|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy
9897
|
Posted - 2016.05.14 03:02:35 -
[1] - Quote
Here's a trick that some good FCs do:
Decentralize the command structure
You have an FC for maneuvering and scouting. This person job is to find you a fight and get you into the best position to fight it. You have an FC for target calling. This person's job is simple; choose the best targets to win the fight. Have multiple Target callers in case one of them gets shot down. You have an EWar/Logi FC. Their job is to perform their specialty to direct support to friendly firepower where needed.
By keeping everything separate, you make it so that the enemy fleet has a hard time "scattering" the hostile fleet. The tradeoff is that it does take practice and trust in the judgement of others.
How did you Veterans start?
"Learn how things work. The intricacies, interactions, and hard limits... knowing these things will grant you far more power in the long run."
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy
9898
|
Posted - 2016.05.14 03:07:48 -
[2] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:Here's a trick that some good FCs do:
Decentralize the command structure
You have an FC for maneuvering and scouting. This person job is to find you a fight and get you into the best position to fight it. You have an FC for target calling. This person's job is simple; choose the best targets to win the fight. Have multiple Target callers in case one of them gets shot down. You have an EWar/Logi FC. Their job is to perform their specialty to direct support to friendly firepower where needed.
By keeping everything separate, you make it so that the enemy fleet has a hard time "scattering" the hostile fleet. The tradeoff is that it does take practice and trust in the judgement of others. please according to this guy you can't even find enough "leaders" for a single back up Sounds like a personal problem then.
Sometimes the best solution is to give up control rather than concentrate it.
How did you Veterans start?
"Learn how things work. The intricacies, interactions, and hard limits... knowing these things will grant you far more power in the long run."
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy
9902
|
Posted - 2016.05.15 23:46:47 -
[3] - Quote
Glitch Online wrote:As mentioned before, this 'game mechanic' is to prevent what would other wise be a great fleet vs fleet fight from ending fast (yes i know it is a tactic) BECAUSE the rest do not or will not take charge, and flee. Which is more of a personal issue on the part of the FC in charge and the fleets that fly under them.
And counter your "learn to read" comeback (which is getting a little old)...
I have read your idea. I understand the concept of your idea. I do not agree the concept of your idea because I fail to see an issue with "decapitating" a fleet.
Having a "centralized command" allows for faster and more efficient decisions... that is the benefit of it. However the inherent tradeoff is that if "central command" is nuked, then everything goes to hell. On the other end of the spectrum, a decentralized command structure allows for greater redundancy and flexibility when things don't go according to plan. The tradeoff is less efficiency and slower decision making.
It balances itself out.
Quite basically... what you are attempting to do is provide a buff for one command style because, for whatever reason, you don't think the other is viable. Decentralized command is viable and is done quite often. Methinks you need to learn how to utilize it rather than say "nononono... it isn't an option. I don't want to do it. It isn't my thing."
Guess what? No tactic should be superior to the other and not have some kind of caveat.
How did you Veterans start?
"Learn how things work. The intricacies, interactions, and hard limits... knowing these things will grant you far more power in the long run."
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy
9902
|
Posted - 2016.05.15 23:56:47 -
[4] - Quote
Glitch Online wrote:ShahFluffers wrote: And counter your "learn to read" comeback (which is getting a little old)...
... that's because you continue to miss the point. I get the point you are trying to make. I don't agree with it. That's the issue.
How did you Veterans start?
"Learn how things work. The intricacies, interactions, and hard limits... knowing these things will grant you far more power in the long run."
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy
9904
|
Posted - 2016.05.16 00:15:31 -
[5] - Quote
Glitch Online wrote:ShahFluffers wrote: I get the point you are trying to make. I don't agree with it. That's the issue.
That 'issue' sounds more of a personal problem. Not every one will agree with what you find to be right and/or pleasing. I respect your opinion, but don't expect the world to jump at your every command just because you don't like it. Fair enough.
But what you are proposing has wider implications beyond what you are trying to accomplish. Implications which may not have very positive effects in other areas of the game (which other people having been pointing out to you through various ways THEY would abuse the mechanics you propose).
The way I see it, the current system is balanced as is. If you want a more centralized fleet structure, cool. But you have to accept that "decapitation" and the fleet "imploding" is a very real risk. If you want a more decentralized fleet structure, cool. But you have to accept that poor decisions on the part of other commanders is a very real risk.
From my perspective, your system puts more protections / advantages for one style of commanding simply because you seem to personally do not like the risk that comes with it. To which I say, "so what?"
How did you Veterans start?
"Learn how things work. The intricacies, interactions, and hard limits... knowing these things will grant you far more power in the long run."
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy
9904
|
Posted - 2016.05.16 00:45:11 -
[6] - Quote
Glitch Online wrote:ShahFluffers wrote: The way I see it, the current system is balanced as is.
And again, I agree with you. I'll say this one more time. The only reason i came up with this 'idea' was because in the Video ccp mentioned a 'special' ship for FCs. I personaly do not like the idea of a ship that will have the same tank regardless of the fleet size. I am not demanding/requesting a change, just adding my 2 cents with "what if instead of X idea we do Y idea". Looking at the history of CCP and EVE Online... What the DEVs say they would like to do, them actually doing it, and them doing it properly are three fundamentally different things.
I would not take the musings of a DEV seriously until I see them moving forward with the concept.
They talked about "ambulation" (see: Walking in Station) for years and look how that turned out. Flying down to planets in our current ships... that was another thing that DEVs talked about a few years back as "something they would like to do." The idea was never heard of again. Docking in capital ships and being transported by them gets thrown about as well. In fact, the DEVs originally wanted to do just that. Then technical limitations with the base code of the game got in the way and so now we have jump bridges/portals. Drone ships were supposed to look and feel like ships that could summon up hordes of little bees. Then lag and the very code that drones are based on got in the way (drone code is supposed to be especially bad and buggy).
tldr; just because a DEV says something or wants something to be a certain way... it doesn't mean it will be that way or even be at all. Be patient. Keep your expectations and fears in check. You can't "get ahead of something" that doesn't exist in the first place or is a big, fat unknown.
It is okay to muse about an idea and toss it about. But it is also okay to call it out for what it is.
Also... the concept of a "Special Ship JUST for Fleet Commanders" has been thrown about quite a bit on this very forum (usually under the subject line of "Ship of the Line" or "Fleet Commander Battleship" or "Super Battleship" or some other cliche naming scheme). The idea tends to get shot down pretty quickly because balancing such a ship would be extremely difficult given how computer code cannot discern intent or meta-gaming.
How did you Veterans start?
"Learn how things work. The intricacies, interactions, and hard limits... knowing these things will grant you far more power in the long run."
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy
9904
|
Posted - 2016.05.16 01:01:07 -
[7] - Quote
Being openly ambivalent about an idea and not telling others "please re-read" can go a long way in a debate.
Also... if you did not like the idea to begin with then you could have made it more open ended and not defended it so passionately/aggressively.
It is okay to say "I head about a DEV talking about this idea, I personally do not like it, but I would like to see thoughts about it." Then sit back and let the fireworks happen.
How did you Veterans start?
"Learn how things work. The intricacies, interactions, and hard limits... knowing these things will grant you far more power in the long run."
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy
9904
|
Posted - 2016.05.16 01:08:23 -
[8] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:now that's just no fun i need entertainment when i'm at work *psssssst* ... Lugh... give the man an "out."
How did you Veterans start?
"Learn how things work. The intricacies, interactions, and hard limits... knowing these things will grant you far more power in the long run."
|
|
|
|