Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dirlewanger
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 23:38:00 -
[1]
This is a question for fleet-ops people.
Do you think that the fact that there are absolutely no penalties for concentrating an entire fleet's fire on a single target is a problem?
I am not saying you can't concentrate fire. Imagine instead that up to say 3 ships there was little to no penalty, but from then on every extra ship adds less and less. Say 6 ships have firepower of 5, 10 have firepower of 7, 15 have dps of 9 and so on. A decreasing return - but each extra ship would add a little more.
Note: adjusted for target size. No penalty for BS on cap, for example. Also did not consider individual differences in DPS and so on - the exact mechanism is not the point here.
The idea - and an objective that it appears CCP would like to achieve - would be for battles to last longer, because full concentration would mean less total dps applied to target.
As it is, in fleet battles there is absolutely no reason to fit anything other than the biggest buffer, just so as to last a few extra seconds.
Consider whether it would be better for the game, and the fun of it, for battles to last a little longer.
|
Lord Windu
Echelon Warfare Unit
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 23:41:00 -
[2]
This is a terrible idea and I actually think it is one of the worst ideas I have heard in ages, which is saying something because all sorts of **** gets posted daily on these forums.
|
HoldMeAfter
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 00:11:00 -
[3]
Because RR BS gangs are so underpowered you would have to add a penalty to stacking RR effects. IF Damage had a stocking penalty imagine reinforcing a pos... IF RRs had a stacking penalty imagine trying to rep Pos shields...
Would the penalty be based on total incoming DPS or total incoming sources? IF based on sources would it be by ship or module? How would drone damage be stacking penalized? How about AOE effects? Would NPC damage sources be effected by the stacking penalty? How will it effect lag?
|
Fertility Pris
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 00:39:00 -
[4]
I've had an idea similar to this rolling around in my head for some time. Only in my version it affected both incoming and rep figures based upon signature radius. I then realized this could have an inbalancing effect between shield and armor tanks since shield extenders and rigs add sig radius. So it would probably be best to put in place set standard numbers by ship class instead. For instance (keep in mind these are arbitrarily chosen numbers): Class Incoming DPS ceiling /Repairing DPS ceiling Frigates 700/650 Cruisers 1800/1700 Battleships 4000/3800 Caps & POSÆs ceilings due not apply. So just from these rough examples (of course the numbers would be changed) some of the repercussions from these changes should be obvious. No remote rep group would be truly invulnerable, even to a smaller gang and overall, fights would often last a bit longer. Most importantly I think FCÆs would begin splitting larger fleets up into multiple ôfire-groupsö each handling different primaries adding another layer of strategy to fleet battles. Do you mix damage types in your fire groups or, for example, keep all the laser boats together and have them primary shield tankers first? In my opinion all of the effects of a change like this would be of a positive nature, except perhaps if it created an increase in lag (not sure how this would be calculated by the game engine so IÆm not sure if there would be). And I think it makes sense, from a realism standpoint with those massive amounts of missiles, projectiles and energy beams all focused on the same target a percentage of those would be colliding with each-other causing a decrease in dps. Throwing realism out the window, from a poor entertainment standpoint it makes sense because these changes would increase the fun factor. No more getting your BS insta-popped in a large fleet engagement (although they could still go down fast), no more having your 15 man gang ****d by a 20 man RR BS fleet without the satisfaction of even dropping a single ship of theirs in return and also no more flying in a remote rep fleet so powerful you feel as though you cannot be touched. After all pvp is much less exhilarating and rewarding when there is little/no element of danger.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 00:56:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 10/09/2009 00:57:26 Hard caps are bad, mkay?
Also, there are BSs that can tank more than 4k dps on their own...
Besides, look at it this way: would it be better to live for 3 minutes in a fleet fight and then pop in 3 seconds, or would you prefer to pop in 20 seconds right at the beginning?
|
anotheruglyalt
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 01:07:00 -
[6]
Edited by: anotheruglyalt on 10/09/2009 01:07:05
|
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 01:13:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 10/09/2009 01:18:59
Originally by: Dirlewanger
Do you think that the fact that there are absolutely no penalties for concentrating an entire fleet's fire on a single target is a problem?
No, it isn't. Next!
Originally by: Fertility Pris
So just from these rough examples (of course the numbers would be changed) some of the repercussions from these changes should be obvious. No remote rep group would be truly invulnerable, even to a smaller gang and overall, fights would often last a bit longer.
You mean: (a) RR gangs would be (lol) weaker, but plated BS would last for absurdly long periods of time, and things like logistics, carriers and all that are thrown in disfavour in exchange for just more RR plated ultra-buffer BS.
(b) Fights lasting longer is bad, OK? If you want longer fights reintroduce warp to 15 or something, because as it is it's already too easy to just outblob your opponent.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Capsule Dreams
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 01:23:00 -
[8]
I liked the summary here. http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Military_Tactics#Concentrating_firepower_Tactics
Quote: Where as in a real war, a commander would not be able to call out a single target based on the targets base name of John Doe. Rather they would have to call out to attack in a certain direction, or target a certain group. Targeting a single target would have to be based on direction, distance, coordinate or type of target it might be.
Yet, if the target happens to be a truck, and there happens to be dozens of trucks at said coordinates, this might be difficult to pick a specific one. Eve online solves this issue by allowing you to target something not based on the type of target it is, but rather by the pod pilots name, which could be sorted alphabetically and called out fire at 'John Doe'
This effect lacks realism and has the secondary effect of creating battles of focused fire where it is the main oftentimes only method used in battle, thus placing eve fleet battles in favor of this style of war fair.
The solution would then be a total revamp of EWAR. Your sensors would only give approximate information about a target. Mass between 90k and 120k kg, distance 150km +/- 25km, velocity 50m/s +/- 150m/s. Locking a target would give exact figures and tell you the ship hull type.
This would prevent blobs from singling out one BS, although they could still single out a Titan surrounded by frigates. Although EWAR would let a frigate pose as a BS from long range sensors.
I think the net effect however would be to make the overview very confusing and frustrating.
|
soldieroffortune 258
Gallente Trinity Council Seposita Astrum
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 01:27:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Lord Windu This is a terrible idea and I actually think it is one of the worst ideas I have heard in ages, which is saying something because all sorts of **** gets posted daily on these forums.
Incase you didnt get it the first time. Please re-size your signature to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes.Applebabe
|
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 01:32:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 10/09/2009 01:32:37
Originally by: Capsule Dreams ...
In a real war, ships would not trivially shrug off kilograms and kilograms of antimatter, 1400mm projectiles with nuclear/fusion warheads and so on. In fact, targeting something in such a environment would be next to impossible.
Concentrating that much firepower would not only be un-needed, but probably unsafe at ranges EVE is played at. Your average large sniper fleet would realistically one-two volley a moon, if not a planet.
So on.
Let's ignore playing "omg, realism" game. Ships in EVE last laughably long given the firepower ships are supposed to have.
Artificial caps on damage or reductions suck, essentially.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
|
Sravaw
Gallente Forging Industries Einherjar Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 02:03:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Lord Windu This is a terrible idea and I actually think it is one of the worst ideas I have heard in ages, which is saying something because all sorts of **** gets posted daily on these forums.
Except, it's been done before in other games, and it works swimmingly. -- Feed my will to feel this moment Urging me to cross the line Reaching out to embrace the random Reaching out to embrace whatever may come |
Beltantis Torrence
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 02:14:00 -
[12]
Being outnumbered sucks but I think its the lesser of two evils compared to giving a numbers handicap to outgunned gangs. There's already a good amount of balance in the fact that large gangs can't move and react at the speed of small gangs.
|
Gin G
Halls Of Valhalla
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 02:53:00 -
[13]
err why
why should dps stack
do you even have a way way far out there dude answer to that Please refrain from editing a moderator's warning. Zymurgist |
Devine Winds
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 05:26:00 -
[14]
No.
No.
No.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 07:05:00 -
[15]
The increase in players caused fleets to get bigger which made (combined with Titan DD) buffer-tanks rear their ugly heads which led to an escalation in fleet size .. etc.
I personally both love and hate focused fire. It leaves little if any player skill to be used since it is all about range and target calling but is the only effective way of handling larger fleet battles.
