| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
LB424
   |
Posted - 2005.03.28 21:52:00 -
[1]
Edited by: LB424 on 28/03/2005 22:00:01
Edited by: LB424 on 28/03/2005 21:57:56
Edited by: LB424 on 28/03/2005 21:52:40
Proposal to change combat dynamics from insta-gank/highest damage wins to something more entertaining for all.
1)Increase all ship resistances (including hull) across the board by 20% with a 90% cap to cover the assault ships. This will cover the increased HP proposal given to ships to prevent 10 second ganks in combat and allow all ships to be more survivable in combat. A ship with 35% resist becomes 55% resist which becomes 77.5% with a +50% hardener û only 17% greater resist than current configurations allowing damage to be done still, but a tanked ship will actually survive long enough to escape the 2 or 3 ships with 6-8 low slot damage mod setups. A tank setup still wonÆt be able to do great damage, but a non-tank setup will not get wasted as quickly as they currently do.
2)Re-introduce module damage that takes modules offline. Bring in module damage as ships take damage. It would be far more interesting to make an enemyÆs battle line withdraw because they cannot fight rather than make some ships go pop. Think of the dynamics of a fleet trading its damaged warships off the battle line to go repair with the currently useless support ships (which could receive a remote module repair unit).
Make 5% of all incoming damage go to ship modules randomly. This will cause systems on ships to fail in the middle of combat forcing ships to flee rather than face certain destruction. Adding module damage would bring a whole new depth to combat in EVE. Do I stay and fight it out with my remaining 4 siege launchers? How long till my XL booster is knocked out? This change would give a purpose to the +module hp modules as well.
Speaking for myself û IÆve become pretty disenchanted with the current combat in EVE. ItÆs just become so simple û fit as many Tech2 or faction weapons and damage mods on your ship as you can and wait with your buddies to whack the first target you see, followed by the second, and so on. Implementing these changes can add a new dimension to the warfare in eve by giving a purpose to repair ships and forcing enemies to retreat without having to destroy their ships û a way to win without totally annihilating your enemies may just encourage more people to engage in PvP combat.
Think about it: Do you hold out for that lucky hit on your enemy's armore repairers? Do you leave before your repaireres go offline? Do you think you'll knock out all of your enemy's guns before you lose your last turret? Now that would be exciting.
As for NPC hunting... perhaps making the module damage effect based on weapons - meaning each weapon does x% dmg to modules - NPCs don't use PC modules 
|
ManOfHonor
|
Posted - 2005.03.28 22:36:00 -
[2]
the end of ganking?
the end of tanking?
whohoo!!!
gankers suck!!
tankers suck!!
but its the only way to play 
change it CCP!!
signed
_____________________________
Honor Glory And Strength!
Honor Above Self
Glory For Self
Strength Of Self
(\_/)
(^.^)
(> <) |
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.03.28 22:50:00 -
[3]
The problem really is more active tanking...
Right now there is no point to doing a little damage while staying out of harms way because the other guy will never die as long as he can tank you...
There should be something that doesn't allow you to tank forever, since there are just too many ships that can infinity tank, and that ruins the game because it makes low damage/high survivability setups worthless, because low damage means you can't kill your oponent at all...
|
kar wai
|
Posted - 2005.03.29 07:11:00 -
[4]
Edited by: kar wai on 29/03/2005 07:11:10
You're almost there!
I agree combat should have more outcomes then one or the other loose their ship. However, some fittings relay heavily on 1 specific module. So if that item would be damaged/go offline then your ship will be useless. If it would happen early in combat, bummer!
Maybe we should make the modules less effective when they become damaged. For example, you hit a targets mwd module doing 5% damage. This mwd-module would then give 5% less speed boost.
It would nerf ubertanking, cause you can do damage to an armor repairer, which makes the armor repairer do less hp repair per second.
I haven't got ideas about nerfing uberganking. Anyone else maybe???
|
Lygos
|
Posted - 2005.03.29 08:31:00 -
[5]
I don't think it is good for the political development of eve, (see my other post) but this is my idea for increased longevity of encounters.
First, give ships either more efficient tanking or more hp.
Next, armor repaired by modules is a halfway measure and thus inferior to that done in stations. Every time an armor repairer is activated, that person loses 5-10% to max armor/shield hp.
This way, people can tank for longer than before, but noone can tank forever, even with support ships nearby. (Heck, it even makes the logistics ship an offensive weapon.)
Armor can be restored to improved or possibly even full potence at a station. On the other hand, if we make the damage permanent the ship manufacturers will love us and tanking will go out of style.
Lastly, I like module damage, but I suspect it was abandoned as unnecessary server load.
|
Arx Nemesis
|
Posted - 2005.03.29 11:32:00 -
[6]
as Lygos pointed out mod damage may be related to server load, altho i agree, making mod's take damage is good idea, adding point sniping lasers that are designed to take out enemy mod's is second good idea, adding mod repairers based on spare parts may be also good idea, but taking damage while repairing... no, why? cause if you are in future with nanotech any thing can be restored to its previous state, only difference is cost in energy and time.
-----------------------------------------
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance |
Nicholai Pestot
|
Posted - 2005.03.29 11:45:00 -
[7]
It has always puzzled me where all the matter to replace lost armour has come from, and the reduction in max armour every time you use an armour repairer module sounds good, though this should DEFINATLY be reversed once a ship docks and pays for repairs (you can only take realism so far lygos).
As for module damage taking modules off-line, im all for it being re-introduced, hell high slots should start taking damage damage once your armour drops below 60%
And yes this does mean that ship designs all based around one single module could be taken out by one lucky hit...such are the risks (ie fun) of combat.
I also like the idea of weapons that do no structure damage, but pure module damage instead..if only there wasnt a 2 minute log-off timer this could actually be used in piracy....
I have supped the milk of human kindness, and discovered i am lactose intolerant |
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.03.29 12:27:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Noriath on 29/03/2005 13:33:44
Edited by: Noriath on 29/03/2005 12:36:12
Edited by: Noriath on 29/03/2005 12:35:10
Well, ultimately you might as well get rid of active tanking in general...
-Multiply all player ship HP by 5
-Change Shieldbooster and Repairunits to be too slow to tank in combat. (Only fast enough to cut your downtime significantly if you run from a fight and try to repair your ship once you're safe, maybe make it so that activating them will kill target locks)
-Give Armor and Hull a regeneration factor (Afterall there are engineers and nanite colonies aboard the ship that try to fix it...)
-Leave remote units as they are right now, maybe double their range and cut the range bonus on logistics ships in half.
-Change shield regeneration to a constant factor so it doesn't peak somewhere and passive tanking is no longer possible. (Because it would be too powerful when you're shooting for a system where ships can't tank for an infinite amount of time)
That would make logistics ships, or remote repair-setups in general a lot more worthwhile.
Having a personal repairunit would still have its perks, because it would cut your downtime significantly if you are damaged in space - but if you have a logistics ship to repair you you can spend the slots on Armor plates and do a lot better with those...
Different Armor plates and regeneration booster modules would be a lot more worth their while if slow regeneration was the main way to regain HP...
Also this would create a lot more balance for all the races that don't have the cap to run two repairers forever.
|
Nicholai Pestot
|
Posted - 2005.03.29 12:49:00 -
[9]
Actually Noriath a total split in the way shields and armour work would be nice (im not disagreeing with you, your idea is damn good).
Shields having a low max damage but a very good recharge rate
Armour having high max damage but an incredibly low repair rate.
Different combat tactics would then be needed against each. Ships using armour as their primary defense could be 'nibbled' to death, while ships using shields as their primary defense would have to be overwhelmed in a short amount of time.
I have supped the milk of human kindness, and discovered i am lactose intolerant |
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.03.29 13:33:00 -
[10]
Sounds good!
Then shields wouldn't get such a drastic increase in HP though, but only be multiplied by maybe 2...
Also it's important for the entire system that even if shields recharge fast they don't get to the point where their recharge rate is high enough to passively tank incoming damage...
|
LB424
|
Posted - 2005.03.29 15:04:00 -
[11]
Edited by: LB424 on 29/03/2005 15:05:07
The main reason I submitted these ideas as they were is due to the low impact from the development side for CCP to do changes like these. Adding resist% is about a simple a change as I could ever see - just modifies the existing database with no new math.
