These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

Damage dampener device to counter focus fire
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#41 - 2016-11-07 20:20:32 UTC  |  Edited by: PopeUrban
Danika Princip wrote:
Xiles Eilop wrote:
Has anyone ever considered the use of squads or wings that engage enemy squads and wings as a means to limit focus fire? I also had the idea that squads should have designed roles and ships within that squad get bonuses if they're flying a certain type of ship. This might make FCs have to make more tactical decisions as they assign which enemy divisions/squad their squads can engage. And then once assigned it'll be up to squad leaders to win the smaller squad battle. This is just a preliminary idea of mine but it considers two issues, focus fire and the importance of fleet organization/structure.


And how long do you intend to spend setting up your fleet to ensure perfect bonuses, only for the whole lot to break when you jump a gate and someone disconnects?


Fleet position dependent bonuses are a pain we're finally getting rid of with the command burst system. We don't need a more complicated finicky version of it. Danika has pretty much nailed it here.

Similarly, damage caps per ship are far too unreliable to be used as a metric, as the resists per damage type of any given ship can vary wildly, there's no good way for a pilot to tell if they're over the cap until they've already wasted the time it took to lock a target and shoot at it, and hope their combat log is quiet enough to see the zero damage number.

Damage caps work for structures because CCP purposely made sure those structures don't have any way to effectively change their EHP, and gave them omni resists. This you can reliably predict, in any structure fight, exactly how many ships you need to shoot it to cap out the damage, and that number will not change at any time during combat.

The same is true for diminishing returns. In a big fleet fight it's not going to be at all clear if your damage is falling off because of volume of fire, or because the guy you're shooting just has better resists, or because he turned on a hardener.

The only reasonable way to create any theoretical module or system that would limit alpha that is clearly readable for both the target and the shooters is a binary one that is easily understood. The only such system EVE already has built in is target locking. Thus, if you want to create some sort of system to discourage full fleet alpha, it has to utilize the targeting mechanics, and it has to clearly message what's going on to players via the overview/brackets, either some kind of numberical display when first attempting to target somethig, a color change of the icon when it is approaching/has reached the target cap, etc.

Whether or not there's a balanced way to accomplish that without completely neutering existing strategies is another thing, but honestly, the only logical place to think about such a mechanic is in messing with targeting, not damage, simply because targeting is a binary system.

if you're looking to change something systemically in something as large and complex as fleet battles, trying to add a complex system in the mix is just going to **** with people. If you wanna do something, it needs to be relatively simple to use, or nobody will want to use it.
Knight Jay
Doomheim
#42 - 2016-11-08 11:43:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Knight Jay
Donnachadh wrote:
Focusing fire on a single ship is not a game design problem, and it is not up to CCP to solve the situation. Focusing fire is a tactic used by players and it is up to you as players to find a way to deal with it.

Focusing fire onto a single or small group of targets is standard military practice and has been for centuries why should the game change to prevent this valid and valuable tactic?

Changing the TSB will make no real difference, currently they are not widely used simply because they break target lock for everyone friend and foe. Changed as you propose would likely make the situation even worse because every one would be required to use them to counter the other side. Just think of all the fun we will have hurling insults are each other as the two mighty fleets sit in space unable to fight because no one can get or keep a target lock.




Actually it's entirely a game design problem.
The mechanics of eve have meant that focusing fire is the most effective way of group pvp because the eve universe lacks some basic rules that make it inefficient . Most notably a Line of sight mechanics. currently all pvp consists of is balling up near a anchor and firing at one target. In a ball of hostiles following their anchor. Reality would make this fundamentally impossible because you would either hit each other well following the anchor so closely OR hit each other while firing or hit something infront of the target. Not to mention in Eve it is insanely easy to wait for intel on the hostile fleet and bring a setup that counters it. So range is uniform in Eve unlike reality where time has meant weapon construction and development leads to a variety of ranges. SO it is entirely a game design problem.
It is also a problem for EVE for several other massive reasons. Firstly it is not fun!!!! It is not really fun for people shooting to all be just following a FC like a sheep. Currently large fleet fights in EVE for the average pilot can be boiled down to this:

EVERYONE GET ON TITAN AT RANGE!
ALIGN AND TAKE FLEET WARP!
ANCHOR UP!
LOCK TARGET -----
FIRE AT -------
BROADCAST IF YOU GET LOCKED!
HE'S NOT BREAKING LOCK SECONDARY!
WHY ARE YOU DYING IDIOTS BROADCAST FASTER!
WHY ARE PEOPLE NOT SHOOTING PRIMARY!
WHY ARE YOU NOT ON ANCHOR!
OK THEY CAN'T CATCH REPS WE HAVE WON OR OK WE ARE NOT CATCHING REPS THEY HAVE WON!

That's it. Those are the main sentences you are likely to encounter in a fleet fight. And that is not good for Eve. It means that large fleet fights really are not interactive for the averaged line and file fleet member. They are just their as an extension of the FC's will. They are basically drones. And this game-play is entirely a result of not addressing the lack of balance to calling primaries. The result is that sooner or later people are fed up of going on large fleets. The result is game-play that looks nothing like the trailers that get people to start playing. CCP should address it asap. be it by adding LOS. collision damage, stacking penalties for incoming damage from multiple entities. damage caps while using active reps. or what ever else they can think up. Because this issue is probably EVE's biggest issue and we will never see a end to the gradual steady stream of people who get sick of it and leave until its dealt with. And yes that probably means seriously messing with the entire way Large fleets currently work and scrapping every current system or strategy large fleets have. This is a hemorrhaging player issue and the core reason for people leaving, once having a discussion with them what ever at face reason they give can normally boil down to issues with how fights go down and boredom of it. and that can be directly traced back to this issue.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#43 - 2016-11-08 19:47:42 UTC
...I trust you have something to back that claim up?

Can you also please tell the class the last time you went on a big fleet, and what your role in said fleet was? I mean, you're in an NPC corp, and were last in an actual group nigh on two years ago, so it's sort of difficult to believe you have any actual experience with what you're talking about.

Besides, I thought the usual scream was that the big blue donut killed all forms of pvp everywhere and that was why the game was dying, not that there was, in fact, TOO MUCH large scale pvp...
Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#44 - 2016-11-09 07:27:40 UTC
Erm...

The argument here is that we want more and more engaging large scale fights. Not less.
Some people (including me) are avoiding them, because they _can_ be quite boring.
Previous page123