|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1322
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 18:10:00 -
[1] - Quote
A while back someone posted the idea of "sensor glare", basically saying that the more people targeted a single ship, the longer it would take to target. It had the obvious flaw of fleets self-targeting to increase lock times, making a sort of passive ECM that would make fleet fights even more tedious. However, it gave me an idea that I never posted, but remembered when I looked at this thread.
What if every weapon system that was activated on a target caused its signature radius to drop a small percentage? And I'm talking maybe .05% or less. SMALL. The premise is this: simply targeting someone would not create the sensor glare, but the weapon (turret, launcher, ECM module, whatever) would. For the duration of its cycle, every offensive module would have this effect.
Thinking it through: A 20-man gang even with 8 turrets each would drop the sig radius by 8%. 100 battleships would drop it by 40%. You'd get a 100% drop at 250 8-turret ships, so obviously there would need to be a stacking penalty or hard cap, or a number smaller than .05%.
The actual numbers would of course be set by CCP and tested thoroughly on SiSi for balance, but I'm rather fond of the idea. It creates real penalties for mindless "orbit anchor, shoot primary" fleet behavior by actually reducing their damage output, not just their lock times. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1323
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 14:03:00 -
[2] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:By that logic (ignoring the OP) it would DECREASE snesor lock on time.
Glare only means its more visible..harder to ignore....maybe harder to target other ships in the background but even then thats reaching.
Likening to get a few hundred people to get laser pointers out and paint one target....how would that make it harder to find it? More like bloody easy at that rate.
http://elibishop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Glare.jpg
That's the kind of glare I'm envisioning. We're not talking about something being well-lit, we're talking about it having so much light shone on it that it dazzles the sensors and appears larger than it really is, causing the computer to calculate shots that miss when it looks like they would hit.
Drake DraconisI get what your talking about and the idea...but CCP themselves have made it [u wrote:VERY[/u] clear at fanfest.
They want thousands of players fighting it out in one space....not dozens. This isn't about reducing the number of ships on the field. This is about fleet tactics that go beyond "orbit anchor, shoot primary". CCP's vision of Eve combat as portrayed in every trailer they show is the chaotic "shoot everything at once" fleet fights of sci fi cinema. By creating a form of stacking penalty, this might encourage more of that style of combat. I guess it really depends on what CCP really intends for combat in Eve to look like. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1323
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 14:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
Valerie Tessel wrote:Sensor glare just doesn't make sense. As more ships acquire a lock, each successive ship in the fleet should acquire it faster because the ships' computers share information.
Because grids make any sort of sense at all. Or fluid space. Or capacitor warfare.
I'm suggesting a mechanic that would achieve a specific effect, and then making a pseudotechnical explanation for it so that CCP can explain it in the game lore. Since when do we expect Eve to make perfect sense?
(also, who ever said fleet ships share information? I've seen no evidence of this) It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1323
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 14:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:Understandable...but lets be honest....concetraited fire on a indicated target is common sense in battle field tactics....especially if said target is especailly difficult to eliminate...
Your never gonna get away from that...no matter how hard you try...you may make it harder...but it will still be used...quite frequently.
No argument there. And there would be ways to counter the effect, specifically pointing a half dozen target painters at the primary
There are two things I'd like to see change in large fleet warfare: homogenous fleet compositions, and primary volleys. Every fleet fight I've observed in the past six months has been fought the same way: Bring lots of the same ship, and shoot one enemy at a time. I want to see Eve become more rewarding for creative players and unique strategies. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1323
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 14:41:00 -
[5] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:Snesor Glare doesn't fit the bill as a name Fair enough. I took the name from someone else's proposal that inspired my idea. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1330
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 22:32:00 -
[6] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Shoot everything on the field at random and you won't be able to apply enough DPS to break logistics reps though... Hey, I never said it was perfect. I'm just trying to offer up a more sensible idea that would have the desired effect.
I really think fleet diversity is a bigger issue in today's fleet fights. swarms of identical ships should have more vulnerabilities than a properly-built mixed fleet. There's a reason every good navy in the world today uses large task forces that use combined arms. I'd rather see CCP focus more on encouraging fleets that make use of more types of ships, as I believe that would encourage more tactical thinking and more frenetic fights. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1334
|
Posted - 2012.04.20 13:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Nobody uses 100% homogeneous fleets though. The average alphafleet containes BS, logis, fast tackle, webs, ECM, dictors, hictors, recons, BCs, command ships and maybe others. Anyone using purely one type of ship is going to lose pretty quickly.
Command ships? People still use those when they can give better bonuses and stronger tanks with T3s?
The biggest fleet fight I've ever seen (I've watched quite a few, but never engaged in any) consisted of a big blob of drakes versus a big blob of maelstroms. It was early on in my first ventures into low/null and I couldn't even tell you who the involved parties were; I was utterly ignorant of space politics at the time.
These blobs made up probably 90% of their respective fleets. That's close enough to homogeneous for me to see it as a problem. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1335
|
Posted - 2012.04.20 15:36:00 -
[8] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:Oh hell yes. There is always a costant demand for them (Command Ships) in the "CFC" FYI: They are still cheaper than T3's floppie. *but you knew that...just being a smartass (ribs)* Yeah, my Abso was about half the price of any of my Legions. it also doesn't do any of the jobs as well. It's a lot of fun to fly, but command ships DEFINITELY need some buffs to make them do what they should be doing. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
|
|
|