| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Noriath
   |
Posted - 2006.06.02 20:11:00 -
[151]
Acctually I like the idea of crew, every ship would get a standart crew, but if you have inhabitable planets in systems where you have sovreignty you could maybe build up a population there and draft higher quality crews from them...
|
Kaylana Syi
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 20:25:00 -
[152]
 Originally by: Maya Rkell
long list of stuff aimed at Noriath
I am in a thread where I agree with one of Maya's posts...
/me looks to the sky for fire and brimstone
Originally by: "Oveur"
I don't react to threats any better than you do
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 20:48:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Mike Yagon
Actually, just make the crews cheap (or even free). Remove training so all crews are identical then, and just have the charisma based skills to improve on them. Crews could even be a 'non-existant' thing, that is just hard-coded instead of a loose commodity.
Based on the planets you've captured maybe? Okay, that sounds like an deacent enough idea if we're talking a few %, and they're a for-pay resource. Part of planetary warfare and a way off mind you...
|
Selak Zorander
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 20:50:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
...Carriers should NOT be parading in front of fleets. Dreads perhaps, and I WANT to give them mini superweapons for that, but carriers are LONG (AU's!) range strikers and they should USE that.
What you want is NOTHING like Eve, it's a game of forced restrictions and sharp divides depending on your class.
Yes but read the first post where is specifically quotes Tuxford saying that the devs think that is a rather boring way to play and they did not intend for carriers to be that boring.
reading FTW
|
Drommy
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 20:55:00 -
[155]
as ive said b4 why not make it so you can only have a certain amount of each ship class allowed to engage each ship
this would mean greater vary in ship classes used, longer battle's more fun game play, more tacktics needed to come out on top.
lets all sit in bs and shoot that guy with crazy dmg mods no longer works.
say maybe a bs can only be fired upon by 3 bs at a time. or 2 bs and 5 cruisers. or 1 bs 5 cruisers and 10 frigates
ect ect ect.
IF YOU AINT BLUE... YOUR GOO
DARKSIDE INC |
Drommy
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 20:56:00 -
[156]
and also, if carriers are supposed to be a sit at ss weapon, why do they all have remote rep bonuses?
IF YOU AINT BLUE... YOUR GOO
DARKSIDE INC |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 20:59:00 -
[157]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 02/06/2006 20:59:24
I don't really care what's intended by something, I care about what IS.
Making a carrier able to survive 50BS pounding it indefinately means that it's a win-button in smaller engagements.
And remote rep bonuses? Because they're broken.
|
Drommy
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 21:03:00 -
[158]
Edited by: Drommy on 02/06/2006 21:03:14
well obviously it cant and shouldnt withstand 50 bs pounding it
hence why that wasnt what i said.
leave it as it is with hp but stop 50 BS pounding it. only 10. or 50 cruisers. or 100 frigs
IF YOU AINT BLUE... YOUR GOO
DARKSIDE INC |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 21:19:00 -
[159]
Because they're not really USEFUL.
And yes, deploy the magic pixie dust which stops BS 11+ from shooting it, but mystically ang magically avoids the fire of the first 10BS !1!11!. Or..er...maybe not.
|
Kamiz
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 21:22:00 -
[160]
Carrier is worth about 1.5 Bil isk, so 15 BS's (assuming 100 mil per BS = 1.5 Bil) should be able to take down a carrier.
Carriers don't need boosting, they are just the rich man's battleship.
|
|
|
Drommy
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 21:37:00 -
[161]
Edited by: Drommy on 02/06/2006 21:39:59
remotes are usefull. especally for carrier's which have lots of fighters that cant rep themselfs on the battlefeild.
and saying something is pixie dust just becuase you dont liek the idea just makes you sound stupid.......
is it pixie dust that makes ecm chance based? probebly, but who knows. it can be written in to the back story quite easilly as a magnetic sensor interpherence based on a ships sig radious. or pixie dust. which ever you prefer or make up a new idea
carriers cost less than 1 bil btw
IF YOU AINT BLUE... YOUR GOO
DARKSIDE INC |
SonOfAGhost
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 21:55:00 -
[162]
Edited by: SonOfAGhost on 02/06/2006 21:56:13
Just a thought but carriers shouldn't have to (or maybe shouldn't even be able to) give control to others. Rather they should have some kind of remote display that they control their drones from somewhere else in the system than where the main fight is going on. Thus the carrier pilot can participate and have fun while not taking undo risk with such an expensive ship (though you can bet the enemy will be searching for him).
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 22:05:00 -
[163]
No Drommy, that'd PRECISELY what it is. Magic pixie dust which understands and sets arbitrary limits. And we can follow that with the wand of fireballs too. Getting the point yet? Eve dosn't HAVE the stupid arbitrary limits of the fantasy MMO's.
And my IDEA, as I've made clear, does NOT feature a fundermental change in the way things are done, but a approach with small change / large effects (partial jamming, T2 amo removal, 1/3 less effect from sensor boosters).
|
Drommy
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 22:34:00 -
[164]
Edited by: Drommy on 02/06/2006 22:41:25
Originally by: Maya Rkell
No Drommy, that'd PRECISELY what it is. Magic pixie dust which understands and sets arbitrary limits. And we can follow that with the wand of fireballs too. Getting the point yet? Eve dosn't HAVE the stupid arbitrary limits of the fantasy MMO's.
And my IDEA, as I've made clear, does NOT feature a fundermental change in the way things are done, but a approach with small change / large effects (partial jamming, T2 amo removal, 1/3 less effect from sensor boosters).
those idea's seem to have nothing to do with carriers or blobbing tho?
and although they are very different to now, i belive they would enrich gameplay greatly
IF YOU AINT BLUE... YOUR GOO
DARKSIDE INC |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 22:46:00 -
[165]
Your changes are exploitable in the extreme (I lock friends before battle, so nobody can lock me).
My changes are far less sweeping, but would have a significant effect and would NOT break the game.
|
prathe
|
Posted - 2006.06.03 04:24:00 -
[166]
Edited by: prathe on 03/06/2006 04:24:38
there are alot of good ideas about what to do but changing the way it is now is really going to be a rough adjustment beyond simply making carriers tougher . i would simply go with increased resist by # of gang members . it would keep capital ships for large scale engagments and not skirmishes or raids .
every time i try to think of anything that would benefit combat i see too many drawbacks for people who have based their training on the established rules and the loses they would incur as a result .
but i would honestly like to see the large fleet battles play out more like the opening battle in "revenge of the sith " rather than the way it is now . i would honestly say that there are a large # of ships that never make it into pvp because it all about how much firepower you can bring to the fight . there really isn't much time to make calculated descisions on what to do other than call primaries and run thru them as fast as you can .
|
Noriath
|
Posted - 2006.06.03 13:19:00 -
[167]
Edited by: Noriath on 03/06/2006 13:20:08
There should be something that can save ships from instant ganks that can be used by their own side, except it should be rare enough on the battlefield that you can't make all the ships invoulnerable at all times, so therefore the enemy fleet has to split up their fire to hit some that aren't protected. Carriers could fill the role of the ship that does this.
There should be a better system that allows combat to more easily carry through warps and jumps, and doesn't make it so damn easy to run from a fight once the enemy knows you are there. That way the losses are not reduced, but increased, because fights wouldn't end in one side or the other simply retreating without ever even seeing each other by using local/instas.
Capital ships need to have more survivability, period. I don't care how this is accomplished, but in my opinion it should be done by having a capital ships hull resist normal damage completly, and take much bigger weapons to completly decimate the structure of the ship. I'm talking about dreadnaught turrets and bombs - finally a real role for bombers! If you can't field those, you're just gonna have to make like a hockey stick and get the puck out of there...
A crew system that represents some measure of moral on your ship which increases or decreases according to how much of a shelling you're taking would be very interesting, but not really the point of this topic...
|
Laboratus
|
Posted - 2006.06.03 16:33:00 -
[168]
Originally by: Drommy
and also, if carriers are supposed to be a sit at ss weapon, why do they all have remote rep bonuses?
Because the carriers service the ships that warp out of the fight to them to be armor+shield repped and recharged.
Safe spot logistics, anyone?
|
Noriath
|
Posted - 2006.06.03 17:05:00 -
[169]
Edited by: Noriath on 03/06/2006 17:05:49
Safespot logistics = Encouragement for fleetganking.
If everyone who warps off comes back fully repaired you just encourage instaganking even more, because it's the only way to keep people from rejoining the fight a minuite later...
Besides, you don't need bonuses to use remote systems comfortably if there aren't any enemies present.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.06.03 17:26:00 -
[170]
Noriath,
The trick is comming UP with those mechanisms, shrug.
And I'm all for increasing Capital ship hp, especially carriers. x3 to start, maybe. If you make capitals (and remember, freighters are capitals...) invulrable to anything except bombers and dreads, then you havw REAL issues.
"Bombers" are a stupid class which relies ENTIRELY on stealth for defence, and you simply couldn't bring them to a fleet battle, they'd die in seconds. That leaves dreads as the only possible killers, and if the enemy has no dreads, that means yiur carrier is now invulrable. Which is IMO a very bad overreaction.
Safespot logistics encourage in-and-out styles of battle, yes, but they're ot popular right now because there are very few damages ships...largely due to the stupid T2 sniper amo.
|
|
|
Laboratus
|
Posted - 2006.06.03 17:44:00 -
[171]
Edited by: Laboratus on 03/06/2006 17:45:42
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Noriath,
Safespot logistics encourage in-and-out styles of battle, yes, but they're ot popular right now because there are very few damages ships...largely due to the stupid T2 sniper amo.
Actually, since warping is instant when you hit the warp button, in my personal experience, you have plenty time to warp away, when you react to the first guy blinking red/yellow. As the lock times tend to vary a bit. Unless ofcourse the enemy knows what he is doing and you happen to sit inside an interdiction bubble or something.
And IMHO skirmish type tactics should be encouraged instead of discouraged.
|
Drommy
|
Posted - 2006.06.03 18:58:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Laboratus
Originally by: Drommy
and also, if carriers are supposed to be a sit at ss weapon, why do they all have remote rep bonuses?
Because the carriers service the ships that warp out of the fight to them to be armor+shield repped and recharged.
Safe spot logistics, anyone?
why a range bonus then?
IF YOU AINT BLUE... YOUR GOO
DARKSIDE INC |
Noriath
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 01:43:00 -
[173]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
"Bombers" are a stupid class which relies ENTIRELY on stealth for defence, and you simply couldn't bring them to a fleet battle, they'd die in seconds. That leaves dreads as the only possible killers, and if the enemy has no dreads, that means yiur carrier is now invulrable. Which is IMO a very bad overreaction.
Acctually the fact that bombers can stealth up makes them perfect for fleetbattles, because you can't gank what you can't see. If they get real anti capital ship bombs that can do some major damage to a capitals hull even if only one or two are dropped those ships will already be a major threat.
Also the threat of bombers should really be more the way to take down capitals outside of fleetbattles, where you can't bring in capitals of your own easily. Capital ships should not own small scale fights completly and make them pointless. If an enemy gang has a bomber that can drop nukes on your capitals they should be able to kill it. The fact that stealthbombers aren't super strong acctually makes sense in that context, they should not be solo-dreadkillers with bombs, but a tactical weapon that has to be used carefully.
Inside of fleetbattles stealth bombers should be a threat, but dreadnaughts should be the way to kill capitals in fleetbattles. If you can take part in a full scale fleetbattle you should also be able to field a dreadnaught or two.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 01:53:00 -
[174]
Um? Once they uncloak, they're DEAD. They can't have any defences because it'd overpower their ambush ability, and AF's and destroyers can VERY rapidly mush bombers, let alone BS secondary drones, etc.
Bring 2 bombers? Well, if I have 2 interceptors/AF/destroyers they NEED to nuke that capital in under 15 seconds, or you'll have 2 dead bombers for NOTHING. (And if they can, then 10 bombers will be able to rip the capital heart out of any enemy battle line in a battle without them being able to do ANYTHING about it in time)
And basically, your change will do is make sure that before you can enter serious fighting vs capitals in 0.0, you need dreads. But without 0.0, making the ISK for the dreads is hard.. all it does is SERIOUSLY limit the number of alliances who can compete for 0.0, with a strong emphasis on the allready-existant alliances.
Because you bring capitals in when you're outnumbered, and you'll lose them to the enemy capitals under your system. And without your own capitals, you can't take out the enemy capitals in the first place. It's a vicious cycle which makes the existing powers FAR too nasty.
It's a terrible idea, and bombers don't need to be dragged into it. They need a proper overhaul, dumping the gimmick and getting heavy rockets.
|
Noriath
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 02:19:00 -
[175]
It's not a terrible idea, you're just against anything that changes the way fleet battles work out right now. :D
Bombers are dreck right now and everyone knows it, their bonuses aren't contusive to atacks on large ships, on the contrary, their bonuses scream "Shoot cruise missiles at frigates!" That simply has nothing to do with what a bomber should be.
And needing dreads does not make it impossible to eastablish yourself in 0.0, you just can't start from absoloute zero and expect to get somewhere without a helping hand from anyone. Most alliances are created from other alliances anyways, and utilize their leftover assets to get started. You can even hire freakin MC to provide the bigboats if you really need them.
What a need for capital ships would do however is making alliances less voulnerable to marauders who just come in with a crapload of battleships but have no infrastructure whatsoever that you can hit to put a stop to their atacks.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 02:32:00 -
[176]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 04/06/2006 02:34:27
Rubbish, I've put foward quite a few suggestions, most recently a form of ECM which would jam some of the attackers in a fleet situation. But you're ot talking about FLEET, you're talking about a fundermental change to CAPITALS, which is not the same thing at all!
Bombers are dreck right now because they can ONLY ambush, they can't have defences or speed or anything else because of the cloak gimmick. FORCING their use in the current form will just be frustrating and expensive without any real return apart from the special forced use. Blutly, it smacks of the fantasy MMO's typical R/P/S which Eve has evolved beyond, and is NOT a good soloution for bombers.
And there is a HUGE difference between "getting a start" and "having 10+ 3 billion ships before you can compete". Because you're trying to force the second, and I really don't like it.
What the need for a large core capital ships for every corp in 0.0 (which is PRECISELY what you are doing) will do is exclude anyone who is not a member of the elite from 0.0, frustrating masses of players and adding nothing except frustration for the vast majority of Eve players.
You're blocking the establishment of powers without inheriting from old powers, which should only be ONE option, and you're forcing people who might not WANT to claim space into doing so, so they can build the essential capital ship core they will need merely to have a hope of surviving in 0.0.
|
Noriath
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 05:12:00 -
[177]
Edited by: Noriath on 04/06/2006 05:13:56
You can't argue against stronger capital ships by saying it would make it too hard for people who don't have them to succeed against people who do. Anyone should be able to just go into 0.0, kick the alliances out and start their own? I mean let's not forget what it takes to build and to train for these ships, we are talking about pilots that dedicate at least half a year towards being able to fly a dreadnaught or carrier efficiently, a major logistics effort to move them around and supply them with fuel, horrendous costs in BPOs, Minerals and workhours to build those things, and you're saying it's not fair if they can't be beaten by a bunch of snotnosed upstarts in battleships? I say it's not fair if they can...
And Bombers to combat capital ships is not a stupid idea, it's the way bombers always should have worked. Bombers need to be reworked, make them viable ships in a combat situation that don't entirely rely on that ambush to deal damage, but in general it's a good idea to have a very small ship that can work effectively against capital ships, because that will allow people who have qualified pilots, but not capital ships to still be able to combat them, and allow smaller gangs to engage them effectively, making it nescesary for capital ships to field a picket of various ship classes to fight off any atackers trying to clear the way for bomber runs...
|
Flipidy Floo
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 06:01:00 -
[178]
Carriers can be fixed with AA guns... plain and simple. Makes sense because they are a realistic gun choice and would have major limits. Say area dmg but very inacurate or something... also mid range.
Their main problem is not being able to hit small targets basically at all... Real carriers don't rely on other ships to command their fighters efficiently. I mean, yeah, you can chuck out waves of small drones to hit frigs and cruisers, but they take forever to lock. So either your drone dmg is dispersed, or you wait 40 sec to even fire a concentrated shot.
The only other alternative is to do away with this warp in crap for fleet fights to where people can pounce ships. It drives me nuts that you only have to be 150 km away to do a quick jump on top of a ship. Sure interdictors can help this cause, but lag makes that task difficult.
Naval fights don't allow some of the things that game mechanics do. Maybe they should do away with short warps and triple all ships speed to help the cause, IDK, but there are better alternatives than just increasing hit points.
Impulse speed is like non existent in fleet fights, especially with BS, and that just throws everything outta wack.
|
MrCjEvans
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 06:25:00 -
[179]
someone said best way to fix this 'problem' there is np, basically teamworl aka focus fire aka good organised fleets is 4tw, deal with it and do not whine, if your in a carrier you shouuld ev en be in a fight you should be at a pos ot deep ss, close topic jesus
|
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 08:43:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Drommy
and also, if carriers are supposed to be a sit at ss weapon, why do they all have remote rep bonuses?
For the same reason they've got ship docking bays and hangars for modules for ships to refit. They can repair nearby ships in addition to refitting them. As for the range bonus... well.. it comes in handy for remote tanking your own drones if you engage a target within 20km or so 
-Electrofreak
Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |