These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Focus Fire Mitigation and Alpha discussion thread

Author
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#21 - 2012-03-13 00:47:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Ines Tegator
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
#22 - 2012-03-13 00:52:12 UTC
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
HelloKittyFanclub
#23 - 2012-03-13 01:01:02 UTC
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 whore. Then none of the bastads died Cry Think I did wipe out their sentries though Lol

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]

Katie Frost
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2012-03-13 01:59:20 UTC
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
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#25 - 2012-03-13 02:07:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Ines Tegator
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
HelloKittyFanclub
#26 - 2012-03-13 03:18:35 UTC
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 P 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.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2012-03-13 04:22:37 UTC
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 Cry Think I did wipe out their sentries though Lol

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.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#28 - 2012-03-13 05:15:07 UTC
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 Lol

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]

Daeva Teresa
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2012-03-13 08:07:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Daeva Teresa
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% (means 0,22 multiplier) reduction atacked and hited by many raw 1000 dmg

after dmg1: HP = 10 000 - (1000 * 0,22) = 9 780;
after dmg2: HP = 9 780 - (1000 * 0,22) = 9 560;
after dmg3: HP = 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):

mit = 0;
after dmg1: if (mit < dmg1): HP = 10 000 - ((1000-0) * 0,22) = 9 780; mit = 0 + 1000 * 0,05 = 50; else dicard dmg1;
after dmg2: if (mit < dmg2): HP = 9 780 - ((1000-50) * 0,22) = 9 571; mit = 50 + 1000 * 0,05 = 100; else dicard dmg2;
after dmg3: if (mit < dmg3): HP = 9 571 - ((1000-100) * 0,22) = 9 371; mit = 100 + 1000 * 0,05 = 150; else dicard dmg3;

After some time mitigation will be equal or bigger than dmg (mit=1000) soo dmg (lower than 1001) 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). This could be countered by not seting mit to zero and storing mit for each ship between ticks, lowering it each tick. This could be done in same time as shield recharge ticking, so the aditional load should not be really that big.

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 and 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
Doomheim
#30 - 2012-03-13 08:51:27 UTC
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.
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#31 - 2012-03-14 05:27:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Ines Tegator
Blatant Forum Alt wrote:
I like to troll


Dumbass.

Anyway, I don't care about real world tactics, I'm quite aware of them. But as a game, it's just not that much fun. The FC calls targets, you find them in a list and hit f1 and hope your fleet can force a CLG (Combat Loss Grouping) before theirs does. Very exciting.
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#32 - 2012-03-14 06:32:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Ines Tegator
Incoming wall of text. There's no way to tl:dr this either because it includes hard info.

Ok here's a preliminary stab at a mitigation formula. It's actually not that complex and only involves a few operations per attack. It doesn't account for time elapsed yet, and I've only done a handful of test scenarios with arbitrary numbers, but it's a starting point. It's showing the behavior I want.

That behavior is, when attacked by multiple attackers doing the full damage expected if the attackers were of the same ship class as the target (making the assumption that the fight is battleship vs battleship for example) by reaching a predetermined minimum, the maximum mitigation is reached. When attacked by multiple attackers the damage is below expected based on the targets ship class a predetermined minumum, the mitigation is reduced proportionately. 0 damage results in 0 mitigation, there is no penalty for exceeding the predetermined minmum. This allows mixed ship fleets to engage without the fleet being penalized for any given ship having lower damage the rest. I havn't accounted for drones yet; I'm thinking I'll count each drone as 1/5 of an attacker and leave the formula the same.

Also, other features such as a minimum number of attackers (3 at the lowest, which accouts for a 2 v 2 with full drones and not having any penalties applied yet) and mitigation cap and perhaps others would need to be part of a final solution. This is just brainstorming.

