Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 21:31:00 -
[31]
Seems difficult... extremely difficult... I'd probably not dare to mess with most of that myself...
Does this mean that there will be more missile skills soon? Any chance you could release them within 5 days or so in that case? ____________________ 55545555555555555555 |
Kurren
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 21:55:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Scorpyn Seems difficult... extremely difficult... I'd probably not dare to mess with most of that myself...
Does this mean that there will be more missile skills soon? Any chance you could release them within 5 days or so in that case?
Ech, just what missiles need... more skills... --- --- --- ---
SobaKai.com
|
Amial Starkiel
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 21:56:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Eli Bredeux Edited by: Eli Bredeux on 05/06/2006 20:46:55 Well Tux - FWIW, boosting resistances/adding protection and/or reducing damage is not the way to make EVE combat longer or better IMO. Boosting resists or adding damage capacity can only lead to a situation where smaller ships are marginalized.
EVE combat is basically binary. You either kill the ship or you don't. Which means you either have enough DPS to overwhelm the target or you don't. [...]
I think there are some really nice ideas in this post by Eli.
I like the idea of letting combat be less of a DPS challenge. As a frigatte pilot I like the notion of frigattes harassing a battleship, crippling some of its systems in quick raids before getting out. To avoid systems becoming too vulnerable, the chance of crippling one could be diminishing rapidly once one or more is taken out. Hell, maybe it would not be permanently destroyed, but merely crippled for a few minutes. Your skill "crew relations" would decrease the repair time ...
For a tactical aspect, adjusting damage on a ship depending on whether it's hit from its flanks or back is an interesting idea. Not suitable for small ships, but for big slow ones it would in one go make position on the battlefield an important consideration. Overall, letting armour and shields be direction-dependent would be very cool (turn your weak side away from the enemy), but probably a hassle to implement (and drones would be much more powerful).
/Amial
|
Kurren
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 22:24:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Amial Starkiel I like the idea of letting combat be less of a DPS challenge. As a frigatte pilot I like the notion of frigattes harassing a battleship, crippling some of its systems in quick raids before getting out. To avoid systems becoming too vulnerable, the chance of crippling one could be diminishing rapidly once one or more is taken out. Hell, maybe it would not be permanently destroyed, but merely crippled for a few minutes.
Thus effectively ruining any need or desire to train up to a battleship. If a frigate can come in and ruin me for a fight, why even waste my 90mil on the ship... let alone the skill to fly it? I'd rather just fly a friggate into battle... which would effectively null out any "hp boosts" given because I'm flying a friggate. --- --- --- ---
SobaKai.com
|
Roue
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 22:35:00 -
[35]
Tux.. in response to your last part.
Why not this simple fix.
Sensor booster becomes 2 modules
Sensor Range Enhancer 50% boost to range 50% reduction to scan resolution
Sensor Precision Enhancer 50% boost to scan resolution. 50% reduction to range
Weapons mods become 2 modules as well same principle
Mod 1 Rof+ dam- Mod 2 Dam- Rof+
this way if you want to snipe you have to be vulnerable for a short while on all your locking. Or if you want to be super fast to lock that's fine but you will be easily dampened or even basically unable to engage at much range.
And also that would allow meaningful ship dynamics.
fast lock mid range alpha strikes. Long range slow lock obliterators that need tacklers to hold the target long enough to deliver the snipe
speaking of. wouldn't that helpw ith the whole snipe gank?
And while you're at it. Give us the single most useful module. the fighter warp drive that let's them follow you in warp. That single module would revolutionize this game. Hell give it to interdictors only if you want but it would be best to give close range engagers as much of a fear inducing threat as snipe/gankers.
The gank sniper you fear on their warp in. The close range w/pursuit warp module you fear on your warp out.
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 22:49:00 -
[36]
Thinking about combat length, in many respects it's hard to see why you'd want to make it longer, besides the aforementioned reinforcements issue. As it stands and in my experience, remarkably little of the outcome of combat has to do with what happens after someone opens fire anyway: given that maneuvers play a limited role during an actual engagement, most of the decisions to be made are just module activations and timings thereof. I don't see that there's any real time pressure here currently - outside of fleet situations (where this kind of discussion is largely academic as focus fire is always going to win short of a rewrite to alter fleet combat dynamics, rather than a simple combat length tweak), there are very few fights where you don't have time to switch things on. What's the objective of longer combat? To make things more tactically diverse? We've already got the time for that in most cases, we just don't have the tools - and if we had the tools, we wouldn't need more time anyway.
As I've experienced it at least, most of what determines the outcome of combat is already resolved at the point where someone opens fire. In this respect, altering the length of the fight in most cases merely draws out the inevitable and pre-determined outcome. This doesn't of course hold if you don't alter everything equally, but in that case you're not changing the length of fight but rather altering fundamental combat dynamics and relations, which is I'd suggest a whole different ballgame.
That said, if you do want to just make everything take longer, how about just halving all recharge times and doubling all module activation lengths? Bam - everything happens at half speed.
|
Fierce Deity
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 23:19:00 -
[37]
tux my shirt is broken, fix it goddmammit!!!!
------FD------
Recruiting: Hera Star |
Opai McTwist
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 23:32:00 -
[38]
I like the idea of making combat occur at shorter ranges, annnnnd I like the idea of increasing HPs.
Shorter ranges = More fun to watch combat, and more hours of enjoyment. Am I the only one who read this as a reduction in overall combat ranges, as opposed to just reducing the "Optimal Range" stat for all items that have an optimal range? If I did this in error, I apologize.
More HP = more time to enjoy combat at close range. To those arguments saying more HP = marginalized frigates... I think you're reaching on this. If the increase is applies to all ships, then, it stnads to reason that even though the BS will be able to last longer against a frigate, or a swarm of frigates, the frigate with the increased HP also, theorhetically has more staying power as well.
Tux, I'll be more than happy to coduct Khanid Kingdom live fire trials with all the new Amarr hardware. Gimme that Tier 2 BC and I will run fedo-wild with it :D
|
Imode
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 23:33:00 -
[39]
subsystem: warp drive engine
Yes please. ____________________________ Signature file size to large, please keep it under 24000 bytes - Petwraith How's this? -imo
|
ParMizaN
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 23:54:00 -
[40]
Sounds very good so far
BDCI Recruitment Officersig edited for lack of pink really PINK -eris |
|
Manus Ghostface
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 23:57:00 -
[41]
Hmm, as soon as I read assault missiles I had sudden images of Starfire's CAMS (Close Assault missiles). I wonder if anyone at CCP played Starfire, I see many similar themes, but drawing from common themese will often result in that. That city is well fortified which has a wall of men instead of brick. - Lycurgus |
Verone
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 00:10:00 -
[42]
Everything there looks fine IMO... but this really cought my eye...
Quote: Another rather large project we are looking into is the lowering the optimal range of weapons to bring the fight closer. I read a rather interesting suggestion on the forums about "nerfing" range so that small weapons have the range they have today, medium weapons have 1.5x the range of small weapons and large weapons 2x the range of small weapons. This is something we're willing to look into and there are some good reason for doing this but its not an easy task.
Tux, Please have my children.
I typically fight at less than 15km range. Closer range combat is something I've wanted for a LONG time.
You're my hero ♥
VETO RECRUITMENT |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 00:17:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Verone
Everything there looks fine IMO... but this really cought my eye...
Quote: Another rather large project we are looking into is the lowering the optimal range of weapons to bring the fight closer. I read a rather interesting suggestion on the forums about "nerfing" range so that small weapons have the range they have today, medium weapons have 1.5x the range of small weapons and large weapons 2x the range of small weapons. This is something we're willing to look into and there are some good reason for doing this but its not an easy task.
Tux, Please have my children.
I typically fight at less than 15km range. Closer range combat is something I've wanted for a LONG time.
You're my hero ♥
Closer Combat + Lag = Many unhappy customers
I prefer to stay at 100km in a fight, Reducing range so much, well it would make most longrange ships so inferior to closerange ships
From Dusk till Dawn |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 00:30:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 06/06/2006 00:30:39 Replied in ships and modules. But um...
|
darkmancer
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 00:34:00 -
[45]
Surely the answer with the cerb problem would be to change the flight time bonus to a explosin velocity bonus? Standard heavies would do a healthy 120km at full skill, and it would fit in with the reduced range theme.
|
Pepperami
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 00:50:00 -
[46]
Shorten combat ranges? Do this and I'll hump your leg (in an affectionate way!)
[Art of War][- V -] |
Justin Cody
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 01:05:00 -
[47]
I enjoy fighting up close and in the face of the enemy, but I also like to use many of the principles of warfare in order to force my enemy to fight on my terms. One of those is dictating the range of combat. CCP please do not force us to fight in at close ranges if we decide that our choice of tactics is to fight at long ranges. Freedom is what I love about this game and yes its nice to be up close to see the pretty ships flying about in their deadly ballet, but there is a reason for long range (sniper/ECM) combat as part of support roles.
I beg of you not to force combat to become closer but to let us choose how we fight. If I want to be a warp core stabilizing sniper then I should be allowed to, if I want to be a hardcore inyourface PvPer then I should be able to choose to.
|
james126
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 01:27:00 -
[48]
i think current fight lengths are fine, prolonging them only allows backup to get there befor you kill your oponent, thus gurrila tacktics are less effective. i dislike this, it was hit hard enough in the last HP boost.
ranges are good, if you want short range, short range ship + co-ops = all battles close range. shortening ranges will only stop peaple using artillary, unless the rest of there stats get compensated. why not just make a mid-range gun.
alpha strike is good, could we please keap it, mabey -25% ROF, +25% dammagemod. (or give us a long range scrambler).
|
Zyrtan Keb'Lektar
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 01:56:00 -
[49]
Dont change the range, and leave the poor artys alone for once. let minmatars have something that they can call their own
|
Fedaykin Naib
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 04:52:00 -
[50]
Who ever thought of lowering optimal range should be dragged out into the middle of the road and shot.
"Long Live the Fighters!"
|
|
Torm Ilmater
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 06:20:00 -
[51]
Originally by: james126
ranges are good, if you want short range, short range ship + co-ops = all battles close range.
Originally by: Justin Cody I enjoy fighting up close and in the face of the enemy, but I also like to use many of the principles of warfare in order to force my enemy to fight on my terms. One of those is dictating the range of combat. CCP please do not force us to fight in at close ranges if we decide that our choice of tactics is to fight at long ranges. Freedom is what I love about this game and yes its nice to be up close to see the pretty ships flying about in their deadly ballet, but there is a reason for long range (sniper/ECM) combat as part of support roles.
I beg of you not to force combat to become closer but to let us choose how we fight. If I want to be a warp core stabilizing sniper then I should be allowed to, if I want to be a hardcore inyourface PvPer then I should be able to choose to.
Exactly my sentiments.
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 07:25:00 -
[52]
Somebody explain the advantages of forcing people to be close to eachother in combat please.
--- The Eve Wiki Project |
babylonstew
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 08:18:00 -
[53]
nerfing range = bad, i like the option of sitting wayyyyy over there, or getting in your face. and, when do we get to play with the new ships, please, please, please make it sooner (tm) then soon(tm)
Forum advice Linkage |
So'Kar
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 09:20:00 -
[54]
Quote: We still want to prolong combat. There are number of ways to do that like boosting resistance, lowering damage of weapons or simply by adding hitpoints. Boosting resistance and lowering damage basically does the same thing. It not only increases the time people would live but it also increase what they can tank. The difference is that if we lower damage too much we might end up with a situation where 1 vs. 1 battleship fight is simply unwinnable for either side if they have a decent tank, which isn't really what what we want. Boosting hitpoints is a bit better method to achieve this. There are however complications. This would affect ships with small capacitor more than the ones with large capacitor so we might actually increase capacitor size and the recharge time. So they would still be able to achieve the same cap/sec but would have more cap to begin with. Also, Artillery damage output needs to be looked at if the alpha strike has less impact in a fight.
You aint going to fix anything with increase of armor/shield or resist just make 1v1 slight more about dps. 1v1 last long enough and it's focus fire thats problem and some small boost to hit points isnt going to change that.
Quote: Another rather large project we are looking into is the lowering the optimal range of weapons to bring the fight closer. I read a rather interesting suggestion on the forums about "nerfing" range so that small weapons have the range they have today, medium weapons have 1.5x the range of small weapons and large weapons 2x the range of small weapons. This is something we're willing to look into and there are some good reason for doing this but its not an easy task.
It's fine the way it is. Someone from 100km+ isnt going to scramble you.
|
Denrace
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 09:27:00 -
[55]
Sounds good guys!
As for the Tier 3 Battleships and Tier 2 Battlecruisers, please please PLEASE dont give the Gallente one some uber drone bonus so that it can beat anyone 1v1, has insane DPS, T2 drones which do all dmg types for no penalty and blah blah...etc
A Caldari rail BS would be sweet, but please....at least ONE damage bonus is needed, or it will simply suck.
Minnie Tier 3 BS would be cool if it was fast as hell. 280m/s base speed on a BS? Yes please.
Amarr BS would be nice with NO laser cap use bonus, this is totally wasted.... I want a ROF bonus and an ARMOUR HP bonus. Because im amarr, and i like fast lasers and thick armor
My 2 cents
Den ________________________________________
|
Bellum Eternus
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 09:36:00 -
[56]
Yes, please give the Gallente Tier 2 BC an uber drone bonus. Well, not really. 10% damage/HP per level as per Vexor/Domi will suffice.
A BC w/ a drone and damp bonus would be neat :) +10% to drone damage/hp and +5% to damp effectiveness and cap use per level?
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 10:13:00 -
[57]
And no info about the 2 BCs i realy care about, amarr/minnie... tux is a meanie ----------------
Please fix BC Sig/Agility! |
Heritor
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 10:19:00 -
[58]
I am very unsure abouit nerfing optimal range......I dont like the idea at all
Always where your seatbelt, its far harder for the aliens to abduct you! |
babylonstew
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 10:50:00 -
[59]
Originally by: keepiru And no info about the 2 BCs i realy care about, amarr/minnie... tux is a meanie
its balanced out by the fact your piccies came out first
Forum advice Linkage |
d'hofren
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 10:52:00 -
[60]
Not too keen on the optimal nerf for large guns. As iceblock said: there is a whole gamut of balancing to be done here, tracking needs to go up to compensate for potential higher transversals.
Closer combat also increases the chance of being tackled which is a very bad thing for tankless sniper ships -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Galactic Exploration and Mining - Web and T II Shop
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |