| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aelius
   |
Posted - 2005.04.30 10:04:00 -
[1]
I have always seen fleet battles as "the ones with greater numbers always wins" mainly because in each fleet battle each side picks up an target and concentrate all the fleet firepower upon it.
This way a player can go into battle and in a split second have his ship destroyed without a chance to even activate his modules 1 time.
My sujection is easy and perhaps a revolutionary idea that, if implemented, would change the fleet battles for better (WAY BETTER) and lots of more fun to be in one.
CCP or the Devs could introduce a (honor) code of engagement of somekind or make up a RP guide line to do this.
The idea is the following. Each ship at an any given moment can only be targeted by 3 max (same type) enemy ships. If a 4th ship trys to target that solo ship it would receive a message saying "Current target has already 3 ships of same type targeting it, you are in violation of the honor code of engagement. Do you wish to continue?".
Breaking that code would issue a security hit on the player that does it EVEN in 0.0 space.
The next table will show you what i mean:
1 BS  2 enemy BS could target him
1 BS = 2 Battlecruisers = 3 Cruisers = 4 Destroyers = 5 Frigates
These are just reference numbers and someone in CCP could take care of the balance issues.
The idea is clear, to induce a more fun duel between members of the fleet battle, not just "concentrate all your firepower on that poor guy"
Your comments?
Selling Raven BPC ME20 3M at Yulai 1st Station |
Meehan
|
Posted - 2005.04.30 10:06:00 -
[2]
Bad idea.
|
Gan Howorth
|
Posted - 2005.04.30 10:09:00 -
[3]
I lked the idea that was touched on in the last thread on this topic. Make it so that the sig radius of the ship is reduced according to how many ships are targetting it.
I added an extra idea of basing this on the sensor stregth of the ships tagetting the ship and rducing the sig based on by how much the combined sensor strength of attacking ships exceeds the target ship's sensor strength times a <number to be determined.. 3 or so>.
This would make it more fleet efficient for ships to attack ships of similar size/sensor stregth and not in great numbers...e.g. not 5 bs vs 1 cruiser. Larger ships would leave their fighter screens to deal with attacking fighter ships as getting involved would mess up the attack for all concerned.
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.04.30 10:11:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Aelius
I have always seen fleet battles as "the ones with greater numbers always wins"
Artificial limits suck, so I wouldn't want to see this in game.
Besides you're idea of fleet battle is demonstrably false. I've been in many many battles where "my side" was outnumbered and we pasted the enemy 
Fleets battle is NOT just about greater numbers.
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.04.30 10:14:00 -
[5]
IMHO just give every ship 10k more hull flat, would give you more warping time and maybe it will help out
my other suggestion is to reduce weapon damage by about 80%
Wanna fly with me?
|
Balistic Void
|
Posted - 2005.04.30 10:32:00 -
[6]
What Nafri said. Structure and internal damage should be used more. I want to see battleships warping out with heavy damage, some of their primary weapons destroyed, leaking plasma etc
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.04.30 10:35:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Balistic Void
What Nafri said. Structure and internal damage should be used more. I want to see battleships warping out with heavy damage, some of their primary weapons destroyed, leaking plasma etc
yep, BS shouldnt explode at once, thy should get out of function and the repair costs for that should be high enouhg to make up
fights in BS which last 2 seconds are stupid
Wanna fly with me?
|
Gabriel Karade
|
Posted - 2005.04.30 10:38:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 30/04/2005 11:02:07
Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 30/04/2005 10:41:47
As I suggested in the previous thread, to make it both more realistic and fun:
A ship under fire takes a significant penalty to its weapon accuracy (and thus its damage output) dependant on the volume and calibre of the incoming fire (hits) (RP: A vessels targeting systems becoming temporarily scrambled, crew being rattled around, minor damage to ships systems, power fluctuations).
This instantly creates the need for competent target allocation; otherwise you end up with enemy vessels not taking fire and thus 100% effective. This also reduces the chances of support vessels getting insta-ganked, if the deprecation in effectiveness is based upon the calibre of incoming fire (e.g. a frigates fire has much less of an effect than Battleship fire) then you will possibly see them being picked on less as the Battleships square off against each other.
Adds a bit of extra spice in my opinion. There would of course still be situations where you would want to temporarily focus all fire on one target, this just makes it less desirable to do it all the time.
Edit: There would have to be a stacking penalty, so taking fire from one ship= X % reduced effectiveness, taking fire from two ships is not simply 2*X %
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) "That's no ordinary rabbit!...that's the most foul, cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on" |
Tobiaz
|
Posted - 2005.04.30 10:43:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
As I suggested in the previous thread, to make it both more realistic and fun:
A ship under fire takes a significant penalty to its weapon accuracy (and thus its damage output) dependant on the volume and calibre of the incoming fire (RP: A vessels targeting systems becoming temporarily scrambled, crew being rattled around, minor damage to ships systems, power fluctuations).
This instantly creates the need for competent target allocation; otherwise you end up with enemy vessels not taking fire and thus 100% effective. This also reduces the chances of support vessels getting insta-ganked, if the deprecation in effectiveness is based upon the calibre of incoming fire (e.g. a frigates fire has much less of an effect than Battleship fire) then you will possibly see them being picked on less as the Battleships square off against each other.
Adds a bit of extra spice in my opinion. There would of course still be situations where you would want to temporarily focus all fire on one target, this just makes it less desirable to do it all the time.
One thing though, If this is implemented this will only give even a larger advantage to larger fleets ove smaller ones.
I rather have a serious nerf of overall damage. Since the beginning of the game the damage output has been boosted much faster then the tanking output of the ships.
|
Aelius
|
Posted - 2005.04.30 10:46:00 -
[10]
You could also change the way fleet battles are fought. usually they are fought at a gate.
Huge numbers and lag still happen. It would be interesting to limite the number of ships at a current location.
Several task forces of each side would then be created to wage war in the planets that form the solar system. When i say limite i don't say limite to a small number but 200 ships at the same location often mean lots of lag.
You could still take control of a system waging medium fleet battles on several distinct locations troughout the solar system.
That way even a small task force could insure the control of a system even facing a more powerfull force. if they could take wave after wave of enemys task forces.
You could even create your own ELITE taskforce to try to take them out, chosing only your best pilots to the task.
Selling Raven BPC ME20 3M at Yulai 1st Station |
|
|
Gabriel Karade
|
Posted - 2005.04.30 10:53:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 30/04/2005 10:53:40
Originally by: Tobiaz
One thing though, If this is implemented this will only give even a larger advantage to larger fleets ove smaller ones.
I rather have a serious nerf of overall damage. Since the beginning of the game the damage output has been boosted much faster then the tanking output of the ships.
It depends on how 'large' and how 'small'. If the numbers arenÆt hideously stacked against the smaller fleet it would more come down to the competency of target allocation/the fleet commander(individual pilots too of course) and the effective use of force multipliers (EW).
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) "That's no ordinary rabbit!...that's the most foul, cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on" |
Xavier Arron
|
Posted - 2005.04.30 10:57:00 -
[12]
Originally by: mahhy
Artificial limits suck, so I wouldn't want to see this in game.
Besides you're idea of fleet battle is demonstrably false. I've been in many many battles where "my side" was outnumbered and we pasted the enemy
Fleets battle is NOT just about greater numbers.
Agreed. There is nothing worse than non-sense artificial limits imposed in games for what ever reason.
Game mechanics have to make sense to a degree and having a game mechanic which effectively pops up and says; - "Sorry, your enemy is currently engaged with 3 other enemies, please hold." - Just breaks all common sense and believability in the in game world for me.
If youÆre in a fight for your life, there is no honour.
|
Ishan Shade
|
Posted - 2005.04.30 10:59:00 -
[13]
I really don't see anything wrong with the way fleet battles are fought atm. Creating a hard cap on numbers is a REALLY BAD idea. This is because the whole point of a fleet battle would be nulified. The point being, to inflict financial damage to your opponent.
What's wrong with getting your BS shot down in a few seconds anyway? You're in a fleet battle, this means you have numbers... Chances are that you WON'T be the prime target. And if you are than that's to bad. If you are really worried that you might lose your ship, then for the love of god... DO NOT UNDOCK! 
Don't fly anything you can't afford to lose.
|
Ammonn Blac
|
Posted - 2005.04.30 11:30:00 -
[14]
Instead of putting artificial limits on the game, give people the counter-mechanism:
i.e. Useful Support Ships
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |