Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
305
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 06:23:45 -
[61] - Quote
A little bump. I think this deserves more reads and comments, specially from CCP. |
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
565
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 07:18:51 -
[62] - Quote
Randomness is bad. EVE is a very strategic game, not a random deathmatch. ECM is already a terrible system and nothing should be based on it, except as an example of a gameplay mechanism that should be deleted. And that doesn't even start to get into the problems with fleet composition, tacklers vs bubblers balance, and so forth.
This change would be completely unsub-worthy for me.
Overhaul Dscan!
Make your own rules - Noobs to Null / Casual Vets Corp
|
Lienzo
Amanuensis
41
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 07:41:55 -
[63] - Quote
Falloff isn't really a random number generator.
I suspect that many of the RNGs in the game are actually a way of compensating for the tick rate, and time based effects that don't divide into nice round numbers. |
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
404
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 08:07:08 -
[64] - Quote
That falloff crap is crap, but warp core strength idea is interesting. |
Reina Xyaer
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:54:40 -
[65] - Quote
Ines Tegator wrote:Randomness is bad. EVE is a very strategic game, not a random deathmatch. ECM is already a terrible system and nothing should be based on it, except as an example of a gameplay mechanism that should be deleted. And that doesn't even start to get into the problems with fleet composition, tacklers vs bubblers balance, and so forth.
This change would be completely unsub-worthy for me.
How do you think ECM should work?
The way tackle works now? Jammers have a max range, and if you activate it on any ship, they are definitely jammed?
No sensor strength factor? How would racial jamming work without it? |
Reina Xyaer
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:55:34 -
[66] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:That falloff crap is crap, but warp core strength idea is interesting.
Why do you think the falloff idea is crap? Can you give reasons or are you just rejecting anything that's different because it's SO different? |
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
4083
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:23:51 -
[67] - Quote
Quote:T1 Frigs, T1 Destroyers: +1 (same as now) T2 Frigs, T2 Destroyers, T1 Cruisers: +2 T2 Cruisers, BCs: +3 T1 Battleships, T2 BCs: +4 T2 Battleships, Carriers, Dreads: +5 While I like the idea, for simplicity I think it would make more sense to just give each class of ship an inherent warp core strength rather than multipliers for warp disruptors and scramblers.
Capsule, Shuttle, Frigate (T1|T2|Faction): 0 Destroyer (T1|T2|T3|Faction), Transport (T1|T2): 1 Cruiser (T1|T2|T3|Faction), Freighter (T1|T2|Faction): 2 Battlecruiser (T1|T2): 3 Battleships (T1|T2|Faction): 4 Carrier and Dreadnought (T1): 5
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Clara Barcelo
Deadly Fingertips
2
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:13:29 -
[68] - Quote
Ravasta Helugo wrote:God's Apples wrote:Are you ******** how does this improve solo pvp? I don't see too many solo pvp ships with 3 ******* points fit to them so how do you realistically expect to kill anyone who isn't asleep in their chair or mentally inept? The point is that frigates shouldn't be killing Battleships. Chase off, sure. Destroy with a small gang, yep. Kill solo? Easily? No. But they do. A lot. One of the myriad of reasons that Battleships are nearly obsolete in their current form.
Because, Heavy Neut + Dual Web + Light Drones = A Totally not dead Frigate.
A Battleship can die to a Frig because he didn't properly fit for dealing with a frig. Why should he not be punished for that?
EVE online is not Bigger=Better |
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
566
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:13:16 -
[69] - Quote
Reina Xyaer wrote:Ines Tegator wrote:Randomness is bad. EVE is a very strategic game, not a random deathmatch. ECM is already a terrible system and nothing should be based on it, except as an example of a gameplay mechanism that should be deleted. And that doesn't even start to get into the problems with fleet composition, tacklers vs bubblers balance, and so forth.
This change would be completely unsub-worthy for me. How do you think ECM should work? The way tackle works now? Jammers have a max range, and if you activate it on any ship, they are definitely jammed? No sensor strength factor? How would racial jamming work without it?
ECM has two problems - one, that it's random. Second, that it completely shuts down the target ship. There are many ideas you can find with the Search function to address both of them; I don't really have a preference.
