| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
IVIECIYK GRYFFINDOR
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
0
   |
Posted - 2013.09.08 19:29:00 -
[1] - Quote
When i talk about my idea i will compare it with Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series).
Nowadays at EVE i "see" ships not damaged (100%HP) or total destroyed (BOOM and there is wreck only).
Why not make things more complicated. When plane gets some damage, it may lose power on a board, may lose control of some modules, it also can lose part of itself i mean cut wing or lost engine. Why not make it here. When your ship doesnt have shield, and it got big damage from missle or torpedo, it will burn, or lose control of some gun, or lose part of ship. That would make battles harder, more realistic, tactic at battlefield will be more important than crazy rush.
Other way may be "control of shields". If i have a big ship, i would like to control my power and direction of shields. If my enemy is only in front of me, so i dont need my back shield, i can put it in front of me. Now at battlefield you must be not only strong, but smart also. Small bomber at your back may finish you ( EVE is co-op game).
Returning to damage control. When you lose at fight your one engine, or some guns, or part of hull, someone another can pick them up, fix them and sell on a market ( i am sure most of you saw outer space battlefields full of wrecks and parts). But you must buy another for your ship, you can fix your ship but you cant fix what you dont have. So if you fly without some engine your speed is reduced or even you can not leave system, when you lost part of hull your hp is reduced/ modules may work not at 100%, or make random events.
For a first message I think it is enough, but when i think more about it, i get more ideas. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources
Tactical Narcotics Team
1688
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 19:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
Why do you hate armour and hull tanking? |
Arya Regnar
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
110
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 19:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Why do you hate armour and hull tanking?
He is probably new and has no idea what he is talking about 
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
IVIECIYK GRYFFINDOR
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 19:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
I dont hate :) you got me wrong. I even like them more than shield tankers. Just i would like to play game more polite for eye and also more expanded ( i dont claim it is easy :p). I think idea is good but it will be worse to make it balanced for different styles ( different races). I am new and i am not. I played EVE earlier and i came back. |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew
76
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 20:34:00 -
[5] - Quote
I suppose you are asking more for internal damages and a slight step closer to realism. Or somewhat a mix of what World of Tanks has in terms of negative effects when specific modules like engines and crew get destroyed/injured.
Yes, EVE's gamemodel in terms of hitpoints is just a big hp bar.
Unfortunately, not many fancy the idea of what you ask for. Elaborate it more, but I've already ask before about it. You will only get unnecessary results.
Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
IVIECIYK GRYFFINDOR
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 20:59:00 -
[6] - Quote
"I suppose you are asking more for internal damages and a slight step closer to realism."
Yes, i like realism and it make sens of games.
"Or somewhat a mix of what World of Tanks has in terms of negative effects when specific modules like engines and crew get destroyed/injured. "
Ohhh no no no :P I think EVE is closer to World of Tanks now than to War Thunder. I would like to be inversely. If you play both you feel difference.
"Unfortunately, not many fancy the idea of what you ask for. "
I dont agree with you. For me it would be fancy, especially if i spend time on battles or cleaning after them :P If you are buisness man and you sit only above desk i dont get why you can say it ;)
"I've already ask before about it though. You will only get unnecessary results."
Dreaming has no price. :) If it cant make true, i can only imagine it while playing. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources
Tactical Narcotics Team
1689
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 21:02:00 -
[7] - Quote
I don't think anyone is going to want to add in a feature that makes both armour and hull tanking worthless. |
IVIECIYK GRYFFINDOR
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 21:09:00 -
[8] - Quote
"I don't think anyone is going to want to add in a feature that makes both armour and hull tanking worthless."
Nobody said they will be worthless. For tonight i dont have idea for effects of shield damage. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources
Tactical Narcotics Team
1689
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 21:18:00 -
[9] - Quote
If I get my engines and guns smashed off when I try to armour tank, then armour tanking is worthless. |
IVIECIYK GRYFFINDOR
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 21:29:00 -
[10] - Quote
"If I get my engines and guns smashed off when I try to armour tank, then armour tanking is worthless."
That's why armor tanker uses armor repair kit or drones or another vehicle to fix himself. I think it may be like: your ship 100%-60% is ok, under 60% starts getting critical damage. If you fix before it gets critical and lose parts everything will be ok. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources
Tactical Narcotics Team
1689
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 21:33:00 -
[11] - Quote
If I have 50% of my armour left intact, but my guns and engines are still getting shot off, then my armour tank is useless. Buffer armour tanks, logi supported armour tanks and non-perma repping armour tanks would just get crippled in any kind of a challenging fight, while a shield boat would just laugh. |
IVIECIYK GRYFFINDOR
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 21:39:00 -
[12] - Quote
But if you lower than 50%, that doesnt mean at 100% you will have everything destroyed, this is random, you can have but also you can not have it. If you have crash at car you may have broken leg, or hand, or head, or everything. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources
Tactical Narcotics Team
1689
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 21:43:00 -
[13] - Quote
Counterpoint: If you shield tank you don't lose anything for dropping below 50%. Why would anyone armour tank? |
IVIECIYK GRYFFINDOR
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 21:52:00 -
[14] - Quote
As i said, i didnt think about shield yet. So if you are sufferer, you can think with me.
Example.
When you use shield, no armor, your defense system is more sensitive. More things can go down.
Like old car (armor tank) and new car with many systems ( shield tank) |
Nhaelyan Sarayan
State War Academy
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 23:58:00 -
[15] - Quote
This is not an advocating rally to this type of mechanic but no one here is taking the objective point so...
Stop thinking about the possible mechanic in flat realism. Shields are not "100%" shields in EVE or for that matter many game/book universes. They are buffers generated by energy of some sort. These things require multiple systems working together to function. Hence a "shield" is just as vulnerable to "failures" ship wide as a physical punch into the armor or hull. In some cases one could fathom they would be even more devastating.
For a mechanic like this to be fair the above must be considered. Hence..
We consider shields with some of the following possible mechanics:
1] If the shields take a percentage of their total remaining amount(say 10%) they have a random percentage to have a "critical power system failure". This means the more the shields are damaged the more likely you will have a critical failure.
In EVE terms these failures could be cap reduction, cap recharge reduction, shield recharge reduction, booster cycle time increase, etc. Power and engineering system failures basically.
2] A more basic and "nonlethal" mechanic is "annoyances" that don't directly end combat but rather act like glancing shots for hybrids. A shot has a percentage to get "lucky" and hit at a slightly better vector which allows it to overload a shield more than normal(IE more damage taken from the shot). This mechanic would be redundant however with the way weapons in eve work.
3] A modification of mechanic 2 would be secondary effects. Again only at annoyance levels. A shot overloads the capacitor and removes 2% of your current remaining capacitor for example.
To fold into lore on races with shield bias vs armor bias is rather easy to explain as well. A simple shield system used on say Amarr ships designed for armor tanking would be just that.. simple. Less need to tie into the grid for performance gains as it is not a primary means of defense. This means some critical failures would be flat out impossible(why would Amarr shields go near the capacitor system for example?) and others would be vastly reduced.
Again however.. I'm not advocating this. It would add a ******** level of combat complexity to an already complex game. I'm not entirely sure the extra "randomness" to combat would be worthwhile for the performance and balancing iteration time costs.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises
Ad-Astra
164
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 00:59:00 -
[16] - Quote
So, for a start shields in Eve don't work that way. They're unified, omnidirectional, and power is routed automatically wherever it's needed.
Second, you seem to be advocating for ships to not be destroyed when they're, well, destroyed. No. A reactor breach is not a fun event, it's not something you limp home from it takes your ship and turns it into a big melted jigsaw puzzle from which there might be a few salvageable components.
Also having your ship lose function and it takes damage would seriously screw with game balance and require a complete rework of the game system. Additional complexity is not a good thing when it means completely removing all of the existing complexity to incorporate it.
If this is just a request for non-standard wreck models, then sure, maybe in 10 years when that won't make everyone's graphics card spontaneously melt into a pile of slag. (fun fact, Capital ship wrecks are more graphically intensive than the ships themselves) |
Nhaelyan Sarayan
State War Academy
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 01:17:00 -
[17] - Quote
No matter how the shields lore wise operate they still must interconnect to ship power grids. It does not matter in the slightest what happens after the power hits the emitter for damage control purposes. That is a device failure. The OP is talking about hard failures and overloads within the actual superstructure. A "backlash" into the power grid will act.. well like backlashes to a power grid. Depending on the level of engineering involved you CAN make repairable portions that fry instead of taking out the entire system.
Again.. once the power is IN the shield system itself.. that is a whole different ballgame. Think when you plug a toaster in. Even if the socket seems to work perfectly how much back end is in place to make it provide power?
--
Secondly a reactor breach would be pretty darn bad.. If you only had one and they had no form of shutdown systems for combat situations resulting in failure. Which wouldn't make sense on a combat ship to have no form of safe shutdown at all. Sure not every ship has multiple power sources but at the end of the day the point is made. Redundancy allows for repair. Redundancy also requires active control to ensure optimal efficiency under stress. Automated systems in any universe cant always respond to catastrophic failure in the most efficient way possible because by nature catastrophic failure is unexpected and chaotic. Losing one capacitor subsystem doesn't mean the entire grid is totaled on a battleship over a kilometer in length. The only way to create a total system failure in something that large is to well.. cut it in half.
Thirdly only the OP wishes function removal. I merely stated reduction via percentages which is pretty much in line with EWAR mechanics as they currently stand. Nothing breaks.. it just gets less efficient randomly. Adding an additional layer would certainly increase balancing complexity though but only by nature of increasing the complexities of combat variations. |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
302
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 04:23:00 -
[18] - Quote
IVIECIYK GRYFFINDOR wrote:That's why armor tanker uses armor repair kit or drones or another vehicle to fix himself. I think it may be like: your ship 100%-60% is ok, under 60% starts getting critical damage. If you fix before it gets critical and lose parts everything will be ok.
Imagine that armor HP and hull bars that you see are a safe margin of damage your ship can take before structural integrity becomes compromised. So 'wrecks' that you see in space are actually what you are asking for: ships with their systems smashed/disabled beyond repair. Explosions are actually a fancy graphics that should occur while shooting wrecks and not ships (for players ships, NPC ships have no POD to keep safe and eject before destruction so they can explode all they want.).
Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |
IVIECIYK GRYFFINDOR
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 05:52:00 -
[19] - Quote
I know there are some parts at wrecks. But i think about something bigger. If you destroy something big i would like to See sea of trushes. Big size loot May be outside, smaller at some bins. World of eve is big, but IT could be more beautifull. About too complicated changes for models of the shop and performance of fights: Game is for the People, not People for a game. We make rules. We control that universe. SO i want to better control for my ship. |
Vizvig
Savage Blizzard
Bright Side of Death
118
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 06:53:00 -
[20] - Quote
This was shown on fanfest.
And this cancelled, coz eve players didn't want it.
This is another afk cloacking thread? |
Shalua Rui
Rui Freelance Mining
20185
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 07:25:00 -
[21] - Quote
Vizvig wrote:This was shown on fanfest.
And this cancelled, coz eve players didn't want it.
True that... while I don't quite understand the aversion many players have against more randomization in battles, 'cause personally I think that would make combat a little more exciting (and "realistic" for that matter), it seams to be pretty consistent.
I could imagine of many ways to introduce systems damage/destruction... by linking it with structure (not armor, mind you, since that would defeat the purpose if it) or by even giving combatants the option to target different systems. I mean, we fly highly compex, sofisticated war machines, if they take enough punishment, certain parts are bound to fail at some point...
...alas, "realism" is a word the competitive minded EVE players (which are most of them) don't really like, because that's something they can't calculate with. 
EDIT: I do still hope we atleast see a more complex visual damage model at some point, though... that would give more realism to combat without changing the system.
"ginger forum goddess, space gypsy and stone nibbler extraordinaire!"
Shalua Rui - CEO and founder of Rui Freelance Mining (RFLM)
Feature ideas I had/endorse: Crew Managment, Orcas as mobile Bases |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew
76
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 08:19:00 -
[22] - Quote
Quote:"Unfortunately, not many fancy the idea of what you ask for. "
I dont agree with you. For me it would be fancy, especially if i spend time on battles or cleaning after them :P If you are buisness man and you sit only above desk i dont get why you can say it ;)
Some of the responses somewhat reflect what I meant.
I think there is too much fear about armor tanking being a prime victim of some sort, too.
Another problem (or say, aspect, since people don't see this as a problem per se) of the game/community is that people want things to stay as they are.
Personally, since the general subject of the thread is more or less a drastic change alike the afk cloaking topic or dare say "local chat", there is this dream of mine where there would be seperate game of EVE featuring some different damage model as revealed here.
But let's focus on the live server version and imagine a bit.
Since there is the hull/armor tanking problem, I still think this idea can be done.
But there has to be some minor changes as to how the game is about "ships, damage model and when ships blow up.".
Right now, unless a ship is a hull tanker, when you hit structure you are pretty much dead. Even with Damage Control Modules (this of course is different if you are flying a battleship or anything larger).
Right now, most ships are too instant-pop'y for any one to cherish the idea. Then of course, the aforementioned "armor/hull tanking being the victim of this idea".
My supportive suggestion:
Have the weapons and models bring along +hp bonus to the ship.
Now I have other ideas to support this, but they are too much of a drastic change, too much dream/pipedreaming to hijack this thread.
So as a rough example.
A medium turret gives you +200 raw structure hp. (this could also be based on a specific skill and its skill level!)
You cruiser has 4 turrets, -> your cruiser gets 800hp extra.
Med/low slot modules could bring small bonuses to armor. Itty-bitty bonuses.
And of course, there could be for instance also negative effects for balance sake.
This would give armor/hull tanking an edge over the general Shield Tanking without just making ships like gods. It would give the ships more beef and they wouldn't blow up that easily.
Considering that pipedream I mentioned, this is why I wish there would be a seperate set of ships that are like cloned hulls, but have a different playstyle and dmg model system -- So player can choose old school or "new" school. Both balanced yet one offering a different playstyle than the other (therefore, the old school one for instance has something the new school doesn't - to ensure neither makes the other obsolete).
Maybe that can help your idea. Or not. I don't know.
Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
224
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 09:04:00 -
[23] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Vizvig wrote:This was shown on fanfest.
And this cancelled, coz eve players didn't want it. True that... while I don't quite understand the aversion many players have against more randomization in battles, 'cause personally I think that would make combat a little more exciting (and "realistic" for that matter), it seams to be pretty consistent. I could imagine of many ways to introduce systems damage/destruction... by linking it with structure (not armor, mind you, since that would defeat the purpose if it) or by even giving combatants the option to target different systems. I mean, we fly highly compex, sofisticated war machines, if they take enough punishment, certain parts are bound to fail at some point... ...alas, "realism" is a word the competitive minded EVE players (which are most of them) don't really like, because that's something they can't calculate with. EDIT: I do still hope we atleast see a more complex visual damage model at some point, though... that would give more realism to combat without changing the system.
the problem is the randomness is too random. WoT has never locked down a good balance for this imo. As implied in this mechanic is different races have different weaknesses. Blah blah made better engines. Eve would have this too. And here balancing gets fun. WoT has never been able to shake the claims of german prejudice. Mainly because for some tanks they were no where near their WWII levels of badassitude. Or for the years I played on off and on....they were rolling BBQ grills.
Front hit on german tank sets it on fire....apparently the germans coated tanks in gasoline. So they said well its because some of the tranny is in the front of the tank. Wtf a blown tranny has to do with causing an engine fire I never grasped in WOT, but it was the implied reason for the engine "damage" taken that started a fire. I was more surprised if my KT did not catch on fire than when it did. Now when I shot russian engines out....rate of fire real low. More fuel to the debate of prejudice
Also all this stuff is on game. Dead horse time
pretend scram/web is causing engine damage.
ecm pretend the guns are broken
nos/neut to induce pretend engine problems
|
Shalua Rui
Rui Freelance Mining
20185
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 09:06:00 -
[24] - Quote
Vayn Baxtor wrote:And of course, there could be for instance also negative effects for balance sake.
Intresting idea, since most modules (and all rigs) already have negative impact on one aspect of the ships stats or the other...
Still, I don't see how one could track why and how certain modules get damaged, without resorting to randomness.
Also, as a side note: Fear of change has always plagued the EVE community... we would have a very different (and dare I say, maybe even better?) game right now if it wouldn't.
"ginger forum goddess, space gypsy and stone nibbler extraordinaire!"
Shalua Rui - CEO and founder of Rui Freelance Mining (RFLM)
Feature ideas I had/endorse: Crew Managment, Orcas as mobile Bases |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 09:26:00 -
[25] - Quote
IVIECIYK GRYFFINDOR wrote:As i said, i didnt think about shield yet. So if you are sufferer, you can think with me.
Example.
When you use shield, no armor, your defense system is more sensitive. More things can go down.
Like old car (armor tank) and new car with many systems ( shield tank)
Don't worry about Danika, he's just always being ****** and trying to shoot down new ideas but see what happens when asked to think? Yea, disappears 
Just keep polishing your idea, it makes sense realistically and i agree the visual effects would be nice for damage but those system damages could be hard to pull off and balance.
Keep up the good work  |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
121
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 10:28:00 -
[26] - Quote
I admit it would be cool to attack several weakpoints or kill specific Ship parts like in Homeworld 2.
But i think the acutal gameplay in eve doesnt Support it properly without getting anoying pretty fast. |
IVIECIYK GRYFFINDOR
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 12:32:00 -
[27] - Quote
Can you provide more and better informations? What was that and how many players said no cause i dont believe every player of eve didnt want changes. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources
Tactical Narcotics Team
1692
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 12:43:00 -
[28] - Quote
Johnson Oramara wrote:IVIECIYK GRYFFINDOR wrote:As i said, i didnt think about shield yet. So if you are sufferer, you can think with me.
Example.
When you use shield, no armor, your defense system is more sensitive. More things can go down.
Like old car (armor tank) and new car with many systems ( shield tank) Don't worry about Danika, he's just always being ****** and trying to shoot down new ideas but see what happens when asked to think? Yea, disappears Just keep polishing your idea, it makes sense realistically and i agree the visual effects would be nice for damage but those system damages could be hard to pull off and balance. Keep up the good work
Actually, I went to bed. <_<
I'd just like to know why it should be possible to lose large chunks of your ship while y0our primary tank is still working perfectly. Why something should be able to bypass more than half of your HP and cripple your ship regardless.
I fly a lot of logi sometimes, and have saved many a ship in low structure. What would be the point of saving them if they're too crippled to do anything useful? What would be the point of being the pilot of said maimed ship if you can no-longer participate in the fight you were a part of until you go find a station and rep up properly?
I just don't see why making ships with large chunks of their EHP still intact virtually useless is. Why is that hard to understand? |
IVIECIYK GRYFFINDOR
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 13:21:00 -
[29] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:I admit it would be cool to attack several weakpoints or kill specific Ship parts like in Homeworld 2.
But i think the acutal gameplay in eve doesnt Support it properly without getting anoying pretty fast.
You said about homeworld 2. I played some time at mod simple complex. There are things as i said, wrecks at large scale. And even if game isnt expanded as eve, IT is very pretty for watching. And possibility of targeting modules of ships. And you were wrong, it came back  |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew
76
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 17:41:00 -
[30] - Quote
WoT is a bit of a drastic example. It is a bad one to be honest, but is still a modern example. It is not the best. There are tons of other games bug those are niche and I doubt people ever played (especially pre-2000). But I agree on that "chance of fire" in WoT being
I think one is jumping the gun to be seeing it too much of an aggresive change. Or assuming it has to be realistic etc.
It is just a suggestion in hopes to make it more diverse rather than just a big HP bar.
While I like playing healer, I do not like the current system with Logis specifically because it just usually ends up in who has more of them - something that has also been a "problem" in other MMORPGs wit pvp, like wow.
Back in oldschool DAOC times, there were ways for certain classes to negate some 40% of that heal. But as soon as somebody something like that, people would go haywire and say ECM/Damps are already "punishing enough".
Quote:What would be the point of saving them if they're too crippled to do anything useful?
Could expand the Repair Hull Repair Module in away so that heals module dmg (not heat dmg btw). Would bring more uses to that module and tacklers with that extra hislot somebody could be useful to fix people up.
I'd have an idea to expand that on ships but again, it will be shot down with ease.
In terms of that situation you mentioned, the point that you saved them from blowing up is a reward already. Lossmail = failure, after all.
Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |