| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Dukath
   |
Posted - 2005.04.23 12:53:00 -
[1]
I'm sure everyone who has ever been in a large fleetbattle knows how it is. warp in, target gets called and everyone shoots him. Once he's dead you switch over to the next target and so. The other side does the same.
Only ECM and scramblers operate a bit more independently and will go after different targets. But all the firepower is concentrated on 1 single ship. This is pure and simple ganking and while its the logical thing to do I don't think its a good thing. It makes battles a lot less interesting and fun.
1) ganking makes all setup except pure damage ineffective. Once you are lit up you'll die in seconds, whether you are ubertanked or not, so why not do as much damage as possible?
2) ganking is not fun. Ganking means that a huge fleetbattle is over for some in a matter of seconds, while the ones who were not mass targetted can stay till the end. Pure luck decides the amount of fun you'll have. well luck and being unknown so you wont be primary target all the time :).
3) ganking leaves no room for maneuvering. Its just lock, press F1-F8, lock another one, press F1-F8, rinse repeat. When you lit up yourself its warp and hope you'll get out before you die, then turn round and warp back.
When i think fleet battles I really envision something else. I see smaller pockets of ships fighting each other at different places. Ships moving into position to get better shots, not this mindless mass targetting we currently have. Individual people will live longer but since there are more fights globally they will still die so the total fleet battle won't take that much longer.
Of course there are some changes in the current game mechanics that are needed for this.
1) minimum warp distance = 15000km. once the battle has started conventional drives should be used to position yourself, not miniwarps to a (cloaked) gangmate.
2) range must be critical. Right now optimal range only shows you the maximal range you should be at for best damage. Optimal range should show you at what range your guns hit. Go too far out and you won't hit at all, come too close and its the same. For the same reason the falloff should be reduced to max 10 km for guns with the most falloff. Most guns should only have a couple of km falloff. With a much more limited area of shooting someone ganking will be reduced a lot while positioning will become really important. Finally speed on ships will have an effect on battles. Smaller ships will also become less vulnerable since they can move out of the optimal range of the enemy much faster. Of course switching ammo will help to change the optimal range but again that will add to the tactics of the fleet battle. People will have to change ammo during the battle, not just decide beforehand and then warp in.
3) Warp speed should be twice normal travelling speed. That is when you align for warp your ship will accellerate to twice its max speed before actually going into warp. Once its past your normal max speed it can't be cancelled anymore to prevent abuse. Your sig radius doubles when your warp drive is active. These changes will make warping out during a battle have a slight penalty. For normal travel there won't be any changes since acceleration is based on percents of max speed. However ships trying to leave battle will get hit a bit harder and they won't instawarp even if they are already aligned since they still need to accellerate.
4) A ship under fire gets his sig radius reduced by a faction of the incoming fire. So 20 ships shooting 1 target will do less damage overall than the same 20 ships shooting 2 or even 4 different targets. Since the one being shot at by 20 people will have a seriously reduced sig radius.
Combined with the upcoming missile changes that will make missiles less uber against smaller ships this will probably make fleet battles much more varied and fun. Ganking will be made much harder, fleetbattles will last longer since its very unlikely that a single pilot will be lighted up by all the enemies.
|
Tobiaz
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 13:11:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Tobiaz on 23/04/2005 13:11:50
I think all these artificial measures to make the battles more 'fun' are wrong.
The only thing is that the damage output for battleships is too great when compared to their average ability to tank. The fact that ships die so quickly makes it just too hard to make full use of EW, repairing, boosting, tanking etc.
If for instance logistics wouldnt die in under 5 seconds after lock, they could seriously participate in fleetbattles and influence the outcome.
Currently the major factor that influences the outcome is the ability of the fleetcommander to refrain from making stupid mistakes and the effectivity/discipline of allocating firepower (no overkill and take out support) and EW (for as long as it lasts)
The fact is that the game allows people to just keep on increasing their damage output by better skills and weapons.
I think nerfing the damage all over the board would make this game a lot more fun.
|
Darken Two
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 13:14:00 -
[3]
Maybe if they limited the number of ships that culd lock a single ship it would work meaning the rest would ahve to target another ship.
I think like a maximum of 5 ships allowed to target a hostile or sumin similar. Not a perfect idea but sumin to work on atlesat.
Why dont you just DIE DIE DIE !!!!
|
Dukath
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 13:16:00 -
[4]
What you call artificial I call logical :)
Anyway, just reducing the damage won't change a bit. People will still all mass target the same guy. For him the 5 hour waiting will still result in 5 seconds and then game over. Spreading the damage over more than one person will be good for everyone involved.
|
Bawlduke
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 13:20:00 -
[5]
dont nerf the guns or the ships armor and shields.
to make the gankfest die, and all battles real fights (less dependence on the blob thing), simply have a limit on the number of ships that can lock the same target.
If 3 ships lock a target, and a 4th trys, the 4th is blocked by interference from the other locks...this would add more purpose to the target painters skill also.
balance this with the size of the ship, smaller ships except fewer locks...(how many bs's does it take to pop the pod, come on...)
"it's like Hee Haw in space..."
|
Kashre
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 13:23:00 -
[6]
You'll never change the fundamentals of fleet combat: Get as much firepower as possible, apply it in the most efficient manner your limits in communication will alow.
Reducing the amount of damage that can be done over all is a bad idea, imo. For one, all you'll really be doing is increasing the critical number of BS needed to focus on a ship to take it out in more or less a single volley, which means more blobbing. For another thing, all that will do is kill any tanking and make ganks 100% the only choice... two well tanked batleships already cant kill each other until one runs out of cap.
As for the original posters ideas:
1> you will see nothing but short range gank setups. Although that would make the raven a popular fleet ship again probably.
2> If I understand correctly you're advocating making all guns 90% optimal 10% falloff. That makes everything just like lasers, and destroys a large part of the flavor of the game. I like my long falloffs, thanks.
3> That might be interesting.
4> That would foce people to distribute their fire... I dont think anyone should be forced into making any tactical decision, and there is no logical reason for it to work that way.
+++
It's called "low security space" for a reason. |
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 13:27:00 -
[7]
Don't really like the idea of reducing falloff and I don't think it will change that much in fleet battles. The idea of having max number of players allowed to target ships looks good at first but is far to exploitable. Everybody in the fleet would just target each other to reduce number of hostiles that can shoot them.
__________
Capacitor research |
Bawlduke
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 13:30:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Bawlduke on 23/04/2005 13:30:30
 Originally by: Dust Puppy
Don't really like the idea of reducing falloff and I don't think it will change that much in fleet battles. The idea of having max number of players allowed to target ships looks good at first but is far to exploitable. Everybody in the fleet would just target each other to reduce number of hostiles that can shoot them.
easy solution, friendly locks are limited separetly and limited the same (don't want the team shieled/power tanking an ibis as it takes out all the enemey, that wouldnt't be right..would be funny to see, but still not right...)
"it's like Hee Haw in space..."
|
Van Cleef
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 13:32:00 -
[9]
What ever happened to the increase in HP on shields and armor? When the biggest battleship cannot even withstand a volley of concentrated fire from two other battleships there is a problem.
------------------------------------------------
Serve the State
Join Channel CAINCOM |
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 13:35:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Dust Puppy on 23/04/2005 13:36:15
Originally by: Bawlduke
Edited by: Bawlduke on 23/04/2005 13:30:30
Originally by: Dust Puppy
Don't really like the idea of reducing falloff and I don't think it will change that much in fleet battles. The idea of having max number of players allowed to target ships looks good at first but is far to exploitable. Everybody in the fleet would just target each other to reduce number of hostiles that can shoot them.
easy solution, friendly locks are limited separetly and limited the same (don't want the team shieled/power tanking an ibis as it takes out all the enemey, that wouldnt't be right..would be funny to see, but still not right...)
How do you decide what is friendly locks. Members of your gang? You can easily have two gangs. Members of your corp? Usually more than one corp in fleet battles corp A targets corp B and vice versa. Members of your alliance? Little enough reasons to make an official alliance as it is and besides you can get alts and if other alliance comes to the fight that would help to avoid this.
Maybe if there was a way to differentiate between "friendly" locks and "hostile" locks this idea would work but imo it would just be to silly to have "friendly" locks not interfere with "hostile".
Edit: The biggest problem is the amount of damage compared to tanking ability of ships. Tbh I'm not sure that boosting defences would help all that much people would probably just point more guns to that ship.
__________
Capacitor research |
Bawlduke
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 13:40:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Dust Puppy
Edited by: Dust Puppy on 23/04/2005 13:36:15
Originally by: Bawlduke
Edited by: Bawlduke on 23/04/2005 13:30:30
Originally by: Dust Puppy
Don't really like the idea of reducing falloff and I don't think it will change that much in fleet battles. The idea of having max number of players allowed to target ships looks good at first but is far to exploitable. Everybody in the fleet would just target each other to reduce number of hostiles that can shoot them.
easy solution, friendly locks are limited separetly and limited the same (don't want the team shieled/power tanking an ibis as it takes out all the enemey, that wouldnt't be right..would be funny to see, but still not right...)
How do you decide what is friendly locks. Members of your gang? You can easily have two gangs. Members of your corp? Usually more than one corp in fleet battles corp A targets corp B and vice versa. Members of your alliance? Little enough reasons to make an official alliance as it is and besides you can get alts and if other alliance comes to the fight that would help to avoid this.
Maybe if there was a way to differentiate between "friendly" locks and "hostile" locks this idea would work but imo it would just be to silly to have "friendly" locks not interfere with "hostile".
Edit: The biggest problem is the amount of damage compared to tanking ability of ships. Tbh I'm not sure that boosting defences would help all that much people would probably just point more guns to that ship.
gang, corp, alliance members...all have flags right now as being friendly..
"it's like Hee Haw in space..."
|
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 13:41:00 -
[12]
I think there should be a lockbreaking module that you can only use every five minuites or so that will instantly kill all locks on you.
It could be like a phasing cloak that phases you out of existence for only second or so, but long enough to break locks, or a kind of futuristic smoke granade launcher that spews a large cloud of antimatter, charged particles and burning magnesium into space around you.
The disadvantage would be that it would break your own locks too, and give you the same recalibration penulty a cloak gives you (So in 1on1 = lose)
That would discourage mass locking because then the target would hit their lockbreaker and get out of there before he is locked up again, or maybe he has a second lockbreaker and just starts wasting your time...
However, if only one or two enemies have the target locked up hiting the lockbreaker would be a waste, since once you don't have any recharged ones anymore the enemy fleet can gank you just like it would otherwise unless you warp out.
Also I think that resistance and HP mods need some serious changes to be equally effective as a gankship.
Range across the board has to be reduced. No ship should have significantly higher range then 100km at most. The extreme ranges you can get with various setups are really one of the biggest problems, the battles in Eve were clearly never intendeded to be fought over 150km and more, otherwise there would be apropriate warp ins...
|
Gabriel Karade
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 13:44:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 23/04/2005 13:44:46
Well not wanting to draw direct RL comparisons but...I think you have it the wrong way round.
It would be more interesting and realistic if putting a ship under fire significantly reduced its effectiveness (perhaps through a significant reduction in turret accuracy thus affecting damage).
If this was implemented then rather than focusing all fire on one ship all the time you (fleet commander) would want to keep as many enemies engaged as possible otherwise the unengaged enemy ships can lay down 100% effective fire on your fleet without any reduction in return.
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) "That's no ordinary rabbit!...that's the most foul, cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on" |
Tobiaz
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 14:31:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 23/04/2005 13:44:46
Well not wanting to draw direct RL comparisons but...I think you have it the wrong way round.
It would be more interesting and realistic if putting a ship under fire significantly reduced its effectiveness (perhaps through a significant reduction in turret accuracy thus affecting damage).
If this was implemented then rather than focusing all fire on one ship all the time you (fleet commander) would want to keep as many enemies engaged as possible otherwise the unengaged enemy ships can lay down 100% effective fire on your fleet without any reduction in return.
That sounds nice indeed.
|
Bentguru
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 14:35:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Bentguru on 23/04/2005 14:34:49
it's done that way simply because it is more effective to mass target and destroy 1 ship then have a general melee. Increasing the HP of ships wont change that, it will just take a few extra seconds for them to die under the massed fire.
Now if a ship under fire lost effectiveness or actually took damage to it's moduals (something already in game but not really used) that reduced their effectiveness that could make it better to target multiple ships..
|
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 14:39:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Noriath on 23/04/2005 14:40:02
Originally by: Bentguru
it's done that way simply because it is more effective to mass target and destroy 1 ship then have a general melee. Increasing the HP of ships wont change that, it will just take a few extra seconds for them to die under the massed fire.
Well, as one person pointed out already, in real life you never target only one enemy, because an enemy that isn't taking fire is about ten times more dangerous then one that can't take his sweet time to shoot back.
Would be interesting if the game could reflect something like that acctually...
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 14:39:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Selim on 23/04/2005 14:40:21
Originally by: Tobiaz
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 23/04/2005 13:44:46
Well not wanting to draw direct RL comparisons but...I think you have it the wrong way round.
It would be more interesting and realistic if putting a ship under fire significantly reduced its effectiveness (perhaps through a significant reduction in turret accuracy thus affecting damage).
If this was implemented then rather than focusing all fire on one ship all the time you (fleet commander) would want to keep as many enemies engaged as possible otherwise the unengaged enemy ships can lay down 100% effective fire on your fleet without any reduction in return.
That sounds nice indeed.
Aye, that does sound nice. Maybe once you get past the shields, it would start hurting some part of the ship? Sensors, reducing its damage, etc. But only a little to armor... once you get to hull it would start hurting alot. Hull should be increased by a large factor, in my opinion.
Although an easier solution would be to make tanking alot better. It shouldn't last any longer, but it should repair alot more per cycle than it does now. That way, alot more people would fit boosters/repairers to their ships.
The only downside to that is that it would hurt gank setups alot, but... personally, I see that as an upside. Gank setups are fun, but they make combat dull.
|
Allen Deckard
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 14:42:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 23/04/2005 13:44:46
Well not wanting to draw direct RL comparisons but...I think you have it the wrong way round.
It would be more interesting and realistic if putting a ship under fire significantly reduced its effectiveness (perhaps through a significant reduction in turret accuracy thus affecting damage).
If this was implemented then rather than focusing all fire on one ship all the time you (fleet commander) would want to keep as many enemies engaged as possible otherwise the unengaged enemy ships can lay down 100% effective fire on your fleet without any reduction in return.
Yes I like this add to this it would also make npc fighting more interesting.
|
Ardor
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 14:47:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Dukath
When i think fleet battles I really envision something else. I see smaller pockets of ships fighting each other at different places. Ships moving into position to get better shots, not this mindless mass targetting we currently have.
I agree.
I disagree with some of your solutions, though
1.) minimum warp distance.
Bad idea. I think covert ops should have this role in fleet battles. Warping to gangmates is a nice tactic available for both opponents. The one with the better battle overview and leadership gets the advantage. It also gives fast fregates or covert ops another significant role beside tackling.
2) falloff reduction.
I dont think this is necessary. Falloff is one part of turret balance. I think about falloff for autocannons and blasters. Some races have advantages shortrange, others longrange. This change would nerf the minnies too much. Sniper setups are a valid tactic and are vulnerable to close warp in (see point 1).
3) Getting into warp with twice normal speed and sig penalty.
I see your idea but I have not made up my mind.
4) A ship under fire gets his sig radius reduced by a faction of the incoming fire.
A very good idea. Wouldnt work with current missile mechanics, though.
I once wrote something similar in the idea forum. My idea was to give ships attack and defence values. Depending on values ships are allowed to attack other ships. Example: Battleship defence value = 10. Battleship attack value = 5. Cruiser attack value = 4, frig attack value = 1. Only 2 battleships would be allowed to fight another battleship (10 - 2*5), or 10 frigs would be allowed (10 - 10*1) and so on. A 1:1 always shoud be possible so that a single battleship still could attack a fregate even if the defence value of the fregate would be below 5. This would leave an advantage for the attacker if he outnumbers an opponent but would greatly decrease ganking tactics.
|
Sorja
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 16:25:00 -
[20]
While I wholeheartedly agree with the original poster and what make fleet battle ininteresting, I strongly disagree with the proposed solutions (the first one meaning you could remove covert ops all together from the game).
The only solution I see and that would be logicial is the removal of stacked damage mods.
A gankaship does twice the damage of a 'normal' setup.
For that reason the devs have tried to increase the hitpoints of the ships, and realized it was a nonsense since it wouldn't solve anything and would on the contrary nullify the interest of shield or armor tanking.
Make it so damage mods can not stack and you solve most of the problems we face now, if not all.
This would also allow missile ships to partake in battles, btw.
|
Hotice
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 16:52:00 -
[21]
Noble idea but you have to realize that large scale battle is all about ganking. Focus fire, target selection and ship placment all designed to take down ships asap. There are ways to reduce lost in large battle and is called tactics.
It is the fine part of fleet battle and hard to master. That is why all you see is two sides line up and fire on each other. I can be much more than that but require a lot of practice and time. Since we all busy with our real life things, wars in game are mostly fought with least amount of practice. 
|
Scoobee
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 17:18:00 -
[22]
What happened to that planned change of like doubling or tripiling certain ship hp's. Did CCP scrap it or push it back? I think it would help greatly
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Yeah well you are about to not have a mouth, I mean it, I'll rip it off!
|
Harry Voyager
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 17:55:00 -
[23]
THe problem with trying to "fix" fleet ganking is that is exactly how fleet warfare works in real life too. During WWII, when the US Navy was trying to sink the Yamoto, they concentrated fire. Just about every ship and every bomber and every torpedo wing in the fleet was focus firing on it.
Remember, that ship ended up taking something on the order of six torpedoes and around a dozen 1000lb bombs before going down. That's a lot of really big holes in that giant air bubble.
In the sail era, if I recall correctly, they couldn't concentrate fire, simply because communication was so poor. But, they certainly tried to, using a line of "Ship-of-the-Line" class warships (think battleships) to produce, essentially, a gigantic broadside at their target. Come to think of it, I believe they are least tried to coordinate targets, but I suspect it tended to end up with cannonballs everywhere.
Fire coordination is a time honoured tradition of any effective fighting force. This is not something that sprouted up just because of Eve.
Harry Voayger
|
Hast
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 17:55:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Scoobee
What happened to that planned change of like doubling or tripiling certain ship hp's. Did CCP scrap it or push it back? I think it would help greatly
they scrapped it because it would unbalance the game too much... in the ship VS ship sense.
it wasnt for example fair that the amarr and caldari got +100% hp to their favored hardened hp while the gallente got loads of structure 
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 18:09:00 -
[25]
again... making shield boosters and armor repairers repair alot more per cycle would certainly fix things.
However they would have to increase the cap use of armor repairers for example, so they could not be run forever on something like an apoc. At the moment tanking is very screwed up in terms of usefulness as well as cap usage. Tanking should not last forever on any ship, but it should repair a crapload before going down.
|
Shamen
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 18:18:00 -
[26]
CCP went around increasing ships HP totaly the wrong way. They allocated certain races certain boosts while slapping other races with nothing but structure.
DOUBLE ALL BATTLESHIPS HP! Problem solved. Double shields, double armour, double structure.
Remove stacking of damage modules - any more than 2 will be useless
Remove stacking of Armour/shield hardeners - any more than 1 of the same type is useless.
INCREASE ranges on guns, long range fights last longer, its a simple fact of this game. Increasing range will increase fleet battles.
What this would create is - You'd actually be able to activate tanking modules and allow them to work before you die in a fleet battle - Less damage given by ships in fleet battles - Less tanking capabilities for ships.
Shamen
_______________________
Vengeance Of The Fallen
Shamen - Captain & Forum warrior |
Dukath
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 18:34:00 -
[27]
I'm not really happy about the 'increase repairers thingy'. At the moment eve if simply too much reliant on not having lag. Increasing repairers wont change that. I've lagged out and be killed before being able to activate a single module too much to believe increasing a modules ability will change any of that.
I admit increasing the minimum warp distance might make covops a bit less usefull, but to be honest i've thought about covops more a ship for the initial placement.
Increasing hit points is something i'd like if it could be balances cap wise, which i think will be very hard.
As for that real life example... well there is some merit in that, but it also brings my own points into play a bit. None of those ships in WWII were good at such varied ranges, nor do i believe the start till finish of the whole gank took less than 5 seconds, which can happen in eve online.
Remember this is a game, building up a fleet battle for 2 hours to then die in the first 5 seconds, most of the time completely lagged out is not fun, its only frustrating. The changes i'm suggesting will make fleet combat a lot more tactical, they will make the chance of dying in 5 seconds a lot less likely, they will make choosing positions a lot more important since your guns will be severely limited in effective range. If you want to gank someone it will still be possible, only your own ships will all have to be at optimal range. which also means that if all your ships have the same range you will be vulnerable to a fleet at different range.
I've thought about simply limiting the amount of ships that can lock a certain ship. But there are simply too many ways to exploit this that it can't work. What I am suggesting is a solution i think will work without giving any ways to exploit this.
|
Gabriel Karade
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 20:00:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Harry Voyager
THe problem with trying to "fix" fleet ganking is that is exactly how fleet warfare works in real life too. During WWII, when the US Navy was trying to sink the Yamoto, they concentrated fire. Just about every ship and every bomber and every torpedo wing in the fleet was focus firing on it.
Well, bringing RL analogies into this you could consider the Battle of Jutland (the last major Battleship vs. Battleship engagement) for the exact opposite, i.e. examples of allocating fire to keep every ship engaged rather than focusing on one enemy vessel. Particularly the skirmish involving British/German Battlecruisers and the loss of Indefatigable and Queen Mary.
It would be both realistic and more interesting if in Eve there was a real penalty for ignoring 99% of enemy vessels in a fleet just to hit one ship (the unengaged enemy ships have free reign to shoot you at full effectiveness).
It gets a bit boring with "primary is..." *ship warps out* "Primary is... *ship warps out* e.t.c e.t.c
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) "That's no ordinary rabbit!...that's the most foul, cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on" |
Danton Marcellus
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 20:13:00 -
[29]
Firing less accurate while under attack would be great, that's what I thought it was all about when gunnery skills were willpower based.
Now there would be a new area of skills relying on willpower opening up here for blockaderunner and fighter pilots alike, willpower based of course where their modules work at their very best despite being under fire.
Convert Stations
|
Sorja
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 20:21:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Sorja on 23/04/2005 20:23:22
Originally by: Selim
making shield boosters and armor repairers repair alot more per cycle would certainly fix things.
That would unbalance NPCing.
While removing damage mod stacking wouldn't unbalance anything and would achieve the same result.
For the same reasons, HP increase DO NOT work because it unbalances the game and make tanking pretty useless compared to 7 low damage mods.
But, of course, most people do not want to see the gankaships nerfed because it's soooo ³ber to sit 160km away blasting stuff at no other other risk than a covert ops.
Like in many games, many people don't want to fight in EVE, they want to win, whatever the means.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |