These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

[Proposal] Anti-Blob

Author
wjonlemon
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-04-18 15:07:40 UTC
So I heard about this lock-breaker module at fanfest and have been thinking about it in detail-ish so the idea behind this is trying to break up large blobby fights.

So here is my idea scrap the module and add it as a mechanic that a ship cannot be locked by more then 40 or so ships this would stop 2000 man fleets saying primary this and shoot and would break into lots of small gang engagements. So here are the key points of how id think it would work

-This rule would only apply to sub capital ships

-Locks from within your fleet don’t count in the 40 total

-Lock total at 40+ would allow small gangs to all get on a mail if it isn’t a huge fleet

-The target painter would be changed to also allow +1 lock on a target making it
far more useful as E-WAR

Now I'm sure there are things I have not thought of and I'm sure there are exploits would be nice if anyone could point out the problems and fill in the gaps if possible, but I hope this would make the game far more tactical and interesting.

looking forward to all your raging Smile
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2012-04-18 17:20:55 UTC
wjonlemon wrote:
So I heard about this lock-breaker module at fanfest and have been thinking about it in detail-ish so the idea behind this is trying to break up large blobby fights.

So here is my idea scrap the module and add it as a mechanic that a ship cannot be locked by more then 40 or so ships this would stop 2000 man fleets saying primary this and shoot and would break into lots of small gang engagements. So here are the key points of how id think it would work

-This rule would only apply to sub capital ships

-Locks from within your fleet don’t count in the 40 total

-Lock total at 40+ would allow small gangs to all get on a mail if it isn’t a huge fleet

-The target painter would be changed to also allow +1 lock on a target making it
far more useful as E-WAR

Now I'm sure there are things I have not thought of and I'm sure there are exploits would be nice if anyone could point out the problems and fill in the gaps if possible, but I hope this would make the game far more tactical and interesting.

looking forward to all your raging Smile


I'm sorry but common sense says your idea is beyond stupid (sorry but its true)..... I mean for crying out loud...in a role playing sense..just visually seeing the target and firing at point-blank range begs the question....are you really thinking this through or you just raging over blobs?

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

wjonlemon
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2012-04-18 17:51:55 UTC  |  Edited by: wjonlemon
I really don't understand what point your trying to make drake, but no I don’t hate blobs I would just like to see battle a little more complex and diverse rather then parking up and shooting at each other with 2000 maelstroms you still have huge fleets they just couldn’t all shoot the same thing making it more chaotic and opening up new avenues of combat tactics, I would hope at least anyway

Id just like to add that even if this isn’t the way to do it all I'm trying to achieve with this idea is smaller engagements within the two opposing large fleets everyone knows small gang fights are more fun and if we could split these larger fights into several smaller fights id think that would be a change for the better.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#4 - 2012-04-18 18:10:03 UTC
A while back someone posted the idea of "sensor glare", basically saying that the more people targeted a single ship, the longer it would take to target. It had the obvious flaw of fleets self-targeting to increase lock times, making a sort of passive ECM that would make fleet fights even more tedious. However, it gave me an idea that I never posted, but remembered when I looked at this thread.

What if every weapon system that was activated on a target caused its signature radius to drop a small percentage? And I'm talking maybe .05% or less. SMALL. The premise is this: simply targeting someone would not create the sensor glare, but the weapon (turret, launcher, ECM module, whatever) would. For the duration of its cycle, every offensive module would have this effect.

Thinking it through: A 20-man gang even with 8 turrets each would drop the sig radius by 8%. 100 battleships would drop it by 40%. You'd get a 100% drop at 250 8-turret ships, so obviously there would need to be a stacking penalty or hard cap, or a number smaller than .05%.

The actual numbers would of course be set by CCP and tested thoroughly on SiSi for balance, but I'm rather fond of the idea. It creates real penalties for mindless "orbit anchor, shoot primary" fleet behavior by actually reducing their damage output, not just their lock times.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2012-04-18 19:23:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Drake Draconis
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
A while back someone posted the idea of "sensor glare", basically saying that the more people targeted a single ship, the longer it would take to target. It had the obvious flaw of fleets self-targeting to increase lock times, making a sort of passive ECM that would make fleet fights even more tedious. However, it gave me an idea that I never posted, but remembered when I looked at this thread.

What if every weapon system that was activated on a target caused its signature radius to drop a small percentage? And I'm talking maybe .05% or less. SMALL. The premise is this: simply targeting someone would not create the sensor glare, but the weapon (turret, launcher, ECM module, whatever) would. For the duration of its cycle, every offensive module would have this effect.

Thinking it through: A 20-man gang even with 8 turrets each would drop the sig radius by 8%. 100 battleships would drop it by 40%. You'd get a 100% drop at 250 8-turret ships, so obviously there would need to be a stacking penalty or hard cap, or a number smaller than .05%.

The actual numbers would of course be set by CCP and tested thoroughly on SiSi for balance, but I'm rather fond of the idea. It creates real penalties for mindless "orbit anchor, shoot primary" fleet behavior by actually reducing their damage output, not just their lock times.



By that logic (ignoring the OP) it would DECREASE snesor lock on time.

Glare only means its more visible..harder to ignore....maybe harder to target other ships in the background but even then thats reaching.

Likening to get a few hundred people to get laser pointers out and paint one target....how would that make it harder to find it? More like bloody easy at that rate.

I get what your talking about and the idea...but CCP themselves have made it VERY clear at fanfest.

They want thousands of players fighting it out in one space....not dozens.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2012-04-18 19:27:23 UTC
wjonlemon wrote:
I really don't understand what point your trying to make drake, but no I don’t hate blobs I would just like to see battle a little more complex and diverse rather then parking up and shooting at each other with 2000 maelstroms you still have huge fleets they just couldn’t all shoot the same thing making it more chaotic and opening up new avenues of combat tactics, I would hope at least anyway

Id just like to add that even if this isn’t the way to do it all I'm trying to achieve with this idea is smaller engagements within the two opposing large fleets everyone knows small gang fights are more fun and if we could split these larger fights into several smaller fights id think that would be a change for the better.



First off....your ignorance is showing.....the reasoning is for tactics....alpha damage...etc.

IF you can't handle the heat...then get out.


Secondly.... your proposal is beyond the point of rationality....you want to stop blobs? Well your better off proposing spacial distoration to the massive numbers of "subspace drives/reactors" or something at that rate...better than the drivel you came up with.

At least I can get behind that....and actually support it... but all I see is "whaa whaa I hate blobs"

Yes I'm in the CFC....I can't help the fact they have a great sense of tactics and actually endorse avoiding of cap use if at all possible. (from my tiny little peep hole granted but even then)

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#7 - 2012-04-18 19:50:38 UTC

I don't know if you've been in fleet fights... but its not uncommon to have 10+ logistics ships to rep up people....

The biggest reason you see large groups of ships primarying 1 target, is they need to focus fire to overcome logistics....

Anything that limits how much you can focus fire, needs to also limit how much logistics a ship can receive too....


Sensor glare is a fairly neat idea.... IMO, to balance it, the ship getting locked by everything should also receive the glare penalty....

Now, if your fleet mates all lock up some logis to prevent it from being primaried, that logi becomes less effective at locking other ships too...

Leave EWAR immune ships immune to sensor glare.... (i.e. triage carriers)

The only way this could be taken advantage of, is everyone might lock the fleet booster.... But I don't think this would be OP or even all that problematic...
wjonlemon
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2012-04-18 20:19:26 UTC  |  Edited by: wjonlemon
well I did think of people locking up the logi to make him immune which is why I suggested that locks from within your own fleet wouldn’t tally in the 40 lock Max per ship. However I like the other idea much more then my own with the reduction in signature radius per offensive module it scales well with the number it being such a tiny percent and would encourage people to avoid the calling primary style of FC'ing when in larger numbers which is really the target market anyway.

also drake is trolling hard Roll
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2012-04-18 22:03:12 UTC
wjonlemon wrote:
So I heard about this lock-breaker module at fanfest and have been thinking about it in detail-ish so the idea behind this is trying to break up large blobby fights.

So here is my idea scrap the module and add it as a mechanic that a ship cannot be locked by more then 40 or so ships this would stop 2000 man fleets saying primary this and shoot and would break into lots of small gang engagements. So here are the key points of how id think it would work

-This rule would only apply to sub capital ships

-Locks from within your fleet don’t count in the 40 total

-Lock total at 40+ would allow small gangs to all get on a mail if it isn’t a huge fleet

-The target painter would be changed to also allow +1 lock on a target making it
far more useful as E-WAR

Now I'm sure there are things I have not thought of and I'm sure there are exploits would be nice if anyone could point out the problems and fill in the gaps if possible, but I hope this would make the game far more tactical and interesting.

looking forward to all your raging Smile


Stop trying to take sand out of the box. Some of us happen to like large fights.

Also, post with your main.
Valerie Tessel
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2012-04-19 06:20:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Valerie Tessel
Sensor glare just doesn't make sense. As more ships acquire a lock, each successive ship in the fleet should acquire it faster because the ships' computers share information.

The real problems with blobs are the scale of incoming damage, not the number of ships that acquire a lock. Reps can't deal with it because they repair damage already done. You'd need a new mechanic like, say, this: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=97610

Tactical destroyers... I'll take a dozen Gallente, please.

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2012-04-19 09:42:44 UTC
npc corp poster gives his valuable input on large scale nullsec fights.
Teshania
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2012-04-19 13:37:26 UTC
Few things for thought,

Large blobs are slow to put together, and get moving to destination. They are great at taking Structures in space. Great against other large fleets.

If you are a small fleet, you should be faster then the blob, and just stay out of its way.
Small fleet warfare is great for shutting down enemy operations and disrupting their day to day business.

so Each type of fleet has their place and purpose.

If you are in small fleet warefare stop trying to face off with the big fleets, Get behind them and **** with their daily operations, i don't know like blow up their damn miners. This will hurt them more then anything ;)

Just saying.

We need a Bounty Button on the Forums

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#13 - 2012-04-19 14:03:48 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
By that logic (ignoring the OP) it would DECREASE snesor lock on time.

Glare only means its more visible..harder to ignore....maybe harder to target other ships in the background but even then thats reaching.

Likening to get a few hundred people to get laser pointers out and paint one target....how would that make it harder to find it? More like bloody easy at that rate.


http://elibishop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Glare.jpg

That's the kind of glare I'm envisioning. We're not talking about something being well-lit, we're talking about it having so much light shone on it that it dazzles the sensors and appears larger than it really is, causing the computer to calculate shots that miss when it looks like they would hit.

Drake DraconisI get what your talking about and the idea...but CCP themselves have made it [u wrote:
VERY[/u] clear at fanfest.

They want thousands of players fighting it out in one space....not dozens.

This isn't about reducing the number of ships on the field. This is about fleet tactics that go beyond "orbit anchor, shoot primary". CCP's vision of Eve combat as portrayed in every trailer they show is the chaotic "shoot everything at once" fleet fights of sci fi cinema. By creating a form of stacking penalty, this might encourage more of that style of combat. I guess it really depends on what CCP really intends for combat in Eve to look like.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2012-04-19 14:11:23 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
By that logic (ignoring the OP) it would DECREASE snesor lock on time.

Glare only means its more visible..harder to ignore....maybe harder to target other ships in the background but even then thats reaching.

Likening to get a few hundred people to get laser pointers out and paint one target....how would that make it harder to find it? More like bloody easy at that rate.


http://elibishop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Glare.jpg

That's the kind of glare I'm envisioning. We're not talking about something being well-lit, we're talking about it having so much light shone on it that it dazzles the sensors and appears larger than it really is, causing the computer to calculate shots that miss when it looks like they would hit.

Drake DraconisI get what your talking about and the idea...but CCP themselves have made it [u wrote:
VERY[/u] clear at fanfest.

They want thousands of players fighting it out in one space....not dozens.

This isn't about reducing the number of ships on the field. This is about fleet tactics that go beyond "orbit anchor, shoot primary". CCP's vision of Eve combat as portrayed in every trailer they show is the chaotic "shoot everything at once" fleet fights of sci fi cinema. By creating a form of stacking penalty, this might encourage more of that style of combat. I guess it really depends on what CCP really intends for combat in Eve to look like.


Understandable...but lets be honest....concetraited fire on a indicated target is common sense in battle field tactics....especially if said target is especailly difficult to eliminate....

Your never gonna get away from that...no matter how hard you try...you may make it harder...but it will still be used...quite frequently.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#15 - 2012-04-19 14:12:04 UTC
Valerie Tessel wrote:
Sensor glare just doesn't make sense. As more ships acquire a lock, each successive ship in the fleet should acquire it faster because the ships' computers share information.


Because grids make any sort of sense at all. Or fluid space. Or capacitor warfare.

I'm suggesting a mechanic that would achieve a specific effect, and then making a pseudotechnical explanation for it so that CCP can explain it in the game lore. Since when do we expect Eve to make perfect sense?

(also, who ever said fleet ships share information? I've seen no evidence of this)

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2012-04-19 14:14:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Drake Draconis
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Valerie Tessel wrote:
Sensor glare just doesn't make sense. As more ships acquire a lock, each successive ship in the fleet should acquire it faster because the ships' computers share information.


Because grids make any sort of sense at all. Or fluid space. Or capacitor warfare.

I'm suggesting a mechanic that would achieve a specific effect, and then making a pseudotechnical explanation for it so that CCP can explain it in the game lore. Since when do we expect Eve to make perfect sense?

(also, who ever said fleet ships share information? I've seen no evidence of this)



It's called voice comms/fleet broadcasts. *shameless smart assed remark* LolLolLol

Snesor Glare doesn't fit the bill as a name but I understand what your shooting for...I'll sit back and wait for a better rendition TBQH...OP is a little too nutty/far fetched for my tastes.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#17 - 2012-04-19 14:40:51 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
Understandable...but lets be honest....concetraited fire on a indicated target is common sense in battle field tactics....especially if said target is especailly difficult to eliminate...

Your never gonna get away from that...no matter how hard you try...you may make it harder...but it will still be used...quite frequently.


No argument there. And there would be ways to counter the effect, specifically pointing a half dozen target painters at the primary

There are two things I'd like to see change in large fleet warfare: homogenous fleet compositions, and primary volleys. Every fleet fight I've observed in the past six months has been fought the same way: Bring lots of the same ship, and shoot one enemy at a time. I want to see Eve become more rewarding for creative players and unique strategies.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#18 - 2012-04-19 14:41:49 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
Snesor Glare doesn't fit the bill as a name

Fair enough. I took the name from someone else's proposal that inspired my idea.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#19 - 2012-04-19 17:42:45 UTC
wjonlemon wrote:
well I did think of people locking up the logi to make him immune which is why I suggested that locks from within your own fleet wouldn’t tally in the 40 lock Max per ship. However I like the other idea much more then my own with the reduction in signature radius per offensive module it scales well with the number it being such a tiny percent and would encourage people to avoid the calling primary style of FC'ing when in larger numbers which is really the target market anyway.

also drake is trolling hard Roll


@WJ... you need to think outside the box more....

What's to stop a 200 man fleet will split into 2x 100man fleets and then locking up the friendly logistics in your neighboring fleet, or any other mission-critical ships they want to protect.... You're suggestion would be very much broken and abused....

@Floppie

The sig reduction per offensive module is the start of a nice idea... It's small enough that shooting your fleetmate with 100 extra gattling guns isn't worth the effort. It also scales nicely when looking at similar sized ships... However, I fear there is a big discrepency between BS weapons and cruiser sized weapons.... Basically, the 125m sig radius of medium guns means damage reduction won't be felt on BS's until you reach the 100+ ships category, whereas the 400m sig radius of large guns means the damage reduction is significantly felt when you surpass 25 ships.. Essentially, BS fleets will not only lose to AHACs, but will lose very badly to BC fleets too. Additionally, significantly webbing a target will negate the sig radius penalties, and if the target is MWDing, sig radius effects cease to matter, too... Finally, the sig radius penalty is so small, that it would not alter logistics in any way.... their lock times might increase by 1-3s... but the incoming dps is substantially reduced... meaning it becomes much harder to actually kill targets...

IMO, this change would put AHACs and Tengu fleets as the most potent fleets, and almost nullify BS fleets.

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#20 - 2012-04-19 21:18:28 UTC
Quote:

This isn't about reducing the number of ships on the field. This is about fleet tactics that go beyond "orbit anchor, shoot primary". CCP's vision of Eve combat as portrayed in every trailer they show is the chaotic "shoot everything at once" fleet fights of sci fi cinema. By creating a form of stacking penalty, this might encourage more of that style of combat. I guess it really depends on what CCP really intends for combat in Eve to look like.




Shoot everything on the field at random and you won't be able to apply enough DPS to break logistics reps though...
12Next page