Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Problem: pvp hesitation among pvp organizations.
Solution: A careful change to the games ship capture mechanism.
Tool: "Hybrid Module" example: Hybrid Afterburner
Effect: Reduces effectiveness of all forms of warp disruption when multiple modules of the same type exist with-in a fleet.

Perks:
- 1-3 pilots receive no change ( Pirate gate camping not directly effected )
- Fleets who have at least 10 engaged in system, or within a proximity, will trigger residual bonus ( if modules go offline due to explosion or warpoff the fleet on grid will retain effect for a period)
- Less noob FC panic
- Small gangs are encouraged to take risks as cyno hot drops, fights off gates, and stations, would not spell certain doom.
- classic baiting and hiding small fleets in other systems would be replaced by combat ability.
- More fleet engagements
- More kills for everyone
- Less cost to do pvp per engagement
- Offering more opportunity for skilled pilots and commanders to succeed while continuing to punish the weak.
- Loses effectiveness once active engagements in system reaches 50 capsuleers allowing bubbles and points to retain traditional results.

Cost: increase module cost to around 10 mill; Other effects can apply such as increasing timer on gate usage and docking access, allowing winning side a chance to recapture survivors.

Cosmetic: Post Ad in captain quarters screen: illustrating higher module cost increases viability of teamwork ( aka newbies can feel better about doing small gangs + several other funny Ad possibilities).


I've listed multiple ideas in short list form. Reasoning/ more explanation -> concept development I can offer to defend how this can be introduced and how its effects are positive. Such as working out hard values ( requirements( who what when where how); costs analysis; useability). I also believe this can open doors for developers in new production trees and content encouragement.

Wormholes as an example could increase in use if materials from there are needed. A role play argument can be that these modules are tech 3, showing progression from themes in the incursion, inferno, and odyssey expansions. Tech 3 being said not only would give people happy tingles but can even justify a small 5m3 volume of the modules to allow for storage in cargo hold for swap-out situations... None the less we want more activity and i think this anti point mechanic is just the trick.

"Basics" addressed

I don't think that problem exists.

Domanique you are the first person to say something really meaningful. Thank you!

An alpha doctrine is something that already exists and has counters and weaknesses. Notice how sniper fleets are phased out throughout. My presented concept is limited to the size of the parties involved. If i cyno in 10 battleships on your cruiser fleet, your fleet just can leave. if i cyno in 10 tornado, im still dealing with factors that a cruiser fleet can address.

I mention cruiser for the same reason ccp gives them so much attention and flexibility. However if you are talking about small gangs of BC fitting for alpha, i have to ask why is this not already exploited? It still is a good point and I'll be sure to give it more thought.

I can only offer the view of what i see on the western side of eve. if there exist lowsec and null spaces where several small alliances are fighting bigger ones and getting kills daily please let me know. As for most people i know, we have to roam with caution and avoid fights if we only have 10 or 12 people.... "only" 10 or 12 meaning gate camping is the best pvp we can get i think is something that can be fixed.

The concept needs adjustment and frankly I'm not in the know of what limitations the devs have in coding for something like 'on grid fleet bonus'. It has been mentioned somewhere I'm sure about reducing the range of fleet boosts, personally i rather not see gang link boosts reduced from system wide. Not meaning that as a rant, but showing how the mechanics may show how likely my idea could be put into the game.

Sounds like you are flying in the wrong space for small gang pvp.

First of all this is a general issue not a personal one. I make maybe the most compelling argument at the end of this. Feel free to choose to ignore room for improvement and if anyone does no see a problem with how things are then its pretty easy to remove yourself from the discussion, because i am asking for constructive feedback.

No where in this concept does it say any side is limited on the numbers they can bring to a fight... I specifically said a change would only occure after say 10 or more that are in a bubble for example. Your load of ruptures sounds more like gate camping and getting a few victims, which in no way do i see anything wrong with that. Still it overlooks what i was talking about... A fight is going to play out with or without points being on.... um thats exactly what i agree with.


As for Domanique's final issue, it is not a penalty placed others. What i stated was that the fleet gets a bonus ( i avoided saying boost), but essentially it works as introdiction nullifying boost. I also stated the boost is removed once so many ( say 50 ) players are tagged as having been engaged in combat in the system. This individual player tagging already exists thanks to the rules of aggression patch and like incursions so does triggers based on fleet size. THUS splitting into smaller fleets will not be a means to exploit it and it will not hurt the way "large" (easily over 50) fleet fights work.

And because it seems i have to say it; a fleet is those people you see in your fleet window. Meet the req, get the boost, same goes for everyone us and you guess it, if the maximum is 50 then thats a maximum of 5 fleets containing 10 people engaged in the fight AND no cause it seems i need to say it the fleet size does not matter nor the number of people in system so yes this means you can have 100s of scouts in fleet who do not engage. If that fleet is being tackled by 1 person they must all be engaged and on grid for that tackle ship to fail to land a point. OR it could be added that the effect only triggers with those conditions but also a certain number of outside engagers must attack the fleet purhaps to where the minimum would be that to which both sides get the boost or none do. Keep in mind the game now tracks who engages who and has a timer for limited engagement or duels, so my idea would be an extension of that information/ tool. Recall here i have implied that in 1 case a lone tackle ship would lose its own point if it engages a fleet of 10 people ( possibly excluding the scram effect on microwarpdrives) and the other case withholding any effect till the fleet is engaged by another of a certain size. In most cases the difference here would not matter cause the people with the larger number would win anyway.

Again this should do nothing to harm a much larger force from butt stomping a smaller one. Unless it was a hot drop of under the system maximum that cancels the anti introduction for everyone. Yes this would mean that titan and blackop bridges would need to be over 40 people to make things completely as they always have been. This is where we can talk about % chance to warp distrupt and where i ask people to offer ideas on how to balance it out. It is a concept so it can change like so that all the limitations are a formula of what is on grid and excluding what is in system. This realistically depends on what the devs more willing to program and so i'm trying to consider that.

Any ship that leaves grid should also lose the anti-introdiction boost. where they are then fair game as ever before unless the teamwork, that this idea helps slightly to encourage, succeeds and they warp together to the same location thereby possibly reactivating the boost if they meet the minimum. Which as i said, would not instantly remove the anti introdiction boost from those who remain on the field should your fleet size go from 10 to 9. And this boost would only remain after the fleet has gone down below the minimum for say 2 min putting the clock on the ships still attempting for kills, which easily can play in favor of either side. And if you cant figure out the effect will boost both sides that meet the simple list of conditions then now you should now that it does benefit any fleet meeting the minimum and whose grid ( maybe an additional for system) does not break the maximum.

A great FC could then take 12 people and engage 20 more freely. Superior numbers does not mean superior skill, but if those 12 could say kill the 20 and the FC knows it, but a scout for the fleet of 12 reports 10 more are coming and thus they would be stuck in a fight they would lose. OR if the fleet of 20 realizes they are losing and are then meet with another 10 from the side who had 12 the result is that both FC's would foresee this and neither side would want to fight. That is a situation that presents the problem of hesitation to engage, not just for the side that had fewer numbers to begin with, but with both sides. Now i'll take it a bit deeper. Both sides have scouts and both sides report more ships coming. With my idea it would make it so that this can still result in a engagement because both sides know that if the other brings too much, then it can result in a disengagement ironically encouraging an engagement. This also should encourage fleets to be the size of this minimum! All part of my intention for this mechanic, because it not only adds some safty so you can get more noobs to supply you numbers, but also should increase fights. So that boths sides do not have to fear the other of adding numbers in a way that is totally unavoidable after a fight has started.

Again a 25 v 25 would be the max i proposed for the effect or 15v10v25. It will not effect 3 v 10 or 3 v 15... those 3 hopefully die in fire! It would work on 15 v 30 and thus YES alpha can wipe the floor so have good scouts and FC, but fight!

I'm not going to quote your entire text.

The idea is purposeless. I don't say that because "HURR I HATE CHANGE," but because it is.

First you propose that a small group gains a bonus for being a small group, but the bonus goes away it too many people are fighting in system. You are aware that more than two opposed groups can be in a system, correct? So my small gang should be punished on one end of the system because someone else is running a 30 man gate camp on the other, and we're all combat flagged, for very different engagements?

Secondarily, if friends come to help, they come to help. **** happens, and when it does, it's usually bad. If your FC has made no plans whatsoever to attempt to extract the group if for some reason things turn bad, then he is a bad FC. This is why you bring force multipliers like damps and ECM; it's not just to tone down the other side, but can be instrumental in trying to clear the field if others start to interfere.

Finally, getting your ass stomped is the dice roll in EVE. Are you sure you can take that 20 man gang with your 12 man gang? If you are, then you take the fight and have fun. Sometimes you take the fight anyway, even if you're not sure. If all you ever do is sit around and wait to fight until the odds are in your favor, mechanically or otherwise, then you're going to be doing a hell of a lot of sitting.

I want to be sure I understand what you're saying.

You are proposing that smaller fleets be given bonuses to get away if they see a blob incoming because:
"Hey we don't want to fight a blob we should be allowed to leave if we want."
Is this correct?

This is a slippery slope that leads to miners being unattackable in high-sec. You can' t give someone an option to avoid combat they don't want and not expect it to be given to others in more and more granular ways over time.


It's not that I believe "everything is fine the way it is" I just don't see how you believe you have a right to chose your battles.

When dealing with human nature it takes more than new modules or alterations to mechanics to effect real behavioural change.

Not supported.

OP, your posts make it seem that you know little to nothing about small gang PvP. Given that this is the case, why is it that you feel the need to introduce changes to small gang PvP? There are already strategies and ships in place that will allow a good FC, with some luck, to disengage most of his force from a fight gone wrong. As Shah has reiterated multiple times, allowing people to more easily disengage from a bad fight simply encourages even more risk-averse behaviour.