These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Can we remove the hull based target cap
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2014-02-24 15:13:55 UTC
I propose that we should remove the artificial limit of max number of locked targets on hulls and just let the pilots skills determine this value instead.
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#2 - 2014-02-24 15:15:40 UTC
Why?

Invalid signature format
Mr Doctor
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2014-02-24 15:16:07 UTC
Lets also remove the velocity cap on hulls and let our skill determine what speed the ships go.



Also, DPS and tank.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2014-02-24 15:37:29 UTC
Mr Doctor wrote:
Lets also remove the velocity cap on hulls and let our skill determine what speed the ships go.



Also, DPS and tank.


You're missing the point, they already do.

If you have a 400m/s ship your navigation skill will always provide you with up to 25% extra velocity. There is no case where the base velocity is 400m/s, but the ship hull cap is 440m/s, so taking your navigation skill over level 2 has no additional benefit.

With targeting management it doesn't work this way though. If you have targeting management 5 and advanced targeting management 5 you will always get defaulted to the max number of targets of the hull, unless you fit active targeters. I can't think of another skill that's like this.

And the reason of 'why' is that I trained the skill, I should get to use the skill for the value I trained. Instead of asking why, I cannot think of a reason why we shouldn't do this other than bitter vet "cuz it's change. *grumpy*"
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#5 - 2014-02-24 15:42:26 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:
I propose that we should remove the artificial limit of max number of locked targets on hulls and just let the pilots skills determine this value instead.


Not having every ship able to target 10 or more targets or whatever is a reasonable point of balance. I know it sucks that tengus can only target 5 things, but really, its ok.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Shpenat
Ironman Inc.
#6 - 2014-02-24 16:00:33 UTC
I can understand your point. The change would be that rather of having maximum number of locked targets we woud get minimum number of locked targets per hull and skills to extend it.

However there is a problem with current skills which adds 1 target per level. It is way too much. The maximum then would be 10 per ship. To make it reasonable they would have to remove the advanced version of this skill and have only one which adds 1 per level. So in the end you will end up with the nearly same number of possibly locked ships as we have now.

And that is by definition too much work for too little gain.
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#7 - 2014-02-24 16:39:27 UTC
Should we also change the number of hardpoints on every ship to be entirely skill based? I'd certainly train "Advanced Turret Hardpoint Management" to 5 if it let me have 10 guns on my frigates.

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#8 - 2014-02-24 17:14:18 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:
unless you fit active targeters.


There's your solution. Problem solved.

In the future, if you want 'value for the skills you trained,' then fly ships that can take advantage of those skills.

I eagerly await your next thread, where you tell us that all ships should have their targeting range extended to 250km.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2014-02-24 17:53:26 UTC
There's a lot of e-toughguy in here, and so many of the arguments are fail.

If you have a ship with guns you're not checking to see if you're going to run up against an arbitrary damage cap to see if you get value from training your surgical strike skill. It works like that for every other skill that affects a ship; a ships profile is changed by any skill that affects a ship stat. Target management is the sole exception to this case, and I don't see any reason why.

The proposal is simple, the max number of targets your ship can lock is the standard 2 + (skill values). The only ship that this is a balancing point for, blap dreads in siege mode, are already accounted for because the siege module hard caps the targets despite the hull value.

And no one has really given a reason why other than restating that it's just that way, but I have yet to see any reason reason why. Probably because there's no reason why, but the e-toughguys have to naysay.
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#10 - 2014-02-24 18:03:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Lephia DeGrande
One Question, what would Happen if we Limit the locks on one target.

Lets say, if 10 players can lock at the same Battleship but then every other player receive a fail message.

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Bertrand Butler
Cras es Noster
#11 - 2014-02-24 18:06:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Bertrand Butler
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
One Question, what would Happen if we Limit the locks on one target.

Lets say, if 10 players can lock at the same Battleship but then every other player receive a fail message.


O_o

..really?
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#12 - 2014-02-24 18:09:09 UTC
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
One Question, what would Happen if we Limit the locks on one target.

Lets say, if 10 players can lock at the same Battleship but then every other player receive a fail message.



Ahhh...um........what is.......

**** it, I'm out.

*Anhenka goes to go get two aspirin or a sixpack.
Rowells
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2014-02-24 18:10:47 UTC
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
One Question, what would Happen if we Limit the locks on one target.

Lets say, if 10 players can lock at the same Battleship but then every other player receive a fail message.

you can kiss logi goodbye, and your ass.
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#14 - 2014-02-24 18:14:38 UTC
Hey use Sebos and ECM burst to recover the locks. ;-)

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Pew Terror
All of it
#15 - 2014-02-24 19:04:15 UTC
Ohh yay, is this a bad idea about targetting thread? :D

How about we remove all limits on how many targets you can lock, but you have to buy lock tokens. They are 10m3 and everytimeyou lock something it consumes a token.
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#16 - 2014-02-24 19:13:21 UTC
Pew Terror wrote:
Ohh yay, is this a bad idea about targetting thread? :D

How about we remove all limits on how many targets you can lock, but you have to buy lock tokens. They are 10m3 and everytimeyou lock something it consumes a token.


All hail the 3000 locking BattleIteron!
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2014-02-24 19:17:00 UTC
Pew Terror wrote:
Ohh yay, is this a bad idea about targetting thread? :D


No, this is the thread where people that want to prove how e-tough they are tell everyone how bad an idea is without actually addressing the idea itself. Usually with poor spelling and grammar.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#18 - 2014-02-24 19:17:58 UTC
the number of targets is a point of balance, and sometimes designed around a role; like macks having 4 targets vs covetors 6, and combat ships having less targets than support ships.

another reason is to make target management about more than just skills. it seems trivial, but if the amount u can target is important to u, fit the mods and/or use the correct ships. or learn to unlock/relock faster.

OP, where u have criticised arguments against the idea u have yet to provide any reason why the game should remove this balancing factor.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#19 - 2014-02-24 19:34:18 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:
Pew Terror wrote:
Ohh yay, is this a bad idea about targetting thread? :D


No, this is the thread where people that want to prove how e-tough they are tell everyone how bad an idea is without actually addressing the idea itself. Usually with poor spelling and grammar.


There were a few posts early on stating that the max number of lockable targets was a game design choice to provide bonuses or drawbacks to various ships.

That's really all there is to it. Nobody feels any huge need to argue about it beyond the statement of why it is as it is.

It's up to you as poster to give us reasons why your proposed changes would be of benefit to the game beyond "It boosts ships that can't lock 10 targets and I want to lock 10 targets with one" Not on the community to tell you why it's a bad idea, although we typically will do that anyway.
The Djego
Hellequin Inc.
#20 - 2014-02-24 19:35:51 UTC
The skill is quite useful at 5 given you fly hulls that can lock 10 targets a lot(logi, marauder, recon) and can make the extra 2 lock slots available to you by adding a signal amplifier or auto targeter. It is quite niche to bring it to 5, but it gives you a lot more ease and performance for some roles(cap logi for incursions or a remote rep marauder for example), at the cost of one low or utility high slots you get the additional locks your skill provides on the hull and can reduce the amount of target switching(because even 10 can be quite limited at times).

Like a lot of advanced logistic and recon skills it is quite niche but can be very useful to have if you fly logi on a daily basis for example, got everything maxed out and become a bit more flexible with the fitting and more proficient with the role.

Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
12Next page