| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Narcil Starwind
Exa Utopia
   |
Posted - 2008.10.29 22:47:00 -
[1]
I believe that it is a common wish among all EVE players that the fun and enjoyment of small tactical engagements were the norm instead of the exception. Everyone wants longer lasting more intelligent conflicts without the drone behavior of target primary, press f1-f8. The first attempt to increase the length of engagements by increasing HPÆs across the board just made the matter worse because people simply brought more DPS to the fight, thus creating more incentive to blob up.
Many people have suggested that in order to break this cycle focus fire needs to be nerfed. The main problem with this is that it does not make good sense that having more people shooting at an object should cause less damage. And there have not been reasonable ways in which to implement this that make sense from a RP and game play standpoint. My idea while fundamentally is a way to decrease the effectiveness of focus fire does fit somewhat with current game mechanics.
My proposal is to make the signature radius of ships be dynamic. This parameter has many functions in combat from how long it takes someone to lock you to how much weapons damage you. The basic idea is that for every aggressive module activated against your ship your sig radius falls a little. This decrease would be very gradual at first but after a specified number is starts dropping significantly. The decrease should be tied to the ratio of the modules sig resolution and the ships sig radius, so frig weapons against battle ships would have a much smaller effect than, battleship size weapons vs. battleships.
In an RP sense this could be explained from the use of active sensors in combat. When you have lots of active sensors focuses on a single object you get all sorts of interference and weird returns from your sensors. The reason for the sig changing because of active modules is so that friendly players canÆt target you to keep enemies from targeting you.
This functionality is already in the game in the form of target painters so there is a basis for this change. In fact this change would greatly increase the usefulness of target painters in that they will allow more ships to lock the target without negative effects.
Decreasing the sig radius in this way would have two main effects. First it would make locking the ship progressively harder the more people you pile on. Also it would decrease the effectiveness of the aggressing weapons through the normal sig radius mechanics.
In order for this to not allow for RR setups to become immune, the use of RR modules would have the opposite effect, increasing the sig radius of the affected ships. In this way a balance can be struck between opposing forces. The aggressors need to distribute their fire evenly so as not to waste DPS on single targets, and the friendly logistics need to keep in mind that repairing their friends opens them up for potentially more DPS.
This could also reduce the tendency for high HP tanks in shield tankers since extenders increase sig radius, and if that penalty were added to plates as well it would add more weight to active tanks in both forms.
This can be moved to all types of combat including POSÆs. In this way bringing more people becomes detrimental.
This would also add more logistical hurdles to running extremely large fleets. You can no longer simply call primary and secondary, kill, rinse, repeat. Combat would have to become fluid and tactical, spreading your fire intelligently to dismember and disable the enemy fleet before they do the same to you.
This would obviously need balancing, but I believe this would give the developers a better tool for increasing the length and tactical nature of combat without increasing HPÆs and the urge to bring more DPS. Basically by tweaking the sig radius of objects and the relative affect of aggressive modules on that sig radius they could vary the number and size of ships that are effective.
|
Narcil Starwind
Exa Utopia
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 22:47:00 -
[2]
(continued)
This is just a rough idea and it would need more thought and balancing, but I think it is a novel way to reduce the effectiveness of blob tactics without significant changes to established game mechanics.
If this has been brought up before I apologize, this has simply been rolling around in my head lately. I have other ideas for 0.0 sovereignty but those IÆll save for a later date.
|
michaelfeb16
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 23:25:00 -
[3]
/signed
This sounds like a great idea to me. It would solve my main problem, as it is now, with combat in EVE.
|
Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 10:18:00 -
[4]
Very impressive. An elegant way to provide diminishing returns. I'd point out it doesn't actually address blobbing - it addresses focus fire. This is a good goal, but there is still nothing to stop people forming huge fleets and being more organised about what they shoot at.
Very very nice effort, and looks quite balanced to my inexperienced eye.
___
My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties...
Environmental Effects
|
Typhado3
Minmatar
Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 12:56:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Typhado3 on 30/10/2008 13:04:52
hmm was gonna try and shoot this down as I thought it was pretty flawed but then I saw the flaws in my own arguments it may work still need more convincing
/signed on reason still not sure on implementation.
first thought is major exploits friendlies load up a bs (say geddon) with beams/rails fill it with low tracking ammo, switch off tracking comps and lower a friendlies sig radius allowing it to tank better. flaws in this are you'll be dealing out damage to ally (possibly 0) when you could be dealing damage to enemy (or using reppers on ally) making it a costly thing to do only worth it if entire enemy fleet ff's u and they don't have the TP's to back it up. But since this is encouraging groups to split up their ff losing a bs's damage to lower a group of say 10-30 enemies dmg by a small % is a lot less likely to be worth it.
Minmatar boost? : I know it's not the intention but many people may see this to be a major minmatar boost, i gotta dissagree on this though. It would be a small boost to the bellicose but without a small boost it could still be outperformed at it's role by individual ships fitting target painters (no stacking penelty) or even the blackbird as the balckbird has ~80% better lock range 50% more mids almost twice the ecm resists..... trying a belliclose tackler would be interesting but 4 mids to fit tackle + TP is gonna mean it's only able to do one well. Sorry for the minmatar rant but I thought I'd get in before ppl mistake a target painter boost for a minmatar boost.
ccp fix mining agent missions % pls |
Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 14:20:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Typhado3
first thought is major exploits friendlies load up a bs (say geddon) with beams/rails fill it with low tracking ammo, switch off tracking comps and lower a friendlies sig radius allowing it to tank better. flaws in this are you'll be dealing out damage to ally (possibly 0) when you could be dealing damage to enemy (or using reppers on ally) making it a costly thing to do only worth it if entire enemy fleet ff's u and they don't have the TP's to back it up. But since this is encouraging groups to split up their ff losing a bs's damage to lower a group of say 10-30 enemies dmg by a small % is a lot less likely to be worth it.
If the activation of offensive module->sig radius reduction only kicked in on an actual effect (i.e. damage more than zero, cap reduction by more than 0) then this would be less of a problem. In addition, from the sounds of the OP, it won't scale linearly which to me would mean it'd not even have any noticeable effect until you were hitting say 10 ships-worth of guns or more (thinking about that, may or may not need some scaling around module size or damage done vs target ship size, or you could conceivably 'tank' a ship with lots of small guns...)
Originally by: Typhado3
I know it's not the intention but many people may see this to be a major minmatar boost, i gotta dissagree on this though.
I do too. Yes this reduces sig radius and therefore target painters could have a dramatic effect, but in addition strictly, there's nothing to stop CCP adding a new 'sig radius' equivalent that is purely affected by this focus fire stacking if it became a big problem. This would increase complexity, but might reduce knock-on effects and keep the concept isolated.
___
My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties...
Environmental Effects
|
Wannabehero
Caldari
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 14:58:00 -
[7]
A very well thought out idea Narcil, but don'e hold your breath. CCP isn't really into drastically changing mechanics game wide to address very specific play-style concerns...
ok /sarcasm, I like your proposal a lot. I wrote one a while back that was, in spirit, similar to yours but implemented differently. Stacking Targeting Penalty. I must say though that I like the OP idea even better than my own, as the incorporation of dynamic sig radius is brilliant.
cheers
--
Don't harsh my mellow |
Narcil Starwind
Exa Utopia
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 22:21:00 -
[8]
Thanks for the feed back.
I sort of agree with the statement that the minni's would benefit from this, and to be honest that was part of my thinking. Another massive wine at this point is the large disparity of recons outside of caldari, and especially the minni's. This would give them a very definite, and very useful role in fleets.
As far as not directly reducing blobs, that is true, but I believe it would indirectly, as the logistics of commanding fleets becomes increasingly complex as you add more people. True, it wouldn't discourage very organized fleets as much as unorganized blobs of guns, but I would prefer fights to migrate to tactical engagements regardless of the size. Ultimately I would hope it would be enough to keep fleets sizes manageable until CCP completes skynet ... i mean the HPC cluster ... and we all get Armageddon day on TQ :-)
As far as the DEV's, I'll be at fanfest next week so I'll see if I can corner a few of them.
|
Camdim
Caldari
The first genesis
INTERDICTION
|
Posted - 2008.11.01 03:59:00 -
[9]
I was mulling over sig radius and how it should tie in with sensor strenght and the ship scanner to address the local chat intel window removal deal.
I was also on the same track of sig radius as being dynamic.
But I would modify your idea slightly first off any module on a ship should increase or decrease sig radius based on what the module does. Sig radius is of course a composition of your energy signature as well as gravitational signature.
Second step is remove that increase decrease part and make it all an increase. Then have thresholds for each ship class say something like base for the class x2. At that point there is so much noise that no one else can target the person. So ewar and other items targeted on person might ecm jam them but also take them over the threshold so no one else can target them either. Once any ship is over x2 signature they would also be unable to cut through the noise to target any new targets. So there is not a good benifit to boosting your sig radius close to this line.
A straight increase is simpler coding, set thresholds allows for better module planning ( when various electronic devices give added signature or remove signature ). And by effecting both the target and targeters there is no want to increase signature beyond what you need to fit the modules you feel are needed for your ship.
Now the suggestion of x2 the class signature is just a number out of the air what it should be would need to be tested a bit more.
But I am in full support of a dynamic signature. Just differ with you on how to use it. :)
|
Sean Mcarthur
|
Posted - 2008.11.01 09:11:00 -
[10]
this even make marueders better at PVP as they only bring half the guns againts target. Everyone says marueder is **** in pvp, so good stuff:-).
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |