EVE Search - I wish that PVP/Battles were more tactical

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

I wish that PVP/Battles were more tactical

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Thyro	Posted - 2004.11.08 15:52:00 - [1] I wish that PVP/battles were more tactical that today is... something like the new released game "Nexus The Jupiter Incident"... where power, type of weapon, distance and enemy configuration were matter of choices during a fight... and also to have more than 3 seconds to think about any tactical to defeat the enemy. The fact is... none of the above were taking into account in this game... EVE is starting to look like doom... just shoot everything that moves and kill the eggs... the fact is... when you enter in a fight you fire all weapons at almost same time, depending in your skills you can preserve cap if you are wise... however the fight is so fast that you almost don't have time to select other weapons... your enemy is dead!... ohhh great lets podkill and loot... now who will be next in my target list... I wish that fights were more tactical (like in Nexus), time to decide tactics (just remove shields destroy the hull) or even disable modules on the enemy ship... but at least one more thing....... no fights that only take 3 seconds to win or lose like happen in EVE.... today LAG also plays the most important role in battles where 3 seconds are just enough to lose one expensive battleship (while the screen of the victim is frozen... loading something). Many other posts were referred to increase the hull and armor HP points however nothing was done until not to provide more fun playing this game... EVE fights that only take 3 seconds and where isn't necessary to think about possible tactics (coz its just a matter of open fire with all weapon/launchers) and see the enemy shields and armor disappearing... just deserve one word... crap. I still have great hopes to see better things from this game... meantime Nexus battles seem more attractive than EVE ones and I just wonder why! Even knowing that are completely different games... but probably would be a good wake up call for EVE developers to look at!
Thyro	Posted - 2004.11.08 15:52:00 - [2] I wish that PVP/battles were more tactical that today is... something like the new released game "Nexus The Jupiter Incident"... where power, type of weapon, distance and enemy configuration were matter of choices during a fight... and also to have more than 3 seconds to think about any tactical to defeat the enemy. The fact is... none of the above were taking into account in this game... EVE is starting to look like doom... just shoot everything that moves and kill the eggs... the fact is... when you enter in a fight you fire all weapons at almost same time, depending in your skills you can preserve cap if you are wise... however the fight is so fast that you almost don't have time to select other weapons... your enemy is dead!... ohhh great lets podkill and loot... now who will be next in my target list... I wish that fights were more tactical (like in Nexus), time to decide tactics (just remove shields destroy the hull) or even disable modules on the enemy ship... but at least one more thing....... no fights that only take 3 seconds to win or lose like happen in EVE.... today LAG also plays the most important role in battles where 3 seconds are just enough to lose one expensive battleship (while the screen of the victim is frozen... loading something). Many other posts were referred to increase the hull and armor HP points however nothing was done until not to provide more fun playing this game... EVE fights that only take 3 seconds and where isn't necessary to think about possible tactics (coz its just a matter of open fire with all weapon/launchers) and see the enemy shields and armor disappearing... just deserve one word... crap. I still have great hopes to see better things from this game... meantime Nexus battles seem more attractive than EVE ones and I just wonder why! Even knowing that are completely different games... but probably would be a good wake up call for EVE developers to look at!
Toran Mehtar	Posted - 2004.11.08 16:11:00 - [3] Combat is tactical, it's just that you need to know your tactics before you enter combat. Preparation and organisation is everything. I thought somebody had already done 3D chess ?
Toran Mehtar	Posted - 2004.11.08 16:11:00 - [4] Combat is tactical, it's just that you need to know your tactics before you enter combat. Preparation and organisation is everything. I thought somebody had already done 3D chess ?
OffBeaT	Posted - 2004.11.08 16:15:00 - [5] i think its tactical enough for the most part one on one. i just wish they do somthing about the fram rate losses or lag when in combat with more then 4 ships at a time. death in a ship would be quick in space if you had more then one ship ponding on you.. :)
OffBeaT	Posted - 2004.11.08 16:15:00 - [6] i think its tactical enough for the most part one on one. i just wish they do somthing about the fram rate losses or lag when in combat with more then 4 ships at a time. death in a ship would be quick in space if you had more then one ship ponding on you.. :)
Xthril Ranger	Posted - 2004.11.08 16:18:00 - [7] Nexus is a great game , but they are very different. Much of Eve is equipping a good ship for the task ahead. Nexus you got the ship and have to figure how to solve whatever you are going to do. PLay both. I do
Xthril Ranger	Posted - 2004.11.08 16:18:00 - [8] Nexus is a great game , but they are very different. Much of Eve is equipping a good ship for the task ahead. Nexus you got the ship and have to figure how to solve whatever you are going to do. PLay both. I do
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2004.11.08 16:35:00 - [9] Originally by: Toran Mehtar Combat is tactical, it's just that you need to know your tactics before you enter combat. Preparation and organisation is everything. Exactly, tactics play a big role in eve combat allright. But most of the important stuff happens before the first shots are fired. But even leaving pre-fight tactical stuff aside, combat can be pretty tactical if you choose it to be. The more information you have about the enemy the more tactics can be integrated into a battle. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2004.11.08 16:35:00 - [10] Originally by: Toran Mehtar Combat is tactical, it's just that you need to know your tactics before you enter combat. Preparation and organisation is everything. Exactly, tactics play a big role in eve combat allright. But most of the important stuff happens before the first shots are fired. But even leaving pre-fight tactical stuff aside, combat can be pretty tactical if you choose it to be. The more information you have about the enemy the more tactics can be integrated into a battle. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.

Thyro	Posted - 2004.11.08 16:35:00 - [11] Originally by: Xthril Ranger Nexus is a great game , but they are very different. Much of Eve is equipping a good ship for the task ahead. Nexus you got the ship and have to figure how to solve whatever you are going to do. PLay both. I do I play both too! I just wished that EVE fights could take more than 3 seconds (even for a battleship) and were more tactical rather than just another shoot-them-up game
Thyro	Posted - 2004.11.08 16:35:00 - [12] Originally by: Xthril Ranger Nexus is a great game , but they are very different. Much of Eve is equipping a good ship for the task ahead. Nexus you got the ship and have to figure how to solve whatever you are going to do. PLay both. I do I play both too! I just wished that EVE fights could take more than 3 seconds (even for a battleship) and were more tactical rather than just another shoot-them-up game
Thyro	Posted - 2004.11.08 16:38:00 - [13] Originally by: Rod Blaine Originally by: Toran Mehtar Combat is tactical, it's just that you need to know your tactics before you enter combat. Preparation and organisation is everything. Exactly, tactics play a big role in eve combat allright. But most of the important stuff happens before the first shots are fired. But even leaving pre-fight tactical stuff aside, combat can be pretty tactical if you choose it to be. The more information you have about the enemy the more tactics can be integrated into a battle. I'm sorry but tatics during the fight not before neither after a fight.... flying in and out to a pseudo-safe-spot could be considered a tactic... but not the tactics during the fight... that envolvs for example to disable part of an enemy ship... instead of blowing up to pieces EW is fine however even that doesnt need any tactic during the fight... only requires to press all buttons and thats it... so EVE misses tactics during the fight Not to mention the LAG and battleships destroyed in 3 seconds.
Thyro	Posted - 2004.11.08 16:38:00 - [14] Originally by: Rod Blaine Originally by: Toran Mehtar Combat is tactical, it's just that you need to know your tactics before you enter combat. Preparation and organisation is everything. Exactly, tactics play a big role in eve combat allright. But most of the important stuff happens before the first shots are fired. But even leaving pre-fight tactical stuff aside, combat can be pretty tactical if you choose it to be. The more information you have about the enemy the more tactics can be integrated into a battle. I'm sorry but tatics during the fight not before neither after a fight.... flying in and out to a pseudo-safe-spot could be considered a tactic... but not the tactics during the fight... that envolvs for example to disable part of an enemy ship... instead of blowing up to pieces EW is fine however even that doesnt need any tactic during the fight... only requires to press all buttons and thats it... so EVE misses tactics during the fight Not to mention the LAG and battleships destroyed in 3 seconds.
Veneth	Posted - 2004.11.08 16:49:00 - [15] I agree with you Thyro. Tactics lack when in larger engaments in eve. it's a simple task of. how many ships have we got? what's they're biggest ship? than the ganking party begins. I wouldn't even consider most larger battles 'combat' anymore it's simply a massed ganking where fleets of 10+ ships open on one enemy vessel at a time. Rather boring, that's if u can see it happening, I generally lock up and never get to see what happened
Veneth	Posted - 2004.11.08 16:49:00 - [16] I agree with you Thyro. Tactics lack when in larger engaments in eve. it's a simple task of. how many ships have we got? what's they're biggest ship? than the ganking party begins. I wouldn't even consider most larger battles 'combat' anymore it's simply a massed ganking where fleets of 10+ ships open on one enemy vessel at a time. Rather boring, that's if u can see it happening, I generally lock up and never get to see what happened
Riddari	Posted - 2004.11.08 16:51:00 - [17] Calling targets, concentrated fire, proper distribution of jamming and scrambling on enemy vessels. It's all tactics. Do you send 4 interceptors to scramble the same ship in case some of them die? Or do you send them 2 and 2 ? Or 1 each against a ship? Do you concentrate the fire first on their EW units, or do your superior numbers mean you can take out their damage dealers first? Do you equip a 20km scrambler on your frigate/interceptor and run out of cap in 30 seconds or do you go closer to have infinite cap and scramble strength of 2 but also risk being webified? Plenty of tactics involved. ¼©¼ a history
Riddari	Posted - 2004.11.08 16:51:00 - [18] Calling targets, concentrated fire, proper distribution of jamming and scrambling on enemy vessels. It's all tactics. Do you send 4 interceptors to scramble the same ship in case some of them die? Or do you send them 2 and 2 ? Or 1 each against a ship? Do you concentrate the fire first on their EW units, or do your superior numbers mean you can take out their damage dealers first? Do you equip a 20km scrambler on your frigate/interceptor and run out of cap in 30 seconds or do you go closer to have infinite cap and scramble strength of 2 but also risk being webified? Plenty of tactics involved. ¼©¼ a history
Thyro	Posted - 2004.11.08 16:52:00 - [19] Edited by: Thyro on 08/11/2004 16:57:06 Edited by: Thyro on 08/11/2004 16:56:02 Blowing up shields (EVE has that too) Blowing up shields+armor+hull (the only way to win a figth in EVE) Disable engines (Not in EVE... where EW its the near thing) Disable sensors (Not in EVE... where EW its the near thing) Disable weapons (Not in EVE... where EW its the near thing) Conquer the enemy ship (Not in EVE) So what are the current options? Blow them up (only) What are todays tactics.... 1) get rither of EW's 2) all ships engage just one BS at time to blow up in miliseconds. 3) fly out to a safe-spot to regroup and rearm/repair 4) fly back to engage the enemy... again any EW ship is the 1st target 5) once outnumbered just run away to any safe-spot or moon 6) logoff and logon to avoid to appear on the map. Well nothing ... but nothing related to fight tactics during a fight... I know fights in EVE only take seconds... that why!... no time for tactics!... Thats is true Thats why I'm here to raise the issue ships need to take more than 3 seconds of sustained damage to provide more time of fun Tactics such as disabling ships (not using EW) must be an option ... to add to all the current available tactics that many know... where some are listed above
Thyro	Posted - 2004.11.08 16:52:00 - [20] Edited by: Thyro on 08/11/2004 16:57:06 Edited by: Thyro on 08/11/2004 16:56:02 Blowing up shields (EVE has that too) Blowing up shields+armor+hull (the only way to win a figth in EVE) Disable engines (Not in EVE... where EW its the near thing) Disable sensors (Not in EVE... where EW its the near thing) Disable weapons (Not in EVE... where EW its the near thing) Conquer the enemy ship (Not in EVE) So what are the current options? Blow them up (only) What are todays tactics.... 1) get rither of EW's 2) all ships engage just one BS at time to blow up in miliseconds. 3) fly out to a safe-spot to regroup and rearm/repair 4) fly back to engage the enemy... again any EW ship is the 1st target 5) once outnumbered just run away to any safe-spot or moon 6) logoff and logon to avoid to appear on the map. Well nothing ... but nothing related to fight tactics during a fight... I know fights in EVE only take seconds... that why!... no time for tactics!... Thats is true Thats why I'm here to raise the issue ships need to take more than 3 seconds of sustained damage to provide more time of fun Tactics such as disabling ships (not using EW) must be an option ... to add to all the current available tactics that many know... where some are listed above

Toran Mehtar	Posted - 2004.11.08 16:55:00 - [21] My point isn't that you use tactics before rather than in combat, it's that by making the right preparations you can make valid tactical decisions in 3 seconds. If your bs becomes space dust in 3 seconds (please try and be realistic if you want to be taken seriously), then it is because the enemy has targeted you as a primary threat based on a prepared tactical assessment (i.e, if you're flying a scorp ). There are plenty of tactical choices to make, the key is to be prepared to be able to make them in the window of opportunity you get in combat. That is called experience, and that is why Eve isn't simply biggest gun wins.
Toran Mehtar	Posted - 2004.11.08 16:55:00 - [22] My point isn't that you use tactics before rather than in combat, it's that by making the right preparations you can make valid tactical decisions in 3 seconds. If your bs becomes space dust in 3 seconds (please try and be realistic if you want to be taken seriously), then it is because the enemy has targeted you as a primary threat based on a prepared tactical assessment (i.e, if you're flying a scorp ). There are plenty of tactical choices to make, the key is to be prepared to be able to make them in the window of opportunity you get in combat. That is called experience, and that is why Eve isn't simply biggest gun wins.
Fastmofo	Posted - 2004.11.08 17:07:00 - [23] Quote: 5) once outnumbered just run away to any safe-spot or moon , Your starting to sound like celest, and its scareing me
Fastmofo	Posted - 2004.11.08 17:07:00 - [24] Quote: 5) once outnumbered just run away to any safe-spot or moon , Your starting to sound like celest, and its scareing me
Thyro	Posted - 2004.11.08 17:12:00 - [25] Edited by: Thyro on 08/11/2004 17:26:53 Edited by: Thyro on 08/11/2004 17:26:23 Just be honest with you and this game.... Would you not use one of the following tactics if they were implemented on EVE? 1) increase the armor/hull HP points to all ships or ... or reduce at same precentage the damage caused to armor/hull HP points to provide ships with more time during fights 2) (forget EW)... weapons that can disable and destroy modules on enemy ships... without destroying their ship. 3) Incapacitate an enemy ship to a point that you can take over the ship... (again not a full destruction of the ship/enemy pod) I guess that all of those will only enhance the game and create more fun during fights... LAG.. that is the "evil one" that we need to lear living it while playing EVE... but with all above.. LAG wouldn't be much a problem if ships can resist for more longer.
Thyro	Posted - 2004.11.08 17:12:00 - [26] Edited by: Thyro on 08/11/2004 17:26:53 Edited by: Thyro on 08/11/2004 17:26:23 Just be honest with you and this game.... Would you not use one of the following tactics if they were implemented on EVE? 1) increase the armor/hull HP points to all ships or ... or reduce at same precentage the damage caused to armor/hull HP points to provide ships with more time during fights 2) (forget EW)... weapons that can disable and destroy modules on enemy ships... without destroying their ship. 3) Incapacitate an enemy ship to a point that you can take over the ship... (again not a full destruction of the ship/enemy pod) I guess that all of those will only enhance the game and create more fun during fights... LAG.. that is the "evil one" that we need to lear living it while playing EVE... but with all above.. LAG wouldn't be much a problem if ships can resist for more longer.
Thyro	Posted - 2004.11.08 17:22:00 - [27] Originally by: Fastmofo Quote: 5) once outnumbered just run away to any safe-spot or moon , Your starting to sound like celest, and its scareing me Everyone does it .... even 's
Thyro	Posted - 2004.11.08 17:22:00 - [28] Originally by: Fastmofo Quote: 5) once outnumbered just run away to any safe-spot or moon , Your starting to sound like celest, and its scareing me Everyone does it .... even 's
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2004.11.08 17:32:00 - [29] I wish you could have one slot on your ship (hi/mid/lo) which has 2 modules fitted and these modules can be swapped with, say, a 15 second delay time, can only be swapped when no aggression has been initiated, and no cap penalty. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2004.11.08 17:32:00 - [30] I wish you could have one slot on your ship (hi/mid/lo) which has 2 modules fitted and these modules can be swapped with, say, a 15 second delay time, can only be swapped when no aggression has been initiated, and no cap penalty. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!

DrunkenOne	Posted - 2004.11.08 17:35:00 - [31] Originally by: Thyro Edited by: Thyro on 08/11/2004 17:26:53 Edited by: Thyro on 08/11/2004 17:26:23 Just be honest with you and this game.... Would you not use one of the following tactics if they were implemented on EVE? 1) increase the armor/hull HP points to all ships or ... or reduce at same precentage the damage caused to armor/hull HP points to provide ships with more time during fights 2) (forget EW)... weapons that can disable and destroy modules on enemy ships... without destroying their ship. 3) Incapacitate an enemy ship to a point that you can take over the ship... (again not a full destruction of the ship/enemy pod) OMG... 3)... I could finally storm an Apoc with my 1200 marines I have laying around!
DrunkenOne	Posted - 2004.11.08 17:35:00 - [32] Originally by: Thyro Edited by: Thyro on 08/11/2004 17:26:53 Edited by: Thyro on 08/11/2004 17:26:23 Just be honest with you and this game.... Would you not use one of the following tactics if they were implemented on EVE? 1) increase the armor/hull HP points to all ships or ... or reduce at same precentage the damage caused to armor/hull HP points to provide ships with more time during fights 2) (forget EW)... weapons that can disable and destroy modules on enemy ships... without destroying their ship. 3) Incapacitate an enemy ship to a point that you can take over the ship... (again not a full destruction of the ship/enemy pod) OMG... 3)... I could finally storm an Apoc with my 1200 marines I have laying around!
OffBeaT	Posted - 2004.11.08 17:42:00 - [33] Edited by: OffBeaT on 08/11/2004 17:49:29 alright, alright. about the lag, im just gona say it, even thou ever brit out there is gona tear me up. evry gammer whos been around play many diffrent games on many diffrent servers throu the years knows that England has the worse internet in the world. they couldnt of picked the worse place in the world too setup there main server. it should be setup in Canada or one of the nortic countrys who avage home has a 3mb to 10mb connection. even keep it in iceland.. But england? Count, dont shot me for this..
OffBeaT	Posted - 2004.11.08 17:42:00 - [34] Edited by: OffBeaT on 08/11/2004 17:49:29 alright, alright. about the lag, im just gona say it, even thou ever brit out there is gona tear me up. evry gammer whos been around play many diffrent games on many diffrent servers throu the years knows that England has the worse internet in the world. they couldnt of picked the worse place in the world too setup there main server. it should be setup in Canada or one of the nortic countrys who avage home has a 3mb to 10mb connection. even keep it in iceland.. But england? Count, dont shot me for this..
Grievance	Posted - 2004.11.08 17:45:00 - [35] tactics dont matter when you have ·ber lag and crashes when the enemy warps in (ala last night in curse space (or was it saturday??)) Point is, the servers obviously can't handle big fleet battles at the moment (over 70 vs 70 very often results in crash/major lag/ships not even showing up ) I love fleet engagement, so they should get this fixed before they add in even more features (ones you cant even use) 'A man with a passion for Pirate fashion.'
Grievance	Posted - 2004.11.08 17:45:00 - [36] tactics dont matter when you have ·ber lag and crashes when the enemy warps in (ala last night in curse space (or was it saturday??)) Point is, the servers obviously can't handle big fleet battles at the moment (over 70 vs 70 very often results in crash/major lag/ships not even showing up ) I love fleet engagement, so they should get this fixed before they add in even more features (ones you cant even use) 'A man with a passion for Pirate fashion.'
Cadman Weyland	Posted - 2004.11.08 18:06:00 - [37] Originally by: DrunkenOne [OMG... 3)... I could finally storm an Apoc with my 1200 marines I have laying around! Just the way it should be. This has been suggested time and time again on the Ideas forum. If u wanna take an enemy station or capture a disabled ship a Boarding action would be awesome. Just as the defender could use his marines/security guys to fight said boarding action off. Lots could be done to tactically enhance the game play. I for one would welcome refueling/resupply, ships crews/marines and AWACS ships (instead of the map) Eve as it is,is good, but could be far better. And yeah a 3 second gate ganking with added lag aint no fun for anyone. Director of Empire Ops and Chief Carebear
Cadman Weyland	Posted - 2004.11.08 18:06:00 - [38] Originally by: DrunkenOne [OMG... 3)... I could finally storm an Apoc with my 1200 marines I have laying around! Just the way it should be. This has been suggested time and time again on the Ideas forum. If u wanna take an enemy station or capture a disabled ship a Boarding action would be awesome. Just as the defender could use his marines/security guys to fight said boarding action off. Lots could be done to tactically enhance the game play. I for one would welcome refueling/resupply, ships crews/marines and AWACS ships (instead of the map) Eve as it is,is good, but could be far better. And yeah a 3 second gate ganking with added lag aint no fun for anyone. Director of Empire Ops and Chief Carebear
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.08 18:12:00 - [39] gotta agree here... there are many issues which lead to this 3 secs gankfestivals... it would be possble to change that however I'm not quite sure if the devs want to... the most annoying module in this case would be the mwd... without it we would be a huge step closer to longer and more tactical fights... problem in this case are missiles cuz you wouldnt be able to outrun them anymore and of course close range ships like the thorax and mega even more travelling would be screwed... so lets wait and see... few balance changes are still coming soonÖ... lets wait for them and we will see what EVE aims for... Greetings Grim
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.08 18:12:00 - [40] gotta agree here... there are many issues which lead to this 3 secs gankfestivals... it would be possble to change that however I'm not quite sure if the devs want to... the most annoying module in this case would be the mwd... without it we would be a huge step closer to longer and more tactical fights... problem in this case are missiles cuz you wouldnt be able to outrun them anymore and of course close range ships like the thorax and mega even more travelling would be screwed... so lets wait and see... few balance changes are still coming soonÖ... lets wait for them and we will see what EVE aims for... Greetings Grim

Reloaded INC	Posted - 2004.11.08 18:41:00 - [41] as far as i am aware......... their is a huge ammount of preperation that goes into an engagement. the ammount of planning scouting and fringe skirmishes that take place around the main fleet blobs are enough to keep people slightly interested. no i totaly disagree with your post here plenty of stratigie leading up to the climax. I dont know what battles u have been fighting in but the ones iv'e fought in have required alot of skill for just getting ships to our main fleet. I am the bad guy the kriptonite the green cronic.
Reloaded INC	Posted - 2004.11.08 18:41:00 - [42] as far as i am aware......... their is a huge ammount of preperation that goes into an engagement. the ammount of planning scouting and fringe skirmishes that take place around the main fleet blobs are enough to keep people slightly interested. no i totaly disagree with your post here plenty of stratigie leading up to the climax. I dont know what battles u have been fighting in but the ones iv'e fought in have required alot of skill for just getting ships to our main fleet. I am the bad guy the kriptonite the green cronic.
Veneth	Posted - 2004.11.08 18:46:00 - [43] Originally by: Reloaded INC as far as i am aware......... their is a huge ammount of preperation that goes into an engagement. the ammount of planning scouting and fringe skirmishes that take place around the main fleet blobs are enough to keep people slightly interested. no i totaly disagree with your post here plenty of stratigie leading up to the climax. I dont know what battles u have been fighting in but the ones iv'e fought in have required alot of skill for just getting ships to our main fleet. I wish I fought in your battles. all I ever see are massed frig fleets smashed together. any BS foolish enough to enter the fray is quickly destroyed. if you pitted 19 frigs and 1 BS vs 20 frigs. I'm sure the BS would have very little to no impact on the engagment because he would just be ganked in a flury of light missiles. That's to me is a massive tactical flaw of the game. that BS should swing the tide of the battle
Veneth	Posted - 2004.11.08 18:46:00 - [44] Originally by: Reloaded INC as far as i am aware......... their is a huge ammount of preperation that goes into an engagement. the ammount of planning scouting and fringe skirmishes that take place around the main fleet blobs are enough to keep people slightly interested. no i totaly disagree with your post here plenty of stratigie leading up to the climax. I dont know what battles u have been fighting in but the ones iv'e fought in have required alot of skill for just getting ships to our main fleet. I wish I fought in your battles. all I ever see are massed frig fleets smashed together. any BS foolish enough to enter the fray is quickly destroyed. if you pitted 19 frigs and 1 BS vs 20 frigs. I'm sure the BS would have very little to no impact on the engagment because he would just be ganked in a flury of light missiles. That's to me is a massive tactical flaw of the game. that BS should swing the tide of the battle
Skarsnik	Posted - 2004.11.08 18:51:00 - [45] Originally by: OffBeaT Edited by: OffBeaT on 08/11/2004 17:49:29 alright, alright. about the lag, im just gona say it, even thou ever brit out there is gona tear me up. evry gammer whos been around play many diffrent games on many diffrent servers throu the years knows that England has the worse internet in the world. they couldnt of picked the worse place in the world too setup there main server. it should be setup in Canada or one of the nortic countrys who avage home has a 3mb to 10mb connection. even keep it in iceland.. But england? Count, dont shot me for this.. thats a foolish statement if ever I saw one... London is a main hub for the internet betweens the US and europe - with thatr in mind and the timezone made perfect sense to place them there .. the one thing internet wise here in the UK is the home links for adsl and cable - the capacity there sux --------------------------------- No Slugs were harmed in the creation of this signature ---------------------------------
Skarsnik	Posted - 2004.11.08 18:51:00 - [46] Originally by: OffBeaT Edited by: OffBeaT on 08/11/2004 17:49:29 alright, alright. about the lag, im just gona say it, even thou ever brit out there is gona tear me up. evry gammer whos been around play many diffrent games on many diffrent servers throu the years knows that England has the worse internet in the world. they couldnt of picked the worse place in the world too setup there main server. it should be setup in Canada or one of the nortic countrys who avage home has a 3mb to 10mb connection. even keep it in iceland.. But england? Count, dont shot me for this.. thats a foolish statement if ever I saw one... London is a main hub for the internet betweens the US and europe - with thatr in mind and the timezone made perfect sense to place them there .. the one thing internet wise here in the UK is the home links for adsl and cable - the capacity there sux --------------------------------- No Slugs were harmed in the creation of this signature ---------------------------------
Hakera	Posted - 2004.11.08 19:06:00 - [47] well all ships are balanced on a 1 vs 1 basis with their counterparts. So naturally, a lot of people shooting you will entail your ship not lasting longa nd most likely you not having time to respond. ok, they could scale up all hitpoints across the board by an equal factor, that in theory maintains the current balance or just increase hull points. More in line with the thinking of trek or the like where their hulls were punctured lots but they didnt die ever. i would support a scaling up of hp, or just like 200% more hull points. as to the original thread, Quote: I wish that fights were more tactical (like in Nexus), time to decide tactics (just remove shields destroy the hull) or even disable modules on the enemy ship... but at least one more thing....... no fights that only take 3 seconds to win or lose like happen in EVE.... that is wrong, tactics and tactical play are the biggest part of PvP, what ship is your target in, at what range and velocity, is he using ew, do you have ew to stop him, is he tanking or dmg dealing, does he have friends nearby, what weapons is he using. all of that goes through my mind in PvP, but it also weighs against experience, I know what most ships will be equipped like when I see them. I know counter-tactics to many of the tactics used. That helps the above process to take a matter of seconds. Sure, you cannot escape from a pure gank if your not careful, people simply have bad luck and you land in an ambush. Ambushes are designed to kill and maim to maximum efficiency with minmimal loss. Hence the gank works best because we have no knowledge of whats at the destination without intelligence such as scouts. Dumbledore - Eve-I.com
Hakera	Posted - 2004.11.08 19:06:00 - [48] well all ships are balanced on a 1 vs 1 basis with their counterparts. So naturally, a lot of people shooting you will entail your ship not lasting longa nd most likely you not having time to respond. ok, they could scale up all hitpoints across the board by an equal factor, that in theory maintains the current balance or just increase hull points. More in line with the thinking of trek or the like where their hulls were punctured lots but they didnt die ever. i would support a scaling up of hp, or just like 200% more hull points. as to the original thread, Quote: I wish that fights were more tactical (like in Nexus), time to decide tactics (just remove shields destroy the hull) or even disable modules on the enemy ship... but at least one more thing....... no fights that only take 3 seconds to win or lose like happen in EVE.... that is wrong, tactics and tactical play are the biggest part of PvP, what ship is your target in, at what range and velocity, is he using ew, do you have ew to stop him, is he tanking or dmg dealing, does he have friends nearby, what weapons is he using. all of that goes through my mind in PvP, but it also weighs against experience, I know what most ships will be equipped like when I see them. I know counter-tactics to many of the tactics used. That helps the above process to take a matter of seconds. Sure, you cannot escape from a pure gank if your not careful, people simply have bad luck and you land in an ambush. Ambushes are designed to kill and maim to maximum efficiency with minmimal loss. Hence the gank works best because we have no knowledge of whats at the destination without intelligence such as scouts. Dumbledore - Eve-I.com
Alt duJour	Posted - 2004.11.08 19:17:00 - [49] Originally by: Veneth if you pitted 19 frigs and 1 BS vs 20 frigs. I'm sure the BS would have very little to no impact on the engagment because he would just be ganked in a flury of light missiles. That's to me is a massive tactical flaw of the game. that BS should swing the tide of the battle I'm fairly sure it would swing the tide, actually -- if properly tanked, it'd give the fleet with the battleship enough time to kill a number of enemy's frigates while they're busy getting the battleship down. Then it would be battle of 19 frigates vs now-way-less-than-20 frigates, which would be much easier to win. Oh, and i don't get the original poster's complaint tbh. In any game the ships die in few seconds when they are on receiving end of focused fire of 20+ ships. Including Nexus. The 'tactics' is then simplified to arranging the most effective targetting sequence...
Alt duJour	Posted - 2004.11.08 19:17:00 - [50] Originally by: Veneth if you pitted 19 frigs and 1 BS vs 20 frigs. I'm sure the BS would have very little to no impact on the engagment because he would just be ganked in a flury of light missiles. That's to me is a massive tactical flaw of the game. that BS should swing the tide of the battle I'm fairly sure it would swing the tide, actually -- if properly tanked, it'd give the fleet with the battleship enough time to kill a number of enemy's frigates while they're busy getting the battleship down. Then it would be battle of 19 frigates vs now-way-less-than-20 frigates, which would be much easier to win. Oh, and i don't get the original poster's complaint tbh. In any game the ships die in few seconds when they are on receiving end of focused fire of 20+ ships. Including Nexus. The 'tactics' is then simplified to arranging the most effective targetting sequence...

Veneth	Posted - 2004.11.08 19:22:00 - [51] Originally by: Alt duJour Originally by: Veneth if you pitted 19 frigs and 1 BS vs 20 frigs. I'm sure the BS would have very little to no impact on the engagment because he would just be ganked in a flury of light missiles. That's to me is a massive tactical flaw of the game. that BS should swing the tide of the battle I'm fairly sure it would swing the tide, actually -- if properly tanked, it'd give the fleet with the battleship enough time to kill a number of enemy's frigates while they're busy getting the battleship down. Then it would be battle of 19 frigates vs now-way-less-than-20 frigates, which would be much easier to win. Oh, and i don't get the original poster's complaint tbh. In any game the ships die in few seconds when they are on receiving end of focused fire of 20+ ships. Including Nexus. The 'tactics' is then simplified to arranging the most effective targetting sequence... You can't tank that many frigs :) it's just not possible. and even if the BS side did manage to pull out a victory. at what cost? they lost the BS and probably 1/3 to 1/2 the frigs. it's much easier to replace 20 frigs than a BS and get back into the fight
Veneth	Posted - 2004.11.08 19:22:00 - [52] Originally by: Alt duJour Originally by: Veneth if you pitted 19 frigs and 1 BS vs 20 frigs. I'm sure the BS would have very little to no impact on the engagment because he would just be ganked in a flury of light missiles. That's to me is a massive tactical flaw of the game. that BS should swing the tide of the battle I'm fairly sure it would swing the tide, actually -- if properly tanked, it'd give the fleet with the battleship enough time to kill a number of enemy's frigates while they're busy getting the battleship down. Then it would be battle of 19 frigates vs now-way-less-than-20 frigates, which would be much easier to win. Oh, and i don't get the original poster's complaint tbh. In any game the ships die in few seconds when they are on receiving end of focused fire of 20+ ships. Including Nexus. The 'tactics' is then simplified to arranging the most effective targetting sequence... You can't tank that many frigs :) it's just not possible. and even if the BS side did manage to pull out a victory. at what cost? they lost the BS and probably 1/3 to 1/2 the frigs. it's much easier to replace 20 frigs than a BS and get back into the fight
Hakera	Posted - 2004.11.08 19:27:00 - [53] Originally by: Veneth Originally by: Alt duJour Originally by: Veneth if you pitted 19 frigs and 1 BS vs 20 frigs. I'm sure the BS would have very little to no impact on the engagment because he would just be ganked in a flury of light missiles. That's to me is a massive tactical flaw of the game. that BS should swing the tide of the battle I'm fairly sure it would swing the tide, actually -- if properly tanked, it'd give the fleet with the battleship enough time to kill a number of enemy's frigates while they're busy getting the battleship down. Then it would be battle of 19 frigates vs now-way-less-than-20 frigates, which would be much easier to win. Oh, and i don't get the original poster's complaint tbh. In any game the ships die in few seconds when they are on receiving end of focused fire of 20+ ships. Including Nexus. The 'tactics' is then simplified to arranging the most effective targetting sequence... You can't tank that many frigs :) it's just not possible. and even if the BS side did manage to pull out a victory. at what cost? they lost the BS and probably 1/3 to 1/2 the frigs. it's much easier to replace 20 frigs than a BS and get back into the fight i duuno about that. a tanking frig killer setup, say a dom with lots of drones or a phoon could potentially manage 20 with right tactics and some luck Dumbledore - Eve-I.com
Hakera	Posted - 2004.11.08 19:27:00 - [54] Originally by: Veneth Originally by: Alt duJour Originally by: Veneth if you pitted 19 frigs and 1 BS vs 20 frigs. I'm sure the BS would have very little to no impact on the engagment because he would just be ganked in a flury of light missiles. That's to me is a massive tactical flaw of the game. that BS should swing the tide of the battle I'm fairly sure it would swing the tide, actually -- if properly tanked, it'd give the fleet with the battleship enough time to kill a number of enemy's frigates while they're busy getting the battleship down. Then it would be battle of 19 frigates vs now-way-less-than-20 frigates, which would be much easier to win. Oh, and i don't get the original poster's complaint tbh. In any game the ships die in few seconds when they are on receiving end of focused fire of 20+ ships. Including Nexus. The 'tactics' is then simplified to arranging the most effective targetting sequence... You can't tank that many frigs :) it's just not possible. and even if the BS side did manage to pull out a victory. at what cost? they lost the BS and probably 1/3 to 1/2 the frigs. it's much easier to replace 20 frigs than a BS and get back into the fight i duuno about that. a tanking frig killer setup, say a dom with lots of drones or a phoon could potentially manage 20 with right tactics and some luck Dumbledore - Eve-I.com
Alt duJour	Posted - 2004.11.08 19:33:00 - [55] Originally by: Veneth You can't tank that many frigs :) it's just not possible. I don't mean to out-tank them. Just to serve as big fat target for first 1-2 missile salvos, giving the corpmates advantage of free couple of salvos at the enemy's frigates while they are occupied. Originally by: Veneth and even if the BS side did manage to pull out a victory. at what cost? they lost the BS and probably 1/3 to 1/2 the frigs. it's much easier to replace 20 frigs than a BS and get back into the fight It's up to the fleet commander if they think it's worthwile... the alternative would be what, 20 pilots are unable to put any serious dent in a battleship which seems even more ridiculous?
Alt duJour	Posted - 2004.11.08 19:33:00 - [56] Originally by: Veneth You can't tank that many frigs :) it's just not possible. I don't mean to out-tank them. Just to serve as big fat target for first 1-2 missile salvos, giving the corpmates advantage of free couple of salvos at the enemy's frigates while they are occupied. Originally by: Veneth and even if the BS side did manage to pull out a victory. at what cost? they lost the BS and probably 1/3 to 1/2 the frigs. it's much easier to replace 20 frigs than a BS and get back into the fight It's up to the fleet commander if they think it's worthwile... the alternative would be what, 20 pilots are unable to put any serious dent in a battleship which seems even more ridiculous?
Veneth	Posted - 2004.11.08 20:03:00 - [57] It's up to the fleet commander if they think it's worthwile... the alternative would be what, 20 pilots are unable to put any serious dent in a battleship which seems even more ridiculous? heh your asking the wrong person that question, I think Frigates are to strong in combat. there's little to no reason to fly much else in fleet combat atm. I could easily see 20 frigs tearing up a BS nicely. it's just a matter of simple it is for 20 frigates to do so.
Veneth	Posted - 2004.11.08 20:03:00 - [58] It's up to the fleet commander if they think it's worthwile... the alternative would be what, 20 pilots are unable to put any serious dent in a battleship which seems even more ridiculous? heh your asking the wrong person that question, I think Frigates are to strong in combat. there's little to no reason to fly much else in fleet combat atm. I could easily see 20 frigs tearing up a BS nicely. it's just a matter of simple it is for 20 frigates to do so.
Xelios	Posted - 2004.11.08 20:20:00 - [59] Edited by: Xelios on 08/11/2004 20:23:26 "heh your asking the wrong person that question, I think Frigates are to strong in combat. there's little to no reason to fly much else in fleet combat atm. I could easily see 20 frigs tearing up a BS nicely. it's just a matter of simple it is for 20 frigates to do so." I don't think frigates are too strong in combat. 20 frigs definatly should be able to kill a battleship. I think one of the major problems is that frigs can fit 10mn AB's, without these they would be balanced a bit more by the mwd speed nerf. In fleet battles frigs always die pretty quickly as everyone focuses on them (they're the real threat since they're the ones keeping you from warping out).
Xelios	Posted - 2004.11.08 20:20:00 - [60] Edited by: Xelios on 08/11/2004 20:23:26 "heh your asking the wrong person that question, I think Frigates are to strong in combat. there's little to no reason to fly much else in fleet combat atm. I could easily see 20 frigs tearing up a BS nicely. it's just a matter of simple it is for 20 frigates to do so." I don't think frigates are too strong in combat. 20 frigs definatly should be able to kill a battleship. I think one of the major problems is that frigs can fit 10mn AB's, without these they would be balanced a bit more by the mwd speed nerf. In fleet battles frigs always die pretty quickly as everyone focuses on them (they're the real threat since they're the ones keeping you from warping out).

Jonny Rocket	Posted - 2004.11.08 20:33:00 - [61] Originally by: OffBeaT Edited by: OffBeaT on 08/11/2004 17:49:29 alright, alright. about the lag, im just gona say it, even thou ever brit out there is gona tear me up. evry gammer whos been around play many diffrent games on many diffrent servers throu the years knows that England has the worse internet in the world. they couldnt of picked the worse place in the world too setup there main server. it should be setup in Canada or one of the nortic countrys who avage home has a 3mb to 10mb connection. even keep it in iceland.. But england? Count, dont shot me for this.. What are you talking about? Do you really think one of the devs is running the EVE cluster over his home connection? AFAIK the EVE cluster is hosted in a server room in London that is directly connected to the LINX exchange. The UK is a good place to host the EVE cluster since the LINK exchange has high capacity links with all other major internet exchanges around the world, providing a good connection for the majority players. Essentially the LINX exchange is in the middle of Europe and America with has good links between the two. A large proportion of European traffic to America is actually routed through the London LINX exchange (depending on ISPÆs network). That and the close proximity of Iceland to the UK, and it makes good sense to locate the EVE servers here. Here's Jonny :)
Jonny Rocket	Posted - 2004.11.08 20:33:00 - [62] Originally by: OffBeaT Edited by: OffBeaT on 08/11/2004 17:49:29 alright, alright. about the lag, im just gona say it, even thou ever brit out there is gona tear me up. evry gammer whos been around play many diffrent games on many diffrent servers throu the years knows that England has the worse internet in the world. they couldnt of picked the worse place in the world too setup there main server. it should be setup in Canada or one of the nortic countrys who avage home has a 3mb to 10mb connection. even keep it in iceland.. But england? Count, dont shot me for this.. What are you talking about? Do you really think one of the devs is running the EVE cluster over his home connection? AFAIK the EVE cluster is hosted in a server room in London that is directly connected to the LINX exchange. The UK is a good place to host the EVE cluster since the LINK exchange has high capacity links with all other major internet exchanges around the world, providing a good connection for the majority players. Essentially the LINX exchange is in the middle of Europe and America with has good links between the two. A large proportion of European traffic to America is actually routed through the London LINX exchange (depending on ISPÆs network). That and the close proximity of Iceland to the UK, and it makes good sense to locate the EVE servers here. Here's Jonny :)
Dianabolic	Posted - 2004.11.08 21:06:00 - [63] Well, seeing as most battleplans don't last past primary target you are, either: a) fighting under a very static fleet commander or b) getting lagged to hell and back. Fleet combat, from small to large numbers, is a fluid situation.
Dianabolic	Posted - 2004.11.08 21:06:00 - [64] Well, seeing as most battleplans don't last past primary target you are, either: a) fighting under a very static fleet commander or b) getting lagged to hell and back. Fleet combat, from small to large numbers, is a fluid situation.
NanoRunner	Posted - 2004.11.08 22:26:00 - [65] "no i totaly disagree with your post here plenty of stratigie leading up to the climax. I dont know what battles u have been fighting in but the ones iv'e fought in have required alot of skill for just getting ships to our main fleet. " Oh get a clue already, we all understand the preparation you take in eve. We are talking about actual IN BATTLE tactics, not just overwhleming firepower burst for a couple seconds and see who is left alive. Ships die WAY to fast in eve. They should take a beating, ti would add to the fun and make battles feel like battles. If your experiencing prolonged battles your obviously not playing eve correctly and should hush, fights are WAY WAY to short in eve.
NanoRunner	Posted - 2004.11.08 22:26:00 - [66] "no i totaly disagree with your post here plenty of stratigie leading up to the climax. I dont know what battles u have been fighting in but the ones iv'e fought in have required alot of skill for just getting ships to our main fleet. " Oh get a clue already, we all understand the preparation you take in eve. We are talking about actual IN BATTLE tactics, not just overwhleming firepower burst for a couple seconds and see who is left alive. Ships die WAY to fast in eve. They should take a beating, ti would add to the fun and make battles feel like battles. If your experiencing prolonged battles your obviously not playing eve correctly and should hush, fights are WAY WAY to short in eve.
Slithereen	Posted - 2004.11.08 23:03:00 - [67] If you like tactical, you should be getting the Starfleet Command series (SFC1, SFC2 Empires at War, SFC2 Expansion Orion Pirates, SFC3). You can never go more tactical than that. It may take you several minutes just to kill an opponent, and quite even longer. Battles are like the Wrath of Khan movie, you have to use your cunning and wits. Tactics have never been EVE's strong suit, despite what some people think. If you like tactics, any of these games are a lot better, Darkspace, Allegiance, the Homeworld RTS series. I played Homeworld 2 for months, and the fleet battles are there are the stuff EVE can only dream of. But to be fair, all those games are built from the ground up to be strategy and tactical combat games. In the case of Darkspace and Allegiance, with an online subscription added. EVE is a lot more complex than that, being an MMORPG first, and establishing the firm grounds on that first, before moving into developing and refining tactical combat. These combat improvements come in increments. I don't think combat in EVE will ever reach the mental intensity of a Homeworld, SFC, or Nexus, but hoping for such isn't realistic for a game that is trying to do so many things in all other areas of an MMORPG already. _______________________________________________ "Is it me or the bad guys just getting totally pathetic?"---Clover, Totally Spies, "Hope is wasted on the Hopeless."---Mandy, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. "Stars are holes in the sky from which the light of the Infinite shine through."---Confucius.
Slithereen	Posted - 2004.11.08 23:03:00 - [68] If you like tactical, you should be getting the Starfleet Command series (SFC1, SFC2 Empires at War, SFC2 Expansion Orion Pirates, SFC3). You can never go more tactical than that. It may take you several minutes just to kill an opponent, and quite even longer. Battles are like the Wrath of Khan movie, you have to use your cunning and wits. Tactics have never been EVE's strong suit, despite what some people think. If you like tactics, any of these games are a lot better, Darkspace, Allegiance, the Homeworld RTS series. I played Homeworld 2 for months, and the fleet battles are there are the stuff EVE can only dream of. But to be fair, all those games are built from the ground up to be strategy and tactical combat games. In the case of Darkspace and Allegiance, with an online subscription added. EVE is a lot more complex than that, being an MMORPG first, and establishing the firm grounds on that first, before moving into developing and refining tactical combat. These combat improvements come in increments. I don't think combat in EVE will ever reach the mental intensity of a Homeworld, SFC, or Nexus, but hoping for such isn't realistic for a game that is trying to do so many things in all other areas of an MMORPG already. _______________________________________________ "Is it me or the bad guys just getting totally pathetic?"---Clover, Totally Spies, "Hope is wasted on the Hopeless."---Mandy, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. "Stars are holes in the sky from which the light of the Infinite shine through."---Confucius.
Uuldahan	Posted - 2004.11.08 23:06:00 - [69] I totally agree with the first poster. Once your ship is fitted, there aren't any tactical choices to make DURING battles. Ships aren't versatile enough to make fights really interesting in this game but IMO this can be changed easily. Just add a kind of TRI system ala I-WAR that allows you to distribute your ship's energy, allocating more power as needed to shields, weapons, or engines. With such a system players will have the opportunity to take decisive tactical decisions according to the situations...and FINALLY fights won't be only a matter of which module you have or not.
Uuldahan	Posted - 2004.11.08 23:06:00 - [70] I totally agree with the first poster. Once your ship is fitted, there aren't any tactical choices to make DURING battles. Ships aren't versatile enough to make fights really interesting in this game but IMO this can be changed easily. Just add a kind of TRI system ala I-WAR that allows you to distribute your ship's energy, allocating more power as needed to shields, weapons, or engines. With such a system players will have the opportunity to take decisive tactical decisions according to the situations...and FINALLY fights won't be only a matter of which module you have or not.

Stetu	Posted - 2004.11.08 23:11:00 - [71] In Eve, tactics are what you make them. When FragM, the fleet commander I run under, begins an engagement he will plan things out on his famous whiteboard. We hear the scribbles going like mad about 5 minutes before an engagement. It's pretty funny, but that's not the point. If your fleet commander always says "Warp in at 60," those are tactics however horrible they may be. I do think that in 1v1 combat there are less actually position tactics than in a fleet battle and what not, but the way you set up your ship is still tactics. I mean take the gankageddon for instance. The tactic there is to kill the enemy before they kill you. The same goes with the blasterthron. Everybody knows these common setups because they are fairly effective setups. I disagree with you when you say that eve lacks a show of tactics when in fact the tactics are all around you, you just have trouble seeing them. Anyways, good luck on hunting down better tactics in eve. -Stetu ----------------------
Stetu	Posted - 2004.11.08 23:11:00 - [72] In Eve, tactics are what you make them. When FragM, the fleet commander I run under, begins an engagement he will plan things out on his famous whiteboard. We hear the scribbles going like mad about 5 minutes before an engagement. It's pretty funny, but that's not the point. If your fleet commander always says "Warp in at 60," those are tactics however horrible they may be. I do think that in 1v1 combat there are less actually position tactics than in a fleet battle and what not, but the way you set up your ship is still tactics. I mean take the gankageddon for instance. The tactic there is to kill the enemy before they kill you. The same goes with the blasterthron. Everybody knows these common setups because they are fairly effective setups. I disagree with you when you say that eve lacks a show of tactics when in fact the tactics are all around you, you just have trouble seeing them. Anyways, good luck on hunting down better tactics in eve. -Stetu ----------------------
Slithereen	Posted - 2004.11.08 23:21:00 - [73] I also like to add one more thing. EVE isn't that much tactical, but it sure is quite strategic. If you read Sun Tzu's Art of War, you will find that a lot of it is applicable in EVE. One can say, tactics is about trying to win while during a fight. Strategy on the other hand, is trying to win before a fight. That's where EVE excels. So winning isn't just a ship command or skill thingie. Like in the Art of War, it starts with preparation, and in the heart of that, your organization. Winning begins with a good and well managed corp, good leaders and teammates, preparedness in your plans, roles and in your minds. Things like deception, defection, bribes and corruption, also work in EVE, which you can't do in a pure tactical game. One aspect that works well in EVE is the concept of guerilla war. Even propaganda war (read the Intergalactic Summit) has a role in EVE. I suggest people to read that book---Sun Tzu's The Art of War. _______________________________________________ "Is it me or the bad guys just getting totally pathetic?"---Clover, Totally Spies, "Hope is wasted on the Hopeless."---Mandy, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. "Stars are holes in the sky from which the light of the Infinite shine through."---Confucius.
Slithereen	Posted - 2004.11.08 23:21:00 - [74] I also like to add one more thing. EVE isn't that much tactical, but it sure is quite strategic. If you read Sun Tzu's Art of War, you will find that a lot of it is applicable in EVE. One can say, tactics is about trying to win while during a fight. Strategy on the other hand, is trying to win before a fight. That's where EVE excels. So winning isn't just a ship command or skill thingie. Like in the Art of War, it starts with preparation, and in the heart of that, your organization. Winning begins with a good and well managed corp, good leaders and teammates, preparedness in your plans, roles and in your minds. Things like deception, defection, bribes and corruption, also work in EVE, which you can't do in a pure tactical game. One aspect that works well in EVE is the concept of guerilla war. Even propaganda war (read the Intergalactic Summit) has a role in EVE. I suggest people to read that book---Sun Tzu's The Art of War. _______________________________________________ "Is it me or the bad guys just getting totally pathetic?"---Clover, Totally Spies, "Hope is wasted on the Hopeless."---Mandy, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. "Stars are holes in the sky from which the light of the Infinite shine through."---Confucius.
Vardofire	Posted - 2004.11.08 23:30:00 - [75] To comment on Slithereen's comment (err... that makes no sense...), I'd like to quote Sun Tzu, who sais that "every battle is won before it is even fought". So basically, the tactics in EVE consist of preparing well before the battle; by setting up you ship correctly and coordonating your forces efficiently you will win. Remeber this maxim: "Fit thee ship properly, get thee mates to cometh with ye, and thou shalt gank'st thine foe." ----------------------------------------------- "Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way." -General George Patton Jr
Vardofire	Posted - 2004.11.08 23:30:00 - [76] To comment on Slithereen's comment (err... that makes no sense...), I'd like to quote Sun Tzu, who sais that "every battle is won before it is even fought". So basically, the tactics in EVE consist of preparing well before the battle; by setting up you ship correctly and coordonating your forces efficiently you will win. Remeber this maxim: "Fit thee ship properly, get thee mates to cometh with ye, and thou shalt gank'st thine foe." ----------------------------------------------- "Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way." -General George Patton Jr
Noriath	Posted - 2004.11.09 00:47:00 - [77] What bothers me is that alround ships really have no use whatsoever. Everything has to be 100% dedicated to one task pretty much. The slot system is just stupid for battleships, if you end up with an extra 300 grid after installing all your items you could still carry an entire battery of small defensive turrets, but you can't fit them in because of slots. The weakness of a battleship should be low speed, not inability to carry a diverse loadout of weapons. Also I hate Micro Warpdrives. They just have no tactical value because everyone has them. I think it's ridiculous that you need a special ship to run a half way useful cloaking device, but every ship whatsoever can carry a mwd which is so much more useful that going into PvP without one is hardly even possible.
Noriath	Posted - 2004.11.09 00:47:00 - [78] What bothers me is that alround ships really have no use whatsoever. Everything has to be 100% dedicated to one task pretty much. The slot system is just stupid for battleships, if you end up with an extra 300 grid after installing all your items you could still carry an entire battery of small defensive turrets, but you can't fit them in because of slots. The weakness of a battleship should be low speed, not inability to carry a diverse loadout of weapons. Also I hate Micro Warpdrives. They just have no tactical value because everyone has them. I think it's ridiculous that you need a special ship to run a half way useful cloaking device, but every ship whatsoever can carry a mwd which is so much more useful that going into PvP without one is hardly even possible.
TekRa	Posted - 2004.11.09 01:22:00 - [79] Originally by: Vardofire To comment on Slithereen's comment (err... that makes no sense...), I'd like to quote Sun Tzu, who sais that "every battle is won before it is even fought". So basically, the tactics in EVE consist of preparing well before the battle; by setting up you ship correctly and coordonating your forces efficiently you will win. Remeber this maxim: "Fit thee ship properly, get thee mates to cometh with ye, and thou shalt gank'st thine foe." you can set your ship up however you want, but when your fleet engages the enemy and you're picked as primary, no amount of pre battle configuration will save you from the harsh vacuum of space. just fit a load of guns, damage mods and cap batteries, and pray to the Gods you aren't picked as a target by the enemy commanders ;) then if you survice the warp/jump in lag, don't get picked as primary and somehow survive the 1 fps battle you will have a fun at a SS while watching the smak in local. imho > With the lights out it's less dangerous.
TekRa	Posted - 2004.11.09 01:22:00 - [80] Originally by: Vardofire To comment on Slithereen's comment (err... that makes no sense...), I'd like to quote Sun Tzu, who sais that "every battle is won before it is even fought". So basically, the tactics in EVE consist of preparing well before the battle; by setting up you ship correctly and coordonating your forces efficiently you will win. Remeber this maxim: "Fit thee ship properly, get thee mates to cometh with ye, and thou shalt gank'st thine foe." you can set your ship up however you want, but when your fleet engages the enemy and you're picked as primary, no amount of pre battle configuration will save you from the harsh vacuum of space. just fit a load of guns, damage mods and cap batteries, and pray to the Gods you aren't picked as a target by the enemy commanders ;) then if you survice the warp/jump in lag, don't get picked as primary and somehow survive the 1 fps battle you will have a fun at a SS while watching the smak in local. imho > With the lights out it's less dangerous.

Slithereen	Posted - 2004.11.09 01:39:00 - [81] It isn't just the ship, but the entire context that includes the organization, the environment and the situation. That means like a corp having more dedicated members online, being better organized, who has superior situational awareness, who is better positioned at the ganking point, etc,. You may be good as a single pilot, but if you cannot fight like a team, or have a good team in the first place, you will still lose. _______________________________________________ "Is it me or the bad guys just getting totally pathetic?"---Clover, Totally Spies, "Hope is wasted on the Hopeless."---Mandy, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. "Stars are holes in the sky from which the light of the Infinite shine through."---Confucius.
Slithereen	Posted - 2004.11.09 01:39:00 - [82] It isn't just the ship, but the entire context that includes the organization, the environment and the situation. That means like a corp having more dedicated members online, being better organized, who has superior situational awareness, who is better positioned at the ganking point, etc,. You may be good as a single pilot, but if you cannot fight like a team, or have a good team in the first place, you will still lose. _______________________________________________ "Is it me or the bad guys just getting totally pathetic?"---Clover, Totally Spies, "Hope is wasted on the Hopeless."---Mandy, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. "Stars are holes in the sky from which the light of the Infinite shine through."---Confucius.
Sally	Posted - 2004.11.09 02:31:00 - [83] Yeah. And do not forget the "I am being fired upon, have to log off."-tactic. Thanks CCP for inventing it. -- Stories: #1 --
Sally	Posted - 2004.11.09 02:31:00 - [84] Yeah. And do not forget the "I am being fired upon, have to log off."-tactic. Thanks CCP for inventing it. -- Stories: #1 --
alphawolf2929	Posted - 2004.11.09 02:43:00 - [85] are you kidding? n 1v1 isnt very tactical but fleet battles are uber tactics, for instance me and 2 friggs took out a battleship with all EW equipment ,mwd, and light guns he couldnt touch us, and on another note if you just meet 2 forces together with no intel it would would be just a slug fest but if you actually spy on your enemy before entering a battle you can easily take a fleet 2x your size
alphawolf2929	Posted - 2004.11.09 02:43:00 - [86] are you kidding? n 1v1 isnt very tactical but fleet battles are uber tactics, for instance me and 2 friggs took out a battleship with all EW equipment ,mwd, and light guns he couldnt touch us, and on another note if you just meet 2 forces together with no intel it would would be just a slug fest but if you actually spy on your enemy before entering a battle you can easily take a fleet 2x your size
Riddari	Posted - 2004.11.09 12:41:00 - [87] Originally by: Sally Yeah. And do not forget the "I am being fired upon, have to log off."-tactic. Thanks CCP for inventing it. You didn't really read the thread did you? ¼©¼ a history
Riddari	Posted - 2004.11.09 12:41:00 - [88] Originally by: Sally Yeah. And do not forget the "I am being fired upon, have to log off."-tactic. Thanks CCP for inventing it. You didn't really read the thread did you? ¼©¼ a history
fras	Posted - 2004.11.09 14:13:00 - [89] I agree with what a few have said here. Fights are tactical in the sense that you need to setup your ship right, have a good fleet composition and move well.. but when it comes to the actual fight I feel like the outcome is already decided bar really bad errors. Especially in a 1v1 situation.
fras	Posted - 2004.11.09 14:13:00 - [90] I agree with what a few have said here. Fights are tactical in the sense that you need to setup your ship right, have a good fleet composition and move well.. but when it comes to the actual fight I feel like the outcome is already decided bar really bad errors. Especially in a 1v1 situation.

NanoRunner	Posted - 2004.11.09 23:09:00 - [91] omg please stop detailing to this poster how eve is tactical pre combat, he knows that we all know that and we all acknowledge it. What we are asking is that eve incorperate some IN BATTLE tactics, hooking and jabbing, not a launch all you got and hope the other guy dies before the second volley gets sent... Again ships need much more durabilty dying in 3 seconds is not pvp laugh, it is shooting ducks in a barrel. this is space war with big arse crazy ships we should be slugging it out not imploding left and right.
NanoRunner	Posted - 2004.11.09 23:09:00 - [92] omg please stop detailing to this poster how eve is tactical pre combat, he knows that we all know that and we all acknowledge it. What we are asking is that eve incorperate some IN BATTLE tactics, hooking and jabbing, not a launch all you got and hope the other guy dies before the second volley gets sent... Again ships need much more durabilty dying in 3 seconds is not pvp laugh, it is shooting ducks in a barrel. this is space war with big arse crazy ships we should be slugging it out not imploding left and right.
Kashre	Posted - 2004.11.10 06:48:00 - [93] the problem, imo, with giving ships more durability is that it only helps large scale fleet combat, but it will totally bork small scale combat. You can already have 1 on 1 BS fights with 2 tanked ships pounding each other FOREVER without anyone dieing. Besides, its perfectly reasonable for a battleship being pounded by 20 other battleships to die fast. I tend to agree about it being non-tactical once the battle is actually joined, but IMO it has to do with the modular nature of ships. The best fleets all set up ahead to maximize their effectiveness using a single tactic... thus when they get to the battle they can only use that tactic. Look at the CA 2xMWD gankraven fleets. You cant do anything with it but run the hell away to long range while your tacklers tackle. It works pretty good, but its not flexible... and are most of the other "good" pvp setup that Ive heard of. Too much specialization. +++ It's called "low security space" for a reason.
Kashre	Posted - 2004.11.10 06:48:00 - [94] the problem, imo, with giving ships more durability is that it only helps large scale fleet combat, but it will totally bork small scale combat. You can already have 1 on 1 BS fights with 2 tanked ships pounding each other FOREVER without anyone dieing. Besides, its perfectly reasonable for a battleship being pounded by 20 other battleships to die fast. I tend to agree about it being non-tactical once the battle is actually joined, but IMO it has to do with the modular nature of ships. The best fleets all set up ahead to maximize their effectiveness using a single tactic... thus when they get to the battle they can only use that tactic. Look at the CA 2xMWD gankraven fleets. You cant do anything with it but run the hell away to long range while your tacklers tackle. It works pretty good, but its not flexible... and are most of the other "good" pvp setup that Ive heard of. Too much specialization. +++ It's called "low security space" for a reason.
Slithereen	Posted - 2004.11.10 07:13:00 - [95] Originally by: fras I agree with what a few have said here. Fights are tactical in the sense that you need to setup your ship right, have a good fleet composition and move well.. but when it comes to the actual fight I feel like the outcome is already decided bar really bad errors. Especially in a 1v1 situation. Like I said, this is called strategy, not tactics. Strategy is about winning the battle before it is even fought. Strategy is about gaining every upper hand before the battle is engaged. The thing about this game, the more "real" a game is---meaning the more and the better it simulates political-economic environs, the stronger and the more predominant the strategic element gets. The people who can organize better, the people who can gather information better, the people who have their morale, organizational and economic act together, the people who have the teamwork and the discipline, the people who are better inspired, the people who can take better advantage of the map and the environs, they're the ones who are going to win. There is nothing wrong with this. This is what happens in the real world. The better EVE simulates real world mechanics, the more these elements manifest. Shiva will only make EVE even more strategic, with the incorporation of POS. _______________________________________________ "Is it me or the bad guys just getting totally pathetic?"---Clover, Totally Spies, "Hope is wasted on the Hopeless."---Mandy, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. "Stars are holes in the sky from which the light of the Infinite shine through."---Confucius.
Slithereen	Posted - 2004.11.10 07:13:00 - [96] Originally by: fras I agree with what a few have said here. Fights are tactical in the sense that you need to setup your ship right, have a good fleet composition and move well.. but when it comes to the actual fight I feel like the outcome is already decided bar really bad errors. Especially in a 1v1 situation. Like I said, this is called strategy, not tactics. Strategy is about winning the battle before it is even fought. Strategy is about gaining every upper hand before the battle is engaged. The thing about this game, the more "real" a game is---meaning the more and the better it simulates political-economic environs, the stronger and the more predominant the strategic element gets. The people who can organize better, the people who can gather information better, the people who have their morale, organizational and economic act together, the people who have the teamwork and the discipline, the people who are better inspired, the people who can take better advantage of the map and the environs, they're the ones who are going to win. There is nothing wrong with this. This is what happens in the real world. The better EVE simulates real world mechanics, the more these elements manifest. Shiva will only make EVE even more strategic, with the incorporation of POS. _______________________________________________ "Is it me or the bad guys just getting totally pathetic?"---Clover, Totally Spies, "Hope is wasted on the Hopeless."---Mandy, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. "Stars are holes in the sky from which the light of the Infinite shine through."---Confucius.
Thyro	Posted - 2004.11.15 11:17:00 - [97] Originally by: NanoRunner omg please stop detailing to this poster how eve is tactical pre combat, he knows that we all know that and we all acknowledge it. What we are asking is that eve incorperate some IN BATTLE tactics, hooking and jabbing, not a launch all you got and hope the other guy dies before the second volley gets sent... Again ships need much more durabilty dying in 3 seconds is not pvp laugh, it is shooting ducks in a barrel. this is space war with big arse crazy ships we should be slugging it out not imploding left and right. I couldn't say better Unfortunatly some might consider that EVE does not need to change to include more tatical than "shot-them-up only PVP tactics" and increase the armor+hull HP to either increase the fun and ships to take more than 3 seconds to be destroyed. Wakeup people! open your eyes. current tactics are CURRENT TACTICS What this game needs is FIGHT TACTICS DURING FIGHTS not before or after! Partially disabling ships/take ship ownerships should be considered a valid tactic if EVE could provide that... is this so hard for some of you to understand?
Thyro	Posted - 2004.11.15 11:17:00 - [98] Originally by: NanoRunner omg please stop detailing to this poster how eve is tactical pre combat, he knows that we all know that and we all acknowledge it. What we are asking is that eve incorperate some IN BATTLE tactics, hooking and jabbing, not a launch all you got and hope the other guy dies before the second volley gets sent... Again ships need much more durabilty dying in 3 seconds is not pvp laugh, it is shooting ducks in a barrel. this is space war with big arse crazy ships we should be slugging it out not imploding left and right. I couldn't say better Unfortunatly some might consider that EVE does not need to change to include more tatical than "shot-them-up only PVP tactics" and increase the armor+hull HP to either increase the fun and ships to take more than 3 seconds to be destroyed. Wakeup people! open your eyes. current tactics are CURRENT TACTICS What this game needs is FIGHT TACTICS DURING FIGHTS not before or after! Partially disabling ships/take ship ownerships should be considered a valid tactic if EVE could provide that... is this so hard for some of you to understand?
Thyro	Posted - 2004.11.15 11:37:00 - [99] Edited by: Thyro on 15/11/2004 11:49:02 Edited by: Thyro on 15/11/2004 11:46:02 Originally by: Slithereen If you like tactical, you should be getting the Starfleet Command series (SFC1, SFC2 Empires at War, SFC2 Expansion Orion Pirates, SFC3). You can never go more tactical than that. It may take you several minutes just to kill an opponent, and quite even longer. Battles are like the Wrath of Khan movie, you have to use your cunning and wits. Tactics have never been EVE's strong suit, despite what some people think. If you like tactics, any of these games are a lot better, Darkspace, Allegiance, the Homeworld RTS series. I played Homeworld 2 for months, and the fleet battles are there are the stuff EVE can only dream of. But to be fair, all those games are built from the ground up to be strategy and tactical combat games. In the case of Darkspace and Allegiance, with an online subscription added. EVE is a lot more complex than that, being an MMORPG first, and establishing the firm grounds on that first, before moving into developing and refining tactical combat. These combat improvements come in increments. I don't think combat in EVE will ever reach the mental intensity of a Homeworld, SFC, or Nexus, but hoping for such isn't realistic for a game that is trying to do so many things in all other areas of an MMORPG already. Quite true... but even "Star Trek Bridge Command" or currently "Nexus: Jupiter something" is more tactical during fights than any EVE fighting/battles... whatever action that you would like to call it as "tactics" (pre/after). But the bottom line is, there are no tactics during the EVE fights beside running away or open the "dog cages" and release hell... pretty much like "Doom 3" tactics during EVE 1v1 or manyVmany confronts. Where there are no middle ground... where its like "all or nothing until the last egg"... where EVE battles not only are a joke if not just a big omelet of lagged eggs. However shouldn't be so difficult to include part disabling ships/ship takeover tactics in this game... since EVE on contraire to other games... is not a finished game, therefore always in evolution and still expanding its "small" horizons. I guess that some times GameHouses such CCP lose focus of basic matters like these and rather prefer to evolutes a game just for "shot-them-up"... and for that I wouldn't need EVE coz some other games are more fun than this one in this matter of "KOS".
Thyro	Posted - 2004.11.15 11:37:00 - [100] Edited by: Thyro on 15/11/2004 11:49:02 Edited by: Thyro on 15/11/2004 11:46:02 Originally by: Slithereen If you like tactical, you should be getting the Starfleet Command series (SFC1, SFC2 Empires at War, SFC2 Expansion Orion Pirates, SFC3). You can never go more tactical than that. It may take you several minutes just to kill an opponent, and quite even longer. Battles are like the Wrath of Khan movie, you have to use your cunning and wits. Tactics have never been EVE's strong suit, despite what some people think. If you like tactics, any of these games are a lot better, Darkspace, Allegiance, the Homeworld RTS series. I played Homeworld 2 for months, and the fleet battles are there are the stuff EVE can only dream of. But to be fair, all those games are built from the ground up to be strategy and tactical combat games. In the case of Darkspace and Allegiance, with an online subscription added. EVE is a lot more complex than that, being an MMORPG first, and establishing the firm grounds on that first, before moving into developing and refining tactical combat. These combat improvements come in increments. I don't think combat in EVE will ever reach the mental intensity of a Homeworld, SFC, or Nexus, but hoping for such isn't realistic for a game that is trying to do so many things in all other areas of an MMORPG already. Quite true... but even "Star Trek Bridge Command" or currently "Nexus: Jupiter something" is more tactical during fights than any EVE fighting/battles... whatever action that you would like to call it as "tactics" (pre/after). But the bottom line is, there are no tactics during the EVE fights beside running away or open the "dog cages" and release hell... pretty much like "Doom 3" tactics during EVE 1v1 or manyVmany confronts. Where there are no middle ground... where its like "all or nothing until the last egg"... where EVE battles not only are a joke if not just a big omelet of lagged eggs. However shouldn't be so difficult to include part disabling ships/ship takeover tactics in this game... since EVE on contraire to other games... is not a finished game, therefore always in evolution and still expanding its "small" horizons. I guess that some times GameHouses such CCP lose focus of basic matters like these and rather prefer to evolutes a game just for "shot-them-up"... and for that I wouldn't need EVE coz some other games are more fun than this one in this matter of "KOS".

Jonas Bane	Posted - 2004.11.15 12:25:00 - [101] Interesting to see how a "concentrated fire stacking penalty" would work out for fleet battles. First shot does full damage, and each additional shot during a specific time period would do less. That way, fleet commanders would have to choose between ganging up on one ship to take it down, or if spreading their fire would be more effective. Obviously this would have to be balanced to ensure that a fast firing weapon wouldn't end up hurting itself. But it would make fleet battles more than just plowing through a target order. To spice things up, have ships with low shields have damage "bleed through" to the armor, and low armor ships have damage "bleed through" to the hull. All hull point damage would apply a portion of it to some random fitted module. That way damaging a ship would hurt its offensive potential. You don't have to blow up a battleship to take it out of the fight. With enough damage, it simply won't be as much of a threat as before.
Jonas Bane	Posted - 2004.11.15 12:25:00 - [102] Interesting to see how a "concentrated fire stacking penalty" would work out for fleet battles. First shot does full damage, and each additional shot during a specific time period would do less. That way, fleet commanders would have to choose between ganging up on one ship to take it down, or if spreading their fire would be more effective. Obviously this would have to be balanced to ensure that a fast firing weapon wouldn't end up hurting itself. But it would make fleet battles more than just plowing through a target order. To spice things up, have ships with low shields have damage "bleed through" to the armor, and low armor ships have damage "bleed through" to the hull. All hull point damage would apply a portion of it to some random fitted module. That way damaging a ship would hurt its offensive potential. You don't have to blow up a battleship to take it out of the fight. With enough damage, it simply won't be as much of a threat as before.
GoGo Yubari	Posted - 2004.11.15 12:30:00 - [103] Well, of course things can always be better, but .. I think most folks just don't have a clue. In any complex setting (and EVE is complex) with explicit and implicit rules, strategy and tactics exist. The fact is that it isn't just lying there waiting to bite you in the ass, you must make it happen. I think it's all right to complain about there not being enough options to do in a fight on an individual basis (such as a more working environment for module swapping, some kind of more elaborate system of power allocation, etc -- more individual tweaking would shift the emphasis from preparation to on-field adjustment), but don't say the game isn't tactical/strategic. It is, but you have to make the magic happen. My personal complaint is that it is usually too easy to avoid combat entirely. Either via logging, safespotting or just a plain lack of available warp scrambling (strength and reach are concerns). A lot of folks are clever enough to calculate things in their heads and see if they can survive and win a fight or not.
GoGo Yubari	Posted - 2004.11.15 12:30:00 - [104] Well, of course things can always be better, but .. I think most folks just don't have a clue. In any complex setting (and EVE is complex) with explicit and implicit rules, strategy and tactics exist. The fact is that it isn't just lying there waiting to bite you in the ass, you must make it happen. I think it's all right to complain about there not being enough options to do in a fight on an individual basis (such as a more working environment for module swapping, some kind of more elaborate system of power allocation, etc -- more individual tweaking would shift the emphasis from preparation to on-field adjustment), but don't say the game isn't tactical/strategic. It is, but you have to make the magic happen. My personal complaint is that it is usually too easy to avoid combat entirely. Either via logging, safespotting or just a plain lack of available warp scrambling (strength and reach are concerns). A lot of folks are clever enough to calculate things in their heads and see if they can survive and win a fight or not.
Thyro	Posted - 2004.11.15 12:57:00 - [105] Partially disabling = disable or more types of specific modules, to a point of their destruction at long time. Therefore incapacitating an enemy ship to fight/move/warp away This could be one good tactic (if was implemented on EVE)... examples: disable specific weapons or, shields, cloak or any other type of module such as armor repaireres. Ship take over: 1) Module such EW types but to control enemies ship modules such as shields/weapons/movement 2) New type of weapon that kills ship's crew to be easilly boarded and took over. These simple examples could be common tactics during fights where not only people would need to think about what weapons/shields/armor to use a fight/battle... but also... how do they will fight... beside unleash all weapons at same time just to destroy the opponent. This is what I call more tactic during a fight/battle rather than brute force... because brute force doesn't need any thinking... just press all buttons at same time... and this is what is happening on EVE at moment.
Thyro	Posted - 2004.11.15 12:57:00 - [106] Partially disabling = disable or more types of specific modules, to a point of their destruction at long time. Therefore incapacitating an enemy ship to fight/move/warp away This could be one good tactic (if was implemented on EVE)... examples: disable specific weapons or, shields, cloak or any other type of module such as armor repaireres. Ship take over: 1) Module such EW types but to control enemies ship modules such as shields/weapons/movement 2) New type of weapon that kills ship's crew to be easilly boarded and took over. These simple examples could be common tactics during fights where not only people would need to think about what weapons/shields/armor to use a fight/battle... but also... how do they will fight... beside unleash all weapons at same time just to destroy the opponent. This is what I call more tactic during a fight/battle rather than brute force... because brute force doesn't need any thinking... just press all buttons at same time... and this is what is happening on EVE at moment.
Sally	Posted - 2004.11.15 13:04:00 - [107] Originally by: Riddari Originally by: Sally Yeah. And do not forget the "I am being fired upon, have to log off."-tactic. Thanks CCP for inventing it. You didn't really read the thread did you? Actually I did. -- Stories: #1 --
Sally	Posted - 2004.11.15 13:04:00 - [108] Originally by: Riddari Originally by: Sally Yeah. And do not forget the "I am being fired upon, have to log off."-tactic. Thanks CCP for inventing it. You didn't really read the thread did you? Actually I did. -- Stories: #1 --
Sally	Posted - 2004.11.15 13:05:00 - [109] For me the battles would be more tactical when one would disallow warping around and give the support craft much more range. -- Stories: #1 --
Sally	Posted - 2004.11.15 13:05:00 - [110] For me the battles would be more tactical when one would disallow warping around and give the support craft much more range. -- Stories: #1 --

Jane Vladmir	Posted - 2004.11.15 13:14:00 - [111] Originally by: Rod Blaine Originally by: Toran Mehtar Combat is tactical, it's just that you need to know your tactics before you enter combat. Preparation and organisation is everything. Exactly, tactics play a big role in eve combat allright. But most of the important stuff happens before the first shots are fired. But even leaving pre-fight tactical stuff aside, combat can be pretty tactical if you choose it to be. The more information you have about the enemy the more tactics can be integrated into a battle. cough like espionage eh evol? cough
Jane Vladmir	Posted - 2004.11.15 13:14:00 - [112] Originally by: Rod Blaine Originally by: Toran Mehtar Combat is tactical, it's just that you need to know your tactics before you enter combat. Preparation and organisation is everything. Exactly, tactics play a big role in eve combat allright. But most of the important stuff happens before the first shots are fired. But even leaving pre-fight tactical stuff aside, combat can be pretty tactical if you choose it to be. The more information you have about the enemy the more tactics can be integrated into a battle. cough like espionage eh evol? cough


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one 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.