open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked The Greatest Anti-Blob Solution of All Time
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Jade Mitch
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.25 11:07:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Jade Mitch on 29/05/2011 03:07:52

Problem:
What is the limit on the number of target locks that a ship can take? Shouldn't this be limited since the number of locks a ship can make is limited? The difference between a fleet and a blob is that the ships in a blob have no lock limits. No matter how many ships there are in one blob, they can simultaneously lock any ship in an opposing blob.

Solution:
Limit the number of simultaneous target locks that ships can take based on class. Something like this:

Frigate 4
Destroyer 5
Cruiser 6
Battlecruiser 7
Battleship and up 8

Saturation:
A simple lock limit might be enough to eliminate blobbing but, unless these limits can somehow be restricted to enemies only, which is a difficult distinction to make, allied ships would be able to saturate each other, making them immune to enemy locks. So there needs to be a mechanism that allows properly equipped ships to lock ship's that are already saturated and without adding an additional lock.

Target Priority:
If ships with higher sensor strength are given targeting priority over ships with weaker sensor strength, it would be possible to lock a saturated ship while breaking the lock of the ship with the lowest sensor strength.

Supersaturation:
If the saturation level of a ship is defined as it's lock limit multiplied by the average sensor strength of it's class/niche, then supersaturation is the condition where the combined sensor strength of all the ships that have a lock on it exceeds it's saturation level. When this happens, the lock limit of the targeted ship is reduced to represent excessive interference.

Countermeasure:
To counter the penalty of supersaturation, include the signature radius of ships as an inverse factor in the calculation of their saturation levels so that Target Painters can be used to keep a ship's lock limit at normal even while it's supersaturated.

Indicator:
Pilots will need to see what's going on. As long as a ship is undersaturated, it's icon can remain white. When it becomes saturated, turn it's icon red. When it becomes supersaturated, turn it's icon blue or purple. Something like this.

Glyken Touchon
Gallente
Independent Alchemists
Posted - 2011.05.25 11:26:00 - [2]
 

Been suggested before and is easy to exploit.

targeting own fleet members will reduce the number of reds that can lock you.

Bl4ck Ph03n1x
Echoes of Nowhere
Posted - 2011.05.25 11:26:00 - [3]
 

-Target all the shis of your fleet
-Ennemies can't lock you
-You are invulnerable
-No.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.05.25 12:25:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Robert Caldera on 25/05/2011 12:25:48
even if the friendly lock would be solved in some way, the limit would hardly reduce blobs but simply lead to multiple primaries people shooting at in the same time.

Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
Posted - 2011.05.25 12:39:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 25/05/2011 12:25:48
even if the friendly lock would be solved in some way, the limit would hardly reduce blobs but simply lead to multiple primaries people shooting at in the same time.


Well it's easy to solve the friendly lock -issue within the game, but the issue itself isn't solvable, since the players can always metagame around all such limitations. There really isn't any reason why they shouldn't do that either, since it's an arbitrary limitation on their gameplay and they gain huge benefits by working around it. If anything this idea would only encourage more blobbing, since a large enough blob would guarantee practical immunity against most opposition.

Kara Sharalien
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2011.05.25 13:01:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 25/05/2011 12:25:48
even if the friendly lock would be solved in some way, the limit would hardly reduce blobs but simply lead to multiple primaries people shooting at in the same time.


I'm ok with this. Anything that makes blobbing even a little more tactical is cool with me.

But the problem of targetting allies ships is one that needs solving. The obvious solution is to make allied ships lockslower priority then enemy locks, so if an enemy with the same lock strength as your ally locks you, your ally will get kicked off in preference to an enemy.

Hence, if your enemy has, on average, higher lock strength then you, he will be able to target more of you then you will be able to him. Makes sense in my head.

Vice Admiral Spreadsheet
Caldari
Posted - 2011.05.25 13:02:00 - [7]
 

While I doubt this would solve blobs, it would be nice for there to be more tactics in large fleets.
It's a solid idea, but it must be made exploit-proof.

EnderCapitalG
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.05.25 13:05:00 - [8]
 

Okay, so now you can only have 10 or so ships firing at the other side while the other side can have potentially infinite logistics.

This means that the defender of a fight would always win: Just bring a literal fleet of logistics (you could also rep the structures/POS/etc) and if you get targeted, they'll never break the tank.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.05.25 13:05:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Robert Caldera on 25/05/2011 13:05:48
Originally by: Kara Sharalien

Hence, if your enemy has, on average, higher lock strength then you, he will be able to target more of you then you will be able to him. Makes sense in my head.

so, practically, you will be able to prevent the target from being repped by logis, if you only have enough sensor strength. I see ECCMd fleets incoming =)

Lady Go Diveher
The Independent Troll Society
Posted - 2011.05.25 13:12:00 - [10]
 

This is the WORST Anti-blob solution of all time.

If you lower the effective DPS of the blob (prevent proper primarying) then all you do is force the need of a BIGGER blob to make the effective alpha / DPS against the fleet the same.

What FC in their right mind would think "only 20 people can lock a Dreadnaught, so 20 people, x up now"?

Call me Fever
Posted - 2011.05.25 13:26:00 - [11]
 

MMORPG not equal single player game.

take your anti blob out of here.

If people wanna group up and play together they do it. Thats the only reason we play EvE = NO RESTRICTIONS.

If you want anti blob go play something with 100 servers and 50 people on each server.

otherwise, get friends.

Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
Posted - 2011.05.25 14:03:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Destination SkillQueue

Well it's easy to solve the friendly lock -issue within the game,


I would be interested to hear what your easy solution to this is... how does the game know who is friendly?


And I have to agree... this is the WORST anti-blob idea I have ever seen.

Kara Sharalien
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2011.05.25 14:04:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 25/05/2011 13:05:48
Originally by: Kara Sharalien

Hence, if your enemy has, on average, higher lock strength then you, he will be able to target more of you then you will be able to him. Makes sense in my head.

so, practically, you will be able to prevent the target from being repped by logis, if you only have enough sensor strength. I see ECCMd fleets incoming =)


Again, works for me. I swear man, all I see in your objections is gameplay improvements.

a) might bring more carriers to the field, since they both have high sensor strength and good logistics capabilities.
b) less effective logi means people will die quicker, I like pretty 'splosions.

also: Lady Go Diveher doesn't understand how this idea works, or she would know that the result of this idea is that bringing more ships won't allow an alpha increase in a single target and Call me Fever is derping so hard she might herp herself, just putting it out there.

Lady Go Diveher
The Independent Troll Society
Posted - 2011.05.25 15:30:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Kara Sharalien
also: Lady Go Diveher doesn't understand how this idea works, or she would know that the result of this idea is that bringing more ships won't allow an alpha increase in a single target


That's the point of my comment, dip****. Since you CAN NOT alpha x ships off the field in x amount of time, you need to bring MORE ships to accomplish the same task (victory with low losses). i.e. - you can only have 20 ships lock each carrier, so instead you bring enemy number of carriers x 20 and have more primary targets.

It doesn't discourage the blob, one tiny little bit.

Fight a single fleet battle then come back, thanks.

Jade Mitch
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.25 16:39:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Jade Mitch on 25/05/2011 16:44:29
Originally by: Lady Go Diveher
Originally by: Kara Sharalien
also: Lady Go Diveher doesn't understand how this idea works, or she would know that the result of this idea is that bringing more ships won't allow an alpha increase in a single target


That's the point of my comment, dip****. Since you CAN NOT alpha x ships off the field in x amount of time, you need to bring MORE ships to accomplish the same task (victory with low losses). i.e. - you can only have 20 ships lock each carrier, so instead you bring enemy number of carriers x 20 and have more primary targets.

It doesn't discourage the blob, one tiny little bit.

Fight a single fleet battle then come back, thanks.

Most of the fleet battles I've fought in had 1 carrier and 100 BS. So having 1 carrier and 20 BS would be less, not more.

Recursa Recursion
Posted - 2011.05.25 16:58:00 - [16]
 

As Ender noted, yay Logi boost defensive ball of fury with an added dose of a secondary fleet that locks the first ball of Logis in a menacing manner

It is pretty simple, roams are always going to turn into blobby blobs unless you can do something long lasting (but not permanent) that requires a rapid response. Roamers will just have to suck it down until CCP does something like the Agony proposal on this. Though the reduced / longer scan time means faster hunting for Darwinian trimming of the 0.0 gene pool.

Sov warfare should bring out the blobs and rightfully so. The key there is forcing physical separation where objectives are time / team-based rather than simply hit point based. Hitpoints are only an indirect way to manipulate time on target as it just translates to more blob = faster. They need a different mechanic where it is > X DPS for a period of time where any > X is superfluous. However, not the case where you say < N ships can enter a space as that goes against the very core of EVE where you can bring as many friends as you want*. Size-limited instancing = not cool.

* Till the node crashes or lags out, of course.




Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.05.25 17:05:00 - [17]
 

Simple solution to a potentially awesome idea:

Allow the same number of fleet locks on a given ship as the number of non fleet locks.

If a target is not 'hostile' within 10 seconds of lock, they move to friendly lock status and lose lock if all the friendly slots are full. So no twinning the fleets to exploit the hole.

Recursa Recursion
Posted - 2011.05.25 17:53:00 - [18]
 

So basically I take a Hellcat fleet and toss on Turret Disruptors on the Abaddons to target the Guardians?

This really just seems to put an exclamation point on Logis FTW!

It would probably be helpful to walk through a typical Hellcat or Drake / Basi fleet fight and show why the blob would be discouraged. All I see right now is that logis and buffer tanks get more awesome encouraging me to blob even more.

In particular, I think illustrating how the priority mechanism would work in those cases would be helpful as that might clear the above issue. If I can effectively break logi chaining without using ECM (ex. BS kicks out the locks by other Guardian with lesser sensor strength), then yes, it could be interesting.

Jade Mitch
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.26 09:13:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Jade Mitch on 26/05/2011 09:16:24

Originally by: Kara Sharalien

But the problem of targeting ally ships is one that needs solving. The obvious solution is to give enemy ships higher targeting priority then ally ships. For example, if your ship is saturated and an enemy with the same sensor strength as one of your allies locks you, your ally's lock will be lost in preference to that enemy. Makes sense in my head.

This crossed my mind as I was developing this idea. A targeting priority for enemy ships would only undermine the goal of the system by permitting a more blob-like style of combat. Doing the opposite might complement the goal of the system but, it would still be unbalanced. As long as the rules of the targeting system apply the same to all ships, it's not a problem.

Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
Posted - 2011.05.26 09:29:00 - [20]
 

My earlier question stands... How does the game know who is a hostile or friendly lock.

People are talking about hostile locks taking priority over friendly locks.

What if a fleet spider target each other and plink one shot at each other. This fleet is now saturated with 'hostile' locks.

While trying to limit massive blob warfare is an admrable goal, players will always try to use the games rules against other players.

Jade Mitch
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.26 18:55:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Jade Mitch on 27/05/2011 07:19:59

Originally by: Jint Hikaru

My earlier question stands... How does the game know who is a hostile or friendly lock? What if a fleet spider target each other and plink one shot at each other, is the fleet now saturated with 'hostile' locks?

Even if hostile action is permitted between allies, it's still a hostile action so, yes. But this only applies to Kara Sharalien's idea, not mine.

And, in order for a group of ships to saturate itself, the size of the group must be exactly equal to the largest lock limit of any ship in the group, plus one. So, if the largest ship in a group is a BS with a lock limit of 8, the size of the group must be exactly 9 AND the remaining 8 ships have to saturate each other as well, which may not always be possible since they've all lost a lock targeting the BS.

Originally by: Jint Hikaru

While trying to limit massive blob warfare is an admirable goal, players will always try to use the games rules against other players.

The whole point of any game is to use the rules against other players.

Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
Black Sun Alliance
Posted - 2011.05.26 20:02:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Barbara Nichole on 26/05/2011 20:06:08
so your own fleet all target your Titan and wa-la.. the enemy can't.

Quote:
My earlier question stands... How does the game know who is a hostile or friendly lock.

People are talking about hostile locks taking priority over friendly locks.


It can't know..there are no "horde and allinace" faction separators.. and if you use the fleet info.. it's not hard for friendly non-fleeted personel to accomplish the targetting...


Syndic Thrass
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.05.27 04:47:00 - [23]
 

Yay now only 64 people can lock an IHUB. also, this would just increase alpha fleet, lock, f1, unlock. Your solution "derps so hard you might herp yourself" just throwing that out there. Go back to your level 4 missions

Jade Mitch
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.27 07:07:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Jade Mitch on 27/05/2011 07:24:09

Originally by: Syndic Thrass

Yay now only 64 people can lock an IHUB.


Lock limits are only intended for ships. But, if structures were also lock limited, and IHUBs were limited to 64, it wouldn't be a small number if it's all dreadnaughts. It may not be as effective as 600 BS but, you're supposed to use siege vessels against siege targets and that's what dreadnaughts are.

Originally by: Syndic Thrass

also, this would just increase alpha fleet, lock, f1, unlock.


How so, and why is it a problem?

Syndic Thrass
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.05.27 07:46:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Jade Mitch
Edited by: Jade Mitch on 27/05/2011 07:24:09

Originally by: Syndic Thrass

Yay now only 64 people can lock an IHUB.


Lock limits are only intended for ships. But, if structures were also lock limited, and IHUBs were limited to 64, it wouldn't be a small number if it's all dreadnaughts. It may not be as effective as 600 BS but, you're supposed to use siege vessels against siege targets and that's what dreadnaughts are.

Originally by: Syndic Thrass

also, this would just increase alpha fleet, lock, f1, unlock.


How so, and why is it a problem?


If I really have to I will explain, but first: what do you do in game? I'm assuming some kind of bearing low sec wanna be? The way you talk, it is obvious you have no clue at all when it comes to 0.0, and I assume you've never been in a fight in null, much less understand what actually goes into it. So where does your expertise come from?

Jargo Stonecutter
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2011.05.27 08:56:00 - [26]
 

If you want some real ant-blob mechanic just introduce a probability generator that disconnects ppl from the blob, the larger the blob the more disconnects.

Pretty much like a few years ago when this was a hardware based anti-blob feature.

Tubares Shting
Posted - 2011.05.27 12:34:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Jargo Stonecutter
If you want some real ant-blob mechanic just introduce a probability generator that disconnects ppl from the blob, the larger the blob the more disconnects.

Pretty much like a few years ago when this was a hardware based anti-blob feature.


I like your Chinese curse signature. Oh yeah, also bring back hardware anti-blob solution.

Katrina Cortez
Posted - 2011.05.27 14:35:00 - [28]
 

I would really like EVE to get away from the huge fleet sizes. Yeah they can be "epic" or whatever but you can have just a much fun in smaller gangs too. Actually i think it would be better because you wouldnt have to be zoomed all the way out looking at a bunch of red - boxes.
I suggest limiting the zoom of the interface by ship class and/or targeting range. This is a simple thing that would change the mechanics of the game quite a bit. Then change how fleets are handled... say below 20 is considered gang above 20 is a fleet and starts to require a more rigid structure. Like a ship of a certain class... for example - command ship. Then say the next level of 30 would be a marauder...
The numbers and ships are just examples... they could be anything including some new class of ship or maybe just a module similar to the links we have now.

Real Poison
Minmatar
Stormlord Battleforce
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.05.27 19:20:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Jade Mitch

Limit the number of simultaneous target locks that can be placed on a ship.
Something like:

Frigate 4
Destroyer 5
Cruiser 6
Battlecruiser 7
Battleship 8
Dreadnaught 16
Carrier 24
Titan 32

The Saturation Effect:
Multiply any of the lock limits above by the average sensor strength of all the ships in the respective class and it results in what I call 'saturation'. Hypothetically it's the maximum amount of sensor energy that can 'shine' on a ship without interfering with other ships ability to lock it.



how about applying this to the incoming damage.
only the (e.g.) 5 highest sources of damage get applied (limit by size of ship).
limiting overkill, individual ships would last a bit longer.

would push more towards squad combat instead of fleets since the classic primary calling for larger fleets would become obsolete.
imho fleets would become more challenging to command that way.

could that work?

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2011.05.27 23:33:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Real Poison
Originally by: Jade Mitch

Limit the number of simultaneous target locks that can be placed on a ship.
Something like:

Frigate 4
Destroyer 5
Cruiser 6
Battlecruiser 7
Battleship 8
Dreadnaught 16
Carrier 24
Titan 32

The Saturation Effect:
Multiply any of the lock limits above by the average sensor strength of all the ships in the respective class and it results in what I call 'saturation'. Hypothetically it's the maximum amount of sensor energy that can 'shine' on a ship without interfering with other ships ability to lock it.



how about applying this to the incoming damage.
only the (e.g.) 5 highest sources of damage get applied (limit by size of ship).
limiting overkill, individual ships would last a bit longer.

would push more towards squad combat instead of fleets since the classic primary calling for larger fleets would become obsolete.
imho fleets would become more challenging to command that way.

could that work?


How is highest damage calculated?? This is not a small easy change!

Is sustained dps, or alpha... How does the game know which damager to apply damage from? Its not like damage comes in simultaneously, so what happens when there are Alpha Hurricane 1 shoots, then alpha hurricane 2 shoots, and then 3, then, 4, 5, and 6, and then an alpha maelstrom shoots. The cycle time on these weapons is 12-30s, and its not applied to a ship as damage over time! So does that mean you take back the damage from one of the hurricanes so the Maelstrom's damage can be applied? Or do you apply the maelstrom and just negate future damage from the canes?? Your grasping for a solution, but this is not an easy to fix problem! You really need to sit down and think about how these things can be implemented before spamming them to the forums.


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