Punching up vs Punching down

PvP Gameplay Center Warfare & Tactics
1

The new Air Career system seems a great opportunity to better reward and encourage PvP. I don’t think it has to dole out ISK or SP to do so. A new combat category would be added to recognize combat prowess.

What if in general when you PUNCH UP the loot probability increases and where applicable Concorde responds slower?

What is Punching Up? You have a tactically inferior ship compared to the ship you attack. For example 1-2 Catalyst attacking a lone Legion. TQ would collectively assess the combat value between these two sides, determine a Tactical Combat Differential then set potential rewards based on outcome.

2x Catalyst are determined to have X combat value 1x Legion determined to have Y combat value. If X > Y then a percentage is determined. Lets say arbitrarily that 2x Cats are 30% less effective than 1x Legion.

Aggressor = Cats: 30% increase in loot drop probability and 30% delay/weaker Concorde response is established
Defender = Legion: Already benefits from a 30% combat advantage and not subject to Concorde response no loot benefit awarded,

Outcomes:
Cat(s) win = Increased loot, Kill Mail, Kill Mark to final blow and a loss mail to the defender
Legion win = Kill mail, Kill Mark and Loss Mail to attacker(s)

Inverse / Opposite situation would be a Punch Down
Aggressor = Legion: 30% less loot, Concorde 30% faster/stronger
Defender = Cat(s): 30% more loot Concorde responds faster/stronger

Outcomes:
Legion wins: Less loot, No Kill Mail/Kill Mark, Loss mail to defender
Cat(s) wins: More Loot, Kill Mark/Kill Mail to final blow

Air Career program is appropriately scored in either situation.

Punching up is riskier and has increased rewards and Punch Down defenders are encouraged to stand and fight vs run. Its more engagement all around.

Here are two extreme scenarios with a 100% or more differential.

Rookie Algos pilot vs Veteran Marshall
3Msp player in T1 fit Algos vs 85Msp Player in faction fit Marshall

Punching up
Aggressor=Algos - Defender = Marshall
Initial conditions:
Algos attacks: 100% Loot Drop, no Concorde response is set
Marshall Defends: Has 100%+ advantage
Algos Wins: 100% Loot, Kill Mail and Kill Mark [CCP consider special 100% Kill Mark] Loss mail to defender
Marshall Wins: Kill Mail and Kill Mark, Loss mail to attacker

Punching Down
Marshall attacks: 100% Loot reduction, 100% Concorde response speed and strength is set
Algos defends: Benefits from Concorde as applicable

Marshal wins: No Kill mail, No KIll Mark, No Loot
Algos wins: Kill mail, Kill Mark and 100% loot

This is just a basic idea to increase engagement that needs to be more fully fleshed out.

What do you think? Real reward for real risk or keep incentivizing punch downs on cheap easy low/no risk kills?

2

Punching Up vs Punching Down

punchingup
punchingup1024×767 54.5 KB

1 Like
3

Gr8 Illustration!

4

This sounds wildly complicated for no real reason. How do you score a Tusker pilot in an alt flying in a frig compared to a new player in a battleship? Or 180 HACs vs 180 HACs in nullsec? How could the game possibly make those sorts of calculations with 120 people doing damage to one ship being repp’d by 14 ships and linked with 4 more? I’m not sure what problem is being addressed here.

2 Likes
5

All gr8 questions that fall under “This is just a basic idea to increase engagement that needs to be more fully fleshed out.”

I also realized another issue with it, Piracy! Any combat ship attacking a hauler would get nothing under this model.

Right now many are risk averse. That manifests from your own 120v1 example to T3s whacking Ventures, T1 haulers and Barges to running unless you know you have an overwhelming advantage and many other scenarios. This is my attempt to encourage engagement across a broader spectrum.

6

In my experience of “punching up”, the main problem isn’t the rewards, it’s actually the punishment. The logistics. Whether flying frig or cruiser, losing it doing a foolish/fun punch-up attempt can be 10 minutes of travel time just to reship. This is generally why people don’t try to punch up. I do it because it’s fun and only very rarely you come across a matchup that actually works. Increased rewards isn’t going to incentivize more people to be foolhardy, but a decreased sense of loss might.

1 Like
7

Hard to tell what is up or down… example: solo warrior roaming in a cruiser kill anything from a guy mining with 20 accounts

Who’s punching up or down here? I say it’s the solo warrior, because there’s more things involved.

2 Likes
8

Is 20 catalysts against an Orca punching up or punching down?

The Orca is both bigger and more expensive, and requires more skills to fly as well. On the other hand, the Orca probably isn’t fit to fight back…

Or another scenario, what about a bunch of destroyers against a solo Marauder? If the Marauder is fit and piloted well, the Marauder is punching down. But if it isn’t expecting any PvP and is for maximum PvE efficiency, the pilot may complain that people are punching down on him.

I agree with @Wes_Wyhunnan, this idea is wildly complicated for no real reason. EVE combat is complicated enough, no reason to add even more variables.

1 Like
9

Unconsidered scenario in my idea. Gr8 question! Appreciate discussion.

10

20 Cats vs Orca is definitely punching down. That’s gotta be at least 6000dps combined. The isk value of the ship would not be considered. The idea is a combat strength comparative. DPS, EHP and effective ranges would likely be the basis of the calculation.

Several Destroyers vs Marauder? It would depend on the number of destroyers. It may well be that 6 destroyers would be an even fight. More or less would be calculated as an over or under.

Yes the idea is complicated, it would require actual development. The goal is to create more fights not make current fights any easier or more convenient. More engagement likely equals more players.

My idea may not be viable, I am putting it out there for discussion just like this. Thank you for chiming in, I appreciate the feedback.

11

Its impossible tho.

I mean take the guy who bait orcas in Jita.

How would you classify that?

12

Not familiar with that. What does he bait the Orca with? What does he attack with?

13

Go and see :smiley:

14

Learn to EVE then, mkaybye

15

Oh I have :smiley:

Hence why I know his idea won’t work :smiley:

16

He doesn’t bait Orcas, he IS a bait orca. Character name is Market Tycoon. Usually sits on the Jita undock in a suspect orca that has a ton of neuts, ton of drones, and a ton of EHP.

17

Don’t like it the way you designed it. All the calculation formulae are overcomplicated and it would require lots of development time to balance it properly for all kinds of imaginable scenarios. And still leaving lots of room for error.

If anything (and thats a big “if”), there could be a timer that counts how fast a ship has been destroyed.

If it is obliterated in seconds the internal emergency systems were probably not fast enough to close pressure doors and extinguish fires, shut down overloading systems and so on. In this case, the amount of loot is reduced because most of the modules and cargo has been burned, ripped apart or is exploded.

If the ship survives for a longer time and is basically “sliced chirurgically”, there is a higher chance that internal structures like cargo and modules survive, because while the ships hull is been destroyed, closed sections might sill be intact, protected by the ships emergency failure systems. In that case the amount of loot would be higher.

Such a mechanic would also make longer fights and especially solo, small- and medscale fights more rewarding while blobbing someone and just alpha ship by ship drastically reduces your loot.

.
.
.

It would also nerf ganking quite a bit (well, not the activity, but the profit from doing it because ripping something apart in less than 20 seconds just does not leave much to loot). :slight_smile:

1 Like
18

Not gonna lie, was so tempted to skill into an Orca :smiley:

19

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.