It is a noble idea but would require tweaks to be made across the board (these are off the top of my head): 1. RR efficiency reduced to 25% when used on non Logistics. 2. Local repair efficiency increased by at least 50%. 3. Optimized target highlighting using fleet interface (very rudimentary now) to allow squads to have own set of targets. 4. CCP must be able to survive the ****-storm that will rise when they try to change people set in their ways and unwilling to change
Focused fire is a symptom of the blobbage taking place due to a massive increase in players. Make blobs less viable/desirable and you solve all sorts of problems, both performance and gameplay wise.
|
AFK Cloaker
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 10:16:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Sravaw
Originally by: Lord Windu This is a terrible idea and I actually think it is one of the worst ideas I have heard in ages, which is saying something because all sorts of **** gets posted daily on these forums.
Except, it's been done before in other games, and it works swimmingly.
You should play these other games then.
|
Alexander Branis
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 10:21:00 -
[17]
Don't be stupid enough to be caught by a larger fleet, sorted.
|
Rashmika Clavain
Gallente Shadows Of The Federation
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 11:00:00 -
[18]
lol it's been a while since this crap was raised Removed. Please keep your EVE signature related to your EVE persona and not that of a real life politician. Navigator |
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 11:33:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 10/09/2009 11:34:12
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Focused fire is a symptom of the blobbage taking place due to a massive increase in players. Make blobs less viable/desirable and you solve all sorts of problems, both performance and gameplay wise.
No, it's a symptom of not being able to kill a ship in one or two volleys (which is as it should be, I think the current gank/EHP ratios are largely fine from a gameplay perspective). Focus firing is as important in a small gang situation as it is in a large fleet. The only time you should not focus fire is when you're fighting ships who's EHP is so low it's not worth it (destroyer/T1 frig turkey shoot) or if you're in a position to kill something squishy which you're in the position to do (eg, stealth bomber uncloaks in a gang on gang fight and you find yourself in range to engage it). Else, focus firing is the quickest way to remove hostile DPS from the gang.
At any rate, focus fire is fine. There is nothing wrong with it, and even if you nerf it, the bigger blob assuming all things equal still wins (in fact, possibly even easier then now).
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Kezzle
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 12:09:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Capsule Dreams I liked the summary here. http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Military_Tactics#Concentrating_firepower_Tactics
Quote: Where as in a real war, a commander would not be able to call out a single target based on the targets base name of John Doe. Rather they would have to call out to attack in a certain direction, or target a certain group. Targeting a single target would have to be based on direction, distance, coordinate or type of target it might be. fair.
Except that quote is utter tosh in an info-based environment like EvE. If you want to make comparisons to reality, why can the FC not feed the target resolutions directly to the computers of every member of his fleet, tagging every sensor hit with a unique ID? It's doable now, and if things like warfare links can work in the base e-noise of the environment, a simple thing like a tac data overlay should be trivial.
You could handwave any reason for damage per second hitting some threshold of diminshing returns for damage (lasers blinding targeting sensors, there's so much impacting on the target; projectiles/armour debris making "chaff" that spoils targetting solutions; A mix of both with hybrids; missiles getting shot down by each other and the direct fire on the target) or RR, or you could say all these effects are trivial. It all depends on the game effect you want.
Having some definition of 'overkill' so that FCs can get an advantage by thinking of something useful to do with the extra damage might be a good thing to include, but a trope of (obviously fictional) space combat is that large engagements result in such concentration of fire that ship death is very quick.
|
|
Tom Peeping
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 13:04:00 -
[21]
Horrible idea honestly.
I see what you're wanting, but there's other ways to do it.
|
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 13:22:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Kezzle
You could handwave any reason for damage per second hitting some threshold of diminshing returns for damage (lasers blinding targeting sensors, there's so much impacting on the target; projectiles/armour debris making "chaff" that spoils targetting solutions; A mix of both with hybrids; missiles getting shot down by each other and the direct fire on the target) or RR, or you could say all these effects are trivial. It all depends on the game effect you want.
Want realistic weapon effects?
I would say that a reasonably assumed, say, ~30.000.000 TJ of energy released on one volley of a not very large fleet using rails would do a hell of a lot to a ship, the grid, and all the ships on it. Now do it every few seconds.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Sravaw
Gallente Forging Industries Einherjar Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 15:26:00 -
[23]
Originally by: AFK Cloaker
Originally by: Sravaw
Originally by: Lord Windu This is a terrible idea and I actually think it is one of the worst ideas I have heard in ages, which is saying something because all sorts of **** gets posted daily on these forums.
Except, it's been done before in other games, and it works swimmingly.
You should play these other games then.
Bring a real argument to the table. You know how debate works, don't you? You don't just say, "no, you're wrong," you come up with these things called counterpoints.
So, tell me, why is needing more strategy than "let's all shoot at the same guy," a bad idea? -- Feed my will to feel this moment Urging me to cross the line Reaching out to embrace the random Reaching out to embrace whatever may come |
Grut
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 15:48:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Grut on 10/09/2009 15:50:19 Comon focus fires been around since the start of eve and its always sucked once you get over the OMGOMGOMGshipmeltedin1secondLOLOLOLO!1!1111.
The only time its been at all reasonable has been the periods were ews been overpowered.
Currently 200 dreads locked in siege taking down the other fleet one at a time = boring as anything, you can't even warpout to avoid it or be RR'd.
There should be a mechanic to make shooting at a single target with more then 10-15 ships of the same class pointless.
All of a sudden theres alot more going on in fleets and the skill threshold shoots up.
Sure the ops post ain't the best way about going about it but its a needed change whatever the mechanic.
Kinsy > deadman you there? Kinsy > are either of us in pods, becase we dont know...
Mostly harmless [ 2005.12.09 19:22:50 ] (notify) You have started trying to warp scramble the Dreadnought |
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 16:25:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 10/09/2009 16:26:08
Originally by: Sravaw
So, tell me, why is needing more strategy than "let's all shoot at the same guy," a bad idea?
Why is "let's all shoot at the same guy" a bad idea? You want a change, you have to present a argument which does not fail on first inspection for it.
Let's look over most of the arguments presented: (1) It will make RR BS not invulnerable (as suggested by a poster above). (A:) RR BS are not invulnerable already. Enough burst DPS/alpha will break them, as will large amounts of ECM, or any combination of those two. If anything, something limiting DPS/REP on target means that ships last absurdly long (eg in the example given above it would take 750-1000 seconds to kill a really well fit RR ship with only 200 DPS overhead) and can deaggro+jump/dock even more easily.
(2) It will make the bigger blob less powerful. (A:) It will make the smaller blob less powerful, too. More numbers still win. Stacking DPS will just make it easier to blob someone ever more, in fact, since you will not be able to pop some and bugger off before the cavalry/EW/etc arrives.
(3) It will promote more tactics in fleet fights. (A:) For starters, a turkey shoot is not more tactics, not by a long shot. Secondly, if you make a reasonable interface for squad/wing commanders to do their own primaries, the only thing which happens is that you'll have 4-5-6 primaries instead of one (picked in basically the same way, too) and what people do is still lock the primary and press F1. So currently a fleet member will lock the primary and press F1, and if the changes go through a fleet member will lock the primary and press F1, which is truly a epic change in tactics. Enough ships will still be used to insure the primary goes down in flames in a volley, if possible.
(4) It will make fights longer. (A:) The only real effect you get from making fights any longer is to make it easier to bait/blob with a omg-EHP ship. If you're fighting vs a gang where stacking nerfs would apply solo, you will die certainly, only now you'll have more time to pull the bait/blob. If you cannot pull off the bait/blob as it is, do not ask for CCP to give you a helping hand with it. Gang on gang fights last long enough as it is.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Sravaw
Gallente Forging Industries Einherjar Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 17:22:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 10/09/2009 16:26:08
Originally by: Sravaw
So, tell me, why is needing more strategy than "let's all shoot at the same guy," a bad idea?
Why is "let's all shoot at the same guy" a bad idea? You want a change, you have to present a argument which does not fail on first inspection for it.
Let's look over most of the arguments presented: (1) It will make RR BS not invulnerable (as suggested by a poster above). (A:) RR BS are not invulnerable already. Enough burst DPS/alpha will break them, as will large amounts of ECM, or any combination of those two. If anything, something limiting DPS/REP on target means that ships last absurdly long (eg in the example given above it would take 750-1000 seconds to kill a really well fit RR ship with only 200 DPS overhead) and can deaggro+jump/dock even more easily.
(2) It will make the bigger blob less powerful. (A:) It will make the smaller blob less powerful, too. More numbers still win. Stacking DPS will just make it easier to blob someone ever more, in fact, since you will not be able to pop some and bugger off before the cavalry/EW/etc arrives.
(3) It will promote more tactics in fleet fights. (A:) For starters, a turkey shoot is not more tactics, not by a long shot. Secondly, if you make a reasonable interface for squad/wing commanders to do their own primaries, the only thing which happens is that you'll have 4-5-6 primaries instead of one (picked in basically the same way, too) and what people do is still lock the primary and press F1. So currently a fleet member will lock the primary and press F1, and if the changes go through a fleet member will lock the primary and press F1, which is truly a epic change in tactics. Enough ships will still be used to insure the primary goes down in flames in a volley, if possible.
(4) It will make fights longer. (A:) The only real effect you get from making fights any longer is to make it easier to bait/blob with a omg-EHP ship. If you're fighting vs a gang where stacking nerfs would apply solo, you will die certainly, only now you'll have more time to pull the bait/blob. If you cannot pull off the bait/blob as it is, do not ask for CCP to give you a helping hand with it. Gang on gang fights last long enough as it is.
See, that's how you do it. -- Feed my will to feel this moment Urging me to cross the line Reaching out to embrace the random Reaching out to embrace whatever may come |
Kodelka K
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 18:54:00 -
[27]
If we assume that penalizing focus fire is a good idea, I don't have any real large fleet experience so couldn't say, then I don't think a stacking penalty on damage would be a very elegant solution. It's counter intuitive and could have bizarre effects on other areas of the game, some of which were already mentioned.
If you wanted to do this one possible route could involve active modules for this purpose, drawing inspiration from enchantments that serve this same purpose in Guildwars. The actual numbers are just for example, they would obviously have to be tested for appropriate balance.
Absorbing Dispersion Field Reduce damage dealt to target ship by 5 points for 20 seconds. Damage is reduced by an additional 5 points for each hit sustained during the effects duration. This effect cannot reduce damage below X points.
Protective Dispersion Field Targeted ship cannot lose more then 10% of its hp per second. Any damage above 10% is negated.
Sanctuary Dispersion Field Increases all resistances to 95 for 3 seconds. You cannot warp, target, or activate modules during this time. 60 second reload.
All three of these would need easily perceived effects, perhaps even a notification of some sort if a pilot you have targeted has one on him. This would allow the defense to counter focused fire, while the offense could choose either to counter-counter by splitting fire or target switching away from dispersed targets, or to just stay on the target and try to push through.
|
Jack Icegaard
The Omega Project
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 19:15:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Jack Icegaard on 10/09/2009 19:20:37 Here is my suggestion to achieve better game mechanics for fleet warfare:
Weapon turrets is eve are very inaccurate and i assume that is because every ship has a standard EW-suit that distorts every signal emitting from the hull and thus makes it very hard to determine the exact location of each ship.
So lets say that when a lot of ships are congregated, those EW-suit starts to interfere with each other, causing malfunction to either their targeting system or their defensive capabilities or a combination of both. This could mean impaired scan resolution/range, greater Sig radius and so on, so forth.
Imo this is reasonable explanation for game mechanics that would encourage players to spread out and perhaps give a boost to small mobile gangs and skirmish warfare.
Just an idea, what do you think?
|
Xetal Maelstrom
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 19:30:00 -
[29]
I think a better idea would be to make it so that you can only see the ship type (not pod pilot name) of a ship unless you have that ship locked.
That would have a similar effect to what you're looking for, which I agree is desirable, while introducing realistic instead of artificial mechanics.
I also like the idea that was raised of "Projected defenses" outside of RR. Concepts such as projected resistance amplifiers would add a little more to logistics ships.
|
Capsule Dreams
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 20:44:00 -
[30]
OK, here's an alternative solution.
Increase targeting time when multiple people try to lock the same target. The more people that have a target locked, the longer it takes for the next person to lock that target.
Problem: -Could hostiles use this to make it hard to target ships for repair? -Could friendlies or neutrals use this to make it hard to target themselves for attack?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |