open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked How to make gang warfare the norm and fix so much else.. nr. 2
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Haze zec
Posted - 2010.06.07 09:59:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Haze zec on 07/06/2010 09:59:04
I hit me last night when I was thinking about ewar drones.

Almost every thing in eve is subject to the diminishing returns rule. If you use a module that effects the same attribute on your ship, the 2nd will have a lesser effect. If you use ewar on an enemy ship the second module will have a lesser effect.

Ok fine and dandy, I mean I understand why CCP would put something like this in there. Why you can't use 10 target painters to blow up a frigates signature to the size of a battleship and why you can't fit 5 EANM's and expect to have 99% of armor resists.

What I don't understand is why when you shoot someone there is no stacking penalty if another ship shoots the same target??

I mean whats the RP story for the rest of the stuff that falls under this rule? Do the 3 target painters start to affect and hinder one another? If so I don't understand how 3 different targeting systems pointing their “radars” at the same target and shooting their guns doesn't do the same thing?


Imagine this. You have two big fleets (+50 each) fight each other. And instead of the standard primary secondary calling of targets you have groups of max 3 ships focusing on the same target because adding a 4th wouldn't be worth it just like it isn't to have 4 webs, painters, disruptors, EANMs, ECCMs and so on.

What do you think?

DuKackBoon
Posted - 2010.06.07 11:50:00 - [2]
 

Because shooting twice at someone deals twice the damage. Pretty damn obvious isn't it?

Haze zec
Posted - 2010.06.07 12:06:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: DuKackBoon
Because shooting twice at someone deals twice the damage. Pretty damn obvious isn't it?


ORLY mr Sherlock? Can you then please explain to me the logic behind two target painters pointing at the same ship not giving twice their bonus to the target ships signature?

Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
Posted - 2010.06.07 12:37:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Destination SkillQueue on 07/06/2010 12:44:08
Originally by: Haze zec
Originally by: DuKackBoon
Because shooting twice at someone deals twice the damage. Pretty damn obvious isn't it?


ORLY mr Sherlock? Can you then please explain to me the logic behind two target painters pointing at the same ship not giving twice their bonus to the target ships signature?


Well first of all painting a target is not the same as shooting at it. If anything having more people shooting at a target should cause more damage, since the defences are weakened from the previous damage. With target painting and certain similar boosts/buffs the progress is more likely logarithmic instead of linear. The targeting systems of a ship propably have a limit how much gain they can get from target painting. To achieve the same relative benefit again would require much more power, than a single additional target painter is able to provide.

Haze zec
Posted - 2010.06.07 12:48:00 - [5]
 

Why is it not the same as shooting at it? I think it's exactly the same. In fact if painting a target would follow any logic at all the second painter should give an even bigger bonus than the first since it sees a larger ship caused by the first painter and there are no logical reasons for it to not have a full effect. Just like there isn't for guns.

But that's logic. And please... Don't get me wrong. I understand the difference between logic and balancing game mechanics. Like I stated in the first post I understand why CCP incorporated the mechanics of diminishing effects. What I don't understand is why they left out the guns.

Tarhim
Caldari
Posted - 2010.06.07 12:54:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Haze zec
Why is it not the same as shooting at it? I think it's exactly the same. In fact if painting a target would follow any logic at all the second painter should give an even bigger bonus than the first since it sees a larger ship caused by the first painter and there are no logical reasons for it to not have a full effect. Just like there isn't for guns.



And what exactly is reason for second TP to have even bigger effect than first? From the logic point of view, target is lit up already, you can't lit it up twice as good.

Quote:

What I don't understand is why they left out the guns.


Regardless of increasing number of damage calculations, think about possible exploits - have spider tanked gang shooting each other with few weapons and it's undamageable by enemy.

Goose99
Posted - 2010.06.07 12:57:00 - [7]
 

Sounds good. Internet spaceships don't need to be logical, as long as it makes good gameplay. I'm for anything that gimps blobs. Pvp is supposed to be fun, as opposed to the "simon says" we have now.

Valandril
Caldari
Ex-Mortis
Posted - 2010.06.07 13:08:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Goose99
Sounds good. Internet spaceships don't need to be logical, as long as it makes good gameplay. I'm for anything that gimps blobs. Pvp is supposed to be fun, as opposed to the "simon says" we have now.
Brain teaser, if it's not fun then why thousands of people do it ?

Haze zec
Posted - 2010.06.07 13:11:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Tarhim
And what exactly is reason for second TP to have even bigger effect than first? From the logic point of view, target is lit up already, you can't lit it up twice as good.



From the in game description:
A targeting subsystem that projects a electronic "Tag" on the target thus making it easier to target and Hit.

From the attribute page:
Signature Radius Bonus 30 %

So you have a ship with a signature of 120 (some cruiser), you paint it with the first TP it's signature inreases to 156m (120m + 30%(36m)). Now according to logic if you have a second TP, this one now paints a target with a signature of 156m and should increase the signature of the cruiser to 202,8m (156m +30%(46,8m)).

See how following logic the second one has a bigger effect than the first?

The only reason why that isn't so in game is because in the description made up rule of: Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized.

which follows no logic what so ever but is there for game mechanic balancing purposes..

Goose99
Posted - 2010.06.07 13:30:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Valandril
Originally by: Goose99
Sounds good. Internet spaceships don't need to be logical, as long as it makes good gameplay. I'm for anything that gimps blobs. Pvp is supposed to be fun, as opposed to the "simon says" we have now.
Brain teaser, if it's not fun then why thousands of people do it ?


Because they're tools, following every whim of screaming 14 years olds, of course.Cool

Haze zec
Posted - 2010.06.07 13:41:00 - [11]
 

Valandril, thousands of people do it because they learned that that's how you win. What if "thousands" is the low end and maybe hundred of thousands would do it if were less bloby and more fun?

Valandril
Caldari
Ex-Mortis
Posted - 2010.06.07 14:00:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Haze zec
Valandril, thousands of people do it because they learned that that's how you win. What if "thousands" is the low end and maybe hundred of thousands would do it if were less bloby and more fun?
Obvious troll is obvious. Go read up on early eve and how it evolved to current warfare.

Reggie Stoneloader
Poofdinkles
Posted - 2010.06.07 14:03:00 - [13]
 

Diminishing returns on EW lead to a cap on effectiveness. If there was a cap on damage output, then it would become possible to tank (or spider tank) the whole world.

Ekrid
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2010.06.07 14:29:00 - [14]
 

a diminishing return, or 1/2x curve, is the most effective means of getting game balance in a game. the other effective means it to model the game on rock paper scissor, and have a baseline balance between different everythings. that said, pure damage should not be on a diminishing return, but everything else should, such as webs, neuts, ewar etc. since it already is that way, this thread is moo.

Kyusoath Orillian
Haters Gonna Hate
Posted - 2010.06.07 15:07:00 - [15]
 

personally i like the idea of some kind of dminishing returns on dps. its silly in gameplay that you can just bring more people. it would make 0.0 warfare more fun as a smaller alliance could hold their space against a much larger force.

i am awrae that a smaller alliance can currently hold space ,however if a larger alliance wanted it they could take it easily. i know this as we tried it and it was fine until we got rolled by a 200man capital fleet we could not fight at all. i'm not whining about it, its the way it is, but its not fun.

perhaps a hardcap of like 25 ships dps one target or maybe lower. after the cap all ships attempting to fire on the target just miss. plenty of lore reasons for this , also a stacking penelty on RR is very much needed and i can't believe we don't have that at least.

remote sebo is stacking penalised so why aren't RR modules ? in gameplay terms that makes little sense and just encourages blob warfare.

blob warfare is not fun unless you are the winning blob. or in most cases the defending blob as the blobs are so big that the attackers jump in to a lag mess that results in 1 minute black screen then in a pod. anyone who has done this kind of warfare must have experienced this and it is not good or in anyway a fun gameplay mechanic.

what underlines all this is FUN. it would be more fun if we had multiple smaller fleets attacking and defending multiple systems (sov warfare example) instead of stupidly massive fleets that the server can't even handle blobbing the entry gate KNOWING that as the enemy jump in they cannot return fire. its a borderline exploit.

this is why the best pvp players(HYDRA reloaded) in this game don't touch sov warfare ****, its not fun and its not really fair.

why do so many do it ? well theres a lot more people doing boring **** in hisec than in 0.0 so i guesss that means thats the most fun right ?

the thing that really bothers me about blob warfare is that it takes ZERO skill. garmon is the most skilled pvp i have ever seen and he gets **** on by blobs often, because currently skill takes second place to numbers.

Ninetails o'Cat
League of Super Evil
Posted - 2010.06.07 18:21:00 - [16]
 


Jelosavich
Posted - 2010.06.07 19:25:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Haze zec
Why you can't use 10 target painters to blow up a frigates signature to the size of a battleship and why you can't fit 5 EANM's and expect to have 99% of armor resists.


If you shine 5 flashlights on something, it's not 5x as bright as if you shone one flashlight on it. Whereas if you shoot someone 5 times, they DO have 5 holes in them.

Haze zec
Posted - 2010.06.07 19:52:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Jelosavich
Originally by: Haze zec
Why you can't use 10 target painters to blow up a frigates signature to the size of a battleship and why you can't fit 5 EANM's and expect to have 99% of armor resists.


If you shine 5 flashlights on something, it's not 5x as bright as if you shone one flashlight on it. Whereas if you shoot someone 5 times, they DO have 5 holes in them.


Even though I'm sure physicists would disagree with you on that one I see your point of maybe picking the wrong ewar type to illustrate my point, perhaps too abstract to comprehend.

So if the TP doesn't work for you how about the web. Please let me know the logical reason why the 2nd web has less of an effect than the first?

Haze zec
Posted - 2010.06.07 20:00:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader
Diminishing returns on EW lead to a cap on effectiveness. If there was a cap on damage output, then it would become possible to tank (or spider tank) the whole world.


Yes you are right and it's precisely why CCP put it in. To cap the ewar you could effectively use on a single target and to prevent IMBA setups. I just don't understand why stop with weapon mods..

I mean you do have a point in that the damage diminishing returns formula would have to be slightly different because of the tank. So how about damage diminishes but doesn't drop below let's say 30%. And while we are at it, as someone pointed out, do the same on remote repping.


 

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