Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Which is more of a personal issue on the part of the FC in charge and the fleets that fly under them.


And counter your "learn to read" comeback (which is getting a little old)...

I have read your idea. I understand the concept of your idea. I do not agree the concept of your idea because I fail to see an issue with "decapitating" a fleet.

Having a "centralized command" allows for faster and more efficient decisions... that is the benefit of it. However the inherent tradeoff is that if "central command" is nuked, then everything goes to hell.
On the other end of the spectrum, a decentralized command structure allows for greater redundancy and flexibility when things don't go according to plan. The tradeoff is less efficiency and slower decision making.

It balances itself out.


Quite basically... what you are attempting to do is provide a buff for one command style because, for whatever reason, you don't think the other is viable.
Decentralized command is viable and is done quite often. Methinks you need to learn how to utilize it rather than say "nononono... it isn't an option. I don't want to do it. It isn't my thing."

Guess what? No tactic should be superior to the other and not have some kind of caveat.

I get the point you are trying to make. I don't agree with it. That's the issue.

Fair enough.

But what you are proposing has wider implications beyond what you are trying to accomplish. Implications which may not have very positive effects in other areas of the game (which other people having been pointing out to you through various ways THEY would abuse the mechanics you propose).

The way I see it, the current system is balanced as is.
If you want a more centralized fleet structure, cool. But you have to accept that "decapitation" and the fleet "imploding" is a very real risk.
If you want a more decentralized fleet structure, cool. But you have to accept that poor decisions on the part of other commanders is a very real risk.


From my perspective, your system puts more protections / advantages for one style of commanding simply because you seem to personally do not like the risk that comes with it.
To which I say, "so what?"

Because y is worse than x

Looking at the history of CCP and EVE Online...
What the DEVs say they would like to do, them actually doing it, and them doing it properly are three fundamentally different things.

I would not take the musings of a DEV seriously until I see them moving forward with the concept.

They talked about "ambulation" (see: Walking in Station) for years and look how that turned out.
Flying down to planets in our current ships... that was another thing that DEVs talked about a few years back as "something they would like to do." The idea was never heard of again.
Docking in capital ships and being transported by them gets thrown about as well. In fact, the DEVs originally wanted to do just that. Then technical limitations with the base code of the game got in the way and so now we have jump bridges/portals.
Drone ships were supposed to look and feel like ships that could summon up hordes of little bees. Then lag and the very code that drones are based on got in the way (drone code is supposed to be especially bad and buggy).

tldr; just because a DEV says something or wants something to be a certain way... it doesn't mean it will be that way or even be at all. Be patient. Keep your expectations and fears in check.
You can't "get ahead of something" that doesn't exist in the first place or is a big, fat unknown.


It is okay to muse about an idea and toss it about. But it is also okay to call it out for what it is.



Also... the concept of a "Special Ship JUST for Fleet Commanders" has been thrown about quite a bit on this very forum (usually under the subject line of "Ship of the Line" or "Fleet Commander Battleship" or "Super Battleship" or some other cliche naming scheme).
The idea tends to get shot down pretty quickly because balancing such a ship would be extremely difficult given how computer code cannot discern intent or meta-gaming.

Right you are. I know odds of them doing something with not just my 'idea' but their own is a long shot. This was more of a mention so that in the even they ever do try to do something with it, another option would be there in the back of their minds. For all i know some one has already mentioned this very same idea if not something similar. But as i see it, no harm done, after all, its just an idea.

now that's just no fun i need entertainment when i'm at work

lol, i actualy thought about just posting and forgetting about it btw. Just didn't work out that way.

With support like yours, how could i say no. ONWARD!!!

Of course screening the flagship is a good idea for support ships, but you can't do that sorta thing in eve. Meanwhile your excuse of casual players can't count on members falls flat for two reasons.

1. if you're a pvp alliance you should focus on recruiting those who fit the bill, regardless even small corps have the ability to teach basic fleet command so they can keep fighting even if their FC dies.

2. Smaller entities are lesser known as well. 90% of the time a small entities FC WONT be headshot. Might die in the fight but won't be headshot because no one knows who your FC is. Headshotting is much more a problem in the larger groups that have established FCs that everyone knows about. Sure the occasional small group might end up being spied on having their FC's names dropped and run into trouble in their next fight, but if you're engaging that kind of enemy they likely have resources and you probably should have picked your target better.