EVE Search - More hitpoints -> less kills

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

More hitpoints -> less kills

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lifewire	Posted - 2005.10.06 08:00:00 - [1] I just read Oveurs new blog. I like much that something is done about the fact that combats are often too short. It¦s often very anoying if you fitted and travelled 1 hour to finally have a 10 second battle. So generally i think CCPs idea to get ships more hitpoints is a good idea. But i also see problems: more hitpoints means that more ships will survive when shot at. It makes it again more nessesairy to fight with many versus a single to get loot. So it supports ganking. So many good effects CCPs new plan has - it also has a lot of negative consequences for the game. I think the direction is ok: make combat more exiting and lasting longer. But the consequences have not to be ignored: -> more killers needed to nail a person, so more ganking -> less ships destroyed, less profit for PVPers and marketsellers. -> less ships destroyed, less losses for certain players that loose their moneysink What will compensate this effects? I thought a lot about why combats in EVE often are stupid: when 10 ships shoot at 1 it simply instapops. That¦s not big fun. Instead of changing the hitpoints it could be wise to nerf "fleetvolleys". This means: once a target is shot at, it starts to be hidden in smoke and explosions and signature radius drops. This would be a good way to nerf "blobbing" and fights 10 vs 1. We all know that a lot of combats never happen because all players fear the conseuquences to fight outnumbered. Eve would gain additional fun if the numbers of players on both involved groups do not count that much anymore. The gangsize should have some negative effects. And the more ships fire on one ship, the more the "damage stacking" should be nerfed to improve gameplay. Some people might not understand. Lets take a closer look at a 10 vs 20 battle: Team 1: 1 EW Scorp 8 gunships 1 tackle-ceptor Team 2: 2 EW Scorp 16 gunships 2 tackle-ceptors On a open fleet battle it is 100% sure that team 2 will win. The firepower of 16 gunships in 2 fireteams will make team 2 pop 2 enemy gunships while team 1 only pops one enemy gunship in the same time. The effect is so big, that nobody (except some crazy people) would start a 10 vs 20 on a open fleetbattle. Don¦t get me wrong: it¦s possible to fight 10 vs 20, but an open battle without sneaky tactics is not winnable for team 1 if team 2 has at least some experience. The whole coordination in the battle is reduced to "naming targets" and if all involved players shoot at these targets, team 2 will win. The "damage-stacking" nerf of fleet volleys would cause that a group of 10 players might try to fight a group of 20. If for example the signature radius of a ship looses a certain amount for each ship that shoots at it, then totally new and nice tactics will appear in group fights. It wont make sence anymore to concentrate fire that much like all EVE players do it right now. Concentration of fire will still cause a target to die quick, but splitting fire in2, maybe 5 or even 10 could also be an option once "damage-stacking" of fleet volleys get a penalty. However - my idea does still not solve the problem that i named when i began my post: what will compensate the changes that happen when less ships will be destroyed. To be discussed. Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire.
Sun Ra	Posted - 2005.10.06 08:18:00 - [2] Hehe, ye i kinda think that about the HP buff but that and the stacking penalty increase will help against the 'put 8 damage mods on and only have 1mil sp in gunnery and wtf pwn people with 8mil sp in guns who only have 2 dmg mods on' In the good old days tere were tails on people with combat skills taking on 3/4x there numbers and winning AKA the jokers, now the jokers are gone cos nubs can just stack damage mods on and f1-8 But ye more people will get from combat that dont want fight We're coming for you
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.10.06 08:24:00 - [3] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 06/10/2005 08:25:32 You mean the dominishing returns thing that originally was in the list of things being considered for the combat revisited project ? Seems it didn't make it, or not to this round at least. I despise the idea. The problem in Eve combat is not that 20 win over 10 when they have the same fleets and same setups and same experience because, surprisingly, that NEVER happens. The problem is in those fights of reasonably evenly matched groups (or at least those that think they are), combat is dull becuase it doesn't last long enough to involve more tactics then those used in the setting up and approach phase of the fight. Result: those ten wont even try it because before they can implement whatever tactic they ahd in mind to win against 20, 3 of em have already died in today's combat. Making it last longer will mean more skill gets involved. I'm not so afraid that we'll see even more blobbage. All I'm concerned about is not disturbing balance too much, and not ending up with everyone filling those open lowslots with wcs instead of tanking mods like the idea seems to be. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
Lifewire	Posted - 2005.10.06 08:31:00 - [4] Quote: Result: those ten wont even try it But you got it! They won¦t even try. If concentrating fire gets nerfed, it could make sense to fight 10 vs 20 and so we all could have more fun in PVP. Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire.
Discorporation	Posted - 2005.10.06 08:36:00 - [5] Originally by: Lifewire -> more killers needed to nail a person, so more ganking -> less ships destroyed, less profit for PVPers and marketsellers. -> less ships destroyed, less losses for certain players that loose their moneysink However, gank setups will be nerfed, somewhat, promoting the use of tacklers and warp/web setups. This means more teamwork needed for a kill, which will last longer, which makes it more fun. Less profit, perhaps, but people fighting exculsively for the loot are stupid anyway . Who knows, perhaps making it more difficult to instapop ships will promote actual piracy, rather then indiscriminate ganking [23]
Discorporation	Posted - 2005.10.06 08:38:00 - [6] Originally by: Lifewire Quote: Result: those ten wont even try it But you got it! They won¦t even try. If concentrating fire gets nerfed, it could make sense to fight 10 vs 20 and so we all could have more fun in PVP. Of course not, those 20 ships will just split focus and destroy two ships in the same time it took to kill two using the old ways. [23]
Necrologic	Posted - 2005.10.06 08:54:00 - [7] I'm with Rod on this one. There will definatly be some new problems from this, but i think this will improve the overall state of things, or atleast make it different for a change.
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.10.06 09:18:00 - [8] I see the same issue as the poster. That's why I made a thread about it here: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=232866 I recommend slight boost to tackling to compensate better tanking
Lifewire	Posted - 2005.10.06 09:20:00 - [9] Hm...i know one thing: there are already heavy tanks in this game: the HACs! Those ships dont need instas anymore. A HAC breaks a blockade successfully with just tanking the damage. mwding to gate and then jumping after 15km. Even 2 webbers cannot stop these ships. Only a massive camp, best on both sides of the gate, can stop such a ship succesfully. So think before accepting CCPs ideas: it forces to have more players to destroy a ship successfully. We as pirates for example will have larger snipergroups and larger tackler camps to nail people (another 3 x webber stiletto added to team). Other like alliance pilots will need more fire concentration and even more simplyfied combat "name target, all shoot". I don¦t see the improvement. Nerfing 10 ships firing at 1 meanwhile could really improve warfare. Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire.
Silvero	Posted - 2005.10.06 09:28:00 - [10] Edited by: Silvero on 06/10/2005 09:30:00 hmmm Diminishing returns in a such manner that when multiple aggressors are firing at you the dmg goes down gradual according to thier numbers. Dosen¦t anyone see how wrong this is, it will only make a permanent rift between the +25 mil XP characters and the newer citizens of eve. I mean why take a newb(no BS lvl 5,large projectile lvl 5,large projectile spez lvl 5)into the fleet when he only gonna take up another Diminishing return slot and still doing jack for dmg. And in a few other threads i have seen ppl thinking its a good idea that shooter nr 1 does 100% and nr 2 a little less say 92% and so on. What if our newb XXXXX takes the first shoot and newb YYYYY the sceond and so on and us heavyhitters comes later on hmmm. Then we whould have to divide into firing squads consisting the following guiding principles 1: nr of BS ofc, 2: Skills(Hi end firing squads="muchos XP" and noobs then we have noobs).
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2005.10.06 09:33:00 - [11] I'm with Rod on this also. I think its fine--both hitpoints are being boosted, AND gank setups are being nerfed... yay for CCP -- Proud member of the [23].
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.10.06 09:33:00 - [12] I don't like that fleet battles often boil down to calling primary targets and focusing fire. Having said that, I think it would be a big mistake to use "Diminishing returns" feature in group combat. There are other ways of addressing the problem.
Jack Cade	Posted - 2005.10.06 09:40:00 - [13] Nice points and I think lifewire is on the right track here... How about when your trying to kill a ship thats tanking you back to the gate to jump through while your aggressed?Or going into station, the only way your gona get a kill is to have a huge gank fleet. This will make things much difficult in the way of getting more pvp fights because it will indeed be harder to kill people. I think npc stations need to be totally revamped in 0.0 and spread out more furthure from empire forcing people to travel more danverous routes. Also I think making all 0.0 stations conqeurable would help spice up pvp. Anyhow it's already bad enough trying to get a decent fight, with the armor increase it's only going to take away from the action I'm afraid. When someone steps into 0.0 they should have to make some sort of commitment to ACTION.Longer redock times ect.. Basically I hope that if ships are givin more hit points that there are some other changes made concerning 0.0 pvp because the way things are going people are going to be scratching the bottom of the barrell for targets...
Khatred	Posted - 2005.10.06 09:45:00 - [14] This might also lead to an increase use of logistics. So far logistics were used for boosting the lonely sniper or help in level 4 missions. No real point in bringing a logistic ship in a fleet battle since the ship that you boost gets poped in 10 seconds anyway. ________________________________________________ The narrow minded and selfish people posting on EO forums made me bitter
Lifewire	Posted - 2005.10.06 09:54:00 - [15] The DEVs want to do the correct thing: make combat longer. But the actual name-primary-target-secondary-target-and all-shoot is not very exiting PVP. The possible doubling of hitpoints (was also planned) just forces to concentrate fire even more! I also forces to have more people in a successfull camp. It also forces to have more pirates when surprising someone in a belt, because a single pirate wont have the firepower to take out these new tanks that will be fitted soon. I see only the solution to attack the problems from another direction: not boosting hitpoints, but nerfing fleetvolleys which has sligtly different effects, but offer much more tactics in group combat and does not change to 1 vs 1 balance that seems to be quite good after all the patching. However changing hitpoints and resistances will have massive effects on EVE. Don¦t think it¦s a minor patch. It will change warfare totally to extreme blobbing while my proposed solution changes it to less blobbing. Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire.
Bozse	Posted - 2005.10.06 10:01:00 - [16] Anything that penalise teamwork and simply having the bigger force is just wrong imo.
Sorja	Posted - 2005.10.06 14:33:00 - [17] Originally by: Lifewire -> more killers needed to nail a person, so more ganking -> less ships destroyed, less profit for PVPers and marketsellers. How about the opposite? If you don't die in a matter of seconds, maybe more people will travel alone or in small groups looking for fights, instead of going into the 'ganking attitude'? Maybe this will encourage PvP instead of safespotting/blobbing and will result in more ships destroyed? Oh... and about 'getting loot', to each his own I guess, but I fight for fun, not for loot so from the very first lines of your posts it sounded like we didn't play the same game, hence the different way we can see the changes improving the game Kill mails
Sun Ra	Posted - 2005.10.06 15:14:00 - [18] Originally by: Lifewire The DEVs want to do the correct thing: make combat longer. But the actual name-primary-target-secondary-target-and all-shoot is not very exiting PVP. The possible doubling of hitpoints (was also planned) just forces to concentrate fire even more! I also forces to have more people in a successfull camp. It also forces to have more pirates when surprising someone in a belt, because a single pirate wont have the firepower to take out these new tanks that will be fitted soon. I see only the solution to attack the problems from another direction: not boosting hitpoints, but nerfing fleetvolleys which has sligtly different effects, but offer much more tactics in group combat and does not change to 1 vs 1 balance that seems to be quite good after all the patching. However changing hitpoints and resistances will have massive effects on EVE. Don¦t think it¦s a minor patch. It will change warfare totally to extreme blobbing while my proposed solution changes it to less blobbing. Yup ships will tank better AND your doign less damage on the tank, apocs will be impossible to kill. Say yes to the stacking nerf Say no to the tanking boost We're coming for you
Sun Ra	Posted - 2005.10.06 15:16:00 - [19] Originally by: Sorja Oh... and about 'getting loot', to each his own I guess, but I fight for fun, not for loot so from the very first lines of your posts it sounded like we didn't play the same game, hence the different way we can see the changes improving the game Well you pvp for fun and do other things for money, some of us only pvp and have to make our money while having our fun We're coming for you
Epicurius	Posted - 2005.10.06 15:48:00 - [20] Forgive me if i do not see how this will make things more interesting. Yeah sure it will make combat last more longer, but more interesting. I still think they should redesign the whole combat system so that it makes a difference where you shoot a ship, ie target different aspects of it like thrusters taking shots would slow it down. Would this create too much lag or something why did they never do this from the beginning? Something similar to Nexus, if anyone has played that? At the end of the day it will just mean that tanking will play a larger part but that means that it will be the ship that can deal the most damage and have the longest sustaiable tank that will work? Am i missing something, please someone tell me if i am.
Admiral IceBlock	Posted - 2005.10.06 16:03:00 - [21] to make battles longer we need to add more tactics into the game. what we could add is, - line of fire. lots of ships surrounds the command ship to protect it from heavy enemy fire. - increase speed (mostly for larger ships) to make the battlefield more manouverable we need to move "fast, faster". start at 60km and move around to avoid getting hit and to outflank the enemy fleet. im sure there are several others things that could be done, but all are difficult to make fair and balanced. "We brake for nobody"
Nyxus	Posted - 2005.10.06 16:03:00 - [22] I like Lifewires idea of reducing sig rad based on numbers shooting at you. I just dont see how that's not going to be expoitable though. As other have said before, I like the idea of increasing hitpoints, but damage mod stacking reduction is just going to increase the numbers of 4+ wcs sniping BS around. WCS definitely need an adjustment. +50 to lock time per wcs plz. Nyxus
Dezzyb0y	Posted - 2005.10.06 16:11:00 - [23] Originally by: Lifewire Quote: Result: those ten wont even try it But you got it! They won¦t even try. If concentrating fire gets nerfed, it could make sense to fight 10 vs 20 and so we all could have more fun in PVP. Yes but that then removes any skill required for those 10vs20... By all accounts in any fight the 20 should win unless those 10 have some very good skills which makes the difference for me in this game. If this stacking nerf is brought in it will make having an extra 10 people pointless and there would either be so much lag in eve as the server tries to calculate who got first 2nd 3rd etc etc, or a frigate will be doing max damage and a bs will be doing half so on and so on. Making the whole thing completly screwed. I was discussing this with someone last night and the only way of doing it would have too many calculations causing the servers to have a horrible painful death when more than 20people tried to fire on each other. I think that the HP buff is good, it doesnt exactly mean less kills, it just means it either takes longer or requires much better thinking. The one problem it does have is cap would have to be upgraded slightly aswell. Hitpoints and cap are tied with each other. Making armour repairing more efficient than shield tanking. ----------------------- Join the oveur fan club today and recive an e-flower!
Kerby Lane	Posted - 2005.10.06 16:12:00 - [24] Originally by: Nyxus As other have said before, I like the idea of increasing hitpoints, but damage mod stacking reduction is just going to increase the numbers of 4+ wcs sniping BS around. WCS definitely need an adjustment. +50 to lock time per wcs plz. Nyxus I`m with Rod as well. And yes, please add some combat penalty to WCS. It is plain stupid now and will be even more stupid after changes.
Khaldorn Murino	Posted - 2005.10.06 16:16:00 - [25] I think it needs careful balancing. For example, the lower DPS weapons will suffer as they need longer to kill a target. The races that arent designed to tank very well will suffer as the tankers effectiveness will rise disproportionately to these less tanking races. I mean, theres a load of things that I can see needing tweaking not to ruin the balance. But, yeah, this needs to be done. Im all for longer more tactical battles. But these factors need looking at, otherwise patch will hit, and ships will be nerfed because of said factors and we'll end up with a nerf cycle again for the next year, and no one wants that do they? - Just a simple warrior.
Xelios	Posted - 2005.10.06 16:26:00 - [26] Yeah WCS need some kind of penalty to offense. It's just ridiculous that a WCS fitted BS will suffer no penalty at all to its damage, and only a penalty to defense (which doesn't matter since it can warp out anyway), yet still engage any other battleship 1 on 1 and be almost guaranteed not to die. They should be high slot modules if you ask me. _____________________________________
Hague Starcatcher	Posted - 2005.10.06 16:27:00 - [27] Originally by: Silvero Edited by: Silvero on 06/10/2005 09:34:07 And in a few other threads i have seen ppl thinking its a good idea that shooter nr 1 does 100% and nr 2 a little less say 92% and so on. What if our newb XXXXX takes the first shoot and newb YYYYY the sceond and so on and us heavyhitters comes later on hmmm. I can see what your saying on what this will do to newbs. We definitely don't want this to turn into other games where you're useless unless you're level 70. Originally by: Silvero Then we whould have to divide into firing squads consisting the following guiding principles 1: nr of BS ofc, 2: Skills(Hi end firing squads="muchos XP" and noobs then we have noobs). But, this is what the devs are after, forcing you to think out your gang setup. What we need are some kind of formation setup so that players can be placed to maximize their potential.
Frank Moss	Posted - 2005.10.06 16:28:00 - [28] Now this may be a really stupid question but.....Do we really need both changes? Won't implementing both of these lead to rather undesirable situations as outlined by ppl above? Could we not just have the tanking boost and leave the dmg mod stacking alone? [Or vice-versa; I just happen to fly geddons heh] I understand that the current situation with dmg mod stacking is seen as unacceptable, fair enough. But won't the tanking boost go a large way to redressing the balance? Wouldn't having both nerf and boost at once result in invincible apocs and other such monstrosities? [as well as wcs galore] Flame away if I'm being an idiot.
Silvero	Posted - 2005.10.06 16:46:00 - [29] Edited by: Silvero on 06/10/2005 16:49:15 Originally by: Hague Starcatcher But, this is what the devs are after, forcing you to think out your gang setup. What we need are some kind of formation setup so that players can be placed to maximize their potential. Yeah i know it¦s a nice idea to make us think more tactical and i know the guys i play with don¦t have a prb with this. However if they are serious about implementing the diminshing return then they have to make sure that the pilot that¦s delivers the most dmg are counted as aggresor nr 1 and so on. If not, then we have the divide firing squads after DOT which means that the "rift" between new players and us oldtimers are gonna be huge, and so far i think we have been nicely balanced. What im saying is that it has never been a problem for newer players to tag along in our fleets, and they have always been wanted in the gangs etc etc. And i cant see CCP create a solution for this without, inflicting a tremendous server load, when it comes to calculate which aggressor that comes in which order.
Vishnej	Posted - 2005.10.06 17:07:00 - [30] WCS: +1 to warp strength, -30% warp speed ----------------- T2 Destroyers: a proposal

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.