EVE Search - Focus Fire Mitigation and Alpha discussion thread

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Features and Ideas Discussion

Focus Fire Mitigation and Alpha discussion thread

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Reply to Topic \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ines Tegator Towels R Us 154	Posted - 2012.03.12 23:13:00 - [1] - Quote A great many people do not like the gameplay of Alpha fleets. Yes, I'm among them. Various ideas have been knocked around by various people for years, but one that keeps coming back and has the most potential is mitigating damage based on the number of attackers. Sins of a Solar Empire does a version this. Basically, the more enemy ships are hitting your ship, the higher your mitigation goes up. From a lore standpoint this is not a problem, since attacks generate debris either from broken armor and hull, debris from the impactors, or thick gasses from energy weapons vaporizing hull material. These could reasonably be considered to reduce the effectiveness of subsequent attacks, and would disperse when the volume of attacks is reduced. There are obviously issues. Should mitigation be done on a per-attacker basis? This makes frigates and low DPS ships undesirable. On a per attack basis? Rapid fire weapons and drones are penalized. Number of foes locking you? Exploitable by fleetmates. How would this affect PVE? Also, this would require a pass over of tanking and RR in general. These issues need to be discussed and solved before a real plan can be sent to the CSM/CCP. The benefits are potentially very high. Increased effect of local tank, increased effect of individual piloting on the fleet outcome, more dynamic and exciting fights, more strategic opportunities for EWAR (target painters in particular could be given a solid role by negating the penalty, making Minmatar EWAR hulls useful for a change), creative target calling, and so on. If done correctly it could make fleet pvp much more exciting and fun. Could also sink the whole combat experience if it's done badly. Without question, a change this big would have to be built into a major expansion and would be 1 year or more down the road from now. So... here's a central thread to discuss the idea. Alpha fleets and the ways to make fleet combat more interesting. Discuss. tl;dr Alpha fleets suck. Scaling damage mitigation SOASE style sounds like the best solution if it can be refined properly. Discuss.
Simi Kusoni The Synergy Cascade Imminent 315	Posted - 2012.03.12 23:35:00 - [2] - Quote Option c) The concept is inherently flawed, hence in years of discussion a balanced method of implementation has never been found. /thread -ahttp://i.imgur.com/aWNfM.jpg
Ines Tegator Towels R Us 154	Posted - 2012.03.12 23:38:00 - [3] - Quote So insightful. I appreciate your illuminations of the issues, mechanics and limitations involved. Also, having thoroughly debunked the original idea, your proposition of an alternative solution to the original problem is spot on will undoubtedly serve as a framework for the discussion going forward.. ha.
Vertisce Soritenshi Varion Galactic Tragedy. 1223	Posted - 2012.03.12 23:42:00 - [4] - Quote Yes...we needed another one of these threads. The other one that has been going all day just wasn't good enough... EvE is not about PvP.-a EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-a Open the door!!!
Ines Tegator Towels R Us 154	Posted - 2012.03.12 23:46:00 - [5] - Quote Vertisce Soritenshi wrote: Yes...we needed another one of these threads. The other one that has been going all day just wasn't good enough... This one is more specific.
Simi Kusoni The Synergy Cascade Imminent 316	Posted - 2012.03.12 23:46:00 - [6] - Quote Ines Tegator wrote: So insightful. I appreciate your illuminations of the issues, mechanics and limitations involved. Also, having thoroughly debunked the original idea, your proposition of an alternative solution to the original problem is spot on will undoubtedly serve as a framework for the discussion going forward.. ha. This idea has been discussed to death in a thousand other threads, by me and most of the other regulars here. You want to see the issues inherent in it's application? Use the search function. -ahttp://i.imgur.com/aWNfM.jpg
Nariya Kentaya Ministry of War Amarr Empire 147	Posted - 2012.03.12 23:49:00 - [7] - Quote I cannot see any way for this to work without being exploited by fleetmates. lock-based -> just get locked by your fleet-mates attack-based -> Test has its frigate noobs shooting at its carriers with civilian weaponry mitigationg an entire enemy fleet's worth of ship-DPS. On the same logic you based your need for mitigation on, ill say this. If you have 1 bullet flying at a soldier, he muight egt hit, he might not. 10 bullets - hes prolly dead, but there are still cahnces they eitehr missed or hit non-vitally 100 - bullets, excessive, man is undoubtedly been hit in a vital blood-related area 1000+ bullets - the dude is pulp and so is everything near him from the shear amount of bullets coming at him. so contrary to what your wording suggests, more bullets going at 1 target actually amke it MORE LIKELY for it to be hit in a vital area, or lots of vital areas. thats why ships in the olden days used shittons of cannons and different types of ammunition, to ensure they hit SOMETHING. thats also whya rtillery batteries have more then 1 artillery-piece, the more you have, the more liekly you are to WTFBBQ INFERNODEATHKILL anything you shoot at. also, a laser-weapon melting the hull of an opponent woud NOT "lessen the effect of another attack" it would INCREASE its effectiveness because you just mutilated and structurally WEAKENED that hull-piece, meaning a good arty shell would blow it to kingdom-come. so if ANYTHING needs to eb done about "alpha" it needs to egt a MULTIPLIER (just joking on the multiplier, but seriosuly, it would make no sense to mitigate it)
Ines Tegator Towels R Us 154	Posted - 2012.03.12 23:52:00 - [8] - Quote Simi Kusoni wrote: This idea has been discussed to death in a thousand other threads, by me and most of the other regulars here. You want to see the issues inherent in it's application? Use the search function. I'm aware of that and acknowledged it, if your reading comprehension is up to the task of noticing. I was hoping a communal discussion in good faith could pool everyones ideas and break the barriers behind the concept, which as I mentioned could dramatically improve the gameplay of fleet combat, thus making it worth the effort to dig in and tackle the ideas. Thank's for giving it honest try with an open mind.
Katie Frost Asgard. Exodus. 32	Posted - 2012.03.12 23:55:00 - [9] - Quote Unfortunately Ines, your proposal simply does not make much sense. Basic math behind it... Incoming Damage > EHP = Death. There is no clear sense in allowing a ship to become more resistant with more damage applied to it. Lore? I don't think that your logic is quite there as it could be applied to armour and hull tanks only. There is no debris from shield impact. But even with hull/armour pieces floating around, I seriously do not see this mitigating the incoming laser, projectile, missile, hybrid in any significant way. It would be interesting to make combat more diverse by taking out the primary/alpha mentality and giving greater meaning to squads or ship-to-ship combat even in large fleet engagements. How can this be applied? Many have argued on these forums and no clear, non-exploitable suggestion has stood the test of forum flames. Yours I believe is destined to go down the same way. Good luck though.
Ines Tegator Towels R Us 154	Posted - 2012.03.12 23:58:00 - [10] - Quote Nariya Kentaya wrote: I cannot see any way for this to work without being exploited by fleetmates. I mentioned those very issues. I'm thinking that some combination of Damage Inflicted weighted by Number of Attackers (or would that be other way around?) would be a good solution. I am not good enough at math to create such a formula. Hence the request for discussion. Quote: also, a laser-weapon melting the hull of an opponent woud NOT "lessen the effect of another attack" it would INCREASE its effectiveness because you just mutilated and structurally WEAKENED that hull-piece, meaning a good arty shell would blow it to kingdom-come. Vaporized material from the target impedes the laser by diffusing it and absorbing some of the energy. This is a real problem involved in creating large-scale laser weaponry. You can look it up. It's the entire reason that the sci-fi concept of "pulse laser" came around. Pulsing the laser at a higher intensity like a strobe light delivers the same amount of energy/time to target, but allows for more dissipation of ejected material. Or so the theory goes.

Ines Tegator Towels R Us 154	Posted - 2012.03.13 00:01:00 - [11] - Quote Katie Frost wrote: There is no clear sense in allowing a ship to become more resistant with more damage applied to it. Lore? I don't think that your logic is quite there as it could be applied to armour and hull tanks only. There's no clear sense behind warp drives or jump gates either, but technobabble was written for it so it could be include for gameplay purposes. It actually makes the most sense with lasers, since large projectiles simply push the less massive ejecta out of their path. Also, solid impactors would leave debris even if they hit shields. But it's sensible enough to make an explanation in a world that allows flying through solid planets and perfect cloning of consciousness.
Ines Tegator Towels R Us 154	Posted - 2012.03.13 00:01:00 - [12] - Quote double post
Nariya Kentaya Ministry of War Amarr Empire 147	Posted - 2012.03.13 00:05:00 - [13] - Quote Ines Tegator wrote: Nariya Kentaya wrote: I cannot see any way for this to work without being exploited by fleetmates. I mentioned those very issues. I'm thinking that some combination of Damage Inflicted weighted by Number of Attackers (or would that be other way around?) would be a good solution. I am not good enough at math to create such a formula. Hence the request for discussion. Quote: also, a laser-weapon melting the hull of an opponent woud NOT "lessen the effect of another attack" it would INCREASE its effectiveness because you just mutilated and structurally WEAKENED that hull-piece, meaning a good arty shell would blow it to kingdom-come. Vaporized material from the target impedes the laser by diffusing it and absorbing some of the energy. This is a real problem involved in creating large-scale laser weaponry. You can look it up. It's the entire reason that the sci-fi concept of "pulse laser" came around. Pulsing the laser at a higher intensity like a strobe light delivers the same amount of energy/time to target, but allows for more dissipation of ejected material. Or so the theory goes. there is your flaw rigtht here... "vaporized" means turned to a ags, adn eys in an ATMOSPHERIC environement that ags coudl be problematic. in sapce, gas expands at a enar infinite rate as the superheated molecules fly away from eachother, so NO, it would NOT impede a bullet unless the bullet and laser came into contact with eachother, but now thats the laser shooting the bullet, not the hull-vapors stopping it.
Simi Kusoni The Synergy Cascade Imminent 317	Posted - 2012.03.13 00:07:00 - [14] - Quote Ines Tegator wrote: I'm aware of that and acknowledged it, if your reading comprehension is up to the task of noticing. I was hoping a communal discussion in good faith could pool everyones ideas and break the barriers behind the concept, which as I mentioned could dramatically improve the gameplay of fleet combat, thus making it worth the effort to dig in and tackle the ideas. Thank's for giving it honest try with an open mind. These ideas have been proposed, over and over again, for years. None of them have ever been able to get around the fundamental flaws in the concept, because these flaws are fundamental. Ines Tegator wrote: I'm thinking that some combination of Damage Inflicted weighted by Number of Attackers (or would that be other way around?) (...) I am not good enough at math to create such a formula. Hence the request for discussion. Remind me, how is this thread more specific or complete than the thousands of other, completely identical, threads? If you have a new, or somehow different/interesting, implementation of an old concept then feel free to make a thread for it. But at the moment this thread can basically be summed up with: Ines Tegator wrote: I WANT YOU TO DISCUSS SOMETHING YOU HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR YEARS, ONLY I WANT YOU TO DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN FOR MY BENEFIT AND I HAVE NOTHING NEW TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION! -ahttp://i.imgur.com/aWNfM.jpg
Ines Tegator Towels R Us 154	Posted - 2012.03.13 00:21:00 - [15] - Quote So you guys are ready to give up even though the potential gameplay advantages are enormous. Got it. Anyone who's not a total pessimist that thinks insults pass for a discussion care to provide input?
Nariya Kentaya Ministry of War Amarr Empire 148	Posted - 2012.03.13 00:26:00 - [16] - Quote Ines Tegator wrote: So you guys are ready to give up even though the potential gameplay advantages are enormous. Got it. Anyone who's not a total pessimist that thinks insults pass for a discussion care to provide input? Gameplay designs should be MADE by the epssimists, as we are willing to see what all WILL go wrong and how badly it will impact the greater-game. just because you think your diea is good doesnt eman it will work out, and there really is no way to do this that wont be exploited. im not saying there CANT be an elegant way to approach and confront the problem, but with current-mechanics i dont think it would be realistic to attempt any seriosu combat-mechanic changes, and personally i feel the game would be better served with all the ships being balanced out first, THEN we can address issues that woudl require a more long-term dev interation. and back on the pessimist thing, seriously, CCP put these forums here so the pessimists COULD tear apart any and all ideas, if you can come up with an idea that even WE can abck, im sure CCP will jump right on with its implementation. and as for pessimism, i only skimmed the other's posts, but i havent and far as ive seen enither have they, actively attacked you verbally. the only thing that has even been hostile is that she WAS telling you these forums ahve appeared many times and that this discussion will not see any new outcome under current circumsatnces, again, im sorry we dont see your view of what you think eve should be.
Ines Tegator Towels R Us 154	Posted - 2012.03.13 00:30:00 - [17] - Quote All you naysayers are being lazy. A proper solution needs to factor in multiple elements. This means math. I'm no expert but I'll try to illustrate. Some baseline assumed numbers (not suggested for actual use but as an example): A typical battleship does 500 DPS. A typical frigate does 100 DPS. The goal is 50% mitigation under sustained fire from 10 battleship targets. So if incoming damage = (500* number of attackers) And number of attackers = 10 then the mitigation will be 50% results would be averaged out over a given interval, perhaps 10 seconds. On second thought, that's shorter then an artillery cycle. I'll worry about that later. so that's 5000 DPS dealt from 10 attackers. So far so good. Simple stuff. Lets put some frigates in. 5 frigates + 10 battleships=5500 DPS. Under a straight number of targets ratio (1 = 5%) thats 75% mitigation for a trivial amount of incoming damage. Not good. Under a straight DPS ratio (10% per 1k DPS) that 51% mitigation. Rather better, but not ideal, because of the potential of targets to do more or less then the baseline. This penalizes optimized fits that do more then the baseline damage. Rather, we'd want 5 1000 dps battelships to generate 25% mitigation. What's needed then is a formula that accounts for incoming damage, weights it according to the number of attackers, averages the data over an appropriate interval, and produces a consistent and balanced result. Also it should be capped at an upper limit, probly 50%. Now I've identified the needs of the situation in a quantifiable manner and contributed something unique. I'd have to sit for a long time with a calculator and some scratch paper to propose a formula, and I'm sure someone could do a better job then me anyway, but it deserves taking a stab at it and not drive-by-postwads dismissing it out of hand rather then trying to be creative.
Nariya Kentaya Ministry of War Amarr Empire 148	Posted - 2012.03.13 00:37:00 - [18] - Quote Ines Tegator wrote: All you naysayers are being lazy. A proper solution needs to factor in multiple elements. This means math. I'm no expert but I'll try to illustrate. Some baseline assumed numbers (not suggested for actual use but as an example): A typical battleship does 500 DPS. A typical frigate does 100 DPS. The goal is 50% mitigation under sustained fire from 10 battleship targets. So if incoming damage = (500* number of attackers) And number of attackers = 10 then the mitigation will be 50% results would be averaged out over a given interval, perhaps 10 seconds. so that's 5000 DPS dealt from 10 attackers. So far so good. Simple stuff. Lets put some frigates in. 5 frigates + 10 battleships=5500 DPS. Under a straight number of targets ratio (1 = 5%) thats 75% mitigation for a trivial amount of incoming damage. Not good. Under a straight DPS ratio (10% per 1k DPS) that 52.5% mitigation. Rather better, but not ideal, because of the potential of targets to do more or less then the baseline. What's needed then is a formula that accounts for incoming damage, weights it according to the number of attackers, averages the data over an appropriate interval, and produces a consistent and balanced result. Also it should be capped at an upper limit, probly 50%. Now I've identified the needs of the situation in a quantifiable manner and contributed something unique. I'd have to sit for a long time with a calculator and some scratch paper to propose a formula, and I'm sure someone could do a better job then me anyway, but it deserves taking a stab at it and not drive-by-postwads dismissing it out of hand rather then trying to be creative. Ok, that idea has SOME logical basis behind it, but now let me counter with a MAJOR flaw. the server now has to do calculations.... alot of them.... now assuming you ahev people doing missions in some systems, and large fleet battles in anothers, this could put a larger strain on the server's ability to process information. now you may say "oh its basic math", well it isnt, ebcause even in doctrine-fleets, people have different skills, and the server would have to computer eahc of those separately, causing alot of grief, since it would add another 10-15% stress to the server which would throw the possibilty of large fleet fights (what your proposing this idea with TO HELP MAKE BETTER) impossible to ahve as the added tsrain on the server would viciously murder the hamsters.
Simi Kusoni The Synergy Cascade Imminent 317	Posted - 2012.03.13 00:39:00 - [19] - Quote Ines Tegator wrote: All you naysayers are being lazy. A proper solution needs to factor in multiple elements. This means math. I'm no expert but I'll try to illustrate. Some baseline assumed numbers (not suggested for actual use but as an example): A typical battleship does 500 DPS. A typical frigate does 100 DPS. The goal is 50% mitigation under sustained fire from 10 battleship targets. So if incoming damage = (500* number of attackers) And number of attackers = 10 then the mitigation will be 50% results would be averaged out over a given interval, perhaps 10 seconds. so that's 5000 DPS dealt from 10 attackers. So far so good. Simple stuff. Lets put some frigates in. 5 frigates + 10 battleships=5500 DPS. Under a straight number of targets ratio (1 = 5%) thats 75% mitigation for a trivial amount of incoming damage. Not good. Under a straight DPS ratio (10% per 1k DPS) that 51% mitigation. Rather better, but not ideal, because of the potential of targets to do more or less then the baseline. This penalizes optimized fits that do more then the baseline damage. Rather, we'd want 5 1000 dps battelships to generate 25% mitigation. What's needed then is a formula that accounts for incoming damage, weights it according to the number of attackers, averages the data over an appropriate interval, and produces a consistent and balanced result. Also it should be capped at an upper limit, probly 50%. Now I've identified the needs of the situation in a quantifiable manner and contributed something unique. I'd have to sit for a long time with a calculator and some scratch paper to propose a formula, and I'm sure someone could do a better job then me anyway, but it deserves taking a stab at it and not drive-by-postwads dismissing it out of hand rather then trying to be creative. Most of the alpha fleets I fly in split their guns, because we have more alpha than we need to kill targets. 50% damage reduction? Stop splitting guns, still alpha stuff. GG. Not to mention how messy that damage calculation is going to be. I mean how do you calculate number of attackers? What's an appropriate interval? Alpha fleets hit at the same time. As for your assumption that no one who is "good at maths" has tried this before. Really? Lol. These aren't "drive by" dismissals, this is us dismissing a thread with no clear ideas made on a proposal that currently has 2-3 other threads running on it. -ahttp://i.imgur.com/aWNfM.jpg
Ines Tegator Towels R Us 154	Posted - 2012.03.13 00:40:00 - [20] - Quote Nariya Kentaya wrote: Ok, that idea has SOME logical basis behind it, but now let me counter with a MAJOR flaw. the server now has to do calculations.... alot of them.... Acknowledged. We don't have access to the server load stats or hardware specs though. It may be possible under their shiny new hardware. We'd need input on CCP for that. The least we can do is put the actual idea to the test and see if it's worth putting forward seriously or not.

Ines Tegator Towels R Us 154	Posted - 2012.03.13 00:47:00 - [21] - Quote Simi Kusoni wrote: Not to mention how messy that damage calculation is going to be. I mean how do you calculate number of attackers? What's an appropriate interval? Alpha fleets hit at the same time. Fair point. Any suggestions? Quote: As for your assumption that no one who is "good at maths" has tried this before. Really? Lol. These aren't "drive by" dismissals, this is us dismissing a thread with no clear ideas made on a proposal that currently has 2-3 other threads running on it. Havn't seen any hard math included in any of those threads, at least not from this angle. Usually it's just to prove how bad an idea it is by using a single method of determining the mitigation and showing the stupid numbers that result. Also remember that this would affect small fleet warfare as well. Due to economies of scale, alpha fleets will never go away. That's an impossible goal and we can write it off. Instead, we should aim to push the number of ships required for pure alpha fleets higher, and also reduce the impact of alpha/focus fire gameplay on smaller scales. This is where individual piloting and tactical movement by the FC have the most effect, and where this idea would add the most to gameplay. It could allow small gang style (5 or fewer ships with each pilot putting out their best) combat in fleets of 10, 15 or 30. I don't know about you, but if we could figure out how to make it work, that alone sounds crazy fun.
Nariya Kentaya Ministry of War Amarr Empire 148	Posted - 2012.03.13 00:52:00 - [22] - Quote Ines Tegator wrote: Nariya Kentaya wrote: Ok, that idea has SOME logical basis behind it, but now let me counter with a MAJOR flaw. the server now has to do calculations.... alot of them.... Acknowledged. We don't have access to the server load stats or hardware specs though. It may be possible under their shiny new hardware. We'd need input on CCP for that. The least we can do is put the actual idea to the test and see if it's worth putting forward seriously or not. we dont have specifics, no, but we can already see their limits strained. few weeks ago (or was it not that long ago?) me adn soem buddies flew outt o C-J6MT to watch the big showdown with goons pl and -A-, server nearly hit a standstill from TiDi trying to compensate for the stressed servers. now i can already imagine that if we overlayed your now complicated alpha-determination system over THAT hell-hole of lag, the server would have wither dropped to 1% speed and the fight would have never ended, or just jettisoned everybody form the server. so while you are CORRECT that we cannot see CCP's server specs, i can from personal experience say the servers are already stressed excrutiatingly in many null-sec fleet fights, which are the fleets your concerned so much about the alpha of.
Simi Kusoni The Synergy Cascade Imminent 317	Posted - 2012.03.13 01:01:00 - [23] - Quote Nariya Kentaya wrote: we dont have specifics, no, but we can already see their limits strained. few weeks ago (or was it not that long ago?) me adn soem buddies flew outt o C-J6MT to watch the big showdown with goons pl and -A-, server nearly hit a standstill from TiDi trying to compensate for the stressed servers. Heh, I remember that fight. 10% time dilation, and it was planned in advance so it was probably on a reinforced node too. After jumping into that system it took our entire fleet a few minutes just to load grid on the other side. I was really annoyed though because I landed on those archons at 0 at one point, and gave them a good smartbombing to KM *****. Then none of the bastads died Think I did wipe out their sentries though -ahttp://i.imgur.com/aWNfM.jpg
Katie Frost Asgard. Exodus. 32	Posted - 2012.03.13 01:59:00 - [24] - Quote Although I agree with the premise behind your proposal and your follow-up post that broke down the math of the matter made more sense than your OP, it would still have significant implementation difficulties. Although this was also brought up numerous times before, I am of the opinion that instead of mitigating incoming damage, the amount of red-boxes or aggressive modules targeted at any one ship could be limited or penalised. Again, there is nothing to prevent this being abused by fleets using non-lethal modules on eachother to prevent other aggressive modules being activated against them; which is why proposals like this have never stood the test of time for the past few years. I apologise for being pessimistic but since I am out of ideas on how to improve this and for the past 6 months there have been no suggestions on these forums that provided a viable solution short of "nerf this plz" tear-threads, optimism is in short supply. Good luck.
Ines Tegator Towels R Us 154	Posted - 2012.03.13 02:07:00 - [25] - Quote I'll try my high-school educated math skills (I'm a carpenter, not an engineer :P) at putting together a real formula when I have some more time, then we can dissect it some more. I'll bump this up then.
Simi Kusoni The Synergy Cascade Imminent 317	Posted - 2012.03.13 03:18:00 - [26] - Quote Ines Tegator wrote: I'll try my high-school educated math skills (I'm a carpenter, not an engineer :P) at putting together a real formula when I have some more time, then we can dissect it some more. I'll bump this up then. One thing to bear in mind when you put together a real formula: drones. Just remember that this formula, in a fleet fight of 200 people, is going to have to calculate the incoming damage of not only 100 people per side but also the damage application from 1,000 drones. Or, as someone mentioned the c-j battle above, that would have been 1,668 sentries all firing separately just from the PL carriers alone. Let alone the 50 supers and 1,800 other randomers that were running around the system at the time. And no, ignoring damage mitigation for drones is not an option If you're going to use damage mitigation to negatively impact blobs, it needs to impact all kinds of blobs equally. So just remember whatever formula you come up with, it is going to need to be applied potentially with damage sources numbering in the thousands/tens of thousands. -ahttp://i.imgur.com/aWNfM.jpg
James Amril-Kesh 4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance 82	Posted - 2012.03.13 04:22:00 - [27] - Quote Simi Kusoni wrote: Nariya Kentaya wrote: we dont have specifics, no, but we can already see their limits strained. few weeks ago (or was it not that long ago?) me adn soem buddies flew outt o C-J6MT to watch the big showdown with goons pl and -A-, server nearly hit a standstill from TiDi trying to compensate for the stressed servers. Heh, I remember that fight. 10% time dilation, and it was planned in advance so it was probably on a reinforced node too. After jumping into that system it took our entire fleet a few minutes just to load grid on the other side. I was really annoyed though because I landed on those archons at 0 at one point, and gave them a good smartbombing to KM *****. Then none of the bastads died Think I did wipe out their sentries though Our FC tried to warp fleet at one point maybe 6 or 7 times before the command actually came through to our ships. Having almost 1900 people in system probably causes server problems no matter how much tidi you have. Support showing T2 and faction frequency crystal damage in the info window!
Simi Kusoni The Synergy Cascade Imminent 317	Posted - 2012.03.13 05:15:00 - [28] - Quote James Amril-Kesh wrote: Our FC tried to warp fleet at one point maybe 6 or 7 times before the command actually came through to our ships. Having almost 1900 people in system probably causes server problems no matter how much tidi you have. Yeah, we had the same issue. I was quite impressed the server held up at all though, especially given all the separate skirmishes going on all over the system. I also turned on brackets at one point when I was on grid at the station. Christ was that a mistake -ahttp://i.imgur.com/aWNfM.jpg
Daeva Teresa Viziam Amarr Empire 40	Posted - 2012.03.13 08:07:00 - [29] - Quote Hi I have not readed any older threads on this so sorry if this has been posted before. First, I asume that in alpha fleets all ships will really fire at the same tick. Since server ticks around one sec, it should be really easy. I think, it goes like this (taken hit and other unneeded factors from the equation): Ship with 10 000 HP shields with 78% reduction atacked and hited by many raw 1000 dmg after 1 dmg: 10 000 - (1000 * 0,22) = 9 780; after 2 dmg: 9 780 - (1000 * 0,22) = 9 560; after 3 dmg: 9 560 - (1000 * 0,22) = 9 340; after the shield is down, server will switch to armor and after that to hull. as you see, the dmg is consistent. Now if you want to mitigate the dmg, you can easy do it like this (5% dmg mitigation): after 1 dmg: if mit < 1 dmg: 10 000 - ((1000-0) * 0,22) = 9 780; mit =0+10000,05=50; else dicard 1 dmg after 2 dmg: if mit < 2 dmg: 9 780 - ((1000-50) 0,22) = 9 571; mit = 50+10000,05=100 ; else dicard 2 dmg after 3 dmg: if mit < 3 dmg: 9 571 - ((1000-100) 0,22) = 9 371; mit = 50+1000*0,05=150; else dicard 3 dmg after some time mit will be biger than dmg soo dmg will get discarded. Now this will provide with damage mittigation in one tick of server. Problems: 1) of course it will create bigger load on the server but its not soo big (as an openGL programmer, I learned to avoid dividing in code to mitigate :-) the load) It will also need only one aditional variable to store mitigation between the dmg aplication proces. 2) if the server will tick fast, the fleet can eassily go out of sinc (it may do so volunterelly to avoid dmg mitigation) I really dont see the point to create and use this (since i see only real solution to fight alpha with larger fleet) but since you (OP) are looking for solution, I gave you one. Also sorry for tipos english is not my native language. CCP really please dont use Upgraded, Limited, Experimental-aand Prototype in item names. It sounds like the item is actually worse than basic meta 1 item. Use Calibrated, Enhanced, Optimized and Upgraded. Its really easy to understand that the item is better than meta 1 and its also in alphabetic order.
Blatant Forum Alt Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 15	Posted - 2012.03.13 08:51:00 - [30] - Quote Ines Tegator wrote: I got buttraped by people using logical tactics that get used in the real world, so I want fundamental changes to the battle mechanics to make logical tactics not work. Herp. 'Alpha' or 'Primary' or whatever you want to call it is no more than simple concentrated fire. A tactic that gets used EVERYWHERE in the game and real life warfare. Doing L4s? Players focus fire on the ewar rats first. Jumping onto a small fleet? Take down the biggest threat first. 'Alpha' is simply bringing enough pew pew to kill the primary target in one volley, rather than several. Nothing wrong with that at all, and as it has already been said, most 'alpha' fleets will 'alpha strike' multiple targets, because of the dps they have at their disposal. Anyone who doesnt concentrate their fire on one or several targets is a complete moron, and will often lose the fight as a result.


	Reply to Topic
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.