| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nyxus
   |
Posted - 2005.08.17 16:38:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Nyxus on 17/08/2005 16:39:08
Change current WCS and add another type of WCS
- Fitting a low slot stabbie still gives +1 strength but disables all high slots
- Introduce "Combat Warp Core Stabilizers" that are activated, require a high slot and reduce optimal range by 20%
]
Traveling setups and haulers go about thier business as before. Combat setups can use the CWCS but sacrifice a gun and weaker ammo to be able to run. No more 5 stabbie snipers.
Fight. Or Flight. Either or. Not Both.
Nxyus
|
Rivek
|
Posted - 2005.08.17 16:39:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: lythos miralbar
Quote:
Remove "average pilots in space in last 30 minutes" in 0.0.
Quote:
Remove the appearance of people in local in 0.0 entirely
if this happens it should happen for ALL systems in the universe, not just 0.0.
And, I remember about quite a while ago the map failed for a few days during the SE vs CA war. Both sides just made MASSIVE blobs and sat there. not knowing where the enemy was or what they were facing meant no one wanted to fight. Massive blobage / huge gankages was all that evolved from that day or so.
Be very carefull what you wish for, nerfing the map+local might have the exact opposite results to what you are hoping for.
Infact the one time this was implimented in the past (albeit accidently) exactly the opposite of what you are hoping for happened.
The typical response of sheep in a herd. Good players would respond with scouting and maybe even *gasp* smaller mobile strike groups to harrass the enemy and that could reform into a larger force when the time was right.
The initial shock of having no local, no pilots in space could certainly cause paralysis initially. But I think people would eventually figure it out. As it is now, what do we see? Agressor Blob forms, blob moves out toward its target, target forms a blob, both sides standoff and bring more and more reinformcements, server node crashes, half the people die, everyone petitions, forum whining commences.
----------------------------------------------
TunDraGon.com |
Earthan
|
Posted - 2005.08.17 16:40:00 -
[33]
Originally by: NoNameNewbie
think about this too:
why do we use gank settings ?
- we want to win
- BS cost NOTHING
Nobody will tank his ship because u loose nothing if it goes pop, insurance basicly runs forever and its so cheap that nobody cares about loosing a BS. If u dont mind loosing something all u want is to win so u fit all the dmg mods and biggest weapons u can fit.
Insurance back to the old 3 weeks (or maybe even less) ...
No its not the problem.It will solve nothing apart from limiting pvp for more casual gamers.
Problem is to little stacking penalty for dmg modifiers,sensor boosters.
Problem is that we got modules and skills for 1/2 year at least that increase dmg dramaticly while we got no new defensive modules/skills.
Stars, stars like dust, all around me.... |
danneh
|
Posted - 2005.08.17 16:49:00 -
[34]
Well if damage mods will be nerfed, id like warp core stabilizers to get an extreme stacking penalty.
|
Nyxus
|
Posted - 2005.08.17 16:51:00 -
[35]
Quote:
Remove the appearance of people in local in 0.0 entirely
I don't like this at all. Having to scan EACH and EVERY system to try and find a target....blech.
I DO like the idea of lagging local. Say from 3 to 5 minutes before you show in numbers and personnage. Knowing exactly who jumped in precisely when they do it is overpowering. It's impossible to catch someone by suprise/be caught by suprise when local tells you everything you need to know.
"OMG fleet of 40 just jumped in SS, GO TO SS"
0.0 conflict should not be so consensual. Too often it ends up being "Risk" in space where you just build and build till the node crashes. Lame. This would also provide an incentive to use more "Real people" scouts as opposed to alts. An alt just has to watch local to see who is coming and can view an entire system. If the only chance to see them was when they flashed by you it would make "real scouts" have more use over a SS'd 2 day old alt.
It would also make it harder for groups who have alt spies for 5 jumps in every direction to make use of them. And I am all for that. 
Nyxus
|
Famine Aligher'ri
|
Posted - 2005.08.17 17:10:00 -
[36]
Only thing I really agree on is nerfing "Stacking" ability for "Damage Mods". It obviously can totaly smack down tanking. I'm assumining it's going to be nerfed anyways so hopefully it will be better.
The whole "WCS" ideas really don't make any sense. Just because you can't catch a victim doesn't mean it's not "Blananced". Eve is about "PvP" and CCP has noted that. However, that doesn't mean you should always be able to beat the "Non-PvP" pilot. To me PvP is not fun anymore because so many people are hoarding together. More PvP alliances and Gank Groups fly together with smack talking cronies who think they are good because they smacked you 5 on 1. "WCS" give some of us Solo players a way out of these alliances and or Corps who never stop holding hands. What other defense would we have vs a group of weak pilots who decide to play purley on ganking and never anything real...
-Famine Aligher'ri, of The Aligher'ri
|
Shamis Orzoz
|
Posted - 2005.08.17 17:26:00 -
[37]
All of the current problems have been caused by previous nerfs.
The repeated nerfage of anything that moved too fast for people to hit has resulted in everybody fitting for max dmg because everything moves slow.
I used to train all EW, engineering and nav skills, because maneuverability, and EW used to win fights, now dmg wins fights. In a fleet engagement dmg is always a big factor, but gank setups dominate even smaller engagements because of all the changes. EW is still pretty good, but eventually it fails and then you get ganked.
|
Earthan
|
Posted - 2005.08.17 18:36:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Shamis Orzoz
All of the current problems have been caused by previous nerfs.
The repeated nerfage of anything that moved too fast for people to hit has resulted in everybody fitting for max dmg because everything moves slow.
I used to train all EW, engineering and nav skills, because maneuverability, and EW used to win fights, now dmg wins fights. In a fleet engagement dmg is always a big factor, but gank setups dominate even smaller engagements because of all the changes. EW is still pretty good, but eventually it fails and then you get ganked.
Its not nerfing speed , but the fact that we get for months incredible increase in dmg and no new defensive posibilites for bs.As result tanking is a no, cause you cant tank even from 2 bs you die with plenty of cap.
Stars, stars like dust, all around me.... |
Loka
|
Posted - 2005.08.17 21:08:00 -
[39]
Well i didnt asked for increasing stacking penalty. Infact thats the wrong way. I want more options. Dual MWD were one, until it was taken away.
I want to see the ppl who are arsed to kill a POS shields, with ueber tanked ships. It will take ages. Even with a fleet fo gankships it takes longer, than iam normaly willing to waste my time.
No to nerf, Yay to more options iam asking for. Some have good idears, but also some have no clue about what iam talking. Thinking that with a nerf here or there you would solve any problem.
You cant solve the problem of FOTM setups if you remove one after the other. Give the ppl more usable setups, then you wont have a single FOTM setup.
_________________________
Dead or Alive
 |
Sickbitch
|
Posted - 2005.08.17 23:38:00 -
[40]
double hp on everything in the game. leave same dmg
|
Vishnej
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 00:43:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Sick*****
double hp on everything in the game. leave same dmg
Signed on a generalized hp boost, though not necessarily a flat 2x.
|
Arimas Talasko
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 01:17:00 -
[42]
I think we need dual mwds back
Supremacy Keepin it Real
Originally by: Daniel Jackson
PLEASE TELL US WHY, WHY DO U WANT US TO DIE,
I AM JUST GOING FRIGGEN INSAIGN
|
Xtro 2
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 01:41:00 -
[43]
Increase CPU requirements of Damage mods by a 3rd and remove the ability for sensor boosters to improve lock time, have them only increase lock range.
__________________________________________
Hell is nothing more than an office with fluorecent lights. |
Saladin
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 01:43:00 -
[44]
This issue can be balanced out of mods did not give 2 bonuses. Sensor boosters boost both range and scanning resolution, tracking enhancers/comps boost range and tracking, damage mods boost damage modifier and rof. If one mod only boosted one attribute, it would work better. That is one mod for boosting targeting range, one for scanning resolution, one for optimal range, one for tracking speed, one for dmg modifier, and finally one for ROF.
People would have to re-think their setup and ship bonuses would be all the more important. Not saying its a solution, just an idea.
----
|
Jorev
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 02:05:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Jorev on 18/08/2005 02:05:40
In my opinion EVE pvp is more broken now that it has ever been. I am actually surprised that 2 years of "balancing" can bring us to this point of suckage.
Many posts in this thread target one module, or one stacking penalty or "local" and its mechanics.
It is not that simple...really. Nerfing the sensor booster, or the damage mod won't help. Nerfing insurance will make getting pvp more difficult than getting laid. These are not the answers. The problems of eve pvp run deeper and I am not convinced that CCP really has a good handle of the dynamics of PVP at this point of time. Just look at the bonuses to new ships and such -- it is (almost)as if some temp came and set those up. There's little consistency in the pvp model atm...
I am going on my second extended hiatus from the game now. I love the concept of eve overall but the pvp is going downhill over the last 12 months or so. It all started with the gun nerf last summer...and didn't get any better since then.
|
DarthJosh
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 02:08:00 -
[46]
Addressing the whole "gank ships outdamaging tank ships" thing here how about something like , Condense the equivalent of 5-6 damage mods into 1 damage mod , up the CPU and PG requirement an appropriate amount (not too much).
Then allow one of these modules to be fitted per ship.
This is would then mean that the turret based ships with lots of low slots normally occupied by 6-7 Damage mods, would only require one slot to achieve the same damage but also leave a large amount of fitting and slots left to apply a decent tank.
In my eyes this would still lead to tremendous hard hitting BS fights but give all the ability to tank and survive.
just my 10cents
|
WildHope
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 02:29:00 -
[47]
My solution for WCS would be to introduce an agility penalty, say -10% per stab fitted.
Wildhope
ShinRa
Curse Alliance (may it last 1000 generations)
Victim of the GM JV1V massacre |
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 02:31:00 -
[48]
Those advocating for the removal of pilots in space and pilots in local in 0.0 seem to not understand just how BIG some Alliance-controlled 0.0 regions are.
Firstly, you could spend hours in an Interceptor flying around "patrolling" 0.0 and never see anyone, while fleets are slipping right past you. Thats why "pilots in space" is necessary, so that the blobs can be spotted and countered before they show up on your doorstep.
Secondly, if you remove pilots listed in local, when you DO show up in that system with your Interceptor, and do a 360 degree scan, its very likely you won't pick up anything. Almost every 0.0 system is larger than the 14.3 AU max that your scanner reaches. Even warping between gates scanning, 20 Battleships could be sitting at off at "Planet XI" on the other side of the system. Where you won't pick them up unless you go through the entire system, methodically scanning it. And since you can't see them in Local, you don't even know they're there in the first place to go looking for them.
All doing that would do is severely hurt Alliance-controlled space, essentially castrating Alliances of the ability to locate enemy incursions into their space and defend their members.
Personally, I think the issue with PVP out in 0.0 is that everyone has everyone elses Instas. Its hard to catch an enemy frig fleet when its instaing away from your fleet chasing it. The only way to solve the problem is warp bubbles, and that requires having people in position ahead of the enemy fleet at a chokepoint, which is very difficult to achieve. The whole tactic of "send a fleet of frigs into an enemy alliance's space, then log/insta off as soon as someone with an alt in their alliance channel reports a fleet forming" is getting pretty pathetic.
I personally would like to see systems with Sovereignty allow placement of a sort of POS Scrambling Array at gates within the system. Thus, Outposts and POS would become more vital at chokepoints as it would allow an alliance to cut off a hostile invasion force and engage it. Or the invasion force can attempt to claim the chokepoint for themselves, forcing the alliance defend it properly. Seems to me like it would add a lot more to 0.0 PVP than fleets chasing fleets endlessly.
-Electrofreak
Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula |
Nomen Nescio
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 02:42:00 -
[49]
- After 1 loss of the ship in a class insurance pay 100%
- After 2 losses of the ship in a class insurance pay 80%
- ...
- After 5th loss of a ship in a class, no more insurance
|
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 02:48:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Nomen Nescio
- After 1 loss of the ship in a class insurance pay 100%
- After 2 losses of the ship in a class insurance pay 80%
- ...
- After 5th loss of a ship in a class, no more insurance
... Worst. Idea. Ever. Every poor fellow who gets ganked with his hauler at a gate is going to petition the crap out of CCP and throw a hissy fit when his ship isn't given back and his insurance rates set back.
And who would ever fly a BS into a PVP scenario? Unless you want to see Noob Ships as the new PVP element in EVE, bad idea.
-Electrofreak
Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula |
Earthan
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 02:57:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Sick*****
double hp on everything in the game. leave same dmg
yea i agree but even more then 2x
Stars, stars like dust, all around me.... |
Nomen Nescio
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 03:06:00 -
[52]
Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK
... Worst. Idea. Ever. Every poor fellow who gets ganked at a gate is going to petition the crap out of CCP and throw a hissy fit when his ship isn't given back and his insurance rates set back.
And who would ever fly a BS into a PVP scenario? Unless you want to see Noob Ships as the new PVP element in EVE, bad idea.
You are not supposed to fly BS like its nothing. Now every one does. At the early days ppl flew cruisers all the time, and even they were expensive to lose. And the eve was MUCH healthier both in economy and pvp then now.
PPL lose hac and its like bs with no insurance - no1 petitions that. Noob can flyt bs and get insurance, can lose another one and still lose a bit. Then 2 years old chars bring 150 bs in a battle and lose close to nothing its a bullsh. You even make isk on insurace because ships and gear you do urself.
|
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 03:25:00 -
[53]
Tech 1 ships are the staple of EVE and are fully insurable so that when you're poor, if you lose your primary means of making ISK, you can regain it at only the cost of Insurance and fittings.
Thats a far cry from Tech 2 ships, which are bought under the assumption that they ARE a financial risk. If you have the money to afford losing the ship without Insurance, you can buy and fly Tech 2. But the purpose of Tech 1 is to allow people to continue progressing in the game without finding themselves destitute when they forget to turn off autopilot and end up getting ganked. Accidents happen and people shouldn't suffer that badly for them. Tech 2 ships, yes, thats a risk you take when you buy the ship, but Tech 1 is supposed to always be there to fall back upon.
-Electrofreak
Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula |
Mr Monk
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 04:19:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Nomen Nescio
You are not supposed to fly BS like its nothing. Now every one does. At the early days ppl flew cruisers all the time, and even they were expensive to lose. And the eve was MUCH healthier both in economy and pvp then now.
PPL lose hac and its like bs with no insurance - no1 petitions that. Noob can flyt bs and get insurance, can lose another one and still lose a bit. Then 2 years old chars bring 150 bs in a battle and lose close to nothing its a bullsh. You even make isk on insurace because ships and gear you do urself.
Your points in the last 2 posts pretty much sum up the thoughts I've been having lately.
|
Gufurka'shk
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 05:35:00 -
[55]
* sign Loka idea
pvp is really damm boring nowadays.
im also thinking about moving to some other games for more action because ive been bored for a long time now.
|
slip66
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 05:54:00 -
[56]
wait for all the t2 mods to be released then we can see if there is balance in choice bewteen tank or gank and adjust from there.
|
Sable Terrick
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 06:00:00 -
[57]
Hmmm....as some possibilites. I like the idea of each mod only affecting one thing instead of two. I think something like that would work. Also making WCS's a High slot item on all but haulers,with haulers keeping them low slot's. maybe even do the reduction in range that was suggested as an alternative.not neccessarily activated but....say 20% reduction per stabilizer....for miners and haulers....that wont make a bit of difference...since most dont target anything more then 12k away
would sure put a wreck on the sniping/running guys tho. Also....eliminate insta's...and set up a mod that goes in high slots,and each one you have gets you closer and closer to the target you are warping to.say...25% closer per module...and make sure they are pretty CPU and PG intensive...perhaps give haulers a bonus to let them handle it. that way even the strongest ship out there will have its combat capabilities cut in half if it wants to bounce around instantly.remove the ability to make safespots and so on....so if you want to escape your pursuit you have to have an advantage or you flat out have to out fly them.
Also...finding some reason to make people do more then just fit for pure damage....maybe increasing hps on ships might do it... or just making it so alot of ships could only have one of each type of module....
I know its just a game but i really wonder how many of these mouthy F*cks would have the stones to say that sort of thing in real life. |
Motec
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 06:39:00 -
[58]
I agree, CCP please nerf this new tactic called "hit and run" as it is obviously effective or else their wouldn't be threads on how stabs have no drawbacks. Nevermind that all lows filled with them allows for neither dmg or tanking modules. Some people can't wtfpwn this tactic so its clearly overpowerd. 
|
Harry Voyager
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 08:09:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Harry Voyager on 18/08/2005 08:13:23
Originally by: Kaylana Syi
CCP doesn't MAKE anyone put gank ships in fleet combat. CCP doesn't MAKE anyone train gunnery. CCP doesn't MAKE anyone with uber gunnery NOT have the ability to use a Support Ship instead of gank ship. CCP didn't create the problem... the opponents did. It was the natural Domino Effect that hinders fleet combat not CCP's. If you want reasons to use another class of ship besides Gun Bloats... because thats what your really stating here. Can't blame a arse load of people to want to use their specialized skills in Fleet combat can you? No. Start a thread that says... "Hey CCP make a marketing promotion to get people into something else besides guns, guns, guns."
I'm going to take issue with this statement. I trained Navigation and Energy Management skills to max just so I could fly Dualies. CCP removed them from the game, so I can no longer fly them. Tell me how that is not forcing me to not fly that class of warship?
CCP has systematically nerfed everything that is not direct damage gunships in the game. Tanking has been nerfed. Cavalry has been nerfed. Missile boating has been nerfed. (And don't tell me you have forgotten when every missile carrying battleship had a pair or trio of Heavy Launchers fitted with Cruise missiles. Now only Caldari dedicated missile boats can use them even remotely well. Ewar has been nerfed. Logistics was stillborn out the gate. What is left but gunboating? Even missiles are being wedged into the gunboat mold now.
What else is there people?
Harry Voyager
|
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.08.18 09:08:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Motec
I agree, CCP please nerf this new tactic called "hit and run" as it is obviously effective or else their wouldn't be threads on how stabs have no drawbacks. Nevermind that all lows filled with them allows for neither dmg or tanking modules. Some people can't wtfpwn this tactic so its clearly overpowerd.
Oh give me a break. Frigate fleets don't fit stabs. They just insta and log when anyone comes after them. I'm not talking about Battleships here
-Electrofreak
Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |