| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Noriath
   |
Posted - 2005.06.18 16:46:00 -
[91]
What really needs to be done is to decrease the rate of fire on all guns drastically, and the cycle time of tanking mods too.
The biggest problem with PvP is not that you can kill people fast. The real problem is that moving around the battlefield is too slow to really make a difference.
Sitting at your aproximate optimal, already warp aligned will in 99% of the cases suffice to win a battle. There is just no reason to ever even move your ship, and movement is completly pointless, because in the time it takes to haul a battleship over 60-100km you can just as well destroy it.
The amount of damage ships can inflict and repair has to be much lower in general, so moving around on the battlefield becomes more important. Right now speed is not even in the equation for how good battleships are. Who gives a crap that Minmatar battleships are fast, as soon as you're in a fight they don't move anyways.
In my opinion instead of increasing the damage a battleship can take in general, what needs to be increased is the time it takes to inflict, or repair damage. That way there is still a point in moving a ship, because you won't be space debris by the time you get to where you're going.
Warping should take much longer also. It's completly ridiculous that its a hopelessly lost cause to move your ship out of harms way under engines, but warping our is childs play if you're pre aligned...
|
God forbid
|
Posted - 2005.06.18 16:50:00 -
[92]
I say come with more skills for tanking and better items for tanking so guys can be l337 on that too just like dmg.. :)
BLEH!! |
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.06.18 16:56:00 -
[93]
If activetanking gets better you acctually make the problem worse, because then lower damage setups can compete even less.
Think about it:
Ship A does 100 damage every second
Ship B does 110 damage every second
Both are shooting ship C which can tank 90 points of damage every second.
Now while ship B only does 10% more damage on the first glance.
When you substract the damage tanked ship A can only do 10 points per second, and ship B 20, which means it does twice the damage!
Active tanking is one of the main culprits in this crisis we have with high damage setups completly dominating because of exactly that effect. Instead of helping tankers, active tanks are compounding the problem by making the real difference in damage even bigger then it already is!
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2005.06.18 17:05:00 -
[94]
 Originally by: Noriath
What really needs to be done is to decrease the rate of fire on all guns drastically, and the cycle time of tanking mods too.
The biggest problem with PvP is not that you can kill people fast. The real problem is that moving around the battlefield is too slow to really make a difference.
Sitting at your aproximate optimal, already warp aligned will in 99% of the cases suffice to win a battle. There is just no reason to ever even move your ship, and movement is completly pointless, because in the time it takes to haul a battleship over 60-100km you can just as well destroy it.
The amount of damage ships can inflict and repair has to be much lower in general, so moving around on the battlefield becomes more important. Right now speed is not even in the equation for how good battleships are. Who gives a crap that Minmatar battleships are fast, as soon as you're in a fight they don't move anyways.
In my opinion instead of increasing the damage a battleship can take in general, what needs to be increased is the time it takes to inflict, or repair damage. That way there is still a point in moving a ship, because you won't be space debris by the time you get to where you're going.
Warping should take much longer also. It's completly ridiculous that its a hopelessly lost cause to move your ship out of harms way under engines, but warping our is childs play if you're pre aligned...
I like this suggestion. Others have suggesting lowering ROF considerably but not tanking as well. If that was done battles would take longer since the total HP of ships would play into the equation, not just active tanking repair capacity. And yes mobility would be more of a factor. Not to mention it would give some time to actually switch ammo during a fight, as well as reason to (your enemy might move out of range).
|
xaioguai
|
Posted - 2005.06.18 17:32:00 -
[95]
Edited by: xaioguai on 18/06/2005 17:33:31
Originally by: slip66
For those who say that tanking would need to be nerfed if the damage mods are reduced to 1 are wrong IMO. There are still allot of variables, skills being one of the biggest. Sure if you had two guys with the exact same setups that had the same DPS and tanking ability & skills you would have a draw.
Whats wrong with that? You meet your equal thats all. There are thousands of others who arent. Tanking has pretty much stayed the at the same lvl for a long while now. Even before t2 skills and guns were in the game. Things still died by the thousands.
I realize not everyone has been playing this game since it started. So you dont have any memories of how fun the fights used to be and how they were still cool even if they took longer to find a winner.
The easiest fix IMO is to reduce the stacking mods to 1. This will help out allot by reducing the sniper fleets and taking the insta ganks out. Combined with a HP boost this will help to rebalance the game.
nice~~~
my new setup of tempest will be 1 Gyro2, 2 PDU2 and 3 WCS 
|
Nomen Nescio
|
Posted - 2005.06.18 18:35:00 -
[96]
You can't make battles more fun with reduction of damage and HP boosts.
IF YOU CAN'T MAKE PEOPLE STAY = GANKING IS THE ONLY WAY!
Nerf wcs and boost scrambling. Bs should hold another bs at 100km to make it a fight. Overwise some1 will always flee.
|
Toshiro Khan
|
Posted - 2005.06.18 19:16:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Nomen Nescio
You can't make battles more fun with reduction of damage and HP boosts.
IF YOU CAN'T MAKE PEOPLE STAY = GANKING IS THE ONLY WAY!
Nerf wcs and boost scrambling. Bs should hold another bs at 100km to make it a fight. Overwise some1 will always flee.
 Even though like so many i have a big dislike for WCS.. they are part of the game, and a defence against scramlers.. so sure, nerf wcs, but how about we have fitting a scrambler reduces your RoF by 80%, also make the scramblers ships sized... i.e frigs can only scramble frigs and so on.. after all a lot of close range gankships use scramblers .. i.e the gank-a-thron.
And whats wrong with someone fleeing? After alll in most if not all engagments if your target flee's the area of combats, the effect is the same.. in small group engagments, his action of running away means his groups firepower is reduced.
Plus since the majority of ships that scramble in group/fleet engagements are frigs, Stabs are fine the way they are the same as scrambling is.. but when the scrambling over haul comes in, things will change but thats a different story and like the on going bit about people crying nerf WCS it belongs on a seperate thread.
Also having read your arguments on this topic, i can only take a guess at your a raven pilot.. as you seem very keen to get rid of sniper ships.
maybe all thats really needed is something like, reducing that amount of damage mods, a ship can use.. say 50% of the low slots rounded down
|
Shamis Orzoz
|
Posted - 2005.06.18 19:29:00 -
[98]
Edited by: Shamis Orzoz on 18/06/2005 19:30:32
I don't think Warp Core Stabs have anything to do with this discussion. Most of the people that gank, don't do it because they can't warp scramble, they do it because gank setups just work better.
2 Gankageddons vs 2 Blasterthrons....
Unless the blasterthrons come out right on top of these guys they are doomed, especially if the gankageddons are spaced apart from each other. If you are using a gank setup, you don't have to move from target to target, you just insta lock and shoot, and if that target isn't aligned...lets just say he was approaching with a MWD on, he's gonna die before he can even align to go to warp.
What would motivate the geddons in this example to fit for max dmg? It has nothing to do with wcs, it has everything to do with focusing fire instantaneously and switching targets instantaneously, and hitting really damn hard.
|
Shirei
|
Posted - 2005.06.18 21:05:00 -
[99]
Edited by: Shirei on 18/06/2005 21:06:56
Why not just increase fitting requirements (especially CPU) for damage mods. CPU is quite scarce on many gank ships (especially the Armageddon), so it could help alleviate the problem a bit without making gank set-ups completely unviable.
It's not a good idea to completely turn around balance to make gank ships unviable for PvP. They should remain a valid and working choice, but other options need to become more competitive with them for situations other than 1v1.
|
Nomen Nescio
|
Posted - 2005.06.18 21:16:00 -
[100]
If you increase fitgin for damage mods, smaller ships wont be able to use even 1. While bs still be able to mount quitte a lot.
|
Nomen Nescio
|
Posted - 2005.06.18 21:20:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Shamis Orzoz
Edited by: Shamis Orzoz on 18/06/2005 19:30:32
I don't think Warp Core Stabs have anything to do with this discussion. Most of the people that gank, don't do it because they can't warp scramble, they do it because gank setups just work better.
2 Gankageddons vs 2 Blasterthrons....
Unless the blasterthrons come out right on top of these guys they are doomed, especially if the gankageddons are spaced apart from each other. If you are using a gank setup, you don't have to move from target to target, you just insta lock and shoot, and if that target isn't aligned...lets just say he was approaching with a MWD on, he's gonna die before he can even align to go to warp.
What would motivate the geddons in this example to fit for max dmg? It has nothing to do with wcs, it has everything to do with focusing fire instantaneously and switching targets instantaneously, and hitting really damn hard.
Hm, how about we make a change - damage mods reduce scan resolution, so gankers wont be able to lock fast? Do you think it will solve the problem of blasterboat charging on ganker squad? Not to mention that they should give penalty to tracking anyway.
|
Toshiro Khan
|
Posted - 2005.06.18 22:53:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Nomen Nescio
Originally by: Shamis Orzoz
Edited by: Shamis Orzoz on 18/06/2005 19:30:32
I don't think Warp Core Stabs have anything to do with this discussion. Most of the people that gank, don't do it because they can't warp scramble, they do it because gank setups just work better.
2 Gankageddons vs 2 Blasterthrons....
Unless the blasterthrons come out right on top of these guys they are doomed, especially if the gankageddons are spaced apart from each other. If you are using a gank setup, you don't have to move from target to target, you just insta lock and shoot, and if that target isn't aligned...lets just say he was approaching with a MWD on, he's gonna die before he can even align to go to warp.
What would motivate the geddons in this example to fit for max dmg? It has nothing to do with wcs, it has everything to do with focusing fire instantaneously and switching targets instantaneously, and hitting really damn hard.
Hm, how about we make a change - damage mods reduce scan resolution, so gankers wont be able to lock fast? Do you think it will solve the problem of blasterboat charging on ganker squad? Not to mention that they should give penalty to tracking anyway.
And how would fitting BC's work? being missles as they don't rely on tracking?
Scan resolution penalty from damage mods is fine, but would woul;d the secondary penalty be for missle users and BCs?
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.06.18 23:00:00 -
[103]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 18/06/2005 23:00:45
Originally by: Nomen Nescio
Originally by: Shamis Orzoz
Edited by: Shamis Orzoz on 18/06/2005 19:30:32
I don't think Warp Core Stabs have anything to do with this discussion. Most of the people that gank, don't do it because they can't warp scramble, they do it because gank setups just work better.
2 Gankageddons vs 2 Blasterthrons....
Unless the blasterthrons come out right on top of these guys they are doomed, especially if the gankageddons are spaced apart from each other. If you are using a gank setup, you don't have to move from target to target, you just insta lock and shoot, and if that target isn't aligned...lets just say he was approaching with a MWD on, he's gonna die before he can even align to go to warp.
What would motivate the geddons in this example to fit for max dmg? It has nothing to do with wcs, it has everything to do with focusing fire instantaneously and switching targets instantaneously, and hitting really damn hard.
Hm, how about we make a change - damage mods reduce scan resolution, so gankers wont be able to lock fast? Do you think it will solve the problem of blasterboat charging on ganker squad? Not to mention that they should give penalty to tracking anyway.
So they'll mount 3 sensor boosters rather than 2. Big whoop. Hit em where it hurts - RANGE. And no, it'll let the blasterboat survive for the 2 seconds more they need to lock.
"As far as I can tell, It doesn't matter who you are, If you can believe there's something worth fighting for " - Garbage, "Parade" |
dabster
|
Posted - 2005.06.18 23:26:00 -
[104]
Edited by: dabster on 18/06/2005 23:26:38
Simply making it impossible to online more than 1 dmg mod on a ship, would surely help loads. It would obviously also open up for more tactics and variety in setups => more fun.
___________________________
Chicks dig Brutor's |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.06.18 23:29:00 -
[105]
Fine. Make it impossible to online more than one of ANY module then. Makes perfect sense from the "diversity" standpoint. Or find a sensible soloution. (hint: something which dosn't require 6 months of dev-time would be a good idea - one damage mod would require rebalancing half the modules in the game..)
"As far as I can tell, It doesn't matter who you are, If you can believe there's something worth fighting for " - Garbage, "Parade" |
Nifel
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 00:01:00 -
[106]
I think I'd like the stacking penalty on the rof bonus work differently instead. I'd really hate to only have one damage module per ship restrictions :\. Half the fun with EVE combat is fitting and limiting the ways you can fit limits that.
Get some of the math geniuses work on it. I suck at it :p.
"We wield swords for the sound of laughter that used to be there long ago." |
Linavin
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 01:51:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Fine. Make it impossible to online more than one of ANY module then. Makes perfect sense from the "diversity" standpoint. Or find a sensible soloution. (hint: something which dosn't require 6 months of dev-time would be a good idea - one damage mod would require rebalancing half the modules in the game..)
Im still confused by your reasoning here, can you tell us exactly how restriction on damage mods directly connects to the overpowering or underpowering of half the other games modules?
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 03:01:00 -
[108]
Okay. You've reduced damage mods to 1 slot. What ELSE are you going to mount? You need to then rebalance all the other mods arround that. A major change to game systems like this WITHOUT a major rebalance leads to further imbalances. Like the current sniper supreme, very nearly ONLY long-range fleet combat rubbish.
Say NO to target painters |
Dreez
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 03:09:00 -
[109]
I agree with Kayo on this, PvP has become all about who
locks fastest and who got the most dmg-mods.
The best way to fix this would be to limit the amount of
dmg-mods to 1/ship. Eventhou i myself use setups with 4+
mods im acually liknin this idÚa very much since it would
bring back the old school PvP into EVE where tactics won the
fight, not the dmg-mods.
/signed.
'Trying to argue logically with Evol is like trying to teach a pig to dance. It only makes you look foolish and really annoys the pig ' - Duke Droklar [OC]
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 03:11:00 -
[110]
Tactics? Oh, you mean WCS.
Limiting damage mods to one is arbitrary, will further screw game balance, and I'll support it the day ALL modules are limited to one.
Say NO to target painters |
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 03:13:00 -
[111]
Edited by: Noriath on 19/06/2005 03:16:24
Originally by: Shamis Orzoz
2 Gankageddons vs 2 Blasterthrons....
Unless the blasterthrons come out right on top of these guys they are doomed, especially if the gankageddons are spaced apart from each other. If you are using a gank setup, you don't have to move from target to target, you just insta lock and shoot, and if that target isn't aligned...lets just say he was approaching with a MWD on, he's gonna die before he can even align to go to warp.
That's exactly why the speed of damage dealing, tanking and warping out has to be slowed. Ship movement simply isn't worth jack right now, and that's the biggest problem really.
If getting to your optimal is more possible before you die then for one the ship that goes faster has an advantage, whereas right now the speed of a battleship is completly irrelevant to its fighting strength, and also a ship that can fight only a little longer may already be a threat, because if it doesn't start out at its optimal range it won't be dead when it gets there.
Right now any ship will be dead by the time it has closed on another ship or gained some distance, and warping is so fast that just sitting around, already aligned gives you the best chance of escaping from a battle. Sitting in one place not moving is the best way to avoid damage? uhu...
Do you guys really think gankships would be so great if a Blasterthron or Raven could make a run on one from 100km and acctually still be alive by the time it gets there? What if warping would take long enough that people who just sit still don't acctually have a better chance to escape then people who try to move their ship out of danger before they attempt to go to warp...
|
Dreez
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 03:14:00 -
[112]
I assume with WCS you are refering to WarCore Stabs. And i
would have no problem whatsoever if they were also limited
to 2/ship - i myself never use¦em , waste of lowslots  .
'Trying to argue logically with Evol is like trying to teach a pig to dance. It only makes you look foolish and really annoys the pig ' - Duke Droklar [OC]
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 03:16:00 -
[113]
ALL modules to 1, Dreez. ALL.
Think about it. Yes, it's ridiculous but I really do think the suggestion's that silly.
We have enough trouble lingering from the other 1 module change (MWD/AB)
Say NO to target painters |
Worf McDuck
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 05:26:00 -
[114]
The problem is mainly with certain types of modules stacking: sensor boosters overcome the intended drawback of long locks on battleships. Damage mods resulting in ridiculous damage outputs.
Generally, yes, considering these long range gank setups put you out of range of any countermeasures while allowing ridiculous amounts of damage, it's just getting absurd how much damage these setups do.
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 05:30:00 -
[115]
Ultimately, I think the single best solution is a penalty to optimal range on damage mods (and velocity/flight time on ballistics).
It solves all the problems of long-range ganking while not hurting short range (at least not much, anyway)
|
Grim Vandal
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 06:58:00 -
[116]
actually this is a pretty damn difficult change...
first of all IF you restrict the use of more than 1 or 2 dmg mods and you boost tanking than MANY setups will NOT be able to break a tank anymore...
while 1v1 are a very rare sight I still think that 1 ship should be able to kill anotherone no matter their tanking ability or dot... the only factor should be time... it either takes you more or less...
atm we face the problem of ships outtanking the "normal setups" , while this rather is a problem of tiny groups = 1-3 ships I still think it should be possible to break any tank no matter your dot...
eg. an eagle should definately be able to kill a sacrilege with 4rails and no dmg mods... this aint possible with the current tanking system... and it would be even worse if we would not be allowed to use more than 1-2 dmg mods and while we boost tanking as well...
this specific problem actually makes it IMPOSSIBLE to introduce assault battleships... cuz these things would prolly outtank any other given ship out there and probably even another assault battleship... while they of course should be hard nuggets to cr4ack ...
anyway this is my proposal:
penalize the use of armor reps and shield boosters during a fight = IF you recive any sort of aggression these modules should be downgraded in their efficiency...
eg.: -70% efficiency if you fight...
the same for remote boosters and reppers EXCEPT on logistic cruisers which should always stay to be able to remote boost for 100%!
NOW apply the HP boost which should be straight 3x hps...
dont forget to change the shield recharge rate as well...
prolly needs to be 10 times as much as today... cuz it will be more efficient than activ boosting...
and now boost the armor platings and shield extenders with 10x their current TQ hitpoints eg. 16 000 hp bonus for 1600 mm plating ... --> we may need to restrict these mods to ship classes ...
anyway these changes will shift the tanking system to:
more hps are better than more reppers =
max hp > hp/sec
eg. apoc tank:
lows:
5 hardeners
3 1600mm plates
or
4 hardeners
3 1600mm plates
1 large armor rep (-70% eff. in fights)
would give about the following stats:
shield: 15 000 hp
armor: 63 000 hp
hull: 15 000 hp
lets take an average resistance of 65%... for armor
average of 25% for shields...
(easier to calculate that way)
now lets take a ship setup which does 200 dot
takes: 100 secs to take down the apocs shield
takes: over 15 minutes to take down the armor
takes: 75 secs to down the hull
THIS MAY LOOKS PRETTY LONG BUT READ ON!!!
a current 200 raw dot setup WOULD NOT AT ALL BE ABLE TO BREAK AN APOCs TANK... cuz the apoc would just restore more hps than the 200 dot setup would do...
so again with the changes above the apoc would die IF you shoot him long enough while at the moment you wouldnt be able to kill him at all since he simply outtanks you forever no matter how long you shoot him...
anyway I'll take a gank setup now:
raw dot: 1000
same apoc again:
shield: lasts 20 secs
armor: lasts 185 secs
hull: lasts 15 secs
is a total of 220 secs = over 3 and a half minute!!!
while a current TQ apoc tank would last:
shield: 5 000 hp
armor: 5 000 hp
hull: 5 000 hp
25% shield res
65 % armor res and 128 hp/sec
shield: lasts 6.6 secs
armor: lasts 22.5 secs
hull: lasts 5 secs
this is a total of 34,1 secs... to kill it
the difference is more than 600%
so again: this change allows even low dot ships to break a tank where the only limit is time while it also considerably boost the survivability vs gank setups... 34 secs vs 220 secs is nearly a 650% longer survivability vs gank setups...
the issues which evolved are already beeing dealt with like:
log off timer
instant jump bookmarks
at last: you do have noticed the VALUE a logistic cruiser will have, dont ya  . (resistance boost is needed as well tho for the logistics)
ps: the base hp values were set to 5000 for each attribute to ease the calculations...
Greetings Grim |
Emeline Cabernet
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 07:29:00 -
[117]
Edited by: Emeline Cabernet on 19/06/2005 07:31:23
Dmg is too high atm. Tanking isn't an option.
And to the idiot who pointed out that apoc had 8 highslots.. gee thanks. guess noone here knew that.
oh and good luck getting a setup with 8 tachyon t2 you retard
|
Renox
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 08:23:00 -
[118]
limiting the nr of dam mods or any modules is BAD. Much of the fun in this game is the ability and freedom to setup your ship in any crazy awy you like. Limiting the number of setups possible through "artificial" limitations like 1 dam mods per ship removes that flexibility and simply makes the game less interesting.
Some kind of penalty on dam mods would be better.
"
While Celestial Apoc is filled with smack talking, safespot hugging, gate cudling, empire war exploiting |
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 09:36:00 -
[119]
Active tanking needs to be nerfed along with ganking, or nothing gets any better,
The problem is that tankbreaking is really where it's at with active tanking being as powerful as it is. If you can't deal more damage then your oponent can tank then you're not going to win the fight, no matter what you do.
Active tanking needs to die. Repairing a ship should be exactly that - repairing a ship after it has taken damage from a battle, not making it magically not take any damage.
What really needs a boost is the importance of HP. right now even an increase wouldn't do much. On the contrary, it would make non-tanked ships tougher, while active tanked ships would still die too fast for it to really make a difference. What has to be made effective is HP tanking. In fact, it should be more effective then active tanking, since a pure HP tank wouldn't be able to repair itself without help from another ship.
|
CptEagle
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 09:48:00 -
[120]
I'd say its pretty simple, just double all hitpoints of BS's and prolly cruisers and BC's as well.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |