycle and increase the resist in the categories of damage you've recently taken and decrease resists in other areas to compensate) - fuel shield booster (this shield booster uses fuel from your cargohold instead of capacitor) - changes to cap batteries (they now have a % stackable chance to reflect enemy nos and neuts against the enemy user)
There were also possible changes to the meta system announced. CCP wants to make it so that higher meta doesn't necessarily always equal more raw overall power (still could) but instead offers a very different role. For example imagine a higher meta microwarpdrive with much less cap usage but less speed boost. Same overall mechanics but a very different end result when it comes to fittings.
Something that just came to my mind is, should and will drone, fighter, and fighter bomber target locks on you count?
It would be nice is smaller ships could have less of an effect. Like 1 battleship lock is equal to 3 target locks of a frigate. Drones have an extremely small effect on the % chance increase. |

Large Collidable Object
morons.
1222
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 08:02:00 -
[15] - Quote
I love the idea - anything that helps moving fleet fights away from the horrendous ctrl click primary hit f1 idiocy is great.
However this may be a bit problematic with titans and supers where successfully taking the sip down requires a huge amount of players to lock the target (provided anyone still flies titans and supers when it comes out due to goons nerfing them beyond uselessness). morons- sting like a butterfly and-ápost like a bee. |

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3467
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 08:09:00 -
[16] - Quote
Any thing else from the presentation?
|

Xiode
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 08:14:00 -
[17] - Quote
Exactly what a drakefleet needs.  |

Ardamalis
Vanguard Corp Bounty Hunters
46
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 08:18:00 -
[18] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Any thing else from the presentation?
I edited the main post with a list of everything I remember. |

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
259
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 08:41:00 -
[19] - Quote
Xiode wrote:Exactly what a drakefleet needs.  It would be bloody great, we'd **** off so many people by running around and constantly breaking anyone who tried to lock.
It's a killmail tease. Take all the tech Build all the titans Drop all the POSes
Bees incoming, nerf ERRYTHING ERRYDAY |

Nairb Hig
Feathered Exploration
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 08:58:00 -
[20] - Quote
I like anything that is anti-blob. I would be concerned about implementation and balancing, as usual, but by merely suggesting this module they show what they are thinking about. Which pleases me. |

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3467
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 09:18:00 -
[21] - Quote
Just saying they had it on the fan fest schedule and skipped it.
Anyone else want to fillin the blanks for him?
|

ElQuirko
Gravit Negotii Rogue Elements.
456
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 09:24:00 -
[22] - Quote
Stealth sniperfleet warfare enrichment?
MJDs - jump towards the snipers that are offgrid MJD bubble - stop jumping towards the snipers once the enemy have taken the bait and are shooting at prophecies with huge brick buffers and can't warp due to bubbles Lockbreaker - targets being sniped at have an opportunity to escape Active hardener - allows the sniper fits to cram more damage lowslots in due to no need for multiple hardeners
If we distribute pictures of people, does that mean God can file copyright claims under SOPA? |

IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid Iron Oxide.
109
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 09:38:00 -
[23] - Quote
Nice, so surely it just becomes a race as to who gets the first lock after the cycle, hostile fleet or friendly logi?
I don't really see the point to be honest, a larger fleet can still split its fire.
Also in before
"I'm primary! need locks" "USE BROADCAST FOR LOCKS! FFS" *friendly fleet locks* /target break
|

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3467
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 09:44:00 -
[24] - Quote
Mind you this has a RoF.
|

Morgan North
The Wild Bunch Electus Matari
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 09:44:00 -
[25] - Quote
If I was there I would've asked this (And if a Dev look at this question maybe he can respond :) ):
Why for shield boosters, which naturally should use cap, and not for armor repairers, that evidently need material to replace the damage? |

Zoe Decay
Temporal Logistics
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 09:47:00 -
[26] - Quote
Break the blob at all costs. I approve of this change. |

Trading Unknown
Republic University Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 10:07:00 -
[27] - Quote
Quote:What does everyone else think?
FOF MISSALES!! |

Di Mulle
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 10:26:00 -
[28] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote: However this may be a bit problematic with titans and supers where successfully taking the sip down requires a huge amount of players to lock the target (provided anyone still flies titans and supers when it comes out due to goons nerfing them beyond uselessness).
It was clearly noted - not usable by caps.
CCP is unable to implement simpliest things. Like settting to hide signatures. So they sweep it under a rug . Children do that in their pre-shool years, CCP does it being adults. Probably because it is fearless enough. |

Skorpynekomimi
Omega Vector
154
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 10:30:00 -
[29] - Quote
So, do we get a lock warning alarm other than auto target back to go with this thing? |

Roime
Shiva Furnace
308
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 10:40:00 -
[30] - Quote
All those new modules sound very nice indeed!
Mmmm Drone dmg mods <333
Target Breaker will require a lot of mass testing to see how it really works. Alphaing primaries is the one mechanic that keeps me strictly focused on small gang pvp. I'd love to take part in huge space battles, but the reality of them doesn't sound so romantic as my mental image. |

Revolution Rising
Gentlemen of Better Ilk
115
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 10:42:00 -
[31] - Quote
I think it would be OMFGWTFBBQ awesome to get rid of the entire idea of... primaries. 
I know right.
But, engagements would be far far far more fun. Smaller gangs working together as part of a larger fleet taking down ships they are designed to take down perhaps ?
I think that would be awesome to not just be one cog in someone's machine that just targets what they are told to and hit f1 - it is boring as hell.
My EVE YouTube Channel |

Tobiaz
Spacerats
59
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 10:47:00 -
[32] - Quote
Nairb Hig wrote:I like anything that is anti-blob. I would be concerned about implementation and balancing, as usual, but by merely suggesting this module they show what they are thinking about. Which pleases me.
Best anti-blob measure would be nerfing strategic projection of forces: ie. nerfing warpspeed, cutting highway gates and increasing fuelcosts for jumpbridges and such. It's the main reason for the players' ability to blob.
This module might affect the tactics of fighting against a blob a bit, but it will be extremely hard to balance between 'must-have' and 'useless', and it won't, not even in the slightest, reduce players blobbing up.
I like it though. It will lessen alpha (though a good FC will just stagger his primary call to counter it), smaller ships will be a bit more effective in big fights, and perhaps people will stop whining about ECM and focus on this for a while about how it messes with their DPS. http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |

Savage Creampuff
Ion Corp. Citex Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 10:50:00 -
[33] - Quote
+1 for friendly locking |

Trading Unknown
Republic University Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 10:58:00 -
[34] - Quote
Skorpynekomimi wrote:So, do we get a lock warning alarm other than auto target back to go with this thing?
You can watch your overview. :P |

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1076
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 11:01:00 -
[35] - Quote
This is on the stream right now. Up to part 2, talking about what they're actually doing.
|

Sendo Jarix
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 11:06:00 -
[36] - Quote
The problem with this is how do you balance it to scale from 30 people all the way up to 1000 ?
Secondly maximum TiDi fights get rather tedious as it is with how long they last, this is just going to result in less people dying over even longer periods. That said though they were pretty clear these are all work in progress and may not show up at all not much point worrying about it till it hits SiSi. |

gfldex
395
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 11:33:00 -
[37] - Quote
Before Target Breaker you have to one volley ships in fleet fights because of tons and tons of logis. After Target Breaker you will have to one volley ships in fleet fights because of tons and tons of logis. The game has a tutorial that gives you a mining laser and a railgun and tells you to go shoot rocks and red crosses. It teaches you nothing else. It's been that way for 8 years, so are you really surprised that there are people who aren't aware that this is a pvp game? --Jafit McJafitson |

Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
908
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 11:39:00 -
[38] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:My first thought is that large long engagements are now going to be large really, really long engagements. Mr Epeen 
That's exactly my thoughts too. If it changes the "one shot" concept (bye artillery?) it only helps logistics making fights looooong.
|

Tobiaz
Spacerats
60
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 11:40:00 -
[39] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Before Target Breaker you have to one volley ships in fleet fights because of tons and tons of logis. After Target Breaker you will have to one volley ships in fleet fights because of tons and tons of logis.
*cough* ECM *cough*
http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |

Cindy Marco
Expanse Security
67
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 11:50:00 -
[40] - Quote
I don't think the lock breaker will make much of a difference. It would have been useful before TIDI, but these days you can reasonably expect that the server will actually accept commands.
If anything, alpha will matter more. Now you will just start locking later, so your guns are ready to cycle when you lock. With your guns already active, they fire immediately upon locking. Hence, no chance for the module to break your lock. If your fleet has high alpha you pop the ship before a 2ed volley would be needed anyway. |

Serene Repose
Perkone Caldari State
391
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 11:55:00 -
[41] - Quote
Nothing for nothing. So...an item that makes all other targeted modules ineffective. BUT, it only works when you're in the large alliances...kinda like war dec mechanics...you have to be able to AFFORD to war dec Goonwaffles now...
Welp. Why not? Leave people sitting around picking their bellybutton lint long enough and they'll suddenly think of something!
Maybe that's not such a good idea. One thing's for sure about all this NEW EVE genius - nothing for nothing.
What're they going to call this new game, or are they keeping the old name?
Smokestack lightnin' shinin' just like gold. |

ElQuirko
Gravit Negotii Rogue Elements.
458
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 12:06:00 -
[42] - Quote
Serene Repose wrote:Nothing for nothing. So...an item that makes all other targeted modules ineffective. BUT, it only works when you're in the large alliances...kinda like war dec mechanics...you have to be able to AFFORD to war dec Goonwaffles now...
Or you can just go shoot them and take sov in null without paying for anything and still have no repercussions?
If we distribute pictures of people, does that mean God can file copyright claims under SOPA? |

Ardamalis
Vanguard Corp Bounty Hunters
49
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:23:00 -
[43] - Quote
Morgan North wrote:If I was there I would've asked this (And if a Dev look at this question maybe he can respond :) ):
Why for shield boosters, which naturally should use cap, and not for armor repairers, that evidently need material to replace the damage?
Although not explicitly stated, its not hard to imagine that they have an armor and hull variant in the works also. They just gave a brief overview of what new concepts they're currently considering. |

Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
1330
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:27:00 -
[44] - Quote
CCP stated outright that they are introducing new modules to the game. THIS WILL BREAK THE GAME AS WE KNOW IT! This is not a bad thing. This makes new fits and new fleet compositions instead of being the dull same old same old that it is right now. Just because it breaks how the current game works does not mean it will not be a better game in the long run. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!! |

Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
42
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 15:01:00 -
[45] - Quote
Anti-blob module that also benefits the blob .. going to be a Must HaveGäó I fear. Just hope it is a high-slot module or it will be yet another indirect nerf to Amarr's midslot deficient lineup.
Questions: - Will super-capitals be prohibited from using it? - Will drone locks count? Big enough swarm and module user is effectively invulnerable to drone damage, could be an awesome counter for Dreads against SCs. |

IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid Iron Oxide.
110
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 16:35:00 -
[46] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Anti-blob module that also benefits the blob .. going to be a Must HaveGäó I fear. Just hope it is a high-slot module or it will be yet another indirect nerf to Amarr's midslot deficient lineup.
Questions: - Will super-capitals be prohibited from using it? - Will drone locks count? Big enough swarm and module user is effectively invulnerable to drone damage, could be an awesome counter for Dreads against SCs.
Why rely on hostiles using drones? logistics drones require a lock, have everyone deploy 5 small armor bots on the friendly primary and he could easily have 2000 locks just from friendly ships, would probably give him a guaranteed lock-break |

Ardamalis
Vanguard Corp Bounty Hunters
49
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 16:37:00 -
[47] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Anti-blob module that also benefits the blob .. going to be a Must HaveGäó
Only for massive fleet fights of hundreds of people. Chances are though, only half of the people in your fleet need to actually have one; the rest can get away with it. Being frustrating in every other primary is enough of a deterrent to prevent overwhelming focus fire.
Questions:
Veshta Yoshida wrote:- Will super-capitals be prohibited from using it?
According to another poster, it was said to be restricted from capitals. Carriers and dreads could still feasibly be allowed to use this module imho.
Veshta Yoshida wrote:- Will drone locks count? Big enough swarm and module user is effectively invulnerable to drone damage, could be an awesome counter for Dreads against SCs.
Unknown but imho it would be nice if they still counted percentage wise but had a much smaller effect than a ship lock. |

Kattshiro
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 16:44:00 -
[48] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote:I love the idea - anything that helps moving fleet fights away from the horrendous ctrl click primary hit f1 idiocy is great.
However this may be a bit problematic with titans and supers where successfully taking the sip down requires a huge amount of players to lock the target (provided anyone still flies titans and supers when it comes out due to goons nerfing them beyond uselessness).
Hope to god it wont be able to be fit on anything above a BS... That or you're going to need to bring a lot more dread to the fight and split it.
Also MAKE THIS MOD FIT IN A HIGH SLOT!! |

Ardamalis
Vanguard Corp Bounty Hunters
49
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 16:52:00 -
[49] - Quote
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:Why rely on hostiles using drones? logistics drones require a lock, have everyone deploy 5 small armor bots on the friendly primary and he could easily have 2000 locks just from friendly ships, would probably give him a guaranteed lock-break
This has been the issue with other proposals involving changes to targeting mechanics but I think this module idea that CCP is considering skirts around the issue quite elegantly.
If everyone can't primary one target, then dps is being split--multiple ships are being hit at once. Remember, this module only breaks locks, you can retarget easily. Unless a fleet has "hive mind-like" characteristics, its going to be next to impossible to lock everyone whose tank is breaking. This module would break the locks of friendly ships and those friendly ships would be constantly retargeting other friendly ships which takes an impossible of coordination to use effectively. The fleet can't keep up with 20, 30 or 40 broadcasts of multiple people who are low on hp.
So while fleet fights might last slightly longer because of friendly locking, I don't think we're going to be anywhere close to the issue of fleets being somewhat invulnerable to each other. Remember that this solution removes logistics locks too so that while no dps is being applied to you, no one is repping you also in the meantime as everyone is retargeting you.
Also, the issue of drones could be solved by having a successful lockbreak reset a drone's orders. The ship with the logi drones would have to retarget the ship being repped again. |

Isonda
The Candiru None Of The Above
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:05:00 -
[50] - Quote
so, Primary will break lock, making all shield / armor xfer mods stop, then it will be a rush to land the damage. This is a stealth missile buff. In the seconds after the lock breaker mod has triggered, all remote reps stop, and, missiles hit.
200 CM ravens at range would actually be useful after this. Now they are useless because of remote reps. |

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
404
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:09:00 -
[51] - Quote
Great, fleet fights will take even longer and small gang combat will have even more people running away. Awesome. |

Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
182
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:27:00 -
[52] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Just hope it is a high-slot module or it will be yet another indirect nerf to Amarr's midslot deficient lineup.
Because shield tank ships dont use all their mid slots if they want to get close to armor tank ehp? Armor ships usually have more mid slots to use for utility. Full tank + this > sacrifice tank for this. |

Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
85
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:27:00 -
[53] - Quote
The effect would depend on the exact formula used to calculate chance to break lock, so no-one aside from the developers can say exactly what effect it would have on fleet fights. I suspect that the purpose of the module is to discourage massed fire by large fleets of 100 or more, and reward coordination and player skill over raw numbers. It will probably take that many people locking a target to make fitting the proposed lockbreaker module worthwhile, since the lockbreaker module will occupy the space that could be used by something else that might well be more useful, like another gun or a tank module.
So most likely small gang warfare involving less than twenty or thirty persons to a side will not be significantly affected. At least, I don't think that's the target fleet size for the module.
Big nullsec fleets will be affected, but the change may be for the better. For example, under the currently FOTM alpha fleet doctrine, it only takes thirty or so Maelstroms to one-shot a properly tanked Abaddon, which is the heaviest-tanked tech-1 battleship in the game.* But nullsec fleets of 100 Maelstroms or more will still usually have only a single primary target, which is an enormous waste of damage. Which is why some alliances have experimented with 1200mm artillery, since it has a significantly shorter cycle time than 1400mm artillery; the smaller alpha strike of 1200mm artillery doesn't matter when you have 200 alpha ships on field, but being able to fire twice as often does. Being forced to assign multiple targets could make such fleets more efficient.
A second issue is how logistics and other friendly support will be affected by this module, if at all.
A third is whether drones will count.
This is all speculative, of course.
*Although some would say that the Rokh can fit a marginally heavier tank. |

Muestereate
Two Geezers in Space
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:28:00 -
[54] - Quote
Hey if it gets those Sansha off my ass , I'm all for it. |

Ardamalis
Vanguard Corp Bounty Hunters
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:31:00 -
[55] - Quote
Muestereate wrote:Hey if it gets those Sansha off my ass , I'm all for it.
Assuming npcs count.
|

Muestereate
Two Geezers in Space
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:39:00 -
[56] - Quote
Well if they don't I'm not for it. I am content to let the blob warfare guys grind on wearing out their f1 key. In fact nerf the f1 key by making a module where the enemy has to use all 8 fingers |

Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
499
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 17:41:00 -
[57] - Quote
How do you counter something like this? Hmmm....lets see....
Bring back AoE Titans?
F****** Awesome!
I nominate this suggestion. Any seconds!
I second it.
Approved!
Motion carries!
/sarcasm
Really stupid ******* idea. Is basicly a placate to fix the blob, but the whiney players just can't fix alpha themselves. Pro-tip: Bigger buffer, bigger ship = cap ship = HTFU and train for something more then a battleship! This sounds so ripe for abuse unless it has really long cycle time, its so great that the player base creates blob fleets to counter the opponents who then bring a bigger blob fleet which in turn requires another blob fleet rinse repeate ad nausem. Eventually, you will have people just lagging the hell out of each other, time dilation doing its thing, and everyone just go watch TV as nothing is achieved. |

Ardamalis
Vanguard Corp Bounty Hunters
52
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 18:58:00 -
[58] - Quote
Sendo Jarix wrote:The problem with this is how do you balance it to scale from 30 people all the way up to 1000 ?
My engineering mind thinks that a rising exponential function would be best suited. Its of the form,
e ^ (-constant / variable)
where, in this case, the variable would be the number of ships locking you, the constant indicates how fast the percentage rises.
If you set the constant to 50, when 50 ships lock a target, there is a 37 percent chance that the target breaker will succeed. If you set the constant to 100, when 100 ships lock a target, there is a 37 percent chance that the target breaker will succeed.
here are graphs with a constant of 75: From 0 to 300 From 0 to 1500
Note that the graph approaches 100 percent chance but never touches it. All one has to do is select a good constant. |

Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
263
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 01:38:00 -
[59] - Quote
I look forward to there being a reward for diversifying targets. Save the Miners! |

Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
203
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:14:00 -
[60] - Quote
Ardamalis wrote:I searched around and I'm surprised that a topic on this hasn't been made already, but one of the things announced in the modules presentation was the concept of a target breaker module. Here is a quick run down of how it works:
Each time the module cycles, it has a % chance to break and reset all other target locks on your ship from other ships. This % chance is extremely low, but for each additional ship that locks your own ship, the target breaker has a bigger % chance of breaking and resetting everyone's lock on you. So if you're fighting one person, chances are the module will have negligible effect. If there are 200 people in a massive fleet fight targeting you, then you're likely to almost always reset their locks.
... What does everyone else think?
....
Great. This Modul will make Titans and Supers nearly invulnerable... No more 200 Maels shooting at one Super, one cycle of that module and they all lose lock... nice...
DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=706442#post706442 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710 |

Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
454
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:25:00 -
[61] - Quote
If is is true (havent seen it myself) it will have a major impact on larger fleet engagements. And it will complicate fleet command which is a good thing, making wing and even squadron commanders having meaningful roles in the targeting process. My main concern is that right now, a massive logistic blob makes it very hard to kill anything without massive firepower or alpha (or both). Admittedly, calling multiple targets simultaneosly with fewer ship on each will also serve to dillute and complicate the logistic repsonse, but it needs to be balanced properly before it is fielded.
All in all, a very promising game mechanic which could really shake up larger engagements if done right. |

Sky Liddell
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 13:43:00 -
[62] - Quote
It will either be a dud or it will be the next nerf.
If it proves to be a wasted slot that works 5% of the time nobody will fit them. If on the other hand all bettles become a never ending cycle of locking the combat could get pretty tedious.
There is also that issue of having Logisticals lose thier lock on you because your Lock breaker cleared the field. |

Lord Helghast
Intergalactic Syndicate Nulli Secunda
79
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 14:00:00 -
[63] - Quote
Love the idea, but if this is able to be fit to capitals it needs to have a capital and supercapital penalty like supercaps get a 500% increase in cycle time, and capitals a 200% in cycle time... especially considering the number of people it takes to take down a super. |

TheButcherPete
Titan Inc. Apocalyptic Legion.
102
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 14:05:00 -
[64] - Quote
I like all of these things but am disappointed by no mention of changing how cloak mechanics work. I really wish they'd say something like "Yeah we'll change something" or "f'k you it's fine, stfu". The silence is killing me :( My moncole doubles as a cigarette lighter, a flashlight, a laser and x-ray goggles. If you haven't noticed yet, I'm in love with Punkturis. -á-á-á
|

Lord Helghast
Intergalactic Syndicate Nulli Secunda
80
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 14:07:00 -
[65] - Quote
[quote=Sky Liddell]It will either be a dud or it will be the next nerf
If it proves to be a wasted slot that works 5% of the time nobody will fit them. If on the other hand all bettles become a never ending cycle of locking the combat could get pretty tedious
There is also that issue of having Logisticals lose thier lock on you because your Lock breaker cleared the field.[/quote
The logistics part is where its going to take skill you cant just leave the lockbreaker running or youll never survive, its basically a F*CK i'm primary! [-activate-] hope it breaks lock and you can warp away, if not let it cycle and drop it and pray reps are on you, |

haysis
Unforgotten. SoulWing Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 14:23:00 -
[66] - Quote
Idk if anyone said it yet, but he also said TD's would work on missiles too. didn't give any details on that tho. |

Herping yourDerp
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
425
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:19:00 -
[67] - Quote
this is good. instead of primaries we might have "kill ECM boats" or "kill logistics" |

Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
705
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:33:00 -
[68] - Quote
Hmm... Target breaker + damps?
I have the sudden urge to train Lachesis. Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |

Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
85
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:41:00 -
[69] - Quote
Ardamalis wrote:IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:Why rely on hostiles using drones? logistics drones require a lock, have everyone deploy 5 small armor bots on the friendly primary and he could easily have 2000 locks just from friendly ships, would probably give him a guaranteed lock-break This has been the issue with other proposals involving changes to targeting mechanics but I think this module idea that CCP is considering skirts around the issue quite elegantly. If everyone can't primary one target, then dps is being split--multiple ships are being hit at once. Remember, this module only breaks locks, you can retarget easily. Unless a fleet has "hive mind-like" characteristics, its going to be next to impossible to lock everyone whose tank is breaking. This module would break the locks of friendly ships and those friendly ships would be constantly retargeting other friendly ships which takes an impossible amount of coordination to use effectively. The fleet can't keep up with 20, 30 or 40 broadcasts of multiple people who are low on hp. So while fleet fights might last slightly longer because of friendly locking, I don't think we're going to be anywhere close to the issue of fleets being somewhat invulnerable to each other. Remember that this solution removes logistics locks too so that while no dps is being applied to you, no one is repping you also in the meantime as everyone is retargeting you. Also, the issue of drones could be solved by having a successful lockbreak reset a drone's orders. The ship with the logi drones would have to retarget the vessel to have drones repair it again. This scenario reads like a ******* nightmare for friendly logistics crews who already work very intensely to keep their mates alive.
This module idea must have been conceived by an CCP employee on a Meth binge one cold Winter's evening.
Yet another potential CCP-forced change on how subscribers play the game. Sandbox my ass. EVE's game "designers" are just as heavy-handed [and ham-fisted] as those in other online entertainment services.
284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284286 |

Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
48
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:42:00 -
[70] - Quote
Herping yourDerp wrote:this is good. instead of primaries we might have "kill ECM boats" or "kill logistics" Naah, the lazy FC will just say "sort by name, fire free on top 10, spread it out".
Plays straight into the artillery paradigm though as a flock of those things provide maximum oomph for least amount of locks .. guess CCP wish to extend the Winmatar fad for another year 
|

Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
705
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:48:00 -
[71] - Quote
Hmm also, stealth dictor buff -- you can't gank my dictor if you can't lock it. Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |

Mire Stoude
Capital Industries Research And Development Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:54:00 -
[72] - Quote
This would also cause logistics and other friendlies applying effects to lose their lock as well. This sounds to be the most annoying module for fleet warfare ever devised. |

Grim Vandal
Burn Proof
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 17:56:00 -
[73] - Quote
The lock breaker and the micro jump drive maybe should NOT be modules but be integrated in all sub cap ships.
OR even better
Introduce more ship slots which can only be used by utility modules such as: auto target, micro jump drive, lock breaker, ship scanner, cargo scanner .... aso. While more modules is always a good idea, the fitting systems in EVE cant really handle them anymore. Right now if you gimp your ship with eg. an auto target module you suck beyond believe. |

Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
563
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 18:37:00 -
[74] - Quote
It interesting to consider how this will impact use of other modules. I am going to assume the lock breaker breaks an attempted lock at well, resetting the lock timer to full time. (This is so the lock breaker is useful even against alpha fleets).
How do you know to activate your lock breaker vs the alpha fleet? You see a screen full of yellow boxes. So the alpha fleet needs to fit passive targeters. Surprise!
If it takes longer to lock me than the cycle time of my breaker I can never be shot. Thus I want my side to use remote sensor damps, and the other side will want to use sensor boosters. Also the other side may want to use painters so when they do get a lock, its effective. And my side will want to use tracking disruptors to reduce the chance of that lucky lock being effective. This new module may make other forms of ECM worthy of consideration.
Small ships have the advantage of a fast lock. More chance they will get in between breaks. The lock breaker gives more of a role to fast locking ships.
In fact this could be extended to the cycle time of the lock breaker: Make it take longer to cycle on bigger ships. Then we could have no restrictions on what ships it is fitted on. OK, a Titan can fit it. But everyone can lock and shoot the Titan between lock breaks. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |

Ardamalis
Vanguard Corp Bounty Hunters
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 21:00:00 -
[75] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:How do you know to activate your lock breaker vs the alpha fleet? You see a screen full of yellow boxes. So the alpha fleet needs to fit passive targeters. Surprise!
I had forgotten about that:
Passive Targeter = counter to Target Breaker
It would still be feasible to alpha ships. Of course, one could always keep their lock breaker cycling but that has its own minor inherent dangers. |

Markus Reese
Debitum Naturae ROMANIAN-LEGION
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 21:06:00 -
[76] - Quote
Quite honestly, it sounds effective at breaking up the blob, but it needs to be scaled to the targets locking onto it. More targets, more effect. Otherwise it will just get damn annoying. |

Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
705
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 21:22:00 -
[77] - Quote
From a discussion with a friend, we came up with a suggestion in order to prevent the target breaker module from being an easy GTFO-button that becomes mandatory on all PvP and PvE fits: you cannot warp while it is active. That way, you can GTFO if you get out of range in time, or mwd+cloak after activating it, or simply use it to screw up the enemy fleet's primary-calling, but you can't use it as a "this fight is too much for me, time to push the dishonor-button" mod. Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
263
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 21:29:00 -
[78] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Plays straight into the artillery paradigm though as a flock of those things provide maximum oomph for least amount of locks .. guess CCP wish to extend the Winmatar fad for another year  Yep. Anyone who's been fighting us knows we now use the 1200mms. The 1400mm camp might come back. And of course fit sensor boosters.
Call primary secondary etc, and make sure you prefire your 1400s so that the moment you get a lock it goes off. Beautiful. If the target lock can break locks in progress, no problem, just keep on locking as names are called. After 10 or so names give a break so everyone's back to unfired guns and can prefire to begin the next cycle. Once your guns go off it's a good number of seconds until its ready to fire again, long enough that you could get jammed and your guns would be cooling down for most of it. Take all the tech Build all the titans Drop all the POSes
Bees incoming, nerf ERRYTHING ERRYDAY |

Gevlin
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
120
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 21:44:00 -
[79] - Quote
i think this is great will prevent the insta blap.
FOF missle blobs though might appear
allow the person getting the aggro - ie FC to tank others I agree with several people: CCP needs to focus most of eve's recources on FIS, but the development of WIS still needs to continue, just as a slower and more efficient pace. In eve I wish to be more than just a machine. |

Ardamalis
Vanguard Corp Bounty Hunters
55
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 18:04:00 -
[80] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote:From a discussion with a friend, we came up with a suggestion in order to prevent the target breaker module from being an easy GTFO-button that becomes mandatory on all PvP and PvE fits: you cannot warp while it is active. That way, you can GTFO if you get out of range in time, or mwd+cloak after activating it, or simply use it to screw up the enemy fleet's primary-calling, but you can't use it as a "this fight is too much for me, time to push the dishonor-button" mod.
Most fights big enough for a target breaker to be effective will generally involve bubbles--dozens of them. I'm not so sure that its a worrisome issue for pvp.
PvE might have some potential for abuse and should be restricted from working on npcs in my opinion. |

HARD STEEL
LOW TAX HIGH GLORY
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 18:43:00 -
[81] - Quote
why not just add a game dynamic that increases lock time exponentially the more people lock on one signal target
"signal interference distortion" |

Ardamalis
Vanguard Corp Bounty Hunters
55
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 18:56:00 -
[82] - Quote
HARD STEEL wrote:why not just add a game dynamic that increases lock time exponentially the more people lock on one signal target
"signal interference distortion"
Good question.
General consensus in many features and ideas threads was that it abusable for friendly ships. Friendly ships could lock onto each other to make themselves extremely hard to target. This also makes logistics too powerful in fleet fights since they would generally have the locks first. We would see of situation of same amount of logi but much less dps applied per ship.
The lock breaker module skirts around this issue because it breaks any friendly locks also. Unless a fleet has the coordination of a hive mind, they cannot feasibly manage constant retargetting of friendly multiple ships. This also prevents logistics from making ships too hard to kill since they also lose locks on a ship that uses a target breaker. While no dps is being applied to you, no reps are either. The above cannot be said for the first scenario. |

EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
258
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 19:18:00 -
[83] - Quote
I don't think that the "target breaker" module is a good role for a single, self-use module. I think that this effect could potentially replace the current Caldari ECM effect, make ECM more useful on fleets, make solo falcons less annoying, and prevent every single ship from fitting one mandatory module.
IE: Rook jams someone, any target that is being shot at currently will have their locks cleared.
Just a thought. |

Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
2015
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 19:24:00 -
[84] - Quote
Does it work on NPCs? |

Hauling Hal
The Black Ops
52
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 22:05:00 -
[85] - Quote
DUMB IDEA. TOO EXPLOITABLE.
What stops you having 2 fleets that are separate alliances/corps but working together that lock each other before a fight.? Two ships in the enemy fleet lock a ship that now has 8 locks and everyone loses lock. The friendlies relock, the enemy relocks and they all lose lock again.
|

adam smash
University of Caille Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 22:40:00 -
[86] - Quote
Ardamalis wrote:I - adaptive hardeners (gives +resists all across the board but much less than an invulnerability field, these resists adapt to incoming damage with each cycle and increase the resist in the categories of damage you've recently taken and decrease resists in other areas to compensate) -
So wait CCP already ****** up on the new names?
Cause we have adaptive inuvs already and last I checked... they don't change resist type?
So either the whole mod is gona change or CCP is gona rename it again or more likely option... CCP ****** up again?
Or am I missing something. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |