These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Tidi is gamebreaking for the smaller side

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#201 - 2013-08-03 16:02:32 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Tidi works against the larger side too.

- Their titan gets tackled
- Pings go out
- They all start undocking from the same station causing 10% tidi in their system but not [causing 10% TiDi] in the system where the titan is being killed
- Titan is killed before anyone is able to load grid after undocking, much less join fleet and travel to where it is and save it.


It's hard to imagine enough force to down a titan that quickly that doesn't cause some TiDi. It's also hard to imagine that the defenders of the titan would all log into the same system simultaneously and just sit around waiting while TiDi was rising and their titan was dying. I'd think they would start getting carrier groups into the non-TiDi engagement system to begin landing reps on their titan and to start pushing the TiDi meter in the engagement system towards that 10% mark.

Even in the scenario where there is no TiDi in the engagement system and massive TiDi in the defender's staging system, all that has to be done is to fleet the appropriate people in the staging system and get cyno's lit in the engagement system. If your titan dies before you can even do that, then odds are that TiDi wasn't the cause of your loss so much as the efficiency of the opposing force. The titan is SUPPOSED to die in that scenario.

The term is "hit-and-run". It's not "hit-and-stand-your-ground-while-the-opposition-musters-an-appropriately-sized-response-force", but that is effectively what TiDi makes a strike force do, stand their ground and face the response.

Is TiDi good? Is it necessary? Is it lag? I don't know, probably yes to all three. But when it comes to the question of "Is it fair?", the answer is pretty clear.



Funny we lost a Titan to exactly that.

100 ships hitting a system will kick TiDi to 80% but only for a minute until the server catches up with building all of the characters and ships. That will melt a titan fast enough that mustering a savior fleet is going to be a near thing, Particularly when half of those ships are dreads.
Mamucha
Rookie Empire Citizens
#202 - 2013-08-03 16:24:20 UTC
Clearly Op has newer been in big battle in time before TIDI. Otherwise he would not claim it be gambrakeing. Old mechanics massively favored the side that was allready in system when nodes handling barrier was reached..

Not saying TIDI is perfect, but its much better then what we had before.

We were recruiting.
Gorishimo Watia
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#203 - 2013-08-03 16:27:56 UTC
Kitty Baugh wrote:
That's right, I said it.
I'll keep it pretty short:

Time dilation is gamebreaking for the smaller side, simply because it gives the bigger side 10x the time to ping and get people online.

Example:
-Fleet of 250 bumps titan out of POS
-Begins killing Titan, gets it to half armour before 100 of the enemy undock and warp to them
-System gets tidi'd to ****
-Before the fleet of 250 can finish killing the titan (Enemy fleet has no serious RR), Tidi goes to insane amounts
-Before the enemy titan or enemy fleet can even be further dented because of how slow it is, enemy sends a ping out and gets hundreds more people online
-More Tidi allows more people to get online
-The people who are much smaller, but would've gotten a monumental victory then lose because Tidi gave their opponents much more time to get online, get organized and get into the fight

Inb4hisecpropvpersjumponthisthread



so why dont you get to work and think of a different solution. just saying that something is broken and it sucks but having no answer to the problem is pointless and you suck :)
Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#204 - 2013-08-03 17:31:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Aiwha
I was at the titan fight. Tidi was only an issue because we were all in the same system. If we had been even 1 system over, that titan would have died in a fire because the CFC would have tidied themselves to hell and back forming up.

FC's knew that going in, but titan fights are always a good time.

Sanity is fun leaving the body.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#205 - 2013-08-03 17:38:08 UTC
Aiwha wrote:
I was at the titan fight. Tidi was only an issue because we were all in the same system. If we had been even 1 system over, that titan would have died in a fire because the CFC would have tidied themselves to hell and back forming up.

FC's knew that going in, but titan fights are always a good time.


Death to all cap ships.
BrundleMeth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#206 - 2013-08-03 19:53:42 UTC
Yeah I've heard it all before. EVE is the best, EVE is the only MMO like this, blah, blah. But IMO EVE is ahead of it's time. The fact is, there is no likely environment available today to allow us to play EVE the way it should be played. What do I mean? If I am in a battle with 4000 people I want to see the exact same response as I would in a 5 man battle.
Clicking my mouse and waiting 20 minutes or 2 hours for a response is not playing, it's crap.

And please spare me the "But the CCP guys work so hard" speech. I am not in any way dissing the good guys at CCP. I'm thinking we need another generation or three of hardware to get us to the level we would all like I assume....
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#207 - 2013-08-03 20:32:55 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Maybe we might wonder what the effect of imposing different limitations on players might be. For instance, instead of only allowing them to execute X number of commands per second, what would happen if there was just a hard (or soft) cap on the number of people allowed in a system?


So... first group to the battlefield after DT wins because the other group isn't allowed into the system.

Quote:
That would fix the problem, too. What would happen if the amount of HP for these structures was reduced, so that you didn't need 2000 players to take them down? What would happen if structures just died after you shot them enough, instead of becoming invulnerable and necessitating a second, pre-scheduled confrontation?


1)You don't need 2000 players to take down a sov structure. You need 2000 players to beat the 2000 players defending it.
2)Smaller groups without perfect timezone coverage lose. Getting notice, and being able to set timers allow people to effectively defend their assets. The largest groups would be the only ones with any chance to defend arbitrary systems with no notice.

Quote:
What would happen if something like "sensor interference" prevented players from locking onto anything if there was more than X number of players on grid?


Fights turn into Smartbombs-n-Bombs Online.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#208 - 2013-08-03 20:35:45 UTC
Isn't that why stealth bombers are doing so well in large fights as it is?

AoE prevails when you take "delay" into consideration.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#209 - 2013-08-03 20:38:29 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Quote:
What would happen if something like "sensor interference" prevented players from locking onto anything if there was more than X number of players on grid?


Fights turn into Smartbombs-n-Bombs Online.

FoF missiles might be useful again.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#210 - 2013-08-03 20:47:01 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Isn't that why stealth bombers are doing so well in large fights as it is?

AoE prevails when you take "delay" into consideration.



No they made it so that bombers don't decloak each other which makes them MUCH easier to fly.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#211 - 2013-08-03 23:31:38 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Isn't that why stealth bombers are doing so well in large fights as it is?

AoE prevails when you take "delay" into consideration.

No they made it so that bombers don't decloak each other which makes them MUCH easier to fly.

TiDi makes it easier to pop bombers, actually.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries
#212 - 2013-08-03 23:44:15 UTC
- Is getting more people on your side a way to win?
Yes.
- Am I lost if I can't get any friends?
Yes.
- What can I do if don't have the social skills to get friends?
Buy some.

CCP Greyscale: As to starbases, we agree it's pretty terrible, but we don't want to delay the entire release just for this one factor.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#213 - 2013-08-04 00:42:52 UTC
Lors Dornick wrote:
- Is getting more people on your side a way to win?
Yes.
- Am I lost if I can't get any friends?
Yes.
- What can I do if don't have the social skills to get friends?
Buy some.

Who are you, Gevlon Goblin?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#214 - 2013-08-04 02:07:41 UTC
Lors Dornick wrote:
- Is getting more people on your side a way to win?
Yes.
- Am I lost if I can't get any friends?
Yes.
- What can I do if don't have the social skills to get friends?
Buy some.


Yeah, because that's how you should pick a general or a CEO, by how friendly and sociable they are, by whether you would have a beer with them at the bar. Pfffft . . .

Do you really think Goonswarm wins this game so hard by being a bunch of happy-go-lucky uniters, self-sacrificers, and generally all around "good" guys? You've been meta-gamed.

Here's what general Eisenhower had to say about it: "This is a long tough road we have to travel. The men that can do things are going to be sought out just as surely as the sun rises in the morning. Fake reputations, habits of glib and clever speech, and glittering surface performance are going to be discovered."

The CFC and others don't succeed at this game because they have massive numbers. Brute force is just one of many viable tactics. They win because they put their egos aside and choose "men that can do things" over "people with social skills". Remember that.
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#215 - 2013-08-04 03:29:32 UTC
Ruby Porto wrote:
So... first group to the battlefield after DT wins because the other group isn't allowed into the system.


The first group to the top of the hill wins the hill . . . if they can withstand the siege/diversionary attack/assault of the second group. Is that crazy?

Ruby Porto wrote:
1)You don't need 2000 players to take down a sov structure. You need 2000 players to beat the 2000 players defending it.
2)Smaller groups . . . lose. Getting notice, and being able to set timers [hinders people from effectively attacking other peoples' assets]. The largest groups would be the only ones with any chance to defend arbitrary systems with no notice.
[edited for clarity]

1)Same difference. Personally, I think 2000 players should pretty much kill anything in game in 1-shot.
2)With all things being equal, yes, smaller groups are probably going to lose, but how does making them wait a day and a half to lose fix that?

Ruby Porto wrote:
Fights turn into Smartbombs-n-Bombs Online.


You say that like it's a bad thing.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#216 - 2013-08-04 03:31:56 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Do you really think Goonswarm wins this game so hard by being a bunch of happy-go-lucky uniters, self-sacrificers, and generally all around "good" guys? You've been meta-gamed.

Uh, does anyone actually think that? We're total assholes to fight, how else can "no fun for the enemy" be interpreted?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#217 - 2013-08-04 03:47:01 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
The first group to the top of the hill wins the hill . . . if they can withstand the siege/diversionary attack/assault of the second group. Is that crazy?


Well, I mean, I guess it's a buff to the ANZACs, but Roll. Your suggestion basically boils down to whomever can log the server-cap number of players into the system as soon as the servers come up wins the "fight". There is no siege/diversion, because the other side can't get in the system with a system cap.

And you don't seem to see the problem with that...

Quote:
1)Same difference. Personally, I think 2000 players should pretty much kill anything in game in 1-shot.
2)With all things being equal, yes, smaller groups are probably going to lose, but how does making them wait a day and a half to lose fix that?


1)So 2000 players should be able to kill the enemy 2000 player fleet in one shot? How does that work? Fleets of 2000 aren't formed because they're worried about the structure (and a 2000 player fleet will demolish a structure fast), they form because of the 2000 player fleet that's expected to defend the structure. The EHP structure itself is irrelevant.

2)The hinderance of timers is a defense that small, or lopsided TZ groups can use to not get steamrolled at a time of day when they are unable to fight. Smaller groups may be unlikely to win with timers, but without them, they don't even get the opportunity to fight.
Timers help everyone defend their space and stuff, but they help smaller groups far more.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#218 - 2013-08-04 05:21:45 UTC
Ruby Porto wrote:
a.Your suggestion basically boils down to whomever can log the server-cap number of players into the system as soon as the servers come up wins the "fight". b.There is no siege/diversion, because the other side can't get in the system with a system cap.


a.What's wrong with that? The "winners" can't stay logged in there forever.
b.I don't think we're clear on the terms "siege" and "diversion". You don't go to where the enemy is when you do those.


Ruby Porto wrote:
1)a.So 2000 players should be able to kill the enemy 2000 player fleet in one shot? How does that work? b.Fleets of 2000 aren't formed because they're worried about the structure (and a 2000 player fleet will demolish a structure fast), they form because of the 2000 player fleet that's expected to defend the structure. The EHP structure itself is irrelevant.


a.A fleet is not a "thing". It is an arrangement of "things". I think 2000 players should be able to kill any one of those "things" in that arrangement of "things" in one shot.
b.Fleets of 2000 are formed because they have a day and a half to get their **** together. If they only had 30 minutes, I bet you there would be less of them, and thus, less need for things like TiDi.

Ruby Porto wrote:
2)a.The hinderance of timers is a defense that small, or lopsided TZ groups can use to not get steamrolled at a time of day when they are unable to fight. b.Smaller groups may be unlikely to win with timers, but without them, they don't even get the opportunity to fight.
c.Timers help everyone defend their space and stuff, but they help smaller groups far more.


a. Do you know what else is a defense that small or lopsided timezone groups can use to not get steamrolled? Not being small, and not having a lopsided timezone grouping. Also, steamrollers are really slow. You can just move out of the way.
b.Smaller groups are more than welcome to go whelp a fleet whenever they feel like it, timer or not. Ask anybody.
c.So, what you are saying is that the game treats smaller groups of players unfairly, by favoring them in the defense of their assets . . . and that this is fair because . . . ?

There is some skewed logic going on here. On the one hand, things like timers, massive EHP for structures, structures-under-attack notifications, etc. are intended to make it "fair" for people who are trying to defend their assets, but doing that makes it unfair for people who are attacking such assets, and it does so in a compounding way, culminating in TiDi.

So, fairness for defenders. Unfairness for attackers.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#219 - 2013-08-04 05:39:53 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:


a.What's wrong with that? The "winners" can't stay logged in forever.


Yes we can. We hell camped the PL supercap fleet for a week before we let them go when they attempted to headshot VFK. We have the numbers to cap out a system for however long we need and nothing needs to be camped for a week.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#220 - 2013-08-04 05:59:50 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
a.What's wrong with that? The "winners" can't stay logged in forever.

Yes we can. We hell camped the PL supercap fleet for a week before we let them go when they attempted to headshot VFK. We have the numbers to cap out a system for however long we need and nothing needs to be camped for a week.

It's a challenge, isn't it?

Grath, you are clear to jump into VFK with all your supercaps now.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?