EVE Search - The perma-tank issue.

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The perma-tank issue.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Foraven Gallente	Posted - 2010.01.29 01:23:00 - [31] Originally by: Cambarus And since one of the main aspects of eve is that it forces you to interact with people, the game becomes complicated as soon as you start actually playing it. There are ways to limit the interaction you have with other people, but if you're going to go out of your way to play eve on the easiest mode possible, you really shouldn't go and whine that the game isn't hard/complicated enough. That's not what i was refering to. There is a lot to learn in this game, no doubt i haven't learned all i could from it. But this game don't rely on complicated gameplay mechanics, mainly because it's an online game built on aging code and servers. But from my perspective, getting any cooperative play out of random players is far more difficult than learning how to play this game. One reason i mostly play in small group and rarely venture out of high sec. Quote: Also, could you please go back and refute the other points I made in my last post? The ones about your idea being nothing but a tedious chore due to the mechanics of capitals and jump bridges? Unless CCP makes some serious changes to how stuff gets moved around in 0.0, all you're doing is keeping the little guy down by making it harder to keep ships working out in nullsec. I should state i'm one of the little guy you refer to. I'm hardly a super rich player with 10 alts and member of a big null sec alliance. I never been close to a capitalship, so i don't know about how hard they are to supply. But from what i understand, a great deal of the problem is the reliance on high sec for supply, with all the gatecamps on the way there and back. Ideally you should be able to produce all you need in your 0.0 systems, but i don't really know why it's not the case (lack of industrial characters?).
Grarr Dexx Amarr GK inc. Panda Team	Posted - 2010.01.29 01:25:00 - [32] Here comes our next features&ideas hero. Don't fix what isn't broken. ___
XDSKIRBYKIA Serenity Engineering and Transport Company Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.01.29 01:41:00 - [33] Edited by: XDSKIRBYKIA on 29/01/2010 01:42:33 Originally by: Foraven They also create matter out of tin air? Why do they bother to mine then if their nano repairer can rebuild blasted off armor plate with capacitor charges? That's the hole in the story. You Sir need to do some reading... Capacitor = Electric Charge = Electrons ELECTRONS are a form of matter. Energy/Matter is never destroyed it only changes form. Electrons -> Armor is not magic.... Star Trek Replicators anyone?? Current system makes perfect sense and works.... OP answer to your suggestion is a big NOOOOOOO!
Foraven Gallente	Posted - 2010.01.29 02:01:00 - [34] Edited by: Foraven on 29/01/2010 02:06:38 Originally by: XDSKIRBYKIA Current system makes perfect sense and works.... OP answer to your suggestion is a big NOOOOOOO! Remind me just how much some players objected (and still object) in bringing more realistic features in 3d shooters. No instant power-ups, no carrying whole armory, no insta reload, no circle strafing and bunny hopping, are you mad?!? Edit : And i forgot the best one, rocket jumping! How could i forget that one .
XDSKIRBYKIA Serenity Engineering and Transport Company Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.01.29 02:17:00 - [35] Edited by: XDSKIRBYKIA on 29/01/2010 02:19:39 Current system makes perfect sense and works.... OP answer to your suggestion is a big NOOOOOOO! Remind me just how much some players objected (and still object) in bringing more realistic features in 3d shooters. No instant power-ups, no carrying whole armory, no insta reload, no circle strafing and bunny hopping, are you mad?!? First of all i will reply to your last comment: "Remind me just how much some players objected (and still object) in bringing more realistic features in 3d shooters" Guess what most people play games to escape reality!! So thier objection to it is sound... Who wants to pay $$$ just to die when you get shot ONCE!... Yer thats right! lmfao! Now; 1# Wow comment on my rejection of your idea by accusing me of being mad that will help your idea.. 2# No retort to my explanation of how the current scheme does make sense in RL physics ?? I admit the Star trek comment may have thrown you off but our current understanding of physics does suggest that replicators are entirely possible and with that manufacturing spare parts (Armor) is possible with nothing but energy and the free floating particles in the NEAR vacuum of space. Anyway... While it is your every right to suggest changes to the game.. This one is not supported by me and IMO and displayed in other replies to this thread not supported by anyone else. How about using the existing mechanics which are FINE to play the game instead of changing it to how you want to play.
Cambarus The Compass Reloaded	Posted - 2010.01.29 02:22:00 - [36] Originally by: Foraven Quote: Also, could you please go back and refute the other points I made in my last post? The ones about your idea being nothing but a tedious chore due to the mechanics of capitals and jump bridges? Unless CCP makes some serious changes to how stuff gets moved around in 0.0, all you're doing is keeping the little guy down by making it harder to keep ships working out in nullsec. I should state i'm one of the little guy you refer to. I'm hardly a super rich player with 10 alts and member of a big null sec alliance. I never been close to a capitalship, so i don't know about how hard they are to supply. But from what i understand, a great deal of the problem is the reliance on high sec for supply, with all the gatecamps on the way there and back. Ideally you should be able to produce all you need in your 0.0 systems, but i don't really know why it's not the case (lack of industrial characters?). Well since I'm too lazy to check your age and see if you're a troll, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are new enough not to know about alliance logistics. Carriers and jump freighters make it so that you can move massive amounts of stuff with extreme ease to even the farthest reaches of 0.0 60+Jumps can be done with like 5 in a carrier (the most ridiculous example I know of is northern stain, which is ONE carrier jump from a lowsec system 2 jumps from highsec, but to manually fly there in a sub-cap is roughly 60 jumps through 0.0 from the nearest highsec system) Same thing with jump bridges, you only need like 5 or 6 jumps to cover a distance that would take 50+ otherwise. It's just too damn easy to move things once you're got the numbers or isk. Because of this, the people who really suffer from increased resource consumption in 0.0 are the small guys who don't have a fleet of JFs or a jump bridge network. To the big guys, it's a slight annoyance, and to the little guys, it may well make living out in nullsec impossible, so who exactly benefits from this change?
Foraven Gallente	Posted - 2010.01.29 02:55:00 - [37] Edited by: Foraven on 29/01/2010 03:01:46 Originally by: XDSKIRBYKIA First of all i will reply to your last comment: "Remind me just how much some players objected (and still object) in bringing more realistic features in 3d shooters" Guess what most people play games to escape reality!! So thier objection to it is sound... Who wants to pay $$$ just to die when you get shot ONCE!... Yer thats right! lmfao! And i got tired of that kind of games. I'm not trying to escape reality, i'm trying to find a new one i can immerse myself in. Quote: 1# Wow comment on my rejection of your idea by accusing me of being mad that will help your idea.. That's not how i meant that comment. I wanted a funny remark, not accuse you of being mad (would more be the one who wanted all the changes in the first place from the perspective of players who want unrealistic fantasy gameplay). Quote: 2# No retort to my explanation of how the current scheme does make sense in RL physics ?? I admit the Star trek comment may have thrown you off but our current understanding of physics does suggest that replicators are entirely possible and with that manufacturing spare parts (Armor) is possible with nothing but energy and the free floating particles in the NEAR vacuum of space. I'm sure you are no more an expert on RL physics than i am. And it sound to me just a bit far fetched to use that to explain a old design decision they made. Quote: How about using the existing mechanics which are FINE to play the game instead of changing it to how you want to play. They are not fine, they are broken. The need to focus fire : Broken. The need for ever bigger blob : broken. No crowd control module : broken. The need to gank to win fights : broken. The game can be resumed to number crunching : broken... Originally by: Cambarus Same thing with jump bridges, you only need like 5 or 6 jumps to cover a distance that would take 50+ otherwise. It's just too damn easy to move things once you're got the numbers or isk. Because of this, the people who really suffer from increased resource consumption in 0.0 are the small guys who don't have a fleet of JFs or a jump bridge network. To the big guys, it's a slight annoyance, and to the little guys, it may well make living out in nullsec impossible, so who exactly benefits from this change? You must have missed the part where i said there could be a way to recharge them like we can with damaged modules. Would not be much more difficult than carrying/producing ammos for your ships in 0.0. The reason for this can be the very same why guns in EVE don't have infinite ammos/charges.
Pharon Reichter The Fallen Angels Unit Legiunea ROmana	Posted - 2010.01.29 11:17:00 - [38] Play the game more , play in a team. That's my advice. I just think you are very frustrated that you cant kill an battleship in your ceptor/af/fregate. First of all perma-setups are pretty low on tankable DPS compared to boosted ones. Unless using billion-expensive faction mods. Second, for any battle with more than 10 players/side involved local rep is just weak, this being the reason most team pvp is done BUFFER tanked third, if you consider ammo expensive .... well, i just feel sorry for you. go beg in jita or somthing if you just couldnt figure out how to fund your ammo. TL;DR tanking/ganking is fine as it is ;)
Foraven Gallente	Posted - 2010.01.29 16:11:00 - [39] Originally by: Pharon Reichter Play the game more , play in a team. That's my advice. I just think you are very frustrated that you cant kill an battleship in your ceptor/af/fregate. If at least you understood what my thread was all about.
James Tritanius	Posted - 2010.01.29 16:15:00 - [40] I still don't see an argument for your suggestion except "it makes the game more complex and more realistic." I would like to counter with "unnecessary complexity is detrimental" and "IT'S A GAME ABOUT ****ING SPACESHIPS."
Foraven Gallente	Posted - 2010.01.29 16:25:00 - [41] Originally by: James Tritanius I still don't see an argument for your suggestion except "it makes the game more complex and more realistic." I would like to counter with "unnecessary complexity is detrimental" and "IT'S A GAME ABOUT ****ING SPACESHIPS." It's just like an RTS, but with all units being players and no terrain to speak of. It just lack the player that lasso all his units to pick off targets one by one.
MarkyJ	Posted - 2010.01.29 17:38:00 - [42] Edited by: MarkyJ on 29/01/2010 17:39:47 About the whole "you shouldn't be able to generate armour plates from nothing" thing. Hmmm...I present to you the civilian gatling autocannon; "This multi-barreled weapon generates its own ammo from space dust." Ammo...armour plate...I think you can see where this is going. If one of the most basic guns in the game can create a projectile (and the chemical explosive used to fire it out the gun) from just the crap floating though space, surely armour repairers can turn that same dust into a chunk of steel or whatever their armour is made out of. Okay, they'd need a lot of it but in a battle there'd be a lot of debris floating around to use. Shields: We don't know how they work. They could be energy based for all we know in which case a ships power supply could top them up at will if there's energy to spare (i.e. capacitor) And for the final nail in the coffin. Remember these ships are capable of breaking the laws of physics by accelerating from 0 to over 300,000,000 m/s (the speed of electro-magnetic radiation (or light in lamens terms) in seconds without turning there occupants to a pulp against the nearest bulkhead due to the acceleration. We also have even larger ships and some stargates which are capable of casually punching a hole in spacetime to lauch your ship to another solar system entirely nearly instantly. For all we know, energy to matter and vice versa might be commonplace. Okay, the physicist inside has been satisfied, now for eve stuff. If a ship is perma-tanking its either running on cap boosters, in which case it already has a limit on how much it can carry, or its cap-stable in which case its giving up damage mods or PvP equipment (stasis webs, sensor boosters,etc...) to achieve cap stability. Its already nerfing itself in other areas to fit that tank. Now you're saying it should be nerfed again by rendering the tank useless or broken after n number of cycles?
Foraven Gallente	Posted - 2010.01.29 18:21:00 - [43] Originally by: MarkyJ If a ship is perma-tanking its either running on cap boosters, in which case it already has a limit on how much it can carry, or its cap-stable in which case its giving up damage mods or PvP equipment (stasis webs, sensor boosters,etc...) to achieve cap stability. Its already nerfing itself in other areas to fit that tank. Now you're saying it should be nerfed again by rendering the tank useless or broken after n number of cycles? I would go for the amount of damage repaired rather than cycle, so we don't have to worry about leaving it on too long. I don't see it as a nerf, you could still tank enormous amount of damage, just not forever for free.
MarkyJ	Posted - 2010.01.29 18:23:00 - [44] Edited by: MarkyJ on 29/01/2010 18:23:22 Well then its not really perma-tanking, its tanking until the attackers patience runs out.
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.01.29 18:30:00 - [45] April comes around so quickly these days.
Sep'Shoni Gallente Carpe Diem inc. Celestial Shadows	Posted - 2010.01.30 14:50:00 - [46] Originally by: Nekopyat Actually, Pardus had a system like this and I think it actually worked pretty well. Things simply wore out over time and you either had to pay to repair them or eventually replace them. I admit, I never liked EVE's magic repair logistics. I would rather see a whole new industry for building spare parts and shipping them to isolated groups that if they do not get a resupply of those fancy expensive components their ships start to break down. It could also have the effect of having an advantage for the classic method of using cheap easily maintained technology in remote areas. Look at real warfare.. if you are going to be in remote corners of the world and maintain a presence there for a long time, you use equipment that spare parts are easily kept in local stock rather then the fanciest stuff on the market. I think that the OP's post is ill-thought-through and unwieldy. I do, however, like the concept of ships requiring a certain amount of "wear and tear" maintenance for the sake of reality AND, as an industrialist, another set of products to make and sell sounds good. Perhaps such a system could be incorporated into the long-awaited mining and industry revamp? Perhaps the BPs could be designed in such a way as to give industrialists a reason to go to low-sec -- since the opportunity to mine less profitable ore at greatly increased risk is not once that we've been eager to take advantage of. Sep'Shoni Mining ore and making stuff. Its not just a job, its an obsession.
AnonyTerrorNinja Minmatar Buggers' Advanced Interstellar Transport	Posted - 2010.01.30 16:18:00 - [47] So I heard armor repairers and shield boosters don't use Capacitor to cycle. ---
TheRealBanana1 Gallente	Posted - 2010.01.30 20:37:00 - [48] ITT: OP rages because he can't fit a proper tank yet everyone else he encounters can. And there already IS a system that limits the duration an ubertank can run, they are called "Cap Boosters". Have you heard of these? Also, there are modules called "Energy Neutralizers" that will remove cap from your enemy. :\| Nerfing because your frustrated is not the answer OP.
Foraven Gallente	Posted - 2010.01.30 21:02:00 - [49] Edited by: Foraven on 30/01/2010 21:04:40 Edited by: Foraven on 30/01/2010 21:03:15 Originally by: TheRealBanana1 ITT: OP rages because he can't fit a proper tank yet everyone else he encounters can. And there already IS a system that limits the duration an ubertank can run, they are called "Cap Boosters". Have you heard of these? Also, there are modules called "Energy Neutralizers" that will remove cap from your enemy. :\| Nerfing because your frustrated is not the answer OP. Doh, i'm hardly complaining about not being able to tank (i can as much as anyone), and i know how to neut someone else. The point is offense VS defense. Offense cost something, defense, once you have the proper skills and modules is virtually free (well, i'm not including POS in this) as long as you survive the fight. This reduce a lot of potential strategies in the game, as the potential of more economic activities. Anyone noticed it actually cost something to repair a ship at station? This feature is quite useless though since most players learn to use repair modules in the first few days of playing, greatly reducing the difficulty of the game (outside of pvp of course). Oh and it also make ships that can tank dps in some way much more popular than the ones that can't effectively tank, making lots of ships sub par in the game.
Phaese Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2010.01.30 21:44:00 - [50] I just realized... If I use t1 laser charges, I can perma-tank AND perma-shoot. That's incredible! In other news, this idea is absolutely terrible.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.01.30 22:02:00 - [51] The "perma-tank" you are trying to exorcise doesn't exist except in PvE where incoming dps can determined and counted upon before hand. In PvP or against Sleepers, to some degree, the idea of "perma-tank" falls flat. - If you go against an enemy using a damage mod more than you calculated with. - If you go against an enemy with more neutralization than you calculated with. - If you go against a gang with more ECCM than you calculated with (in the RR vs RR+ECM bouts). Etc. Etc. Etc. Spider tanking in PvP is broken due to the ease with which the modules can be fitted and the synergy of RR/Buffer. Break that by increasing fitting/operational cost of one or both and it is a thing of the past. Ideally you'd want to increase the viability of local repair to compensate, but that causes a need for rebalancing PvE and risks making some ships nigh unstoppable in 1v1-2 .. so a slippery slope (love local repair and want it boosted but am aware of hiccups ). If and when you introduce an ISK sink you want it to be as unobtrusive as possible, forcing people (mission runners) to run repairs every 20-30 minutes would be annoying so put it mildly. Better to decrease mission income since that must be your goal
Foraven Gallente	Posted - 2010.01.30 23:43:00 - [52] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Spider tanking in PvP is broken due to the ease with which the modules can be fitted and the synergy of RR/Buffer. Break that by increasing fitting/operational cost of one or both and it is a thing of the past. I agree. Quote: Ideally you'd want to increase the viability of local repair to compensate, but that causes a need for rebalancing PvE and risks making some ships nigh unstoppable in 1v1-2 .. so a slippery slope (love local repair and want it boosted but am aware of hiccups ). I believe there are already fits that are next to unstoppable 1vs1 unless you drain their cap while grinding them. Quote: If and when you introduce an ISK sink you want it to be as unobtrusive as possible, forcing people (mission runners) to run repairs every 20-30 minutes would be annoying so put it mildly. Ideally it should not occur more often than restocking ammos. Quote: Better to decrease mission income since that must be your goal My goal is much larger than that.

Pages: 1 [2] :: 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.