| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 30 .. 35 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Snake Jankins
   |
Posted - 2004.12.22 03:30:00 -
[451]
Edited by: Snake Jankins on 22/12/2004 03:31:22
I think that huge race specific differencies in the percentage of shield and armor increase are not such a good idea.
It reduces the freedom to choose between armor- and shield tanking.
I mean, if your ship has about 5000 shield and about 5000 armor and enough med and low slots, you can really choose, if armor tanking or shield tanking suits you better and I think this freedom is good.
A race specific 100 percent boost to armor leads to 10000 armor and 5000 shield. This means, that armor hardeners make much more sense on such a ship than shield hardeners. A 50% armor/shield hardener doubles the amount of damage, that the armor or shield absorbs of a specific damage type. So hardening 10000 armor makes more sense in this case than hardening 5000 shield. And the decision for an armor hardener means, that you have to use armor tanking, too. 50% more resistance means 50% less work for you repairer or shield booster or in other words beeing able to tank 50% more damage over time. So in the above case armor tanking makes more sense.
So what I wanted to make clear is that race specific increase of armor and shield reduces the freedom to choose your tanking setup. I like this freedom and think it's cool if people fly for example armor tanked ravens, too. Why should these race specific changes force people to switch from armor to shield tanking or the opposite ?
Increase armor and shield of every battleship no matter what race and people will still have the freedom to choose ! In my opinion many possible setups are good for this game.
P.S.: I am newbie, so perhaps there is something wrong with my argumentation and sorry for my english, it's not my native language 
|
Snake Jankins
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 03:30:00 -
[452]
Edited by: Snake Jankins on 22/12/2004 03:31:22
I think that huge race specific differencies in the percentage of shield and armor increase are not such a good idea.
It reduces the freedom to choose between armor- and shield tanking.
I mean, if your ship has about 5000 shield and about 5000 armor and enough med and low slots, you can really choose, if armor tanking or shield tanking suits you better and I think this freedom is good.
A race specific 100 percent boost to armor leads to 10000 armor and 5000 shield. This means, that armor hardeners make much more sense on such a ship than shield hardeners. A 50% armor/shield hardener doubles the amount of damage, that the armor or shield absorbs of a specific damage type. So hardening 10000 armor makes more sense in this case than hardening 5000 shield. And the decision for an armor hardener means, that you have to use armor tanking, too. 50% more resistance means 50% less work for you repairer or shield booster or in other words beeing able to tank 50% more damage over time. So in the above case armor tanking makes more sense.
So what I wanted to make clear is that race specific increase of armor and shield reduces the freedom to choose your tanking setup. I like this freedom and think it's cool if people fly for example armor tanked ravens, too. Why should these race specific changes force people to switch from armor to shield tanking or the opposite ?
Increase armor and shield of every battleship no matter what race and people will still have the freedom to choose ! In my opinion many possible setups are good for this game.
P.S.: I am newbie, so perhaps there is something wrong with my argumentation and sorry for my english, it's not my native language
|
Kcel Chim
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 03:54:00 -
[453]
Edited by: Kcel Chim on 22/12/2004 03:55:04
I went to sissy today and tried out some testing. With limited materials and limited ppl it was only able to pull 2 tempests 1 apoc and 1 arma together.
The results were shocking to say atleast.
The Apoc was totally untouchable in a 1o1 scenario from any other ship. Just with an odd 2 large acco 2 hardener (thermal and kinetic) npc setup and the tempests even using explosive torps or explosive / emp ammo to increase their firepower abit.
The apoc pilot could simply have logged out or went for coffee and he would have been ontop of it, the only capmanagment issues were raised by the hvy nos which required him to deactivate guns to recharge cap while tanking....
All other battles were long and painfull and only won by pure caprecharge. The gankageddons short kill advantage is now easily killed and its cap cant support any armor repairing with constant firing.
The tempests basically had a lengthy pounding match both going down euqlly fast or slow.
To get someone semitanked or tanked down with just 1 battleship in a pure dmg setup (all dmg mods and tracking equipment) takes both on an arma or tempest (1400 and 800mm dont differ much) atleast 2-3 minutes....
As a personal conclusion (so far with only limited testing abilities) i must say i dont like the idea of sitting there and watching for 2-3 minutes how my modules work and work while basically all decisions are made. i.e. he is scrambled, my guns wreck havoc and my repairers try to control the damage...
Another observation which is quiet interesting is the fact that the double the total hp of all ships move would basically nerf every weapon ingame for half of its damage.
If we assume now that t2 weapons give about 20-25% more firepower and t2 ammo might fill another 20-25% we will find that by the current change ccp does nothing else as promoting t2 goods which will allow you in x month of training the very same thing as you do now with your t1 stuff.... strange or ?
|
Kcel Chim
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 03:54:00 -
[454]
Edited by: Kcel Chim on 22/12/2004 03:55:04
I went to sissy today and tried out some testing. With limited materials and limited ppl it was only able to pull 2 tempests 1 apoc and 1 arma together.
The results were shocking to say atleast.
The Apoc was totally untouchable in a 1o1 scenario from any other ship. Just with an odd 2 large acco 2 hardener (thermal and kinetic) npc setup and the tempests even using explosive torps or explosive / emp ammo to increase their firepower abit.
The apoc pilot could simply have logged out or went for coffee and he would have been ontop of it, the only capmanagment issues were raised by the hvy nos which required him to deactivate guns to recharge cap while tanking....
All other battles were long and painfull and only won by pure caprecharge. The gankageddons short kill advantage is now easily killed and its cap cant support any armor repairing with constant firing.
The tempests basically had a lengthy pounding match both going down euqlly fast or slow.
To get someone semitanked or tanked down with just 1 battleship in a pure dmg setup (all dmg mods and tracking equipment) takes both on an arma or tempest (1400 and 800mm dont differ much) atleast 2-3 minutes....
As a personal conclusion (so far with only limited testing abilities) i must say i dont like the idea of sitting there and watching for 2-3 minutes how my modules work and work while basically all decisions are made. i.e. he is scrambled, my guns wreck havoc and my repairers try to control the damage...
Another observation which is quiet interesting is the fact that the double the total hp of all ships move would basically nerf every weapon ingame for half of its damage.
If we assume now that t2 weapons give about 20-25% more firepower and t2 ammo might fill another 20-25% we will find that by the current change ccp does nothing else as promoting t2 goods which will allow you in x month of training the very same thing as you do now with your t1 stuff.... strange or ?
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 03:54:00 -
[455]
Yeah, don't split it up any more. Double it all, don't do it at all.
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 03:54:00 -
[456]
Yeah, don't split it up any more. Double it all, don't do it at all.
|
Hobbsalong
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 05:42:00 -
[457]
the 100% increase values are too drastic.
It will make good tankers even better. While bad tankers that can dish out dmg worse.
|
Hobbsalong
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 05:42:00 -
[458]
the 100% increase values are too drastic.
It will make good tankers even better. While bad tankers that can dish out dmg worse.
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 06:55:00 -
[459]
Edited by: Baun on 22/12/2004 07:00:58
Edited by: Baun on 22/12/2004 07:00:48
Many people have touched on this but the entire idea of an HP boost represents a gigantic problem for many ships;
Ships that sacrifice all or the majority of their defense in order to have increased offense are now much much less useful. In order for a gankageddon or a neutron fitted blasterthron to be powerful they must be able to kill the enemy quickly. If they cannot kill the enemy quickly they are screwed.
Case in point- If one has to spend 30 more seconds trying to kill a Raven or an apoc in a blasterthron one is dead. You are a FAR less capable tank then either the Raven or the Apoc anyway and your advantage of your damage. Your advantage, however, has been made substantially less useful because you have recieved no damage boost while the Raven and the Apoc's advantage has been augmented. Their tanking is now more significant (because they a priore have more time with which to tank) and your damage is now far less important as the damage/hp ratio has greatly decreased.
Some might argue that ships like the gankageddon were overpowered but when you look at the array of weaknesses present in any damage-dealing untanked ship one can see that this argument carries little weight. A gankegeddon or a blasterthon are easy to blow up, (usually) easy to jam, and very suceptible to smaller class ships. Furthermore, if they run into a situation of poor odds they have little hope of surviving long enough to take out an opponent (thsi is especially true of a blasterthron) becaue they have so little defense.
This change really needs to be thought through before implimenting. It is not nearly so simply as multiply all of the HPs by a certain factor and everything remains the same but battles take longer. Rather these changes actually have significant balancing effects that really promote one type of ship use over another. If your goal is balance then this really is a bad idea.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 06:55:00 -
[460]
Edited by: Baun on 22/12/2004 07:00:58
Edited by: Baun on 22/12/2004 07:00:48
Many people have touched on this but the entire idea of an HP boost represents a gigantic problem for many ships;
Ships that sacrifice all or the majority of their defense in order to have increased offense are now much much less useful. In order for a gankageddon or a neutron fitted blasterthron to be powerful they must be able to kill the enemy quickly. If they cannot kill the enemy quickly they are screwed.
Case in point- If one has to spend 30 more seconds trying to kill a Raven or an apoc in a blasterthron one is dead. You are a FAR less capable tank then either the Raven or the Apoc anyway and your advantage of your damage. Your advantage, however, has been made substantially less useful because you have recieved no damage boost while the Raven and the Apoc's advantage has been augmented. Their tanking is now more significant (because they a priore have more time with which to tank) and your damage is now far less important as the damage/hp ratio has greatly decreased.
Some might argue that ships like the gankageddon were overpowered but when you look at the array of weaknesses present in any damage-dealing untanked ship one can see that this argument carries little weight. A gankegeddon or a blasterthon are easy to blow up, (usually) easy to jam, and very suceptible to smaller class ships. Furthermore, if they run into a situation of poor odds they have little hope of surviving long enough to take out an opponent (thsi is especially true of a blasterthron) becaue they have so little defense.
This change really needs to be thought through before implimenting. It is not nearly so simply as multiply all of the HPs by a certain factor and everything remains the same but battles take longer. Rather these changes actually have significant balancing effects that really promote one type of ship use over another. If your goal is balance then this really is a bad idea.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
|
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 07:03:00 -
[461]
Edited by: Baun on 22/12/2004 07:08:22
Edited by: Baun on 22/12/2004 07:03:39
Here is a good, simple question:
Why is this change even percieved as neccesary? The Devs have been working at balancing the game with the numbers as they stand for over 2 years. Why would it be beneficial to change the goalposts and mess everything up again? What problem does this solve?
Can anyone answer this? I really see NO motivation for this change other than some ass-backwards attempt to balance POS damage (and if that is the motivation they really need to consider actually addressing the problem itself instead of adjusting the game to fit the problem).
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 07:03:00 -
[462]
Edited by: Baun on 22/12/2004 07:08:22
Edited by: Baun on 22/12/2004 07:03:39
Here is a good, simple question:
Why is this change even percieved as neccesary? The Devs have been working at balancing the game with the numbers as they stand for over 2 years. Why would it be beneficial to change the goalposts and mess everything up again? What problem does this solve?
Can anyone answer this? I really see NO motivation for this change other than some ass-backwards attempt to balance POS damage (and if that is the motivation they really need to consider actually addressing the problem itself instead of adjusting the game to fit the problem).
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Trancestor
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 07:04:00 -
[463]
the gms make a good job in this game, but why did you want to change the gameplay, guys we had so many changes and now you want to start it again, new player have not enough time to learn the aiming in this game, im sry but the best is to wait with it. And i think the Structure and the Gameplay is now verry good !
Some games are dead because the patching again and again. Stop hard working guys, fix the bugs and make holidays ^^ but ok i have to test it on the test server.
all what comes i love eve 
good luck with your doing
Trance
|
Trancestor
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 07:04:00 -
[464]
the gms make a good job in this game, but why did you want to change the gameplay, guys we had so many changes and now you want to start it again, new player have not enough time to learn the aiming in this game, im sry but the best is to wait with it. And i think the Structure and the Gameplay is now verry good !
Some games are dead because the patching again and again. Stop hard working guys, fix the bugs and make holidays ^^ but ok i have to test it on the test server.
all what comes i love eve
good luck with your doing
Trance
|
Hobbsalong
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 07:40:00 -
[465]
Whats really funny is that my ARMOR tanked Typhoon has
9936 shields
and
4400 armor
WTB shield tanking typhoon!!
|
Hobbsalong
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 07:40:00 -
[466]
Whats really funny is that my ARMOR tanked Typhoon has
9936 shields
and
4400 armor
WTB shield tanking typhoon!!
|
Anksunamun
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 08:01:00 -
[467]
Nice more than 10 000 Armor HP on a Apoc.
More than 10 000 Schild HP on a Raven.
Nearly 10 000 Armor HP on a Megathron.
These are all Tech I Ships, so next year we
will have Tech II Battleships, maybe
Tech II Apoc 20 000 Armor HP
Tech II Raven 20 000 Shild HP
Tech II Megathron 20 000 Armor HP
OMG, we need Stronger weapons!!!!
|
Anksunamun
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 08:01:00 -
[468]
Nice more than 10 000 Armor HP on a Apoc.
More than 10 000 Schild HP on a Raven.
Nearly 10 000 Armor HP on a Megathron.
These are all Tech I Ships, so next year we
will have Tech II Battleships, maybe
Tech II Apoc 20 000 Armor HP
Tech II Raven 20 000 Shild HP
Tech II Megathron 20 000 Armor HP
OMG, we need Stronger weapons!!!!
|
Redwolf
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 09:33:00 -
[469]
I think, if you're gonna look at adding shields to (certain) ships, then it's imperative you consider changes the the recharge times also. Since it's quite clear that you've desgined said ships to be only really effective in one repair area, any increase to shield capacity without consideration to recharge rates is basically a nerf to the amarr and gallente ships, since we have to armour tank these, and there is no natural armour regeneration.
|
Redwolf
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 09:33:00 -
[470]
I think, if you're gonna look at adding shields to (certain) ships, then it's imperative you consider changes the the recharge times also. Since it's quite clear that you've desgined said ships to be only really effective in one repair area, any increase to shield capacity without consideration to recharge rates is basically a nerf to the amarr and gallente ships, since we have to armour tank these, and there is no natural armour regeneration.
|
|
|
Arud
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 09:42:00 -
[471]
 Originally by: Baun
Edited by: Baun on 22/12/2004 07:08:22
Edited by: Baun on 22/12/2004 07:03:39
Here is a good, simple question:
Why is this change even percieved as neccesary? The Devs have been working at balancing the game with the numbers as they stand for over 2 years. Why would it be beneficial to change the goalposts and mess everything up again? What problem does this solve?
Can anyone answer this? I really see NO motivation for this change other than some ass-backwards attempt to balance POS damage (and if that is the motivation they really need to consider actually addressing the problem itself instead of adjusting the game to fit the problem).
there has been talks about this change since the begining I think, people wanted longer battles
|
Arud
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 09:42:00 -
[472]
Originally by: Baun
Edited by: Baun on 22/12/2004 07:08:22
Edited by: Baun on 22/12/2004 07:03:39
Here is a good, simple question:
Why is this change even percieved as neccesary? The Devs have been working at balancing the game with the numbers as they stand for over 2 years. Why would it be beneficial to change the goalposts and mess everything up again? What problem does this solve?
Can anyone answer this? I really see NO motivation for this change other than some ass-backwards attempt to balance POS damage (and if that is the motivation they really need to consider actually addressing the problem itself instead of adjusting the game to fit the problem).
there has been talks about this change since the begining I think, people wanted longer battles
|
Muad 'dib
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 09:50:00 -
[473]
Originally by: Redwolf
Since it's quite clear that you've desgined said ships to be only really effective in one repair area, any increase to shield capacity without consideration to recharge rates is basically a nerf to the amarr and gallente ships, since we have to armour tank these, and there is no natural armour regeneration.
ehm, Shield tankers run out of cap, armor tankers do not (generally). I have a phoon and raven, and the phoon tanks far easer than the raven, and thats different tier ships too :/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
/|\.
'/\' The Wild West Made Me Quicker On The DRAW Than You |
Muad 'dib
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 09:50:00 -
[474]
Originally by: Redwolf
Since it's quite clear that you've desgined said ships to be only really effective in one repair area, any increase to shield capacity without consideration to recharge rates is basically a nerf to the amarr and gallente ships, since we have to armour tank these, and there is no natural armour regeneration.
ehm, Shield tankers run out of cap, armor tankers do not (generally). I have a phoon and raven, and the phoon tanks far easer than the raven, and thats different tier ships too :/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
/|\.
'/\' The Wild West Made Me Quicker On The DRAW Than You |
Terradoct
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 10:21:00 -
[475]
All we here adn my self are talking about how fast ships are dieing in fleet combat. I think you will be agree with the point that this happens by two problems:
- ship shields/armor/structure is not enoth to las long
- damage inflicted by weapons are too high.
So other we increas HP of ships, or we deacrise overall damage of weapons by half and reduce repaire rate of shield boosters and armor repaier at 2/3 from the current volume.
I'm curently talking about PvP and fleet combat, not NPCing.
|
Terradoct
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 10:21:00 -
[476]
All we here adn my self are talking about how fast ships are dieing in fleet combat. I think you will be agree with the point that this happens by two problems:
- ship shields/armor/structure is not enoth to las long
- damage inflicted by weapons are too high.
So other we increas HP of ships, or we deacrise overall damage of weapons by half and reduce repaire rate of shield boosters and armor repaier at 2/3 from the current volume.
I'm curently talking about PvP and fleet combat, not NPCing.
|
MaiLina KaTar
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 11:02:00 -
[477]
Edited by: MaiLina KaTar on 22/12/2004 11:05:34
Originally by: "j0"
Hmm, just something that struck me while reading another thread about the 'useless' structure increase because it can't be tanked yadda yadda yadda. It's how easily we fall for the way things are presented.
I mean, we all go "structure increase, wtf, structure has no resistance, useless!"
Agree.
I still haven't read a single post providing a valid point on why structure is useless. I mean wtf we are talking a 300% increase here. Taking mechanic 5 into account my Mega will end up with 18.000 structure HP on top of the armor and shield bonus!
Structure can't be hardened, therefor I do not use any slots to heal it. That allows me to keep an armor tank setup.
With this extreme increase in structure HP I will be able to carefully distribute damage between my armor and structure. That allows me to save cap where I couldn't before.
Whenever I need to save cap I just skip a few armor repair cycles and let some of the damage go into structure. After saving up some cap I re-enable my armor hardeners and kick in the reps.
IMO this screams "uber cap management" all over the place. To top it off all this doesn't even take into account the cap booster charges I could use once their volume comes down to reasonable levels.
Now imagine my Mega going against an Apoc. I have 7 low slots, so let me go to the extreme and use EM/thermal armor hardening only. 2 thermals, 1 EM and 2 reps should do the trick, leaving 2 slots for dmg mods. The Apoc will run into trouble shooting down my armor long before it can shoot into my structure since my armor will end up being extremely resitant against EM/thermal damage.
With 18k structure I'd be able to take quite a few structure hits, saving cap all the while.
After saving enough cap I kick in my hardeners and reps again and there we go again with the Apoc doing crap damage against my hardened armor while I still might have enough structure HP left to repeat this move two or three times over. On top of that I still haven't used any cap booster charges.
After this change, Apoc might not be the best cap-runner in the game anymore, because to keep its armor alive it'll have to keep hardeners and reps going, using cap all the time.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Mai's Idealog |
MaiLina KaTar
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 11:02:00 -
[478]
Edited by: MaiLina KaTar on 22/12/2004 11:05:34
Originally by: "j0"
Hmm, just something that struck me while reading another thread about the 'useless' structure increase because it can't be tanked yadda yadda yadda. It's how easily we fall for the way things are presented.
I mean, we all go "structure increase, wtf, structure has no resistance, useless!"
Agree.
I still haven't read a single post providing a valid point on why structure is useless. I mean wtf we are talking a 300% increase here. Taking mechanic 5 into account my Mega will end up with 18.000 structure HP on top of the armor and shield bonus!
Structure can't be hardened, therefor I do not use any slots to heal it. That allows me to keep an armor tank setup.
With this extreme increase in structure HP I will be able to carefully distribute damage between my armor and structure. That allows me to save cap where I couldn't before.
Whenever I need to save cap I just skip a few armor repair cycles and let some of the damage go into structure. After saving up some cap I re-enable my armor hardeners and kick in the reps.
IMO this screams "uber cap management" all over the place. To top it off all this doesn't even take into account the cap booster charges I could use once their volume comes down to reasonable levels.
Now imagine my Mega going against an Apoc. I have 7 low slots, so let me go to the extreme and use EM/thermal armor hardening only. 2 thermals, 1 EM and 2 reps should do the trick, leaving 2 slots for dmg mods. The Apoc will run into trouble shooting down my armor long before it can shoot into my structure since my armor will end up being extremely resitant against EM/thermal damage.
With 18k structure I'd be able to take quite a few structure hits, saving cap all the while.
After saving enough cap I kick in my hardeners and reps again and there we go again with the Apoc doing crap damage against my hardened armor while I still might have enough structure HP left to repeat this move two or three times over. On top of that I still haven't used any cap booster charges.
After this change, Apoc might not be the best cap-runner in the game anymore, because to keep its armor alive it'll have to keep hardeners and reps going, using cap all the time.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Mai's Idealog |
Estios
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 11:12:00 -
[479]
Nice idea in theory but I havent read the entire thread yet (but will do asap)
My main question/fear with this idea is:
I'm guessing you are gonna extend the log out timer A LOT right ???
So HMV consider Andy Williams and Dean Martin to be "easy listening" do they? Tell that to my mate Dave, he's been deaf for 20 years.
|
Estios
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 11:12:00 -
[480]
Nice idea in theory but I havent read the entire thread yet (but will do asap)
My main question/fear with this idea is:
I'm guessing you are gonna extend the log out timer A LOT right ???
So HMV consider Andy Williams and Dean Martin to be "easy listening" do they? Tell that to my mate Dave, he's been deaf for 20 years.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 30 .. 35 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |