These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#101 - 2012-01-09 17:03:12 UTC
Nova Fox wrote:
Logic would be the electronic interference caused by so many locking signals.


Think of your ships targeting system as a laser enhanced sight. If you hit the ship with one, it creates a splash effect, which acually makes the ship more visible.

Most basic targeting systems are either camera or laser oriented, or a combination of both.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#102 - 2012-01-09 17:29:34 UTC
seany1212 wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:
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.


You either shun or ignore the countless arguments against your unimplementable idea. OP is an idiot.


Countless to you maybe. I guess I can just count higher than you. If I'm an idiot you must be positively ********. So no point reading the rest of your post.

[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
#103 - 2012-01-09 17:32:58 UTC
Mal Mandrake wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:
Mal Mandrake wrote:
[quote=Miss Whippy] the whole point of Chess is to send ALL of your guys after the King.



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


You think chess ISN"T about taking the king? Just because you might strategise and take out a queen and position yourself to control the board doesn't mean the point of the game isn't to take the king.

As for focus fire sucking, good luck changing that one. When you play battleship do you try and find all boats first BEFORE sinking any of them?


I think chess is taking about the King yes. However that's not what you said.

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

Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
Goonswarm Federation
#104 - 2012-01-09 17:35:10 UTC
how is the server gonna deal with 150 ships all locking a primary, then recalculating 149 lock times once one has got lock, then recalculating 148 when the 2nd got lock?

thought the idea to reduce lag, not add to it?

OMG when can i get a pic here

Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#105 - 2012-01-09 17:35:55 UTC
Halcyon Ingenium wrote:
Metal Icarus wrote:
this thread makes no sense... Wouldn't it be that if a ship is getting lit up by another ships sensors, it would be shorter not longer to lock them?


Lots of noise makes things harder to hear, and see if we're talking about electro-magnetic noise. So maybe, maybe not. We don't have to worry about that because we are talking game mechanics here, not actual science. As long as the fictional explanation is logically consistent within the game lore, who the **** cares?


This.

Funny how you don't see them whining about the impossible things that happen in EvE all the time. I think they just to try and look clever for a little bit, or they just like whining about irrelivant points.

[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
#106 - 2012-01-09 17:37:05 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:
how is the server gonna deal with 150 ships all locking a primary, then recalculating 149 lock times once one has got lock, then recalculating 148 when the 2nd got lock?

thought the idea to reduce lag, not add to it?



TIDI there to reduce lag, this is here to reduce the blob

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.

Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
Goonswarm Federation
#107 - 2012-01-09 17:41:30 UTC
Mirima Thurander wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
how is the server gonna deal with 150 ships all locking a primary, then recalculating 149 lock times once one has got lock, then recalculating 148 when the 2nd got lock?

thought the idea to reduce lag, not add to it?



TIDI there to reduce lag, this is here to reduce the blob




this wont reduce the blob, just make it harder for the server to cope with the really large battles. as they would still happen

OMG when can i get a pic here

Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#108 - 2012-01-09 17:42:04 UTC
TiDi does not reduce lag, TiDi makes lag fair, at least once its working.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#109 - 2012-01-09 17:44:03 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
how is the server gonna deal with 150 ships all locking a primary, then recalculating 149 lock times once one has got lock, then recalculating 148 when the 2nd got lock?

thought the idea to reduce lag, not add to it?



TIDI there to reduce lag, this is here to reduce the blob




this wont reduce the blob, just make it harder for the server to cope with the really large battles. as they would still happen


Based on what? You're unproven programming and maths skills?

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

Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
Goonswarm Federation
#110 - 2012-01-09 17:49:56 UTC
Miss Whippy wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
how is the server gonna deal with 150 ships all locking a primary, then recalculating 149 lock times once one has got lock, then recalculating 148 when the 2nd got lock?

thought the idea to reduce lag, not add to it?



TIDI there to reduce lag, this is here to reduce the blob




this wont reduce the blob, just make it harder for the server to cope with the really large battles. as they would still happen


Based on what? You're unproven programming and maths skills?


4 years of null sec blobbage. if something is worth fighting for you will bring the kitchen sink if you have too. this would make it even more important to cram ever thing you coudl into one system. have multiple fc's/fleets hitting key targets in the hostile fleets.
so whats you're view based on, unproven programming and math skills?

OMG when can i get a pic here

Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#111 - 2012-01-09 17:53:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Mars Theran
I think people should stop liking ideas because they seam like an easy fix to a bad situation that nobody likes. Granted the mechanics would change the dynamics; but that doesn't mean they are the best solution to the problem.

The simple fact is, it's not possible to do this without it being extremely exploitable. We should have learned that with the numerous other exploitable factors in game. Many of those took some time to discover the exploits inherent in the system and abuse them to the point they were eventually nerfed or mechanics were modified to remove some of that exploit.

Fact is, some things just cannot be fixed.



We could fix mines, and make them a functional part of the game and a reliable and interesting mechanic to help combat other fleet mechanics and gate camps. The answer is simple.

Make a specific ship that deploys mines, and has to remain on grid for them to remain active. This would be a stealth ship, like the Bomber, only Destroyer or Cruiser sized; and would require similar skills as any equivalent Tech 2 ship.

Once on grid, it would have to manually move around and deploy mines with anchoring mechanics; including a short timer for each mine, requirements to decloak on initial deployment, and limitations on proximity for those mines. Following that the ship would cloak, move off to a safe distance, and turn to face the mine field like a Bomber would.

Mines would show up on a Tactical overlay with an explosion radius, and have significantly less damage than a bomb, though their fields could overlap.

The ship would be limited to an arc in front of the ship, with mines outside that arc showing up as no more than blips, and have a maximum distance for activation. This would control spread pattern, while also allowing the ship to change facing and activate a secondary field outside of, and possibly inclusiveof, its initial arc.

There would also be a limit to maximum deployment, activation, and control. You could have, for example, both a T2 Destroyer class, and a T2 Cruiser Class of mine deployment ship; the latter with greater capabilities, cargohold, and potentially higher Alpha mines than the former.

Leaving grid would cause the mines to unanchor and become standard 2 hour timer objects in space; collectible, but with a limited time in which they can exist like wrecks, jetcans, and the rest.

That could be made to balance in game without being completely exploitable. It's also a mechanic that has been removed from the game for years.



I don't think anyone can think of a way to remove exploit from this proposed mechanic; short of not being able to target anything. Even limiting targeting capabilities to war targets and negative standings is exploitable.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#112 - 2012-01-09 18:10:11 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
how is the server gonna deal with 150 ships all locking a primary, then recalculating 149 lock times once one has got lock, then recalculating 148 when the 2nd got lock?

thought the idea to reduce lag, not add to it?



TIDI there to reduce lag, this is here to reduce the blob




this wont reduce the blob, just make it harder for the server to cope with the really large battles. as they would still happen


Based on what? You're unproven programming and maths skills?


4 years of null sec blobbage. if something is worth fighting for you will bring the kitchen sink if you have too. this would make it even more important to cram ever thing you coudl into one system. have multiple fc's/fleets hitting key targets in the hostile fleets.
so whats you're view based on, unproven programming and math skills?


Nope, it's based on the fact that I haven't seen a single argument against it which hasn't easily been proven wrong. Pretending you know the first thing about how this will effect server speed is just laughable. Let me hear it from CCP then I'll think again.

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

Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
Goonswarm Federation
#113 - 2012-01-09 18:14:14 UTC
Miss Whippy wrote:


Nope, it's based on the fact that I haven't seen a single argument against it which hasn't easily been proven wrong. Pretending you know the first thing about how this will effect server speed is just laughable. Let me hear it from CCP then I'll think again.




forget the server issue. this wont reduce the blob, it woule actually make it bigger. 1 fleet v logi's, 1 fleet v bs fleet a-f,1 fleet v bs fleet g-l etc etc. it would make it a must to bring more people to negate the effects of this.

OMG when can i get a pic here

Xercodo
Cruor Angelicus
#114 - 2012-01-09 18:32:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Xercodo
-Good guys are decided by fleet, alliance member, corp member, blue (new ally system? see below)
OR
-Logi have counter measures to the "static" or "noise" and there need not be a mechanic that can be flawed like the way overview glitches result in ppl showing up wrong color

-The "noise" is generated based on the number of people on grid, and the stacking penalty will scale as such. The start of noise generation can start when there is 100+ (or similar) people on grid, meaning that 20vs20 fights will be left un-changed. Or instead of a finite number that can be argued as to the definition of a "blob", the equation is made exponential so that there is still a penalty for small gang warfare but it's so low that you probably not even notice but the larger the blob the worse the static gets and even adding "just one more ship" can make things that much more crippling

-Being in or out of fleet will not really effect this mechanic at all unless you have neutrals with you, and if you do then unfleeting them is detrimental to you, not the enemy, you waste target locks on your own allies and you increase the potential for friendly fire

-This is not an automatic nerf to large numbers of players or large alliances, large alliances that play smart will still win, but they will now be more likely to fall under their own weight as they would get so large as to not be able to coordinate well enough to fend of a lighter, faster fleet.

New Ally System:
Maybe instead of just setting them blue there can be a new "ally" system that gives an ally special privileges that just liking them (setting them to +10 blue) wouldn't have, for instance separate the mechanic that allows blue to freely take form jetcans. In the new system there will be 3 types of blue: Alliance blue (star icon), Ally Blue (Person icon, like we have with fleets now), +10 Liked blue (+ icon)

-Alliance blues are obviously in alliance with you
-Ally Blues are blues that can get access to POS shields and JB networks and be part of this new sensor mechanics as being discussed in this thread
-+10 Blues will have almost no functionality, can still be flagged for stealing but their main purpose will be to act as a marker for people you probably don't wanna shoot or just people you like that you might not necessarily want to give any rights to

This will help especially with high sec newbs that wanna do a 1v1 jetcan fight that get all confused when their blue isn't being flagged for stealing. lol

The Drake is a Lie

FeralShadow
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#115 - 2012-01-09 21:02:14 UTC  |  Edited by: FeralShadow
Quote:

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.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this. The locking delay is only on people currently locking the target, not people who have already locked it. That means that everybody can alpha one single ship, but people will have to stagger their lock times. It also gets rid of all the mess of friendlies already locking up targets, because it only affects people who are currently locking the target when you are locking.

This also means smaller ships are more useful because the time they take to lock targets is much smaller, so they'll only incur the penalty for a short amount of time. This also makes ECCM's more useful because targets will take longer to lock you, ensuring that more people can get the penalty. This also means you might as well just spread people around to several different targets to avoid the penalty altogether. This also means that smaller targets will be harder to lock, thus giving them more survivability in large fleet fights.

The key difference between this idea and the first idea is that this idea only has the penalty for all people currently IN THE PROCESS OF LOCKING the target. It doesn't matter if 300 people have already locked the target in the past. Honestly it seems like the perfect solution for preventing rediculous 300 man fleets alphaing one person, while at the same time making it non-exploitable without the exploiters being overwhelmed by tons of crap on their screen.

As an edit: For those who are going to play the "this will cause lag" card, don't you think the server is already keeping track of who is locking who? How hard would it be to tag a counter with it, counting the number of ongoing locks?

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#116 - 2012-01-09 23:15:33 UTC
Xercodo wrote:
-Good guys are decided by fleet, alliance member, corp member, blue (new ally system? see below)
OR
-Logi have counter measures to the "static" or "noise" and there need not be a mechanic that can be flawed like the way overview glitches result in ppl showing up wrong color

-The "noise" is generated based on the number of people on grid, and the stacking penalty will scale as such. The start of noise generation can start when there is 100+ (or similar) people on grid, meaning that 20vs20 fights will be left un-changed. Or instead of a finite number that can be argued as to the definition of a "blob", the equation is made exponential so that there is still a penalty for small gang warfare but it's so low that you probably not even notice but the larger the blob the worse the static gets and even adding "just one more ship" can make things that much more crippling

-Being in or out of fleet will not really effect this mechanic at all unless you have neutrals with you, and if you do then unfleeting them is detrimental to you, not the enemy, you waste target locks on your own allies and you increase the potential for friendly fire

-This is not an automatic nerf to large numbers of players or large alliances, large alliances that play smart will still win, but they will now be more likely to fall under their own weight as they would get so large as to not be able to coordinate well enough to fend of a lighter, faster fleet.

New Ally System:
Maybe instead of just setting them blue there can be a new "ally" system that gives an ally special privileges that just liking them (setting them to +10 blue) wouldn't have, for instance separate the mechanic that allows blue to freely take form jetcans. In the new system there will be 3 types of blue: Alliance blue (star icon), Ally Blue (Person icon, like we have with fleets now), +10 Liked blue (+ icon)

-Alliance blues are obviously in alliance with you
-Ally Blues are blues that can get access to POS shields and JB networks and be part of this new sensor mechanics as being discussed in this thread
-+10 Blues will have almost no functionality, can still be flagged for stealing but their main purpose will be to act as a marker for people you probably don't wanna shoot or just people you like that you might not necessarily want to give any rights to

This will help especially with high sec newbs that wanna do a 1v1 jetcan fight that get all confused when their blue isn't being flagged for stealing. lol


You see, this is the difference between people with vision and the cynics. +1

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

Karash Amerius
The Seven Shadows
#117 - 2012-01-09 23:26:48 UTC
I think it is worth a test on Duality.

Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka

Finde learth
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#118 - 2012-01-10 00:53:34 UTC
Mirima Thurander wrote:

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


You can do it now even no this rule.
The rule force players must do , i think that's terrible.
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
#119 - 2012-01-10 01:14:22 UTC
Mars Theran wrote:
Nova Fox wrote:
Logic would be the electronic interference caused by so many locking signals.


Think of your ships targeting system as a laser enhanced sight. If you hit the ship with one, it creates a splash effect, which acually makes the ship more visible.

Most basic targeting systems are either camera or laser oriented, or a combination of both.

V I D E O G A M E S
In EVE:
-Space is a liquid
-We can warp through planets
-Lasers have recoil
-Ships travel FTL
-Hybrid ships and weapons were suddenly buffed
-There's no sound in space
-Weapons fire through friendly ships and random space objects

You know the thing about all the things above? There's a fiction explanation about all of them. This idea is no different.

Would you like to know the simplest explanation for the reason we can warp through planets. The warp tunnel changes. The game admits we are doing the seemingly impossible. Therefore, the player knows it isn't a bug or unintended effect, so the suspension of disbelief is maintained.

EVE is a game, I don't know why you're complaining now.
Potamus Jenkins
eXceed Inc.
Plucky Adventurers
#120 - 2012-01-10 01:35:54 UTC
Miss Whippy wrote:
Xercodo wrote:
-Good guys are decided by fleet, alliance member, corp member, blue (new ally system? see below)
OR
-Logi have counter measures to the "static" or "noise" and there need not be a mechanic that can be flawed like the way overview glitches result in ppl showing up wrong color

-The "noise" is generated based on the number of people on grid, and the stacking penalty will scale as such. The start of noise generation can start when there is 100+ (or similar) people on grid, meaning that 20vs20 fights will be left un-changed. Or instead of a finite number that can be argued as to the definition of a "blob", the equation is made exponential so that there is still a penalty for small gang warfare but it's so low that you probably not even notice but the larger the blob the worse the static gets and even adding "just one more ship" can make things that much more crippling

-Being in or out of fleet will not really effect this mechanic at all unless you have neutrals with you, and if you do then unfleeting them is detrimental to you, not the enemy, you waste target locks on your own allies and you increase the potential for friendly fire

-This is not an automatic nerf to large numbers of players or large alliances, large alliances that play smart will still win, but they will now be more likely to fall under their own weight as they would get so large as to not be able to coordinate well enough to fend of a lighter, faster fleet.

New Ally System:
Maybe instead of just setting them blue there can be a new "ally" system that gives an ally special privileges that just liking them (setting them to +10 blue) wouldn't have, for instance separate the mechanic that allows blue to freely take form jetcans. In the new system there will be 3 types of blue: Alliance blue (star icon), Ally Blue (Person icon, like we have with fleets now), +10 Liked blue (+ icon)

-Alliance blues are obviously in alliance with you
-Ally Blues are blues that can get access to POS shields and JB networks and be part of this new sensor mechanics as being discussed in this thread
-+10 Blues will have almost no functionality, can still be flagged for stealing but their main purpose will be to act as a marker for people you probably don't wanna shoot or just people you like that you might not necessarily want to give any rights to

This will help especially with high sec newbs that wanna do a 1v1 jetcan fight that get all confused when their blue isn't being flagged for stealing. lol


You see, this is the difference between people with vision and the cynics. +1




first you say no one presented valid reasons why its a bad idea, then you call the rest cynics.


several did, others did not provide valid reasons (ie its not "Realistic which is never a good reason) but several of us provided very valid reasons why this is exploitable. you make a post that says this is your favorite idea and its something that is easily exploitable people are gonna tell you.


its not our job to come up with variations on your favorite idea to make it not exploitable. thats on you.


the guy that came through and added his thoughts on how to get around the exploiting did a great job which is what you should have been doing since YOU are presenting the argument that this is a good idea, instead of you refusing to believe that it can and will be exploited. To write off the others because they are not coming up with ways to make your favorite idea work is not the way to go and is not furthering the discussion.