These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Focus Fire Mitigation and Alpha discussion thread

Author
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#1 - 2012-03-12 23:13:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Ines Tegator
update: people new to the thread may want to skip ahead to here

A great many people do not like the gameplay of Alpha fleets. Yes, I'm among them. Various ideas have been knocked around by various people for years, but one that keeps coming back and has the most potential is mitigating damage based on the number of attackers.

Sins of a Solar Empire does a version this. Basically, the more enemy ships are hitting your ship, the higher your mitigation goes up. From a lore standpoint this is not a problem, since attacks generate debris either from broken armor and hull, debris from the impactors, or thick gasses from energy weapons vaporizing hull material. These could reasonably be considered to reduce the effectiveness of subsequent attacks, and would disperse when the volume of attacks is reduced.

There are obviously issues. Should mitigation be done on a per-attacker basis? This makes frigates and low DPS ships undesirable. On a per attack basis? Rapid fire weapons and drones are penalized. Number of foes locking you? Exploitable by fleetmates. How would this affect PVE? Also, this would require a pass over of tanking and RR in general. These issues need to be discussed and solved before a real plan can be sent to the CSM/CCP.

The benefits are potentially very high. Increased effect of local tank, increased effect of individual piloting on the fleet outcome, more dynamic and exciting fights, more strategic opportunities for EWAR (target painters in particular could be given a solid role by negating the penalty, making Minmatar EWAR hulls useful for a change), creative target calling, and so on. If done correctly it could make fleet pvp much more exciting and fun. Could also sink the whole combat experience if it's done badly. Without question, a change this big would have to be built into a major expansion and would be 1 year or more down the road from now.

So... here's a central thread to discuss the idea. Alpha fleets and the ways to make fleet combat more interesting. Discuss.

tl;dr

Alpha fleets suck. Scaling damage mitigation SOASE style sounds like the best solution if it can be refined properly. Discuss.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#2 - 2012-03-12 23:35:00 UTC
Option c) The concept is inherently flawed, hence in years of discussion a balanced method of implementation has never been found.

/thread

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]

Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#3 - 2012-03-12 23:38:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Ines Tegator
So insightful. I appreciate your illuminations of the issues, mechanics and limitations involved. Also, having thoroughly debunked the original idea, your proposition of an alternative solution to the original problem is spot on will undoubtedly serve as a framework for the discussion going forward..

ha.
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2012-03-12 23:42:15 UTC
Yes...we needed another one of these threads. The other one that has been going all day just wasn't good enough...

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821

Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#5 - 2012-03-12 23:46:41 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Yes...we needed another one of these threads. The other one that has been going all day just wasn't good enough...


This one is more specific.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#6 - 2012-03-12 23:46:47 UTC
Ines Tegator wrote:
So insightful. I appreciate your illuminations of the issues, mechanics and limitations involved. Also, having thoroughly debunked the original idea, your proposition of an alternative solution to the original problem is spot on will undoubtedly serve as a framework for the discussion going forward..

ha.

This idea has been discussed to death in a thousand other threads, by me and most of the other regulars here. You want to see the issues inherent in it's application? Use the search function.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]

Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2012-03-12 23:49:21 UTC
I cannot see any way for this to work without being exploited by fleetmates.
lock-based -> just get locked by your fleet-mates
attack-based -> Test has its frigate noobs shooting at its carriers with civilian weaponry mitigationg an entire enemy fleet's worth of ship-DPS.

On the same logic you based your need for mitigation on, ill say this.
If you have 1 bullet flying at a soldier, he muight egt hit, he might not.
10 bullets - hes prolly dead, but there are still cahnces they eitehr missed or hit non-vitally
100 - bullets, excessive, man is undoubtedly been hit in a vital blood-related area
1000+ bullets - the dude is pulp and so is everything near him from the shear amount of bullets coming at him.

so contrary to what your wording suggests, more bullets going at 1 target actually amke it MORE LIKELY for it to be hit in a vital area, or lots of vital areas. thats why ships in the olden days used shittons of cannons and different types of ammunition, to ensure they hit SOMETHING. thats also whya rtillery batteries have more then 1 artillery-piece, the more you have, the more liekly you are to WTFBBQ INFERNODEATHKILL anything you shoot at.

also, a laser-weapon melting the hull of an opponent woud NOT "lessen the effect of another attack" it would INCREASE its effectiveness because you just mutilated and structurally WEAKENED that hull-piece, meaning a good arty shell would blow it to kingdom-come.

so if ANYTHING needs to eb done about "alpha" it needs to egt a MULTIPLIER (just joking on the multiplier, but seriosuly, it would make no sense to mitigate it)
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#8 - 2012-03-12 23:52:00 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:

This idea has been discussed to death in a thousand other threads, by me and most of the other regulars here. You want to see the issues inherent in it's application? Use the search function.


