These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Galega Ori
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2012-01-09 03:06:55 UTC
Professor Alphane wrote:

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.

Problem, not everyone in the fleet can be locked up by the same person and still have a lock space left over unless your in a really small fleet more commonly known as a gang. In this case taking the time to lock your own gang wouldn't actually add that big of a stacking penalty to any other fleet/gang trying to lock your own members. Secondly you would need to be separated into two or more fleets/gangs locking each other up as stacking doesn't count for locking your own members up.

CCP Eterne: Silly Player, ALL devs are evil.

Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#62 - 2012-01-09 03:14:05 UTC
Miss Whippy wrote:

In Short the idea is this: The more locks that are on a target the longer it will take for another lock to be established.

This could be abused on so many ways that I would get hungry and feel urged to order some pizza while counting 'em all.

besides... 3vs1 pvp isn't supposed to be fair.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest

Professor Alphane
Les Corsaires Diable
#63 - 2012-01-09 03:16:29 UTC
Galega Ori wrote:
Professor Alphane wrote:

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.

Problem, not everyone in the fleet can be locked up by the same person and still have a lock space left over unless your in a really small fleet more commonly known as a gang. In this case taking the time to lock your own gang wouldn't actually add that big of a stacking penalty to any other fleet/gang trying to lock your own members. Secondly you would need to be separated into two or more fleets/gangs locking each other up as stacking doesn't count for locking your own members up.



1.You don't need to lock everyone, everyone just needs to lock your most likely targets.

2.And So you run with multiple fleets instead of multiple wings.

If the bonus is worth it people WILL find ways to abuse it Attention

Also doesn't explain WHY it should be harder to lock, in fact theoretically once one ship has a lock it should be able to be instantly passed to any fleet mate, you now have all the tracking data needed why not just send it to your buddies targeting computer.

[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]

Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#64 - 2012-01-09 03:23:40 UTC
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.


Using mechanics like that to increase lock times would be a valid use of the mechanics as they are outlined here; but that doesn't make it any less an exploit. Just because something is a functional part of game mechancis, doesn't mean it is okay.

The idea doesn't really have any merit anyway, in my opinion; due to there not being any solid reason why this would be the case.

Analogous example: If you put a 10 gram weight on an egg sitting on a table, then proceed to stack similar weights on that; will the egg eventually break?

The answer is yes, and the function of targeting a ship is much the same. When you target a ship, you are defeating its tactical processor and defense mechanisms; the more this is done, the more load applied to the tactical processor, and lesser the capability that it will be able to defeat a second attack.

An alternative notion is DDOS. However DDOS functions differently. As the number of PCs trying to access the Server increases and pings get more repetative, the servers ability to handle all those calls and maintain security becomes much less. This causes the server to disconnect from the access point by closing its ports and preventing all connections.

Ships cannot do this, as the electronic defense system is really just trying to create either an interference in the targeting ships targeting systems, or attempting to mask its signature. The signature is a function of the ships mass, energy use, and various other factors.

Masking the ships signature requires shutting down essential systems, disabling weapons, shutting down drives, and reducing power output in the ships power cores. At best, a ship can hope to mask its presence and signature only a little without very specialized electronic systems, shielding materials, and cooling.

This is already accounted for.

That leaves interference with another ships targeting systems; and for this, we have ECM, which can be countered by ECCM. ECCM does not counter targeting systems in game.

There may be reasons why it could; but it is not intended for that purpose. It does-to some degree-counter Probes, which is somewhat ironic when considering probes and targeting systems use similar means to find or target a ship. This indicates that ECCM is a dual purpose mechanism in game, and may be modified to increase the difficulty of a ship aquiring target.

If it actually had this function, I'm sure we'd see it included in a lot more fits; and a lot more people would be using it.

Personally, I'm for making ECCM more functional. Electronic defensive systems are awesome, and I was under the impression that most people consider them absolutely useless for countering ECM.

As far as this idea goes, I'd rather see ships lose targeting capability, (scan resolution), as they increase the number of targets. That would mean boost the bottom end for one target ever so slightly, and apply stacking penalties for every additional target.

Might make target selection a little more of a thought process; though it will not affect the current selection of primaries and blob mechanics. Something else has to be done about that.

Any mechanic that is exploitable, is not worth putting in the game.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Cyzlaki
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#65 - 2012-01-09 03:29:37 UTC
Mirima Thurander wrote:
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

Nope, don't need to as this half-baked idea will never fly Cool
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#66 - 2012-01-09 03:38:33 UTC
Logic would be the electronic interference caused by so many locking signals.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

DarkAegix
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#67 - 2012-01-09 03:52:27 UTC
The potential for exploit can be reduced even further by adding the locking time penalty only when locking on is currently in progress.
If 1000 Maelstroms try to lock a Rifter all at the same time, it will take forever.
If 1000 Maelsroms try to lock a Rifter one by one, it will take the normal amount of time.

A gatecamp which pre-locks all friendly fleet members will have no advantage.
Add a mechanic where locking up members of your own fleet will not affect the lock time of enemies will help, too.

The only way to 'exploit' this will be to split your blob into dozens of mini-fleets. There will be no advantage of logi broadcasts, target broadcasts or universal watchlists, so they'll each need their own logi chain. Already, things don't look swell for the players trying to exploit. Already, blobbing and absurd focus fire is becoming difficult.

An enemy fleet warps in, and in massive confusion the dozens of mini-fleets begin locking each other and the enemies. Varied lock times leave everything confusing, the the mini-fleets begin friendly fire between each other. Meanwhile, locked targets lost due to ECM and sensor dampeners mean that logis can't repair friendlies because the mini-fleets are busy locking and shooting each other. DPS can't find targets to prioritise because their overview is clogged with friendly members of other mini-fleets.

For continued exploitation and hilarious friendly fire, the mini-fleets will need to constantly unlock and relock friendly members of other mini-fleets. The overview will be impossible to manage, and the players attempting to exploit will die horribly.
I'thari
#68 - 2012-01-09 08:04:05 UTC  |  Edited by: I'thari
Mirima Thurander wrote:
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

Or can simply make that penalty apply on fleet level - no "pre-locking" would work that way... ofc, then we might actually see no fleets at all to counter it Roll

Disclaimer:

Every single character used in this post is a work of fiction. Any similarities with real-world alphabet, or - god forbid - language is purely unintnetional!

seany1212
Drunkendis Order
#69 - 2012-01-09 08:42:37 UTC
Miss Whippy wrote:
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.


That's not even a way around the problem though, anyone from base skills can lock 2 targets, one can be the primary, the other friendly logi, given a 300-400 man battle this would make logi unlockable under your idea. Then its not even viable to direct it at people in fleet, because people will just wise-up and fine tune the overview settings (not showing blues, etc.) just making actual fleets obcelete so realistically its hard to implement without it being exploited one way or another
Mal Mandrake
Space Goat Likes it Rough
#70 - 2012-01-09 08:48:29 UTC
Miss Whippy wrote:

In Short the idea is this: The more locks that are on a target the longer it will take for another lock to be established.


In short... this makes no sense whatsoever.

If I point a laser pointer at my friends forehead... why would it take my other friend longer to aim at his forehead to? I mean really? If anything lock on would be faster because my friend can aim for my point and have less error in movement. And we aren't even talking about networked computers.

If I have four computers that are wifi networked together (which you imagine ships in a fleet would be) and one of them shoots a laser pointer at my friend forehead. The other 3 computers wouldn't even have to lock on, they would be networked and locked automatically.


**** modern war technology on earth, which isn't as advanced as Eve does this. A soldier points a target and the missile goes there without having to lock, it just follows the first guys pointer.

I bet when you play an RPG you attack each enemy once then switch to another enemy, that way they all stay alive longer and die at the same time? No.. you mean you have all your guys attack one enemy at a time? Weird how natural strategies exist. I mean **** the whole point of Chess is to send ALL of your guys after the King.


Cryten Jones
Advantage Inc
#71 - 2012-01-09 09:31:54 UTC
Mal Mandrake wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:

In Short the idea is this: The more locks that are on a target the longer it will take for another lock to be established.


In short... this makes no sense whatsoever.

If I point a laser pointer at my friends forehead... why would it take my other friend longer to aim at his forehead to? I mean really? If anything lock on would be faster because my friend can aim for my point and have less error in movement. And we aren't even talking about networked computers.

If I have four computers that are wifi networked together (which you imagine ships in a fleet would be) and one of them shoots a laser pointer at my friend forehead. The other 3 computers wouldn't even have to lock on, they would be networked and locked automatically.


**** modern war technology on earth, which isn't as advanced as Eve does this. A soldier points a target and the missile goes there without having to lock, it just follows the first guys pointer.

I bet when you play an RPG you attack each enemy once then switch to another enemy, that way they all stay alive longer and die at the same time? No.. you mean you have all your guys attack one enemy at a time? Weird how natural strategies exist. I mean **** the whole point of Chess is to send ALL of your guys after the King.




RL - You have a point

EVE - Not real life, and focus fire sucks big hairy balls game play wise.

-CJ

DarkAegix
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#72 - 2012-01-09 09:55:27 UTC
Mal Mandrake wrote:

In short... this makes no sense whatsoever.

If I point a laser pointer at my friends forehead... why would it take my other friend longer to aim at his forehead to? I mean really? If anything lock on would be faster because my friend can aim for my point and have less error in movement. And we aren't even talking about networked computers.

If I have four computers that are wifi networked together (which you imagine ships in a fleet would be) and one of them shoots a laser pointer at my friend forehead. The other 3 computers wouldn't even have to lock on, they would be networked and locked automatically.


**** modern war technology on earth, which isn't as advanced as Eve does this. A soldier points a target and the missile goes there without having to lock, it just follows the first guys pointer.

I bet when you play an RPG you attack each enemy once then switch to another enemy, that way they all stay alive longer and die at the same time? No.. you mean you have all your guys attack one enemy at a time? Weird how natural strategies exist. I mean **** the whole point of Chess is to send ALL of your guys after the King.

Dear fool,

EVE is a video game.

Sincerely,
DarkAegix
Jenshae Chiroptera
#73 - 2012-01-09 10:01:59 UTC
Miss Whippy wrote:
...
In Short the idea is this: The more locks that are on a target the longer it will take for another lock to be established. Sounds simple, ...


I like the sound of that idea.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#74 - 2012-01-09 10:07:35 UTC  |  Edited by: xxxTRUSTxxx
it's a good idea, but still i think we can all agree that is would be a ***** to get working.
i've been sitting writing this thinking of ways to get it to work.

limit on how many ships can target you. ( people will use alts to max out the targeting limit )

limit on dps incoming per ship hull. ( whats fair ? upper limit vs lower limit. could kill off smaller vs larger targets)

limit on ships in system. ( we all know people will have a fit over that one, but our empire is bigger, we should be able to blob )

limit on ships in system. ( attacking fleet or defending fleet brings in a stupid amount of alts to lock system down )

we all know as an FC with a large fleet, it makes no sense to have more than a certain number of ships shooting at one single target, wings and squads are already in use and working.

the system in place works as intended, a few tweeks might be needed.

so yea,,,, a good idea for the smaller corp's/alliances/attacking ships to become more effective in a fight vs a larger corp/alliance/attacking ships. but very hard to get a fair working mechanic that people wouldn't exploit.
Halcyon Ingenium
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#75 - 2012-01-09 10:16:06 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.


Trusting a subordinate with leadership responsibility, oh the horror! Battles actually being battles and not lame slap fights, NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

By the way, since we're already talking, do you want to buy a rifter? I've got the cheapest rifters in Metropolis. If you can find a cheaper rifter, buy it!

Cryten Jones
Advantage Inc
#76 - 2012-01-09 10:24:02 UTC
DarkAegix wrote:
Mal Mandrake wrote:


Some Tripe



Dear fool,

EVE is a video game.

Sincerely,
DarkAegix



I congratulate you on a highly efficient use of words there friend :-)

-CJ

Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#77 - 2012-01-09 11:10:24 UTC
Potamus Jenkins wrote:



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?


Just because you call it an exploit doesn't make it so. Other people might just call it game mechanics.

[URL="https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=82348"]UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch[/URL]

Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2012-01-09 11:15:56 UTC
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:

In Short the idea is this: The more locks that are on a target the longer it will take for another lock to be established.

This could be abused on so many ways that I would get hungry and feel urged to order some pizza while counting 'em all.


Yet you can't even name one.

Quote:

besides... 3vs1 pvp isn't supposed to be fair.

[/quote]

This wouldn't make it a great deal fairer, it's not going to allow one ship to take on three unless that ship had a good chance of winning anyway. Three locks wouldn't not incur a massive penalty.

[URL="https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=82348"]UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch[/URL]

Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#79 - 2012-01-09 11:25:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Miss Whippy
Mal Mandrake wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:

In Short the idea is this: The more locks that are on a target the longer it will take for another lock to be established.


In short... this makes no sense whatsoever.

If I point a laser pointer at my friends forehead... why would it take my other friend longer to aim at his forehead to? I mean really? If anything lock on would be faster because my friend can aim for my point and have less error in movement. And we aren't even talking about networked computers.

If I have four computers that are wifi networked together (which you imagine ships in a fleet would be) and one of them shoots a laser pointer at my friend forehead. The other 3 computers wouldn't even have to lock on, they would be networked and locked automatically.


**** modern war technology on earth, which isn't as advanced as Eve does this. A soldier points a target and the missile goes there without having to lock, it just follows the first guys pointer.

I bet when you play an RPG you attack each enemy once then switch to another enemy, that way they all stay alive longer and die at the same time? No.. you mean you have all your guys attack one enemy at a time? Weird how natural strategies exist. I mean **** the whole point of Chess is to send ALL of your guys after the King.




Yawn,. Try using your imagination. Like the same way you have to when you realise ships can't come to a dead stop in space, there's no sound in space, flying too close to a star will kill you yet it doesn't in EvE, etc.

Trying to compare EvE to the real world is a massive cop out, and a poor excuse for not using a potentially great new game mechanic.

EDIT: Oh and clearly you have no idea about chess.

[URL="https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=82348"]UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch[/URL]

Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#80 - 2012-01-09 11:31:17 UTC
A simple answer to people's concerns is that it would take a lot of locks to significantly lengthen the lock time. Again it's just a matter of getting to maths right. For instance it would take at least 8 people to lock onto the same ship to cause serious problems. This means that:

1. Small skirmishes would be largely unaffected.
2. Fleets would gain no advantage to locking each other, as it would take up all their targeting to make it effective. If it means they all target their primary ship, then don't target their primary ship.

[URL="https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=82348"]UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch[/URL]