open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Introducing new Tactics into eve warfare.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
United Stellar Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.06 18:43:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: something somethingdark
technicaly im all in favor...


Awesome!

Tavren Darknigh
The-Defiant
Imperial 0rder
Posted - 2009.06.06 23:52:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: Tavren Darknigh on 06/06/2009 23:57:49
I agree this will make fleet battles quite a bit more interesting... or frustrating depending whether your attacking or you just got jump in on. I feel it would add to this idea if maybe we could have a small addition to the fitting window allowing us to adjust the strength of our shields/armor placement on each side of the ship. Just a little icon representing your ship with 8 arcs going around it representing 4 sides your shields are on and 4 sides your armor is on and you can adjust the balance accordingly. I would love to have all my armor/shields split on each side of my fast tackles. Though I disagree that "top and bottom" would be factored in, keep it simple with bow, aft, port, and starboard.

example: Stabber
bow 25%sh 25%ar

port 25% sh 25%ar starboard 25%sh 25%ar

aft 25%sh 25%ar

change for fast tackle

bow 5%sh 35%ar

port 45% sh 15%ar starboard 45%sh 15%ar

aft 5%sh 35%ar

Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
United Stellar Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.07 08:58:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Tavren Darknigh
I agree this will make fleet battles quite a bit more interesting...


I agree also

Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
United Stellar Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.08 06:20:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Dasfry on 08/06/2009 06:20:54
Originally by: Merdaneth
you haven't give any reason why flanking should be used, made no analysis of advantages or disadvantages, nor gave a working model of how you think it should be implemented.

Hence your post appears as nothing more than asking for a 'yes/no' opinion.

Let me ask you a few questions instead:

Why flanking, how would this make the game more fun?
How would you players could control which flank they would shoot?



Flanking is tactic eve online is missing.
It allows you and other players to actively attack an enemy in more ways than is currently possible.

The way players can control which flank they would shoot would be based on the direction their opponent's ship is facing vs. which direction the attackers guns are incoming from.

So if you approach from the side of an enemy ship you would get damage bonuses. Yielding yourself a reward for maneuvering in.

If you are able to engage in advanced maneuvers, would you be able to direct your enemy with deception tactics, such as a faint.

Where you have a small group approtch from your enemies 9 o'clock.
Expecting your enemy to attempt to counter this tactic, by facing your small group.
You have your 2nd group moments later enter at your enemies original 3 o'clock.

WinkAt this point no matter which direction your enemy faces you get a damage bonus.
A Flanking tactic has been used and rewarded adding that much more pvp immersion to Eve online.

Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
United Stellar Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.09 07:49:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Tavren Darknigh
Though I disagree that "top and bottom" would be factored in, keep it simple with bow, aft, port, and starboard.

example: Stabber
bow 25%sh 25%ar

port 25% sh 25%ar starboard 25%sh 25%ar

aft 25%sh 25%ar

change for fast tackle

bow 5%sh 35%ar

port 45% sh 15%ar starboard 45%sh 15%ar

aft 5%sh 35%ar


I don't understand what your saying with the percentages.
Can you explain, What do they represent?

skye orionis
Posted - 2009.06.09 18:48:00 - [36]
 

Making ships non-isotropic in terms of damage resistance and damage output might add something, but eve is really a 2 1/2 dimension engine, everyone agrees what way up is, so having different status for above and below isn't really fair because ships can yaw to arbitrarly angles, but pitch and roll are limited by the enginer.

The real problem with fleet combat is it boils down to picking a primary and trying to burn them down faster than the spider can rep them up, so it's not hugely realistic. This in turn makes buffer tanks & remote repping the only viable tactic for BS's and reduces many fleet fights to 2 BS blobs sniping each other to death ship by ship.

So to make fleet combat less blobby I'd like to see
1) line of fire accounted for:
if you're shooting at one ship in a blob of spider repping BS's there's a pretty good chance that if you miss you might hit someone else.
If you're in a blob of BS's you need a clear line of sight to be able to shoot the enemy.
Similarly, if you're repping someone, you need line of sight too.

Now, this would cause all sorts of extra maths for the servers, which would suck, but maybe the line of sight determination could at least be offloaded to the clients.

As a fleet commander you'd be able to configure fleet formations at the squad level, flying in formation would be slower, but might confer bonuses to repping. Warping as a fleet would pull all the ships into position, after that it would be up to the pilots to not break formation.

2) better defensive weapons:
The defender missile as a concept has great potential, but it fails to defend other ships in your fleet, and only defends against missiles. Imagine being able to deploy a perimeter of defensive ships around your capital ships that have modules designed to reducing incoming damage. Not just from missiles either - projectiles can be hit with flak to trigger premature detonation, railguns plasma bolts might disappate when hit with an opposing magnetic field, lasers can be neutralised by scattering clouds of reflective nanoparticles which have a strongly anisotropic albedo.

Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
United Stellar Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.09 22:37:00 - [37]
 

Lets take a look at the Armageddon for a moment.

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Armageddon, Amarr battleship

The mighty Armageddon class is the main warship of the Amarr Empire. Its heavy armaments and strong front are specially designed to crash into any battle like a juggernaut and deliver swift justice in the name of the Emperor.



Just by looking at the thing it appears to be designed for head on engagement.
Where most of its protection is meant to handle an incoming attack from the front.


Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.






Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
Posted - 2009.06.09 22:44:00 - [38]
 

Flame burn and crash... Game is not ready for this at this stage.

skye orionis
Posted - 2009.06.10 00:40:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Niko Lorenzio
Flame burn and crash... Game is not ready for this at this stage.


Which pretty much sums it up, it would add extra server load and therefore lag.

I can remember old tabletop wargames using pencils, papers and dice which modelled firing arcs and non-uniform armour, it's not a new idea, but when you get a major lag fest like the AAA vs CVA battle today the last thing that CCP developers are thinking is 'lets make the servers do more work'

Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
United Stellar Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.10 03:14:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: skye orionis
Which pretty much sums it up, it would add extra server load and therefore lag.

I can remember old tabletop wargames using pencils, papers and dice which modelled firing arcs and non-uniform armour, it's not a new idea, but when you get a major lag fest like the AAA vs CVA battle today the last thing that CCP developers are thinking is 'lets make the servers do more work'


I really hope this isn't going to be the all inclusive answer to shoot down all future ideas.

There must be a balance to getting more bang for our buck.

Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
United Stellar Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.10 10:01:00 - [41]
 

In clear skies 2, at the very end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mii1jNL08VQ


In the story he attacks/rams/docks with the engines of the titan.

Which partly goes with this new tactic of, it SHOULD matter where you hit an enemy ship.

: )


Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
United Stellar Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.12 22:36:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: skye orionis
Which pretty much sums it up, it would add extra server load and therefore lag.


You can basicly say that about majority of all suggested updates to the game.
The very presences of Tech III ships creates server load, yet they where added in.

QuestionNow lets figure out how much math would really be involved.

To figure out what direction the incoming fire is ...
first distance between objects.

The distance between two points <Ax,Ay,Az> and <Bx,By,Bz>

dx = Ax-Bx
dy = Ay-By
dz = Az-Bz
distance = sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy + dz*dz)

Sserxe
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.07.08 14:03:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Washell Olivaw
Edited by: Washell Olivaw on 05/06/2009 12:36:51
Originally by: Dasfry
I hope you're not seriously suggesting the eve sever isn't capable of handling such a small addition to the damage caculation formula such as...

1.1(x)
where x is the current damage calculation solution, and the 1.1 is derrived from the direction of the incoming fire.



It can handle that fine. What will bring it to its knees is the part where it checks ship orientation vs direction of fire times several thousand in a big fleet battle in order to get that modifier. 3D math, very expensive CPU calculations.


Maybe a dedicated GPU node.

Sserxe
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.07.08 14:07:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: Sserxe on 08/07/2009 14:33:13
Originally by: Dasfry
Originally by: something somethingdark
if we get these damage zones i want fireing arcs on my guns aswell!!


LaughingHaha,

ExclamationThe firing arcs already exist... it just well they are all Omnidirectional.


yes firing arcs exist already, thats why each turret hardpoint shows to weapons for top/bottom or left right so that when your target crosses a certain point it switches sides.

Space Pinata
Amarr
Discount Napkin Industries
Posted - 2009.07.08 18:27:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Space Pinata on 08/07/2009 18:29:23
You can flank someone on two sides of a gate. You can flank someone by reducing their ability to maneuver to either side without coming too close to enemies.

You can attack a system from two (or more) directions, forcing an enemy to spread itself out to prevent you from entering.

These are flanking tactics.

For someone trying to speak for 'realistic military tactics', you sure have a WoW mindset in terms of flanking. No, flanking is not about stabbing someone in the back so you can do extra damage with your 'uber backstabs'.

In fact, flanking would force a unit to fight in multiple directions. They wouldn't just stand there and get shot in the back because they were looking at someone else first.

tl;dr: Flanking is about positioning, not 'I'm a rogue and do +50% DPS from behind Very Happy'. I challenge you to find a real life flanking example that is remotely similar to an arbitrary damage modifier, rather than an innate tactical advantage.

Hint: Tactical flanking works in EVE. 'omg backstabs' does not.

Edit: Also, most ships are firing broadsides in fights, it's very difficult to face head on to someone and maintain anything resembling range. Laughing

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.07.08 18:57:00 - [46]
 

EVE used to have very effective speed tactics, that changed the combat dynamics quite significantly from simple tank & gank

But the carebears were upset that it made pvp too difficult. And CCP removed it from game.
So if CCP is actively removing alternative tactics, I don't see why they'd ever consider doing the opposite.
First try get speed back as viable option, then you can push for other alternatives.

Kail Storm
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.07.08 19:11:00 - [47]
 

Actually there were reasons for coming along side enemys in real war....Tiger tank,Ships of the line etc The germans tiger would defend and deflect almost anything from the front and had multiple storys about 30-50 tank rounds hitting and that tank surviving so what did the tommys and GI`s do? They Flanked and attacked the treads and rear fuel tanks of the tigers.

Same with ships of the line your tactic was to cross the "T" and have all your guns to bear preferably on the back of the ship were there was no armor just all the ribbing joists.

What all of you who are talking about a side stabb not used in combat are wrong. But to the OP you confuse us real military guys by calling it a flanking manuv. Your really flanking to exploit weak spots rather then the classic Flanking/Pincer movement the rest of the guys are talking about, Flanking is to limit movement and eventually to get a "death box" around the enemy. But that was mainly for ancient man on man combat where your heavy stuff was a chariot, after tanks and ships flanking took on another meaning for grunts etc. So we are confusing flanking manuver with an attack on the flank/exposed area.

All in all I think a better thing would be subsystem targeting, It gets the desired result of attacking weakspots and making game more deep while not being that much more hard on cpu load IMO. It also makes a goliath have a chance [all be it small]to get knocked out by a david. We already have hp`s to all our modules you just need to add them to warp sysytem, sublight, weapons/targeting and bridge damage or headshot :) But i do believe it would take alot for computers to do a position check for every firing solution. This should limit that.

Rip Minner
Gallente
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
Posted - 2009.07.08 20:25:00 - [48]
 

The game is not ready for this kind of thing yet.

Saint SaintaN
Posted - 2009.07.08 21:23:00 - [49]
 

Surely any 3 dimensional position requires 6 points in the 3d space and the distance to those points to be calculated, considering the game automatically calculates the distance to objects in a system (overview) could that information not be used to make the calculations very very small.

if the 6 points were identical for the attacker and defender then you would only need the difference between the distances and the distance between the attacker and defender to calculate the flanking.

Since the distances are calculated we are talking about what? 6 subtractions and 1 multiplication per incidence. (slightly more complex than that but you get the idea)

Of course this is assuming every system has 6 objects on them and that the game calculates distances even when they are not active on the overview.


Are my assumptions correct?

Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
United Stellar Alliance
Posted - 2009.07.09 20:15:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Dasfry on 10/07/2009 09:08:50
Edited by: Dasfry on 09/07/2009 20:16:42
Originally by: Space Pinata
You can flank someone on two sides of a gate. You can flank someone by reducing their ability to maneuver to either side without coming too close to enemies.

You can attack a system from two (or more) directions, forcing an enemy to spread itself out to prevent you from entering.

These are flanking tactics.


Wrong, what you just mentioned is flanking strategy not flanking tactics. Yes there is a difference.


Originally by: Space Pinata
For someone trying to speak for 'realistic military tactics', you sure have a WoW mindset in terms of flanking. No, flanking is not about stabbing someone in the back so you can do extra damage with your 'uber backstabs'.


I don't play wow.

Originally by: Space Pinata
I challenge you to find a real life flanking example that is remotely similar to an arbitrary damage modifier


Easy, real life example...
just think WW2 german tanks vs the allies.

The Germans had superior tanks, and the allies had to flank them in order to destroy them. The German tanks had the advantage over allied tanks.

They had to hit them from the side or rear.

Also virtual example.
Games like Battlefield 1942 as well as other games, like faces of war, etc...
Hitting the tanks in the engine was more effective than in the front armor.

Kail Storm
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.07.09 20:23:00 - [51]
 




Easy, just think WW2 german tanks vs the allies.

The Germans had superior tanks, and the allies had to flank them in order to destroy them. The German tanks had the advantage over allied tanks.

They had to hit them from the side or rear.



Read my reply it tells about tigers being flanked or ships of the line crossing the t....Yes there is flanking but first we need to esablish the definition and all agree on it...Daf youll get a better response that way

Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
United Stellar Alliance
Posted - 2009.07.10 08:57:00 - [52]
 

Edited by: Dasfry on 10/07/2009 09:00:47
Originally by: Ephemeron
EVE used to have very effective speed tactics, that changed the combat dynamics quite significantly from simple tank & gank

But the carebears were upset that it made pvp too difficult. And CCP removed it from game.
So if CCP is actively removing alternative tactics, I don't see why they'd ever consider doing the opposite.
First try get speed back as viable option, then you can push for other alternatives.


I believe you are referring to nano speed tactics.

The problem with these tactics was a lack of a counter.
Making it one sided.

However saying the counter to a nano tactic is to use a nano is a, silly Catch 22.

Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
United Stellar Alliance
Posted - 2009.07.10 09:00:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Kail Storm
Originally by: Dasfry

Easy, just think WW2 german tanks vs the allies.

The Germans had superior tanks, and the allies had to flank them in order to destroy them. The German tanks had the advantage over allied tanks.

They had to hit them from the side or rear.



Read my reply it tells about tigers being flanked or ships of the line crossing the t....Yes there is flanking but first we need to esablish the definition and all agree on it...Daf youll get a better response that way


Kail Storm, That response was in reply to Space Pinata comments.
I'll relook at your previous post about what you said Kail Storm, and reply.

Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
United Stellar Alliance
Posted - 2009.07.10 20:53:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Kail Storm
Actually there were reasons for coming along side enemys in real war....Tiger tank,Ships of the line etc The germans tiger would defend and deflect almost anything from the front and had multiple storys about 30-50 tank rounds hitting and that tank surviving so what did the tommys and GI`s do? They Flanked and attacked the treads and rear fuel tanks of the tigers.


This is a good example

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.07.10 21:45:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Dasfry
Edited by: Dasfry on 10/07/2009 09:00:47
Originally by: Ephemeron
EVE used to have very effective speed tactics, that changed the combat dynamics quite significantly from simple tank & gank

But the carebears were upset that it made pvp too difficult. And CCP removed it from game.
So if CCP is actively removing alternative tactics, I don't see why they'd ever consider doing the opposite.
First try get speed back as viable option, then you can push for other alternatives.


I believe you are referring to nano speed tactics.

The problem with these tactics was a lack of a counter.
Making it one sided.

However saying the counter to a nano tactic is to use a nano is a, silly Catch 22.
After nearly 80 pages of discussions, it's amusing to see how simple minded some people are.

The argument you use can be turned around like this: in order to kill any ship, you need weapons. Ships can't kill each other without both of them having weapons. Catch 22.

I was actually supporting early notion of nano nerf, before I found out how horrible CCP plan was. I wanted to reduce nanofiber rig from 15% mass decrease to 10%

Zitus
NON PROPERO
Posted - 2009.07.10 22:30:00 - [56]
 

First thing I read on your wiki mate:

"Tactics are what a commander undertakes during battle"

Obvious statment is obvious... =P

Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
United Stellar Alliance
Posted - 2009.07.11 09:19:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Zitus
First thing I read on your wiki mate:

"Tactics are what a commander undertakes during battle"

Obvious statment is obvious... =P


As Opposed to what he undertakes during a campaign, which would be considered strategy.

Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
United Stellar Alliance
Posted - 2009.07.11 09:27:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
The argument you use can be turned around like this: in order to kill any ship, you need weapons. Ships can't kill each other without both of them having weapons. Catch 22.


Laughing What about ships that self destruct for insurance cash?
Or are killed by concord/station turrets, or disconnected while mission running, or by admins using their admin abilities...

Max Hardcase
The Scope
Posted - 2009.07.11 09:47:00 - [59]
 

A rear facing 60 degree cone where incoming attacks inflict more damage would be a nice buff to the short range people. They are setup to more easily take advantage of such oppertunities.

Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
United Stellar Alliance
Posted - 2009.07.15 06:38:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Max Hardcase
A rear facing 60 degree cone where incoming attacks inflict more damage would be a nice buff to the short range people. They are setup to more easily take advantage of such oppertunities.



can your make a drawing or explain more of what you mean?


Pages: 1 [2] 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only