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)
Thomas Torquemada	Posted - 2005.10.07 17:04:00 - [61] great stuff, i know this is a MMO game, however i still enjoy going solo and trying to pummel as many people as i can, with the changes, will solo player pirates be able to do anything like they used too. I dont wish to move around as part of a gank blob nailing people en-mass, i still enjoy stalking/terrorising on my own, and would like to continue doing so. Also will 1v1s even be possible? 2 players with extreme tanks/resists battling away, id guess the only 1 to lose would be the one with the lowest amount of NOS fitted. UPC - PVP'ers Good and Bad, How Do You Want Peace? Through Talk Or In A Casket? We Decide! Peace My Brothers...
Lifewire	Posted - 2005.10.07 17:12:00 - [62] Quote: Also will 1v1s even be possible? A very good question! There are allready ship-constelations that can¦t kill each other. With new tanking this will happen much more often. Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire.
Deka Kador	Posted - 2005.10.07 17:37:00 - [63] Originally by: Lifewire Quote: That's where I was coming from...hopefully this will be the final nail in the coffin for snipers If this is why you like it, then let me say that for example our sniperteam will just be bigger, while our tankerteam could tanl sentrys much better. Don¦t do the mistake to just think about that ships get harder to kill - also think about what will be the consequence: more killers needed -> more blobbing or even more snipers (that will be able to tank quite good then!). Lately Myal and Chode were sniping a gate with 2 sniper-fitted BS. 2 Enyos warped on top of them and destroyed Chodes BS. With the new tanking such a cool tactic will not work anymore... BTW: your statement shows that you dont understand warfare. I recommend you join the Teddybear Acadamy of advanced pirate studies to boost your knowledge Well, like you said, if 2 Enyo's won't be enough, then we should just warp 4 ontop of the sniping BS. Ding! Gratz!
Lifewire	Posted - 2005.10.07 17:43:00 - [64] As you now realized: 4 will be needed! Now use your brain to think of the consequences: it forces to have a bigger group - a blob. Can this be the solution??? Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.07 18:42:00 - [65] Originally by: Wild Rho Actually tactics are only somthing that really works in small battles where it's possible to co-ordinate everyone rapidly. In larger fights tactics go out the window and it mostly comes down to firepower, no amount of changes will really alter this, its just the nature of those engagements. Persoanlly I think the more health points will be a good thing now, tank setups are becoming somthing used only in npcing while gank setups tend to be foremost in peoples mind in pvp. These changes don't make it harder to kill anyone, it just means it takes longer. It's gonna reverse that trend dead, tho, Wild. Because if the target's tanked, only some gank setups (4 damage mods, under the new scheme) can kill it before support arrives. If you have tanks, there's a largre chance it'll be able to escape/get friends/tank your damage. Hence, more BS, more gank setups, and less diversity. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Deka Kador	Posted - 2005.10.07 18:44:00 - [66] Originally by: Lifewire As you now realized: 4 will be needed! Now use your brain to think of the consequences: it forces to have a bigger group - a blob. Can this be the solution??? Eve is a multiplayer game. I'm confident the Dev's have fully thought these changes through in terms of blob and, in recent posts by certain Devs, have suggested they are thinking hard to prevent blob mentality from winning Eve in total.
Cummilla	Posted - 2005.10.07 20:03:00 - [67] Originally by: Lifewire Edited by: Lifewire on 06/10/2005 09:21:49 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). Others, 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. Really all you will need to do is get them to stay and fight and keep them there. EW will determine how much of what the enemy has aimed at you actually inflicts damage. So to predict the outcome of any fight is much more complicated than mere numbers vs. numbers. It's more like relative EW efficiency plus tackling prowess versus what your opposition brings to the table in those areas.
Svengali	Posted - 2005.10.08 00:09:00 - [68] There was a really good possible solution posted in the Ideas section a bit over a month or two ago. Basically the idea was to give ships insanely high structure, make structure slowly regenerate, but make all your modules stop working if you get into structure (you may need to get in X percent). The idea here was to allow focused fire, but to penalize it over people that can better tactically call targets. The nice thing about this suggestion is that it seems like it would harder to game the system (ie, 10 friends firing at you using up firing slots etc). Ships would still be able to be destroyed, but they would take much more work even after they were disabled. This also allows disabling ships, then getting ransom from them and letting them leave. You could make a frig class hull repairer, which newbs could use to repair hull in ships, getting them back into the fight quickly.
XpoHoc	Posted - 2005.10.08 03:41:00 - [69] Quote: I'm confident the Dev's have fully thought these changes through in terms of blob and, in recent posts by certain Devs, have suggested they are thinking hard to prevent blob mentality from winning Eve in total. EVE balance is the sum of many random decisions and rollbacks, more like a yoyo. That's evolutionary, not selective and sure has nothing to do with "fully thought through changes" ;
Lifewire	Posted - 2005.10.08 16:49:00 - [70] I learned one thing in 2 years of EVE: the most important skill you need is to adapt to CCP weird patches. So this new patch will favorise sme things again, i know what this will be and we gonna use it. But i just cannot sit there quiet and not tell my opinion: nerf fleetvollyes is a better solution than boosting tanking. Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire.
Slithereen	Posted - 2005.10.08 17:01:00 - [71] Quote: I like Lifewires idea of reducing sig rad based on numbers shooting at you. This is essentially diminishing returns in another name. _______________________________________________ "Is it me or the bad guys just getting totally pathetic?"---Clover, Totally Spies, "Hope is wasted on the Hopeless."---Mandy, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. "Stars are holes in the sky from which the light of the Infinite shine through."---Confucius.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.08 17:43:00 - [72] Originally by: Lifewire I learned one thing in 2 years of EVE: the most important skill you need is to adapt to CCP weird patches. So this new patch will favorise sme things again, i know what this will be and we gonna use it. But i just cannot sit there quiet and not tell my opinion: nerf fleetvollyes is a better solution than boosting tanking. Yes, we're AWARE you hate smaller ships and small groups allready "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Shin Ra	Posted - 2005.10.08 18:04:00 - [73] One thing that worries me is the agression timer. Its quite possible for an apoc to undock, pop a cruiser and tank until he/she can re-dock. I think it needs to be twice its current time.
fairimear	Posted - 2005.10.08 18:05:00 - [74] maybe lees kill's but more tactic's and higher quality pvp.
Ranger 1	Posted - 2005.10.08 22:15:00 - [75] Although this system might be technically impractical, I think the following adaptation might actually work well and still encourage group tactics. 2 BS class vessels "can fire on one target normally, above that number the damage is reduce proportionally." 3 BC class vessels " " 4 Cruiser class vessels " " 5 Destroyer class vessels " " 6 Frigate class vessels " " This would encourage mixed fleets, as 6 BS firing on one target would then be far inferior to 2 BS, and 4 cruisers in terms of damage, etc. This would obviously work far better if the gang system is ever updated with the changes proposed last year that would include being able to assign "wing" leaders inside of each gang.
Lifewire	Posted - 2005.10.08 23:26:00 - [76] Quote: maybe lees kill's but more tactic's and higher quality pvp Do you read topics or do you just post to "have posted"? The tactic will not improve. More gankfirepower is needed, that¦s all. Nerfing fleetvollyes instead of boosting tanks would offer improved tactics. Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire.
Goberth Ludwig	Posted - 2005.10.08 23:30:00 - [77] Nerf WCS! - Gob (also known as Admiral Goberius)
Tsual	Posted - 2005.10.08 23:47:00 - [78] Originally by: Maya Rkell Sorry, wrong initial assumption. More hp == more gank setups, and more ganking. And how about hitting more ofte aka Target Painters? Consider a heavy tanked scrop lighting up another battleship with 3 painters...or three inties doing that...and then let that ship catch torps or cms...(a normal scorp should have 937.5 m signature with 3 t1 painters alone, or am I wrong with my math.) But ok I guess no one would do it anyway... -------------------------------------- Haanem ulwei, utnazhiram Hal'sha'roh mahiraam Hor'thul. The Universe is everything, the creation Hal'shah and the destruction Hor'thul.
MrJordanIOI	Posted - 2005.10.09 00:13:00 - [79] Originally by: Lifewire I learned one thing in 2 years of EVE: the most important skill you need is to adapt to CCP weird patches. So this new patch will favorise sme things again, i know what this will be and we gonna use it. But i just cannot sit there quiet and not tell my opinion: nerf fleetvollyes is a better solution than boosting tanking. 100 % agree with Lifewire The changes laid out as they currently are will promote the "UBERGANK" that so much annoys people as it doesnt have to do anything with combat. Its just one hundred monkeys opening one hundred bottles of champagne and point in your general direction to gank you with the sheer overdose of corks. NO skill, no fun , no chance, no fight, no sense. The idea of some kind of gank nerfing is very much needed even without the incoming changes. btw - you Teddys should find a way to ransom rather than kill then you d be really uber ;) IOI
Lifewire	Posted - 2005.10.09 08:59:00 - [80] Edited by: Lifewire on 09/10/2005 09:00:10 Quote: btw - you Teddys should find a way to ransom rather than kill then you d be really uber Tell me how we should ransom people in 0.4? We do it 95% in 0.0 but in 0.4 the sentry fire knocks on your armor while you wait for the convo with the enemy ship or pod. Surely you can fit a fitting that tanks the sentrys very long - but this fitting will not be able to lock in time and not able to kill an enemy ship, because it¦s a tank fitting. "No tolling policy at 0.4 gates" is done by CCP. So all we can offer travellers that jump in our camp is to stay cloaked and convo us in time before the ship uncloaks. But this has nothing to do with the topic. I see the problem that the hitpoint and resistance boost changes warfare. More firepower is needed, so we will adapt. Everybody now ask himself what could we do to adapt? Exactly: have more ships -> more firepower. And exactly the same thing will happen with fleets in 0.0. They need more firepower to kill 1 ship. So they will concentrate fire even more than they already do. This is simplyfied and stupid combat. I propose that every damage that is done to a ship lowers it¦s signature radius for some seconds (target is hidden in smoke and explosions). This means if 50 railguns fire at 1 ship, railgun 1 does 100% damage, railgun 2 does only 98% and railgun 50 should do something about 1% damage. Concentrating fire will still be usefull, but splitting fire into fireteams will offer a better overall fleet-DPS. It also has the effect that combat lasts longer and additionally improves tactics of EVE combats. The leadership work in EVE will not be reduced to one guy calling targets and the rest are acting like automated NPCs. The leadership in teams will need subteams. Even every single pilot will need to make decissions. I hope the DEVs consider this idea and do not stubborn do their patch now. Their idea to make combat last longer is a step into the correct direction, but it has the negative effect that simply more ships are needed to kill one and blobbing will increase that way. My proposed patch makes comabt last longer and improves tactics in battle too. Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire.
Narciss Sevar	Posted - 2005.10.09 10:18:00 - [81] Originally by: Bozse Edited by: Bozse on 06/10/2005 15:04:48 Anything that penalise teamwork and simply having the bigger force is just wrong imo. Not to mention all the fleetcommanders that will want to end them selfs after beeing forced to. 1. Devide he's forces in to small gangs of 5-6 players(preferably based on gunnery sp). 2. Distribute targets for each gang. 3. Have the gangs decide fireing order based on gunnery sp and what ship u fly to do most dmg. 4. Keep track of all the small gangs to see where support is needed if he needs to combine gangs as ships go down and stuff like that. I realy can't see who would want to lead a big fleet ever again under those conditions. Perhaps, when the new t2/tier 3 'command' battleships come in this sort of info could be displayed on screen within game mechanics. Such as splitting a gang into a groups and being able to seeing what ships are in that group and of course the ability to merge groups. The players would see what group they are in on their screens somewhere and would change if they are merged. Then the commander would only have to call a nmber for the groups on ts? Could be elaborated on. ' Bullfights. Bull hockey. Do you like this? The bull is stabbed, prodded, beaten. The bull is wounded. The bull is tired before the matador ever steps into the ring. Now, is that victory? Of course
Narciss Sevar	Posted - 2005.10.09 10:38:00 - [82] Originally by: Lifewire Lately Myal and Chode were sniping a gate with 2 sniper-fitted BS. 2 Enyos warped on top of them and destroyed Chodes BS. With the new tanking such a cool tactic will not work anymore... I see this as a problem also, a few small ships will have a much harder time against a big ship as they will be able to get the same sort of firepower as a gank setup(remember the first 4 or so will not have so much stacking penalty as they do now) while still putting on a tank of some sort. Where as a smaller ship just doesn't have the slots. ' Bullfights. Bull hockey. Do you like this? The bull is stabbed, prodded, beaten. The bull is wounded. The bull is tired before the matador ever steps into the ring. Now, is that victory? Of course
Lifewire	Posted - 2005.10.09 11:34:00 - [83] Edited by: Lifewire on 09/10/2005 11:33:58 Quote: I realy can't see who would want to lead a big fleet ever again under those conditions I want to lead such a battle where i can have subleaders - squads that work on their own and not a gang of automated F1-F8-pressers. Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire.
Shirei	Posted - 2005.10.09 12:15:00 - [84] Edited by: Shirei on 09/10/2005 12:15:03 Meh, I don't really like that boost in tanking because it will have a potential to really hurt small gang PvP, which is pretty much most of what I do PvP-wise. You quite often will get situations where one side of a fight or both are sitting in jump or dock range at a station/gate. With tanking boosted (and damage nerfed a bit), that means it will become much harder to kill people before their aggro-timer expires - and smart people in small scale fights might tend to just stop shooting when they are called primary to wait out their aggro-timer while the enemy ships waste their fire on a ship they can't kill).
Lifewire	Posted - 2005.10.09 12:29:00 - [85] Bingo Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire.
Gabriel Karade	Posted - 2005.10.09 12:58:00 - [86] Ok so to overcome the HP boost/damage reduction you'd need more ships, this is a problem because?... If a lone Battleship gets caught out by a fleet of 10 there is no logical reason for it not to be demolished in short order. As to æIt supports more ganking by requiring extra shipsÆà If that's the case just where are you going to get these extra ships/pilots if you don't already have, and arenÆt already using them for ganking purposes? As far as fleet vs. fleet actions a far better and more realistic addition to the tanking boost/damage reduction, would be the suppressive effect of taking fire i.e. a ship becomes less accurate(targeting systems scrambled/damaged), firing at a lower RoF (power being diverted to defences/crew being knocked around) when taking hits. If a penalty, scaled as a function of damage, was applied to tracking/RoF and possibly lock range, then you would have a valid reason to split fire across a whole fleet because to not do so would put you at a disadvantage. At the same time there still would be the occasional valid reason for temporarily concentrating fire on one target ôConcentrate all fire on that Superà ermà Dreadnoughtö Finally having the negative effect on the target rather than the attacker, would prevent groups of small ships becoming obsolete, unlike how having an artificial limit to the number of guns per target would. (\_/) (O.o) (> <) "That's no ordinary rabbit!...that's the most foul, cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on"
Krayl	Posted - 2005.10.09 13:19:00 - [87] Edited by: Krayl on 09/10/2005 13:22:13 If sig radius went down as more ships fired on you, what's to stop you having a gang of alts behind you firing at you with civ rails? Doesn't sound like a solution that isn't extremely exploitable to me.
Lifewire	Posted - 2005.10.09 14:01:00 - [88] Quote: If sig radius went down as more ships fired on you, what's to stop you having a gang of alts behind you firing at you with civ rails? A lot of things are exploitable. The calculation must use the damage that is done to the target, not the ammount of guns/ships firing. So a 300 hitpoints shot or missile impact would reduce the targets sig much more than a 3 hitpoint shot. Each weapon would need a "explosion blast value". The bigger this value is, the more the sig of the targeted ship decreases. A civilian railgun would have a very small "explosion blast value" while a 425 railgun II has a bigger value. Your "exploit" wont happen then. Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.09 14:32:00 - [89] Ah, even better. Close range setups are suicidal! "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."

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.