EVE General Discussion

This could be abused on so many ways that I would get hungry and feel urged to order some pizza while counting 'em all.

besides... 3vs1 pvp isn't supposed to be fair.

Using mechanics like that to increase lock times would be a valid use of the mechanics as they are outlined here; but that doesn't make it any less an exploit. Just because something is a functional part of game mechancis, doesn't mean it is okay.

The idea doesn't really have any merit anyway, in my opinion; due to there not being any solid reason why this would be the case.

Analogous example: If you put a 10 gram weight on an egg sitting on a table, then proceed to stack similar weights on that; will the egg eventually break?

The answer is yes, and the function of targeting a ship is much the same. When you target a ship, you are defeating its tactical processor and defense mechanisms; the more this is done, the more load applied to the tactical processor, and lesser the capability that it will be able to defeat a second attack.

An alternative notion is DDOS. However DDOS functions differently. As the number of PCs trying to access the Server increases and pings get more repetative, the servers ability to handle all those calls and maintain security becomes much less. This causes the server to disconnect from the access point by closing its ports and preventing all connections.

Ships cannot do this, as the electronic defense system is really just trying to create either an interference in the targeting ships targeting systems, or attempting to mask its signature. The signature is a function of the ships mass, energy use, and various other factors.

Masking the ships signature requires shutting down essential systems, disabling weapons, shutting down drives, and reducing power output in the ships power cores. At best, a ship can hope to mask its presence and signature only a little without very specialized electronic systems, shielding materials, and cooling.

This is already accounted for.

That leaves interference with another ships targeting systems; and for this, we have ECM, which can be countered by ECCM. ECCM does not counter targeting systems in game.

There may be reasons why it could; but it is not intended for that purpose. It does-to some degree-counter Probes, which is somewhat ironic when considering probes and targeting systems use similar means to find or target a ship. This indicates that ECCM is a dual purpose mechanism in game, and may be modified to increase the difficulty of a ship aquiring target.

If it actually had this function, I'm sure we'd see it included in a lot more fits; and a lot more people would be using it.

Personally, I'm for making ECCM more functional. Electronic defensive systems are awesome, and I was under the impression that most people consider them absolutely useless for countering ECM.

As far as this idea goes, I'd rather see ships lose targeting capability, (scan resolution), as they increase the number of targets. That would mean boost the bottom end for one target ever so slightly, and apply stacking penalties for every additional target.

Might make target selection a little more of a thought process; though it will not affect the current selection of primaries and blob mechanics. Something else has to be done about that.

Any mechanic that is exploitable, is not worth putting in the game.

Logic would be the electronic interference caused by so many locking signals.

Or can simply make that penalty apply on fleet level - no "pre-locking" would work that way... ofc, then we might actually see no fleets at all to counter it

In short... this makes no sense whatsoever.

If I point a laser pointer at my friends forehead... why would it take my other friend longer to aim at his forehead to? I mean really? If anything lock on would be faster because my friend can aim for my point and have less error in movement. And we aren't even talking about networked computers.

If I have four computers that are wifi networked together (which you imagine ships in a fleet would be) and one of them shoots a laser pointer at my friend forehead. The other 3 computers wouldn't even have to lock on, they would be networked and locked automatically.


**** modern war technology on earth, which isn't as advanced as Eve does this. A soldier points a target and the missile goes there without having to lock, it just follows the first guys pointer.

I bet when you play an RPG you attack each enemy once then switch to another enemy, that way they all stay alive longer and die at the same time? No.. you mean you have all your guys attack one enemy at a time? Weird how natural strategies exist. I mean **** the whole point of Chess is to send ALL of your guys after the King.

Dear fool,

EVE is a video game.

Sincerely,
DarkAegix

it's a good idea, but still i think we can all agree that is would be a ***** to get working.
i've been sitting writing this thinking of ways to get it to work.

limit on how many ships can target you. ( people will use alts to max out the targeting limit )

limit on dps incoming per ship hull. ( whats fair ? upper limit vs lower limit. could kill off smaller vs larger targets)

limit on ships in system. ( we all know people will have a fit over that one, but our empire is bigger, we should be able to blob )

limit on ships in system. ( attacking fleet or defending fleet brings in a stupid amount of alts to lock system down )

we all know as an FC with a large fleet, it makes no sense to have more than a certain number of ships shooting at one single target, wings and squads are already in use and working.

the system in place works as intended, a few tweeks might be needed.

so yea,,,, a good idea for the smaller corp's/alliances/attacking ships to become more effective in a fight vs a larger corp/alliance/attacking ships. but very hard to get a fair working mechanic that people wouldn't exploit.

I congratulate you on a highly efficient use of words there friend :-)

-CJ

Yet you can't even name one.


[/quote]

This wouldn't make it a great deal fairer, it's not going to allow one ship to take on three unless that ship had a good chance of winning anyway. Three locks wouldn't not incur a massive penalty.

A simple answer to people's concerns is that it would take a lot of locks to significantly lengthen the lock time. Again it's just a matter of getting to maths right. For instance it would take at least 8 people to lock onto the same ship to cause serious problems. This means that:

1. Small skirmishes would be largely unaffected.
2. Fleets would gain no advantage to locking each other, as it would take up all their targeting to make it effective. If it means they all target their primary ship, then don't target their primary ship.