EVE Search - will tanking ever change???

All Channels

Ships and Modules

will tanking ever change???

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
X'Alor	Posted - 2004.10.18 20:46:00 - [61] Edited by: X'Alor on 18/10/2004 20:58:06 I AM TOTALLLY 100% SERIOUS there is no irony or sarcasm intended and if my post is tiring to you so is me reading that the game is inbalnced......CUZ IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A BIT. same thing with the races......why.....cuz they are DIFFERENT, they are supposed to be. and how can you compare the balance between shield tanking and armor tanking.......totally two different things. Shields are based on energy fields thus use more energy and power to keep running. armor is an actual component and part of the ship. it's already installed and is actual material.....ie armor. so it should NOT need as much energy to run...... cuz it doesn't have to create a field of any sort to establish the armor. is one better and more efficient, YES. I guess people are forgetting that, that's what games are based on....differences and being able to have a CHOICE in making those differences. kinda like comparing a sword swinging fighter against a uber strong spell casting wizard. pro's and con's and once again IF THINGS ARE BORKED CCP WILL FIX AND CHANGE IT
X'Alor	Posted - 2004.10.18 20:46:00 - [62] Edited by: X'Alor on 18/10/2004 20:58:06 I AM TOTALLLY 100% SERIOUS there is no irony or sarcasm intended and if my post is tiring to you so is me reading that the game is inbalnced......CUZ IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A BIT. same thing with the races......why.....cuz they are DIFFERENT, they are supposed to be. and how can you compare the balance between shield tanking and armor tanking.......totally two different things. Shields are based on energy fields thus use more energy and power to keep running. armor is an actual component and part of the ship. it's already installed and is actual material.....ie armor. so it should NOT need as much energy to run...... cuz it doesn't have to create a field of any sort to establish the armor. is one better and more efficient, YES. I guess people are forgetting that, that's what games are based on....differences and being able to have a CHOICE in making those differences. kinda like comparing a sword swinging fighter against a uber strong spell casting wizard. pro's and con's and once again IF THINGS ARE BORKED CCP WILL FIX AND CHANGE IT
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2004.10.18 20:53:00 - [63] Grim, Ask say Devvon Maelstrom about how to kill BS in a single cruiser. He's VERY good, but frankly 2-3 just fairly experienced pilots SHOULD be able to take down an unescorted BS in under 30 mins. Tanking or not. The ONLY thing which needs doing is fixing artillery. Pulse weaponry is VERY easy to tank. If you make battles that long, all that'll happen is very few people will get killed and skill becomes FAR less important. The time for this kind of idea was beta. Screw realism allready. Gameplay > Realism. AND YOU'RE FLYING A SPACESHIP. Not "realistic!" "As far as I can tell, It doesn't matter who you are, If you can believe there's something worth fighting for " - Garbage, "Parade"
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2004.10.18 20:53:00 - [64] Grim, Ask say Devvon Maelstrom about how to kill BS in a single cruiser. He's VERY good, but frankly 2-3 just fairly experienced pilots SHOULD be able to take down an unescorted BS in under 30 mins. Tanking or not. The ONLY thing which needs doing is fixing artillery. Pulse weaponry is VERY easy to tank. If you make battles that long, all that'll happen is very few people will get killed and skill becomes FAR less important. The time for this kind of idea was beta. Screw realism allready. Gameplay > Realism. AND YOU'RE FLYING A SPACESHIP. Not "realistic!" "As far as I can tell, It doesn't matter who you are, If you can believe there's something worth fighting for " - Garbage, "Parade"
Directive	Posted - 2004.10.18 20:54:00 - [65] What I'd like to see concerning tanking: Shield Boosters reduce shield recharge for a while, by a horrendous amount (dropping it to 1/4 or smth). Armor repairers slowly repair armor so in effect it regenerates. Maybe it wouldn't be any better than the current system, but IMHO it'd atleast have a higher "cool"-factor
Directive	Posted - 2004.10.18 20:54:00 - [66] What I'd like to see concerning tanking: Shield Boosters reduce shield recharge for a while, by a horrendous amount (dropping it to 1/4 or smth). Armor repairers slowly repair armor so in effect it regenerates. Maybe it wouldn't be any better than the current system, but IMHO it'd atleast have a higher "cool"-factor
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.10.18 22:17:00 - [67] Originally by: Maya Rkell Grim, Ask say Devvon Maelstrom about how to kill BS in a single cruiser. He's VERY good, but frankly 2-3 just fairly experienced pilots SHOULD be able to take down an unescorted BS in under 30 mins. Tanking or not. The ONLY thing which needs doing is fixing artillery. Pulse weaponry is VERY easy to tank. If you make battles that long, all that'll happen is very few people will get killed and skill becomes FAR less important. The time for this kind of idea was beta. Screw realism allready. Gameplay > Realism. AND YOU'RE FLYING A SPACESHIP. Not "realistic!" Maya.... I play this game long enough to know how to take down a BS... trust me... (a shame I didnt get into alpha) ... im a forum member of this game since the year 2001! and I was here at times where we didnt even have a forum ... I didnt bother back then since I never bothered about how a game should be changed since I just thought there is no way that any devs would listen to their playerbase. EVE is different in this case however I sadly realized this way too late... about the pulse lasers .... I bet with you that 90% of the laser users train pulse laser specialization ... why? figure it out ... I know you can ... I have to agree regarding gameplay > realism. However we shouldnt forget that we need as much realism as possible in a game aswell. so first rule: gameplay > realism second rule: we still need as much realism as possible as long as it doesnt interfer (sp?) with gameplay... see the first rule. regarding the stats I used... these are of course a subject to discuss ... 2 things have to be applied: a player should have time to react even if hes facing a ganking squad on his own... however a battle should not take too long as well... 30mins are way too long I'll give you that ... so we could change the stats to something like: a 1v1 BS battle would last about 10mins while a BS will die in 10 secs facing 20 other BS anyway the difference in tanking will be that you can harm an enemy with setups you would not do anything to them atm however very little ... again its about the oppertunity... and even more its too late , I'll give you that as well. Greetings Grim
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.10.18 22:17:00 - [68] Originally by: Maya Rkell Grim, Ask say Devvon Maelstrom about how to kill BS in a single cruiser. He's VERY good, but frankly 2-3 just fairly experienced pilots SHOULD be able to take down an unescorted BS in under 30 mins. Tanking or not. The ONLY thing which needs doing is fixing artillery. Pulse weaponry is VERY easy to tank. If you make battles that long, all that'll happen is very few people will get killed and skill becomes FAR less important. The time for this kind of idea was beta. Screw realism allready. Gameplay > Realism. AND YOU'RE FLYING A SPACESHIP. Not "realistic!" Maya.... I play this game long enough to know how to take down a BS... trust me... (a shame I didnt get into alpha) ... im a forum member of this game since the year 2001! and I was here at times where we didnt even have a forum ... I didnt bother back then since I never bothered about how a game should be changed since I just thought there is no way that any devs would listen to their playerbase. EVE is different in this case however I sadly realized this way too late... about the pulse lasers .... I bet with you that 90% of the laser users train pulse laser specialization ... why? figure it out ... I know you can ... I have to agree regarding gameplay > realism. However we shouldnt forget that we need as much realism as possible in a game aswell. so first rule: gameplay > realism second rule: we still need as much realism as possible as long as it doesnt interfer (sp?) with gameplay... see the first rule. regarding the stats I used... these are of course a subject to discuss ... 2 things have to be applied: a player should have time to react even if hes facing a ganking squad on his own... however a battle should not take too long as well... 30mins are way too long I'll give you that ... so we could change the stats to something like: a 1v1 BS battle would last about 10mins while a BS will die in 10 secs facing 20 other BS anyway the difference in tanking will be that you can harm an enemy with setups you would not do anything to them atm however very little ... again its about the oppertunity... and even more its too late , I'll give you that as well. Greetings Grim
X'Alor	Posted - 2004.10.19 00:10:00 - [69] Originally by: Grim Vandal about the pulse lasers .... I bet with you that 90% of the laser users train pulse laser specialization ... why? figure it out ... I know you can ... i'll tell ya why, for the same reason that one would train blaster specialization, railgun specialization, autocannon specialization. to um ..... probably to be able to USE THEM i would suppose. might look into the seperate racial ship bonuses next then too......they better nerf those and take them right out and away. i mean they give each ship a racial edge thus imbalancing the ships to certain purposes and set ups. and guns....they all got different fire rates, tracking, range, falloff, ammo bonuses, damage modifiers.......and multiply all that with moving targets and shooters, the only way to balance that is to make them all the same for each long range and short range class of gun. there will always be unbalance in this game cuz of the skill bonuses, ship bonuses, not to mention all the variants of the mods currentlty out. wait till shiva when all that "uber" loot gets released..... what then? that loot is unbalanced compared to the rest of the loot thus making it unfair correct?
X'Alor	Posted - 2004.10.19 00:10:00 - [70] Originally by: Grim Vandal about the pulse lasers .... I bet with you that 90% of the laser users train pulse laser specialization ... why? figure it out ... I know you can ... i'll tell ya why, for the same reason that one would train blaster specialization, railgun specialization, autocannon specialization. to um ..... probably to be able to USE THEM i would suppose. might look into the seperate racial ship bonuses next then too......they better nerf those and take them right out and away. i mean they give each ship a racial edge thus imbalancing the ships to certain purposes and set ups. and guns....they all got different fire rates, tracking, range, falloff, ammo bonuses, damage modifiers.......and multiply all that with moving targets and shooters, the only way to balance that is to make them all the same for each long range and short range class of gun. there will always be unbalance in this game cuz of the skill bonuses, ship bonuses, not to mention all the variants of the mods currentlty out. wait till shiva when all that "uber" loot gets released..... what then? that loot is unbalanced compared to the rest of the loot thus making it unfair correct?
Kendar	Posted - 2004.10.19 03:12:00 - [71] I see Grim requesting for other peoples opinions here about the tanking abiletys and as soon as someone comes with arguments against his ideas he flame them to death whats up with that? Now You say a cruiser cant take down a BS alone if he is tanking well should one single cruiser be able to take down a BS? or should it assist another BS to take it down i like the idea of BS being a realy hard target to take down and no single cruiser shouldnt even think about attacking a BS. But the idea about armor tanking i agree with you is a bit wierd and something should be done with it i like how shield tanking is done. If they remove the abilety to armor tank something should be added as shield boost bonus on the apocs since their cap is the single most important part of the ship if the cap is gone the ship is dead, so a -% cap use for shiled boosters have to be added in my opinion and Grim if you dont like my ideas please dont flame them it just make you look like an ***. PS: english is not my main
Kendar	Posted - 2004.10.19 03:12:00 - [72] I see Grim requesting for other peoples opinions here about the tanking abiletys and as soon as someone comes with arguments against his ideas he flame them to death whats up with that? Now You say a cruiser cant take down a BS alone if he is tanking well should one single cruiser be able to take down a BS? or should it assist another BS to take it down i like the idea of BS being a realy hard target to take down and no single cruiser shouldnt even think about attacking a BS. But the idea about armor tanking i agree with you is a bit wierd and something should be done with it i like how shield tanking is done. If they remove the abilety to armor tank something should be added as shield boost bonus on the apocs since their cap is the single most important part of the ship if the cap is gone the ship is dead, so a -% cap use for shiled boosters have to be added in my opinion and Grim if you dont like my ideas please dont flame them it just make you look like an ***. PS: english is not my main
Kendar	Posted - 2004.10.19 03:22:00 - [73] BTW: i see you mantion insta jumps im not shure if this have been brought up in this forum before but what if they made up a story where more and more dearing pilots have exited warp closer and closer to the gates witch have ended up in several aksidents destroying jump gates to stop this the concord have set fitted every gate (not smugler gates) with warp disruptors and pilots will be disrupted 6-5km from gate. Iwe camped a gate 2 or 3 times in my game time and iwe played for more than a year now its just that i dont like the idea of braking down from several thousand km/s and stoping close by the gate like 3-4m it just makes it way to unreal to me and yeah i fly a space ship no reality there i know but you guys know what im talking about
Kendar	Posted - 2004.10.19 03:22:00 - [74] BTW: i see you mantion insta jumps im not shure if this have been brought up in this forum before but what if they made up a story where more and more dearing pilots have exited warp closer and closer to the gates witch have ended up in several aksidents destroying jump gates to stop this the concord have set fitted every gate (not smugler gates) with warp disruptors and pilots will be disrupted 6-5km from gate. Iwe camped a gate 2 or 3 times in my game time and iwe played for more than a year now its just that i dont like the idea of braking down from several thousand km/s and stoping close by the gate like 3-4m it just makes it way to unreal to me and yeah i fly a space ship no reality there i know but you guys know what im talking about
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.10.19 23:35:00 - [75] well we may even get the "oppertunity"... dmg leaking through systems (armor breaching and shield pircing) ... your modules have HP as well therefor they will prolly be destroyable ... could really hurt to kill that large accomodation armor rep of an apoc ... question is how will it work? even more I remember the devs mentioned something about weapons overheating and ammo which jams the weapon for some time... anyway I still would find tanking through high resistance and mass HP more fun as compared to the current way... a frig with 5000 shields hehe Greetings Grim
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.10.19 23:35:00 - [76] well we may even get the "oppertunity"... dmg leaking through systems (armor breaching and shield pircing) ... your modules have HP as well therefor they will prolly be destroyable ... could really hurt to kill that large accomodation armor rep of an apoc ... question is how will it work? even more I remember the devs mentioned something about weapons overheating and ammo which jams the weapon for some time... anyway I still would find tanking through high resistance and mass HP more fun as compared to the current way... a frig with 5000 shields hehe Greetings Grim
Zazita	Posted - 2004.10.20 00:14:00 - [77] At this point in the game, zero major game mechanics should be changed first off. Everytime a major change takes place as time goes on, we lose players because of it whether its good or bad. Reason is we all have alot of specialized training into how things are currently. You can complain that we want things to stay the way they are, you better believe it after 1 year of specialized training. Changing the way tank mechanics work would toast ALOT of my specialized training. Although i agree shield tanking needs a buff, or possibly relays need to be un-nerfed. Second, I agree amarr and minmatar tier 2 BSs are slightly unbalanced depending on setup. However, first you have to relize minmatar vessels has more med slots and more missle slots than an amarr vessel. Spesificly you complain about 1400mm not hitting as hard as mega pulses. Tachs dont even hit as hard as mega pulses... Reason is you have to be extremely close to your target for pulses to hit anything. I think the best way to solve the slight mismatch, overall, is to give a slight ( and i meen very slight ) bonus to short range proj weapons and use your med and high slots more effectivly if you plan on hunting APOCs. An APOC that cant get a lock or can only lock at 10k range cant do any damage at all... Just my opinion on the matter, i have seen alot of nerfs and i have been kinda irritated by most of them but we are at an important cross roads. Its time to stop the pay-for-beta testing and get the game on. Everything aint perfect but i love Eve and with skillz training getting longer and longer, we just have to stop changing game mechanics. Hope this adds to the thread, really not trying to offend anyboty.
Zazita	Posted - 2004.10.20 00:14:00 - [78] At this point in the game, zero major game mechanics should be changed first off. Everytime a major change takes place as time goes on, we lose players because of it whether its good or bad. Reason is we all have alot of specialized training into how things are currently. You can complain that we want things to stay the way they are, you better believe it after 1 year of specialized training. Changing the way tank mechanics work would toast ALOT of my specialized training. Although i agree shield tanking needs a buff, or possibly relays need to be un-nerfed. Second, I agree amarr and minmatar tier 2 BSs are slightly unbalanced depending on setup. However, first you have to relize minmatar vessels has more med slots and more missle slots than an amarr vessel. Spesificly you complain about 1400mm not hitting as hard as mega pulses. Tachs dont even hit as hard as mega pulses... Reason is you have to be extremely close to your target for pulses to hit anything. I think the best way to solve the slight mismatch, overall, is to give a slight ( and i meen very slight ) bonus to short range proj weapons and use your med and high slots more effectivly if you plan on hunting APOCs. An APOC that cant get a lock or can only lock at 10k range cant do any damage at all... Just my opinion on the matter, i have seen alot of nerfs and i have been kinda irritated by most of them but we are at an important cross roads. Its time to stop the pay-for-beta testing and get the game on. Everything aint perfect but i love Eve and with skillz training getting longer and longer, we just have to stop changing game mechanics. Hope this adds to the thread, really not trying to offend anyboty.
Dianabolic	Posted - 2004.10.20 09:29:00 - [79] To those of you that are shouting "it's unrealistic", please tell me where I can buy a laser in real life? How about a railgun? A space shuttle? Wait, no - can I get an apocalypse at my local Tesco? Seriously people, "it's unrealistic"??? Give over.
Dianabolic	Posted - 2004.10.20 09:29:00 - [80] To those of you that are shouting "it's unrealistic", please tell me where I can buy a laser in real life? How about a railgun? A space shuttle? Wait, no - can I get an apocalypse at my local Tesco? Seriously people, "it's unrealistic"??? Give over.

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.