These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

More individual weight

Author
sq0
Imperium Technologies
Hooligans.
#1 - 2013-05-23 11:37:14 UTC
This idea was probably suggested a few times in some modification. What i miss in eve is a little more individualism in game, mainly in large battles, it doesent really matter what equip you take, you just hope you won't get targeted and alphaed.

How about some targeting system disruption or something like that. If there are more people than X targeting 1 ship, signals are disrupting each other, and every next attacker will have it's targeting disrupted by xy% thus taking targeting longer, or targeting is less accurate and more missing is occuring or something simmillar.

For example 5 ships attacking one produces 5x 100 dmg, but whne 6th ship enages, targeting gets a little disrupted, so 5% more missing occures on all ships, so together they will get 6x 95 dmg = 570 total dmg. Thus making additional ship a little less effective. 7th will for example rise missing to 7% generating total 7x 93 dmg = 651 total etc. XYnth attacker will bring so little dmg addition, that it won't be worth it and will target someone else instead. Exact numbers are offcourse for extensive calculation and testing (also other mechanics like blocking targeting by friendlies, attacking capitals etc)

This will open space for new tactics, skills, will bring up little more individualism (as you won't be fighting vs 100 at once) and will make active tanking maybe more wiable if the numbers are right.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#2 - 2013-05-23 11:39:33 UTC
Or add line of sight into the game, so that directed weapons (all turrets) hit whatever is in their way.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3 - 2013-05-23 12:22:34 UTC
sq0 wrote:
This idea was probably suggested a few times in some modification. What i miss in eve is a little more individualism in game, mainly in large battles, it doesent really matter what equip you take, you just hope you won't get targeted and alphaed.

How about some targeting system disruption or something like that. If there are more people than X targeting 1 ship, signals are disrupting each other, and every next attacker will have it's targeting disrupted by xy% thus taking targeting longer, or targeting is less accurate and more missing is occuring or something simmillar.

For example 5 ships attacking one produces 5x 100 dmg, but whne 6th ship enages, targeting gets a little disrupted, so 5% more missing occures on all ships, so together they will get 6x 95 dmg = 570 total dmg. Thus making additional ship a little less effective. 7th will for example rise missing to 7% generating total 7x 93 dmg = 651 total etc. XYnth attacker will bring so little dmg addition, that it won't be worth it and will target someone else instead. Exact numbers are offcourse for extensive calculation and testing (also other mechanics like blocking targeting by friendlies, attacking capitals etc)

This will open space for new tactics, skills, will bring up little more individualism (as you won't be fighting vs 100 at once) and will make active tanking maybe more wiable if the numbers are right.



Then everyone in the fleet targets five friendlies and all of a sudden it's even harder to beat a blob.



As for the LOS argument, that makes structure shoots literally impossible.
Kenrailae
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#4 - 2013-05-23 12:27:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenrailae
Mara Rinn wrote:
Or add line of sight into the game, so that directed weapons (all turrets) hit whatever is in their way.




Line of Sight would be a very interesting, very enraging and challenging change. Unfortunately, the scale of some fights with LOS calculated with all the other calculations I think might break Eve. Those Poor hamsters are already so overworked.

The challenge with adding more individualism to each ship is balancing it against small gang/solo AND viable in large gang. That's one reason active ships are at such a challenging spot. If you make them able to active tank a larger gang.... good luck beating them small gang. If you make them scaled to small gang... good luck tanking a large gang.

Also, the OP's idea doesn't account for logistics. Eve is already a very 'real' game in terms of the physics it tries to incorporate. If you don't believe me, undock from a station, pulse MWD, and then try to warp to something directly behind you. It takes FOREVER to warp and over come your momentum compared to warping from stop. Heck, often your ship will fly backwards for a very short amount of time. Quite comical actually. Or MWD warp an orca. THAT is funny. CCP I think does a great job of keeping the game as 'real' as possible without spending so much time on calculations that the server would have no chance. I'm not a techie, so maybe I'm underestimating computing power, but that's still ALOT of calculation put into a 20v20 fight. Scaling, it only gets worse.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

sq0
Imperium Technologies
Hooligans.
#5 - 2013-05-23 12:31:38 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
sq0 wrote:
This idea was probably suggested a few times in some modification. What i miss in eve is a little more individualism in game, mainly in large battles, it doesent really matter what equip you take, you just hope you won't get targeted and alphaed.

How about some targeting system disruption or something like that. If there are more people than X targeting 1 ship, signals are disrupting each other, and every next attacker will have it's targeting disrupted by xy% thus taking targeting longer, or targeting is less accurate and more missing is occuring or something simmillar.

For example 5 ships attacking one produces 5x 100 dmg, but whne 6th ship enages, targeting gets a little disrupted, so 5% more missing occures on all ships, so together they will get 6x 95 dmg = 570 total dmg. Thus making additional ship a little less effective. 7th will for example rise missing to 7% generating total 7x 93 dmg = 651 total etc. XYnth attacker will bring so little dmg addition, that it won't be worth it and will target someone else instead. Exact numbers are offcourse for extensive calculation and testing (also other mechanics like blocking targeting by friendlies, attacking capitals etc)

This will open space for new tactics, skills, will bring up little more individualism (as you won't be fighting vs 100 at once) and will make active tanking maybe more wiable if the numbers are right.



Then everyone in the fleet targets five friendlies and all of a sudden it's even harder to beat a blob.



As for the LOS argument, that makes structure shoots literally impossible.


thats why i wrotethat calculations and testing (also friendly target blocking) are necessary. Im talking about general idea, not exact thing.
Hopelesshobo
Perkone
Caldari State
#6 - 2013-05-23 16:23:30 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Or add line of sight into the game, so that directed weapons (all turrets) hit whatever is in their way.


That could be interesting...

Pirate: Ok I see the Hulk, hes in the belt
Hulk: Mmmmm Roids
Pirate: Decloaking and locking...
Hulk: My cargohold is getting....WTF OMG OMG OMG OMG
Pirate: Point On
Hulk: OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG
Pirate: His shields are down
Hulk: OMG OMG OMG OMG
Pirate: Armor is about....WTF OMG OMG OMG OMG...%$@^@!$ ROID MADE ME LOSE POINT
Hulk: Lol..noob

But that would take a major overhaul of the game and CCP would probably need to make TiDi go down to less then 10% from all the added calculations the servers would have to account for with every targeted module from someone. It would add an entire new level of strategy in the game by playing with line of sight with the opposing fleet either by blocking it to get them to come in closer, or by webbing their logistics and forcing the fleet in 1 spot or face a fight without reps. The trick would be if you end up shooting a highsec station, does concord come running even if it just happened to get in the way?

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#7 - 2013-05-23 17:03:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
Kenrailae wrote:
Line of Sight would be a very interesting, very enraging and challenging change. Unfortunately, the scale of some fights with LOS calculated with all the other calculations I think might break Eve. Those Poor hamsters are already so overworked.


I hear this all the time: "doing X would be too hard, we shouldn't even try." Line of sight is a very simple variant of ray tracing. If the positions of all ships are fed into a specialist process(or), the "X shoots Y hits Z" answers might all be ready by the time the full set of "X shoots Y" commands are processed. I'm sure nVidia has some raytracing or collision detection functions on their GPUs.

A simple raytracing approach could be to give every ship on grid a different "colour", then use a ray tracer and trace all the "rays" of turret fire to see what "colour" that weapon turns out to be. That colour indicates which target the weapon actually hit. So you prepare the "X shoots Y hits Z" table (it's a table approximately N^2 in size, containing elements which are big enough to enumerate every shootable object on grid), then as the "X shoots Y" instructions come through you feed out the "X hits Z" to the ship proxy processes. Or the ship proxies can query the table directly.

A more complex solution would include determining where on the target the directed weapon actually impacted, with this information being sent back to the client to direct the rendering of weapons fire. No longer will you have every shot impacting a single vertex on the hull.

And on top of this all we have time dilation which means the simulation can afford to spend a little more time doing the ray tracing/collision detection/whatever, and that process might even be disabled for very large fights.

Edit: note that raytracing is often optimised to trace thousands of rays emitted from a specific 2D plane, being the viewing plane or "window", so I don't know whether or not resetting the workspace to trace arbitrary rays from many points in the space will benefit from raytracing. I think the technology exists to do Line of Sight calculations, and thus I don't believe that "it's too hard" is a good excuse for not trying. Once CCP can determine, "Line of Sight using the best possible technology adds 100 cycles to a process that is 1000 cycles long, therefore we will not implement it at this time," then we'll have a technical rejection for the technical solution to the technical problem ;)

Of course if it turns out that "Line of Sight using the best possible technology adds 20 cycles to a process that is 1000 cycles long" then it's worth discussing the inclusion of LoS with the option of disabling it when time dilation reaches its technical limits.
Jacid
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2013-05-23 17:17:14 UTC
Doesn't the target breaker module do mostly what the OP is asking for?

