These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

[Proposal] Adopt a few mechanics from Perpetuum.

First post
Author
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2011-10-16 02:00:31 UTC
I hope this has been posted before...because if it has it's because its a good idea.

So...Perpetuum is a pretty crappy game. Graphically it sucks and the combat is pretty lame not to mention it is pretty much an EvE ripoff. No really...you can't play Perpetuum and not see the blatant similarities to EvE. There are however a few things that it "improved" on that I believe should be adopted. One of my alliance buddies pointed out a couple to me and I agreed.

1: Static noise. By this I mean targeting restrictions based on the number of ships on grid. The more ships in the "blob" the longer it takes to target an individual ship. In Perpetuum it is explained by the nearby ships creating noise from their targeting systems that counteract or slow the targeting of other ships.

2: AoE ship explosions. Something I brought up on the old forums that seemed rather popular with a few nitpickers. Ship explodes and the resulting explosion causes damage to all the other ships in the area. Bigger the ship...bigger the explosion and damage. Of course the easy way to do this is to make the ship explosions work just like missile explosions for velocity, damage and whatnot.

3: SP accumulation to a point pool. Instead of setting your skill to train and having to worry about changing that skill at a certain time and blah blah blah...instead just have all your SP go into a pool of points that you can specifically assign to whatever skill you want to when you want. The mechanics for this are already in the game as evident when learning skills were removed and the points refunded.

There you go. 3 things Perpetuum does as ****** of a game as it is that CCP can learn from for EvE.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821

MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2011-10-16 02:33:25 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
I hope this has been posted before...because if it has it's because its a good idea.

So...Perpetuum is a pretty crappy game. Graphically it sucks and the combat is pretty lame not to mention it is pretty much an EvE ripoff. No really...you can't play Perpetuum and not see the blatant similarities to EvE. There are however a few things that it "improved" on that I believe should be adopted. One of my alliance buddies pointed out a couple to me and I agreed.

1: Static noise. By this I mean targeting restrictions based on the number of ships on grid. The more ships in the "blob" the longer it takes to target an individual ship. In Perpetuum it is explained by the nearby ships creating noise from their targeting systems that counteract or slow the targeting of other ships.

2: AoE ship explosions. Something I brought up on the old forums that seemed rather popular with a few nitpickers. Ship explodes and the resulting explosion causes damage to all the other ships in the area. Bigger the ship...bigger the explosion and damage. Of course the easy way to do this is to make the ship explosions work just like missile explosions for velocity, damage and whatnot.

3: SP accumulation to a point pool. Instead of setting your skill to train and having to worry about changing that skill at a certain time and blah blah blah...instead just have all your SP go into a pool of points that you can specifically assign to whatever skill you want to when you want. The mechanics for this are already in the game as evident when learning skills were removed and the points refunded.

There you go. 3 things Perpetuum does as ****** of a game as it is that CCP can learn from for EvE.


the sp pool thing would never work in eve.

However having ships explode deal AoE damage to each other would cut down on capital blobs like no tomorrow. and by blobs I don't mean 10-20 carriers, I mean 30-50 mother ships. You lose 3 mother ships and suddenly your super dense blob is all at 50% hp.

Also on idea #1, the static noise is one of the only reason in large sale battles idea 2 works. By limiting locking time and having ships deal massive AoE damage to each other base on size of ship and size of ship taking damage you have an awesome combo that focuses combat down to smaller fights.

you would also super increase the usefulness of the titan laser by inadvertently making it into an AoE weapon. target carrier, press fire. kill carrier, carrier deals AoE damage to the 40 carrier blob they just shoved into the system to fight your smaller fleet.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#3 - 2011-10-16 02:50:46 UTC
AOE explosions should be restricted to low sec and below. Otherwise this would open up yet another can of worms...

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2011-10-16 03:05:20 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
AOE explosions should be restricted to low sec and below. Otherwise this would open up yet another can of worms...


I will concede that point.

Why wouldn't an SP pool work in EvE? So long as you have a subscription you gain points and apply them when you want. Not very hard at all...does away with the complaints of not being able to change skills outside EvE.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821

Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2011-10-16 03:56:54 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
AOE explosions should be restricted to low sec and below. Otherwise this would open up yet another can of worms...


Why wouldn't an SP pool work in EvE? So long as you have a subscription you gain points and apply them when you want. Not very hard at all...does away with the complaints of not being able to change skills outside EvE.


thiink REALLY hard, i'm sure youll figure it out.

but really, the problem that comes is this...
let's say you cant afford a skillbook, well, right now that emans you can't train the skill until you can afford it. in your system, they can just grind isk for a while adn the second they can afford it, BOOM put points in lvl 5, basically meaning a player can in essence, get the sp for every skill in the agme without ever actually having to afford it, basically pre-training a skill before you even buy it. which is bad.
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2011-10-16 04:22:58 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
AOE explosions should be restricted to low sec and below. Otherwise this would open up yet another can of worms...


Why wouldn't an SP pool work in EvE? So long as you have a subscription you gain points and apply them when you want. Not very hard at all...does away with the complaints of not being able to change skills outside EvE.


thiink REALLY hard, i'm sure youll figure it out.

but really, the problem that comes is this...
let's say you cant afford a skillbook, well, right now that emans you can't train the skill until you can afford it. in your system, they can just grind isk for a while adn the second they can afford it, BOOM put points in lvl 5, basically meaning a player can in essence, get the sp for every skill in the agme without ever actually having to afford it, basically pre-training a skill before you even buy it. which is bad.


Yeah...I can't see that as actually being a problem as that really only applies to newbie pilots anyway. Anybody playing more than 3 months should be able to easily make the ISK needed to fund any skillbook purchase in which you could do that. Even still it means they are not applying the skills to some other skill while they wait anyway. Yeah...I don't see that as being a valid problem at all.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821

Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2011-10-16 04:34:29 UTC
I play perpetuum and know the game's strengths and weaknesses pretty well.

The usual stupid "it's an EVE clone!" arguments don't work well on me - the last time I checked, you couldn't hide behind stations nor even planets in this game but LoS is big there - tracking means nothing there but is a huge consideration here - skillpoints earned real-time is similar but 1ep/min and NO way to enhance/improve building up is a bit different than "remaps" with implants... so on and so forth.

"Exploding ships" - in perp this isn't a major issue though even there you had mitigation due to terrain being discussed (that LoS issue above? It does NOT exist here). In EVE it would be.

Alpha kills in perp are extremely rare but common as dirt in fleet ops here. You aren't running a 1,000 ship battle with such mechanics and exploiting it would be extremely easy. Simply run a ship into an enemy fleet and alpha it with your fleet.

It sounds neat but in reality it would cripple a lot of PvP in the game.

The SP pool has issues. Why log into the game at all if you want to just build up skills? Why even look at the game at all just to build up? There is no expending the SP until you feel like starting to use that char, or sell it.

"Static Noise" - how does this work with Drones? There's nothing like them in Perpetuum yet they are a core/key weapons system in this game. it might work to help out some situations of vast numbers but 500 or less ships shouldn't be crippled unless you want to shut down *ALL* major fleet operations in the game.

PS: Graphics don't suck in perpetuum on many machines. My old machine it looked great on. My new computer - they look a bit washed out. One is an XP box, the other an up to date Win7 box with high end graphics card. It appears the engine renders better with older systems. The why of it, I have no clue, I just spot it very easily if I use my old computer.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2011-10-16 11:27:00 UTC
The goal of "static noise" is a laudable one -- change the fleet size/power curve so that after a certain point, bringing more ships to a fight doesn't buy you much advantage. IMHO a change that achieves this is the only long-term solution to blobs and lag, because "fleets expand to fill the lag available".

That said, the proposal is overly simplistic, because it's based on # of ships on a grid. That means it hurts everyone on grid equally, so the effect is neutral, and it does not achieve the desired goal. For it to do that, it must impair the side with the big fleet (more, or bigger ships) more than the side with the smaller fleet.

The naive solution to this is keeping track of things on an individual ship level and generating a noise map of the grid, so that regions with lots of tightly packed ships are disadvantaged more. However, without some very clever programming and simplifying approximations, this is not computationally feasible.

Back when I ran for CSM5, I illustrated this issue with a proposal that ships only be able to target the closest "N" ships (be they friend or foe). So if you were in the middle of a big blob, most or all of the ships you could lock would be friendly, and the extra combat power you could provide would be limited. This is, of course, only one of a large number of possible game mechanic tweaks that might address the issue; which one is best is up to CCP to decide.

But sooner or later, they're going to have to change combat mechanics to introduce some sort of fog of war at the grid level.

PS: I do like the idea of chain-reactions of exploding ships. Twisted

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#9 - 2011-10-16 13:49:55 UTC
Artificial blob limiters will never work unless they are made so horrible to work within that people rage-quit on the spot. Much better to cook up mechanics that encourages not blobbing .. fielding ones entire extended family should remain an option for the Neanderthals.

Do we really want an AoE weapon usable by day 1 characters? I'd much rather have a kamikaze option where I fill my hold with explosives and can do damage to another's hull directly by ramming at full speed.

The SP thing can be done by letting the points added to the pool be as if no implants are used (or lower even) and setting a restriction on the pool of 3-4 days worth. Point would be to expand on the queue concept while making sure that logging in remains the optimal solution.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#10 - 2011-10-16 17:08:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
also.. i don't like the idea of a single artificial limit (noise) which make fights less fun with growing size.

rather than one limit with big impact i would suggest multiple mechanics which discourage blobbing (speak: are specific against blobs independent of the fleetsize) and make somewhat sense from the "immersion standpoint".

(i posted this already somewhere)
example based on formations:
fleet bonuses only apply if you fly in certain (but reasonable loose) formations, blob gives no bonus at all (add the noise penalty here if you like)
- wings should stay together
- frigate specific formations (v, x..) give speed/sensor/agility boosts
- formations for slow ships, like wall or line give defensive/offensive boosts
- delta/square/star formation for logistics
- blob gives you nothing

advantages:
- very(!) large fleets will require more than one FC (sub-FCs) for optimal results
- blob is discouraged
- larger fleets require some kind of strategy (attack from both sides etc..)
- new feature for the marketing department

sure this is not trivial to implement but this would be a nice mid-term goal IMO.

as good start (results first!) CCP could restrict the noise penalty only for blobs (to many ships in one place) and ignore the formation feature completely. Having a grid wide penalty would be rather suboptimal since it would affect the smaller fleet too (in a fleet vs blob battle).


edit: but yeah the noise idea is quite cool :)

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Jihzma Mei
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2011-10-16 17:39:21 UTC
The only mechanic I'd like to see moved over from perp is their system/outpost control scheme that rewards a constant presence in the system.

Artificial blob limiters won't work imo. Its better to create incentives within the sov system that encourage multiple fleets.
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2011-10-16 19:55:31 UTC
hey wait a minute... they already have the ability to refund sp...

what if instead a nice balance was to say.... Give you half your lowest sp gain per minute, as sp you can put into anywhere?

So you still WANT to train skills, and it rewards you for keeping up with it, but if you miss a day, you only miss out on half of the sp you could of had?


You know, that or get eve gate working to the point where we can just change skills online.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

CaleAdaire
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#13 - 2011-10-16 21:21:00 UTC
I like the noise idea alot, still signature radius should count for something, this would encourage to fleets to bring hundreds of cheap frigs in alts as nothing more that static noise generators. If there was a way to implement it without abuse factors being painfully obvious it would be cool though

+1

Trust in God, Have Faith in Fusion.

Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2011-10-17 01:10:31 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
The goal of "static noise" is a laudable one -- change the fleet size/power curve so that after a certain point, bringing more ships to a fight doesn't buy you much advantage. IMHO a change that achieves this is the only long-term solution to blobs and lag, because "fleets expand to fill the lag available".

That said, the proposal is overly simplistic, because it's based on # of ships on a grid. That means it hurts everyone on grid equally, so the effect is neutral, and it does not achieve the desired goal. For it to do that, it must impair the side with the big fleet (more, or bigger ships) more than the side with the smaller fleet.

The naive solution to this is keeping track of things on an individual ship level and generating a noise map of the grid, so that regions with lots of tightly packed ships are disadvantaged more. However, without some very clever programming and simplifying approximations, this is not computationally feasible.

Back when I ran for CSM5, I illustrated this issue with a proposal that ships only be able to target the closest "N" ships (be they friend or foe). So if you were in the middle of a big blob, most or all of the ships you could lock would be friendly, and the extra combat power you could provide would be limited. This is, of course, only one of a large number of possible game mechanic tweaks that might address the issue; which one is best is up to CCP to decide.

But sooner or later, they're going to have to change combat mechanics to introduce some sort of fog of war at the grid level.

PS: I do like the idea of chain-reactions of exploding ships. Twisted


On the noise - yea, it would make "grid-fu" damn near essential to working fleet ops decently. Some upsides to this but also downsides - a game mechanic focus vs gaming focus -- need to "shape the grid properly for this battle...". Adjusting the idea might work.

That exploding ship idea "sounds" very cool. I remember thinking how it was awesome - then I saw how it worked and who it was used against...

Think about it this way - every "younger char" becomes a liability to your side being as they are the easier target to kill. SP prerequisites to joining organizations would soar to prevent the trash kills that hurt your gang.

An alternative would be the "fire ship" model based upon self-destruct or the like. A weapon vs an effect but that's all "side-bar" stuff.
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2011-10-17 04:40:34 UTC
Mocam wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
The goal of "static noise" is a laudable one -- change the fleet size/power curve so that after a certain point, bringing more ships to a fight doesn't buy you much advantage. IMHO a change that achieves this is the only long-term solution to blobs and lag, because "fleets expand to fill the lag available".

That said, the proposal is overly simplistic, because it's based on # of ships on a grid. That means it hurts everyone on grid equally, so the effect is neutral, and it does not achieve the desired goal. For it to do that, it must impair the side with the big fleet (more, or bigger ships) more than the side with the smaller fleet.

The naive solution to this is keeping track of things on an individual ship level and generating a noise map of the grid, so that regions with lots of tightly packed ships are disadvantaged more. However, without some very clever programming and simplifying approximations, this is not computationally feasible.

Back when I ran for CSM5, I illustrated this issue with a proposal that ships only be able to target the closest "N" ships (be they friend or foe). So if you were in the middle of a big blob, most or all of the ships you could lock would be friendly, and the extra combat power you could provide would be limited. This is, of course, only one of a large number of possible game mechanic tweaks that might address the issue; which one is best is up to CCP to decide.

But sooner or later, they're going to have to change combat mechanics to introduce some sort of fog of war at the grid level.

PS: I do like the idea of chain-reactions of exploding ships. Twisted


On the noise - yea, it would make "grid-fu" damn near essential to working fleet ops decently. Some upsides to this but also downsides - a game mechanic focus vs gaming focus -- need to "shape the grid properly for this battle...". Adjusting the idea might work.

That exploding ship idea "sounds" very cool. I remember thinking how it was awesome - then I saw how it worked and who it was used against...

Think about it this way - every "younger char" becomes a liability to your side being as they are the easier target to kill. SP prerequisites to joining organizations would soar to prevent the trash kills that hurt your gang.

An alternative would be the "fire ship" model based upon self-destruct or the like. A weapon vs an effect but that's all "side-bar" stuff.


It would work the same way bombs do. one bomb does about 30% damage to battleship AND only 30% damage to frigates.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#16 - 2011-10-17 05:49:14 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Back when I ran for CSM5, I illustrated this issue with a proposal that ships only be able to target the closest "N" ships (be they friend or foe). So if you were in the middle of a big blob, most or all of the ships you could lock would be friendly, and the extra combat power you could provide would be limited.


This has one huge disadvantage, and that is that it penalizes long-range fleet compositions. As soon as you bring N+1 ships, you can not target anything from the enemy fleet, because the closest N ships to you are allies. Meanwhile, a close range fleet can just warp on top of an enemy and hope that at least some of them will end up being closer than most of the friendlies.

Long-range ships are already disadvantaged enough in EVE, they don't deserve another nerf.
CynoNet Two
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#17 - 2011-10-17 11:34:25 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
1: Static noise. By this I mean targeting restrictions based on the number of ships on grid. The more ships in the "blob" the longer it takes to target an individual ship. In Perpetuum it is explained by the nearby ships creating noise from their targeting systems that counteract or slow the targeting of other ships.


This would just result in sebo ahacs backed by newbie frigate spam ruling all 0.0 combat. Battleships and capitals wouldn't have much of a chance.

I will task mittens with implementing this immediately!
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2011-10-17 11:39:30 UTC
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
This has one huge disadvantage, and that is that it penalizes long-range fleet compositions. As soon as you bring N+1 ships, you can not target anything from the enemy fleet, because the closest N ships to you are allies. Meanwhile, a close range fleet can just warp on top of an enemy and hope that at least some of them will end up being closer than most of the friendlies.


The entire point of visibility/locking restrictions is that it will force fleets to split up into smaller semi-independant units that have to maneuver around the battlefield and coordinate with each other to gain local advantage. Granted, it would be a very different battle environment than the current one, with a much higher load on FCs and much greater roles for WC/SCs, but IMHO it would be a much more interesting one.

But also keep in mind that I made the proposal as an example of something that could be done, to illustrate the problem. There is a whole class of possible solutions, but sooner or later CCP has to pick one.

And limiting visibility to the closest N ships -- or making it a function of distance and ship size, or whatever -- is something that can be implemented and tested quickly and easily in the client on SiSi. It's basically putting a perceptual filter on the overview plus a little extra code to check for direct clicks on ships. Only once you have something that is really promising do you start worrying about anti-cheat code on the server side.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2011-10-17 18:41:31 UTC
LoS is another issue all together. Frankly it would be nice to see ships that are occluded by larger ships, objects or even stuff like gas clouds able to be unlockable. Imagine a frigate that flys behind a battlecruiser while you have it locked and suddenly you lose lock and have to lock it again. Or a battleship you lose lock on because it moved behind a carrier. This would also make asteroids, and stations have a tactical role greater than they do now.

This would also make people freak out and QQ to no end but hey...I think the more challenging the PvP is the better it is.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821

Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2011-10-18 05:12:03 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
LoS is another issue all together. Frankly it would be nice to see ships that are occluded by larger ships, objects or even stuff like gas clouds able to be unlockable. Imagine a frigate that flys behind a battlecruiser while you have it locked and suddenly you lose lock and have to lock it again. Or a battleship you lose lock on because it moved behind a carrier. This would also make asteroids, and stations have a tactical role greater than they do now.

This would also make people freak out and QQ to no end but hey...I think the more challenging the PvP is the better it is.


Yeah but the QQ factor would be justified in some situations.

There you are, you've got your target and are shooting away. In comes a shuttle across your line of fire and... CONCORD intervenes - you show a shuttle kill and a lost ship.

Then again, chasing a ship around a planet, trying to get a clear line on them to open fire... Exiting the far side of a POS from hostiles to fly off in safety... It would add some dimensions to combat that don't currently exist.

I understand why they don't allow hiding behind ships and the like but some celestials would make sense so I guess it would need some cautious looking at if they ever really considered it.
12Next page