EVE General Discussion

I like the idea of "landing formations", so that an fc can lay out where various wings and squads will land in a fleet warp. This would help things look nicer than landing as a big train wreck. But also would prevent capital bumps and be strategically useful. The fleet warp command itself would also need some more flexibility, like the ability for non commanders to be assigned a fleet warp role, and also for a fleet warp command to canceled, and then re-accepted by a member within a certain window of time.

I do not support on grid formations however, that's where skill and planning need to be.

Formations are OP, nerf them.

Introduce AoE damage and line of fire first. Then blobs might have a reason to actually ask for yet another boost for themselves.

Because you can control how the ships are placed now as they come out of warp?

Because a clumped ball of ships is the most effective (and visually interesting) arrangement to be in when doing remote repping?

Because in reality military vessels of all types never fly/sail in formation for tactical purposes?

I do realize what you are saying. I would not want a formation system in place that restricted what a pilot could do as far as determining the course of their ship. That's not the proposal.

Any formation mechanic would need to allow pilots to enter and leave a formation at will.

A typical scenario would be for pilots to enter into the formation selected by the fleet commander (or alternatively a smaller formation determined by the wing or squadron commanders) before entering warp. This ensures the proper positioning of ships (per the FC's wishes) upon exiting fleet warp. Any ship that needs to come in away from the main group would obviously not join the formation or be in a separate one, and head to their own warp in point (or cyno point for that matter).

Once the fleet has arrived the pilot opts to either stay in formation, or leave by changing course normally. If he opts to stay his ship would travel in its proper position within the formation. If he leaves for any reason (grab a target of opportunity, warp out due to damage taken, etc.) he can easily click to rejoin the formation at any time he desires and is on grid.

The most obvious advantages would be in keeping the fleet aligned and at optimal distances for remote assistance, although there could be many others.

Another route to take would be to bestow certain fleet bonuses, either offense or defensive, for ships that are in the various formations. That is a more artificial way of handling it, but I can see it having merit enough to investigate. Some formations could give a bonus to tracking, or damage, or speed, or decrease sig radius... anything really could be incorporated with a little creativity.

I personally prefer advantages that truly, organically ARE advantages, not contrived ones, but I would not object either way.

And yes, although it is a relatively trivial matter, how many good video's have you seen detracted from by showing our technologically advanced ships blindly humping each other in a mass of bouncing hulls.

Anyway, it used to be a popular idea. If it no longer is, I can live with that. Bit of a shame tho.

Excellent observations as always. I very much agree that formations should serve a purpose, although I have little doubt that some people would use them even if the only purpose they served was for aesthetic purposes.

Looking at your points:

AOE weapons such as bombs or smart bombs would be more effective against dense formations of ships, less effective against loose formations. That would be something to be considered when choosing your formation. This same rule would apply to any current or future AOE weaponry unless they affect the whole grid.

Short range weapons might benefit from certain types of formations, say a bonus to tracking (think a claw formation) or speed (perhaps a V formation).

Blob focus might become less appealing if different ships gained specific benefits from being in separate formations. Heavy hitters might gain more benefit from being in the main "cube" formation, while Hacs might be noticeably more effective in a shifting "globe" formation that gave them a reduced signature radius (made them more difficult to track), thus encouraging different target calling for the different elements of the fleet.

While we do have "terrain" of a sort with asteroids, they are rarely utilized (since currently they can't block weapons fire). It would be ideal if they could, but probably not practical to implement. If it could I'd also give good money for debris fields, or any number of other objects normally seen only in missions to be scattered around various locations (including planetary warp in points).

If a system were ever introduced to give a ship different abilities when in proximity to others, a formation system would be the ideal way to implement it.

And lastly, ships in a blob already have some difficulties when it comes to moving freely or changing direction efficiently. A formation system would formalize not only advantages a group of ships might have, but also any disadvantages various groupings of ships might have.

Just a few thoughts on the matter. Thanks for your comments Dark.

Originally purposed formation from the devs idea was that ships of a certain class type would form special squadrons and gain a 'squadron' bonus and possibly share HP partially to help out with repairs.

For example 3 interceptors formed an interdiction squadron, improved bonuses to interception range.
This consistnatly ran into what if problems I think was the original reason why it didnt see the light of day.

While the CSM is up there... do everyone a favor and permanently disband it.

Ahh well, perhaps I should have simply added this in the excellent "visual papercuts" thread.