As for line of sight in eve, its an awesome concept and given another 10-15 years it might be doable but i don't think CCPs hamsters are big enough.

I would settle for just environmental effects like fighting near the sun give EM/Therm damage or fighting in a gas cloud causes engines to malfunction and run at 50% effect. I competent FC could use this "terrain" to his advantage and it would make conflicts more interesting. WH space does this to some effect with great success i cant see why they don't expand it into K-space to some effect.
Sorana Bonzari
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2013-05-23 17:32:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Sorana Bonzari
I'm on the fence about LOS. Being a small fleet pvper it would be nice because enemy blobs might not be as efficient at damage projection ie they hit each other. But if you think about it a little even 1k is a huge distance for a 425mm round so if we added it would it really make any difference other then the occasional mishit.

Edit:
_____________
Using this logic you can say we already have LOS the ships computer calculates a trajectory that will bypass all objects by lets say 2m to hit its target ;).


Furthermore I feel like it will just be exploited against small fleets (3-5 people) vs the masses. It already takes some skill to maneuver around blobs and pick off the retards letting them hide behind each other at 0 (hitting approach) seems like it will be a skillless trick that will thwart us.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2013-05-23 23:56:26 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Kenrailae wrote:
Line of Sight would be a very interesting, very enraging and challenging change. Unfortunately, the scale of some fights with LOS calculated with all the other calculations I think might break Eve. Those Poor hamsters are already so overworked.


I hear this all the time: "doing X would be too hard, we shouldn't even try." Line of sight is a very simple variant of ray tracing. If the positions of all ships are fed into a specialist process(or), the "X shoots Y hits Z" answers might all be ready by the time the full set of "X shoots Y" commands are processed. I'm sure nVidia has some raytracing or collision detection functions on their GPUs.

A simple raytracing approach could be to give every ship on grid a different "colour", then use a ray tracer and trace all the "rays" of turret fire to see what "colour" that weapon turns out to be. That colour indicates which target the weapon actually hit. So you prepare the "X shoots Y hits Z" table (it's a table approximately N^2 in size, containing elements which are big enough to enumerate every shootable object on grid), then as the "X shoots Y" instructions come through you feed out the "X hits Z" to the ship proxy processes. Or the ship proxies can query the table directly.

A more complex solution would include determining where on the target the directed weapon actually impacted, with this information being sent back to the client to direct the rendering of weapons fire. No longer will you have every shot impacting a single vertex on the hull.

And on top of this all we have time dilation which means the simulation can afford to spend a little more time doing the ray tracing/collision detection/whatever, and that process might even be disabled for very large fights.

Edit: note that raytracing is often optimised to trace thousands of rays emitted from a specific 2D plane, being the viewing plane or "window", so I don't know whether or not resetting the workspace to trace arbitrary rays from many points in the space will benefit from raytracing. I think the technology exists to do Line of Sight calculations, and thus I don't believe that "it's too hard" is a good excuse for not trying. Once CCP can determine, "Line of Sight using the best possible technology adds 100 cycles to a process that is 1000 cycles long, therefore we will not implement it at this time," then we'll have a technical rejection for the technical solution to the technical problem ;)

Of course if it turns out that "Line of Sight using the best possible technology adds 20 cycles to a process that is 1000 cycles long" then it's worth discussing the inclusion of LoS with the option of disabling it when time dilation reaches its technical limits.



Pretty sure it's considered too hard because the server records the location of each ship as a tiny little box, with nothing at all to do with the actual shape of the thing. Taking LOS into account means taking the whole shape and size of every ship into account, rather than a single point for each one.

And still not one of the LOS proponents has actually explained how anyone will shoot a structure if it comes in, especially with subcaps.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#11 - 2013-05-24 16:06:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
Danika Princip wrote:
And still not one of the LOS proponents has actually explained how anyone will shoot a structure if it comes in, especially with subcaps.


What's to be explained? You target the structure, you shoot it. The 30km diameter bubble on a POS means that it's super easy to hit. Even an Avatar isn't fat enough to block your view unless you're parked inside its hangar bay.

Of course there's also the option of taking away the bubble and giving POSes real hangars. You know, like CCP was thinking about doing with the upcoming POS revamp Cool
Gizznitt Malikite
agony unleashed
Agony Empire
#12 - 2013-05-24 17:55:35 UTC
sq0 wrote:
This idea was probably suggested a few times in some modification. What i miss in eve is a little more individualism in game, mainly in large battles, it doesent really matter what equip you take, you just hope you won't get targeted and alphaed.

How about some targeting system disruption or something like that. If there are more people than X targeting 1 ship, signals are disrupting each other, and every next attacker will have it's targeting disrupted by xy% thus taking targeting longer, or targeting is less accurate and more missing is occuring or something simmillar.

For example 5 ships attacking one produces 5x 100 dmg, but whne 6th ship enages, targeting gets a little disrupted, so 5% more missing occures on all ships, so together they will get 6x 95 dmg = 570 total dmg. Thus making additional ship a little less effective. 7th will for example rise missing to 7% generating total 7x 93 dmg = 651 total etc. XYnth attacker will bring so little dmg addition, that it won't be worth it and will target someone else instead. Exact numbers are offcourse for extensive calculation and testing (also other mechanics like blocking targeting by friendlies, attacking capitals etc)

This will open space for new tactics, skills, will bring up little more individualism (as you won't be fighting vs 100 at once) and will make active tanking maybe more wiable if the numbers are right.


First off, you can't limit the dps from the standpoint of the attackers. Everyone's guns fire at different rates, and the game doesn't deal with "dps", only damage. Now, this could probably be circumvented by scaling a target's resistances based on number of people locking it, with the obvious need to eliminate exploitable loopholes (like friendlies locking you up, which is a difficult thing to "fix").

The truth is, logistics is the core reason we have such a reduction in "individual weight" in fleet battles. Logi's scale amazingly well, allowing any ship in fleet to tank 20, 50, 100, and sometimes 200+ enemy ships. The damage you inflict as an individual is essentially negligible, until you and your buddies all fire on the same target.

Have you ever been in a frigate fleet fight (50 vs 50) or some such craziness. In such situations, you want squad leaders to broadcast targets to their squad, as using the entire fleet to kill one ship is terribly inefficient. If fleet fights had such a poor level of scalabitity, where telling more than 20 people to attack the same target was inefficient, suddenly there would be a lot more "commander" positions that mattered.

Unfortunately, I don't see a means to return to such an environment. Now there are logi-frigates that actually make focus fire in larger frigate battles a necessity.

Note: Logi's have a good benefit too, they allow a fleet of 10 to take on a fleet of 20, because they are essentially force multipliers (like ECM). However, they simply scale to damn well! (Coordinating 100 targets among 20 ECM ships is very difficult, but coordinating 20 logistics ships is trivial in todays broadcast environment <- Perhaps broadcasts for reps simply needs to be removed!)
Khan Farshatok
Hateful Intent
#13 - 2013-05-24 17:58:52 UTC
TLDR;
Apolion
Light-year Enterprises
#14 - 2013-06-04 04:28:51 UTC
Everyone is worried about hamsters not being up to task, but have you thought that in a multi ship battle the likelihood of a loss of lock grows and that actually reduces the load on your precious hamsters? Guys we aren’t talking about a 100 v 100 ship battle the hamsters can handle that with one hand tied behind their back and the other sipping martinis. It’s the 1k v 1k battles that makes hamsters smoke and I can tell you easily 70% of locks will be lost at all times, so calculations go down not up, so formation flying will be needed in a big way.
The strategy of flanking and position will become real and necessary. Large battles will take longer. It’s all good!
hmskrecik
TransMine Group
#15 - 2013-06-04 07:08:36 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
I hear this all the time: "doing X would be too hard, we shouldn't even try." Line of sight is a very simple variant of ray tracing. If the positions of all ships are fed into a specialist process(or), the "X shoots Y hits Z" answers might all be ready by the time the full set of "X shoots Y" commands are processed. I'm sure nVidia has some raytracing or collision detection functions on their GPUs.

The problem is hard not on technical but on the computational level and it's not going to change unless you have power to bend laws of mathemathics.

Yes, the raytracing-like can be optimized but you forgot that you have to perform it for every ship taking part in the battle. And it all have to be performed on the server (I could hack my client so it always sends the message I hit my target). You yourself observed it takes N squared calculations and they have to be carried every time a shot is made (let's optimize not to do it every second).

Can you sort it out by throwing more hardware on it? Sure! But it scales badly. Even if you manage to get, say, 1000 people fight going on (1 milion calculations every time), 3000 people fight will bring the server to its knees (10 milion) and last time I checked, CCP would like to have battles scale way beyond that.