open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Yes, it's another fleet lag suggestion ...
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

EdTeach
Posted - 2010.11.26 04:01:00 - [1]
 

This is a wall of text. My apologies. It even has a role-play element in it to help 'explain' things in EVEspeak.

Nope, I don't even have a dog in this hunt, as I don't reside in nul at the moment. Purely a mental exercise that I was considering. It wouldn't go away and I just wanted to put it down, so I may as well copy it here for your ridicule. I would bet a lot of this has been suggested in the past, but I wanted to get my spin on this out.

Now I understand that ANY hint of limits in EVE is met with vehement resistance and outright scorn, but what the heck. What I am proposing would be a temporary thing that could be subject to reversal when the core issues are addressed. Any and all numbers are more or less placeholders subject for discussion along with the rest of the concept. Most of this should be automated I would think. I have no clue if any of this is even possible from a coding standpoint.

Current Problem - Limits have been reached in large scale fleet warfare under the current environment.

News Report ... CONCORD scientists issued a Formal Finding today that addresses the current increase in Spatial Distortions thoughout nul security space in recent months. The 760 page report concludes that the great fleet actions that have become the norm in these rich but troubled times are directly affecting space/time with resulting distortions that spread far beyond the sites of battle. A science team making their regular measurements near the EVE Gate in New Eden system detected faint disruptions in the Gate itself... which coincided with a large scale distortion caused by a Fleet action. One of the presenters, who asked to remain anyonimous stated, "This is a potential catastrophe. Every Gate in the Galaxy works on the same space/time principles that are being affected in unkown ways by these Clashes of Titans."
CONCORD is in discussions with all major governments with the intent of "Initiating precautionary security measures to ensure interstellar travel until such a time as these distortions are more fully understood."

Basic Concept .... Fleet per system limits, coupled with more formal war declaration requirements for fleet actions in losec/nulsec.

Fleet Action Declarations are sent to CONCORD at least 24 hours before proposed action by the Aggressor. No SOV structures may be negatively affected in any way until a Declaration is made. SOV structures are made less resistant to incoming fire overall. Information includes target system name, proposed attack date and all expected Corp/Alliance/Coaltion names(just the Alliance or Corp name, not members). This information is used to determine Gate Locks and timers, as well as use of high-end blades, and is NOT sent to the Defender. Defender will have no knowledge of SOV vulnerability until Declaration activates and system Locks.

Two full fleets of 200 members each maximum allowed in a Declared system by the Aggressor. These are formed up within the Declaration framework/GUI. Third fleet composed exclusively of SuperCaps is allowed. Only members of the Declared Alliance/Corp/Coaltion may enter the Attacking fleets.

Each Corp/Alliance/Coaltion is allowed to field one SuperCarrier per 100(?) members or one Titan per 150(?) members per Declared system. 150 members does not mean a Titan and a SuperCarrier, it is use the SC and save numbers for more or use the Titan. If attacker is an Alliance then total Alliance membership is used for all calculations. If Aggressor is Coalition(formally NAP'd Alliances), then Coalition totals are used for per-system SuperCap limits. Total SuperCarrier numbers allowed per system are added to the 400 limit to arrive at maximum total allowed in any Declared system. This could be altered to reflect different percentages depending on whether it is a Corp/Alliance/Coalition Declaring.


--Continued ---

EdTeach
Posted - 2010.11.26 04:03:00 - [2]
 

Once a certain threshold(?) has been reached of incoming Aggressors, the Gates Lock and firmware blocks activate in all cynos in range. The gates and cynos will only allow members of the owning/Defending Corp/Alliance/Coaltion, as well as members of the Aggressor fleets, access to the target system. Defending Cyno Jammers/Bridges stay active/online until killed/offlined.

Once a Declared system Locks, any other pending Declarations on that system are nul and void.

Defender is informed in Local and by Alliance/Corp notification that a system has become a Declared System at this time.

Defender has same two fleet limit. No Defender may undock, leave POS, cyno in or gate jump in-system until that pilot is a member of one of the two Defender Fleets or 3rd SuperCap fleet. Any undocked and currently logged in Defenders or Neutrals at time of Declaration are not counted towards any totals.All other Defenders count towards totals. Neutrals may not join either set of fleets at any time. The term "neutral" in this case refers to any pilot not a member of either party involved, regardless of other standing. Defenders may join a fleet and then count towards totals. Any undocked Aggressors already in-system and not part of a designated fleet will be counted toward totals allowed. This includes Aggressors that are not logged in at the time of Declaration activation.

All fleets from either side may be reinforced up to their limits as losses occur, as long as all replacements are members of the Declared parties.

No other fleets are valid once a system is Declared. All non-Declared fleets disband immediately. There cannot be more than the six fleets total from the two opposing camps active in a Locked system.

System stays Locked until Aggressor numbers fall below (?) or SOV is broken.

An Aggressor may leave a declared system, thereby unLocking it, to activate another Declared system.

Aggressor may not Declare more than its total allowed +2 systems. Any systems that are Declared but not activated incur a CONCORD penalty taken from Holding Corp wallet.`

System Gates will not allow more than 100 pilots of any SOV holding entity in any system claimed by another SOV holding entity at any one time(logged in or not) without a Declaration or being under the terms of a formal NAP registered with CONCORD.


Cyno Beacons/Titan Bridges will not allow non-owner Capitol/sub-cap Jumps beyond the above total without a Declaration. If the number of undocked/active Defender/Owner pilots happens to be over 400 at time of Declaration activation(which is controlled by the Local spike), then the Aggressors have no one to blame but themselves. Any excess Defenders are assigned to the SuperCap 3rd Fleet as auxilaries.

No limits to Owner Corp/Alliance/Coaltion numbers at any time up to Declaration activation.

-----

I can see how just about every number involved could be tweaked in some way or another. I am not advocating any particular number anywhere. Plug in your own and let's see what happens.

This system allows larger Aggressors to maintain both Tactical and Strategic advantages due them, while spreading out the infrastructure needs of the environment. The Defenders are constrained in both time and organizing a proper response fleet(s). The Defenders must choose where to send forces on multiple fronts, but still have the opportunity to achieve local SuperCap superiority in limited and transitory tactical situations.

By making SOV structures easier and faster to kill(I won't even attempt those calculations) the process is speeded up, so not only do pilots get to actually see the action they participate in with the imposed limits, they can get more done in less time and with fewer total ships.


--- continued ---

EdTeach
Posted - 2010.11.26 04:05:00 - [3]
 

If a Coaltion(formally NAP'd Alliances) Aggressor can field 1,000 pilots with a 2,500 membership total, then then it is still up to either 16 Titans or 25 Supercarriers or any combination that does not exceed the imposed limits ... per Declared system. But there is the 400 pilot limit on support... per system. So two systems can be held fully at risk while a spoiling attack can be made on a third. And that is just with the starter numbers as an example.

I covered stockpiling Aggressors, but the Neutral question is a tricky one. If you limit them then the owners can stuff alts in system. If you don't, there may be a way for Aggressors to stuff alts beforehand for use at time of attack. It may involve making all structures immune to Neutral fire while system is Locked and allowing no Neutral remote effects.

The entire process is an attempt to hold total population of a contested system to around 1,000 pilots total at any given time. With a high-end blade(if this is an incorrect term please correct me) it seems that 1,000 will at the very least hold together without load screen death. It obviates any possible need for a FC to instigate a cluster-crashing scenario to keep it from happening to his fleet first. It keeps the "dogpile effect" from wasting time and resources on all sides.

I wish we had unlimted fleet possibilities. I have every confidence in CCP's dedication and drive to achieve this. It appears that it will take time and work to achieve anything more than easily overloaded incremental changes and improvements. The "wait for session change" and "system Traffic" firmware is already installed in all Gates to restrict access. Tweak Gates to the preset parameters dictated by a Declaration. Insert Cyno/POS/Station observer software that mimics the Gates.

Deactivate the whole thing with the same patch in which cluster-crashing fleet lag is fixed for good.

It boils down to which has the most appeal...

Unlimited possibilities in all things at all times. Which entails turning all effects off, turning your POV away from the action, never actually observing the action beyond the overview and still having slow frame rates... along with the choice of load screen death or losing an asset. You are one bad warp call away from death on the eternal grid load and the petition process.

or

Large but managed fleet sizes as the only limiter in all of New Eden, and just until it's fixed. Imagine being able to fully participate in every action, as well as the planning and execution possibilities for the leaderships with multiple attack fronts that move much more quickly. 1600 pilots is four systems at once. If the Defenders hold two and lose two you are one up on the old-school way. Give them a 24 hour SOV kill potential within the set limits. SuperCap gambles, Titans jumping to other systems to fire somewhere else, fine tuning the amount of fire needed to kill something to better utilise the available firepower, leading to squadron leaders calling targets within set instructions from wing and fleet command. Less blob, more formations. More thinking throughout the entire process from inception to assault. More tactical options available in a lower lag environment.


This post was brought to you by Triptophan(huge turkey dinner) and Alcohol. If you got this far, at least the flames should be well thought out and will teach me something.

Fly Safe and thanks for your attention.


Infinity Ziona
Minmatar
Cloakers
Posted - 2010.11.26 04:39:00 - [4]
 

Its very complicated.

I don't think it'll be taken too very positively because of that and because players in EVE like the sandbox no rules / no concord / no war decs for null sec.

Unfortunately they also like to have so many people in the sandbox that it kills the sandbox but what can ya do.


Ralicx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.11.26 04:47:00 - [5]
 

no

William Cooly
Sol Enterprises
Posted - 2010.11.26 05:07:00 - [6]
 

tl;dr

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.26 05:20:00 - [7]
 

Of all the suggestions I've seen on fleet situations, involving Concord in nullsec immediately set a bad taste in my mouth and deterred me from finishing the long post.

I might come back and offer an opinion on the other parts of it, just wanted to explain why you're going to get a lot of immediate 'no' posts.

Tiberu Stundrif
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.11.26 08:38:00 - [8]
 

I read post 1/3... then glanced at post 2/3 and 3/3... then thought about sitting in a classroom of 10 blackboards being scratched by 10 professors at the same time for all eternity... and I liked the latter.

Anyways...way too complicated.

+0 Supporters.
+1 Points for Effort.

Hecatonis
Amarr
Posted - 2010.11.26 09:10:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Kabaal S'sylistha
Of all the suggestions I've seen on fleet situations, involving Concord in nullsec immediately set a bad taste in my mouth and deterred me from finishing the long post.

I might come back and offer an opinion on the other parts of it, just wanted to explain why you're going to get a lot of immediate 'no' posts.


anything to do with anti-blob thinking puts a bad taste in your mouth. read, understand, then comment. try to add with each comment, not make snide nonconstructive comments.

anyways....


the major problem i see with this issue is that is has the feeling of highsec in it. right now we have highsec, government run government rules (if you do something illegal concord blows you up), nul sec, player run player rules (if you do something the defacto ruler doesnt like his buddies blow you up, and lowsec, player run government rules (you can do what you like, but it could get you hunted when you get into highsec).

adding this rule set is imposing a highsec like mandates. its telling in no small terms that you cant do x y z because the system says so, and removing the aspect of player rules, and that part is what makes nulsec nulsec.

sorry cant really support this in its current iteration. any changes need to have a softer touch, people will reject a suggestion that just says "you cant do _______ because i say so" you have to give the at least the illusion of choice :P

Glyken Touchon
Gallente
Independent Alchemists
Posted - 2010.11.26 11:03:00 - [10]
 

If I read this right, Concord will blockade the system once the fleet limits have been reached?

This would be abused so hard...perfect defense situation because:

Originally by: EdTeach
Once a certain threshold(?) has been reached of incoming Aggressors, the Gates Lock and firmware blocks activate in all cynos in range. The gates and cynos will only allow members of the owning/Defending Corp/Alliance/Coaltion, as well as members of the Aggressor fleets, access to the target system. Defending Cyno Jammers/Bridges stay active/online until killed/offlined.


EdTeach
Posted - 2010.11.26 18:52:00 - [11]
 

Wow, not the white-hot rage I was expecting. Even some constructive reasoning.

While I agree that any limits are bad, it still seems that the environment requires some sort of solution that does not more or less require abuse of game deficiencies.

I have never envisioned FCs and Coalition leaders giggling in some sort of pre-teen glee when they have to dogpile a system to the crash point. One does one has to ensure both the completion of the mission and the protection of one's assets. If that requires forcing a death-on-warp situation on the opposition, then so be it. The mechanics allow it, and maybe this will be the one time it all works as intended and we get a great fight.

I just cannot envision a situation that cannot be overloaded no matter how much effort is put into fixing it. In the escalation battle betwen armor and projectile, projectile always wins out in the end. The same principle applies in user desires versus provider ability. What used to be possible(I have seen youtubes of large fleets in older iterations) is not relevant. We have to deal with what we have now.

CCP could make it possible for smooth 1k vs 1k battles again and someone would find a way to bring more drones/cans/etc if for no other reason than to crash if they are losing or to win without fighting.

I am not saying that my particular idea has any more or less merit than what I am sure is a plethora of concepts addressing this issue.

Personally I would rather be part of a 400+ v 400+ action that takes place at acceptable framerates for all involved, while allowing for the accomplishment of the strategic/tactical objectives in a manageable timeframe, than to sacrifice playability for a principle.

I know my idea seems complex, but it could very well be simpified to one screen/window/menu for all fleet actions for either side. Once a Declaration form is filled out, the rest occurs atumatically.

If the Gates/Bridges/etc can discriminate by Corp/Alliance/Coalition/Fleet membership, then the rest is automatic. You either get in or you don't. If you are already in, then you are in and counting towards totals or not as described. As people get podded, spots open up that can be filled by any acceptable pilot.

There are NO CONCORD ships involved in any way. It is all "software" in Gate and Cyno mechanisms that allow or disallow access for a limited time.

Cyno Jammers disallow access.

Jump Bridges allow access in a limited fashion.

Cynos allow access in a limited fashion.

Gates allow access(and disallow at times)

CONCORD Declaration Locks could do both in a limited fashion across a wider spectrum of travel modes. I don't see it as "rocket science" from a coding perspective. If the allowed totals are at least close to even, the attacker gets the initial advantage through surprise and multiple attacks. Add in weaker SOV structures with lower timers to reduce the ability of the Defender to catch up.

The Defender gets no prior warning, and is attacked at mutiple points guaranteed. It is NOT a WAR dec. It is a Fleet Action Declaration that is issued in secret to CONCORD and guarantees and high end blade, along with the other things. You could issue one for a Blue standings Corp system and then reset them before the declaration runs out, or not and just go in blazing.

Beyond arguing the individual merits of any particular concept, I feel that the principle of unlimited fleet options, while laudable, is unrealistic at the current time. To flatly deny any possible solutions(the 'no' to everything camp) and/or to describe high numbers lag as a game mechanic to be used like any other(the HTFU camp) does not seem to contribute in a positive manner to the future of nulsec fleet actions.

The Coaltion Supercap hordes are not going to get anything but larger. They will want full support. Without incentives to spread out across multiple systems, I believe there will always be substantial issues with large scale fleet actions

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.26 19:27:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Hecatonis

anything to do with anti-blob thinking puts a bad taste in your mouth. read, understand, then comment. try to add with each comment, not make snide nonconstructive comments.


You still haven't learned to read. You fling an insult then say the exact same thing I said for all intents and purposes. You accuse me of being nonconstructive when I try to tell someone the key flaw with their proposal. Nonagreement != Nonconstructive, but not all of us are 13 and unable to take criticism.

And to actually add a non-repetitive comment or fail at flinging insults, in your redux Ed the same issue is there. Unlike some people who can't read would have you think, I agree that unrestrained fleet growth is the current situation and does need some type of remedy. The roleplay issue of having to involve Concord, even if not a ship presence, is going to make people not like the idea. Essentially the same process occurs already when alliances petition for node reinforcement, but when you start with Concord + nullsec it's just meh on the ears.

Since Hecafail brought my attention back I'll comment on the rest of your idea.
My issue is I prefer a solution that makes it tactically and strategically better to not simply mass your ships in a blob and throw them at the next target in line. You mention tactics and strategy in your posts but your definitions are a bit off. You can stretch and say your proposal has some strategic (The "When, Where and What") changes, but there is not much in the way of tactical (The "How") changes.

Solutions like "Ships blow up big if lots of people are in system" or "More ships in system means lock times go up" are to be avoided. Mechanics that put soft or hard caps on system population based on some arbitrary number will not work. The rest of your idea reads as essentially making a system an instance for the battle.

There's not much I support in the idea aside from the intent. This is from someone whose opinion is that any change needs to be static, gameplay based, and not involving any arbitrary population numbers. Take it as you will.


EdTeach
Posted - 2010.11.27 00:24:00 - [13]
 

Ah, I see now. It is not the need for change, it is the way it is approached that causes the friction in the community.

Possibly requiring seperate systems to be hit at the same time would be a way to address this?

Maybe to alter SOV in a constellation, an Aggressor would have to assault multiple SOV structures in multiple systems inside that constellation.

There needs to be some balanced incentives to spread out attacks at the same time.




Perfection Tau
Cuties Only.
Posted - 2010.11.27 06:32:00 - [14]
 

Fixed sized teams? Consensual balanced pvp? There's WoW for that. Go away from my sandbox.

Kabaal S'sylistha
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.11.27 08:08:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: EdTeach
Ah, I see now. It is not the need for change, it is the way it is approached that causes the friction in the community.

Possibly requiring seperate systems to be hit at the same time would be a way to address this?

Maybe to alter SOV in a constellation, an Aggressor would have to assault multiple SOV structures in multiple systems inside that constellation.

There needs to be some balanced incentives to spread out attacks at the same time.





Something along those lines is what I personally feel is the necessary change in nullsec. It would involve a bit more than simply splitting up the TCUs throughout the controlled territory since that would make it so anyone holding a single system still has the single set of structures, and that makes it even harder for the smaller forces in comparison to a larger holder.

That's the other main issue - any single change is just not going to cover enough ground to at least provide strategic options for varying force sizes, and also doesn't address the tactical issues that make it so a smaller force is disadvantaged in almost every important aspect compared to the larger one.

And after all that, it's also either resorting to throwing bricks at CCP Dev's houses (Note: Not condoning this. Plxnobanme) to get them to pay attention and implement it, or propose it on assembly hall til they implement it in a screwed up form 2 years from now.




 

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