Definition of Terms:
Damage Recieved (DR)
Number of Attackers (AT)
Time Elapsed
Mitigation Amount (MIT)
Mitigation Per Attacker Base (MBE)
Damage Minimum Baseline (DB)

The Formula:
If
DR >= DB*AT
Then
MIT= (MBE * AT)
else
MIT=(MBE * AT)*(DR/DB)

Proposition 1: Hard Damage Baseline
Assume:
MBE=5%
DB(BS)=500
Target=Battleship

Scenario 1: 10 ships where total damage equals 5000
DR>=DB*10 ; True
MIT = (.05 * 10) = .5 or 50%

Scenario 2: 10 ships where total damage equals 4000
DR>=DB*10; False
MIT= .5(4000/5000) = .5(.8) = 40%

Proposition 2: Damage Baseline determined by targets Signature Radius
Assume:
MBE=5%
DB= Target Sig Radius * 2
Target=Armageddon (370 sig)
Note for Consideration: Drake with 3 Shield Purger I's and 2 LSE II's is similar, with a sig of 378. Is this a penalization of shield tanks? Or reasonable considering the speed penalty of armor?

Scenario 3: 10 ships where damage totals 10000
DB=(370*2) = 740
DR>=DB*10 ; True
MIT=50%

Scenario 4: 10 ships where damage totals 6000
Db = 740
DR>=DB*10 ; False
MIT= (MBE*10)*(6000/7400) = .5(.81) = 40.5%


Scenario 5: 10 ships where damage totals 1000
DB = 740
DR>=DB*10 ; False
MIT = .5(1000/7400) = 13.5%

Scenario 6: 10 ships where damage totals 10000; Geddon with MWD II Active (sig=2.2k)
DB=4400
DR>DB*10; False
MIT=.5(10000/44000) = 22.72%

This does not scale gracefully between the ship classes; the DB equation may have to be different for every class.


None of this as I have it here would affect fleets where the alpha is enough to destroy the ship in a single shot. That, I think, is a lost cause due to the nature of EVE, and can only be addressed by changing Artillery. In smaller engagements, it would start to take effect and alter the way fleet fights play out. My hope is this system or one like it would make gang warfare more engaging from the individual pilot's perspective. Whether it will work or not will depend on both mechanics and psychology, knowing that people will always take the easiest path. Hopefully I've proven (tear it apart and prove me wrong! this is SCIENCE!) that a fair mitigation formula is possible, the other question is whether it will have the intended result.

And now, my troll minions, I command thee to begin thy art.
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions
#33 - 2012-03-14 07:09:05 UTC
Ines Tegator wrote:
I don't care about real world tactics.

This is probably the root of the problem here.

If you are trying to introduce weird game mechanics to combat the logistical realities of shooting dudes then eve is going to get more bizarre and nonsensical. This is especially true if you are worried about game balance. You should move closer to reality and not further from it, because the physical realities of our universe form the most balanced systems we can observe.

But getting back tot he game there are actually current in game counters to blobbing. Unfortunately it may be a little too complicated for your average FC who can only fleet warp and call primaries.

A while ago I was flying logi in one of those 200+ dudes vs 200+ dudes fights out in null. The enemy FC was predictably calling primaries one after another. As our guys would get locked up and shot at, they'd broadcast for reps, our logies would lock them up and keep them alive. Things were going smoothly and we were taking zero casualties because we could out rep their DPS and lock up our own dudes faster than the other fleet.

Then a flight of bombers did a bombing run on our fleet. Everyone took damage, not enough to really pop anyone not in a frigate, but enough to make everyone panic and call for reps. Our nice and manageable broadcast window flooded with panicked battleships, and the people who actually were being primaried got lost in the flood of RR requests. And we started losing people because their fleet did something other than just calling primaries.

An emergent solution to an emergent challenge.

One day I'd like to see an FC say, "We can't break their logi, you know what? Screw it! I am still going to call primaries, but I want a couple of you to un-group your guns and just shoot whatever, let's see if we can't throw them off balance." Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't. But it is possible to try and solve real problems with real tactics, not weird game mechanics changes.

I honestly think PoCo based sov is a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544

Momoyo
Rivinshield Trading Inc.
#34 - 2012-03-14 07:39:19 UTC
I think the only change that could make a difference and make sense would be to make it so shots do not pass through things to get to their target. This would make friendly fire an issue and fleets would have to fly in smaller squads or in formation (CONGA Line!!!)to avoid hitting each other. Fleets could also use in space structures to shield themselves from incoming fire. Firing at enemies, instead of insta popping a ship (though it could) would hit multiple ships that are in the way or hit other ships with missed shots.

However Im pretty sure this is impossible with the current engine so no use talking about it.

Move along, Move along...
Blatant Forum Alt
Doomheim
#35 - 2012-03-14 13:57:40 UTC
Ines Tegator wrote:
Hopefully I've proven (tear it apart and prove me wrong! this is SCIENCE!) that a fair mitigation formula is popular, the other question is whether it will have the intended result.

And now, my troll minions, I command thee to begin thy art.


You are the reason we cant have nice things.

You propose a stupid idea, wrap it up in long words and formulae, and then ignore the dozens of people telling you (as they have done to countless other people on other threads on this topic) that this is a stupid idea. You then claim to have 'proven' that this is popular, despite the sheer number of people telling you that this idea is stupid.

Its a stupid idea, it is not popular. Knowing this does not make me a troll, it means I have an IQ above my shoe size.
Carmizan
Lords of Maelstrom
#36 - 2012-03-14 14:23:41 UTC
Ines Tegator wrote:
update: people new to the thread may want to skip ahead to here

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.



This would not happen in an Alpha fleet though.

They are designed to lock the target and all fire at the same time, so every ship's rounds hit you at the same time, therefore any debris will not effect the first salvo at which point your ship has already been destroyed.

Which make this argument null and void
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#37 - 2012-03-14 14:36:49 UTC
Momoyo wrote:
I think the only change that could make a difference and make sense would be to make it so shots do not pass through things to get to their target. This would make friendly fire an issue and fleets would have to fly in smaller squads or in formation (CONGA Line!!!)to avoid hitting each other. Fleets could also use in space structures to shield themselves from incoming fire. Firing at enemies, instead of insta popping a ship (though it could) would hit multiple ships that are in the way or hit other ships with missed shots.

Given that they have a team putting the final polish on a FPS where the server needs awareness of terrain and cover, this should actually be within the realm of possibility now.

Additionally, unlike the OP, it is applying realism to mitigate the problem.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs

Velicitia
XS Tech
#38 - 2012-03-14 14:50:36 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Momoyo wrote:
I think the only change that could make a difference and make sense would be to make it so shots do not pass through things to get to their target. This would make friendly fire an issue and fleets would have to fly in smaller squads or in formation (CONGA Line!!!)to avoid hitting each other. Fleets could also use in space structures to shield themselves from incoming fire. Firing at enemies, instead of insta popping a ship (though it could) would hit multiple ships that are in the way or hit other ships with missed shots.

Given that they have a team putting the final polish on a FPS where the server needs awareness of terrain and cover, this should actually be within the realm of possibility now.

Additionally, unlike the OP, it is applying realism to mitigate the problem.


indeed. One thing that I loved (to hate) from other space games (Homeworld series mostly ... can't remember Freelancer combat too much anymore) was the idea of ships having firing arcs. Though, with the way things work here, that might be far too much effort for too little gain (although, seeing 200x abaddon/rokh/etc firing broadside at the other guy would look pretty).

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#39 - 2012-03-14 15:01:49 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Momoyo wrote:
I think the only change that could make a difference and make sense would be to make it so shots do not pass through things to get to their target. This would make friendly fire an issue and fleets would have to fly in smaller squads or in formation (CONGA Line!!!)to avoid hitting each other. Fleets could also use in space structures to shield themselves from incoming fire. Firing at enemies, instead of insta popping a ship (though it could) would hit multiple ships that are in the way or hit other ships with missed shots.

Given that they have a team putting the final polish on a FPS where the server needs awareness of terrain and cover, this should actually be within the realm of possibility now.

Additionally, unlike the OP, it is applying realism to mitigate the problem.


indeed. One thing that I loved (to hate) from other space games (Homeworld series mostly ... can't remember Freelancer combat too much anymore) was the idea of ships having firing arcs. Though, with the way things work here, that might be far too much effort for too little gain (although, seeing 200x abaddon/rokh/etc firing broadside at the other guy would look pretty).

An Abaddon wall of battle would be a truly awe inspiring sight to behold. It would also give tackles an additional role of breaking up the opponent's formation to expose their otherwise well protected logistics.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs

Zyress
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#40 - 2012-03-14 17:20:08 UTC
The only thing that makes sense for mitigating the blob incoming dps is requiring line of site between attacking ships and targets, currently you can shoot right through the guys around you if you are in the center of a blob, that apparently requires too much server resources to be practically implemented though.
Previous page123Next page