Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bene Gessie
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 03:52:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Bene Gessie on 06/07/2010 03:52:14 Ok so we know that battleships are much bigger and are much more powerful than a frigate, correct?
So why does it take only one warp disruptor/scram to disable their microwarpdrive?
I believe that the larger the capacitor/hull a ship has, the more powerful is their warp core (the warp core needs to ba able to propel a ship 10 times the mass).
To tackle a frigate, only one diruptor/scram is needed to stop them from warping or using mwd. Cruiser requires 2 points Battle cruiser 3 points Battleship 4 points Capitals 5-6 points.
What do you think?
|
IcanhasyouStuff
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 05:15:00 -
[2]
I think you should think your idea through before posting them. What you propose would obsolete interceptors and make PvP harder (small ships CAN kill bigger ships).
|
Misanthra
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 05:38:00 -
[3]
Inty/af versus bs....has to kite at least 10 drones, keep in range and avoid a flying mistake that can give him slow speed and bad angle cause just takes one lucky shot to pop them. he got it bad already.
Inty/af versus bc....medium guns can hit it (barely but can) and read above part about drones. If tackling a drake or minny ship, has to worry about the HAM or AML surprise Nothing says surprise like a ship with missile systems meant to kill frigates very efficeiently, don't have tracking issues to boot so oh yes they will hit you.
Cruisers...at t2 you got several skills to fight back in the target, unless pilot freezes inty pilot inty/af in for bumpy ride. T1 meh...ship skipped by pve and pvp people to better ships lol.
In short...hard to be inty/af pilot as is. Give em a good tackle for their troubles lol.
|
suspisious
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 08:28:00 -
[4]
It is odd you only need one point to stop any ship in this game no matter how big or powerfull they are.
Just compensate the interceptors by giving em a bonus in tackling stength.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 12:49:00 -
[5]
Any advantage that the larger warp-core is eaten up by the larger mass/volume as you yourself mentioned. The 'overhead' is not enough to make it stronger as such so I wouldn't support it on RP and certainly not on gameplay/-balance grounds.
In the future perhaps something devious could be constructed to increase scramble defence by lowering possible warp speed - would naturally need to be configured in a station to avoid ***gotry. |
Misanthra
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 16:08:00 -
[6]
Originally by: suspisious It is odd you only need one point to stop any ship in this game no matter how big or powerfull they are.
Just compensate the interceptors by giving em a bonus in tackling stength.
Not all tacklers are frigs. SOP many place I ahve been is BC and below....a mid will be a point or scram. Works out nice that way. HAve been pointed by an inty as he pointed me. Leaves him 2 options....stay and hope his friends come quick cause after the point the warrior II's come out and the drake missile spamming starts (I hate to die alone so I'll bring something down on my way out). Or he has to spank that mwd and fly off breaking tackle and me warping to safer space. In fleet supprt bc's and such also point bs' for when the bubbles collaspe so fish don't get away.
|
Skydell
Umbrella Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 16:40:00 -
[7]
Scram mechanics weren't made to accomodate this new MWD scram add on. It was tacked on much later. I have suggested many times they need to increase BS resist to jamming. It hasnt happened.
Right now ships are cheap, easy to build, easy to replace and CCp seem to think that needs 'fixed'. On the other hand, anything we suggest they do to make them harder to lose based on ISK investment falls on deaf ears. I dont know what to say. |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 16:52:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Skydell Scram mechanics weren't made to accomodate this new MWD scram add on. It was tacked on much later. I have suggested many times they need to increase BS resist to jamming. It hasnt happened.
Right now ships are cheap, easy to build, easy to replace and CCp seem to think that needs 'fixed'. On the other hand, anything we suggest they do to make them harder to lose based on ISK investment falls on deaf ears. I dont know what to say.
atm new players can easily jump into a tackling frigate and be part of a fleet as a tackler. why would you take that role away? if your battleship/carrier gets caught off guard by a frigate. bad luck.
but requiring basically 2 warp scrambler/4 warp disruptor to hold down a battleship is just crazy (using the number of the op). then you would need a gang just to keep a battleship in place.
I dont see how the proposal in its current form would leave room for solo pvp beyond frigates maybe cruiser.
|
TharOkha
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 17:02:00 -
[9]
how about this: Small Warp scrambler (strengh +2, Powergrid usage 8MW) Medium Warp scrambler (Str. +4, , Powergrid usage 175MW) Heavy Warp scrambler (str+6, Powergrid usage 2000MW)
Interceptors (Role bonus - 99% reduced power need for heavy warp scrambler)
now every ship should have warp strengh: Frigates, destroyers - no warp strengh Cruisers, BCs - +2 Warp strengh BSs, Capitals - +4 Warp strengh
|
Bene Gessie
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 18:31:00 -
[10]
Originally by: IcanhasyouStuff I think you should think your idea through before posting them. What you propose would obsolete interceptors and make PvP harder (small ships CAN kill bigger ships).
Actually, all I see are interceptor and faction frig/cruiser gangs these days. I usually see Battleships only in PoS bashes. People dont use battleships very often in pvp because they are so easily tackled and slow, and because cruisers can do so much damage, it doesnt take very many to take down a BS. It takes quite a while to kill a crusier let alone faction crusier with just drones. By the time you kill one or two, you are already dead in a battleship.
Also because combat happens so often close to gates (unless you plan on camping a gate at 100km all day) the range advantage of battleships are only useful for POS engagements.
I would like to see battleships in pvp combat more often than I do now. Maybe it needs something more than just more powerful warp cores.
|
|
DuKackBoon
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 19:03:00 -
[11]
You don't know squat about PVP to be honest.
|
Skydell
Umbrella Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 01:29:00 -
[12]
Originally by: darius mclever
Originally by: Skydell Scram mechanics weren't made to accomodate this new MWD scram add on. It was tacked on much later. I have suggested many times they need to increase BS resist to jamming. It hasnt happened.
Right now ships are cheap, easy to build, easy to replace and CCp seem to think that needs 'fixed'. On the other hand, anything we suggest they do to make them harder to lose based on ISK investment falls on deaf ears. I dont know what to say.
atm new players can easily jump into a tackling frigate and be part of a fleet as a tackler. why would you take that role away? if your battleship/carrier gets caught off guard by a frigate. bad luck.
but requiring basically 2 warp scrambler/4 warp disruptor to hold down a battleship is just crazy (using the number of the op). then you would need a gang just to keep a battleship in place.
I dont see how the proposal in its current form would leave room for solo pvp beyond frigates maybe cruiser.
You need to learn to read. Scrambles dont bother me. I simply pointed out they were an add on with the mwd kill. My gripe is not with Scram, its with Jam. Jamming down a battleship so you have a fat cow to kill, that never shoots back is too easy to do in this game. If you have ever ran a Battleship through 0.0 sec just to get it there, you know the simplest thing to do is put 4 warp stabs on it, hope you dont end up in a bubble. Also if you have ever been jammed down you know its an infinite wait for his buddies to show up and tar the goose because in addition to jamming you, they scram you. Do one or the other, not both and not for indefinite periods of time. |
Grarr Dexx
Amarr GK inc.
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 01:32:00 -
[13]
Here we go again...
Drones, neutralizers, webs, jamming. Or don't be a ****** and fly a solo battleship wherever you can get freely attacked, you're just asking for it.
|
IcanhasyouStuff
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 03:44:00 -
[14]
Originally by: TharOkha how about this: Small Warp scrambler (strengh +2, Powergrid usage 8MW) Medium Warp scrambler (Str. +4, , Powergrid usage 175MW) Heavy Warp scrambler (str+6, Powergrid usage 2000MW)
Interceptors (Role bonus - 99% reduced power need for heavy warp scrambler)
now every ship should have warp strengh: Frigates, destroyers - no warp strengh Cruisers, BCs - +2 Warp strengh BSs, Capitals - +4 Warp strengh
How about we don't try to fix what isn't broken.
|
Misanthra
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 03:54:00 -
[15]
but it is broke. Solo bs 15 jumps unscouted through low/null sec should be tackle resistant and jam proof. Friend/corp mate in a 25 mil inty or 30 mil covert ops with fittings finding these obstacles on gate too easy a solution...need to recode the game.
|
suspisious
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 08:29:00 -
[16]
Originally by: IcanhasyouStuff
Originally by: TharOkha how about this: Small Warp scrambler (strengh +2, Powergrid usage 8MW) Medium Warp scrambler (Str. +4, , Powergrid usage 175MW) Heavy Warp scrambler (str+6, Powergrid usage 2000MW)
Interceptors (Role bonus - 99% reduced power need for heavy warp scrambler)
now every ship should have warp strengh: Frigates, destroyers - no warp strengh Cruisers, BCs - +2 Warp strengh BSs, Capitals - +4 Warp strengh
How about we don't try to fix what isn't broken.
Torches are good enough for me. I dont want your fancy electic lightbulb thingy.
Sarcasm aside, it's not fixing whats broken, this is improving what works. |
DuKackBoon
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 08:32:00 -
[17]
No, it's breaking what's working. |
Shebeth
Caldari TABOU and co. Argos council
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 11:18:00 -
[18]
Scrambling should be like jamming, ie each ship have his own warp strength, and well, exactly like ECM, the game throws the dice to know if you fail or success to scramble your target. Maybe the chance should be capped to 90%, to let a little chance to live.
Of course inty, dictor and heavy dictor would be the ships with a great bonus. Like ECM, non-specialized ship would be close to useless at scrambling.
Low is empty like W Bush's head because you dont have any chance to escape a small gang when you are missioning or doing other carebear stuff.
Cycling time, scrambling strength and warp strength could be tricky to balance but this kind of mecanism could attract some ppl to low sec.
(As u can guess, english is not my native language) |
DuKackBoon
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 12:10:00 -
[19]
No, it works perfectly fine the way it does now, it should merely block docking.
|
Laina Delapore
Caldari Red Sun Industries
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 12:13:00 -
[20]
ITT: Some carebears had their BS tackled and wants to make this harder in the future.
Your pseudo-science justification assumes that a larger, more powerful warp core/engine is less vulnerable to the [insert technobabble] that disables them. As opposed to the position that a single [spanner], in a device of any size will cause it sufficient problems. The extra 'power' of a larger ship is devoted to moving the larger mass, not making it less vulnerable to [technobabble].
Rolls on the Technobabble ChartÖ aside, the situations in which your proposal would assist a lone BS pilot are few and far between. Four points is only 2 scrams or four disruptors. So, 2 frigates with scramblers could still lock you down long enough.
Therefore, the vast majority of small gangs could still easily tackle your BS and kill you. All you want to do, it seems, is prevent your being killed by a solo frigate.
Fundamentally, I can't agree with your premise that larger engine = greater resistance to warp disruption or your desire to alter the current mechanics of warp disruption. People will just bring more points of disruption strength to hold the target.
|
|
Shebeth
Caldari TABOU and co. Argos council
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 13:14:00 -
[21]
Originally by: DuKackBoon No, it works perfectly fine the way it does now, it should merely block docking.
So perfectly than low sec is completly empty.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 13:19:00 -
[22]
so if only certain interceptor ships would be able of tackling, how would all other ship classes solo pvp? Its possible to tackle and kill a BS with a covert or recon currently, in the future you would always need a tackler for this job? This is a broken idea killing any kind of solo pvp, which is hard enough already, hence a big fuggin NO for this crap suggestion
|
James Vayne
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 13:39:00 -
[23]
My compromise to the situation would be this:
A crappy t1 warp jammer should not be able to stop a Battleship. t2, fine. yes. Agree. Rubbishy cheap t1? No.
|
Shebeth
Caldari TABOU and co. Argos council
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 13:40:00 -
[24]
Eve is an mmorpg based on players interactions.
Whatever is your gaming style, the fact is low sec is empty. Carebear in high sec wont go in low sec with higher profit, but with a little more security, ie a chance to escape small gangs.
|
Jin Labarre
Gallente Madhatters Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 13:50:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Bene Gessie So why does it take only one warp disruptor/scram to disable their microwarpdrive?
I believe that the larger the capacitor/hull a ship has, the more powerful is their warp core (the warp core needs to ba able to propel a ship 10 times the mass).
And I just don't believe that. You make an assumption, based on basic concepts of completely unrelated technology. So what exactly makes you believe that the warp core of a battleship actually IS more powerful than that of a frigate? Sure, it is obviously able to move a larger mass, if that is the relevant factor at all. Maybe it is volume. We don't fully know that. It also doesn't matter, because you don't know how exactly warp disruption works.
Maybe a slight disruption in the operational parameters of any warp core is enough to disable it. Size does not always matter. A single virus could kill an elephant as easily as it could kill a human, or a mouse. A piece of debris as small as a screw is able to punch a hole into a modern spaceshuttle or the ISS, which is why such things are monitored and considered a problem today.
In some cases size matters. In this case it obviously doesn't.
The game balance aspect of this has been dealt with, already. It is one of the concepts of EVE that no ships of any size are omnipotent, which is why large vessels like battleships don't have hundreds of point defence emplacements that rip fighters, drones and frigates to shreds.
|
Misanthra
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 16:13:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Misanthra on 07/07/2010 16:15:02
Originally by: James Vayne My compromise to the situation would be this:
A crappy t1 warp jammer should not be able to stop a Battleship. t2, fine. yes. Agree. Rubbishy cheap t1? No.
