These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Best Feature Idea I've ever read
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2012-01-09 01:33:11 UTC
Any artificially created rules which does not have any "logic" and seriously affect people who invest a lot of time and effort to create an working empire does not seem sound to EVE principles.
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2012-01-09 01:36:25 UTC
Potamus Jenkins wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:
Potamus Jenkins wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:
Potamus Jenkins wrote:
so would your fleet just lock each other up first ?


You could do that, but it would be extraordinarily stupid as a tactic, as the enemy will also be locking onto your ships. By the time you've realised how dumb your tactic actually is, the enemy has completed locking your ships and is opening fire. Meanwhile you're desperately locking their ships upon the realisation of how catastrophically dumb your tactic was.



unless of course your fleet is on grid before their fleet....like a gate


In that case it would make no difference, as has already been pointed out, the penalty would only have to apply to enemy ships. So you can't penalise (LOL) the locking time on your own fleets ships.




so now the game can easily determine who is "enemy" and who is "friend" even before the shooting started?


Yes, it's called a "Fleet."

[URL="https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=82348"]UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch[/URL]
Bootleg Jack
ACME Mineral and Gas
#23 - 2012-01-09 01:36:35 UTC
Cyzlaki wrote:
...
Taking longer to lock a target that is already locked by others is not such a great idea, as that means locking a primary will take far longer. Basically it will come down to fleet ships fitting one or two more sensor boosters than usual to mitigate this mechanic.


This is the whole idea, there would not be just one primary fleet wide, it would more likely become squad wide targets.

I think this simple idea has awesome potential.

And as far as logis go, the penalty could be applied to hostile tartgets only, or any number of other suggestions.

I'm an American, English is my second language...
Vyl Vit
#24 - 2012-01-09 01:38:45 UTC
It actually began as a lag solution for large fleet fights. Staggering target locks allows the server to process the info faster, rather than trying to process a hundred simultaneous locks. It also discourages an entire fleet targeting one ship at a time, attempting to force ships to spread the targeting load, as the last fifty ships would have to wait all weekend for a lock on the primary.

Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2012-01-09 01:40:17 UTC
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
Any artificially created rules which does not have any "logic" and seriously affect people who invest a lot of time and effort to create an working empire does not seem sound to EVE principles.


It's only artificial if you lack the imagination to come up with a plausible scenario for why it should exist. Read the thread I linked, it's covered. Disregarding something which is potentially brilliant, just because you can't envision a realistic concept for it, seems short-sighted at best.

[URL="https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=82348"]UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch[/URL]
Potamus Jenkins
eXceed Inc.
Plucky Adventurers
#26 - 2012-01-09 01:43:49 UTC
Miss Whippy wrote:

Yes, it's called a "Fleet."



this is eve

if it can be exploited it will be, do you not see how easily exploitable this is?


Deriah Book
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2012-01-09 01:45:10 UTC
Cyzlaki wrote:
At first I read that as "The more targets you have locked, the longer it takes to lock another" which I thought was a good idea.

Taking longer to lock a target that is already locked by others is not such a great idea, as that means locking a primary will take far longer. Basically it will come down to fleet ships fitting one or two more sensor boosters than usual to mitigate this mechanic.


Wait... don't imagine fighting the battle using current strategies. Instead, imagine the fight under the restrictions mentioned. Let it flow from there. See what happens. What might be new and exciting? Better.... ?

In my opinion fleet, wing, and squad dynamics would be beautiful. Everyone in fleet would have a much more important role to play. The satisfaction quotient of a fight well fought, win or lose, would go up dramatically.



Large Collidable Object
morons.
#28 - 2012-01-09 01:45:55 UTC
Miss Whippy wrote:


Yes, it's called a "Fleet."



He has a point though - people could just break down in muliple fleets that are squad sized in order to avoid that.

I love the idea and spent some time thinking about it, but it's really hard to implement an a way that wouldn't be heavily exploited.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2012-01-09 01:46:48 UTC
Potamus Jenkins wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:

Yes, it's called a "Fleet."



this is eve

if it can be exploited it will be, do you not see how easily exploitable this is?




No I can't, guess you're just going to have to explain it to us.

[URL="https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=82348"]UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch[/URL]
Jimi Crackcorn
Directed Evolution Corp
#30 - 2012-01-09 01:47:37 UTC
Potamus Jenkins wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:

Yes, it's called a "Fleet."



this is eve

if it can be exploited it will be, do you not see how easily exploitable this is?




Is that like the default argument for something players don't like around here? It's too much effort to actually think of a reason so you just resort back to the good ole exploit cop out?

Mining can be exploited by botters, it should be removed m i rite?
Mirima Thurander
#31 - 2012-01-09 01:48:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Mirima Thurander
Large Collidable Object wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:


Yes, it's called a "Fleet."



He has a point though - people could just break down in muliple fleets that are squad sized in order to avoid that.

I love the idea and spent some time thinking about it, but it's really hard to implement an a way that wouldn't be heavily exploited.




it would still be stacking for ever one not in your fleet so hows that exploited





i like this idea and there NO way it would not work if implemented all the people that says it wont work are just dumb and have given to facts to why it would not work.

any reason so far has been debunked by simply programming in ""if its in fleet and is locking you no locking time increase""
that's something that would of be added from the start

this would be striking down the main way fleet fight s have been fought from the time eve started



we would no longer see


700 * 1


in stead we would see something along the lines of

50 * 1
50 * 1
50 * 1
50 * 1
50 * 1
50 * 1
50 * 1
50 * 1
50 * 1
50 * 1
50 * 1
50 * 1
50 * 1
50 * 1


and it would make for a better game for it

All automated intel should be removed from the game including Instant local/jumps/kills/cynos for all systems/regions.Eve should report nothing like this to the client/3rd party software.Intel should not be force fed to players. Player skill and iniative should be the sources of intel.
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2012-01-09 01:50:45 UTC
Miss Whippy wrote:
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
Any artificially created rules which does not have any "logic" and seriously affect people who invest a lot of time and effort to create an working empire does not seem sound to EVE principles.


It's only artificial if you lack the imagination to come up with a plausible scenario for why it should exist. Read the thread I linked, it's covered. Disregarding something which is potentially brilliant, just because you can't envision a realistic concept for it, seems short-sighted at best.


I understand it. It should be implemented so there will be several rooms in voice-coms and coordination will become not achievable in large fights .. And fights 1k vs 600 will take about 600 hrs straight. And some other stuff. .

Just dont know what EVE physics law would allow such disadvantage.. Same as stack penalty on dps and RR .. not sure what EVE physic law would create such disadvantage .. Its all against any logic..

You invest time you create empire and you cant use it. ... because someone somewhere decided that large numbers means nothing and should be penalized.

Fights and such is good as it is.

It is certainly briliant for some group but not for other, and why the one group should be preferred is beyond me. And as stated above its against EVE.

At least that is my opinion. You dont have to agree, and i accept that you wont agree. We just see it differently.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#33 - 2012-01-09 01:52:51 UTC
i would rather like to take a look at sensor noise as anti blob tactic.

blobs create noise which increases lock time

counter:
don't create blobs, organize the fleet in formations (small groups of ships, e.g. wing size or squad size)....

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
Potamus Jenkins
eXceed Inc.
Plucky Adventurers
#34 - 2012-01-09 01:54:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Potamus Jenkins
Jimi Crackcorn wrote:
Potamus Jenkins wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:

Yes, it's called a "Fleet."



this is eve

if it can be exploited it will be, do you not see how easily exploitable this is?




Is that like the default argument for something players don't like around here? It's too much effort to actually think of a reason so you just resort back to the good ole exploit cop out?

Mining can be exploited by botters, it should be removed m i rite?




thats the worst reply ever and completely unrelated analogy

so going by our discussion here you basically just added a DISADVANTAGE to being in a fleet. if you are gonna use your fleet status for the server to determine who is "Friendly" to you and who is "Enemy" then why would you not take advantage of that and confuse the server and have your whole group (or a specific group whos sole purpose is to increase lock times of the "Enemy" fleet) not in the same fleet


fleet A fighting fleet B

fleet a sitting on a gate, fleet b jumps in


fleet A has UNFLEETED group A already locking them up, while fleet B is scrambling trying to lock the guys they are getting smoked by fleet A.


that took 5 minutes of me thinking about how to exploit that scenario and i am by no means some master strategist. trust me people will come up with even more creative ideas.


its a bad idea.
Mirima Thurander
#35 - 2012-01-09 02:00:23 UTC
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
Any artificially created rules which does not have any "logic" and seriously affect people who invest a lot of time and effort to create an working empire does not seem sound to EVE principles.


It's only artificial if you lack the imagination to come up with a plausible scenario for why it should exist. Read the thread I linked, it's covered. Disregarding something which is potentially brilliant, just because you can't envision a realistic concept for it, seems short-sighted at best.


I understand it. It should be implemented so there will be several rooms in voice-coms and coordination will become not achievable in large fights .. And fights 1k vs 600 will take about 600 hrs straight. And some other stuff. .

Just dont know what EVE physics law would allow such disadvantage.. Same as stack penalty on dps and RR .. not sure what EVE physic law would create such disadvantage .. Its all against any logic..

You invest time you create empire and you cant use it. ... because someone somewhere decided that large numbers means nothing and should be penalized.

Fights and such is good as it is.

It is certainly briliant for some group but not for other, and why the one group should be preferred is beyond me. And as stated above its against EVE.

At least that is my opinion. You dont have to agree, and i accept that you wont agree. We just see it differently.





if you can adapt and keep your space with your massive fleets you don't get to keep it HTFU, there's no law saying you still cant bring 1000 people to your fight its just saying all 1000 people can target 1 ship and vaporize it

All automated intel should be removed from the game including Instant local/jumps/kills/cynos for all systems/regions.Eve should report nothing like this to the client/3rd party software.Intel should not be force fed to players. Player skill and iniative should be the sources of intel.
Galega Ori
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2012-01-09 02:02:37 UTC
Potamus Jenkins wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:
Potamus Jenkins wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:
Potamus Jenkins wrote:
so would your fleet just lock each other up first ?


You could do that, but it would be extraordinarily stupid as a tactic, as the enemy will also be locking onto your ships. By the time you've realised how dumb your tactic actually is, the enemy has completed locking your ships and is opening fire. Meanwhile you're desperately locking their ships upon the realisation of how catastrophically dumb your tactic was.



unless of course your fleet is on grid before their fleet....like a gate


In that case it would make no difference, as has already been pointed out, the penalty would only have to apply to enemy ships. So you can't penalise (LOL) the locking time on your own fleets ships.




so now the game can easily determine who is "enemy" and who is "friend" even before the shooting started?


+++111 to the idea and linked thread.

To Potamus, The game can decide who is friend and foe if one side or the other is in a actual fleet.

I assume your thinking of maybe a gate camp of players that are actually not in a fleet together making it so they could abuse this idea by locking each other up to make it more of a pain for incoming fleets/targets. Their is several things that make this a pain/impractical to do.

1)finding targets in your overview that have jumped through gate so you can lock them and kill them suddenly becomes a huge chore as you need to filter through all your own fleet members (who are not actually in a fleet) to find the one who just jumped in.
This would be less of a problem if all members are blue to everyone but would still cause a problem of cluttering up the overview.
This could also be completely avoided if all members of the gate camp were apart of the same corp allowing you to remove corp members from overview.

2)You need to either A) get all supposed fleet members into a group chat so instructions can be passed out to everyone by the FC or B) choose your flavor of the month (mumble,TeamSpeak,or Ventrilo) and get all fleet members on voice coms.

3)Logistics becomes almost completely impossible as no watch list can be set up by the logi pilots and broadcasts are no longer available. This creates more voice traffic over coms or more text spam in group chat that the logis need to filter through to decide who actually needs the reps.
This might be overcome by creating a second chat group that all fleet members join and just x up in when they need shield/armor.

If a group of people are willing and able to overcome these problems I pointed out to your complaints to the idea, then they are more than welcome to play the game that way. I see no reason to try and create some game mechanic that would keep them from doing this do to the inherent problems in this approach.

Again, +++111 to the idea/linked thread.

CCP Eterne: Silly Player, ALL devs are evil.
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2012-01-09 02:02:56 UTC
Large Collidable Object wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:


Yes, it's called a "Fleet."



He has a point though - people could just break down in muliple fleets that are squad sized in order to avoid that.

I love the idea and spent some time thinking about it, but it's really hard to implement an a way that wouldn't be heavily exploited.


I disagree, the penalty wouldn't be so severe that 2 or 3 ships would make a target unlockable. You'd have to use up all your targeting on your own ships in order to make it effective. Leaving no room to target the enemy. As long as the maths is done in such a way that the balance is correct, this isn't an issue.

That's just one way around the problem, there's many other solutions to this problem.

[URL="https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=82348"]UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch[/URL]
Mirima Thurander
#38 - 2012-01-09 02:03:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Mirima Thurander
Potamus Jenkins wrote:
Jimi Crackcorn wrote:
Potamus Jenkins wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:

Yes, it's called a "Fleet."



this is eve

if it can be exploited it will be, do you not see how easily exploitable this is?




Is that like the default argument for something players don't like around here? It's too much effort to actually think of a reason so you just resort back to the good ole exploit cop out?

Mining can be exploited by botters, it should be removed m i rite?




thats the worst reply ever and completely unrelated analogy

so going by our discussion here you basically just added a DISADVANTAGE to being in a fleet. if you are gonna use your fleet status for the server to determine who is "Friendly" to you and who is "Enemy" then why would you not take advantage of that and confuse the server and have your whole group (or a specific group whos sole purpose is to increase lock times of the "Enemy" fleet) not in the same fleet


fleet A fighting fleet B

fleet a sitting on a gate, fleet b jumps in


fleet A has UNFLEETED group A already locking them up, while fleet B is scrambling trying to lock the guys they are getting smoked by fleet A.


that took 5 minutes of me thinking about how to exploit that scenario and i am by no means some master strategist. trust me people will come up with even more creative ideas.


its a bad idea.





looks like your logies are taking 10 mins to lock 1 of your ships to bad your dead now if you would of just stayed in fleet your logi would of had a normal lock time, see how that works?



or they use lock breaking mods and force a relock


adapt or die HTFU

All automated intel should be removed from the game including Instant local/jumps/kills/cynos for all systems/regions.Eve should report nothing like this to the client/3rd party software.Intel should not be force fed to players. Player skill and iniative should be the sources of intel.
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2012-01-09 02:05:26 UTC
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
Any artificially created rules which does not have any "logic" and seriously affect people who invest a lot of time and effort to create an working empire does not seem sound to EVE principles.


It's only artificial if you lack the imagination to come up with a plausible scenario for why it should exist. Read the thread I linked, it's covered. Disregarding something which is potentially brilliant, just because you can't envision a realistic concept for it, seems short-sighted at best.


I understand it. It should be implemented so there will be several rooms in voice-coms and coordination will become not achievable in large fights .. And fights 1k vs 600 will take about 600 hrs straight. And some other stuff. .

Just dont know what EVE physics law would allow such disadvantage.. Same as stack penalty on dps and RR .. not sure what EVE physic law would create such disadvantage .. Its all against any logic.. .


Is that the same logic that allows ships to come to a complete stop in space?

[URL="https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=82348"]UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch[/URL]
Potamus Jenkins
eXceed Inc.
Plucky Adventurers
#40 - 2012-01-09 02:05:47 UTC
Mirima Thurander wrote:
Potamus Jenkins wrote:
Jimi Crackcorn wrote:
Potamus Jenkins wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:

Yes, it's called a "Fleet."



this is eve

if it can be exploited it will be, do you not see how easily exploitable this is?




Is that like the default argument for something players don't like around here? It's too much effort to actually think of a reason so you just resort back to the good ole exploit cop out?

Mining can be exploited by botters, it should be removed m i rite?




thats the worst reply ever and completely unrelated analogy

so going by our discussion here you basically just added a DISADVANTAGE to being in a fleet. if you are gonna use your fleet status for the server to determine who is "Friendly" to you and who is "Enemy" then why would you not take advantage of that and confuse the server and have your whole group (or a specific group whos sole purpose is to increase lock times of the "Enemy" fleet) not in the same fleet


fleet A fighting fleet B

fleet a sitting on a gate, fleet b jumps in


fleet A has UNFLEETED group A already locking them up, while fleet B is scrambling trying to lock the guys they are getting smoked by fleet A.


that took 5 minutes of me thinking about how to exploit that scenario and i am by no means some master strategist. trust me people will come up with even more creative ideas.


its a bad idea.





looks like your logies are taking 10 mins to lock 1 of your ships to bad your dead now if you would of just stayed in fleet your logi would of had a normal lock time, see how that works?



or they use lock breaking mods and force a relock




in your scenario the logis would be IN FLEET with the main attacking force.