| 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 |
Troezar
|
Posted - 2005.10.06 17:15:00 -
[31]
How about giving bonuses for mixed (ship types) gangs and/or penalties for say all BS gangs?
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.10.06 19:21:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Lifewire
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.
Sorry, wrong initial assumption.
More hp == more gank setups, and more ganking.
Remember that 2 damage mods will do MORE damage, which helps a lot of cruisers, frex (And the Rail tarranis I fly). If the enemy is tougher, you'll want to do more damage. People will fly ships with greater sustained damage. (I expect usage of Minmatar ships to fall).
Forcast indicates more camping is expected.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2005.10.06 19:40:00 -
[33]
Whatever opinion you have about the change - you can be sure it is a major change! If tanks get boosted so much there will be situations very often where enemys cannot destroy each others ships.
These new tanks also dont need instas anymore: nobody (unless 5+ battleships) will be able to destroy a mwd-hac before it can jump after 15 km to the gate.
As pirate i know that change will change warfare a lot, ship kills will be reduced and blobbing will once more be the only answer to adapt. Killer-teams will simply need more firepower. This is a fact.
Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire. |
Jason Kildaro
|
Posted - 2005.10.06 20:05:00 -
[34]
Quote:
Whatever opinion you have about the change - you can be sure it is a major change! If tanks get boosted so much there will be situations very often where enemys cannot destroy each others ships.
Maybe that is the problem? Take out invunerability fields and the "boost all resistance" setups. Make it so that you can't tank EVERYTHING but only one thing extremely well. This makes ammo choice more of a factor and may force fleet commanders to split thier firepower...placing the RIGHT firepower where it is needed.
|
Mangold
|
Posted - 2005.10.06 21:37:00 -
[35]
I'm with Lifewire on this one.
Small hit groups wont be possible anymore.
|
Xune
|
Posted - 2005.10.06 21:50:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Lifewire
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.
honestly ?
i love that idear... even if life hate me and i dont like him ^^ he often bring realy good idear¦s up
|
Deka Kador
|
Posted - 2005.10.06 21:52:00 -
[37]
More hitpoints = less kills....for snipers.
|
Cmdr Sp0ck
|
Posted - 2005.10.06 22:42:00 -
[38]
I like the idea. Making the BS harder to kill can certainly increase battle times. Don't think it will necessarily decrease overall losses in game. Or rather, the decrease wont be too drastic?
Dunno really. At the very least im up for longer battles.
|
Tenacha Khan
|
Posted - 2005.10.06 23:22:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Cmdr Sp0ck
I like the idea. Making the BS harder to kill can certainly increase battle times. Don't think it will necessarily decrease overall losses in game. Or rather, the decrease wont be too drastic?
Dunno really. At the very least im up for longer battles.
I like lifewires sugestion, it would need to be messed about with so that it doesnt outcast low sp players, on the otherhand I dont feel that fleet battles will last longer with the boost to dmg mod stacking and hp.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 00:56:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Cmdr Sp0ck
I like the idea. Making the BS harder to kill can certainly increase battle times. Don't think it will necessarily decrease overall losses in game. Or rather, the decrease wont be too drastic?
Dunno really. At the very least im up for longer battles.
Don't kid yourself.
The limiting factors on fleet battles are:
Tackling ships moving into range
Capacitor capacity
Reinforcements
NOT generally (except target callers)
How quickly anyone dies.
Fleet battles are unlikely to last that much longer. Less deaths.
But, tbh, I don't really care about that. My focus is smaller engagements, which will be more drastically affected...
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Corvus Anderran
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 01:27:00 -
[41]
Forgive me if I've understood this wrong, but I can't see why there would suddenly be situations of 2 ships unable to break each other's tanks? The only two benefits an active tank setup has after these changes are stacking penalty changes making double hardeners more effective and 25% extra HP. They get better resists with the hardeners off than they did before but that's mostly irrelevant. And the 25% extra HP only serves to prevent a barrage of 1400s stripping your armor each salvo and doing a little structure damage. A decrease in refire rate of artillery but with a damage increase to maintain the DPS will result in things being pretty much the same, since the repair rate of the best tanks hasn't changed. Right?
|
OffBeaT
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 01:50:00 -
[42]
yea, i for one dont fight too much in this game anymore becouse of the way they are gearing up combat mostly for fleet battles & ******* it up for the solo/smal corp hunters now. i dont realy have a strong vertile solo combat ship anymore or not since the raven/missile/jamming nerfs anyway, for the job of solo hunting that is. so now its just come down too pulling up too a corp and calling somone out too fight. since most dont fight solo i just end up leaving pised off that even with days or weeks of tracking somone for there crimes aginst me or others i proble unless they won't too fight can't catch them aswell as i could in the past without more abilitys that the ships could do in the past. never mined ****en beefing up the armor of the ships, just give us some mods that stop other ships from group locking too you. damps use too work great for that, as a solo hunter i could load up 6 damps and throw 2 on each ship too stay alive out numberd long enough too maybe get at that player i wont. i could stop frigs from worp jaming me and keep them at bay out of range while i sluged it out with the BS. i cant do this kind of attacks anymore. i cant trust my damps or my jamming gear. so f all that kind of fun i use too have. i WONT ships that are for solo speclized players like me who like too spend weeks tracking criminals then needing the ability too use my ship in very versitaile ways with some real firepower. i mean most players in this game dont wont too be bounty hunters anymore becouse they are always out numberd now & the ships just flat out suck for the jobs. lets bring back the law men in the game with ships that are geard for the solo hunters. i should not need 10 players just too hunt one guy. i wont ships for solo players who have highend skills too use them. they should have many mid/low slots or more then the normal types of ships anyway.
|
Ticondrius
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 01:50:00 -
[43]
First..I'm generally in support of CCP's move. I just ask that they throughly test the HP increase, as well as the mass increases for plates.
Second..the original poster had this idea that got me thinking about the massed fire problem. Originally, massed fire made fleet battles possible in the early days, as insta-ganking and uberhigh dps wasn't really that possible. Without massed fire, losses on both sides would get near 50% or so before one side or the other would breakoff, meaning a HUGE loss of power for the fleets involved. Remember, back then to have 100m average wallet was an extreme luxury back then.
I like the idea of a reduced signature, but I think I might have a better idea. What if a gang had a limited number of pilots that could target the same ship? You'd have to have and use multiple gangs to get the same massed fire effect you do now, forcing large fleets to divide their firepower to like 3-5 ships per target. This would nearly eliminate the small ganksquads everyone loves to hate, and encourage tactical thinking in large fleet engagements.
Rather than going by the thinking of "Blob A" vs "Blob B", you'd break it down into ship class combat and small unit tactics. You'd get frigs weaving in and out around the enemy battleships hunting down other frigs and light cruisers. You'd see cruisers trying to augment a battleship's firepower, and 2-3 battleships tearing other battleships to shreds. You might even *GASP* create a restricted access fleet channel for the entire formation, and build the fleet into operation gangs! OMG! The possibility for fleet flexibility are massive!
In order to "sell" the idea of a maximum number of ships able to target a single ship CCP could Make it a new gang support skill/module system named along the theme of massed fire. Imagine the first skill allowing the gang to have up to 5 ships on a single target, then the advanced to give increased tracking to a target that has 2 or more gang members targetting it, then maybe a command module that grants a bonus to lock speed for a target that at least 1 gang member already has locked?
|
slip66
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 03:06:00 -
[44]
I dont think there is anything wrong with adding HP and increasing the takning ability of ships. The battles need to be longer like they used to be. They went for a hour plus at times and people still died.
I dont think we should be able to reduce sig radius to crazy levels only a small amount.
I welcome a stacking nerf. I dont want to see any kind of diminishing returns for focused fire unless it's only possible thru the use of gang assist modules.
|
slip66
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 03:07:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Deka Kador
More hitpoints = less kills....for snipers.
whats wrong with that? there is very little risk involved for snipers. You should have to trade up dmg for the safety of that range.
|
Jak'ai
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 03:15:00 -
[46]
TBH - I see where the motivation comes from, but these changes seem to be far too heavily weighted to defence. Increase HP, increases in resistances and decreases in damage all in one go is a bit much.
The problem with making combat longer is that it (further) promotes combat by spreadsheet. Damage per second is what matters, which will likely shaft the ships/weapons that rely on front-loaded or volley damage.
I think some other system needs to be implemented to keep volley damage relevant. Maybe something like: all weapons get a chance at getting a "penetrating" hit (projectiles and missiles higher chance, then hybrids and lasers). Penetrating hits would damage a random module, destroying it if damage is high enough. Damage controls could do what they were supposed to do originally (add HP to modules). Matari and Caldari ships would be more appealing to those that like to take chances. Short range guns vs long range guns balance out as short range get more chances at module hits, but can't destroy a module in one hit. Long range guns have fewer chances, but would probably destroy modules (assuming weapon sizes are equal).
Anything to prevent "Dude - what's your DPS?" from becoming even more prevalent.
|
Captin Biltmore
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 04:12:00 -
[47]
Wasn't it Churchill that said, "Peace through superior firepower", or was it Patten. Oh well, superior numbers IS a part of PVP...and any fighting anywhere (except for amarr vs. jove for some odd reason).
Assasin For Hire - Contact in game |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 05:01:00 -
[48]
The whole purpose of nerfing gank setups and such is not to make it so people SURVIVE people so much as make it so that the guy having the gank setup doesn't win 100% of the time.
When you have all these new advanced weapon skills, tech II weapons, tech II dmg mods, ect it makes it very easy to make insanely high DPS ships, so what good are defensive ships, or electronic warfare, ect.
They're not trying to nerf the ability to kill each other, but what kind of viable setups can change the outcome of a fight. Right now it's GANK4TW. 
------
|
Megadon
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 06:34:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Megadon on 07/10/2005 06:35:59
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.
Your suggested solution is worse than the problem. Your trying to cure brain cancer by putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger.
I agree with the intent of what you are trying to achieve and I think it would make the game more interesting. But so far, none of the solutions discussed here make any sense.
Doing something like nerfing fleet vollies is not acceptable, because it flies in the face of so many other elements of the game mechanics. Like gang warfare link modules for example.
There are two seperate issues. The individual combat pilot is going to have more of a challenge then before and it is evenly balanced on both sides, so i don't see a problem. The outrageous damage output ship fitting, will now have a tougher time quickly killing a target. The overall drive is to encourage more teamplay and it is successful at this.
The blobbing issues i don't think is in response to any particular mechanic of the game, its just a simple fact that more ships is better than fewer ships. It's this way in any multiplayer game. More is better whether you're playing Eve or Quake 3. To addresss this, CCP is forcing mixed fleets and bringing a lot of other elements to bear in this equation such as warfare link mods, increased tanking ability, strengthening smaller ships, making logistics more viable for support, tweaking weapons and damage output and dreadnoughts. I think that over time, the intended effect will be longer engagements and more strategy than just calling primary and secondary targets. But I think the changes will occur slowly over time as the playerbase learns how to best use these resources to their full effect and i dont think that's happened yet or even begun. Consequently, I don't think something as intrusive as you suggest is needed. There are a lot of changes happening and i think it is too soon to judge what the long term effect is going to be.
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 10:32:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Lifewire on 07/10/2005 10:35:30
Try to see it from a pirate corp view:
more hitpoints makes us need more firepower to kill someone at a snipe- or tankcamp and also makes us need more firepower when we attack someone in a belt. So we need MORE ships to do our work. The effect will be that we need 10 instead of 7 camper ships. Where is the improvement? The result is still the same: 1 guy gets ganked.
Try to see it from an alliance fleet pilots view:
more hitpoints make it more than ever nessesairy to concentrate fire on 1 target in fleet battles. So the not very good PVP in EVE would be even more simplyfied to "name-target-all-fire". Don¦t think that this stuff is tactic - this is absilutly simplyfied combat to have 1 leader that calls 1 target after the other. So i also don¦t see the improvement for fleet battles.
Nerfing fleet volleys do improve all kind of battles, because a fleet will need "subleaders" and each pilot will have to do his own dicissions. A fleetbattle will be splitted into several smaller battles were at one egde of the battle some pilots fight "their targets" and on the other edge of the battle 40 km away they figth completly different targets. This is a very interesting PVP upgrade if the simplyfied "all-shot-at-one-target" leaves this way.
It does not make numbers useless! But it helps the smaller group. So more battles will happen because smaller groups wont sefespot so often, they will more often try if they are for example only outnumbered 13:10 or 7:5.
Nerfing blobwarfare is anyway a good thing. Even people that use blobwarfare know very well that blobwarfare is 99% boring and the few combat that happens is totally lagged then. Not very exiting.
Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire. |
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 10:46:00 -
[51]
Nah, more hp's also means more time to employ your EW, to make speed or close range, to have staggered warpins ...
to employ tactics.
Sorry, but if this change nerfs sniping camps you won't see me crying about it. Sniping camps need a hell of a nerf anyway.
It's effect on tankcamps is relative. You need to do damage longer and thus need more staying power. More hp's and better resists = more staying power.
However, I would hate to see tanking camps nerfed by this, so I agree a good look at smaller scale combat and tank balance is needed. But tbh, I think thats exactly what they're going to do.
As far as the rest goes. Fighting outnumbered depends on superior tactics, not superior firepower. More time means more chance to use those tactics, as well as needing them to be better if they are to let your survive an encounter with a larger gang.
All in all, 1v1 is just a small and insignificant part of Eve combat. Small gang warfare is the largest by far, and fleetbattles are again a small part (but one often looked forward to most for some reason).
They all need their balance, but to stop a change because it could affect 1v1's negatively ?
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know.
Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online
Solutions to your issues. |
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 11:03:00 -
[52]
It doesnt nerf sinping camps much. It will only need an additional sniper for cruisers and battleships. I don¦t feel nerved with this patch too much. The better tanking will make it possible to camp close at the gate much better.
But the main effect is that MORE ships are needed to sink one ship. This cannot be good, it will cause larger camps, more blobbing and additional boredome. What is needed is a solution that improves combat. My solution improves combat:
Battles like we know em:
A fleetcomander names the targets and all gunship-pilots do shoot this target. Simplyfied combat so even totally stupid people can be usefull.
Battles with fleetvolly nerf:
Concentrating fire will still be usefull, but when concentrated on one target too much it will have a negative effect (fleet is loosing DPS). So each pilot has to make decissions too, not only a fleetcommander. Every single pilot needs to think himself what target it could be wise to shoot at right in this moment. If he sees and enemy BS already under heavy fire he should pick his own targets. This makes PVP more interesting. It also helps the smaller teams and nerfes blobs wich is a good thing. We all know that blobwarfare is often very boring. Forcing players into gangsizes between 5-15 is a good way to solve all these blobbing problems. It simply wont be usefull to be in a blob anymore and so the most stupid warfare option that EVE has, the blobbing, will disapear slowly.
Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire. |
Agnar Koladrov
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 11:08:00 -
[53]
An overall HP increase will make tech 1 cruiser more survivable then they are now in PvP, discounting overplated setups. Even frigs will bennefit from an hp increase, but I have my doubts with what this would do with bs`s vc anything lower (discounting tec2 ships)
|
Lord WarATron
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 11:13:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 07/10/2005 11:13:38
Again, everyone assumes a one sided stance about this extra 25% hitpoints.
Firstly, I assume it means 25% to everything and not just structure
Secondly, it will put in place a possibility of players be strong enough to tank the next gen lvl5 agents, to which I assume a HAC could not even tank. It will also means more people will enter 10/10 complexes etc.
Thirdly, the next gen T3 equipment is going to pop BS's like BS's pop Frigs today.
Finally, if they made it 25% longer to start warp in addition to the extra 25% hp's, that would be very intresting.
The whole point is to have a system in place that will allow support for future updates.
|
Redblade
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 11:37:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Lifewire
But the main effect is that MORE ships are needed to sink one ship. This cannot be good, it will cause larger camps, more blobbing and additional boredome.
That is a problem with the sentry/agro system more then the hp increase.
Originally by: Lifewire
Battles with fleetvolly nerf:
Concentrating fire will still be usefull, but when concentrated on one target too much it will have a negative effect (fleet is loosing DPS). So each pilot has to make decissions too, not only a fleetcommander. Every single pilot needs to think himself what target it could be wise to shoot at right in this moment. If he sees and enemy BS already under heavy fire he should pick his own targets. This makes PVP more interesting. It also helps the smaller teams and nerfes blobs wich is a good thing. We all know that blobwarfare is often very boring. Forcing players into gangsizes between 5-15 is a good way to solve all these blobbing problems. It simply wont be usefull to be in a blob anymore and so the most stupid warfare option that EVE has, the blobbing, will disapear slowly.
And who are u to decide that 5-15 man gangs shuld be the norm?
As for the single member needing to chose what to shoot in a fleet, it will make leadership harder and add alot of chaos to the gangs and possibly resulting in people getting killed just because of it and in the long run make people not wanting to go on fleet ops.
Your idea isn't a way to improve battle, it's a nerf to combat in general as it will give leaders headakes about how many to bring and how to set up gangs and such wich will lead to less people wanting to do it hence less combat gangs because noone can be arsed to make it happen.
Killboard |
Wild Rho
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 11:41:00 -
[56]
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.
|
James Lyrus
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 11:57:00 -
[57]
In my limited experience of PvP, I have to say, the fights are over just too fast.
I have no trouble with the idea that you'll need more ships to instantly gank things. IMO 'instantly ganking' things is one of the things that makes PvPing _less_ fun, for all parties.
I can see more people entering PvP if their experience of it isn't '*blam* in yer pod'.
Investment Opportunity:
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 12:14:00 -
[58]
With my not limited PVP experience...i have to say that more hitpoints will not change that some unlucky guys that were named as targets will go instapop. It just will need more firepower and i guess in fleetbattles there is enough firepower to instapop any shipclass. So only a nerf of fleetvolleys will change this not very exiting combat experience of beeing the named target. If well balanced, the fleets are forced to split their fire. Some say here it will cause chaos - chaos is good! War is chaos and the people that can handle chaos are good in combat. 1 leader in both teams naming one target is not chaos - it¦s simplyfied combat. It¦s like drawing a frame on all your "command and conquer" units and sent let them fire on one enemy unit...simplyfied crap.
Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire. |
Deka Kador
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 15:20:00 -
[59]
Originally by: slip66
Originally by: Deka Kador
More hitpoints = less kills....for snipers.
whats wrong with that? there is very little risk involved for snipers. You should have to trade up dmg for the safety of that range.
Ding! Gratz!
That's where I was coming from...hopefully this will be the final nail in the coffin for snipers.
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2005.10.07 16:55:00 -
[60]
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 
Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire. |
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] |