These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Shrinking Sandbox - Eve by numbers

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#361 - 2015-04-22 21:33:57 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

The problem is, Sov nulsec is becoming fun for less and less (groups of) players.
The only sure road to successfully living in sov nul is via one of the giant coalitions (as a member or aligned to) and as you said, not everyone wants to be just another number in fleet who is told what to fly and when. (Ishtars online has had its day and needs to go the way of Drakes online)


1)But that runs into the problem, for which there is no mechanical fix, that with all else being equal a structured, well-supported and smartly pre-staged fleet will beat a kitchen sink fleet all day, every day. The more variance you allow in ships, the harder it is for the FC to do anything and the more of a burden falls on the individual pilot. I have an irrational love for armor-tanked blaster Vexors, but if I bring one to a shield rail Moa fleet the FC will hate me and I'll probably get primaried off the field, because that's what often happens to snowflakes. If not, I'll end up having to invent my own tactics, and while that might be LOL fun it will probably not be effective, nor will it support my corp. Kitchen-sink fleets are OK when you have small groups of skilled veterans, or a drunken horde whose only goal is to go up in a huge fireball.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Sov space is unbalanced simply because so much space is controlled by large coalitions.


2) There is no realistic ruleset under which that is not true. However, by making buffer space much more difficult to hold, CCP is making coalitions less attractive. You can be sure that the leaders of any coalition have at least one member that they're only dealing with because of a perceived need. Take that need away and the coalition fractures. (RIP, Fatal Ascension.) That's the only lever that CCP has: if people want to ally, they will, even if that alliance is not supported by a single in-game mechanic.

As for small holders, there's simply no way that they can take and hold space against vastly larger powers. Under the current system, they had to bend knee. Under a more flexible system they can be the reed instead of the oak, and spring back up after a larger force flattens them.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Jenshae; Yes they can. People have it in their heads because the game mechanics allow super groups to control so much space with sheer numbers. That is something CCP could fix by coding. A few tweaks to the way space is taken or held and the whole game changes along with peoples "heads" (perceptions on taking space).


3)You have Alliance A, who have n members, and Alliance B, who have 10n members. Under what circumstances can you produce mechanics that benefit A but not B, given that B can split into 10 groups of n in game while still acting as a single unit where it actually matters: external voice comms, forums, Jabber, etc.?

There were too many quotes so had to edit a bit.

1) I agree, kitchen sinks fleet don't do well vs a good doctrine. The problem is, Ishtars like the Drake before them are currently the primary doctrine, nothing else is used. So the problem is 1 ship type is so suitable it excludes the use of other ship types. It is not "balanced" if only 1 doctrine is the "all purpose" go to. Balance would be 2 fleets of the same size and make up (logi, links, etc) facing off in say, Eagles and Ishtars and the Eagles have a chance to win.

2) The problem with the proposed changes is it removes the need for a coalition to hold buffer space. They only need to control it and who lives there, if anyone.
Small holders, renters and the like, will be under the same pressure they are now. The difference being, they will no longer pay rent but protection money. "Pay or we will remove you" made far simpler with entosis links and a few hundred bored line members.

3) Remove the ability for "blue invasions", you give Alliance A a fighting chance. As long as coalitions can use blue armies to subsidize fleet sizes, the small entities stand no chance.
The new sov mechanics involving the entosis link could open the door for CCP to make a real difference to the dominating forces the coalitions can field but they chose not to open it.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#362 - 2015-04-23 02:07:59 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Jenshae; Yes they can. People have it in their heads because the game mechanics allow super groups to control so much space with sheer numbers. That is something CCP could fix by coding. A few tweaks to the way space is taken or held and the whole game changes along with peoples "heads" (perceptions on taking space).
You have Alliance A, who have n members, and Alliance B, who have 10n members. Under what circumstances can you produce mechanics that benefit A but not B, given that B can split into 10 groups of n in game while still acting as a single unit where it actually matters: external voice comms, forums, Jabber, etc.?
Well I can think of some ways to reduce the power of zerg alpha.
Aborb logi modules.
Damage energy conversion modules, such as making shield amplifiers active with this property (the more shooting at you the less damage they do so they need to apply damage better, which would mean 1 up / 1 down and especially same hull types being the most effective.)
Worm Holes already allow for small hit and run tactics.

Within the bounds of EVE, a somewhat smaller group with a perfect composition and competant pilots will beat a larger group with a sloppy unskilled mass up to a point (n*10 probably being too many for this, however.)

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Commander Spurty
#363 - 2015-04-23 11:35:49 UTC
And this is why noob corp should not be allowed to post here.

CCP should make this forum hidden for NPC corp members (see Corp discussion for hints as to why this is a very tangible suggestion).

All we know about the OP is that his main is getting the shaft after 6 years milking the system.

Nice tears too!

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#364 - 2015-04-23 15:52:23 UTC
Commander Spurty wrote:
And this is why noob corp should not be allowed to post here.

CCP should make this forum hidden for NPC corp members (see Corp discussion for hints as to why this is a very tangible suggestion).

You already can make private chat with each other and post there 'HUE HUE! Those bears!'. Actually every serious corporation already has its own private forum.
But for some reason you go here to do it?
Now imagine that all your bravery and ... will not be seen to those who you are trying to troll. For how long you will post such things?

That's why your idea of restricting access to forum is stupid.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#365 - 2015-04-23 16:56:51 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Jenshae; Yes they can. People have it in their heads because the game mechanics allow super groups to control so much space with sheer numbers. That is something CCP could fix by coding. A few tweaks to the way space is taken or held and the whole game changes along with peoples "heads" (perceptions on taking space).
You have Alliance A, who have n members, and Alliance B, who have 10n members. Under what circumstances can you produce mechanics that benefit A but not B, given that B can split into 10 groups of n in game while still acting as a single unit where it actually matters: external voice comms, forums, Jabber, etc.?
Well I can think of some ways to reduce the power of zerg alpha.
Aborb logi modules.
Damage energy conversion modules, such as making shield amplifiers active with this property (the more shooting at you the less damage they do so they need to apply damage better, which would mean 1 up / 1 down and especially same hull types being the most effective.)
Worm Holes already allow for small hit and run tactics.

Within the bounds of EVE, a somewhat smaller group with a perfect composition and competant pilots will beat a larger group with a sloppy unskilled mass up to a point (n*10 probably being too many for this, however.)





Signal degradation based on the size of the ship and how many ships - and their size - are locking on it. Such that multiple ships on a frigate experience lock loss, tracking loss, etc, but multiple frigates could lock larger ships with less problems. Server side math for signal strength, sig radius, etc. It would be the end of gate-raep and in large engagements, the end of F1 Monkey derr derr derr. Wings and squads actually fighting wings and squads, delegation of divisions instead of one big FC. Way more immersive.

But no. So get back to grinding or ganking. Ho hum.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Jenshae Chiroptera
#366 - 2015-04-24 01:08:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Jenshae; Yes they can. People have it in their heads because the game mechanics allow super groups to control so much space with sheer numbers. That is something CCP could fix by coding. A few tweaks to the way space is taken or held and the whole game changes along with peoples "heads" (perceptions on taking space).
You have Alliance A, who have n members, and Alliance B, who have 10n members. Under what circumstances can you produce mechanics that benefit A but not B, given that B can split into 10 groups of n in game while still acting as a single unit where it actually matters: external voice comms, forums, Jabber, etc.?
Well I can think of some ways to reduce the power of zerg alpha.
Aborb logi modules.
Damage energy conversion modules, such as making shield amplifiers active with this property (the more shooting at you the less damage they do so they need to apply damage better, which would mean 1 up / 1 down and especially same hull types being the most effective.)
Worm Holes already allow for small hit and run tactics.

Within the bounds of EVE, a somewhat smaller group with a perfect composition and competant pilots will beat a larger group with a sloppy unskilled mass up to a point (n*10 probably being too many for this, however.)
Signal degradation based on the size of the ship and how many ships - and their size - are locking on it. Such that multiple ships on a frigate experience lock loss, tracking loss, etc, but multiple frigates could lock larger ships with less problems. Server side math for signal strength, sig radius, etc. It would be the end of gate-raep and in large engagements, the end of F1 Monkey derr derr derr. Wings and squads actually fighting wings and squads, delegation of divisions instead of one big FC. Way more immersive.

But no. So get back to grinding or ganking. Ho hum.
The risk though is that the alliance tournament winning - level of players make a coalition, wipe the floor with everyone else for a few months then all the F1 average people quit.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#367 - 2015-04-24 05:02:29 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Jenshae; Yes they can. People have it in their heads because the game mechanics allow super groups to control so much space with sheer numbers. That is something CCP could fix by coding. A few tweaks to the way space is taken or held and the whole game changes along with peoples "heads" (perceptions on taking space).
You have Alliance A, who have n members, and Alliance B, who have 10n members. Under what circumstances can you produce mechanics that benefit A but not B, given that B can split into 10 groups of n in game while still acting as a single unit where it actually matters: external voice comms, forums, Jabber, etc.?
Well I can think of some ways to reduce the power of zerg alpha.
Aborb logi modules.
Damage energy conversion modules, such as making shield amplifiers active with this property (the more shooting at you the less damage they do so they need to apply damage better, which would mean 1 up / 1 down and especially same hull types being the most effective.)
Worm Holes already allow for small hit and run tactics.

Within the bounds of EVE, a somewhat smaller group with a perfect composition and competant pilots will beat a larger group with a sloppy unskilled mass up to a point (n*10 probably being too many for this, however.)
Signal degradation based on the size of the ship and how many ships - and their size - are locking on it. Such that multiple ships on a frigate experience lock loss, tracking loss, etc, but multiple frigates could lock larger ships with less problems. Server side math for signal strength, sig radius, etc. It would be the end of gate-raep and in large engagements, the end of F1 Monkey derr derr derr. Wings and squads actually fighting wings and squads, delegation of divisions instead of one big FC. Way more immersive.

But no. So get back to grinding or ganking. Ho hum.
The risk though is that the alliance tournament winning - level of players make a coalition, wipe the floor with everyone else for a few months then all the F1 average people quit.

I don't think you would see many quit if actual large scale PVP was introduced to Eve. I do think you would see a lot more smaller fights and the F1 tribes would adjust.
Personally I believe most of the F1 groups would like to see some real action most only stay as they are due to lack of alternatives and because what they do now just works.
If being in a huge fleet meant you received drawbacks, like signal degradation based on how many ships are engaging a single target, based on what the target is, you would start to see more small better trained fleets. Fleet make up (players) would adjust to a mechanic like this in a positive way.

It could work in a similar way as the limit on assisting drones. So for example 10 people could lock one target (of the same size) and then everyone else is forced to select a new target. A quick popup "target lock reached" could indicate, "I need to lock someone else".
It could be scaled so the projected incoming alpha DPS is fixed to not exceed tanking alpha, eg; Ship A is capable of tanking 300k alpha, B is capable of tanking 150k alpha, C being a capital ship is capable of tanking 1.3 mil alpha. The total amount of ships able to lock A, B or C would not exceed the alpha tank of each ship. The biggest problem would be interceptors that have no real tank but can often speed tank what would alpha a larger ship off the field.
It would be a bit hard for those with lower skills as "projected alpha" and "tanking alpha" would need to be based on max skills + T2 modules but actually vary a lot depending on skills and fittings. It would also change/remove the "F1 alpha strike" ability of large fleets. Squad commanders would need to select a target for their squad, instead of a fleet commander selecting a target for 25 squads.

It would probably be a nightmare to code but would certainly shake things up as far as fleet fights go.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#368 - 2015-04-24 07:07:51 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

It could work in a similar way as the limit on assisting drones. So for example 10 people could lock one target (of the same size) and then everyone else is forced to select a new target. A quick popup "target lock reached" could indicate, "I need to lock someone else".

FC: Enemy fleet other side of the gate, everyone lock up the people below your name, and fill up each others lock "slots" so the enemy cant shoot you.

Invulnerable link ships, logistics and FC's - who needs to fit a tank module when you can render it impossible for the enemy to target you.

Quote:

It could be scaled so the projected incoming alpha DPS is fixed to not exceed tanking alpha, eg; Ship A is capable of tanking 300k alpha, B is capable of tanking 150k alpha, C being a capital ship is capable of tanking 1.3 mil alpha. The total amount of ships able to lock A, B or C would not exceed the alpha tank of each ship. The biggest problem would be interceptors that have no real tank but can often speed tank what would alpha a larger ship off the field.

Didn't want to kill another ship ever again anyway Roll

Quote:

Squad commanders would need to select a target for their squad, instead of a fleet commander selecting a target for 25 squads.
Or me, and other characters with names starting with A are just going to have their lives suck all that more.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#369 - 2015-04-24 08:13:45 UTC
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

It could work in a similar way as the limit on assisting drones. So for example 10 people could lock one target (of the same size) and then everyone else is forced to select a new target. A quick popup "target lock reached" could indicate, "I need to lock someone else".

1)FC: Enemy fleet other side of the gate, everyone lock up the people below your name, and fill up each others lock "slots" so the enemy cant shoot you.

Invulnerable link ships, logistics and FC's - who needs to fit a tank module when you can render it impossible for the enemy to target you.

Quote:

It could be scaled so the projected incoming alpha DPS is fixed to not exceed tanking alpha, eg; Ship A is capable of tanking 300k alpha, B is capable of tanking 150k alpha, C being a capital ship is capable of tanking 1.3 mil alpha. The total amount of ships able to lock A, B or C would not exceed the alpha tank of each ship. The biggest problem would be interceptors that have no real tank but can often speed tank what would alpha a larger ship off the field.

2)Didn't want to kill another ship ever again anyway Roll

Quote:

Squad commanders would need to select a target for their squad, instead of a fleet commander selecting a target for 25 squads.
3) Or me, and other characters with names starting with A are just going to have their lives suck all that more.


Why people feel the need to multi quote is beyond me. It makes it hard for those replying, maybe that's why they do it.

1) Not a problem at all - I wonder what ECM and sensor dampeners are for. Best thing about your scenario, while they have each other locked, they can't lock the fleet that is using EWAR and killing them. My 1st targets in that situation, any command ship followed by logi.

2) ahh dear me an F1 junkie (should have looked at your alliance name) - Alpha strike is not the only way to kill a ship, just imagine the ship is a TCU and you need to wear it down by consistently applying damage but remember unlike the tcu, the other fleet might be doing the same to you, hope your logi, ewar etc is better than theirs or they win.
I'm sorry you don't know the difference between alpha damage and an alpha strike but I think the possibility of not being alpha'd off the field would be nice, for everyone whose name begins with A Twisted

3)I never chose your name but I would think knowing you can't be alpha'd off the field would be a positive thing (silly me). When I am Fcing, I don't do A to Z calls, few (decent) FC's I know do. Ship type, range and velocity.
Realistically with a change likes this, even if the FC called target by name and your FC calls target by name, you at least aren't going to be alpha'd off the field, logi could actually keep you alive.
I know personally, once a target catches reps I am often inclined to switch.

Please, if you want to reply just to see your name in type, try to make it valid criticism.
Oh and just to be clear, as long as you stay a squad member, you can still F1 with minimal thought processes needed. You just have to stay awake to lock targets - and hit F1. Damn that seems awfully interactive doesn't it.
Or you could just stick with Ishtars and let the squad leader do everything for you Roll

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#370 - 2015-04-24 08:24:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Commander Spurty wrote:
And this is why noob corp should not be allowed to post here.

CCP should make this forum hidden for NPC corp members (see Corp discussion for hints as to why this is a very tangible suggestion).

All we know about the OP is that his main is getting the shaft after 6 years milking the system.

Nice tears too!



Sounds like a Grrrr hisec to me!

EDIT: I find the entosis link a bit naff in some ways, but I hope that the battles turn into battles for grid control, in fact I think it will happen in the fights that really matter, which will be won by the big boys using their big toys.

Its really what happens in the systems that do not matter which is interesting...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
BrundleMeth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#371 - 2015-04-24 10:24:59 UTC
Commander Spurty wrote:
And this is why noob corp should not be allowed to post here.

Get stuffed Creep...
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#372 - 2015-04-24 18:15:56 UTC  |  Edited by: xxxTRUSTxxx
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Oh and just to be clear, as long as you stay a squad member, you can still F1 with minimal thought processes needed.


that's total shite and you know this. not everyone pilots this way. those that do tend to get dead fast when things go bad.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

Or you could just stick with Ishtars and let the squad leader do everything for you Roll


how can you take a cheap shot like that when you know damn well as an FC and SC you need people to be alert and following your orders instantly. i've seen many FC's and SC's fail terrible because they let the lads relax and fall into that way of thinking. soon as you chill is when the bombs drop.

i know you don't like multiple quotes, i don't do it to wreck your head, i do it because that's how i answer comments in a thread.
you're still dead set on doom and gloom when most everyone else is already moved past the shock stage and is well into the planning stage.
EVE isn't dieing anymore than it was 10 years ago. old skool gotta learn to respect the new skool.
you got my 2 cents on all this already in this thread and without even trying i wasn't that far off Roll

change is good. fear not the change. Smile
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#373 - 2015-04-24 22:24:28 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Oh and just to be clear, as long as you stay a squad member, you can still F1 with minimal thought processes needed.


that's total shite and you know this. not everyone pilots this way. those that do tend to get dead fast when things go bad.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

Or you could just stick with Ishtars and let the squad leader do everything for you Roll


how can you take a cheap shot like that when you know damn well as an FC and SC you need people to be alert and following your orders instantly. i've seen many FC's and SC's fail terrible because they let the lads relax and fall into that way of thinking. soon as you chill is when the bombs drop.

i know you don't like multiple quotes, i don't do it to wreck your head, i do it because that's how i answer comments in a thread.
you're still dead set on doom and gloom when most everyone else is already moved past the shock stage and is well into the planning stage.
EVE isn't dieing anymore than it was 10 years ago. old skool gotta learn to respect the new skool.
you got my 2 cents on all this already in this thread and without even trying i wasn't that far off Roll

change is good. fear not the change. Smile
Your right, not everyone pilots that way, there are also who do take an interest and want to contribute the the fleet, they tend to be the ones in logi or tackle.
Drop drones keep at range, no need really even to have finger on F1. If the Fc is on his game, no bombing run should cause more than nuisance value. Sit 200 Ishtars 100 off X planet, bombing runs become a problem.

Valid change that encourages or creates content is good. What we know of the coming changes to sov is not valid change, turning Sov warfare content into FW content is not going to encourage anything more than trolls and extortionists.
As I have said before - A game does not have to close down to die - Lack of content + continued reduction in players = Dead
EG; I flew a neutral T1 Hauler out of fountain via delve (because I wanted to see how far i could get), 36 jumps through a lot of sov space and did not encounter anyone other than a rookie ship 2 jumps from lowsec. I slow boated through 90k of bubbles, with 43 in system and no-one even came to investigate. They knew I was there, I could see them discussing it in local.

That aside, we were not discussing known (or partly known) changes or whether eve is dieing or not.
We were discussing ways to make fleets and how they work more interactive and interesting.

This thread has taken many turns since it started, I think the recent thoughts on how targets are engaged is interesting .
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on what we are discussing.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#374 - 2015-04-25 01:41:24 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Oh and just to be clear, as long as you stay a squad member, you can still F1 with minimal thought processes needed.


that's total shite and you know this. not everyone pilots this way. those that do tend to get dead fast when things go bad.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

Or you could just stick with Ishtars and let the squad leader do everything for you Roll


how can you take a cheap shot like that when you know damn well as an FC and SC you need people to be alert and following your orders instantly. i've seen many FC's and SC's fail terrible because they let the lads relax and fall into that way of thinking. soon as you chill is when the bombs drop.

i know you don't like multiple quotes, i don't do it to wreck your head, i do it because that's how i answer comments in a thread.
you're still dead set on doom and gloom when most everyone else is already moved past the shock stage and is well into the planning stage.
EVE isn't dieing anymore than it was 10 years ago. old skool gotta learn to respect the new skool.
you got my 2 cents on all this already in this thread and without even trying i wasn't that far off Roll

change is good. fear not the change. Smile
Your right, not everyone pilots that way, there are also who do take an interest and want to contribute the the fleet, they tend to be the ones in logi or tackle.
Drop drones keep at range, no need really even to have finger on F1. If the Fc is on his game, no bombing run should cause more than nuisance value. Sit 200 Ishtars 100 off X planet, bombing runs become a problem.

Valid change that encourages or creates content is good. What we know of the coming changes to sov is not valid change, turning Sov warfare content into FW content is not going to encourage anything more than trolls and extortionists.
As I have said before - A game does not have to close down to die - Lack of content + continued reduction in players = Dead
EG; I flew a neutral T1 Hauler out of fountain via delve (because I wanted to see how far i could get), 36 jumps through a lot of sov space and did not encounter anyone other than a rookie ship 2 jumps from lowsec. I slow boated through 90k of bubbles, with 43 in system and no-one even came to investigate. They knew I was there, I could see them discussing it in local.

That aside, we were not discussing known (or partly known) changes or whether eve is dieing or not.
We were discussing ways to make fleets and how they work more interactive and interesting.

This thread has taken many turns since it started, I think the recent thoughts on how targets are engaged is interesting .
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on what we are discussing.


it's not taken many turns, it's always been about your view on how EVE isn't what you want it to be. but you refuse to play anymore so you cannot, i repeat! cannot make any changes to anything.
you can talk about it, but we all know talk is cheap.

you see the changes as a bad thing, without giving it a chance. you're saying you want to see a change that will make EVE for you what you need it to be but just won't give it a chance and let's see.

i think CCP have better intel than you do on this battlefield.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#375 - 2015-04-25 02:13:39 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Oh and just to be clear, as long as you stay a squad member, you can still F1 with minimal thought processes needed.


that's total shite and you know this. not everyone pilots this way. those that do tend to get dead fast when things go bad.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

Or you could just stick with Ishtars and let the squad leader do everything for you Roll


how can you take a cheap shot like that when you know damn well as an FC and SC you need people to be alert and following your orders instantly. i've seen many FC's and SC's fail terrible because they let the lads relax and fall into that way of thinking. soon as you chill is when the bombs drop.

i know you don't like multiple quotes, i don't do it to wreck your head, i do it because that's how i answer comments in a thread.
you're still dead set on doom and gloom when most everyone else is already moved past the shock stage and is well into the planning stage.
EVE isn't dieing anymore than it was 10 years ago. old skool gotta learn to respect the new skool.
you got my 2 cents on all this already in this thread and without even trying i wasn't that far off Roll

change is good. fear not the change. Smile
Your right, not everyone pilots that way, there are also who do take an interest and want to contribute the the fleet, they tend to be the ones in logi or tackle.
Drop drones keep at range, no need really even to have finger on F1. If the Fc is on his game, no bombing run should cause more than nuisance value. Sit 200 Ishtars 100 off X planet, bombing runs become a problem.

Valid change that encourages or creates content is good. What we know of the coming changes to sov is not valid change, turning Sov warfare content into FW content is not going to encourage anything more than trolls and extortionists.
As I have said before - A game does not have to close down to die - Lack of content + continued reduction in players = Dead
EG; I flew a neutral T1 Hauler out of fountain via delve (because I wanted to see how far i could get), 36 jumps through a lot of sov space and did not encounter anyone other than a rookie ship 2 jumps from lowsec. I slow boated through 90k of bubbles, with 43 in system and no-one even came to investigate. They knew I was there, I could see them discussing it in local.

That aside, we were not discussing known (or partly known) changes or whether eve is dieing or not.
We were discussing ways to make fleets and how they work more interactive and interesting.

This thread has taken many turns since it started, I think the recent thoughts on how targets are engaged is interesting .
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on what we are discussing.


it's not taken many turns, it's always been about your view on how EVE isn't what you want it to be. but you refuse to play anymore so you cannot, i repeat! cannot make any changes to anything.
you can talk about it, but we all know talk is cheap.

you see the changes as a bad thing, without giving it a chance. you're saying you want to see a change that will make EVE for you what you need it to be but just won't give it a chance and let's see.

i think CCP have better intel than you do on this battlefield.

Ok so you have no opinion other than one from a part of the thread, I myself and others have left behind.
That's cool, very uninteresting and not what others including myself are talking about but you are entitled to see and say what you choose.
The thread had gone in a different direction and was discussing what others thoughts are about fleet combat.. You are welcome to stick with your view without adding to the current discussion, it's ok.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#376 - 2015-04-25 03:16:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Dracvlad wrote:
EDIT: I find the entosis link a bit naff in some ways, but I hope that the battles turn into battles for grid control, in fact I think it will happen in the fights that really matter, which will be won by the big boys using their big toys.
The fights won't matter. Fozzie SOV with this Low Sec 2.0 will devalue SOV Null Sec.
"Hey guys, look at it this way. We can either sit here gate camping desperately to hold onto three systems and allow 30 people to make 20M an hour .... or we can go live in a worm hole, roll systems and roll in ISK. Then we can pop out any time we want and trollololo wave our Entosis magic wands and make people panic."
Dracvlad wrote:
Its really what happens in the systems that do not matter which is interesting...
Flip flops then deserted and barren because the iHubs are all gone.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#377 - 2015-04-25 04:11:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

It could work in a similar way as the limit on assisting drones. So for example 10 people could lock one target (of the same size) and then everyone else is forced to select a new target. A quick popup "target lock reached" could indicate, "I need to lock someone else".

1)FC: Enemy fleet other side of the gate, everyone lock up the people below your name, and fill up each others lock "slots" so the enemy cant shoot you.

Invulnerable link ships, logistics and FC's - who needs to fit a tank module when you can render it impossible for the enemy to target you.


1) Not a problem at all - I wonder what ECM and sensor dampeners are for. Best thing about your scenario, while they have each other locked, they can't lock the fleet that is using EWAR and killing them. My 1st targets in that situation, any command ship followed by logi.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you originally wrote, but it seems that from your original suggestion, you subsequent post wouldn't be possible.

Aralyn gave an example of the mechanic being used as a defensive tactic to prevent anyone in the fleet from being targeted by an opponent and/or using it as a defensive tactic to prevent key ships (ewar and logistics) from being targeted.

It seems from your original suggestion that there should be a limit of 10 people that can lock a ship. Aralyn pointed out that defensively, each ship in a fleet could lock up other ships in the same fleet, so that there are no more opportunities to lock any ships in the fleet.

How does an opponents sensor damps and any other targeted weapon work at all under that situation? How would the other fleet be using ewar and killing them if they can't even lock them?

How would you even make an opponent command ship or logi your primary target in that situation?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#378 - 2015-04-25 06:50:40 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

It could work in a similar way as the limit on assisting drones. So for example 10 people could lock one target (of the same size) and then everyone else is forced to select a new target. A quick popup "target lock reached" could indicate, "I need to lock someone else".

1)FC: Enemy fleet other side of the gate, everyone lock up the people below your name, and fill up each others lock "slots" so the enemy cant shoot you.

Invulnerable link ships, logistics and FC's - who needs to fit a tank module when you can render it impossible for the enemy to target you.


1) Not a problem at all - I wonder what ECM and sensor dampeners are for. Best thing about your scenario, while they have each other locked, they can't lock the fleet that is using EWAR and killing them. My 1st targets in that situation, any command ship followed by logi.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you originally wrote, but it seems that from your original suggestion, you subsequent post wouldn't be possible.

Aralyn gave an example of the mechanic being used as a defensive tactic to prevent anyone in the fleet from being targeted by an opponent and/or using it as a defensive tactic to prevent key ships (ewar and logistics) from being targeted.

It seems from your original suggestion that there should be a limit of 10 people that can lock a ship. Aralyn pointed out that defensively, each ship in a fleet could lock up other ships in the same fleet, so that there are no more opportunities to lock any ships in the fleet.

How does an opponents sensor damps and any other targeted weapon work at all under that situation? How would the other fleet be using ewar and killing them if they can't even lock them?

How would you even make an opponent command ship or logi your primary target in that situation?

The number 10 was only an eg. As I said further on the amount could be balanced by offensive and defensive alpha. It would remove the ability for anyone to be killed by a single alpha strike. It would mean logi and awar become even more important in fleet make up as they could easily be the deciding factor in a fight.

Simply locking your own fleet members is a good tactic, as long as you have the numbers and the opposing fleet has no ewar to break those locks. The idea of alpha damage lock limit would be, only ships with offensive weapons locking the target take a "lock slot". It would not affect logi.

Say you are in a fleet of 40 DPS, 8 logi, 2 dedicated tackle. You find an enemy fleet with similar makeup, they do not have enough in fleet to just lock each other up to stop your fleet locking them. Each ship can only have 1 target locked and each ship has a defensive alpha (maximum amount of damage potential that can lock it). No single fleet would ever have enough offensive alpha to stop them from being locked by an opposing fleet. They may have enough to lock up logi or the FC to protect them but then they can't shoot back at what is shooting them.
While they have their FC safely locked up so you can't shoot him, you kill the rest of the fleet. Some of whom can't shoot back at you because they are protecting the FC by keeping him locked.

NB; It would be a complete game changer and will never happen. Was just thinking out loud.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#379 - 2015-04-25 12:52:42 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

It could work in a similar way as the limit on assisting drones. So for example 10 people could lock one target (of the same size) and then everyone else is forced to select a new target. A quick popup "target lock reached" could indicate, "I need to lock someone else".

1)FC: Enemy fleet other side of the gate, everyone lock up the people below your name, and fill up each others lock "slots" so the enemy cant shoot you.

Invulnerable link ships, logistics and FC's - who needs to fit a tank module when you can render it impossible for the enemy to target you.


1) Not a problem at all - I wonder what ECM and sensor dampeners are for. Best thing about your scenario, while they have each other locked, they can't lock the fleet that is using EWAR and killing them. My 1st targets in that situation, any command ship followed by logi.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you originally wrote, but it seems that from your original suggestion, you subsequent post wouldn't be possible.

Aralyn gave an example of the mechanic being used as a defensive tactic to prevent anyone in the fleet from being targeted by an opponent and/or using it as a defensive tactic to prevent key ships (ewar and logistics) from being targeted.

It seems from your original suggestion that there should be a limit of 10 people that can lock a ship. Aralyn pointed out that defensively, each ship in a fleet could lock up other ships in the same fleet, so that there are no more opportunities to lock any ships in the fleet.

How does an opponents sensor damps and any other targeted weapon work at all under that situation? How would the other fleet be using ewar and killing them if they can't even lock them?

How would you even make an opponent command ship or logi your primary target in that situation?

The number 10 was only an eg. As I said further on the amount could be balanced by offensive and defensive alpha. It would remove the ability for anyone to be killed by a single alpha strike. It would mean logi and awar become even more important in fleet make up as they could easily be the deciding factor in a fight.

Simply locking your own fleet members is a good tactic, as long as you have the numbers and the opposing fleet has no ewar to break those locks. The idea of alpha damage lock limit would be, only ships with offensive weapons locking the target take a "lock slot". It would not affect logi.

Say you are in a fleet of 40 DPS, 8 logi, 2 dedicated tackle. You find an enemy fleet with similar makeup, they do not have enough in fleet to just lock each other up to stop your fleet locking them. Each ship can only have 1 target locked and each ship has a defensive alpha (maximum amount of damage potential that can lock it). No single fleet would ever have enough offensive alpha to stop them from being locked by an opposing fleet. They may have enough to lock up logi or the FC to protect them but then they can't shoot back at what is shooting them.
While they have their FC safely locked up so you can't shoot him, you kill the rest of the fleet. Some of whom can't shoot back at you because they are protecting the FC by keeping him locked.

NB; It would be a complete game changer and will never happen. Was just thinking out loud.



Not to mention that you're just addinging another specialised ship role like eg: Combat Recons (which everyone brings anyway) with a sig amp or 2 to take them up to the maximum of 12 locakable targets.


"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#380 - 2015-04-25 22:16:55 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


Not to mention that you're just addinging another specialised ship role like eg: Combat Recons (which everyone brings anyway) with a sig amp or 2 to take them up to the maximum of 12 locakable targets.

I don't see how having 12 ships locked at once would help you.. You can only engage the primary (1st one locked or selected target) all other locks don't count until the 1st one is dead or the lock broken in some other way. Then you select your next target, in a large fleet pre-locking 12 targets would in many situations hurt, not help you .

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.