As for module damage - It's already in game. It just isn't implemented to the full extent that it could be. Currently modules take damage - but only if you get down to structure. I am simply proposing that CCP build module damage into the top of the damage model so that once a module reaches 0 hitpoints it goes offline. Defensive modules like hardeners and shield and armor boosters could just have a larger number of hitpoints to ensure they stay online longer. If a small color coded dot wasa added next to each module in the UI you could monitor your module health (Green = 100%, Orange = 50%, Red = 0% health) to determine how safe it is to stay and fight. Everyone has good ideas here - but what I am trying to do is propose something that involves the least ammount of changes to the EVE engine as possible, while adding a whole new dimension to combat.
|
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.03.29 15:14:00 -
[12]
As long as doing less damage then a person can tank is completly useless, and ending a fight without having completly destroyed the enemy means that you have accomplished nothing at all besides waste their ammo (If they use ammo) combat in Eve will be very one dimensional - who can do the most damage in the shortest period of time.
Maybe the first thing to do would be adding damage coming through armor as well... Right now damage can come through your shields and hit your armor, but apearantly armor never gets holes and allows structure to be hit. If they added that module damage would be unavoidable in the long run, and tanking armor wouldn't be so effective...
|
LB424
|
Posted - 2005.03.29 16:02:00 -
[13]
Edited by: LB424 on 29/03/2005 16:04:10
Note: I suggested adding module damage to the top of the damage model. What this means is module damage happens at 100% shields and armor. It doesn't matter how much damage you are doing - if you take out the armor/shield repair units - the ship is going down if they stay. The actual ammount of module damage will be the hardest to balance, but the end result should be a ship will have 50% of it's modules disabled before it ever reaches structure. Give maybe 5% of damage per shot to modules, or even 1% with a bonus from a new skill, and distibute across fitted modules.
My goal is to have eve ship to ship combat reflect real ship to ship combat - ships didn't typically sink to gunfire. Gunfire usually inflicted so much collateral damage a ship was forced to retire due to being combat ineffective. For the sake of this argument treat missile damage as "gunfire" as well.
I do agree that currently there is nothing gained by "winning" a fight in EVE right now or if these changes were implemented. There isn't a single change you can propose to combat that will fix that. That fix will have to be done with the ability to "own" territory.
|
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.03.29 16:25:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Noriath on 29/03/2005 16:25:38
While that may all be true, if your modules get shot off and you have no way of stopping people from doing it armor becomes completly meaningless on ships - unless they would die faster to normal damage then all their modules would go bye bye, and in that case the change doesn't make any difference really...
|
Zev Torban
|
Posted - 2005.03.31 02:58:00 -
[15]
I like the idea of modules being damaged, but I don't think they should be exposed before armor. At least, not all of them. The ideal setup (which would involve more work which I know the original author of this thread was trying to avoid) would be to have zones on a ship. Players could then opt to choose where they want to shoot (say it requires sharpshooter if you want) and then they "try" to aim for that zone, say engines for example, to prevent somebody from flying away or to slow them down at least. Once shields are down, exposed modules such as turrets and engines would be susceptible to damage, but internal modules like warp core stabilizers and targeting computers would require 15% armor remaining in the particular zone that the module is in. I think that would add a lot of strategy to combat and ship equipping. Not to mention realism. But like I said, that's a re-engineering of the combat system, possibly the whole game engine itself.
|
Lygos
|
Posted - 2005.03.31 06:11:00 -
[16]
Also, armor/shield repairing could be a lot more efficient, yet also require repair charges that have to be loaded like missiles or ammo. That also reinforces the call for independent cargo bays like ammo, drones, or regular cargo.
|
Arx Nemesis
|
Posted - 2005.03.31 07:56:00 -
[17]
 Originally by: Lygos
Also, armor/shield repairing could be a lot more efficient, yet also require repair charges that have to be loaded like missiles or ammo. That also reinforces the call for independent cargo bays like ammo, drones, or regular cargo.
yay, yeeessss! please make separate cargo space, hauling small amounts of ammo on a bs is a silly thing compared to ship size 
-----------------------------------------
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |