open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Make big pvp battles more fun - shield mitigation
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Earthan
Gallente
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.09.13 19:49:00 - [1]
 

1-Problem

Imho Eve pvp fights are pretty good and offer good tactical choices at about 20-30 man.

When the fleets goes up to 50 good dps ships and more , the fights start more and more consist of both sides just killign ships in one volley.
You dont have time to think , it stops to matter so much if you are good pilot , its not fun for anyone.


2-Proposition

While playing sins of solar empire these last days i really liked the way they solved this problem, even when you got a 100+ ships blob there and you focus on 1 target it still will last a bit:

They intoduced something called shield mitigation , the more ships shoot on same target, the more dmg is absorbed by the shield of a ship , so the mroe you focus the loss return you see.

Im not saying this is exactly the solution but its really workign there, maybe somethign similar.

3-Benefit

Even if you got primaried you still last a bit so its mroe fun for you and those that try to kill you.

Maybe it will be beneficial to split fleet into few squads with target callers , making another layer of tactical complexity, involving more poeple.

Killing will slow down so overall you can think a bit more during battle

Goose99
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:04:00 - [2]
 

Supported. This would reduce the incentive to raise blobs to as big as possible and give a reason to split up. Would also alleviate lagging.

Alara IonStorm
Caldari
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:18:00 - [3]
 

That is crazy!

So crazy it just might work!

what about armor tankers thou!

Goose99
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:24:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Goose99 on 13/09/2010 20:25:08
Originally by: Alara IonStorm
That is crazy!

So crazy it just might work!

what about armor tankers thou!



I'm sure they can come up with some kind of sci-fi rp explanation for the armor version. Just a matter of making up fiction to justify good game mechanics.

Would be nice if mitigation fades after a certain amount of time, or does not apply for supercaps though. Would be nice to be able to take down a titan before next DT.

Earthan
Gallente
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:24:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Alara IonStorm
That is crazy!

So crazy it just might work!

what about armor tankers thou!



:)

I was talking about the orginal idea, ofc for eve it would have ot be both shield/armor/hull mitigation

Its just a concept to work on , you woudl have to balance a lot of things im sure.

Earthan
Gallente
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:27:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Goose99
Originally by: Alara IonStorm
That is crazy!

So crazy it just might work!

what about armor tankers thou!



I'm sure they can come up with some kind of sci-fi rp explanation for the armor version.

Would be nice if mitigation fades after a certain amount of time, or does not apply for supercaps though. Would be nice to be able to take down a titan before next DT.


good point. Or take into account ship class for each mitigation level, so you can pour much more dmg on capitals before its starts working

Alara IonStorm
Caldari
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:33:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Earthan
Originally by: Goose99
Originally by: Alara IonStorm

good point. Or take into account ship class for each mitigation level, so you can pour much more dmg on capitals before its starts working

Maybe it can work based on Signature Radius, or Mass!


Nub Sauce
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:35:00 - [8]
 

Some time ago, I suggested weapons fire interference as a way to prevent instant death when getting attacked by tons of people.

Depending on the size of ship (bigger takes more attackers), after so many ships are firing at it, targetting interference comes into play. The interference doesn't preventing target locks, but the effectiveness of the weapons firing upon the target. Projectile weapons would score lesser hits, missiles would explode off target a bit doing less damage.

Pretty similar to what you are proposing, just a good in-game reason for it to occur.

Bhattran
Posted - 2010.09.13 20:59:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Alara IonStorm
That is crazy!

So crazy it just might work!


what about armor tankers thou!


Very Happy

Earthan
Gallente
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.09.13 21:00:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Nub Sauce
Some time ago, I suggested weapons fire interference as a way to prevent instant death when getting attacked by tons of people.

Depending on the size of ship (bigger takes more attackers), after so many ships are firing at it, targetting interference comes into play. The interference doesn't preventing target locks, but the effectiveness of the weapons firing upon the target. Projectile weapons would score lesser hits, missiles would explode off target a bit doing less damage.

Pretty similar to what you are proposing, just a good in-game reason for it to occur.


yep pretty same , i would be as happy with this.

Reeno Coleman
Posted - 2010.09.15 11:23:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Nub Sauce
Some time ago, I suggested weapons fire interference as a way to prevent instant death when getting attacked by tons of people.

Depending on the size of ship (bigger takes more attackers), after so many ships are firing at it, targetting interference comes into play. The interference doesn't preventing target locks, but the effectiveness of the weapons firing upon the target. Projectile weapons would score lesser hits, missiles would explode off target a bit doing less damage.

Pretty similar to what you are proposing, just a good in-game reason for it to occur.


i like that, as long as this is limited to sub-capital ship sizes.
Maybe this could be accompanied by a wing or squad-based target calling / broadcasting mechanism, to give more incentive for the right tactical choice of spreading fire.
All in all it would increase tactical depth, because it adds a new decision layer and maybe this even calls for new target-call-specialists in fleets.

Wyke Mossari
Gallente
Posted - 2010.09.15 12:10:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Wyke Mossari on 15/09/2010 12:11:28
The general principle of this suggestion makes good sense. It is anti-blobbing and realistic.

It seems likely that pouring all types of offensive fire on one ship would mitigate some of the damage.

Hybrid & Projectile damaging missiles, missiles colliding, beams vaporising missiles & ammo and absorbing some beam energy.

Ned Black
Posted - 2010.09.15 12:27:00 - [13]
 

A solution to the blobfesting problem could be to remove the names from people that are not in your fleet.

With the current situation where anyone whos name begins with an A or a Z is in deep trouble I think this approach may appeal a great deal.

Removing the names would make it a lot harder to actually focus fire on a specific ship... unless some poor ******* decides to come in a ship that nobody else flies in that fleet.

In small fleets distances between fighting parts are normally much lower so broadcasting targets in those fleetw would be viable.

Nomistrav
Posted - 2010.09.15 12:49:00 - [14]
 

Stating from actual large fleet combat experience:

A.) We already have a wing/squad broadcast system. In the bottom right corner of your fleet window is what looks like four arrows connected in the center. This is your ability to choose who to broadcast to (everyone, my group, superiors). Depending on whether or not you are a wing or squad commander this applies to you.

B.)Mitigation is unrealistic, as you are all targeting the same target and at different distances/angles. It's like saying you and a friend are both shooting pool balls from different sides of the table. Unless by some astronomical means of physical coincedence (sp) those pool balls aren't going to hit each other and suddenly obliterate one/the other/themselves.

C.) I like where the topic is going, and it would solve a lot of issues (albeit perhaps more than cause physics/realism wise) but it doesn't natural and would require incredible amounts of micromanagement that would add problems. In fact it would probably add more lag with both sides barking out broadcasts (especially spamming them if lag was preventing the command issued)

Mostly the reason 'blob' tactics are in effect is because logistics are fielded and it takes a lot of DPS to counter 20 logistics healing one person. I'll support it if this 'mitigation' were to counter the mass affect of the logistics.

Skex Relbore
Gallente
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2010.09.15 15:06:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Skex Relbore on 15/09/2010 15:07:36
Originally by: Nomistrav
Stating from actual large fleet combat experience:



B.)Mitigation is unrealistic, as you are all targeting the same target and at different distances/angles. It's like saying you and a friend are both shooting pool balls from different sides of the table. Unless by some astronomical means of physical coincedence (sp) those pool balls aren't going to hit each other and suddenly obliterate one/the other/themselves.




Actually this isn't quite correct. The fact that you are shooting from multiple vectors actually makes the alpha make less not more sense. Because both armor and shield coverage are 360 degrees and in three dimensions so an attack from a slightly different angle is going to be hitting a different physical location of a ship. In the case of armor it may be hitting a fresh undamaged plate rather than one that has already taken damage in the case of shields there is a balancing factor as the shield protection equalizes across it's surface.

Now the problem with such an idea is the problem that is always faced by any defensive system. It's easier to just throw more firepower at a target than to defend it. If you introduce damage mitigation as suggested the most likely solution would not be to reduce the number of ships brought into a fight but rather increase it as you work to overwhelm the newer mitigated defense.

So while this idea sounds good in theory in practice I suspect it would have rather the opposite effect from it's intended, and as such would encourage more blobbing not less.

Nuts Nougat
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW
Posted - 2010.09.15 15:12:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Ned Black
A solution to the blobfesting problem could be to remove the names from people that are not in your fleet.

With the current situation where anyone whos name begins with an A or a Z is in deep trouble I think this approach may appeal a great deal.

Removing the names would make it a lot harder to actually focus fire on a specific ship... unless some poor ******* decides to come in a ship that nobody else flies in that fleet.

In small fleets distances between fighting parts are normally much lower so broadcasting targets in those fleetw would be viable.
I would support the **** out of removing names of anyone not in your fleet (make it like d-scan).

Goose99
Posted - 2010.09.15 15:12:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Goose99 on 15/09/2010 15:13:51
Edited by: Goose99 on 15/09/2010 15:12:41
Originally by: Skex Relbore
Edited by: Skex Relbore on 15/09/2010 15:07:36
Originally by: Nomistrav
Stating from actual large fleet combat experience:



B.)Mitigation is unrealistic, as you are all targeting the same target and at different distances/angles. It's like saying you and a friend are both shooting pool balls from different sides of the table. Unless by some astronomical means of physical coincedence (sp) those pool balls aren't going to hit each other and suddenly obliterate one/the other/themselves.




Actually this isn't quite correct. The fact that you are shooting from multiple vectors actually makes the alpha make less not more sense. Because both armor and shield coverage are 360 degrees and in three dimensions so an attack from a slightly different angle is going to be hitting a different physical location of a ship. In the case of armor it may be hitting a fresh undamaged plate rather than one that has already taken damage in the case of shields there is a balancing factor as the shield protection equalizes across it's surface.

Now the problem with such an idea is the problem that is always faced by any defensive system. It's easier to just throw more firepower at a target than to defend it. If you introduce damage mitigation as suggested the most likely solution would not be to reduce the number of ships brought into a fight but rather increase it as you work to overwhelm the newer mitigated defense.

So while this idea sounds good in theory in practice I suspect it would have rather the opposite effect from it's intended, and as such would encourage more blobbing not less.


It depends on how steep the stacking penalty curve is. If you apply a flat % mitigation to 2 attackers and 100, it'll encourage blobs. If you curve it to a point where 5 attackers suffer almost no penalty, but anything more than 50 does almost no additional dps, huge blobs you see today will no longer exist.

Stacking penalty can apply to blob rr as well. No reason why it shouldn't.

Glyken Touchon
Gallente
Independent Alchemists
Posted - 2010.09.15 15:35:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Glyken Touchon on 15/09/2010 15:37:21
would it be based on number of ships shooting/number of weapons shooting.

how would it take into account drones?
would it treat frigate weapons the same as capital ones?
would it affect ecm?

if it treats frigates the same as BS/caps, then it would just encourage people to supersize into cap ships.

Good concept, but the devil could be in the detail.

could have the leadership skills make an impact on the mitigation point/level.

Floating Lemming
Posted - 2010.09.15 17:38:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Floating Lemming on 15/09/2010 17:40:54
Edited by: Floating Lemming on 15/09/2010 17:38:41
Originally by: Goose99
It depends on how steep the stacking penalty curve is. If you apply a flat % mitigation to 2 attackers and 100, it'll encourage blobs. If you curve it to a point where 5 attackers suffer almost no penalty, but anything more than 50 does almost no additional dps, huge blobs you see today will no longer exist.

Stacking penalty can apply to blob rr as well. No reason why it shouldn't.
Thing is , you can run logistics chains not breakable by less than 50-60 ships.

Add a bit of lag and you need 100+ people shooting the same target to break the logistics. These setups have in a ton of engagements proven that an 80 man fleet can crush forces 3-4 times their size.

So instead of blobs you would just have groups of invulverable ships. It was seen during Max2 in the north when certain closerange/rr logistics builds under laggy conditions only was countered by bringing in the capitals and doomsdaying the logistics.

Regular BS fleets and battlecruiserbased support fleets couldnt stop that.

PL has proven that ahacs can counter it but then armorhacs is also a setup where you depend on the power of logistics ships. This has also proved that a 50-80 man gang can engage forces 3-4 times their number and win , again and again and again.

Edit , typo's and more info

Vladimiru
Gallente
Nanite Industries
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2010.09.15 17:42:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Vladimiru on 15/09/2010 17:48:13
Something more realistic would be better, the proposal:

Noise

For every ship that targets you, targeting time for other ships is now increased by X%.


Whether or not this should effect friendly ships is up for debate. If this didn't effect targeting ships in your fleet, the simple lore reason could be that your ship is "communicating" with your fleet, and is thus already targeted by you, although hidden.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2010.09.15 18:31:00 - [21]
 

It works fine in a game like SoSE where you don't have a ton of database queries and server chatter going back and forth .. just imagine the extra information needed for you proposal, lag can be bad as is - this would make it truly epic Smile
CCP mentioned something about a field defense shield they were working on, so it would seem that they to are getting fed up with blob-on-blob action and are looking for ways to discourage it.
Originally by: Nuts Nougat
I would support the **** out of removing names of anyone not in your fleet (make it like d-scan).

It's an awesome idea but needs more tools for FC's and/or squad/wing commanders, adding the ability to automatically transmit targets for instance.
Combined with the equally bad-ass idea of formations and we suddenly have fleets with semi-independently operating squads and wings wreaking havoc across the stars.

Goose99
Posted - 2010.09.15 18:54:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Floating Lemming
Edited by: Floating Lemming on 15/09/2010 17:40:54
Edited by: Floating Lemming on 15/09/2010 17:38:41
Originally by: Goose99
It depends on how steep the stacking penalty curve is. If you apply a flat % mitigation to 2 attackers and 100, it'll encourage blobs. If you curve it to a point where 5 attackers suffer almost no penalty, but anything more than 50 does almost no additional dps, huge blobs you see today will no longer exist.

Stacking penalty can apply to blob rr as well. No reason why it shouldn't.
Thing is , you can run logistics chains not breakable by less than 50-60 ships.

Add a bit of lag and you need 100+ people shooting the same target to break the logistics. These setups have in a ton of engagements proven that an 80 man fleet can crush forces 3-4 times their size.

So instead of blobs you would just have groups of invulverable ships. It was seen during Max2 in the north when certain closerange/rr logistics builds under laggy conditions only was countered by bringing in the capitals and doomsdaying the logistics.

Regular BS fleets and battlecruiserbased support fleets couldnt stop that.

PL has proven that ahacs can counter it but then armorhacs is also a setup where you depend on the power of logistics ships. This has also proved that a 50-80 man gang can engage forces 3-4 times their number and win , again and again and again.

Edit , typo's and more info


Again:
Quote:
Stacking penalty can apply to blob rr as well. No reason why it shouldn't.

Earthan
Gallente
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.09.15 19:46:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Nomistrav
Stating from actual large fleet combat experience:

A.) We already have a wing/squad broadcast system. In the bottom right corner of your fleet window is what looks like four arrows connected in the center. This is your ability to choose who to broadcast to (everyone, my group, superiors). Depending on whether or not you are a wing or squad commander this applies to you.

B.)Mitigation is unrealistic, as you are all targeting the same target and at different distances/angles. It's like saying you and a friend are both shooting pool balls from different sides of the table. Unless by some astronomical means of physical coincedence (sp) those pool balls aren't going to hit each other and suddenly obliterate one/the other/themselves.

C.) I like where the topic is going, and it would solve a lot of issues (albeit perhaps more than cause physics/realism wise) but it doesn't natural and would require incredible amounts of micromanagement that would add problems. In fact it would probably add more lag with both sides barking out broadcasts (especially spamming them if lag was preventing the command issued)

Mostly the reason 'blob' tactics are in effect is because logistics are fielded and it takes a lot of DPS to counter 20 logistics healing one person. I'll support it if this 'mitigation' were to counter the mass affect of the logistics.


Id ont care so much about realism , you can justify however you want the effect.I mean its unrealistic atm that eveyone is shooting past each other in blobs, we should be shoooting each othe rint he back most of time...

I just know in sins of solar empire that effect works great and adds lots to fun.

The logisitcs have nothing to do with blobs, blobs were long long before the logostocs were even introduced to the game.

Earthan
Gallente
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.09.15 19:52:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
It works fine in a game like SoSE where you don't have a ton of database queries and server chatter going back and forth .. just imagine the extra information needed for you proposal, lag can be bad as is - this would make it truly epic Smile
CCP mentioned something about a field defense shield they were working on, so it would seem that they to are getting fed up with blob-on-blob action and are looking for ways to discourage it.
Originally by: Nuts Nougat
I would support the **** out of removing names of anyone not in your fleet (make it like d-scan).

It's an awesome idea but needs more tools for FC's and/or squad/wing commanders, adding the ability to automatically transmit targets for instance.
Combined with the equally bad-ass idea of formations and we suddenly have fleets with semi-independently operating squads and wings wreaking havoc across the stars.


Yea that might be problem , the computation power could be unrealisitc for this.
But maybe ccp magicians can coem up with something alike but needing little computing power?

EmpireOfDust
Posted - 2010.09.15 20:13:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Earthan
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
It works fine in a game like SoSE where you don't have a ton of database queries and server chatter going back and forth .. just imagine the extra information needed for you proposal, lag can be bad as is - this would make it truly epic Smile
CCP mentioned something about a field defense shield they were working on, so it would seem that they to are getting fed up with blob-on-blob action and are looking for ways to discourage it.
Originally by: Nuts Nougat
I would support the **** out of removing names of anyone not in your fleet (make it like d-scan).

It's an awesome idea but needs more tools for FC's and/or squad/wing commanders, adding the ability to automatically transmit targets for instance.
Combined with the equally bad-ass idea of formations and we suddenly have fleets with semi-independently operating squads and wings wreaking havoc across the stars.


Yea that might be problem , the computation power could be unrealisitc for this.
But maybe ccp magicians can coem up with something alike but needing little computing power?


Just base it on the number of people in the system then?

Once X people are in the system, a system-wide effect comes into effect causing - damage or some other useful effect such as +cycle time on all modules? along with a -damage which increases with number of people this would discourage such large blobs i think, But even then your going to just have someone trying to bring a bigger blob, meaning the only real solution is a cap on the number of people in the system per alliance.

Earthan
Gallente
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.09.15 20:16:00 - [26]
 

cap on the number of peopel per allince will never work and any other such ideas, poeple will just form few allinces and use them...

only way imho is to nerf the benefit of focusing fire on one target from to many ships or over a certain levle somehow.

HOwareyoutoday
Posted - 2010.09.15 20:23:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: HOwareyoutoday on 15/09/2010 20:24:44
Originally by: Vladimiru
Edited by: Vladimiru on 15/09/2010 17:48:13
Something more realistic would be better, the proposal:

Noise

For every ship that targets you, targeting time for other ships is now increased by X%.


Whether or not this should effect friendly ships is up for debate. If this didn't effect targeting ships in your fleet, the simple lore reason could be that your ship is "communicating" with your fleet, and is thus already targeted by you, although hidden.


I also find this to be a more "realistic" and more easily implemented coding wise. In all this idea is a good evolution of the OP's idea. I would imagine that when it takes a Cruiser 90 seconds to lock a large target, it would be no longer effective to target it.

Arklan1
Dunedain Rangers
Posted - 2010.09.15 20:27:00 - [28]
 

while i'm not sure if this is the proposal to do it, i'd love to see something break up blobs and introduce, you know, tactics. right now it seems to be "everybody shoot x! ok, now shoot y!" etc, but something more like "wing 1, take out the frigs. wing two, cover the logitstics. wing three, use your crusiers to cover wing 1. wings 4 and 5, split up, and starting picking off the DPS boats."

random, pointless tactics mention, obviously. just trying to make an example.

Nub Sauce
Posted - 2010.09.15 21:22:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Vladimiru
Edited by: Vladimiru on 15/09/2010 17:48:13
Something more realistic would be better, the proposal:

Noise

For every ship that targets you, targeting time for other ships is now increased by X%.


Whether or not this should effect friendly ships is up for debate. If this didn't effect targeting ships in your fleet, the simple lore reason could be that your ship is "communicating" with your fleet, and is thus already targeted by you, although hidden.


The problem with this is that a bunch of your own team could have you targetted already and cause enemies huge problems. VERY exploitable in a bad way.

Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2010.09.15 21:29:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Sigras on 15/09/2010 21:32:02
The problem I have with the OP is that it doesn't really discourage blobs, it would just discourage focused fire; I guess there would be no reason to have more than 10x (or wherever the stacking penalty gets really steep) the number of ships as the opposition but that's rarely a problem

The other idea, the targeting noise one, is even worse though as it would just end up with gate campers all targeting eachother to make lock times longer for their enemies making being first on the field critical for victory.

I think the only way you're gonna get rid of blobs is to add/improve the AOE weapons that are available as that is the only true direct nerf to blobs

Edit: darn you nub sauce you beat me to it!!!


Pages: [1] 2

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