open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked (Issue) NERF Focused Fire
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Ivy Axisur
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:43:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Ivy Axisur on 06/06/2008 18:43:50
NERF Focused Fire

If I had to pick one issues with EVE to fix it would be this.
My suggestion is to nerf it in correlation to the weapon size of the attacker to the attacked.

How this would work:
EXAMPLE 1: Frigate vs. Battleship: Frigates would be able to attack in groups without being nerfed until their DPS is roughly equivalent to that of a Battleship. To avoid complex, on-the-fly server calculations and to endure proper effectiveness of quality configs; this would need to be a pre-determined number of attacking frigates based off standard T1 configs.


EXAMPLE 2: Battleship vs. Battleship: 2 Battleships attacking 1 the second would be nerfed by %50 a 3rd attacker by %75, 4th by 87.5% and so on. Still providing an advantage to focused fire, but not making it as much of a ďI winĒ button as it is right now.

As far as storyline goes, the nerf is attributed by conflicting targeting data as generated by multiple ships and ďstaticĒ caused by the volume of fire, thus degrading tracking accuracy.

Also this is probably how it should work. The nerf numbers arenít set in stone but rather a ever increasing chance of missing as attackers are stacked (nerf to targeting speed or sig rad).

Pezzle
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:48:00 - [2]
 

I can appreciate the sentiment but this is really against the spirit of cooperative gaming. Not only that, it would be exploited :P No thank you =)

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:56:00 - [3]
 

Don't think so.

Esmenet
Gallente
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:58:00 - [4]
 

Incredibly bad idea.

Ivy Axisur
Posted - 2008.06.06 19:02:00 - [5]
 

You actually like the way it works right now or is it that my suggestion is technically/tactically unfeasible?

Fallorn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.06.06 19:02:00 - [6]
 

If a was a muggle I would post something like EPIC FAIL.
But I'm not so how about you get some friends and learn how to call primaries and stop whining.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.06.06 19:02:00 - [7]
 

Not supported. I just don't think this is workable. Also, it's already in the game to a degree. The implementation is found in the higher tracking of small weapons, the speed differences between large and small targets, the size dependent target lock times, the decreased damage large missiles do to smaller targets, etc.

Best regards,
Windjammer

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.06.06 19:10:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Ivy Axisur
You actually like the way it works right now or is it that my suggestion is technically/tactically unfeasible?


Both, actually. Big fleets aren't a bad thing, and I don't want to force everybody to go capital to dodge the nerf. Similarly, implementing it in a way that is both technically feasible and easy for players to understand, without producing perverse incentives or stupid outcomes is near-impossible.

Ivy Axisur
Posted - 2008.06.06 19:22:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Ivy Axisur on 06/06/2008 19:25:13
The last thing this game needs is more capitals.

On the contrary to your point, I think this would insure less capitals by making smaller ships more viable defensively. We already have tracking penalties which balance large vs small.

What was overlooked is how easy it is to ďAlphaĒ one target and simply eliminate it.
Iíve done this myself and had it done too me. Itís just not fun outside of controlled conditions like the tournament.

Also, Iím not against large fleets. Although Iíve never participated in one myself, Iíd imagine my idea would work even better there, with squadrons and battle groups attacking in patterned formations, rather than everyone just eliminating 1 or 2 targets at a time then moving on to the next. Itís just lame combat IMO.

Dani Leone
Gallente
Positively Idle
Posted - 2008.06.06 20:06:00 - [10]
 

Against this personally.

Yorda
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.06 20:32:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Ivy Axisur
Edited by: Ivy Axisur on 06/06/2008 19:25:13
The last thing this game needs is more capitals.

On the contrary to your point, I think this would insure less capitals by making smaller ships more viable defensively. We already have tracking penalties which balance large vs small.

What was overlooked is how easy it is to ďAlphaĒ one target and simply eliminate it.
Iíve done this myself and had it done too me. Itís just not fun outside of controlled conditions like the tournament.

Also, Iím not against large fleets. Although Iíve never participated in one myself, Iíd imagine my idea would work even better there, with squadrons and battle groups attacking in patterned formations, rather than everyone just eliminating 1 or 2 targets at a time then moving on to the next. Itís just lame combat IMO.


This would be a terrible idea because motherships can hit 200k dps tanks and could just be completely indestructible solo (not to mention RR blobs).

Pretty terrible troll imo.

Allaria Kriss
Minmatar
Native Freshfood
Posted - 2008.06.06 20:35:00 - [12]
 

This just in. More damage = more damage.

Farrqua
Minmatar
In Igne Morim
Posted - 2008.06.06 20:35:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Ivy Axisur
Edited by: Ivy Axisur on 06/06/2008 19:25:13
The last thing this game needs is more capitals.

On the contrary to your point, I think this would insure less capitals by making smaller ships more viable defensively. We already have tracking penalties which balance large vs small.

What was overlooked is how easy it is to ďAlphaĒ one target and simply eliminate it.
Iíve done this myself and had it done too me. Itís just not fun outside of controlled conditions like the tournament.

Also, Iím not against large fleets. Although Iíve never participated in one myself, Iíd imagine my idea would work even better there, with squadrons and battle groups attacking in patterned formations, rather than everyone just eliminating 1 or 2 targets at a time then moving on to the next. Itís just lame combat IMO.


Actually focus fire is a integral part of "combat" You focus on the target that will hurt you the most and work your way down.

Frecator Dementa
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2008.06.07 00:18:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Frecator Dementa on 07/06/2008 00:25:13
good idea, the numbers are just off

- assuming same ship sizes:
90% for the second ship
75% for 3rd
60% for 4th
50% for 5th
30% for 6th
25% for 7th and all subsequent ships focusing fire

- for BSs shooting frigates it should be more like:
50% for the second ship
25% for 3rd
15% for 4th
10% for 5th
5% for 6th and all subsequent ships focusing fire

the bigger the attacking ships compared to the target, the more "nerf" you get

Frecator Dementa
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2008.06.07 00:21:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Frecator Dementa on 07/06/2008 00:22:10
Originally by: Yorda

This would be a terrible idea because motherships can hit 200k dps tanks and could just be completely indestructible solo (not to mention RR blobs).
Pretty terrible troll imo.


read the OP properly
smaller ships (BSs, dreads) will be able to gang up on larger ships without penalties. the nerf should only apply for same-size, or smaller-sized vessels

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.06.07 00:40:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Frecator Dementa
Edited by: Frecator Dementa on 07/06/2008 00:22:10
Originally by: Yorda

This would be a terrible idea because motherships can hit 200k dps tanks and could just be completely indestructible solo (not to mention RR blobs).
Pretty terrible troll imo.


read the OP properly
smaller ships (BSs, dreads) will be able to gang up on larger ships without penalties. the nerf should only apply for same-size, or smaller-sized vessels


Yes, because battleships have the firepower to take down capital spider tanks Rolling Eyes

Allaria Kriss
Minmatar
Native Freshfood
Posted - 2008.06.07 03:53:00 - [17]
 

Subcapitals have a hard enough time taking out carriers in Triage/dreadnoughts in Siege as it is, even if they're by themselves (I see this a lot on Sisi - It's doable, but it takes forever) and if you take away or limit their ability to focus huge amounts of damage on them, they'll never go down - It takes a few thousand DPS just to break these tanks.

If you don't want to get instapopped in a fleet battle, don't fly something that'll be called primary. Razz

Farrqua
Minmatar
In Igne Morim
Posted - 2008.06.07 03:58:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Allaria Kriss
Subcapitals have a hard enough time taking out carriers in Triage/dreadnoughts in Siege as it is, even if they're by themselves (I see this a lot on Sisi - It's doable, but it takes forever) and if you take away or limit their ability to focus huge amounts of damage on them, they'll never go down - It takes a few thousand DPS just to break these tanks.

If you don't want to get instapopped in a fleet battle, don't fly something that'll be called primary. Razz


Yea she said she has never been in a fleet battle.

Originally by: Ivy Axisur
Also, Iím not against large fleets. Although Iíve never participated in one myself, Iíd imagine my idea would work even better there, with squadrons and battle groups attacking in patterned formations, rather than everyone just eliminating 1 or 2 targets at a time then moving on to the next. Itís just lame combat IMO.

Tesseract d'Urberville
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
Posted - 2008.06.07 04:21:00 - [19]
 

What do you see that needs rebalancing here? If you're able to outnumber your opponent, why shouldn't you be able to get the full advantage (and the opponent the full disadvantage) of your numbers?

Lucias Trask
Divine Power.
Posted - 2008.06.07 06:19:00 - [20]
 

no... you suck

THUMBS DOWN!!!

Lord WarATron
Amarr
Shadow Warri0rs
Posted - 2008.06.07 11:42:00 - [21]
 

People focus fire because a ship with 1% structure is just as powerful as a ship with 100% shield/arm/struct.

If you are saying something like structure damage has modules being damaged and offlined, then that would be intresting. However current structure values are too low on current ships for that to matter.

Beaverid Tesu
Posted - 2008.06.07 12:03:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Beaverid Tesu on 07/06/2008 12:03:19
This is so incredibly stupid. Are you the kind of kid that got double teamed in fist fights or something? If any nerf should happen it should be a nerf to the target ship. ie. being surounded by explosions and turned into swiss cheese by projectiles and lasers should make it harder to fire acurately on the other ships.

Frecator Dementa
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2008.06.07 16:51:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

Yes, because battleships have the firepower to take down capital spider tanks Rolling Eyes


are you reading the post incorrectly on purpose ?

notice up there where I said DREADS should be able to shoot moms and titans without penalties? the purpose of the nerf is to protect SMALLER ships from focused fire.
the numbers are obviously pulled out of my ass, so there's really no need to go ballistic over them

RuleoftheBone
Minmatar
Black Viper Nomads
Posted - 2008.06.07 22:23:00 - [24]
 

This is an awful idea.

Focus fire is how small skilled gangs wipe the floor with larger gangs.

And how a few inty's can pick off BS's.

And vice versa....sometimes Wink.

I cannot believe this has even been suggested. If you don't like getting one-volleyed in crappy 0.0 blobfests fly small gang ops to appreciate the mechanic you are complaining about.

As far as storyline....if contemporary military forces can manage to correctly guage TOT and dump it all in the pickle barrel...I should think things would improve quite nicely in the future as far as "target designating" for fleet guns.

Get a quality target caller and do it to your OPPONENTS YARRRR!!.




Adonis 4174
Posted - 2008.06.09 07:01:00 - [25]
 

I can see the RL logic behind it. Two lumberjacks do not cut down a tree in half the time because they get in each other's way and have to coordinate their swings. Likewise, projectiles racing toward a ship can get in each other's way, lasers might catch on missiles heading towards the same target and if you blow a hole in a ship just as someone's shooting at that same spot then they're going to go straight through and hit nothing.

Game balance? Well, it seems it's focus-fire or lose these days. I can see the argument.

I do not however support nerfing focus fire against bigger ships. tiny little shells against a massive battleship have plenty of places to impact without getting in each other's way.

GIGAR
Caldari
Posted - 2008.06.09 08:10:00 - [26]
 

So you're basically saying, if you have double the guns you don't have double the firepower?
Apart from that not making any sense AT ALL, it must be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard..

Jasharin
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.09 08:35:00 - [27]
 

i wholeheartedly support this idea. it will help eliminate the blob warfare that is ruining eve online

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.06.09 08:54:00 - [28]
 

This would make a blob nearly unkillable, you wouldn't even have to call primaries anymore. A logistic ship here and there, a tank on every ship and bam, you're entire blob is unkillable barring lag.

Grarr Dexx
Amarr
Kumovi
The G0dfathers
Posted - 2008.06.09 09:24:00 - [29]
 

Absolutely surrealistic, you should die a fiery death if you're being primaried, that's the whole point. If you don't want to lose your ship in pew pew anymore, go nano or go home.

Adonis 4174
Posted - 2008.06.09 10:12:00 - [30]
 

I propose we get mythbusters in on this. They can have multiple remote-controlled trucks driving past multiple remote-controlled machine guns and see if the speed of stopping the trucks is directly proportional to the number of machine guns.


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