For many items only major difference between T1 abd T2 is price and availibility. T2 !> t1 (named) in all cases. Also have the issue of actual skill levels in the thing. In a tight fit, a component like this on a ship might be a good choice for downgrade (it being t2 not as important as say guns imo). Pilot may still have skill level 4 to rate t2 but wants better fitting options and doens't want to hit rigs/lows to get more pg/cpu. Hell I know a a several year pilot who prefers t1 scrams and webs on his afs. Looked at numbers...said not worth it to tax pg/cpu and found a nice fitting and effective t1 setup for scrams and webs. Dic/hic qualed so he has the skill at 5 as well.
Secondly as darius mentioned above this allows really low sp players to get into pvp. Me I like low sp pilots. They fly the tackles, I fly the bigger ships like bc and now BS. win win for everyone. Got my start many months ago being the bubble finding point carrying noob in a frigate in fact lol.
Lastly instead of looking at the tackle equipment look at how the bs got tackled. Why is the escort/scout not killing the tackler? Why did scout say jump with hostiles in system or why did teh bs pilots hear the report and jump anyway? If no escort/scout....wtf is the bs doing using gates into systems with no eyes in them for? CCP should not have to recode the game for basic stuff learned day 1 in any formal pvp environment...bs' never fly unscouted when they can be a wt (or just a target in null sec...we don't need war decs :) ) .
|
Bene Gessie
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 16:23:00 -
[27]
Originally by: DuKackBoon You don't know squat about PVP to be honest.
Actually, I know for a fact that I am terrible at PVP. So I do know something.
|
ShahFluffers
Gallente Ice Fire Warriors
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 16:47:00 -
[28]
Whether its a motercycle or a 80 ton tank... a small monkey wrench in the engine will disable both equally.
Not supported. _______________________
"Just because I look like an idiot doesn't mean I am one." ~Unknown |
Bene Gessie
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 17:46:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Bene Gessie on 07/07/2010 17:46:59
Originally by: Jin Labarre
And I just don't believe that. You make an assumption, based on basic concepts of completely unrelated technology. So what exactly makes you believe that the warp core of a battleship actually IS more powerful than that of a frigate? Sure, it is obviously able to move a larger mass, if that is the relevant factor at all. Maybe it is volume. We don't fully know that. It also doesn't matter, because you don't know how exactly warp disruption works.
Maybe a slight disruption in the operational parameters of any warp core is enough to disable it. Size does not always matter. A single virus could kill an elephant as easily as it could kill a human, or a mouse. A piece of debris as small as a screw is able to punch a hole into a modern spaceshuttle or the ISS, which is why such things are monitored and considered a problem today.
In some cases size matters. In this case it obviously doesn't.
The game balance aspect of this has been dealt with, already. It is one of the concepts of EVE that no ships of any size are omnipotent, which is why large vessels like battleships don't have hundreds of point defence emplacements that rip fighters, drones and frigates to shreds.
No, the reason why large vessels dont have hundreds of turret points is because it is more work for the developers and puts much more strain on the systems.
1. ISS isnt designed for defending itself against incoming micro asteroids 2. Elephants and humans are not spaceships. 3. Combat spaceships are designed for combat in space. Warp disruption is a part of combat so that cant be ignored.
You can certainly say that mass is not relevant at all if you want to defy the laws of physics, because this is a game after all and any discussions debating the technical merits of certain game mechanics are moot.
However, I am not satisfied with the 'it's just a game' cop-out because many people take this universe seriously enough to treat it like a sports competition.
Since stakes are so high in this game, I think it is justified that we have discussions on the RP-ing technical elements of the eve universe.
Okay, so lets say that most of the 'power' consumed by the battleship is to propel its mass so there is not much power left to stabilize the power core against disruption modules.
Do you really think that any sane military engineer would design such a large and expensive ship to just have its propulsion disabled by a single frigate? Benny Hill moment there.
With that in mind, is it true that a frigate's warp core, is also consumed by this 'overhead' to propel its own mass? If this is the case, why does it take so little energy (or capacitor) to disable the battleship's warp core? Unless there is a system that runs at greater than 100% efficiency I dont think that you can put 1W of power into a system and get 100W out. No matter how fictitious such technology is, it detracts from the 'hardcore' immersion of the game because it simply isnt believable. Where is that perpetual motion device when you need it?
|
Grarr Dexx
Amarr GK inc.
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 18:02:00 -
[30]
Nobody gives a flying **** about realism. We are talking balance here, balance you would be ****ing up. Battleship pilots don't need additional strengths, they just need to grow a ****ing brain.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |