These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Best Feature Idea I've ever read

Author
B DeLeon
DeLeon Industries
#81 - 2012-01-09 12:07:15 UTC
With the possibility to counter somehow the exploit what others mentioned, this is the best idea I've heard a while.
Jafit McJafitson
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#82 - 2012-01-09 12:10:05 UTC
Eve has a horrible interface and is terrible for the pilot's spacial awareness. The only way you're really going to know where you are in a large fleet battle is by zooming all the way out, and the most you can really do when zoomed out like that is align to a celestial and lock a target, both of which are done via the overview list. But in a real battle you probably won't see much of what is going on around you because you will have turned off your brackets to minimise lag.

If Eve gameplay were actually like the Dominion trailer then that'd be pretty sweet, but we have to be aware of certain realities in this game. Fleet battles are about clicking items on a list, simply because that's all you can physically do in a high-lag environment. so you can forget all these fancy ideas about being Starbuck with your Viper squadron in the middle of a huge battle being all fancy

But for the sake of argument let's say we did implement this. How long should it take a sub-cap fleet of 300 welpcanes to lock and engage a titan?
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#83 - 2012-01-09 12:20:54 UTC
you disband your fleet once in position ..

Feature which beats other feature.. is bad feature.. aka... longer lock defeats fleet forming..
Cryten Jones
Advantage Inc
#84 - 2012-01-09 12:25:08 UTC
Jafit McJafitson wrote:

But for the sake of argument let's say we did implement this. How long should it take a sub-cap fleet of 300 welpcanes to lock and engage a titan?



I would say that the sig radius vs scan res mechanics that already exist would provide the solution to that issue.

Thinking on my feet I would say that each lock on a target reduces is's sig radius a tiny amount so that 300 cains locking a Apoc for example would make it the size of a pod but 300 locks on a titan would make no difference really.

Like I say thinking on my feet so please lets not descend into "ah ha you missed this or that" you get the spirit of my point I am sure, the exact mechanics.... who knows.

-CJ


Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#85 - 2012-01-09 12:59:43 UTC
I like the idea.

However, if group of friendlies is already on grid and NOT fleeted they would be able to target eachother in advance and adding to multiple targetting penalties before the enemy fleet arrives. Of course, it would hamper own logistic operations too but benefit might outweight this.

Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook 

DarkAegix
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#86 - 2012-01-09 13:10:29 UTC  |  Edited by: DarkAegix
Jowen Datloran wrote:
However, if group of friendlies is already on grid and NOT fleeted they would be able to target eachother in advance and adding to multiple targetting penalties before the enemy fleet arrives. Of course, it would hamper own logistic operations too but benefit might outweight this.

Being un-fleeted, they'd miss out on broadcasts, fleet boost bonuses, a neat overview, and other benefits.

Besides, if lock time were slowed depending on the number of ships locking onto a target, rather than currently locked, then targeting in advance will do nothing.

If, in the middle of a fight, the group of friendly ships (Not in fleet, for aforementioned reasons) constantly locks/unlocks its members, then their overviews will be a disaster, friendlies will be accidentally fired upon, enemies accidentally unlocked, and logistics will be both massively unorganised (No fleet!) and have trouble actually locking up ships which need repairing.

There's a way to plug all the potential exploits Blink
seany1212
Drunkendis Order
#87 - 2012-01-09 13:14:12 UTC
Miss Whippy wrote:
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.


You either shun or ignore the countless arguments against your unimplementable idea. OP is an idiot. If you set it so that people in fleet gain no advantage to locking each other fleets will just roam outside of the "fleet"ing concept, there's overview settings and standings for that...

As for "It would take up all their targeting" I'm not sure for yourself but I as are many of us able to target more than 1 person... In a scenario of a 50 man engagement assume 10 are logi, you could have 4 players locking each logi, that means there's already a deficit in how many of the opposition fleet can then use to lock said logi before they begin seeing a drawback, when you amplify that to a 400 man fleet that'll mean there would already be a locking penalty before the opposition begins locking.

Don't get me wrong, in a small skirmish fight it would be a small advantage, especially in the 20vs1 scenario, but even if you allow 8 before a penalty 8vs1 still results in the 1 being ******, then if you drop that limit your back to the 50+ arguement. Roll
Cpt Tirel
Institute For Continuous Glory
#88 - 2012-01-09 13:17:19 UTC
i like the sound of this idea Smile
seany1212
Drunkendis Order
#89 - 2012-01-09 13:18:17 UTC
DarkAegix wrote:

Being un-fleeted, they'd miss out on broadcasts, fleet boost bonuses, a neat overview, and other benefits.


Don't know about you but i listen to my FC on comms, not by broadcast...

DarkAegix wrote:
Besides, if lock time were slowed depending on the number of ships locking onto a target, rather than currently locked, then targeting in advance will do nothing.

If, in the middle of a fight, the group of friendly ships (Not in fleet, for aforementioned reasons) constantly locks/unlocks its members, then their overviews will be a disaster, friendlies will be accidentally fired upon, enemies accidentally unlocked, and logistics will be both massively unorganised (No fleet!) and have trouble actually locking up ships which need repairing.


That's what tab's are for Roll also, the server takes load from an entire fleet locking onto a single target anyway, processing 100+ commands to lock onto a single target takes a slight delay as it is.
DarkAegix
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#90 - 2012-01-09 13:32:07 UTC  |  Edited by: DarkAegix
seany1212 wrote:

Don't know about you but i listen to my FC on comms, not by broadcast...

And what if it's a blob and the FC yells 'Everyone! Target ARHA55-XXNRGAHZ!'?
What if some poor soul is bleeding into armour damage and needs reps? Will they yell into comms, spam into chat, die, or wish they were fleeted so they could broadcast for reps?
What if the overview is chock-full of ships and the FC calls a target, and you'd waste seconds searching for it. Much longer, amidst the busy locking/unlocking of your own fleet.

Besides, being unfleeted you'd miss out on fleet boost bonuses, which are nothing to be sneezed at.

Quote:
DarkAegix wrote:
Besides, if lock time were slowed depending on the number of ships locking onto a target, rather than currently locked, then targeting in advance will do nothing.

If, in the middle of a fight, the group of friendly ships (Not in fleet, for aforementioned reasons) constantly locks/unlocks its members, then their overviews will be a disaster, friendlies will be accidentally fired upon, enemies accidentally unlocked, and logistics will be both massively unorganised (No fleet!) and have trouble actually locking up ships which need repairing.


That's what tab's are for Roll


Sorry, tabs won't help. Undock at Jita 4-4 and ctrl-click all the ships you can, while constantly flicking between tabs. Remember that each time a locked target icon appears, you must close it right away if it's a friendly ship. Also, your FC just said: '*static*Hanargh*static*blae piloting the Dra*static* primary *static* exotic dancers *static* ARMOUR HACS'. What do you do? Also, primarying and all-vs-one no longer works under the new mechanics, so you're going to have listen carefully as the FC yells out 10 different targets. Furthermore, he'll be yelling out which squad needs to attack which targets. Unfortunately, no one is fleeted, and so there are no squads. Also, you're in low armour so you need to yell your name and ship into comms and/or type it into chat several times, because other people will be doing it too.

Quote:
also, the server takes load from an entire fleet locking onto a single target anyway, processing 100+ commands to lock onto a single target takes a slight delay as it is.

At first I was like Lol
Then I was like Straight
Then I was like Roll
And then I felt pity Cry
Apparently, this slight delay isn't stopping blobs and stupid 'All target one' tactics. I think what everyone is looking for is a large delay.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#91 - 2012-01-09 14:14:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
you disband your fleet once in position ..

Feature which beats other feature.. is bad feature.. aka... longer lock defeats fleet forming..


thats why it really shouldn't be fleet based. Not even lock based.

what it wants to reach is to discourage blobs, right? So do that, nothing else! Put a penalty on blobs. To many ships on one place -> sensor noise. (This even makes somewhat sense from the sifi perspective) Doesn't matter if friendly or not.

this will encourage splitting large fleets into groups (wings, squads etc).

edit: http://i.imgur.com/dfTcH.jpg Roll

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Mal Mandrake
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#92 - 2012-01-09 14:29:59 UTC
Miss Whippy wrote:
Mal Mandrake wrote:
[quote=Miss Whippy] the whole point of Chess is to send ALL of your guys after the King.



EDIT: Oh and clearly you have no idea about chess.


You think chess ISN"T about taking the king? Just because you might strategise and take out a queen and position yourself to control the board doesn't mean the point of the game isn't to take the king.

As for focus fire sucking, good luck changing that one. When you play battleship do you try and find all boats first BEFORE sinking any of them?
Metal Icarus
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#93 - 2012-01-09 14:42:11 UTC
this thread makes no sense... Wouldn't it be that if a ship is getting lit up by another ships sensors, it would be shorter not longer to lock them?
Halcyon Ingenium
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#94 - 2012-01-09 14:47:39 UTC
Metal Icarus wrote:
this thread makes no sense... Wouldn't it be that if a ship is getting lit up by another ships sensors, it would be shorter not longer to lock them?


Lots of noise makes things harder to hear, and see if we're talking about electro-magnetic noise. So maybe, maybe not. We don't have to worry about that because we are talking game mechanics here, not actual science. As long as the fictional explanation is logically consistent within the game lore, who the **** cares?

By the way, since we're already talking, do you want to buy a rifter? I've got the cheapest rifters in Metropolis. If you can find a cheaper rifter, buy it!

Pinaculus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2012-01-09 15:34:10 UTC
Rather than increasing lock time, why not increase miss chance exponentially over a certain number of people?

Then CCP could arbitrarily decide what the "optimal" number of fleet members was, without out and out forcing it.

And think about any large firefight. Sure, the first guy probably knows exactly what he hit. But does the 50th guy have any clue? How about the 100th? Would the 150th guy even know what he was shooting at beyond general direction? Or would he be just aiming at the big ball of explosions and flying lead?

I know sometimes it's difficult to realize just how much you spend on incidental things each month or year, but seriously, EVE is very cheap entertainment compared to most things... If you are a smoker, smoke one less pack a week and pay for EVE, with money left over to pick up a cheap bundle of flowers for the EVE widow upstairs.

Mirima Thurander
#96 - 2012-01-09 15:44:22 UTC
Jafit McJafitson wrote:
Eve has a horrible interface and is terrible for the pilot's spacial awareness. The only way you're really going to know where you are in a large fleet battle is by zooming all the way out, and the most you can really do when zoomed out like that is align to a celestial and lock a target, both of which are done via the overview list. But in a real battle you probably won't see much of what is going on around you because you will have turned off your brackets to minimise lag.

If Eve gameplay were actually like the Dominion trailer then that'd be pretty sweet, but we have to be aware of certain realities in this game. Fleet battles are about clicking items on a list, simply because that's all you can physically do in a high-lag environment. so you can forget all these fancy ideas about being Starbuck with your Viper squadron in the middle of a huge battle being all fancy

But for the sake of argument let's say we did implement this. How long should it take a sub-cap fleet of 300 welpcanes to lock and engage a titan?




i all ready covered this go re read the thread

All automated intel should be removed from the game including Instant local/jumps/kills/cynos for all systems/regions.Eve should report nothing like this to the client/3rd party software.Intel should not be force fed to players. Player skill and iniative should be the sources of intel.

Mirima Thurander
#97 - 2012-01-09 16:11:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Mirima Thurander
you scream exploits they all screamed exploits with TIDI to, it still got added and want to know something funny the biggest exploit
in TIDI didn't even get addressed half your fleet gets killed and poded back to the staging system with TIDI the have time to reship and titan bridge back to the fight with out missing much, see how this will make a never ending fight?




and yet people are happy with TIDI, i see the main reason people don't even want this looked at is because it changes the way null wars will have fights done, the biggest blob might no longer win and people hate that they have to think of new ways to fight


get over it and accept its a good idea to




try and split up the blobs fire to more ships




that is what the idea is, that is what CCP needs to take and run with let them find out how to make it work.







EDIT

damage that's the answer, locking someone up causes a locking delay over a set number of ships, and in less thos locked ships are doing damage ever 12(longest fire rate of a gun in EvE that i know) seconds or less the locking penalty goes away and it allows more ships to lock it and shoot.

it works as such

when X ships start locking it starts the delay. unless thos ships start shooting after 12 seconds more ships can lock it up.
then you throw in the bit of if x Ships are shooting the same target they start to do less damage/or miss more, so it counters the staggering your locking and firing.

and if your in fleet you don't get a locking delay on friendly's

pick that apart now and find me the loop hole

------------------------------------------------------------

All automated intel should be removed from the game including Instant local/jumps/kills/cynos for all systems/regions.Eve should report nothing like this to the client/3rd party software.Intel should not be force fed to players. Player skill and iniative should be the sources of intel.

Pinaculus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#98 - 2012-01-09 16:17:27 UTC
After a little thought, it would probably be more effective to incrementally reduce a ship's effective sig based on the number of ships firing weapons at it such that after X number of attackers the aggregate dps is reduced to negate the rough dps of everything over X. This would mitigate the power of super blobs, but reward intelligent fleet composition, and still allow target painters to counteract the blob penalty to a degree.

I know sometimes it's difficult to realize just how much you spend on incidental things each month or year, but seriously, EVE is very cheap entertainment compared to most things... If you are a smoker, smoke one less pack a week and pay for EVE, with money left over to pick up a cheap bundle of flowers for the EVE widow upstairs.

Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#99 - 2012-01-09 16:32:50 UTC
How about this exploit: In your fleet you want a few ships to be invulnerable. So what you do is drop those from fleet and have everyone in the fleet lock them up. Now when the enemy comes along those ships cannot be targeted in any practical time.

Other issue: Will it add lag by making the server check the number of locks? What happens if the number of locks on a target changes while I'm targeting?

Also, don't big fleets already use firing groups? After all there is no reason to use 200 ships on one target when 50 will alpha it.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Nullbeard Rager
Doomheim
#100 - 2012-01-09 16:55:45 UTC
Miss Whippy wrote:
So I was looking through CCP's list of regularly suggested ideas, and this came up.

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1043696

In Short the idea is this: The more locks that are on a target the longer it will take for another lock to be established. Sounds simple, but the it is utterly game changing for the better - In my opinion and several others. It would bring more ships into play on the battlefield, end blobs in their current form, make use of many many forgotten modules, will make 'Squad Commander' mean something, and will encourage creative strategy and fairer gameplay.

The best part is that it isn't a seriously radical change. Pilots aren't going to have to re-learn how to fight in fleets, they will just have to learn how to do it properly.

I thought this idea was so good that it needed to be thrown out to a wider audience. Mainly because I want to see what people's reaction would be to such a game-changing idea. Would you be a hater/rage quitter or a lover?


So...penalize players to "encourage", (force), them to use more disciplined fleet tactics and operational methods and protocols that most players, despite hating on/crying about blob warfare, aren't already implementing themselves because they lack the patience and discipline to do so in the first place as they want OTHER people to do so instead.

Bad idea, imo.

Field of Trolls:  "If you chum it, they will come."