These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Changing the Lock Formula

Author
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1 - 2014-10-22 09:15:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
This article is about how the game lock formula works and how I would like to see it altered a bit. *dons flame suit once again*

Quote:
Current Lock Time = 40000 / X * (ArcSinh y)^2

Proposed Lock Time = 40000 / X * ArchSinh (y/n)^2

x = scan resolution
y = signature radius
n = number of ships locked and or targeting
Lugh Crow-Slave
#2 - 2014-10-22 09:17:04 UTC
King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#3 - 2014-10-22 09:39:58 UTC
This idea doesn't promote ISBotting and therefore invalid. Only changes that directly benefit ISBotters and altification will be implemented. Gameplay is not relevant, only arfticial boosting of subscriber numbers counts in Alts Online.

(+1, I suggested the number of ships targetting affecting the sig years ago)
Ama Scelesta
#4 - 2014-10-22 10:15:17 UTC
How about you post your basic idea here, instead of expecting people to go read 10 pages of text on your personal blog.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#5 - 2014-10-22 10:16:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
This is ... actually pretty well-written. Shame on you Lugh Crow-Slave, I hope someone steals your lunch from the office fridge.

I'm going to say "inb4 cries of 'too gimmicky' and 'how dare you attack the status quo' " and say that this could have some pretty interesting results.

Ama Scelesta wrote:
How about you post your basic idea here, instead of expecting people to go read 10 pages of text on your personal blog.
If you're too lazy to click a link, you're too lazy to read it here. Besides that, the length of the idea almost guarantees it would require multiple posts. An external link was the better option.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#6 - 2014-10-22 10:43:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Ama Scelesta wrote:
How about you post your basic idea here, instead of expecting people to go read 10 pages of text on your personal blog.
If you're too lazy to click a link, you're too lazy to read it here. Besides that, the length of the idea almost guarantees it would require multiple posts. An external link was the better option.


The actual idea isn't really that long. The prologue and long winded, partly unnecessary explanations make the post appear too long. And what about condensing the idea into a proper abstract, like we are always required to do in scientific texts and the likes? Blink

I think the suggestion indeed has a lot of merit, regardless of the presentation. I already pursue a rather active targeting in fleets and lock things that are not called by the FC, but which appear to me to be a good thing to shoot at rounds or iron or plasma at some point. It would also make the individual squads of a fleet more independent from the fleet while still pursuing the fleet's objective. In other words: every squad has sort of its own FC and the main FC gives out commands like "Squad A-M shoots Logistics with respective names, Squad N-Z shoots their respective logis" or "Squad 1 shoots the sabres, Squads 2-3 go for the BS" and so on. It would certainly require a lot more oversight from the individual members of the fleet, more overview tab juggling and a more active participation in identifying targets. What this also does is putting a fair bit more pressure on the Logistics pilots of fleets, who now have a lot of friendlies to repair or to watch over, which in itself poses a "nerf" to logistics without the slightest change to the Logistics ships themselves.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Gaan Cathal
Angry Mustellid
#7 - 2014-10-22 11:11:45 UTC
So....

A: Give a huge bonus to fleets 'defending ground' since they're already sat there and have pre-locked N-2 fleetmates (where N is their max locked targets), of course this only lasts for the first few moments, after which both fleets are locking-and-unlocking the set names (say...five up or five down) on their watchlist as well as attempting to lock primaries.

B: Don't make the change to gatecamps that you say it will, because anyone not a total moron will just wait until the pointweb has landed and the target's secure.


It would be really nice if something could be done about the mindless F1-jockying that constitutes most scaled PVP. I really couldn't give a hoot if it's like that for the Nullbears, half of them probably can't handle anything harder anyway, but it's starting to bleed into lowsec more and more. However, the "something" should preferably:

1 - actually fix the F1ing problem
2 - not be massively exploitable
2a - especially not in a way that increases the boredom factor of large fights
Lugh Crow-Slave
#8 - 2014-10-22 11:23:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
This is ... actually pretty well-written. Shame on you Lugh Crow-Slave, I hope someone steals your lunch from the office fridge.

I'm going to say "inb4 cries of 'too gimmicky' and 'how dare you attack the status quo' " and say that this could have some pretty interesting results.

Ama Scelesta wrote:
How about you post your basic idea here, instead of expecting people to go read 10 pages of text on your personal blog.
If you're too lazy to click a link, you're too lazy to read it here. Besides that, the length of the idea almost guarantees it would require multiple posts. An external link was the better option.



Took the time to read it and is hardly written well in a way that just gets the point out. With constant tangents and a rambling introduction.



The idea itself I'm not to fond of I started to wonder how many of this type of fight you have been in given you think plates add to your sig and this idea you seem to be putting off that is one fc just calling names with little thought. If you want fights like these with smaller teams with different fcs head to wh space where the need for sub caps pushes at least two fcs when caps are involvedand even more when fights cross both sides of the hole.


I don't think you idea would change much people would just find the max number for locking and firm squads of buffer fit ships with logi as well as lock their own ships to make it harder for the enemy.
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#9 - 2014-10-22 11:26:46 UTC
I wanted to type more, but realized that it's all about not wanting to lose them supers.

DEATH TO ALL SUPERS.
Axloth Okiah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2014-10-22 11:44:02 UTC
So the more enemy ships shoot you, the harder it is for your own logi to lock you? Or fleet pre-locking their own sensitive ships (FC/logi/ewar) to hinder enemy shooting them?
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#11 - 2014-10-22 14:48:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Soldarius
Marlona. I want to congratulate you on working so hard to come up with an idea that is guaranteed to kill all large fleet combat, and could actually kill eve entirely.

The numbers you have on your graph move into the 10s of thousands of seconds. A typical large fleet of 250 cruisers (includes logis, HACs, and T3s so the numbers would probably be higher) locking the same target cruiser would require 513 seconds (8.55 minutes) of game time. Now try to do this under 10% TiDi. Multiply that by 10. 5130 seconds real time to lock the first target.

There are 3600 seconds in an hour. 1.425 HOURS to lock your first target.

This will never happen. EVER.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Gaan Cathal
Angry Mustellid
#12 - 2014-10-22 14:54:06 UTC
For those faced with the linked wall of text, this is the concept too extensive for a summary:


Current Lock Time = 40000 / X * (ArcSinh y)^2

Proposed Lock Time = 40000 / X * ArchSinh (y/n)^2

x = scan resolution
y = signature radius
n = number of ships locked and or targeting
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#13 - 2014-10-22 14:54:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Arronicus
I'm happy to read a long post, but what you have linked is a novella, that doesn't get to the heart of the issue for seemingly quite a while. If you provided a summary in here, as opposed to just a link to some drawn out tiresome read, I think it would help generate interest and good/bad feedback and ideas.

Edit: Now seeing how Marlona wants to drastically slow down locktimes, based on the number of ships (locking onto?) another ship, what's to sotp fleets from exploiting this via spies to arbitrarily block target locking, via all spamming to lock the player in their fleet that the enemy fleet is now calling secondary or primary? Seems like a VERY open to abuse mechanic.
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#14 - 2014-10-22 15:48:51 UTC
That was an excessively verbose post. You could probably cut around 2/3rds of the wordcount without losing any actual content.

Quote:
The numbers you have on your graph move into the 10s of thousands of seconds. A typical large fleet of 250 cruisers (includes logis, HACs, and T3s so the numbers would probably be higher) locking the same target cruiser would require 513 seconds (8.55 minutes) of game time.


I believe that's rather the point. If that same fleet split their fire between 5 primaries, it would be around 43 seconds to lock. If split between 25 primaries (each squad calling its own primary), 11 seconds. Whether or not it will actually be effective in encouraging squad-level tactics is another matter, but objecting to it on the grounds that calling a single primary for the whole fleet is not viable is missing the point.

Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#15 - 2014-10-22 19:37:54 UTC
Milton Middleson wrote:
That was an excessively verbose post. You could probably cut around 2/3rds of the wordcount without losing any actual content.

Quote:
The numbers you have on your graph move into the 10s of thousands of seconds. A typical large fleet of 250 cruisers (includes logis, HACs, and T3s so the numbers would probably be higher) locking the same target cruiser would require 513 seconds (8.55 minutes) of game time.


I believe that's rather the point. If that same fleet split their fire between 5 primaries, it would be around 43 seconds to lock. If split between 25 primaries (each squad calling its own primary), 11 seconds. Whether or not it will actually be effective in encouraging squad-level tactics is another matter, but objecting to it on the grounds that calling a single primary for the whole fleet is not viable is missing the point.


A bit long winded, yes.

You are also correct on the second part. It would be highly inefficient for everyone to only shoot the same target at a time instead of splitting up. That is the point. Of course for small scale combat, you would see little to no difference.

For large scale combat, you would have a large battle composed of many, small scale engagements happening at the same time.
Chirality Tisteloin
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#16 - 2014-10-23 11:31:38 UTC
Reposting comment from blog:

Interesting idea and nice post. I like your approach from the perspective of storytelling!

Have you thought about how changing n would be handled? Not all ships will target at the same instant, so you constantly have to update the lock time and somehow account for the time your ship is already trying to get a lock. The implementation of the exact mechanic for that might be as important as the overall formula.

How did you do the nice interactive graphs?

See you at my blog: http://spindensity.wordpress.com/

Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#17 - 2014-10-23 13:26:24 UTC
Chirality Tisteloin wrote:
Reposting comment from blog:

Interesting idea and nice post. I like your approach from the perspective of storytelling!

Have you thought about how changing n would be handled? Not all ships will target at the same instant, so you constantly have to update the lock time and somehow account for the time your ship is already trying to get a lock. The implementation of the exact mechanic for that might be as important as the overall formula.

How did you do the nice interactive graphs?


Not here to comment on the OP's idea, but to answer your question, I'm fairly sure the server already does that. Targets that activate their MWD mid-lock will suddenly be locked in half the time/cursor circle, and there's usually a noticeable hasting of lock after a target has been painted.

Or it could be my imagination.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#18 - 2014-10-23 16:35:36 UTC
I don't disagree that this proposal would have the intended effect. Only that the more far-reaching effects would be disastrous to Eve.

Another side effect of this change would be to force fleets into non-targeting doctrines. Pipe-bombing and stealth bombing runs would become much more common, the former more so than the latter.

Also, good luck ever killing capital ships with subcaps again.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#19 - 2014-10-23 20:01:57 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Chirality Tisteloin wrote:
Reposting comment from blog:

Interesting idea and nice post. I like your approach from the perspective of storytelling!

Have you thought about how changing n would be handled? Not all ships will target at the same instant, so you constantly have to update the lock time and somehow account for the time your ship is already trying to get a lock. The implementation of the exact mechanic for that might be as important as the overall formula.

How did you do the nice interactive graphs?


Not here to comment on the OP's idea, but to answer your question, I'm fairly sure the server already does that. Targets that activate their MWD mid-lock will suddenly be locked in half the time/cursor circle, and there's usually a noticeable hasting of lock after a target has been painted.

Or it could be my imagination.

That is correct. The mechanic that updates the lock time during the locking process already exists in the game.
Daoden
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2014-10-23 22:08:09 UTC
*Daoden needs armor*

1 sec man still targeting

*the object you were targeting is no longer there*

logi pilots will HATE this and their fleet will hate them
12Next page