open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked boom goes the dynamite
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Hecatonis
Amarr
Posted - 2010.11.24 03:22:00 - [1]
 

this is not my idea, but Kerfira coming from This thread i just modified it to be a little more reasonable

there is no active mechanic that puts a limit on the number of ships in one fight. this leads to wildly high numbers coming to a fight that doesnt need them. this in turn lags the system, node, game.

there are some consideration that needed to be taking in:
1) easy to code - something global or near global so we dont have a million conditional if/then
2) easy to understand - so FCs can have an easy "rule of thumb" to follow
3) low exploit-ability - well come on, if there is a way, people will brake it

solution? a damage on death effect. something that scales with the population in system, this damage affect will on tick on the death of a PC ship NPCs will not have this effect

these are the variables that i will be using

Sp1 = sig radius of the ship being hit with damage wave
Sp2 = sig radius of ship blowing up
P = system population
e = mathematical function
Ln = Mathematical Function
Dt = Damage taken
Er = explosion radius

Dt = ((Sp1)(250)/(425))e^(((P/1000)^3)-1)
Er = 5000(1+ (ln(Sp2/42))^1.75)

the Dt is a fixed damage of about 700 at a system population of 1000 if you where flying a BS (425 is the average sig radius of a BS), 67 for a frig and 4800 for a dread

The explosion radius will start at about 5000m for a fig to about 70km for a dread, and well into the grid for a titan

anything time there is less then 1000 people in the system the damage would be a lot less.

this puts a soft cap on systems to 1000 with no affect that cant be overcome, with planning. That scales quickly when you pass the 1000 mark. because lets be fair, if you cant take a system with less then 500 ships your doing it wrong. the blast radius should also stop alliances from sending in waves of frigs to stop a fleet of super caps

i also say that this effect doesnt come into play in high sec, as far as i have seen there is no super blobs that fight there, and this would only make major problems in places like jitta.

add RP fluff as you feel fit, but it can all be explained in regards to why it happens in high traffic systems, and its dampened in high sec

now i am looking for your ideas, any changes to the numbers that you are looking for

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.24 03:33:00 - [2]
 

If you want to put in an AoE death explosion based on ship size, sure.

If you want to tie it in to limiting numbers, I can't support it. You are already implementing a risk for the numbers and escalating ship size. You have to spread out, minimizing focus fire effectiveness. Close range support ships are in a danger zone. I'm sure explosion velocity would come into play for small ships, but it still puts frigates at risk by default, since to put it at a range where it even matters it will easily be within most frigates' optimals.

Hecatonis
Amarr
Posted - 2010.11.24 03:53:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha
If you want to put in an AoE death explosion based on ship size, sure.

If you want to tie it in to limiting numbers, I can't support it. You are already implementing a risk for the numbers and escalating ship size. You have to spread out, minimizing focus fire effectiveness. Close range support ships are in a danger zone. I'm sure explosion velocity would come into play for small ships, but it still puts frigates at risk by default, since to put it at a range where it even matters it will easily be within most frigates' optimals.


i was playing with some numbers to base it off of ship size, but scaling was becoming an issue since signature radius is not linearly proportional to EHP the formulas where becoming unwieldy, and taking away from the "easy to understand" part.

that is why i instead kept it to blast radius, the base damage says the same, but the affected area increases depending on ship size.

"minimizing focus fire effectiveness" is too exploitable, if you put a cap the amount of locks you can have per ship or effective damage is decreased per lock then people would lock their own men to minimizes damage. adding LOS would increase server load. neither would be added to the game.

in the same breath that i said in my first point, sig radius is not linearly proportional to EHP. therefore figs although being in the direct hit box of all explosion take some of the less damage.

if the damage is still too high merely increase the base damage from 250, and increase the nominal sig radius from 425. figs will take less damage but still scaling well, problem lies too much change and larger ships will start taking less damage.

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.24 04:41:00 - [4]
 

I'm not really sure what you're saying here, so I'll explain again.

I said the negative impact of "ship blow up do damage" is going to be detrimental enough if it's put in at a level of significance. Not sure how it is exploitable that your suggested change makes people spread out, which inevitably reduces how effective larger groups can focus fire. You also can have it bring a negative consequence to fielding larger ships, aside from the cost and logistics already involved.

That being said, if you tie this into system population in any way you are eventually introducing a scenario of "I have this many ships, I win by default" and turn an idea which (I assume) was intended to add some tactical considerations to a fleet fight into a silly win button.

So again, the general idea is fine, but there can be no tie in with system population. It's unrealistic, goes against the idea of the change in the end, and CCP won't put something like that in anyway.

Hecatonis
Amarr
Posted - 2010.11.24 05:06:00 - [5]
 

ok lets brake this down into smaller bits

Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha
I'm not really sure what you're saying here, so I'll explain again.

I said the negative impact of "ship blow up do damage" is going to be detrimental enough if it's put in at a level of significance.

thats the point, blowing up a ship when you have 999 other ships flying around in the system should be a detriment to all parties involved. the idea was to put soft cap on fleet engagements that go up as you add more ships to the fray.

Quote:
Not sure how it is exploitable that your suggested change makes people spread out, which inevitably reduces how effective larger groups can focus fire. You also can have it bring a negative consequence to fielding larger ships, aside from the cost and logistics already involved.


i do not understand the bolded section, but i will address the rest. there is a negative consequence to bringing larger ships, its a lager blast radius. but still the damage is not an unmanageable amount because each blast deals only about as much damage as a full alpha from a ship of equal size or less.

Quote:
That being said, if you tie this into system population in any way you are eventually introducing a scenario of "I have this many ships, I win by default" and turn an idea which (I assume) was intended to add some tactical considerations to a fleet fight into a silly win button.


umm i don't think you are understanding the effect. if one side overpopulates the system THEY are more at risk of damage. this is an AOE, the side that has the most ships will incur the most damage. if they jump in one/some ships at a time, then the other merely reps theirs back to full strength. as i said the damage from one blast is not unmanageable. it is 1 - 2 cycles of any repair mod, before resists.

Quote:
So again, the general idea is fine, but there can be no tie in with system population. It's unrealistic, goes against the idea of the change in the end, and CCP won't put something like that in anyway.


i have to ask, why can there be no tie in with system population? the idea is to make fleet warfare usable, at this moment it is not because one side brings in more then the server can handle and it shuts everything down. this brings no enjoyment to anyone, and the last time i looked people play games for enjoyment.

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.24 06:57:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Kabaal S''sylistha on 24/11/2010 06:59:05
Will respond in a similar fashion.

First quote response - A soft cap that goes up as more ships are involved?

The bolded section - When ships spread out, it's harder for the FC to maintain control of putting the fleet in a position where a majority of the offensive can be directed at the same target effectively. IE if you have 5 battleships, and they have to be 5k apart to avoid any possible collateral damage, then you begin to feel that change in range. In the worst possible condition the last ship in the formation could be 20k+ further out, and if the ship capability is similar they are likely a fair bit more ineffective. This effect is why I supported the general idea to begin with.

Next quote - It encourages a minimum fleet size, actually, if you base it off system population. It becomes advantageous to make sure the increase due to population is in effect, since the larger fleet will be destroying more ships by nature. If you know that someone will be bringing a minimum of X# of ships, you're more likely to increase your fleet size, so they're more likely to increase it, etc. etc.
If it's a flat value the effect is amplified by fleet size, which seems to be your intent. I don't see the need for an effect that isn't supported by either side of the gameplay vs. realism argument.

Last Quote - I said why there can be no tie in. You add a metagame mechanic (to an otherwise decent and realistic idea) that ruins the effect of the basic idea.

Mechanics that by their nature encourage more thought and planning to fleet engagements I'm for. Some metagame feature that arbitrarily puts a 'soft cap' is going to be used for what it is - a metagame feature - and I nor anyone in game design is going to put that in.

Edited for clarity

Hecatonis
Amarr
Posted - 2010.11.24 08:36:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha
Edited by: Kabaal S''sylistha on 24/11/2010 06:59:05
Will respond in a similar fashion.

First quote response - A soft cap that goes up as more ships are involved?

ok, i see where you are having the problem. the equation works like this, more people in the system, the more damage is done/ship death. the soft cap is still 1000, at 1000 people in system a BS will take 700 if they are in the blast area. as more people enter the system, the damage increases at 1200 the same BS will take 1000, and so on. TL;DR more people the worse it gets

Quote:

The bolded section - When ships spread out, it's harder for the FC to maintain control of putting the fleet in a position where a majority of the offensive can be directed at the same target effectively. IE if you have 5 battleships, and they have to be 5k apart to avoid any possible collateral damage, then you begin to feel that change in range. In the worst possible condition the last ship in the formation could be 20k+ further out, and if the ship capability is similar they are likely a fair bit more ineffective. This effect is why I supported the general idea to begin with.

if you think its a bad thing that FCs need to do more work then you get no sympathy from me. they can a) deal with it and learn, b) lose or c) split the forces and run multiple FCs running communications between groups. why should eve be easy?

if you dont think its a bad thing that fleets should be forced to split then all you are looking for is blob warfare, as we all know how unproductive that is for the entire community

Quote:

Next quote - It encourages a minimum fleet size, actually, if you base it off system population. It becomes advantageous to make sure the increase due to population is in effect, since the larger fleet will be destroying more ships by nature. If you know that someone will be bringing a minimum of X# of ships, you're more likely to increase your fleet size, so they're more likely to increase it, etc. etc.


no because increasing the population of a system has an adverse effect. this does encourage smaller fleets. thus reducing server load, thus adding more usable game time, less crashes, less global lag. sounds good to me

Quote:

If it's a flat value the effect is amplified by fleet size, which seems to be your intent. I don't see the need for an effect that isn't supported by either side of the gameplay vs. realism argument.

a) this is internet space ships were we can and do travel faster then the speed of light, where rocks spring from nowhere, and we live forever, you want some realism?
Originally by: RP BS

warp cores create subspace resonate waves, these waves reach out about 1 light year, when too many are in the same area and one goes critical then it blows up big


hey look problem solved, remember, video game, the goal is to have fun, being lagged out in a battle where it takes 30 min for your guns to activate because "god" says so is not realistic. i fail to see your problem here.

b)Now for game play, sitting there for 30 min waiting for your guns to turn on, or hoping the grid will load is not gameplay its waiting to wake up in your med clone. i dont know what kinda games you like to play.

Quote:
Mechanics that by their nature encourage more thought and planning to fleet engagements I'm for. Some metagame feature that arbitrarily puts a 'soft cap' is going to be used for what it is - a metagame feature - and I nor anyone in game design is going to put that in.



lag is being used as a meta-strategy right now, how many defenders have pushed enough people into a system just so it lags so bad they have more time to prepare? this gives an unfair advantage to the defenders, and lags out half of the shard. which cause many players to get p*ssed off that is not even taking part.

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.24 08:54:00 - [8]
 

Sigh.

First bit - Your wording implied the cap would go up as the cap was reached, hence my confusion.

Second bit - I quite clearly say that I supported the idea because of the effect I describe. I was explaining it in further detail since you didn't seem to grasp what I said.

Third bit - Yes, the adverse effect does go up. In your formula, the damage goes up within the range of explosion. So when the larger fleet pops the smaller forces ships *much* faster, the smaller fleet will take that higher damage at a higher rate. Congratulations, you've increased the DPS of the larger fleet and encourage them to keep that DPS advantage.

Fourth bit - Yes, there is this awesome balancing act in game design known as the gameplay vs realism argument. Keep in mind, the gameplay flaw in the population tie in is the main reason I argued against it. The fact that it doesn't have much merit realistically is just icing on the cake, and "RP BS" doesn't validate it.

And the final bit - The key difference between lag and your suggestion is that lag is not a design feature. The core of your idea is fine. I think I've stated that 5 times now. The population bit is as silly as putting a hard cap on system population in that it would do absolutely no good and end up being susceptible to abuse anyway.




Hecatonis
Amarr
Posted - 2010.11.24 09:25:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha
Sigh.

First bit - Your wording implied the cap would go up as the cap was reached, hence my confusion.
well good that's cleared up

Quote:

Second bit - I quite clearly say that I supported the idea because of the effect I describe. I was explaining it in further detail since you didn't seem to grasp what I said.

watch your 'tone', no need to get snarky :P

Quote:

Third bit - Yes, the adverse effect does go up. In your formula, the damage goes up within the range of explosion. So when the larger fleet pops the smaller forces ships *much* faster, the smaller fleet will take that higher damage at a higher rate. Congratulations, you've increased the DPS of the larger fleet and encourage them to keep that DPS advantage.

you have it backwards. the smaller fleet had the larger increase in DPS, not the larger.

lets assume fleet A has 10 ships and Fleet B has 20 . lets assume all ships are with in the blast area and the blast does damage one. if Fleet A loses one ship Fleet A takes 9 but Fleet B takes 20. the DPS advantage is with the smaller, not the larger.

now you say "see look a flaw" then i remind you that both fleets are capable of repairing themselves. and maybe the FC might not want to drop his entire force in one location, because it will get destroyed by itself. it will be up to the FC to keep the numbers balanced. only bring what you must, not what you have.

Quote:

Fourth bit - Yes, there is this awesome balancing act in game design known as the gameplay vs realism argument. Keep in mind, the gameplay flaw in the population tie in is the main reason I argued against it. The fact that it doesn't have much merit realistically is just icing on the cake, and "RP BS" doesn't validate it.

just so i get this right, you dont like that its based on system population, because its based on system population? how would you like it to be measured that is not easily exploited?

Quote:

And the final bit - The key difference between lag and your suggestion is that lag is not a design feature. The core of your idea is fine. I think I've stated that 5 times now. The population bit is as silly as putting a hard cap on system population in that it would do absolutely no good and end up being susceptible to abuse anyway.


your correct, lag is not a design feature, but its caused because the game lacks the tools necessary to fix it.

a fight and lag that we see would never happen in the "real world" because LOS would prevent it, and the "real world" doesnt need a server to run calculations for us. this is why we are play internet submarines instead of internet space ships. if we were running the real thing then this would be one boring game.

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.24 09:58:00 - [10]
 

I wasn't being snarky. From where I stood you didn't understand my example.

Yes, in your example of all ships being in range of a ship's explosion, the fleet with more numbers will take more of that damage. We agree on what AoE is. In your system population formula, when the damage goes up to carve off a larger piece of a ship's repair capabilities you end up assisting the fleet with the larger alpha more. This is almost always the fleet with higher numbers.

Then, if you apply realistic fights to this where the fleets won't be completely interwoven, when the larger fleet alphas the smaller fleet's ships at a higher rate, they are applying the AoE effect more quickly.

Let's take your 20 v 10 example. The larger fleet will more than likely be able to destroy a ship of a significant size more quickly. If they're operating at BC ranges of ~60K, then either A) The explosion radius makes bombs look silly, or B) The smaller fleet will be the ones to take damage from it. If the smaller fleet is spread out to minimize the effect, the larger fleet would actually benefit of being grouped to where they are able to alpha the smaller ships more quickly. If the smaller fleet groups up to attempt to get in the alpha necessary to begin taking advantage of the effect, the larger fleet can afford to spread out and takes more advantage from the effect. This, to me, is fine since it's simply adding in factors the FC needs to be concerned with.

The issue I am having is in the final scenario, it literally becomes a tactical advantage for the larger fleet to bring in more numbers, even if they aren't even coming for the fight, because of your idea that tying it to population is a good idea. If you tie it to ships on grid, it's just going to make them bring those ships to the fight anyway. If you tie it to ships within a radius, you add a check to every ship death and end up with quite a number of funny scenarios. Warping a titan in hull + 1000 shuttles on to your fleet would amuse me, anyway.

I am almost certain I said that having your idea minus the population tie (6 times?) is a good idea. It doesn't need some magical feature increasing it. If you set off a nuke in Hiroshima, is it actually more powerful because there's more crap there, or is it simply doing more damage because it blew up around more things to destroy? Hopefully the tactless illustration helps explain.

Severian Maura
Posted - 2010.11.24 12:43:00 - [11]
 

who would ever take out a titan then, if you were going to lose are your ships in the process.

fights would sure as hell go faster as every time you kill someone theres a chance your damaging the boy next to them, poor guardians and such who usualy have people anchor near them.

If a torpedo hits a nuclear powered carrier it just sinks, doesnt mean the reactor is going to go critical and blow.

I would be more up for something like this with self destruct only with you not being able to cancel self destruct after the 1 minute mark

Hecatonis
Amarr
Posted - 2010.11.24 19:10:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha
I wasn't being snarky. From where I stood you didn't understand my example.

Yes, in your example of all ships being in range of a ship's explosion, the fleet with more numbers will take more of that damage. We agree on what AoE is. In your system population formula, when the damage goes up to carve off a larger piece of a ship's repair capabilities you end up assisting the fleet with the larger alpha more. This is almost always the fleet with higher numbers.

Then, if you apply realistic fights to this where the fleets won't be completely interwoven, when the larger fleet alphas the smaller fleet's ships at a higher rate, they are applying the AoE effect more quickly.

Let's take your 20 v 10 example. The larger fleet will more than likely be able to destroy a ship of a significant size more quickly. If they're operating at BC ranges of ~60K, then either A) The explosion radius makes bombs look silly, or B) The smaller fleet will be the ones to take damage from it. If the smaller fleet is spread out to minimize the effect, the larger fleet would actually benefit of being grouped to where they are able to alpha the smaller ships more quickly. If the smaller fleet groups up to attempt to get in the alpha necessary to begin taking advantage of the effect, the larger fleet can afford to spread out and takes more advantage from the effect. This, to me, is fine since it's simply adding in factors the FC needs to be concerned with.


this is how i am reading this. if the FC doesn't understand that the death of his ships has a negative impact on the other team and he spreads things out thus ruining his advantage. your complaint sounds like bad tactics on the side of the FC, that is not really a concern. if someone uses a mechanic poorly its there fault not the game.

in this case the defending FC should get close range ships and close the distance. but we are not discussing tactics here.

Quote:

The issue I am having is in the final scenario, it literally becomes a tactical advantage for the larger fleet to bring in more numbers, even if they aren't even coming for the fight, because of your idea that tying it to population is a good idea. If you tie it to ships on grid, it's just going to make them bring those ships to the fight anyway. If you tie it to ships within a radius, you add a check to every ship death and end up with quite a number of funny scenarios. Warping a titan in hull + 1000 shuttles on to your fleet would amuse me, anyway.


yes thats would be funny, but after you remove the shuttles, whos blast radius is only a couple hundred meters, the fight would be a little one sided. but this is tactics, unless you want me to list a counter to every scenario you can think of, which i am more then happy to do but this is really getting side tracked. tactics should be left up to the FCs

Quote:

I am almost certain I said that having your idea minus the population tie (6 times?) is a good idea. It doesn't need some magical feature increasing it. your right that was tackless. think of a better, less offensive, example next time


and i asked you for a better standard to base it off of, this is also why i posted it here for a discussion. if you dont like the population tie in, then make a suggestion.

now i have a request for you. you like the idea, so help make it better. help fix the problems you see because these little novels do take some time to write, if you are unable to make a suggestion then i do ask you to limit your comments to something i can respond to in under a min.

what have we cleared up
  • confusion about the formula

  • FCs not understanding the principals will be steamrolled


the main problem that still exists, for you, is the tie to population. any ideas?

Hecatonis
Amarr
Posted - 2010.11.24 19:22:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Severian Maura
who would ever take out a titan then, if you were going to lose are your ships in the process.

a titan blowing up would damage everything on the grid, but it would only hit a frig for 42 damage, a BS for 700, and a dread for 3000. the damage scales with the sig radius of the ship being damaged, the blast radius scales with the ship being destroyed. if any of those ships would have died from that kinda damage, then they should have left

Quote:

fights would sure as hell go faster as every time you kill someone theres a chance your damaging the boy next to them, poor guardians and such who usualy have people anchor near them.

because of the formula, the effect only really starts coming into play when there is 1000 people in system, and even then, the damage is not unmanageable. again, its 700 damage before resists to a BS. keep the population below 1000 and the damage drops off very fast

Quote:

If a torpedo hits a nuclear powered carrier it just sinks, doesnt mean the reactor is going to go critical and blow.

this is internet spaceships where the power usage needed to fire a frigs laser once could power a small town for a day. real world examples is way too low power in this case, but for your benefit damage a land based nuclear reactor and it can blow up, and has.

Quote:

I would be more up for something like this with self destruct only with you not being able to cancel self destruct after the 1 minute mark


that would circumvent the idea. this idea is to put a soft cap on blobs. if you can choose not to have to worry about it, nothing will change.

shady trader
Posted - 2010.11.24 20:09:00 - [14]
 

The idea of having ships explode when destroyed has been suggested and killed a number of times.

Basically the problem with this idea and other that deal with exploding ships. Two alts set up next to each other near the exit point for Jita 4-4. when one goes boom, some of the ships existing the station will be killed causing them to go boom triggering even more ships to go boom.

Also while the idea will not be a problem in 0.0 that about the sec status impact of your ship when it goes boom damaging another ship, who's act of aggression is it yours since it was your ship that did the damage or your attacker who?

Either way you get a standing hit and if its your attacker a visit from concord for attacking a neutral ship.

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.24 22:16:00 - [15]
 

You're missing the point. I'm not going to sit here and list every single scenario where having some effect from the heavens making ships blow up better with more ships around is ******ed. We'd be here for days until we come to the conclusion of 'holy shiite there's alot of potential abuse,' which is where I'm already at.

I've stated my suggestion several times - you don't _need_ the population tie in for your stated goal, mostly for the fact that it does not work. There are enough changes in tactics and possible abuses without introducing something that will just encourage people to abuse "more ships == more explodey".

And tackless is the condition of not having tacks. Tactless is what you were looking for, but frustration at repeating myself has sunk in.

Hecatonis
Amarr
Posted - 2010.11.25 07:28:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha
lots of anger


ok dude, just because i disagree with you doesn't mean we can stop being civil. but i wil lsay it once again.

the majority of the damage will hit the larger group, and i will get to a point where it will outright kill all parties involved. thus the larger group looses more. this makes it a detriment for a larger then needed force.

Quote:
"more ships == more explodey".

and more 'explodey' means more loss for the larger party. more numbers means more damage means more loss for the larger group. <- this is bad, this increases isk needed to replace, means less ships defending/attacking. if you loose your whole fleet in the first wave, who stops the second? these are bad things.

if your frustrated take a breath. walk away, leave the internet anger somewhere else. unless you can think of another measure other then system population that cannot be easily exploited then fire away. if not i will start treating your post and non-constructive and spam. you dont have to agree with me, nether of us are going to loose sleep over it.

Originally by: shady trader
Basically the problem with this idea and other that deal with exploding ships. Two alts set up next to each other near the exit point for Jita 4-4. when one goes boom, some of the ships existing the station will be killed causing them to go boom triggering even more ships to go boom.


i am assuming you didn't read the full OP because i think i hit that also

Originally by: hecatonis
i also say that this effect doesnt come into play in high sec, as far as i have seen there is no super blobs that fight there, and this would only make major problems in places like jitta.


Originally by: shady trader
Also while the idea will not be a problem in 0.0 that about the sec status impact of your ship when it goes boom damaging another ship, who's act of aggression is it yours since it was your ship that did the damage or your attacker who?

Either way you get a standing hit and if its your attacker a visit from concord for attacking a neutral ship.

treat it as neutral damage. no aggression or the like needed. although it is centered on your ship, it is not done by their action. since this effect doesn't come into play in high sec (please see quote from OP) then all parties involved will almost defiantly be involved in the fight to begin with.

if by chance someone does self-destruct and it is by 'their action' then the system population has to be high enough to have any measurable effect. refer back to "this effect doesnt come into play in high sec" if you are worried.

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.25 10:10:00 - [17]
 

I was being civil enough in attempting to explain the idea for far more posts than I should have.

You keep going "But, but, the larger force takes more damage!" without refuting anything I've mentioned to you, have ignored my multiple statements that the idea doesn't need a gimmick, and have slanted the argument off topic. Either you've very successfully trolled me, or you're lacking some basic reading comprehension.

You no need population gimmick.
Ships not always be splodey next to all ships in system.
Larger force blow smaller force ship more quicker.
Population gimmicks make for population tricks.

Other people are going to be far less kind to the idea than I have. I tried to at least tell you the good points in your idea and show why the population idea is crap. If you want to put in changes that increase the tactical considerations of the game, I'm for them. Trying to push a metagame mechanic that does not work just craps all over the whole idea.

You said it yourself. If there is a way, people will "brake" it. I gave you multiple examples where it became advantageous for the larger fleet to bring in more numbers based on the mechanic. Going nyahnyahnyah it's not real is why you've got me ****ed, and I am not going to restrain myself from letting someone know they're idiotic to the point of being infuriating.

I say good day.


Glyken Touchon
Gallente
Independent Alchemists
Posted - 2010.11.25 12:54:00 - [18]
 

Who would get hit by Concord if an exploding ship damaged a hauler at Jita undock?

Hecatonis
Amarr
Posted - 2010.11.25 18:03:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha
I was being civil enough in attempting to explain the idea for far more posts than I should have.

You keep going "But, but, the larger force takes more damage!" without refuting anything I've mentioned to you, have ignored my multiple statements that the idea doesn't need a gimmick, and have slanted the argument off topic. Either you've very successfully trolled me, or you're lacking some basic reading comprehension.


i keep on saying the say thing because you still are looking at i backwards. you need a tie into population because a static effect can be adapted to easier them a scaling effect, also a static effect will effect smaller groups as well. if given the options of smaller or larger, when all effects on groups are equal, people will choose larger, this bypasses the point of encouraging smaller fleets by DIScouraging larger ones.

Quote:

You no need population gimmick.

as i have explained before, yes you do
Quote:
Ships not always be splodey next to all ships in system.

unless you can tell me a better option, then yes you do
Quote:
Larger force blow smaller force ship more quicker.

only if the FCs are dumb. This is a tactical issue, you can find a scenario where a smaller force is destroyed faster, yes. but that is because you are cherry picking situation that could be avoided. understand the difference
Quote:
Population gimmicks make for population tricks.

yes you dont like thinks tied into population, we get it. but you cannot figure out a better measure. this makes you nonconstructive you know that right?

Quote:

You said it yourself. If there is a way, people will "brake" it. I gave you multiple examples where it became advantageous for the larger fleet to bring in more numbers based on the mechanic.

no you have given a situation where using a smaller fleet would loose faster. that doesnt brake it, thats bad tactical choice. the game already exists with n<n+1 and unless you are going to rewrite a major part of the code fixing that you will have to live with it. if you are looking to fix n<n+1 then make your own post. re-read the OP
Originally by: hecatonis

there are some consideration that needed to be taking in:
1) easy to code - something global or near global so we dont have a million conditional if/then
2) easy to understand - so FCs can have an easy "rule of thumb" to follow
3) low exploit-ability - well come on, if there is a way, people will brake it



Quote:
Going nyahnyahnyah it's not real is why you've got me ****ed, and I am not going to restrain myself from letting someone know they're idiotic to the point of being infuriating.

I say good day.


dude get over yourself, this is not real, this is a game, and games are meant to be fun. the current blob environment is unusable to anyone but the defenders, it is also so bad that it affects people out side of the fight and across the entire shard. if having to add something that has no support in physics needs to happen, then suck it up and live with it.
Quote:
conĚstrucĚtive Adjective /kənˈstrəktiv/ listen
Synonyms:
adjective: constructional
Serving a useful purpose; tending to build up
constructive criticism

learn it, if you dont like something say so and put forth a viable alternative.

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.25 18:06:00 - [20]
 

Happy Thanksgiving!

Hecatonis
Amarr
Posted - 2010.11.25 18:32:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha
Happy Thanksgiving!

I'm Canadian, it happened last month


 

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