These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2012-01-09 02:08:02 UTC
Mirima Thurander wrote:
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


This.

[URL="https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=82348"]UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch[/URL]
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2012-01-09 02:09:31 UTC
question is :
Why it need to be changed ?
Whats wrong with 1k ships targeting one and one shotting it ?
Daneirkus Auralex
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2012-01-09 02:09:58 UTC
a change such as this would shephard in a new era of fleet commanding and strategy. If carefully implemented and tested, it might be worth a serious try.

Why not, anything that makes space combat better and more realistic is something I'm game to try.
Mirima Thurander
#44 - 2012-01-09 02:10:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Mirima Thurander
Miss Whippy wrote:


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




or it could be the logic that allows are ships to go multiple times faster than the speed of light


or it could be the one that makes are ships behave as if there in water while in space


maybe its the same one that lets stars be billions of years older than the universe


many things have no logic or do not follow the laws of physics in eve, 1 more thing will not hurt the game




i like this idea so much because i was just thinking about it not 3 days ago

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
#45 - 2012-01-09 02:12:19 UTC
Mirima Thurander wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:


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




or it could be the logic that allows are ships to go multiple times faster than the speed of light


or it could be the one that makes are ships behave as if there in water while in space


maybe its the same one that lets stars be billions of years older than the universe


Exactly.

[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
#46 - 2012-01-09 02:13:16 UTC
first.


people are wililng to over come alot if it means a decisive advantage


now on to your points specifically

Quote:

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.


standings like you mention in your next point? enemys, friendlies and your... we'll call them "stackingexploiter" friendlys wouuld have all different standings. filter overview as needed.


Quote:
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.



you mean there are capable fleets out there not using voice comms? this isnt happening right now?


Quote:
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.



im not sure how logistics has any tougher time than they already do. use of standings and watch lists and of course your logistics would be INFLEET with the guys needing reps to avoid the stacking penalty no? who says the SE (stacking exploiters) are even involved in the battle? why cant they all just be sitting 100k away from the fleet on grid?


so breaking it down all thats really needed to "overcome" as you say is simple fleet organization which already exists today. I do not participate in large fights nor have a wish to but as a neutral observer using the server to determine who is friendly and foe based on fleet which results in such a huge disadvantage is a bad bad idea. i
Galega Ori
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2012-01-09 02:14:31 UTC
After reading some of the previous posts made before mine I still think that this idea has merit and needs to be looked into in more depth such as implementing it for a time on SISI to see if some of these proposed exploits of the idea would be to big of a problem. It would also be interesting to see if it would actually encourage squads to lock individual targets instead of the typical 700 v 1.

CCP Eterne: Silly Player, ALL devs are evil.
Mirima Thurander
#48 - 2012-01-09 02:18:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Mirima Thurander
Potamus Jenkins wrote:



given the amount of organization this needs is that not part of the skill


and any way, bring a 2nd fleet of your own to pew pew there other fleet, or bring stealth ships with lock breaking mods and fly then in the locking fleet or use bombers with lock breaking bombs



and whos going to commit a hole 2nd fleet that could be doing dps to sitting back and being lockers when they could be dpsing other ships?




edit


and 1 more thing im thinking the plenty would not be so bad at 10 or 20 locks it would only start going up at a large ammount of locks



edit 2



and before someone says something what about SC and titans, more locks based on sig size or some other such factor that's all ready tracked by the game

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.
Potamus Jenkins
eXceed Inc.
Plucky Adventurers
#49 - 2012-01-09 02:25:59 UTC
Quote:
given the amount of organization this needs is that not part of the skill


it doenst sound like it requires any more organization than is already required in game

Quote:

and any way, bring a 2nd fleet of your own to pew pew there other fleet, or bring stealth ships with lock breaking mods and fly then in the locking fleet or use bombers with lock breaking bombs



so now we've moved to forcing the players to counter an exploit. thats not how it should work instead if you want to introduce stacking penalties you need to do it some other way than relying on the server to determine who gets the penalty based on fleets OR make it such an advantage to be in a fleet that the advantage of increasing your enemy's lock time is not worth it the disadvantage of not being in a fleet



Quote:
and whos going to commit a hole 2nd fleet that could be doing dps to sitting back and being lockers when they could be dpsing other ships?


but if the attacking fleet is gonna be half dead before they even have anything locked up then the extra dps isnt necessary.
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#50 - 2012-01-09 02:30:06 UTC
Potamus Jenkins wrote:
Quote:
given the amount of organization this needs is that not part of the skill


it doenst sound like it requires any more organization than is already required in game

Quote:

and any way, bring a 2nd fleet of your own to pew pew there other fleet, or bring stealth ships with lock breaking mods and fly then in the locking fleet or use bombers with lock breaking bombs



so now we've moved to forcing the players to counter an exploit. thats not how it should work instead if you want to introduce stacking penalties you need to do it some other way than relying on the server to determine who gets the penalty based on fleets OR make it such an advantage to be in a fleet that the advantage of increasing your enemy's lock time is not worth it the disadvantage of not being in a fleet



Quote:
and whos going to commit a hole 2nd fleet that could be doing dps to sitting back and being lockers when they could be dpsing other ships?


but if the attacking fleet is gonna be half dead before they even have anything locked up then the extra dps isnt necessary.


Ever heard of ECM and ECCM?

[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
#51 - 2012-01-09 02:33:59 UTC
Miss Whippy wrote:
Potamus Jenkins wrote:
Quote:
given the amount of organization this needs is that not part of the skill


it doenst sound like it requires any more organization than is already required in game

Quote:

and any way, bring a 2nd fleet of your own to pew pew there other fleet, or bring stealth ships with lock breaking mods and fly then in the locking fleet or use bombers with lock breaking bombs



so now we've moved to forcing the players to counter an exploit. thats not how it should work instead if you want to introduce stacking penalties you need to do it some other way than relying on the server to determine who gets the penalty based on fleets OR make it such an advantage to be in a fleet that the advantage of increasing your enemy's lock time is not worth it the disadvantage of not being in a fleet



Quote:
and whos going to commit a hole 2nd fleet that could be doing dps to sitting back and being lockers when they could be dpsing other ships?


but if the attacking fleet is gonna be half dead before they even have anything locked up then the extra dps isnt necessary.


Ever heard of ECM and ECCM?



again force the playerbase to COUNTER an exploit. not good.

if you were the group using the exploit wouldnt you want them to focus their ecm on non dps (the stackingexploit) ships while your dps ships went to work?
Kha'Vorn
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2012-01-09 02:36:20 UTC
Nope..
Cyzlaki
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#53 - 2012-01-09 02:43:08 UTC
Deriah Book wrote:
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.




No. All I see happening is the pace of the game becoming even slower. Fleet fights on comms would turn into a clusterf*ck. Multiple FC's would be needed per fleet, which might look nice in theory but simply is not going to happen as the scrub to FC ratio in EVE is 10000:1. Overall a bad idea for EVE, though it might work fine in a different game.
Ai Shun
#54 - 2012-01-09 02:53:06 UTC
The idea seems interesting. I can see how having a smaller, skirmish style warfare could be appealing. At the same time, while it seems like a quick and easy solution it really needs to be evaluated and checked thoroughly. Don't be so quick to dismiss suggestions that it might be exploitable.

It could be the idea is not described in sufficient detail or with enough explanation to show WHY it is not exploitable. Or it could be that there really are easy ways to exploit it. And once you get into a scenario where every second post is one of "But you can counter that exploit by changing it to this ..." you're just building an idea of complexity with a terrible amount of loopholes and potential risks in terms of bugs.
Mirima Thurander
#55 - 2012-01-09 02:53:33 UTC
Cyzlaki wrote:
Deriah Book wrote:
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.




No. All I see happening is the pace of the game becoming even slower. Fleet fights on comms would turn into a clusterf*ck. Multiple FC's would be needed per fleet, which might look nice in theory but simply is not going to happen as the scrub to FC ratio in EVE is 10000:1. Overall a bad idea for EVE, though it might work fine in a different game.




looks like you need to get some more FCs and 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.
Galega Ori
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2012-01-09 02:55:01 UTC
Potamus Jenkins wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:


Ever heard of ECM and ECCM?



again force the playerbase to COUNTER an exploit. not good.

if you were the group using the exploit wouldnt you want them to focus their ecm on non dps (the stackingexploit) ships while your dps ships went to work?


I don't see why having a group of players take the time to separate into two or more separate fleets to lock each other up to increase lock times for future enemy fleets should be considered an exploit. It takes more organization to do that then to just setup one fleet and it doesn't stop you from needing to decide whether or not it would be more productive to lock one ship and take the extra lock time penalty or lock separate ships and mitigate it.

Secondly, Miss Whippy was pointing out more ECCM rather than the ECM I think. The whole idea for ECCM is to add another use for the module by adding an extra benefit to having a stronger sensor strength rather than it just being a counter to jamming. Having this stronger sensor strength would help to mitigate some of the locking penalty on a ship that already has several other ships locking it.

CCP Eterne: Silly Player, ALL devs are evil.
Professor Alphane
Les Corsaires Diable
#57 - 2012-01-09 02:58:43 UTC
I think this idea fails on a couple of levels.

Theoretically, it should be easier to lock a target a team mate has locked as your ships computers could interface and communicate the info.

An obvious tactic in a fleet would be use every lock slot except one to lock all your team mates making them unlockable to the enemy.

[center]YOU MUST THINK FIRST....[/center] [center]"I sit with the broken angels clutching at straws and nursing our scars.." - Marillion [/center] [center]The wise man watches the rise and fall of fools from afar[/center]
Potamus Jenkins
eXceed Inc.
Plucky Adventurers
#58 - 2012-01-09 03:02:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Potamus Jenkins
Galega Ori wrote:
Potamus Jenkins wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:


Ever heard of ECM and ECCM?



again force the playerbase to COUNTER an exploit. not good.

if you were the group using the exploit wouldnt you want them to focus their ecm on non dps (the stackingexploit) ships while your dps ships went to work?


I don't see why having a group of players take the time to separate into two or more separate fleets to lock each other up to increase lock times for future enemy fleets should be considered an exploit. It takes more organization to do that then to just setup one fleet and it doesn't stop you from needing to decide whether or not it would be more productive to lock one ship and take the extra lock time penalty or lock separate ships and mitigate it.

Secondly, Miss Whippy was pointing out more ECCM rather than the ECM I think. The whole idea for ECCM is to add another use for the module by adding an extra benefit to having a stronger sensor strength rather than it just being a counter to jamming. Having this stronger sensor strength would help to mitigate some of the locking penalty on a ship that already has several other ships locking it.



do you understand what an exploit is?


using an existing game mechanic for to gain an unintended (as designed) advantage. the purpose of the game mechanic in question is to reduce "blobbing" so to speak or more specifically force fleets to engage many targets at once in stead of one at the same time?


for our example in this post we are using fleet as the determining factor as to where the stacking penalties apply or not. for a friendly "fleet" to use another friendly "fleet" to make it even more dificult for the enemy fleet to lock them based on this mechanic is exploiting that game mechanic.


and im pretty sure miss whippy didnt say anythign other than "Ever heard of ECM and ECCM?" so whatever you gained from that is more insightful than i. how that applies to what we are discussing here (using fleet status to determine whether the stacking penalty applies i do not know).


again i have literally no vested interest in this and like the idea of more dynamic game mechanics to de-homogenize (i think i just made that up) large fleet combat however using the discussed game mechanics is a terrible idea IMO.



peace
Mirima Thurander
#59 - 2012-01-09 03:02:53 UTC
TIDI got implemented even tho people had reasons to say it would be full of exploits the biggest one people has was not even addressed, reshipping and flying back to the fight because the fights so slowed down.



why cant this idea be put in the testing faze like tidi was,

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.
Ai Shun
#60 - 2012-01-09 03:05:03 UTC
Professor Alphane wrote:
Theoretically, it should be easier to lock a target a team mate has locked as your ships computers could interface and communicate the info.


I could suspend disbelief on that, if required. Let's say those brilliant Caldari scientists have discovered a highly reflective coating that scatters locking signals and makes it more difficult for multiple systems to lock on as the previous tracking beams are interfering with the subsequent attempts. Or something sciency ...