These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Fleet Commander ship or rework the "Target Spectrum Breaker"
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Oddsodz
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2016-06-06 18:03:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Oddsodz
Hello there boys and girls.

I have been doing that thing where you think you can beat DEV's at making things for Eve. Silly to try, I know. But every dog has it's day (no chucky nut bar for you Rimmer - Red Dwarf joke).

Let's get on with it shall we.

Ok so at Fanfest. CCP Fozzie and team proposed an idea that there maybe a new up comming ship that is designed for Fleet Commander to minimise or curb the tactic of "Head Shotting" fleet commander (the guy or girl directing the fleet to targets and so on) so as to destabilize an enemy fleet combat effectiveness. The premise is that by "Head Shotting" the FC off the field at the start of a battle, you can win a battle before it even gets really going. The fear is that when the FC is blow off the field of battle. Then major battles are not even fought. Long story short. It is believed that PVP in this manner is being suppressed as FC will not engage in big fleet battles because they can not stay on field to direct the troops even if losing the fight.

So with that in mind. CCP has put forth the idea that a new ship my address this. I myself don't think so. Here is why

If a new ship is designed, Then it will have to be a frigate sized hull. Anything bigger and you lock out PVP in novice sized combat sites in Faction Warfare systems in lowsec. But a frigate is not going to be the ship of choice when in battleship slug fest. Or any ship class above a frigate level sized hull. To address that you will not only need to design 1 ship. But a whole line of ships for each hull size and also for each race. That is a whole lot of DEV time and work.

The possible solution

Rework the "Target Spectrum Breaker". In its current from. The "Target Spectrum Breaker" is a poor module that fails to deliver on its promise as an "anti blob tool". Back when it was released it was advertised as a module to save solo or small gang battleships from getting blobbed to death. It sounded great. But in practise it fails completely.

See here for how it fails

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oofwHuN5ydg&feature=youtu.be&t=284 (skip to 4.44 minutes)

The biggest issue with the module is that when you use it. You are effectively ECM jamming yourself with no chance of ever escaping from a blob due to warp scramblers/disrupter cycle times. So to use it means that you can not shoot anything (drones still work), And so you can't kill any tackle that is holding you.

The one thing the "Target Spectrum Breaker" does well is reduced incoming damage to a more manageable level. As seen here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijVClf29B2g

But what good is tanking if you can't kill anything or even lock a target to shoot or direct fire for the fleet. A fleet commander needs to lock targets to direct fire for the fleet so he/she can assess if the target is a good choice. Things that a fleet commander needs to see is if the target is tanking the outgoing fire from his/her's fleet, What sort of tank type the target is using (armor or shield or manTank Hull). Things like this are important to fleet commanders.

My idea is to change the "Target Spectrum Breaker" from a battleship only module to a module that can be fitted to any ship class and also move from a mid slots to the high slots.

Now here is why

Removing to Battleship only rule means it can be fitted to any ship. That means all ship sizes in terms of hull can field them. Frigate battle in novice size complex will be doable.

By making it a high slot module. You give the fleet commander a choice of more tank in the mids for shield doctrine ships. And more choice for tackle modules or EWAR. You also give choices for losing DPS and or utility high slots for better survivability against many target shooting you.

Next thing is to remove the part that makes the module ECM jamming yourself. You must be able to lock targets to shoot and direct fire for your fleet.

And the last part (and I know this will take up a lot of DEV time to figure out). The lock breaker effect should not effect your own fleet members. Yes this means that your own fleet members will be able to rep the fleet commander. And that is the point. To keep the fleet commander from being removed from the fight.


Now. For some drawbacks to using this reworked module.

I would not be opposed to things like when the module is active. The ship can't warp. Or your DPS from the ship is cut by 50% or even more. Or anything else that your guys can come up with.

Fitting attributes should be adjusted as needed. I would also like to add that skill requirements up changed to so that "Wing Command 1" also be needed to fit the module.

As for concerns that the module would become too powerful and be fitted to every ship everywhere. I would like to point out that DPS output would be greatly reduced from ships fitting this module. And that fitting this module in a small gang to flight another small gang* is an absolute disaster due to so few targets locking you to make the lock breaker effect worth it's fitting over more DPS or utility. As seen here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6rBuMu0zsY (be warned, I rage here. sorry).

That is my idea. Thanks for reading.

Oddsodz.

edit.

*Small gang = less that 15 ships in a fleet

**Edit, As somebody pointed out on reddit, To stop whole fleets fitting this. I would impost that you must be in the "WING" or "FLEET" position in the fleet hierarchy for the module to work.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#2 - 2016-06-07 01:32:32 UTC
You call that raging? You didn't even overdrive your mic.


I can see where you are coming from. Were it up to me™ there would be limits to how many ships can lock a target anyway. Too much signal all on one target should disrupt additional targets. Something like a sized based system, multiple small ships can lock a large one, but numbers drop when size drops and the ship doing the targeting is larger too. But that's a theoretical issue.

Not losing all locks would make logistics possible while breaking targets off. That strikes me (IMO) as overpowered and everybody and their brother would start using it. What would be more challenging is the presence of non-locked AOE damage on the field, to which a TLB would be useless.

Otherwise interesting points. It would be nice to see smaller ships get a TLB but I think that "inferno" module has been set aside anyway, as if it was an idea someone had for a new approach but whoever that was left the company or the game took a different direction. It certainly could use some attention.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#3 - 2016-06-07 04:20:28 UTC
-1

My opinion:

The obvious work around to this is to FC from an alt that no one or only a few trusted guys knows about. If you need to swing the epeen of your elite FC main on the battlefield, then he deserves a bullseye.

What rubs my fur the wrong way with this is that CCP may be going out of their way to create a new ship that's sole function is to protect a high value target in the heat of battle. It just doesn't make sense.

This isn't a Crusades or Revolutionary war simulator. Don't headshot the king/general gentleman's agreements went out of style a long time ago. There is a lot of non-F1 game play involved in taking down FCs in large engagements.

Fleet boosters are also identified via spies in large fleet fights, targeted and destroyed. Popping the fleet booster can also be linked to all the 'don't headshot the FC' fluffery. Will the next logical step be to create an indestructible fleet booster, so that big fights will happen? Then wing leaders and squad commanders - will the invulnerability then trickle down to them?

I honestly don't see a need for this type of ship. The given reasons for this special ship all seem to be (1) ego based and (2) easily bypassed with a generic alt.

I don't see any real reasons to have this.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#4 - 2016-06-07 06:06:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Instead of trying to shoehorn a solution into the existing meta.
Try instead looking at a totally new meta, one that has already been introduced into EVE.
DPS caps.

We have DPS caps on Citadels and thus far it seems to be working.
Now imagine DPS caps on ships, & obviously logi caps that are lower than the DPS caps (50%?).

Then there is no more headshotting, or instant alpha ever. People always get a chance to fight their ships even in big fleet fights and try to get out. Small gangs shouldn't be affected at all since unless they are shooting frigates with 20 T3's a small gang won't be hitting DPS caps anyway.
This has a much better effect on everyone's game play since it means people get to engage in fights more, rather than just wait to be targeted and die instantly in a big fight.
Oddsodz
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2016-06-07 08:57:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Oddsodz
Serendipity Lost wrote:
-1

My opinion:

The obvious work around to this is to FC from an alt that no one or only a few trusted guys knows about. If you need to swing the epeen of your elite FC main on the battlefield, then he deserves a bullseye.

What rubs my fur the wrong way with this is that CCP may be going out of their way to create a new ship that's sole function is to protect a high value target in the heat of battle. It just doesn't make sense.

This isn't a Crusades or Revolutionary war simulator. Don't headshot the king/general gentleman's agreements went out of style a long time ago. There is a lot of non-F1 game play involved in taking down FCs in large engagements.

Fleet boosters are also identified via spies in large fleet fights, targeted and destroyed. Popping the fleet booster can also be linked to all the 'don't headshot the FC' fluffery. Will the next logical step be to create an indestructible fleet booster, so that big fights will happen? Then wing leaders and squad commanders - will the invulnerability then trickle down to them?

I honestly don't see a need for this type of ship. The given reasons for this special ship all seem to be (1) ego based and (2) easily bypassed with a generic alt.

I don't see any real reasons to have this.



I am sorry but I just don't agree with this at all, A player should not need to have 2 account to play and enjoy this game. I am not saying players should only have 1 account. I am saying you should not NEED a 2nd account just to play in any given game roles that are possible. It also one of the reasons I hate off grid boosting. If you wish to get involved and have any sort of success in small gang/solo PVP. You must have a 2nd account with a off grid booster toon. I just can not wait for when they fix it. Going to be so many salty tears for so called leet solo PVPer who will not be able to fly their ships without the "Pay2Win" system that is off grid boosting.

But I am digressing. Sorry
Saelyth
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
#6 - 2016-06-07 18:50:38 UTC
If I recall correctly, the original proposal for these ships included additional otherwise non-available information or status that wasn't readily/easily seen by most others. I think it was something along the lines of being able to readily view the shield/armor/hp of enemy ships, presumably without having to lock them all. I'm not really sold on that, as it's been my experience that people -generally- tend to focus-fire. Generally... more or less.

I believe they also specified that these ships would have pretty much zero ability to deal damage or alter the statistics of other ships (such as painters, webs, scram, etc). A fair trade, I think, if the Damnation and the wild degrees of EHP you can work out of one aren't enough as they are.

What I want to know more about are what other bits of info will these specialized ships be able to glean from enemies? I'm sure CCP had at least a couple ideas in mind, and I'm certainly interested in hearing a few. In the meantime, we can speculate and fantasize a dozen things. Will there be a clear way for them to discern who among the enemy fleet is dealing the most dps? How about a clear way for them to figure out (maybe with some kind of specialized module) who has the lowest resistance to X damage type? Hell, I'd love to see some real expansion on the ship scanner (you know, that one module you used one time out of curiosity that showed you what was fit onto someone in Jita and never touched again), for that matter.

I think the real trick will be how much info should be available, how quickly it can gather it, and how clearly it can be presented so that it doesn't turn into scrolling up and down 80 lines one ship at a time.
Oddsodz
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2016-06-07 22:10:42 UTC
Saelyth wrote:
If I recall correctly, the original proposal for these ships included additional otherwise non-available information or status that wasn't readily/easily seen by most others. I think it was something along the lines of being able to readily view the shield/armor/hp of enemy ships, presumably without having to lock them all. I'm not really sold on that, as it's been my experience that people -generally- tend to focus-fire. Generally... more or less.

I believe they also specified that these ships would have pretty much zero ability to deal damage or alter the statistics of other ships (such as painters, webs, scram, etc). A fair trade, I think, if the Damnation and the wild degrees of EHP you can work out of one aren't enough as they are.

What I want to know more about are what other bits of info will these specialized ships be able to glean from enemies? I'm sure CCP had at least a couple ideas in mind, and I'm certainly interested in hearing a few. In the meantime, we can speculate and fantasize a dozen things. Will there be a clear way for them to discern who among the enemy fleet is dealing the most dps? How about a clear way for them to figure out (maybe with some kind of specialized module) who has the lowest resistance to X damage type? Hell, I'd love to see some real expansion on the ship scanner (you know, that one module you used one time out of curiosity that showed you what was fit onto someone in Jita and never touched again), for that matter.

I think the real trick will be how much info should be available, how quickly it can gather it, and how clearly it can be presented so that it doesn't turn into scrolling up and down 80 lines one ship at a time.



Oh wow. As I was not at fanfest. I did not get to hear all that stuff.

Well in case. I look forward to what they come up with. But I would like to point out that this module change could still be added on top of what CCP bring to the table for the new FC ship
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#8 - 2016-06-07 22:27:24 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Instead of trying to shoehorn a solution into the existing meta.
Try instead looking at a totally new meta, one that has already been introduced into EVE.
DPS caps.

We have DPS caps on Citadels and thus far it seems to be working.
Now imagine DPS caps on ships, & obviously logi caps that are lower than the DPS caps (50%?).

Then there is no more headshotting, or instant alpha ever. People always get a chance to fight their ships even in big fleet fights and try to get out. Small gangs shouldn't be affected at all since unless they are shooting frigates with 20 T3's a small gang won't be hitting DPS caps anyway.
This has a much better effect on everyone's game play since it means people get to engage in fights more, rather than just wait to be targeted and die instantly in a big fight.



The best cap on DPS is not in an arbitrary cap, but in some signal science: control as to how many ships can lock a target before the targeting systems of said locking ships begins to degrade.

I have seen this myself in radar systems of RL fighter jets.


Had such a mechanic always been in place, this would have been an entirely different game. 50 on 1 raep-cages would have not been possible, gate camps would not have been so overplayed and content-crushing.

It would be reasonable to say that a frigate can be locked up by 3 - 5 other frigates, or 1-2 destroyers, or 6 frigates can lock a battlecruiser, etc. A size up size down arrangement. Everybody and their brother can lock a very large ship but a fleet of very large ships would not be locking one ship.

Imagine that - no more F1/alpha fleet monkey. Wings having to detach and fight wings, squads fighting squads.....


oh wait none of that. Just hit F1, monkey! Lol

But that would be the best "cap" on DPS without arbitrarily and immersion-crushingly putting in place a number that says "you shall not pass".

in before the trolls who always had it the way they had it and freak at any sign of change...

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#9 - 2016-06-08 00:59:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:


The best cap on DPS is not in an arbitrary cap, but in some signal science: control as to how many ships can lock a target before the targeting systems of said locking ships begins to degrade.

Fleet locks each other. Enemy now can't lock them. First fleet on grid auto wins.
If you ignore same fleet, form 2 fleets, cross lock fleets. First side on fleet auto wins.
If you make it total number of ships shooting, then everyone fits one civilian gun, shoots friendlies with it, first fleet on grid wins for a little while then stalemate.

DPS caps can't be abused in the same way, because the cap is based on real damage, so you have to be able to deal with that damage even if you decide for some silly reason to shoot each other to make the enemies damage count for nothing.

Not that the arbitrary cap sits best in my head either, but all the signal degradation ideas are just too easy to game the system. DPS caps are the least game-able since you take the damage either way.
DPS caps also mean that FC's get an organic way to stay on the field longer by flying super brick fits which have no guns, and no DPS improvement, just tank. This is then a choice though, since it cuts down on the fleets DPS in smaller fights, so the FC's have to make decisions about resistance to head shots vs damage/utility output. And players making choices is a good thing.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#10 - 2016-06-08 13:06:00 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Instead of trying to shoehorn a solution into the existing meta.
Try instead looking at a totally new meta, one that has already been introduced into EVE.
DPS caps.

We have DPS caps on Citadels and thus far it seems to be working.
Now imagine DPS caps on ships, & obviously logi caps that are lower than the DPS caps (50%?).

Then there is no more headshotting, or instant alpha ever. People always get a chance to fight their ships even in big fleet fights and try to get out. Small gangs shouldn't be affected at all since unless they are shooting frigates with 20 T3's a small gang won't be hitting DPS caps anyway.
This has a much better effect on everyone's game play since it means people get to engage in fights more, rather than just wait to be targeted and die instantly in a big fight.



The best cap on DPS is not in an arbitrary cap, but in some signal science: control as to how many ships can lock a target before the targeting systems of said locking ships begins to degrade.

I have seen this myself in radar systems of RL fighter jets.


Had such a mechanic always been in place, this would have been an entirely different game. 50 on 1 raep-cages would have not been possible, gate camps would not have been so overplayed and content-crushing.

It would be reasonable to say that a frigate can be locked up by 3 - 5 other frigates, or 1-2 destroyers, or 6 frigates can lock a battlecruiser, etc. A size up size down arrangement. Everybody and their brother can lock a very large ship but a fleet of very large ships would not be locking one ship.

Imagine that - no more F1/alpha fleet monkey. Wings having to detach and fight wings, squads fighting squads.....


oh wait none of that. Just hit F1, monkey! Lol

But that would be the best "cap" on DPS without arbitrarily and immersion-crushingly putting in place a number that says "you shall not pass".

in before the trolls who always had it the way they had it and freak at any sign of change...


How are 6 frigates supposed to kill a battlecruiser that has logi support?
Tiberius NoVegas
NovKor Corp.
#11 - 2016-06-08 21:57:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberius NoVegas
I like the concept but i can see what your asking for becoming broken.

Why not change the way Target Breakers functions to simply shifting the target rather then breaking it. It will only work as long as there are other drones, fighters or ships in your "fleet". The concept being that each ship has a unique target signature and the breaker is simply switching your signature with another nearby craft that your in "fleet" with, thus the enemy is now targeting something other then there original target. IT should come with a drawback however of like -75% ships targeting capability. this will greatly reduce a ships ability to put out any damage but the ship is virtually untouchable until all other craft in "fleet" around it have been eliminated.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#12 - 2016-06-09 07:36:18 UTC
Since I love to repeat myself over and over and over gain so much that I want to puke, here's what you FC is supposed to fly when in command and in dire need of less stress being fired upon - a covert ops.

Yeah, that's right ladies, a not afk cloaked vessel from which you can command your fleet at your heart desire - you even have to be careful to not get to close or decloaked by your own buddies.

@Nevyn,

I do love this idea of a dps cap at ships, now that we have it on citadels. They either git gud or don't. Bring more is not a skill and it's not even "content".

I don't say this often, but I would love nothing more than having a plain field where I can go somewhere and maybe take on a small portion of a 50 people gang since only a handful of them are a real thread at any time.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#13 - 2016-06-10 07:46:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Serendipity Lost
Oddsodz wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
-1

My opinion:

The obvious work around to this is to FC from an alt that no one or only a few trusted guys knows about. If you need to swing the epeen of your elite FC main on the battlefield, then he deserves a bullseye.

What rubs my fur the wrong way with this is that CCP may be going out of their way to create a new ship that's sole function is to protect a high value target in the heat of battle. It just doesn't make sense.

This isn't a Crusades or Revolutionary war simulator. Don't headshot the king/general gentleman's agreements went out of style a long time ago. There is a lot of non-F1 game play involved in taking down FCs in large engagements.

Fleet boosters are also identified via spies in large fleet fights, targeted and destroyed. Popping the fleet booster can also be linked to all the 'don't headshot the FC' fluffery. Will the next logical step be to create an indestructible fleet booster, so that big fights will happen? Then wing leaders and squad commanders - will the invulnerability then trickle down to them?

I honestly don't see a need for this type of ship. The given reasons for this special ship all seem to be (1) ego based and (2) easily bypassed with a generic alt.

I don't see any real reasons to have this.



I am sorry but I just don't agree with this at all, A player should not need to have 2 account to play and enjoy this game. I am not saying players should only have 1 account. I am saying you should not NEED a 2nd account just to play in any given game roles that are possible. It also one of the reasons I hate off grid boosting. If you wish to get involved and have any sort of success in small gang/solo PVP. You must have a 2nd account with a off grid booster toon. I just can not wait for when they fix it. Going to be so many salty tears for so called leet solo PVPer who will not be able to fly their ships without the "Pay2Win" system that is off grid boosting.

But I am digressing. Sorry


Edit add (my post got ganked)

You don't need a second account. Your account comes with 3 characters. Feel free to use one of those.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#14 - 2016-06-10 10:02:41 UTC
Oddsodz wrote:
...I am sorry but I just don't agree with this at all, A player should not need to have 2 account to play and enjoy this game. I am not saying players should only have 1 account. I am saying you should not NEED a 2nd account just to play in any given game roles that are possible. It also one of the reasons I hate off grid boosting. If you wish to get involved and have any sort of success in small gang/solo PVP. You must have a 2nd account with a off grid booster toon. I just can not wait for when they fix it. Going to be so many salty tears for so called leet solo PVPer who will not be able to fly their ships without the "Pay2Win" system that is off grid boosting.

But I am digressing. Sorry


Oh my damn, I are doing this all wrong for a decade now Sad

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Oddsodz
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2016-06-10 16:01:44 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:


Edit add (my post got ganked)

You don't need a second account. Your account comes with 3 characters. Feel free to use one of those.


Alas, You know about spies right????? lol, Dont matter what toon you are using. In the big boys/Girls battles. Everybody knows who is FC and what toon they are using.