I'm aware of that and acknowledged it, if your reading comprehension is up to the task of noticing. I was hoping a communal discussion in good faith could pool everyones ideas and break the barriers behind the concept, which as I mentioned could dramatically improve the gameplay of fleet combat, thus making it worth the effort to dig in and tackle the ideas. Thank's for giving it honest try with an open mind.
Katie Frost
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2012-03-12 23:55:10 UTC
Unfortunately Ines, your proposal simply does not make much sense.

Basic math behind it... Incoming Damage > EHP = Death.

There is no clear sense in allowing a ship to become more resistant with more damage applied to it. Lore? I don't think that your logic is quite there as it could be applied to armour and hull tanks only. There is no debris from shield impact. But even with hull/armour pieces floating around, I seriously do not see this mitigating the incoming laser, projectile, missile, hybrid in any significant way.

It would be interesting to make combat more diverse by taking out the primary/alpha mentality and giving greater meaning to squads or ship-to-ship combat even in large fleet engagements. How can this be applied? Many have argued on these forums and no clear, non-exploitable suggestion has stood the test of forum flames.

Yours I believe is destined to go down the same way. Good luck though.

Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#10 - 2012-03-12 23:58:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Ines Tegator
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
I cannot see any way for this to work without being exploited by fleetmates.

I mentioned those very issues. I'm thinking that some combination of Damage Inflicted weighted by Number of Attackers (or would that be other way around?) would be a good solution. I am not good enough at math to create such a formula. Hence the request for discussion.

Quote:
also, a laser-weapon melting the hull of an opponent woud NOT "lessen the effect of another attack" it would INCREASE its effectiveness because you just mutilated and structurally WEAKENED that hull-piece, meaning a good arty shell would blow it to kingdom-come.

Vaporized material from the target impedes the laser by diffusing it and absorbing some of the energy. This is a real problem involved in creating large-scale laser weaponry. You can look it up. It's the entire reason that the sci-fi concept of "pulse laser" came around. Pulsing the laser at a higher intensity like a strobe light delivers the same amount of energy/time to target, but allows for more dissipation of ejected material. Or so the theory goes.
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#11 - 2012-03-13 00:01:13 UTC
Katie Frost wrote:


There is no clear sense in allowing a ship to become more resistant with more damage applied to it. Lore? I don't think that your logic is quite there as it could be applied to armour and hull tanks only.



There's no clear sense behind warp drives or jump gates either, but technobabble was written for it so it could be include for gameplay purposes. It actually makes the most sense with lasers, since large projectiles simply push the less massive ejecta out of their path. Also, solid impactors would leave debris even if they hit shields. But it's sensible enough to make an explanation in a world that allows flying through solid planets and perfect cloning of consciousness.
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#12 - 2012-03-13 00:01:28 UTC
double post
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2012-03-13 00:05:26 UTC
Ines Tegator wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
I cannot see any way for this to work without being exploited by fleetmates.

I mentioned those very issues. I'm thinking that some combination of Damage Inflicted weighted by Number of Attackers (or would that be other way around?) would be a good solution. I am not good enough at math to create such a formula. Hence the request for discussion.

Quote:
also, a laser-weapon melting the hull of an opponent woud NOT "lessen the effect of another attack" it would INCREASE its effectiveness because you just mutilated and structurally WEAKENED that hull-piece, meaning a good arty shell would blow it to kingdom-come.

Vaporized material from the target impedes the laser by diffusing it and absorbing some of the energy. This is a real problem involved in creating large-scale laser weaponry. You can look it up. It's the entire reason that the sci-fi concept of "pulse laser" came around. Pulsing the laser at a higher intensity like a strobe light delivers the same amount of energy/time to target, but allows for more dissipation of ejected material. Or so the theory goes.

there is your flaw rigtht here...
"vaporized" means turned to a ags, adn eys in an ATMOSPHERIC environement that ags coudl be problematic.
in sapce, gas expands at a enar infinite rate as the superheated molecules fly away from eachother, so NO, it would NOT impede a bullet unless the bullet and laser came into contact with eachother, but now thats the laser shooting the bullet, not the hull-vapors stopping it.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#14 - 2012-03-13 00:07:24 UTC
Ines Tegator wrote:
I'm aware of that and acknowledged it, if your reading comprehension is up to the task of noticing. I was hoping a communal discussion in good faith could pool everyones ideas and break the barriers behind the concept, which as I mentioned could dramatically improve the gameplay of fleet combat, thus making it worth the effort to dig in and tackle the ideas. Thank's for giving it honest try with an open mind.

These ideas have been proposed, over and over again, for years. None of them have ever been able to get around the fundamental flaws in the concept, because these flaws are fundamental.

Ines Tegator wrote:
I'm thinking that some combination of Damage Inflicted weighted by Number of Attackers (or would that be other way around?) (...) I am not good enough at math to create such a formula. Hence the request for discussion.

Remind me, how is this thread more specific or complete than the thousands of other, completely identical, threads?

If you have a new, or somehow different/interesting, implementation of an old concept then feel free to make a thread for it. But at the moment this thread can basically be summed up with:

Ines Tegator wrote:

I WANT YOU TO DISCUSS SOMETHING YOU HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR YEARS, ONLY I WANT YOU TO DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN FOR MY BENEFIT AND I HAVE NOTHING NEW TO ADD TO THE DISCUSSION!

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]

Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#15 - 2012-03-13 00:21:04 UTC
So you guys are ready to give up even though the potential gameplay advantages are enormous. Got it.

Anyone who's not a total pessimist that thinks insults pass for a discussion care to provide input?
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#16 - 2012-03-13 00:26:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Nariya Kentaya
Ines Tegator wrote:
So you guys are ready to give up even though the potential gameplay advantages are enormous. Got it.

Anyone who's not a total pessimist that thinks insults pass for a discussion care to provide input?

Gameplay designs should be MADE by the epssimists, as we are willing to see what all WILL go wrong and how badly it will impact the greater-game.
just because you think your diea is good doesnt eman it will work out, and there really is no way to do this that wont be exploited.
im not saying there CANT be an elegant way to approach and confront the problem, but with current-mechanics i dont think it would be realistic to attempt any seriosu combat-mechanic changes, and personally i feel the game would be better served with all the ships being balanced out first, THEN we can address issues that woudl require a more long-term dev interation.

and back on the pessimist thing, seriously, CCP put these forums here so the pessimists COULD tear apart any and all ideas, if you can come up with an idea that even WE can abck, im sure CCP will jump right on with its implementation.

and as for pessimism, i only skimmed the other's posts, but i havent and far as ive seen enither have they, actively attacked you verbally.
the only thing that has even been hostile is that she WAS telling you these forums ahve appeared many times and that this discussion will not see any new outcome under current circumsatnces, again, im sorry we dont see your view of what you think eve should be.
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#17 - 2012-03-13 00:30:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Ines Tegator
All you naysayers are being lazy. A proper solution needs to factor in multiple elements. This means math. I'm no expert but I'll try to illustrate.

Some baseline assumed numbers (not suggested for actual use but as an example):
A typical battleship does 500 DPS.
A typical frigate does 100 DPS.
The goal is 50% mitigation under sustained fire from 10 battleship targets.

So if incoming damage = (500* number of attackers)
And number of attackers = 10
then the mitigation will be 50%
results would be averaged out over a given interval, perhaps 10 seconds. On second thought, that's shorter then an artillery cycle. I'll worry about that later.

so that's 5000 DPS dealt from 10 attackers. So far so good. Simple stuff. Lets put some frigates in.

5 frigates + 10 battleships=5500 DPS.

Under a straight number of targets ratio (1 = 5%) thats 75% mitigation for a trivial increase in incoming damage. Not good.

Under a straight DPS ratio (10% per 1k DPS) that 51% mitigation. Rather better, but not ideal, because of the potential of targets to do more or less then the baseline. This penalizes optimized fits that do more then the baseline damage. Not good. Rather, we'd want 5 1000 dps battelships to generate 25% mitigation.

What's needed then is a formula that accounts for incoming damage, weights it according to the number of attackers, averages the data over an appropriate interval, and produces a consistent and balanced result. Also it should be capped at an upper limit, probly 50%. Now I've identified the needs of the situation in a quantifiable manner and contributed something unique. I'd have to sit for a long time with a calculator and some scratch paper to propose a formula, and I'm sure someone could do a better job then me anyway, but it deserves taking a stab at it and not drive-by-postwads dismissing it out of hand rather then trying to be creative.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#18 - 2012-03-13 00:37:19 UTC
Ines Tegator wrote:
All you naysayers are being lazy. A proper solution needs to factor in multiple elements. This means math. I'm no expert but I'll try to illustrate.

Some baseline assumed numbers (not suggested for actual use but as an example):
A typical battleship does 500 DPS.
A typical frigate does 100 DPS.
The goal is 50% mitigation under sustained fire from 10 battleship targets.

So if incoming damage = (500* number of attackers)
And number of attackers = 10
then the mitigation will be 50%
results would be averaged out over a given interval, perhaps 10 seconds.

so that's 5000 DPS dealt from 10 attackers. So far so good. Simple stuff. Lets put some frigates in.

5 frigates + 10 battleships=5500 DPS.

Under a straight number of targets ratio (1 = 5%) thats 75% mitigation for a trivial amount of incoming damage. Not good.

Under a straight DPS ratio (10% per 1k DPS) that 52.5% mitigation. Rather better, but not ideal, because of the potential of targets to do more or less then the baseline.

What's needed then is a formula that accounts for incoming damage, weights it according to the number of attackers, averages the data over an appropriate interval, and produces a consistent and balanced result. Also it should be capped at an upper limit, probly 50%. Now I've identified the needs of the situation in a quantifiable manner and contributed something unique. I'd have to sit for a long time with a calculator and some scratch paper to propose a formula, and I'm sure someone could do a better job then me anyway, but it deserves taking a stab at it and not drive-by-postwads dismissing it out of hand rather then trying to be creative.

Ok, that idea has SOME logical basis behind it, but now let me counter with a MAJOR flaw.
the server now has to do calculations.... alot of them....
now assuming you ahev people doing missions in some systems, and large fleet battles in anothers, this could put a larger strain on the server's ability to process information.

now you may say "oh its basic math", well it isnt, ebcause even in doctrine-fleets, people have different skills, and the server would have to computer eahc of those separately, causing alot of grief, since it would add another 10-15% stress to the server which would throw the possibilty of large fleet fights (what your proposing this idea with TO HELP MAKE BETTER) impossible to ahve as the added tsrain on the server would viciously murder the hamsters.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#19 - 2012-03-13 00:39:49 UTC
Ines Tegator wrote:
All you naysayers are being lazy. A proper solution needs to factor in multiple elements. This means math. I'm no expert but I'll try to illustrate.

Some baseline assumed numbers (not suggested for actual use but as an example):
A typical battleship does 500 DPS.
A typical frigate does 100 DPS.
The goal is 50% mitigation under sustained fire from 10 battleship targets.

So if incoming damage = (500* number of attackers)
And number of attackers = 10
then the mitigation will be 50%
results would be averaged out over a given interval, perhaps 10 seconds.

so that's 5000 DPS dealt from 10 attackers. So far so good. Simple stuff. Lets put some frigates in.

5 frigates + 10 battleships=5500 DPS.

Under a straight number of targets ratio (1 = 5%) thats 75% mitigation for a trivial amount of incoming damage. Not good.

Under a straight DPS ratio (10% per 1k DPS) that 51% mitigation. Rather better, but not ideal, because of the potential of targets to do more or less then the baseline. This penalizes optimized fits that do more then the baseline damage. Rather, we'd want 5 1000 dps battelships to generate 25% mitigation.

What's needed then is a formula that accounts for incoming damage, weights it according to the number of attackers, averages the data over an appropriate interval, and produces a consistent and balanced result. Also it should be capped at an upper limit, probly 50%. Now I've identified the needs of the situation in a quantifiable manner and contributed something unique. I'd have to sit for a long time with a calculator and some scratch paper to propose a formula, and I'm sure someone could do a better job then me anyway, but it deserves taking a stab at it and not drive-by-postwads dismissing it out of hand rather then trying to be creative.

Most of the alpha fleets I fly in split their guns, because we have more alpha than we need to kill targets. 50% damage reduction? Stop splitting guns, still alpha stuff. GG.

Not to mention how messy that damage calculation is going to be. I mean how do you calculate number of attackers? What's an appropriate interval? Alpha fleets hit at the same time.

As for your assumption that no one who is "good at maths" has tried this before. Really? Lol. These aren't "drive by" dismissals, this is us dismissing a thread with no clear ideas made on a proposal that currently has 2-3 other threads running on it.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]

Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#20 - 2012-03-13 00:40:13 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:

Ok, that idea has SOME logical basis behind it, but now let me counter with a MAJOR flaw.
the server now has to do calculations.... alot of them....


Acknowledged. We don't have access to the server load stats or hardware specs though. It may be possible under their shiny new hardware. We'd need input on CCP for that. The least we can do is put the actual idea to the test and see if it's worth putting forward seriously or not.
123Next page