Posted - 2007.11.01 19:46:00 - [31]

 

Originally by: Phantom Slave

---

Edited by: Phantom Slave on 01/11/2007 17:40:35
While I think the idea is good, implementing it would be very hard.

Look at the abaddon. Sig Radius of 470, with a sensor strength of 22.

Using your math, you would only be able to lock 2 BS's onto another BS. In a 50 x 50 fleet battle, of all BS against BS, the FC would be calling out 25 targets, which would just be rediculous.

Even when using the 'Half Life' a third BS puts it into 'half life' and you would either have to call another Target, or deal with insane locking times.

I don't mean to burst your bubble, because I think you're on to something, but the way you're going about it is wrong.

*edit* Re-read what you said and made changes to my post accordingly.

---

No, insane locking times would take quite a lot of focusing, so using your example 2 BS create no delay, 3 (1/2 sig radius) drops the target (an abaddon in this case) to a sig radius of 235. A forth BS and the sig radius is 117 (about the size of a cruiser), a fith BS and its 55 (Frigate sized) so your really only looking at long locking times by the 6th or 7th BS. The numbers I agree might take some tweaking, but Id hazzard a guess that most BS will, if not insta pop, die in a few seconds to focused fire from 8 BS.

C.

Posted - 2007.11.01 19:53:00 - [33]

 

Originally by: Kweel Nakashyn

---

Originally by: Cailais

---

Originally by: Delichon

---

Edited by: Delichon on 01/11/2007 15:44:42
edited by Cailais
I think this mechanic calls for exploiting through targeting your own mates in order to "autodampen" everyone else.

.

---

Membership of a gang would counter an autodampen effect (i.e locking your buddy to drop his target area / sig radius). There's an issue with 'sub gangs' as part of a fleet I agree, or using alts: possibly overcome by looking at the total number of lockable targets a ships has.

---

A TCF Gang locks a Goon gang. A Goon gang locks a TCF gang.
Invulnerables.

---

Yep thats the flaw, I always knew it was there - I just havent come up with a really good solution to that (yet). As I mentioned in another post reducing the total number of target locks you can have might be a solution (so you lock and 'smother' an ally - but have no locks to fire back with yourself). It would, in theory, work but for some reason it doesnt sit right with me.

C.

Posted - 2007.11.01 22:05:00 - [35]

 

Originally by: Delichon

---

Edited by: Delichon on 01/11/2007 15:44:42
The sad truth of primary being one of the reasons for blobing is there.

I think this mechanic calls for exploiting through targeting your own mates in order to "autodampen" everyone else.

What could solve the "primary - melt" issue would be
- friendly fire (so maneuvering on the field of battle would be more difficult in blobs and easier in small gangs)
- different zones on the ship's model having different resists (so as blob would cripple the maneuvrability => blob has less DPS)

This would open a new dimension in EVE combat, but both of these things would be insane in terms of code complexity and would result in severe lag even in 2 on 2 battles. :(

So? sorry - nothing will be done on that, I am afraid.

---

A fix to the 'Autodampen' by locking your own guy would be: 'there is a beacon in the ship that allows you to lock onto your friends ship'. This would work in gang or corp/alliance as you would be broadcasting your frequency to your friends. Then, enemies would lock you via sig radius.

Posted - 2007.11.01 22:31:00 - [37]

 

Edited by: Cailais on 01/11/2007 22:31:06
yeah, its a difficult one Kweel. I came up with this (OP) idea about 2 - 3 months ago and just sat on it because I couldnt get around the 'alternate gang' problem. Maybe theere are brighter minds than me who can see a solution.

One possibility is that the server queries what gang you are in, and the penalty is applied by gang: but then why form gangs at all? You'd be potentialy more effective as a un-ganged group.

I don't know - perhaps someone else does (hence my post really).

C.

Posted - 2007.11.01 23:44:00 - [39]

 

While your idea on the surface is incredibly interesting, it has some major flaws I'm not sure you have fully considered. For instance, have you considered that you are punishing races with inherently higher sensor strengths? Or that you are punishing T2 ships? At the same time you will be providing a significant boost in fleet combat for the new Marauders.

A (quick) comparison of Sensor Strengths (Mostly Amarr/Gallente ships)

Abaddon 22
Hyperion 23
Absolution 16
Astarte 18
Arbitrator 12 > Curse 28
Celestis 18 > Lachesis 30
Punisher 9 > Retribution 12
Incursus 9 > Enyo 11
Crucifier 14 > Anathema 22 > Sentinel 21
Malus 16 > Helios 22 > Keres 24

Now the Marauders...

Paladin 12
Kronos 13
Vargur 11

So you are telling me it would be balanced if you could have three Vargur locking onto one ship count basically the same as ONE Lachesis? Or locking two Vargur for the 'cost' of a single Anathema or Helios? Why should a frigate of any class cause more difficulty for other ships to lock onto a target verse a battleship?

You are going to in effect nerf most T2 ships due to their inherently more powerful sensors (on most of them). So because I have a good set of sensors on my ship, I'm going to interfere with other ships locking onto my target MORE than someone with inferior sensors? I would think personally, that a more refined set of sensors would be providing less interference as opposed to those which are less sophisticated.

As to Minmatar recons, yes target painters will provide a boost, but really after you subtract out the 280 or 240 penalty from them having to lock that target as well…it starts to look less sexy.

I wouldn’t honestly refer to this as a ‘minor’ problem with your plan. I think you need to re-evaluate what you would want to use as a basis for the penalty. Just because my ship has better sensors, doesn’t mean I necessarily should be causing a penalty to everyone else around me.

Just a little food for thought...

-Voyde

Posted - 2007.11.02 00:18:00 - [41]

 

While I agree that something needs to be done to make fleet fight smoother. This is not it IMO.

Think real life war. If multiple naval vessels are going after one target do any of them have a hard time locking it upon radar? No. If there were 50 naval vessels going after one target, would they have increased issued locking it up? No.

And then we have lag. IMagine how much more lag all the extra calculations that are required would cause. It makes the fleet bonusses pale into insignifcance.

Concept great. -10 for realism and basic science. Another -10 for poor use of resources.

Posted - 2007.11.02 17:33:00 - [43]

 

Originally by: Hamfast

---

Originally by: Barakkus

---

i'd rather see more realism in the way weapons work, if something is in direct line of fire btwn you and the target, you hit the thing in between instead of the target

with that u can use environment as a tactic rather that just getting in the way of your flight path, and it would be hilarious to watch a gang pop their tacklers accidentally lol

---

Your idea may be more of an answer... or at least part of it, non-self directed fire (Rounds, Lasers and Rockets) would travel to the target and stop (hit) the first item they encounter... friend or foe, target or not... if the impact is a ship, it gets damaged... if it's a Roid or some other non target target (something that would not normally be able to be blowen up) the round hits, explodes but does no real damage...

Missles and Drones are Self Directed so would avoid (within reason) the blocking object...

Possible issue would be Concord in High Sec... I aim at a war target, and shoot a passer-by (Damage them) would concord show up and smoke me? if not, I target my corp mate buddy and blow my real target (a cargo Ship) inbetween all to hell... not that empire has the blobing problem the OP is trying to fix...

Target Confusion caused by the interfearance from all the different targeting signals could also cause weapons fire to hit the wrong target... same effect without the enviromental issues...

---

i think it would be funny to see people getting caught up in the cross fire lol...hell even let concord step in, that would be even funnier...it would make it a bit more challenging to fly through a corp war or conduct one in high sec...

i totally would use a belt to fight from in a frig or something if i was getting chased by a cruiser or bs, would give you a fighting chance...just switch to rocket or missle fire while weaving in and out of the roids to buy yerself some time...

Posted - 2007.11.02 17:53:00 - [45]

 

if anyting was to limit blobs and greatly alter sniperganks it would be using line of sight. but atm i cant imagine the lag from trying to have LOS in EVE due to the amount of ammo flying around in a big battle.

Posted - 2007.11.02 18:24:00 - [47]

 

I know this may be a crappy critisism, but lock time is kind of odd to explain and would annoy players as now they dont even get to go boom boom in a fleet. I have three proposals.

My first proposal is bringing back AOE ammunition. Not just missiles and bombs, but ammunition that can be fired from a gun. Something like a shell that has a 5km - 10km radius but does 1/5 - 1/3 the damage of regular long range artillery round. I think this would encourage blobs to get broken up.

A BETTER IDEA MORE LIKE THE OPS
Ok thats one idea, if you read this far here is a closer idea to the op. If a whole bunch of targets are shooting at a single target, that means there are lots of explosions around the target and stuff like that, right? So wouldn't it be harder to hit? Wouldn't missiles have a bit of a problem with all the depris and interference from the target's shields and armor repelling hits? Woudln't tracking computers have a bit of trouble telling exactly where the target is? You could implement your same mechanic in that manner.

Enemy 1 shoots Target A for 100% effectiveness (ie, just like it is now) Enemy 2 still locks the target just fine but due to the interference and firestorm around the target, his shots stack with the first dude to bring them both down to 75% effectiveness. Enemy 3 joins and they are down to 65% (numbers can be tweaked, its just a concept).

In this way 2 guys still hit a target harder than 1 guy normally would, but its not a total gank. 3 guys still hit a target harder than 2 guys do now, but its not nearly as ganktastic. No matter what, more guys shooting the same target should do more damage, but at some point it should be more efficient to just shoot another target.

You know how all weapons have a sig radius? This can totally be used here. Some crazy function can be created to make it so little ships aren't as effected by this mechanic as bigger ones, but that its still less feasible to gank the effing you-know-what out of single dudes at a time. And it kind of makes sense ta boot.

Everybody absolutely hates real world examples so I'm not gona use one. In FEAR, when you wip out the submachine gun and spray shots down a corridor, smoke and debris goes everywhere. Soon as you have a few friends doing the same thing, none of you can see anything, hell, you dont even know if anything is still down there! This idea is kinda of like that.

Ok I lied here is a real world reference.
Most tanks in the real world can jetison smoke grendas or canisters to cover their escape / make them harder to hit. Why isn't there a midslot module that can pull this off? Think of a cap booster type module but as you use it your sig radius drastically descreases.

My thoughts. Op is on the right path but its kind of wierd and cant really be explained.

Posted - 2007.11.03 08:04:00 - [49]

 

Put this thread in the ideas forums so it doesnt get lost here. Its a MUCH better start to problem solving than anyone esle has pretty much come up with over the years.

Get it to the Ideas forum :)

Posted - 2007.11.03 10:40:00 - [51]

 

Edited by: Kweel Nakashyn on 03/11/2007 10:44:11

Originally by: Cailais

---

Edited by: Cailais on 01/11/2007 22:31:06
yeah, its a difficult one Kweel. I came up with this (OP) idea about 2 - 3 months ago and just sat on it because I couldnt get around the 'alternate gang' problem. Maybe theere are brighter minds than me who can see a solution.

One possibility is that the server queries what gang you are in, and the penalty is applied by gang: but then why form gangs at all? You'd be potentialy more effective as a un-ganged group.

I don't know - perhaps someone else does (hence my post really).

C.

---

There is no solution.
if you limit the amount of lock you can put on one ship, people will just use alts in -5 corps or anybody who isn't in the subcategory you aim. There is no solutions for this.

Even if you say "well then, let's limit the amount of people who can shoot at somebody" : people will use small guns. Per ammo category, maybe ? I think people will use alts again, shooting lame shots in purpose.

Max absorbed damage per second could be a solution, but again here comes a 30b battleship, fitted with best officer gear, implants and booster to go past that limit and here's your invulnarabs.