Comparing it to tackle is a bad idea anyway. Tackle is a core part of engaging a target. Getting an engagement is ALREADY the core part of fleet combat (unless a sov structure is involved to force an engagement at a specific place; I'm talking about your average roaming gang). Making it even harder just to pin down a target is stupid. The dominance of bubbles will only get worse; the niche of flying tacklers for a fleet will evaporate, which is a key role for new players to start getting into PVP. People will just start fitting more scrams to their ships. There will be chaos. Dogs and cats will like each other.
Really, the OP idea doesn't just alter a core gameplay mechanic, it alters several of them. Everything from fleet composition, battle tactics, new player experience, fitting strategy to ship balance. It's absolutely insane to change that many systems at once.
Overhaul Dscan!
Make your own rules - Noobs to Null / Casual Vets Corp
|
Reina Xyaer
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
19
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:52:49 -
[70] - Quote
Ines Tegator wrote:
ECM has two problems - one, that it's random. Second, that it completely shuts down the target ship. There are many ideas you can find with the Search function to address both of them; I don't really have a preference.
Comparing it to tackle is a bad idea anyway. Tackle is a core part of engaging a target. Getting an engagement is ALREADY the core part of fleet combat (unless a sov structure is involved to force an engagement at a specific place; I'm talking about your average roaming gang). Making it even harder just to pin down a target is stupid. The dominance of bubbles will only get worse; the niche of flying tacklers for a fleet will evaporate, which is a key role for new players to start getting into PVP. People will just start fitting more scrams to their ships. The delicate balance between big, hard hitting ships and small, fast movers would be forever broken. There will be chaos. Dogs and cats will like each other.
Really, the OP idea doesn't just alter a core gameplay mechanic, it alters several of them. Everything from fleet composition, battle tactics, new player experience, fitting strategy to ship balance. It's absolutely insane to change that many systems at once.
Okay well first of all, ECM isn't completely random, it has a higher or lower chance based on the strength of the jammer and target ship's sensors. Again, that's why I initially said that if Tackle had a system like this, I'd want it to be much less hit-or-miss, and more consistent.
Second, ECMs other problem is that it totally shuts down the target ship? So you think ECM is unfair/OP because it "completely shuts down the target ship", but it's also not good because it's chance based and doesn't ALWAYS shut down the target ship? You're being a little inconsistent here. Because right now, tackle "completely shuts down the target ship" from warping away, 100% of cycles of a disruptor (unless a target has warp core stabs). So why is it okay for Tackle to be 100% effective, but jamming to be random? (But then also jamming shouldn't be random? according to you?)
I just disagree that it would break or ruin combat. It would certainly CHANGE it a lot, yes. But nobody has convinced me that it would be for the worse. Granted I'm not certain that it would be for the better either.
Let's think, if tackle was like ECM, a chance to "land" based on warp core strength and disruptor strength (which got weaker as range increased)...
You're right, tackle as a role would change drastically. Tackle would be more like ECM, in that not every ship, or even every fleet would have it. Currently all E-war is like an extra bonus in your fleet, if you have a jamming ship or two, or a painting ship, or a damping ship, it's like "oh cool, we're that much stronger". MOST PVP fits don't include a jammer, but almost EVERY PVP fit includes a Dis/Scram. For all of EVE's history, tackle has been a NECESSITY for anyone hoping to get kills. Without it, things will just run away.
Under a system like what I'm imagining, tackle would still be necessary, and still viable for all pilots. Just like my first concept, under the newer ECM-like/falloff concept, disruptor strength would go up as hulls got bigger. And don't forget I also said some, maybe even lots of ship should get bonuses to Disruptor Strength (DS). So if we assume the Atron gets a big role bonus to DS, your fleets newbros can still tackle things twice their size, maybe even bigger. But let's say it takes a "Heavy Tackle", like a thorax or something, to tackle a fully skilled Battleship. Or even a perfectly skilled Atron, with a DS upgrade mod, and maybe some cheap DS implants... THEN it can tackle Battleships (consistently at optimal, maybe yes/maybe no once you're in falloff).
I don't see this as a bad thing. The total newbs in completely cheap trash frigs could still tackle most things, assuming they fly the "tackle" bonused hulls. In fact, with added range and falloff like what I made up, they may even be able to tackle more things, more often.
Honestly I think this would make tackle MUCH more interesting. With a several skills added, multiple implants (even low-mid-high grade sets for it), and tackle upgrade modules, I think it would become a much more fun system.
Think: "Oh yea I'm a dedicated PRO tackler... nothing gets away from me. I fly a (pick a ceptor) with a faction short point, DS upgrade, and DS implants blahblahbalh.... the ONLY thing that can warp when I'm scramming it is a (pick ship class with high Warp Core Strength), with at least 1 stab, and WCS implants."
Then tackle proficiency would go down from there, making it a career that people can really specialize in, instead of just "no stabs, point from any ship, and you're 100% tackled.
I agree that it might be a little bit "insane" to change that many things at once, but I don't agree that it's definitely a bad thing.
|
|
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
307
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 20:47:41 -
[71] - Quote
Clara Barcelo wrote:Ravasta Helugo wrote:God's Apples wrote:Are you ******** how does this improve solo pvp? I don't see too many solo pvp ships with 3 ******* points fit to them so how do you realistically expect to kill anyone who isn't asleep in their chair or mentally inept? The point is that frigates shouldn't be killing Battleships. Chase off, sure. Destroy with a small gang, yep. Kill solo? Easily? No. But they do. A lot. One of the myriad of reasons that Battleships are nearly obsolete in their current form. Because, Heavy Neut + Dual Web + Light Drones = A Totally not dead Frigate. A Battleship can die to a Frig because he didn't properly fit for dealing with a frig. Why should he not be punished for that? EVE online is not Bigger=Better This idea does not conflict with your thesis that Frigates should be relevant, and that Battleship pilots should be forced to make fitting choices and concessions to engage them.
What this idea centers around is the idea that Battleships should have superior freedom of movement to help partially alleviate the MASSIVE disadvantage they are under in the current meta of the game. |
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
305
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:56:53 -
[72] - Quote
I think the original idea and its variants (warp core strengh and disruption multipliers according to ship class) was much more simple and elegant than the system based on ECM mechanics. Those mechanics are source of great discord, as they rely too much on chance on something as critical as to pin a ship in place. Personally I think we should revert to the original concept, and tweak it more. |
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci
Jovian Labs Jovian Enterprises
17206
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 22:57:50 -
[73] - Quote
I've brought this up many times, only to be quickly shot down
I'm glad to see it garnering support- this would make for a very interesting change!
+1
And instead of creating a big complicated system, wouldn't something like this make sense?:
Frigate/Destroyer: WCS 1 Cruiser/Industrial: WCS 2 Battlecruiser: WCS 3 Battleship/Frieghter: WCS 4 Carrier/Dreadnought: WCS 5 Supercarrier/Titan: WCS 7
A City made of Wood is built in the forest
A City made of Stone is built in the mountains
But a City made of Dreams...is built in heaven.
Jovian Proverb GÖâ
|
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
309
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 23:52:01 -
[74] - Quote
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci wrote:I've brought this up many times, only to be quickly shot down I'm glad to see it garnering support- this would make for a very interesting change! +1 And instead of creating a big complicated system, wouldn't something like this make sense?: Frigate/Destroyer: WCS 1 Cruiser/Industrial: WCS 2 Battlecruiser: WCS 3 Battleship/Frieghter: WCS 4 Carrier/Dreadnought: WCS 5 Supercarrier/Titan: WCS 7 I'm more supportive of this as well, for several reasons.
First of all, warp strength is already an existing statistic that every ship has. Increasing it for different ship classes would be very quick and simple for Devs to do. So, low overhead.
Second, fewer changes mean fewer things to balance. |
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
308
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 11:42:56 -
[75] - Quote
Ravasta Helugo wrote:Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci wrote:I've brought this up many times, only to be quickly shot down I'm glad to see it garnering support- this would make for a very interesting change! +1 And instead of creating a big complicated system, wouldn't something like this make sense?: Frigate/Destroyer: WCS 1 Cruiser/Industrial: WCS 2 Battlecruiser: WCS 3 Battleship/Frieghter: WCS 4 Carrier/Dreadnought: WCS 5 Supercarrier/Titan: WCS 7 I'm more supportive of this as well, for several reasons. First of all, warp strength is already an existing statistic that every ship has. Increasing it for different ship classes would be very quick and simple for Devs to do. So, low overhead. Second, fewer changes mean fewer things to balance. I completely agree. It would be an elegant and simple solution.
Uriel, would those numbers be both warp core strenght and warp disruption multipliers? I mean, it makes sense a Battleship can pin in place another one on its own, while being easier to pin by a Carrier, and more difficult by a Cruiser.
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2035
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 12:54:15 -
[76] - Quote
Guys let's make running away super easy that won't be super frustrating at all. |
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
4092
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 16:39:13 -
[77] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Guys let's make running away super easy that won't be super frustrating at all. It just means that going forward you're going to have to make more fitting sacrifices to tackle ships.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
sabre906
Old Spice Syndicate Intrepid Crossing
1634
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 18:35:05 -
[78] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:Guys let's make running away super easy that won't be super frustrating at all. It just means that going forward you're going to have to make more fitting sacrifices to tackle ships.
Rather, the effect would be forcing people to tackle in heavier ships that can't run away immediately if the "victim" turns out to be a bait. Currently, it's so easy for roaming gang's interceptor to run away from a bait, even after taking the bait, that there's essentially no risk for the tacklers.
I kept running into this problem myself. The only bait I've had success killing interceptors in are Ravens with rapid heavies using precision missiles. These things run away way too fast unless you alpha them. |
Alexis Nightwish
102
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 00:15:34 -
[79] - Quote
Reina Xyaer wrote:Warp Disruption Projection (HORRIBLE name): + X% range and falloff of warp disruptors per skill level NONONONONONO!!!!
The range of warp disruption (and to a lesser extent webs) is fundamental to how PvP works, and is one of the few things that are actually well balanced in EVE. There's a very good reason faction points are so ridiculously expensive.
You're proposal is, on the whole, good. But axe this well intended but horrible aspect :)
CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
|
beakerax
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 01:01:16 -
[80] - Quote
Interesting hypothetical (the original, not so much the RNG one), but personally I'd be more comfortable with larger ships receiving reduced penalties from warp core stabilizers, rather than simply having a higher warp core strength out of the box.
There are probably less significant changes that could be made to make larger ships more viable, though. I'm not sure tackle resistance would be really fun for anyone. |
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
864
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 06:32:59 -
[81] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Ravasta Helugo wrote:I like this idea.
Battleship don't care about your point. Battleship don't give a ****. Battleship goes where it wants. Agreed. Battleships would become ideal "heavy tacklers" and would be less vulnerable to a single frigate while still remaining vulnerable to a frigate gang. If this were to go through though, I'd propose that 'Ceptors and their T1 counterparts get a +1 base warp disruption strength (not warp core strength) role bonus. I'm not sold yet, but it's an interesting idea.
They have bubble immunity, they don't need another perk. |
Clara Barcelo
Deadly Fingertips
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 06:45:47 -
[82] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:Guys let's make running away super easy that won't be super frustrating at all. It just means that going forward you're going to have to make more fitting sacrifices to tackle ships.
Or everyone just brings one HIC with them where ever they go. Infit-point Solved. I was iffy on the idea at first but now that I see that a HIC would become irreplaceable to a fleet it starting to seems more and more of a bad idea. I don't believe that you should have a dedicated tackle for Small gang and Fleet fights to happen.
And the Battleships being dedicated heavy tacklers idea? You mean on Armor Battleships right? Because Duel Webs, Point, Scram, leaves little room for a tank on any Shield Tanked ship. And if you just add more mids to that shield ship suddenly every shield Battleship has the defensive capabilities of a Navy Scorp. |
Cora Thunder
Zervas Aeronautics The Bastion
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 07:10:05 -
[83] - Quote
I was about to propose the same idea so it definitely has a +1 from me.
The main reason for this is it would add a doze of realism to the game, as the energy required to make a larger ship go into warp is way bigger than the one needed to move a smaller one.
So, consequently, a larger ship needs to have a more powerful warp core, and the only way to disrupt such a warp core is to project at least an equivalent amount of power onto it, in order to shut id down. There's no way in hell a 100 MW power core frigate should be able to project enough power that would shut down a 10000+ MW Battleship warp core.
I think a lone T1 frigate should not stand more than 30% chance of tackling a BS, and maybe specialized tackler versions of HAF's or Inty's should be added that will allow such a frig to go up to 50% tackling chance.
From the realism's point of view this will be a very welcome change and definitely worth for CCP to look into it.
Also I think warp disruptors and scramblers should have lower initial tackling strengths and benefit from a Warp Core Disruption skill that should gradually increase their effectiveness. Also they should be able to fit scripts for either tackling optimal/faloff range or tackling strength, so they would give the tackler pilot options for either go for a ranged tackling versus a similar ship class foe in order to prevent them from being damaged, or go for warp disruption power versus a higher ship class opponent, and thus allow their friends to finish such a target off.
I vote for the second version of tackling system that has been proposed, because even though it is more complex, it's also more realistic. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
864
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 07:56:29 -
[84] - Quote
You're trying to apply 'realism' to warp core stability while scaling it for imaginary ships the size of a small town.
This overcomplicates the game in some aspects, kills small gang stuff in others and is easily bypassed via HIC and DIC.
-1 |
Cora Thunder
Zervas Aeronautics The Bastion
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 08:31:49 -
[85] - Quote
Actually it does not kill small gangs, but makes their pilots work a bit harder in order to accomplish what's too easily done at the moment. Two frigates will still be enough to tackle a BS, and the added scripts option will provide their pilots with added flexibility of engagement style. Also about the realism things, these ' imaginary' ships actually have a mass and inertia, and this have to be moved through warp somehow...it's obvious a 100k ton BS would need much more energy to do so than a 1K ton frigate. Also I think it'll be a nice balance for the loss of warp speed the Capitals, Battleships and Battlecruisers suffered, which has to be compensated somehow. Will make them more worth flying and than at this moment are, even tough CCP thinks they are fine in their present form. Well, no CCP, they are not atm, the Dev team needs to put up some more work and creativity in order to make them so....this warp strength idea adds only one of the things that need to be done to make them worth using again. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15321
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 08:36:07 -
[86] - Quote
Cora Thunder wrote:Actually it does not kill small gangs, but makes their pilots work a bit harder in order to accomplish what's too easily done at the moment. Two frigates will still be enough to tackle a BS, and the added scripts option will provide their pilots with added flexibility of engagement style. Also about the realism things, these ' imaginary' ships actually have a mass and inertia, and this have to be moved through warp somehow...it's obvious a 100k ton BS would need much more energy to do so than a 1K ton frigate. Also I think it'll be a nice balance for the loss of warp speed the Capitals, Battleships and Battlecruisers suffered, which has to be compensated somehow. Will make them more worth flying and than at this moment are, even tough CCP thinks they are fine in their present form. Well, no CCP, they are not atm, the Dev team needs to put up some more work and creativity in order to make them so....this warp strength idea adds only one of the things that need to be done to make them worth using again.
Tell me how you could go solo in damn near any ship with this change.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
4095
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 08:36:19 -
[87] - Quote
While I still like the idea, after more consideration I think these would be more reasonable values:
Frigate, Bomber, Destroyer, Cruiser: 0 Battlecruiser, Command Ship, Black Ops: 1 Battleship, Marauder, Freighter: 2 Carrier, Dreadnought: 3
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
309
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 12:56:17 -
[88] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:You're trying to apply 'realism' to warp core stability while scaling it for imaginary ships the size of a small town.
This overcomplicates the game in some aspects, kills small gang stuff in others and is easily bypassed via HIC and DIC.
-1 Realism, as how a small yatch can't hold in place a battleship, but a few of them could. Or a lesser number of tugboats.
About the small gang stuff, those gangs could just bring a few more basic ships, use more advanced ships (for example interceptors), or use larger ships. Just by scaling from frigates to cruisers (even on just a few ships of the gang) your tackling power would increase a lot.
And HICs and DICs are supposed to be the kings of holding ships in place, as they are now. Nothing would change in that regard.
That said, I'm much more fond of the version of this idea based on giving increased warp core strenght and disruption power to each ship size, than the version based on ECM mechanics. |
Valkin Mordirc
665
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 13:00:10 -
[89] - Quote
Quote:Realism, as how a small yatch can't hold in place a battleship,
Go to Somalia and ask how it's going for the Pirates up there. XD
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
418
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 18:58:37 -
[90] - Quote
Good idea.
I am still not convinced that battleships are in a good spot right now with their stats but it would differentiate them slightly. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |