| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Neil armstrong
   |
Posted - 2006.05.23 18:00:00 -
[1]
iv had a thought about fleet fights how about putting a limit on the number of hostile ships that can lock a single ship ie 4 bs max can lock another bs 6-8 cruiser can lock 1 bs 10+ frigs etc worth considering/discussing??
ps flame all u like but make it constructive plz
|
Alexander Knott
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 18:09:00 -
[2]
The other way to work something like this is to limit the amount of damage that can be sustained during some unit of time. This has been suggested before as a way to counter the effectiveness of assisting in other games (in cases where assisting becomes so effective that there is no way for a healer to react). The problem with this variation on the idea is that it hurts alphastrike/sniping setups.
It's an interesting train of thought anyway. Instant death is really not fun in any game.
|
Neil armstrong
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 18:26:00 -
[3]
y would it hurt snipers and alpha strike?
u could get upto say 4 ships blastin u (u could have maybe 3 bs and 3-4 frigs for tacklin porposes) the numbers are open to debate ur max dmg idea seems interesting but it must be high enough to break every possible tank or u end up with invulnerable ships
|
Mrmuttley
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 18:36:00 -
[4]
The alpha strike style ships such as a tempest with 6 x 1400mm artillery IIs dish out some horrific damage. Their weak spot is the ROF. So if you have a "max rate of damage sustainable" then the alpha strikers may find that they cannot operate effectively together. Should three tempests all activate their 1400s at the same time then the ship on the receiving end may only take say 30% of the damage before the "max damage per second" is reached.
On that basis the autocannons and pulse lazers would rule the battlefield and 1400s would never be used in fleet only in solo sniper setups.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am Dyslexic of Borg.
Your ass will be laminated. |
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 18:36:00 -
[5]
That would be great. But unfotunatly it will never happen as all the big alliances would loose out severely
|
Neil armstrong
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 18:57:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Shin Ra
That would be great. But unfotunatly it will never happen as all the big alliances would loose out severely
i disagree it would mean that theyd work in groups of 4 or 5 bs(more for smaller ships) instead of 25 ppl shooting 1 target giving him 10 secs to live it would require a bit of planning ie group a go for target a etc etc extra numbers still give a big advantege but it gives the target a better chance of A surviving or B dealing a little dmg before he go boom boom
|
O'Sirius
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 19:22:00 -
[7]
What's wrong with ganking? You want to avoid em? Use scouts. Stay in areas protected by your alliance. Anyway, you run into 10 people, why should only 6 of them be able to shoot at you? Of course unless you're flying something tough you'll pop before all of them lock on you anyway.
|
Neil armstrong
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 19:28:00 -
[8]
it means fights just dont last long enough u can still gank somebody with 4-5 bs + a tackler or 2 its mainly for fleet engagements atm theres little point fitting any tank u just hope ur not next
|
Keta Min
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 20:31:00 -
[9]
the right way to restrict blob warfare would not be those artificial dmg or targeting limits which are both annoying and stupid but introducing counters. a blob should be afraid of small squads of specifically fitted ships which would be useless in any other situation except attacking (and maybe suiciding into) that blob while causing major damage. a possibility would be some sort of chain lightning weapon system that is too weak when attacking a small gang but gets exponentially stronger when attacking a large number of ships huddled in a small area (20km radius, can be increased by skills?).
eg. each hit of that weapon system only causes 10 dmg but has 50% chance to jump over to each of the ship in reach and that up to 5 times at skill lvl5 creating an exponentially damaging effect. the numbers would have to be balanced in a way that it becomes effective against fleets reaching numbers of hm.. somewhere 50 to 100? when a group of maybe 10 to 20% the size of it would be able to inflict heavy losses while dying to the standard focused fire fleet tactics.
just a proposal 
|
Neil armstrong
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 21:01:00 -
[10]
a kamikazi frig sounds good
|
Clavius XIV
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 21:46:00 -
[11]
It's a hard problem to solve without making the resulting gameplay too contrived.
Perhaps a mechanic or module where when a ship gets to hull some kind of emergency module kicks in, making the ship immune from all damage if it is not tackled (of course in this state the ship is incapacitated and can't activate any modules.. perhaps also it can't warp).
Result: Nothing that isn't tackled ever dies, lots of small ship fights around the main fleet. Long range BS become fire support and not 90% of the fleet.
Problems: To hard to die already in PvE, would need scrambling. Perhaps the module would work more like seige mode, useing fuel carried aboard, or only for a limited time after hull is reached. Thus you'd need to switch targets and then come back to finish them off later.
|
Shamis Orzoz
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 23:00:00 -
[12]
the solution is to make Remote armor reps and shield transfers a viable option. Improve the locking mechanism for friendy modules and give logistics ships a ****ton of hitpoints.
|
Vikram Bedi
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 23:55:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Shamis Orzoz
the solution is to make Remote armor reps and shield transfers a viable option. Improve the locking mechanism for friendy modules and give logistics ships a ****ton of hitpoints.
/signed
imo, remote reps and shield transfers shouldn't require a lock at all between gangmates, and it just occurred to me (so not much thought into it), but a small target stacking bonus would help with the anti-gank aspect of it.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |