Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lookzor
|
Posted - 2007.07.05 20:26:00 -
[31]
I aggree that line of sight would be very nice in EVE, would make for interesting asteroid field battles to say the least. However, if the objective is to reduce lage then it's one of the worst things that could happend. Imagine that every time you fire a small autocannon(or other rapid fire weapon) the game had to make sure that the target just wasn't out of range but it had to check LOS with all nearby ojects aswell. Say hello to MAJOR lag, Perhaps I'm a bit ignorant about the coding required but it seems like it would require more bandwith. |
Toramt
|
Posted - 2007.07.05 20:28:00 -
[32]
Ships that get hit with munitions get jarred some amount. This should throw off the guidance of any other incoming weaponry -- can your targeting system account for the change in momentums created by fifty different shells / beams / missiles hitting a given target? Each hit in the last X seconds should serve to reduce your signature radius by some amount for the next few seconds. 500 (arbitrary number) turrets / missiles bearing down on one target should make it so jittery that hits go down considerably, and lock times increases.
This makes it better to spread the focus fire over several targets to avoid jarring them into immunity. Some balancing would have to be done to avoid everyone from friendly-firing their dread just to give it some immunity.
|
J'Mkarr Soban
Amarr Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.06 13:29:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Originally by: J'Mkarr Soban I'll add something. No caps on system, that's bad.
Bias the load on the servers proportional to people in the system to reduce lag. Whilst most people will say that this idea will just encourage more people to arrive in the blob, from what I've seen more people are added to make sure that the damage gets through despite the lag, the overkill is there to compensate for it.
Large fleet battles ftw. Half the stories in the chronicles talk about them. Just make them easier.
I'm not very good with technical matters. What do you mean by biasing the load?
Dynamic load balancing, the amount of resources for a system scales up with the number of people in that system. It's elementary distributed systems design, tbh, I don't know what they were thinking not implementing it.
Originally by: J'Mkarr Soban Another thing is it's really hard to discuss the kind of tactics we've seen in past real world battles, because we're talking about a place where we can get true 3D formations. I've come up with a few that I want to test at some point, although obviously I'm not going to tell you lot heh. Suffice to say you can't talk about 'line abreast' or 'right echlon' as these refer to small squadrons. You need to discuss the tactics and formations in terms of fleets, where each 'unit' in a fleet is a flight or squadron in itself.
Yes, it's possible that some fleet formations can be of use (I've thought about this myself), but what CCP considers a problem IS the lack of "line abreast" and such small formations, and that's what I was discussing in the OP.
Originally by: Kindakrof Edited by: Kindakrof on 04/07/2007 14:05:09 It's not an easy problem to solve.
How about just lowering the bomb requirements a bit? (as in less skills needed for the use of them)
To make bombs effective, you'd need to make them cheap, not too skill intensive, and deadly, which would lead to fleets of bombers instead of fleets of BSes, so you're back at square one basically.
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.07.06 13:53:00 -
[34]
Couple of points:
1. Warping together happens because there's no way not to do it. If CCP want it to stop they can implement a way to specify where around something I want to come out of warp.
2. Line of Sight solves nothing - it's space, it's voluminous, even in a 5km sphere it's pretty statistically unlikely your weapons will be obstructed by other ships.
3. System caps are stupid. What CCP need are more tangible benefits to splitting up into multiple engagement areas. The fact is there's no reason to do so with mechanics as they are. The other problem is they favor SP over anything else - when you have fixed numbers, more SP will typically win.
The only real answer I can give you for making things more interesting is really that area defensive systems need to implemented - deployable shields and the like.
And I mean that this needs to be extensive - shield bubbles which enemies can't enter, bubble breaching systems, remote resizers to force people out, that sort of thing.
Basically, when two fleets hit each other they play a tactical game of trying to either get a few ships in the open from defensive shields, or trying to breach a bubble with some ships in it etc.
|
Reithan
Caldari LEGI0N SOUL CARTEL
|
Posted - 2007.07.06 14:35:00 -
[35]
The topic of formations, in my mind, brings up an easy remedy to the lag problem with blobbing.
CCP has always said they want to introduce flight by formation and even warping in formation. Which most players I've seen discuss it agree: it's a really cool idea.
Now, just make it so that any ships flying in a formation are counted as just ONE single entity by the server for purposes of collision checking, movement, etc.
This means if you have you entire blob didvide into formations of 6 ships each, you basically reduce the load on the server to the equivalent of a blob almost 1/6th the size you actually have.
This, additionally, would allow you towarp in formations, counteracting the "Powerball" blob formations, and would probably open up cool new "Formation Bonuses" and things like actual coordinated fire strikes and such.
In short - Formations are the answer.
CCP - You said you want to reduce lag, you said you want to implement formations. They are the same solution. DO IT!
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.07.06 14:51:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Eric Lupanasia Well, there is one thing they could do to get the groups to spread out: Make it dangerous to bunch up.
- Heavy / cruise missiles have blast radius damage- not extensive, but any frigate hanging on the coattails of a battleship is going to get rattled. - Exploding ships do damge to nearby ships- now, I've never seen a capital ship "go up", but I imagine this allowing for a slow chain-reaction type explosion. Imagine having to disengage all targets and run for your life because that dreadnought behind you just took a fatal hit, and its powerplant is about to blow.
Hey, I'm the kind of guy who loves firing artillery into groups of infantry. So sue me.
Think of what people will do in Jita with those suggestion and you will see why they are bad.
The are nice it thounght in a starship battle, but when you use them in high sec suicide ganking (or even a legitimate war but in system packing neutrals) the effect are devastant.
And who will be blamed by CONCORD for the damage? Someone kill a freighter at Jita 4-4 and the owner, beside losing ship an cargo, lose 5 points of standing for damaging and destroing a lot of ships around him witht he ship blast?
Or if he don't lose standin what will block some enterprising guy from putting x frigates on the undocking point at Jita 4-4 and start firing on them, killing passers by with the ship esplosion and avoiding the sec loss as they are in his corporation?
|
Reithan
Caldari LEGI0N SOUL CARTEL
|
Posted - 2007.07.06 15:01:00 -
[37]
I think if ships explosions had blast radiuses someone would pack a gate or undock with a couple hundred noob frigs, pop them and watch the fireworks.
Someone say free doomsday?
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.07.06 15:11:00 -
[38]
Collision detection and line of sight for fire are pretty much the "easy" answers. That would mean that a normal "blob" would only end up shooting at their own guys in the back, when they warp in, ships would have to align to form battle lines, so that they could direct fire. Would be cool... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Gaia's Wrath
|
Posted - 2007.07.06 15:37:00 -
[39]
Here are my 2 cents.
Gang Penalties, for example when a gang reach x number of players all ships in the gang take a lock time or range hit and the penalty increases by a factor for every next level of players in the gang, ie 10 players = -10% to target range or lock time, 20 players = -20%, etc to some set cap.
Now when the gang is in a fleet structure these penalties don't apply. Also with the squads in place the squad members would only be able to fire on targets not locked on by another squad. Now this could be overridden by a wing or fleet commander however there would need to be a locking or range penalty that would be reduced to zero depending on the fleet or wing commanders fleet/wingcommand skill level.
This would still allow for mass locking but at a cost and would encourage the move away from the mob blob while encouraging fleet structure to get full benefits.
|
J'Mkarr Soban
Amarr Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.06 15:56:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Laboratus Collision detection and line of sight for fire are pretty much the "easy" answers. That would mean that a normal "blob" would only end up shooting at their own guys in the back, when they warp in, ships would have to align to form battle lines, so that they could direct fire. Would be cool...
LOS would only mean that the ships firing would stop firing if they didn't have LOS to the target. Computers are powerful enough to do it now, never mind in the future . Plus missiles can navigate around other objects to get to their target.
And like someone said, I've only seen very few occassions where there have been so many ships in one blob that there wasn't a true LOS. Whilst LOS would go a bit to spreading open the blob (and that's all it would be, instead of 5km from each other, they'd be 10, which also means less damage due to bombs) it adds a huge, massive amount to the lag, as all the calculations would need to be done server side. Also, it requires better collision detection, because at the moment the 'ship' is just a small sphere in the centre of the model, not all the edges and everything.
|
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.07.07 02:37:00 -
[41]
Also, for god's sake, the "powerball" is not a problem in and of itself. If ships are in a sphere around you or a tight sphere shooting you, the punchline is, you still die, and lag is as bad as it ever was (probably worse because there isn't a camera angle to get the ship models to not render).
|
Raathe
|
Posted - 2007.07.07 16:44:00 -
[42]
It is my opinion that CCP does want to see tactical formations become a necessity in combat. Bombs are a step in the right direction; however, there are a few more steps required.
1) Like many have said, implement line of site. When doing this use the shield signature radius as it's hitbox (if it has shields up at the time).
2) Implement collision damage. It should be rather severe and more than capable of destroying either ship involved in a collision.
3) Ship destruction should leave environmental contamination in a large radius in addition to a shockwave that decays according to a 1/r^2 rule. The shockwave would deal kinetic damage. Now I know a shockwave doesn't make sense in space since there is no medium to propogate it. The shockwave would simply be a model for shrapnel and gases propogating outwards at a high velocity. The contamination would be radioactive and deal slow damage over time as EM damage.
With these 3 things added to the game it adds a deep level of tactical depth. Right now with the blob it is simply a numbers game. Two adversaries are able to bring 100% of their fire power to bare against each other without any tactical reason to do otherwise. So the fleet with the most guns wins.
With the 3 points I have made above in combination with bombs, it will require a squadron commander to decide on a tactical formation for the member vessels. Also, due to the damage caused by ship destruction the squadron commander must consider the individual placement and composition of different types of vessels. I will elaborate on this in the formations section. Formations will have their pros and cons. Lets consider some simple examples.
Sphere formation: This is the 3D analog of a circle formation. Pros: the sphere formation is not vulnerable to flanking or any other attempts at using direction as a tactic to defeat the squadron. It would be suitable for defending a position where the direction of attack is entirely unknown.
Cons: The primary disadvantage of this formation is roughly only 50% of the fire power of the formation can be brought to bear at a given time to defend the position. The SC would also be restricted from using a large number of shield tanked vessels as they provide a larger profile and make it difficult for ships to shoot through the formation on the side opposite of the attack. Also keep in mind that the ships in this formation and any formation would be spread rather far apart due to the dangers posed by ship destruction and bombs.
Wall Formation: This is the 3D analog of the "line" of naval warefare. Pros: This formation can bring to bare a large percentage of the squadron's firepower on an attack from behind or the front. If CCP wants to make it interesting though they could make turrets have limited effectiveness in certain directions. This formation would likely be popular for defending a static point where the angle of attack is expected.
Cons: This formation leaves the squadron vulnerable to flanking as it will be unable to bring any considerable firepower to bare against a flanking force. A very small force could flank this formation and do considerable damage and take minimal losses. This opens up the possibility of squadrons of smaller ships using hit and run tactics to weaken heavily fortified positions of greater numbers.
Cone Formation: This formation is the 3D analog of the delta V formation. It is a compromise between the sphere and wall. Pros: It is able to defend a position where the angle of attack is not known to a high degree but a general direction. Cons: There is no attack vector that brings 100% of the squadrons firepower to bare. It is also very vulnerable from attacks from behind. The firepower profile from behind is very weak.
To implement such a system more robust warping and formation tools would need to be implemented. Also there are likely some technical challenges, but that is for the CCP engineers to work out, not us.
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2007.07.07 16:59:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Gaia's Wrath Here are my 2 cents.
Gang Penalties, for example when a gang reach x number of players all ships in the gang take a lock time or range hit and the penalty increases by a factor for every next level of players in the gang, ie 10 players = -10% to target range or lock time, 20 players = -20%, etc to some set cap.
Now when the gang is in a fleet structure these penalties don't apply. Also with the squads in place the squad members would only be able to fire on targets not locked on by another squad. Now this could be overridden by a wing or fleet commander however there would need to be a locking or range penalty that would be reduced to zero depending on the fleet or wing commanders fleet/wingcommand skill level.
This would still allow for mass locking but at a cost and would encourage the move away from the mob blob while encouraging fleet structure to get full benefits.
so you are against large fleets ? ____ __ ________ _sig below_ the jet cans are made so that people that dont mine can get free ore
miners ritually donate the ore to anyone wishing to take some |
Raathe
|
Posted - 2007.07.07 17:01:00 -
[44]
In my last post I discussed primarily defensive properties of the 3 formations I mentioned. I should also discuss attack.
Sphere formation: Pros: There really are not substantial advantages to attacking with a sphere formation unless you know the defender will have maneuverable squadrons of ships that can flank your attacking force or attack from behind. If this is know for certain ahead of time this may be a good formation for large slow vessels. However, an attacking fleet could bring squadrons of small vessels of their own to defend against such attacks. This would make this particular formation unpopular for attacks since it sacrifices so much firepower.
Wall formation: Pros: This formation allows the attacking fleet to bring most of it's firepower to bare against its target position. Since the direction of the defense is known ahead of time this formation is a safe bet. Only in situations where it is possible a large fleet of large ships could flank the attacker would this formation not be desireable. Cons: Vulnerable to flanking or any kind of dynamic battle space.
Inverted cone formation: This attack posture would have the point of the cone at the back of the formation and the cone would envelope a single point of attack, such as a stationary object or capital ship. Pros: This formation can bring a large percentage of it's firepower to bare against its target if it is able to envelope it. It is also has a 2pi steradian angular cross section for which it can defend itself effectively.
Cons: This formation is very vulnerable to frontal attacks on the leading edge of the cone. The ships at the back point of the cone would be unable to aid in the squadron defense.
I've only mentioned 3 possible formations. A squadron commander could be given a number of tools for building and maintaining formations. The 3 points in my previous post also make it so that numbers do not necessarily determine the victor if the adversary uses superior tactics. This would primarily result from forcing ships to maintain very large distances between each other to avoid collisions and damage from destroyed ships. It would also aid in mitigating the effect of bombs used against a squadron.
If a force does happen to have superior numbers it would encourage them to break their forces down into squadrons of differing formations and defensive or attacking postures. This would add yet another dimension of tactics to combat.
Now there may or may not be technical issues with implementing the 3 points I mentioned. However, no one except the system engineers are qualified to comment on the feasability of such features. As such I do not feel it is very relevant to this discussion.
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2007.07.07 17:07:00 -
[45]
overall cool ideas to eve but what you are all trying to fix will always be done no matter if it takes more gangs more leaders or some other tricks to bypass these absurd rules ____ __ ________ _sig below_ the jet cans are made so that people that dont mine can get free ore
miners ritually donate the ore to anyone wishing to take some |
Hannobaal
Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.07.07 17:19:00 -
[46]
There is nothing wrong with large fleets aside from the lag issue. Fix that, and there is no problem.
If you don't like the fact that the people you choose to fight have superior numbers, bring more of your own, don't fight those people, or just deal with it. ------------------
|
Lordus Wellington
|
Posted - 2007.07.07 17:41:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Lordus Wellington on 07/07/2007 17:41:36 Why not increase the dispersal of ships around a gate as you come into the system tenfold. Say 250km Radius ?
Would this create a need to organise your inbound fleet more ? It would certainly require forming up for the different ship classes to interact properly.
Also maybe less instant server load when people hit lock/fire as a fleet came through a gate. It would require more time analyze, manover and target the Fleet coming through the gate if its at long range.
Also it may break up gate camp blobs into smaller blobs to cover the larger dispersion as ships come in. In essence it would slow down the instant blob v blob after a fleet comes through a gate becuase it would require ships to manover into there different roles ranges.
As regards Warp Blob to 0km... dunno
|
ghosttr
Amarr ARK-CORP FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.07 18:16:00 -
[48]
Well we have yet to see any real changes from rev 2. I think that the stealth bomber weapon was made a bit too expensive to make any real impact. At 20 mil a pop not too many people are going to be using them. . Do not read this thread!!!
|
Kiyirari
Grumpy Old Farts Gruntfuttocks
|
Posted - 2007.07.07 19:23:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Kiyirari on 07/07/2007 19:25:29 I'm quite in favour of flight formations with a combination of friendly fire incidents or not being able to fire through another ship.
I guess an auto safety feature could be added to guns which deactivates the gun if a friendly ship pass's your line of fire. Maybe able to add that to a filter list ?
Not over keen on splash damage from exploding ships, could prove interesting tho it would be bad for close range tackles given the fact that various sized ships may have different sized explosion splash damage radius. Thus giving the option of what jam to use eg 7.5km or 20km, including orbitial ranges and correct ammo to use to avoid splash...
Or possible a % chance of being hit by flying debris based upon the size of your signature radius of your ship or a variable degree of thermal/explosive damage depending on how close you are to the center of the explosion similar to the way missile are work out for damage related to velocity & sig.
just some ideas, some of it would know dout add lag etc but thats my 2 cents worth to the topic.
Revenge is my god and my guns are her angels |
cal freyr
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.07.08 05:28:00 -
[50]
Introduce friendly fire (shots can't go through objects anymore)? :P I'm a little t1 frigate noob. Nice to meet you. Got scram? |
|
BluOrange
Gallente Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.07.08 07:16:00 -
[51]
Blobs are not the problem. Powerballs are not the problem. Lag is the problem. (If you don't like being in a situation where people won't engage without an overwhelming advantage, find a more aggressive bunch of people to fly with and/or fight; they're out there.)
That said, a sphere is a damned good attacking formation - if your target is at the center of the sphere. With warp drives, that's not so difficult to arrange.
Recruitment FAQ |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |