These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Fleet design update

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Conogan Blitzkreig
Induced Warfare
#1 - 2016-11-18 16:06:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Conogan Blitzkreig
Squadron=7
Wing=7x7+1=50
Fleet=7x50+1=351
Armada=7x351+1=2458


Discuss.
Iain Cariaba
#2 - 2016-11-18 16:33:56 UTC
Why?
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3 - 2016-11-18 16:36:41 UTC
Why seven? Nothing in this game comes in sevens.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#4 - 2016-11-18 16:39:42 UTC
Conogan Blitzkreig wrote:
Squadron=7
Wing=7x7+1=50
Fleet=7x50+1=351
Armada=7x351+1=2458


Discuss.



Discuss what? It's not like there was anything resembling a rationale or justification in your OP.

I guess we could all applaud your ability to multiply things by 7 and/or increment by 1?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2016-11-18 16:40:53 UTC
Nothing wrong with current fleet mechanics, also you are expecting 10% of the average active player base to be in the same fleet?

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#6 - 2016-11-18 17:29:23 UTC
What did you expect? He even spelled his name wrong LOL

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#7 - 2016-11-18 17:54:40 UTC
Conogan Blitzkreig wrote:
Squadron=7
Wing=7x7+1=50
Fleet=7x50+1=351
Armada=7x351+1=2458


Discuss.


Why isn't the squadron 7+1? It need a leader like other size no?
Cade Windstalker
#8 - 2016-11-18 18:04:43 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Conogan Blitzkreig wrote:
Squadron=7
Wing=7x7+1=50
Fleet=7x50+1=351
Armada=7x351+1=2458


Discuss.


Why isn't the squadron 7+1? It need a leader like other size no?


If you take a look at the current fleet interface the Squad is the only unit within a fleet that has its leader as a part of a squad, so a squad would technically be 9+1 but in UI terms it's just 10 slots to a squad and one slot for Wing and Fleet commanders.

But yeah, OP's idea is kinda silly and pointless. I suspect the max size for a fleet is dictated more by programming concerns than anything else. Anything that itterates over all members of a fleet or checks each fleet member against every other fleet member will by definition run faster the smaller fleets are, even if you have the same number of people on grid but split between fleets rather than all in one fleet.
Gadget Helmsdottir
Gadget's Workshop
#9 - 2016-11-18 22:20:48 UTC
elitatwo wrote:

What did you expect? He even spelled his name wrong LOL



Conogan Blitzkreig wrote:
Discuss



Soooo...
About that name changing policy...
Blink


--Gadget

Work smarter, not harder. --Scrooge McDuck, an eminent old-Earth economist

Given an hour to save New Eden, how would respected scientist, Albertus Eisenstein compose his thoughts? "Fifty-five minutes to define the problem; save the galaxy in five."
Iain Cariaba
#10 - 2016-11-18 23:37:58 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Conogan Blitzkreig wrote:
Squadron=7
Wing=7x7+1=50
Fleet=7x50+1=351
Armada=7x351+1=2458


Discuss.


Why isn't the squadron 7+1? It need a leader like other size no?


If you take a look at the current fleet interface the Squad is the only unit within a fleet that has its leader as a part of a squad, so a squad would technically be 9+1 but in UI terms it's just 10 slots to a squad and one slot for Wing and Fleet commanders.

But yeah, OP's idea is kinda silly and pointless. I suspect the max size for a fleet is dictated more by programming concerns than anything else. Anything that itterates over all members of a fleet or checks each fleet member against every other fleet member will by definition run faster the smaller fleets are, even if you have the same number of people on grid but split between fleets rather than all in one fleet.

5 wings of 5 squads of 10 makes for a nice round number, computer wise. 250 squad members, 5 wing commanders, 1 fleet commander is 256 pilots max in a fleet. Computers like multiples of 8.
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#11 - 2016-11-19 01:30:41 UTC
Removed a post at the posters request.

ISD Max Trix

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE mails about forum moderation.
Conogan Blitzkreig
Induced Warfare
#12 - 2016-11-19 04:38:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Conogan Blitzkreig
Why! Uh... Simple gameplay/population/PvP mechanics... Because 10 is slightly too big requirement for a small gang to form, but 49/50 for a medium is perfect, and 256 too small for a full fleet.... >.>
Conogan Blitzkreig
Induced Warfare
#13 - 2016-11-19 05:14:11 UTC
And ccp should add bonuses from ships that require full links of 7/50/351 whatever to function. It'll make squads/wings form much more commonly/regularly and add incentive for realizing full fleets and just overall(especially in low sec) vastly improve the PvP experience for everyone. 7 is also a good number to use for organization purposes. Fleets should have 7 wings. Wings should have 7 squadrons. Squadrons should have 7 people including the leader.
Conogan Blitzkreig
Induced Warfare
#14 - 2016-11-19 05:20:31 UTC
It'll make space more competitive and dangerous and help things like piracy =D
Conogan Blitzkreig
Induced Warfare
#15 - 2016-11-19 05:26:24 UTC
7 is also a more geometrical number(north south east west up down center) and this is a space game
Conogan Blitzkreig
Induced Warfare
#16 - 2016-11-19 05:43:27 UTC
This concept can especially be applied to mining frigate. Say for 7 mining frigates using the full squadron bonus. That way if they get ambushed by pirates they actually GET AWY and with MUCH more ore.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#17 - 2016-11-19 07:20:47 UTC
Conogan Blitzkreig wrote:
7 is also a more geometrical number(north south east west up down center) and this is a space game

You forgot left right.

That seems more like a sarcastic response than a true rationale, which if so I'd wonder why?
Conogan Blitzkreig
Induced Warfare
#18 - 2016-11-19 07:33:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Conogan Blitzkreig
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Conogan Blitzkreig wrote:
7 is also a more geometrical number(north south east west up down center) and this is a space game

You forgot left right.

That seems more like a sarcastic response than a true rationale, which if so I'd wonder why?


East/west is left/right :/

And I was being serious.. just think about how 3D space works. It makes sense when you think about how ccp will have to expand/organize space as the subscription count increases(I hope o.O). I would go so far as to say they should. Reorganize the star systems similarly. There should be an average of six moons per planet, 6 planets per system(with like 15 asteroid belts and 15 comets), 7 systems per constellation but with 35 constellations per region and bring the number of nullsec regions up to 100. And make alpha clones really really awesome with their own npe three times as comprehensive and enticing as it is now. Ccp should shoot for 2.5 million paid subscriptions by 2018. Systems should average 150 AU in diameter.
Iain Cariaba
#19 - 2016-11-19 10:01:35 UTC
Conogan Blitzkreig wrote:
Why! Uh... Simple gameplay/population/PvP mechanics... Because 10 is slightly too big requirement for a small gang to form, but 49/50 for a medium is perfect, and 256 too small for a full fleet.... >.>

Where does it say you have to fill a squad to maximum?
Lienzo
Amanuensis
#20 - 2016-11-19 16:32:20 UTC
Do we really even need squad limits anymore?
12Next page