These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mirima Thurander
#121 - 2012-01-10 03:35:38 UTC
everything can be exploited till work starts on it that's what test phases are for, give ccp has a lot of people working on EvE right now would this not be the time to start work on changing the game up and giving combat more flavor that


shoot ghfddg


everyone shoots ghfddg


everyone hates the blob but nothings going to get done about it if everyone shoots down every idea that comes up because it might be exploited during the testing phase and if it cant be fixed they scrap it and move on.


let ccp decide if something cant work or not, the players can only talk about it, and it dose no good fighting over something that only ccp can decide


it took the CSM to get ccp to get TIDI going why cant we get them to look in to fixes to limit the 1000 shoots 1

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.

Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#122 - 2012-01-10 18:23:41 UTC
Potamus Jenkins wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:
Xercodo wrote:
-Good guys are decided by fleet, alliance member, corp member, blue (new ally system? see below)
OR
-Logi have counter measures to the "static" or "noise" and there need not be a mechanic that can be flawed like the way overview glitches result in ppl showing up wrong color

-The "noise" is generated based on the number of people on grid, and the stacking penalty will scale as such. The start of noise generation can start when there is 100+ (or similar) people on grid, meaning that 20vs20 fights will be left un-changed. Or instead of a finite number that can be argued as to the definition of a "blob", the equation is made exponential so that there is still a penalty for small gang warfare but it's so low that you probably not even notice but the larger the blob the worse the static gets and even adding "just one more ship" can make things that much more crippling

-Being in or out of fleet will not really effect this mechanic at all unless you have neutrals with you, and if you do then unfleeting them is detrimental to you, not the enemy, you waste target locks on your own allies and you increase the potential for friendly fire

-This is not an automatic nerf to large numbers of players or large alliances, large alliances that play smart will still win, but they will now be more likely to fall under their own weight as they would get so large as to not be able to coordinate well enough to fend of a lighter, faster fleet.

New Ally System:
Maybe instead of just setting them blue there can be a new "ally" system that gives an ally special privileges that just liking them (setting them to +10 blue) wouldn't have, for instance separate the mechanic that allows blue to freely take form jetcans. In the new system there will be 3 types of blue: Alliance blue (star icon), Ally Blue (Person icon, like we have with fleets now), +10 Liked blue (+ icon)

-Alliance blues are obviously in alliance with you
-Ally Blues are blues that can get access to POS shields and JB networks and be part of this new sensor mechanics as being discussed in this thread
-+10 Blues will have almost no functionality, can still be flagged for stealing but their main purpose will be to act as a marker for people you probably don't wanna shoot or just people you like that you might not necessarily want to give any rights to

This will help especially with high sec newbs that wanna do a 1v1 jetcan fight that get all confused when their blue isn't being flagged for stealing. lol


You see, this is the difference between people with vision and the cynics. +1




first you say no one presented valid reasons why its a bad idea, then you call the rest cynics.


several did, others did not provide valid reasons (ie its not "Realistic which is never a good reason) but several of us provided very valid reasons why this is exploitable. you make a post that says this is your favorite idea and its something that is easily exploitable people are gonna tell you.


its not our job to come up with variations on your favorite idea to make it not exploitable. thats on you.


the guy that came through and added his thoughts on how to get around the exploiting did a great job which is what you should have been doing since YOU are presenting the argument that this is a good idea, instead of you refusing to believe that it can and will be exploited. To write off the others because they are not coming up with ways to make your favorite idea work is not the way to go and is not furthering the discussion.



It's not your job to shout "Exploit" ever post either, yet here you are. I don't need to defend the idea for several reasons, I and most sensible people can see plenty of ways around your so-called exploits. No matter what we say to you it's going to fall on deaf ears, because it's obvious you're not here to be constructive. Also, there are people on here who are considerably more knowledgeable about the game then me, who have already put brilliant arguments and ideas forward, far better than I could manage.

Some people have even grown the idea into something different, which achieves the same goal and yet is more simple. There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism, but again, it's clear that's not what you've come here to achieve, by your own admission.

[URL="https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=82348"]UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch[/URL]

BLF
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#123 - 2012-01-10 18:54:29 UTC
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
you disband your fleet once in position ..

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


how about it doesn't apply to people in your fleet , corp or allaince ?
Potamus Jenkins
eXceed Inc.
Plucky Adventurers
#124 - 2012-01-10 19:07:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Potamus Jenkins
Miss Whippy wrote:
Potamus Jenkins wrote:
Miss Whippy wrote:
Xercodo wrote:
-Good guys are decided by fleet, alliance member, corp member, blue (new ally system? see below)
OR
-Logi have counter measures to the "static" or "noise" and there need not be a mechanic that can be flawed like the way overview glitches result in ppl showing up wrong color

-The "noise" is generated based on the number of people on grid, and the stacking penalty will scale as such. The start of noise generation can start when there is 100+ (or similar) people on grid, meaning that 20vs20 fights will be left un-changed. Or instead of a finite number that can be argued as to the definition of a "blob", the equation is made exponential so that there is still a penalty for small gang warfare but it's so low that you probably not even notice but the larger the blob the worse the static gets and even adding "just one more ship" can make things that much more crippling

-Being in or out of fleet will not really effect this mechanic at all unless you have neutrals with you, and if you do then unfleeting them is detrimental to you, not the enemy, you waste target locks on your own allies and you increase the potential for friendly fire

-This is not an automatic nerf to large numbers of players or large alliances, large alliances that play smart will still win, but they will now be more likely to fall under their own weight as they would get so large as to not be able to coordinate well enough to fend of a lighter, faster fleet.

New Ally System:
Maybe instead of just setting them blue there can be a new "ally" system that gives an ally special privileges that just liking them (setting them to +10 blue) wouldn't have, for instance separate the mechanic that allows blue to freely take form jetcans. In the new system there will be 3 types of blue: Alliance blue (star icon), Ally Blue (Person icon, like we have with fleets now), +10 Liked blue (+ icon)

-Alliance blues are obviously in alliance with you
-Ally Blues are blues that can get access to POS shields and JB networks and be part of this new sensor mechanics as being discussed in this thread
-+10 Blues will have almost no functionality, can still be flagged for stealing but their main purpose will be to act as a marker for people you probably don't wanna shoot or just people you like that you might not necessarily want to give any rights to

This will help especially with high sec newbs that wanna do a 1v1 jetcan fight that get all confused when their blue isn't being flagged for stealing. lol


You see, this is the difference between people with vision and the cynics. +1




first you say no one presented valid reasons why its a bad idea, then you call the rest cynics.


several did, others did not provide valid reasons (ie its not "Realistic which is never a good reason) but several of us provided very valid reasons why this is exploitable. you make a post that says this is your favorite idea and its something that is easily exploitable people are gonna tell you.


its not our job to come up with variations on your favorite idea to make it not exploitable. thats on you.


the guy that came through and added his thoughts on how to get around the exploiting did a great job which is what you should have been doing since YOU are presenting the argument that this is a good idea, instead of you refusing to believe that it can and will be exploited. To write off the others because they are not coming up with ways to make your favorite idea work is not the way to go and is not furthering the discussion.



It's not your job to shout "Exploit" ever post either, yet here you are. I don't need to defend the idea for several reasons, I and most sensible people can see plenty of ways around your so-called exploits. No matter what we say to you it's going to fall on deaf ears, because it's obvious you're not here to be constructive. Also, there are people on here who are considerably more knowledgeable about the game then me, who have already put brilliant arguments and ideas forward, far better than I could manage.

Some people have even grown the idea into something different, which achieves the same goal and yet is more simple. There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism, but again, it's clear that's not what you've come here to achieve, by your own admission.




i thought i was very clear and constructive with why using fleet status as a determining factor for the server to determine "friendly" or not combined with your stacking idea was not a good one. I didnt flame or troll or anything.. I dont know how im shouting exploit every post as this is the only time ive ever engaged in a discussion like this.

My last comment was about your defensiveness towards people with differing opinions than yours on the topic. To present a topic for discussion and not be willing to engage in constructive conversation which is exactly what you are doing and then claim its the others (read people that disagree with you) who are not being constructive is helping the discussion. I broke down why this is easily exploitable and even offerred ideas on what could possibly be done to lessen the likely hood of exploitation (enhance the function of a fleet to make it more worthwhile to counter the benefits OF NOT being in a fleet that will appear if a game mechanic such as this was introduced.)

Anyways none of that matters I shouldnt have called you out for your reaction to people disagreeing with you, it did not move the discussion forward.




peace
Nyssa Litari
Doomheim
#125 - 2012-01-10 19:15:47 UTC
First of all, increasing the lock time because someone else has the target locked is ridiculous. If anything, if one ship in the fleet has a target lock, that ship's computer ought to communicate the lock to all the other ships in the fleet through sensor linking. Artificially making it take longer just makes your game easier while defying expectations about how ships with targeting computers ought to work.

How about instead we fix E-War and make it a bigger part of the game? Make ECM something like an RR function. Make sensor damping work properly again. There ought to be a way to balance e-war and sensor / tracking so that it yields something like the hoped for results.

Another thing CCP talked about at one point was formations. That could also be used to make squad-on-squad battles more common. Having said all that...

Focused fire just makes sense. Deal with it.
Deviana Sevidon
Jades Falcon Guards
#126 - 2012-01-10 19:36:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Deviana Sevidon
I might be interesting to a have a stacking penalty on incoming damage, the more ships are firing on a single ship, the less damage actually gets through, with fleet commander and squad commander skills reducing the penalty for their own squads and wings.

Balancing this would be far from easy, especially when you have to consider remote repair effects, because with them some targets might become near impossible to destroy.

Edit:

If at the same time the effects of remote repair are also limited then it become viable again to use local armor repairers or shield boosters.

....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced.

Rath Kelbore
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#127 - 2012-01-10 19:40:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Rath Kelbore
Disclaimer: I didn't read the whole thread, this may be redundant.

I am in favor of doing things that reduce the effectiveness of the blob and the simplistic fleet battles where everyone shoots the primary. However it seems too easily exploitable.

How would you prevent people from not fleeting and everyone targeting each other up thereby increasing the lock time for the persons trying to engage them?

I saw something about how that would clutter up the overview or whatever, no it wouldn't. Have blues not show up on one overview tab, have only blues show up in another, click blue tab, target people up, click non blue tab, fight.

This problem may have already been addressed but as I said before, I didn't read the whole thread.

Even in the above situation, it would at least make it more difficult for everyone to shoot at 1 ship, which is probably a good thing.

Overall it seems like a decent idea but there would have to be a better way of determining "friendly" locks.

Edit: Using fleet corp alliance, and/or standings to determine friendly might be a move in the right direction. I imagine someone can come up with a way to exploit it though. Anyone?

I plan on living forever.......so far, so good.

Zyress
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#128 - 2012-01-10 22:18:35 UTC
I don't like it, in small gang fights you may have tackle, dps, and ewar, and the reason you brought this nice balanced fleet is because they all have a role to do in killing the prey, making it harder for multiple ships to lock one target hinders these specialty roles in small gangs as well as blobs. I understand the hatred of blob warfare but don't harsh the small gang warfare trying to fix it.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#129 - 2012-01-10 22:27:24 UTC
DarkAegix wrote:
Syphon Lodian wrote:
I like this idea.

My idea of fleet fights is basically 50 Maelstroms picking a primary, then 50 people press F1. Then you go to secondary, Press F1. It's really stupid, and eliminates the whole point of having a Fleet with Wings, and Squadrons.

Like you said, fleet flights should consist of squadrons fighting other squadrons. Every time I see a video of a fleet fight.. it's just like I said before.. 50 Maelstroms humping each other shooting at 50 other Maelstroms humping each other.

Yes.
One thousand times yes.


There should also be a penalty for ships humping each other in a very close blob. It looks stupid, requires no tactical thought and breaks the suspension of disbelief for players.


Which brings us back around to the potential uses of a "Formation" system in EVE. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#130 - 2012-01-10 22:34:20 UTC
Rath Kelbore wrote:
Disclaimer: I didn't read the whole thread, this may be redundant.

I am in favor of doing things that reduce the effectiveness of the blob and the simplistic fleet battles where everyone shoots the primary. However it seems too easily exploitable.

How would you prevent people from not fleeting and everyone targeting each other up thereby increasing the lock time for the persons trying to engage them?

I saw something about how that would clutter up the overview or whatever, no it wouldn't. Have blues not show up on one overview tab, have only blues show up in another, click blue tab, target people up, click non blue tab, fight.

This problem may have already been addressed but as I said before, I didn't read the whole thread.

Even in the above situation, it would at least make it more difficult for everyone to shoot at 1 ship, which is probably a good thing.

Overall it seems like a decent idea but there would have to be a better way of determining "friendly" locks.

Edit: Using fleet corp alliance, and/or standings to determine friendly might be a move in the right direction. I imagine someone can come up with a way to exploit it though. Anyone?


If everyone locked each other up in advance simply to slow down the opposing fleet the sheer volume of friendly fire incidents would be overwhelming... overwhelmingly hilarious. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

FeralShadow
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#131 - 2012-01-10 23:16:20 UTC
Yes, it's been commented about before..... Think of if you have a fleet and instead of allowing a hodgepodge of ships to fill the fleet, the fleet's composition is set. For example what if for a fleet where a squad has 11 members (1 squad command, 10 members) not everybody can bring a dps boat. The squad has slots to fill, one command slot, 3 logistics slots, 2 EWAR spots, and 5 dps slots. Ships can have a pre-designated role... if you fly a drake for instance, it will always take a dps slot, even if you fit it all out with ewar. Flying a guardian would always take a logistics slot, even if you fit it all out with autocannons for some stupid reason. In this way, if you have 20 people with drakes wanting to fly, you must split them into 4 separate fleets.

On first glance you might think "what a pain in the ass" but we're talking about making fleets variable and trying to find ways to incentivize non-blob warfare. This does just that, where they could coordinate in 4 separate fleets if they were good, but maybe 9 times out of 10 they would just go with a command ship, logistics, ewar, and dps ships.

TL;DR - Forcing certain fleet role ratios may be a way to counter LOLBLOBage

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#132 - 2012-01-10 23:24:33 UTC
FeralShadow wrote:
Yes, it's been commented about before..... Think of if you have a fleet and instead of allowing a hodgepodge of ships to fill the fleet, the fleet's composition is set. For example what if for a fleet where a squad has 11 members (1 squad command, 10 members) not everybody can bring a dps boat. The squad has slots to fill, one command slot, 3 logistics slots, 2 EWAR spots, and 5 dps slots. Ships can have a pre-designated role... if you fly a drake for instance, it will always take a dps slot, even if you fit it all out with ewar. Flying a guardian would always take a logistics slot, even if you fit it all out with autocannons for some stupid reason. In this way, if you have 20 people with drakes wanting to fly, you must split them into 4 separate fleets.

On first glance you might think "what a pain in the ass" but we're talking about making fleets variable and trying to find ways to incentivize non-blob warfare. This does just that, where they could coordinate in 4 separate fleets if they were good, but maybe 9 times out of 10 they would just go with a command ship, logistics, ewar, and dps ships.

TL;DR - Forcing certain fleet role ratios may be a way to counter LOLBLOBage


variability by forcing cookie-cutter setups ? Dont know but it seems wrong.
FeralShadow
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#133 - 2012-01-10 23:26:22 UTC
Yes, I won't argue that it seems wrong and, in a way, not in the spirit of the Eve sandbox, but it would work effectively.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#134 - 2012-01-10 23:32:26 UTC
FeralShadow wrote:
Yes, I won't argue that it seems wrong and, in a way, not in the spirit of the Eve sandbox, but it would work effectively.


well there is several ideas which will work effectively against "some features". Question is why its needed ?
Sure null blobwars, hotdrops 500 ships on one drake in null/low etc. is really boring .. but it is the way it is..
Aestivalis Saidrian
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#135 - 2012-01-10 23:41:11 UTC
No.

Just no.

If your fleet is linked up to the point of knowing what someone else's hull, armor and shield amounts are, you WILL be sharing targeting data. In fact, if anything, you'd get better lock on times as the amount of sensors on target would light up the target like a goddamn christmas tree in the middle of July.

I mean, let's go with the basics.

There are four sensor types in EVE that can be boiled down to this.
Gravometric - LOOKIT THAT. THAT SHIP HAS ENOUGH MASS TO DISTORT GRAVITY. ITS RIGHT THERE.
LADAR - IT SHOOTS A LASER AT THE TARGET. DOES THE LASER COME BACK? YES? TARGET LOCKED.
RADAR - SHOOT SOME RADIOS AT IT. BLAST THEM WITH BAD JPOP. DOES IT COME BACK EVEN WORSE? YES? TARGET LOCKED.
whateverthefuckthe Minmatar use... Probably a guy in a crow's nest or something with a telescope screaming rage and obscenities down a copper tube to the guys in gunnery who use hand cranks to rotate and align the turret. REGARDLESS. IS IT THERE? YES. SHOOT IT. WHAT DO YOU MEAN ITS NOT ****** THERE YOU ******************* SHOOT IT. ****!

As for "Blob Tactics." All I hear is "Baww, the enemy had more people and a good doctrine."

Which is to say, They fight like Soldiers. Professionals who use proven gear using proven tactics. Stop fighting like warriors who are in it for the dickwagging contests. Want to fight the blob? Get your own fleet together. Establish a doctrine, get people in the ships that are required for the doctrine and go from there.

"But that's blob warfare!" So? Deal with it. Stop playing WoW in a fleet fight and start playing Soldiers in a Fleet Fight and you might actually get somewhere.

Killmails are the worse feature in EVE.
DarkAegix
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#136 - 2012-01-11 00:15:25 UTC
Aestivalis Saidrian wrote:

If your fleet is linked up to the point of knowing what someone else's hull, armor and shield amounts are, you WILL be sharing targeting data. In fact, if anything, you'd get better lock on times as the amount of sensors on target would light up the target like a goddamn christmas tree in the middle of July.

It's a game.

Quote:
Gravometric - LOOKIT THAT. THAT SHIP HAS ENOUGH MASS TO DISTORT GRAVITY. ITS RIGHT THERE.
LADAR - IT SHOOTS A LASER AT THE TARGET. DOES THE LASER COME BACK? YES? TARGET LOCKED.
RADAR - SHOOT SOME RADIOS AT IT. BLAST THEM WITH BAD JPOP. DOES IT COME BACK EVEN WORSE? YES? TARGET LOCKED.
whateverthefuckthe Minmatar use... Probably a guy in a crow's nest or something with a telescope screaming rage and obscenities down a copper tube to the guys in gunnery who use hand cranks to rotate and align the turret. REGARDLESS. IS IT THERE? YES. SHOOT IT. WHAT DO YOU MEAN ITS NOT ****** THERE YOU ******************* SHOOT IT. ****!

Use your imagination.
Gravimetric - The micro-scale gravimeter probes used to measure their own acceleration towards the target ship, thus calculate gravity, begin to collide with other probes due to the gravity field drawing them together.

Ladar - The huge number of lasers colliding with the target ship interferes with the wavelengths of each beam. The changed wavelength leads to unexpected diffraction occurs as the lasers pass through the gaps of the target ship's shields, leading to scrambled data.

Radar - Radio waves, upon passing through the target ship's shields, slightly deteriorate in their consistency and trajectory, as they are refracted. As this deterioration takes place, the shields of the target ship begin to vibrate ever so slightly, leading to greater deterioration experienced per extra radio wave.

Magnetometric (Measuring magnitude and direction of EM field) - Electromagnetic pulses fired off by the ship targeting interfere with other ships attempting to target. False EM fields are detected as target ships, but cannot be verified, leading to a greater amount of target validation being necessary, thus increasing lock time.

Use your own imagination to link these together, too. EM fields destroying gravimetric probes, ladar beams diffracting further when radio waves vibrate shields, EM fields altering the consistency of shields as ladar beams pass through them, etc.

Honestly, anyone attempting to attack this idea based on 'It doesn't make any sense based on my understanding of EVE'S PERFECT PHYSICS SIMULATION' is foolish beyond any description.
Aestivalis Saidrian
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#137 - 2012-01-11 00:40:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Aestivalis Saidrian
Nothing that wouldn't be accounted for after hundreds of years of using the same damn tech and ships. Hell, it'd be a simple software update. Add in visual detection methods such as cameras with object recognition software, and there you go. Main sensor suite to go find it, camera to make sure its there.

And, to completely shut down every one of your ideas, the concept of "Listen-Kill."

Listen-Kill is a system of tracking where the target's emissions to lock-on guide the aggressor's sensors and missiles. The only way to not get owned by a Listen-Kill system is to not lock on at all.

An idea of how Listen-Kill works today is let's take two jet fighter craft today. They are fighting for whatever reason. Both fighters turn their radar on, and thus find eachother blazingly quick and proceed to blow eachother up. (Remember, radar detetcts by broadcasting. Software today can pick up someone else's radar waves and tell you where they are.)

Someone using Listen Kill would just look for the radar waves, find them, ping them once and launch a missile. The other guy usually died before he knew the first guy was there.

So, unless the denizens of the EVE universe forgot how to do basic math or forgot common sense, none of the ideas you presented work.

Want an irl example? Wild Weasel missions. You use radar guided missiles that lock on to the detector's electronic emissions and there you go. Dead Sam site.
That Handsome Frog
A Random Corporation
#138 - 2012-01-11 01:09:15 UTC
This is a game moron?
DarkAegix
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#139 - 2012-01-11 01:16:22 UTC
Aestivalis Saidrian wrote:
Shameless marketing of Listen-Kill technology. EVE is a perfect simulator of everything. Derp.

I honestly can't believe how idiotic you are. And you just continue to embarrass yourself.

EVE is a game.
Games require balance.

Go have a cry about how EVE's space shows liquid-like properties. This game is not a space simulator.

Do you want your own idea completely destroyed?
Where is Listen-Kill in EVE, right now? Oh, it's not there. There must be a reason it is not there. It doesn't matter why it's not in EVE. Balance or fiction, who cares? Balance is more important than fiction, and fiction can be changed to meet balance.

STFU, and take your idiocy somewhere else. EVE is not a simulator, and your foolish tears won't change a single thing.
Bischopt
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#140 - 2012-01-11 01:16:49 UTC
While I very much hate being the victim of overkill, this solution seems just too arbitrary.
It doesnt belong in eve.
In eve everything goes and this feature would limit the possibilities.

Besides, people would find a way to abuse this feature as well. Always having an alt lock you so someone who's actually trying to tackle you cant get a lock in time etc.

And no, I dont enjoy blobs. Not being in them or fighting them. Still this is my honest opinion.