Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jarvis Hellstrom
Gallente The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.16 14:35:00 -
[1]
One thing that is really lacking in EVE is Point Defense.
That being - defensive weaponry designed to engage and destroy incoming ordnance. Currently, there are two of these kinds of systems available to ships but both are too limited. The first, of course, is Defender missiles, used to shoot down other missiles and the other is smartbombs, used to damage attacking drones. Both, however, are too limited. The Point Defense role needs to be expanded and rationalized.
Defender missiles can only be mounted in a launcher, which means that only ships that can fit a launcher can use them. Thus, the race most likely to face missile boats (Gallente) have very few ships that can mount these systems. Seems like the Gallente, and probably the Amarr, would probably have developed some kind of missile counter by now.
Smart bombs are anti drone defense, but are extremely indiscriminate and hard to use in fleet actions without killing your friends. It's really only a viable system for very specialized ships that operate alone.
Some proposals to address these issues:
Create a 'point defense launcher' which doesn't require a launcher slot (just a high slot) and can only take Defender missiles. Possibly also allow Defender missiles to be used to defend other ships in gang instead of just the launching vessel.
Create a 'Point Defense Targeter' which would allow small turret weapons of any type to be set to 'Point Defense mode'. In this mode they could not fire offensively but would automatically engage any enemy missiles or drones which attack that vessel. Perhaps it would work with any gun with a tracking speed high enough?
Finally - allow a 'CAP' (That's 'Combat Air Patrol' folks) setting for Drones where they will orbit the ship they are defending and only shoot down other drones that are attacking that vessel. While this can be done manually it's very slow to do - so much so that it's pretty much not worth doing in high speed EVE combat. Having an auto setting would make it a viable option.
How's that for a start? Could add some interesting new twists and tactics to the game if the development time isn't too difficult.
Discussion welcome of course!
May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk
(Old Egyptian Blessing) |
Sir Substance
Minmatar MagiTech Alliance Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.09.16 15:18:00 -
[2]
i agree with everything except the fleet defense thing. nothing would be worse then having a few uber-tanked drakes swatting everything that comes in. - PvPers always say "GB2WoW". the message is that EVE is hard, and people just need to deal with it. wasn't it funny how when nano's started making it hard for *them*, that all went out the window? |
Jarvis Hellstrom
Gallente The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.16 15:32:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Sir Substance i agree with everything except the fleet defense thing. nothing would be worse then having a few uber-tanked drakes swatting everything that comes in.
Well fleet actions tend to be primarily guns anyway so I don't think you'd see that much of it. And even if it did - that would just add another level of complexity to fleet combat as those ships would have to be 'primaried' in order to take them down before the missile/drone boats could do their thing.
Very much the role Aegis cruisers play in modern naval warfare. Instead of DPS, tackle and ECM you'd now have DPS, tackle, ECM and defense.
Personally I think a bit more variety in fleet combat would be a good thing, but that is pure opinion of course.
May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk
(Old Egyptian Blessing) |
BiggestT
Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana
|
Posted - 2008.09.18 05:41:00 -
[4]
What? Smartbobms ineffective?
One smartbomb on a carrier or supercap takes at most if not ALL of incoming citadel torpedos (dread missiles). Sounds like a damn effective point defense to me, in fact it really needs nerfing as the phoenix and nag (missile dreads) are really gimped as a result.
Awesome EVE history
|
Clansworth
Burning Sky Labs
|
Posted - 2008.09.18 07:46:00 -
[5]
I do agree that missiles could use some (usable) counter. A change to the logic of defenders (and, as they appear to use the same logic, FoF missiles) would be enough I think. Currently, defender missiles when launched, will target the nearest incoming missile. If, when they reach that target, it is no longer there, they will just fly off to the void. This makes using multiple defender launchers pretty ineffective, as it would require staggering them just right so that the second launcher fires AFTER the first has already destroyed it's incoming target, so that it doesn't just target the already doomed incoming.
If a defender or FoF missile, instead, would reqacquire a new target when it's current one is destroyed, it could in turn become very effective. The ability to shoot down ANY enemy flagged missile would also be a boon, as, like you mentioned, it could lead to ships being used specifically as Point-Defence platforms, effectively nullifying missile dps. Obviously, this could have some balance issues, as the only comparable counter specifically for incoming turret fire is the rather limited tracking disrupters.
New Prospector Class |
Ratchman
|
Posted - 2008.09.18 09:10:00 -
[6]
I like the idea of using an Aegis-style defence in the game, but the other poster was right in that we do not want it to turn into an impenetrable screen.
I also like the idea of having it as something that doesn't require a turret or launcher slot, and this could then fit on a number of ships that have spare high slots. The caveat could be that it requires high CPU requirements (due to the fact that it is constantly re-targetting and computing telemetry). This should prevent more than 1 or 2 being fitted on any ship.
|
Abuta Beki
|
Posted - 2008.09.18 12:07:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Abuta Beki on 18/09/2008 12:07:47 I think the easiest solution for point defense is to rework and expand the dual cannons that are already in the game.
1. Dual cannons should not have different stats than the same caliber single versions. The stats should be the same, but the rate of fire should be doubled. The only other stat that should differ is tracking speed, because it is still a larger turret setup.
2. Add tripple and quad guns to the game in the same fashion.
Result: You get to fit larger ships with high-rof turrets, which may have worse tracking than smaller turrets, but they have the rate of fire to make up for it. A battleship or battlecruiser fitted with such guns and and some targeting enhancements would lay down quite a serious fire solution, but it would not unbalance the game as much as any fully automated flyswapper would do.
Add the suggested system for autotargeting warheads and you got a working system, which still requires some attention from the player.
|
Jarvis Hellstrom
Gallente The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.18 17:47:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Jarvis Hellstrom on 18/09/2008 17:50:34
Originally by: BiggestT What? Smartbobms ineffective?
One smartbomb on a carrier or supercap takes at most if not ALL of incoming citadel torpedos (dread missiles). Sounds like a damn effective point defense to me, in fact it really needs nerfing as the phoenix and nag (missile dreads) are really gimped as a result.
Well, if you have a fleet supporting you and you cut loose with such a thing you'll clear your own non-cap support out pretty quickly.
That or they'd best stay the heck away!
I'll take your word on it that it works, though. I was actually talking about subcap warfare and don't know much about the cap stuff.
Good comments and thoughts about the other stuff folks. I really like the thought about high CPU for point defense systems (makes total sense and good for balance) and the thoughts about duo turrets too.
Keep it coming!
May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk
(Old Egyptian Blessing) |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |