Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
|
kieron
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 19:58:00 -
[1]
If you have been playing EVE for any significant length of time, Tuxford has probably had some effect on it in regards to ship and item balancing. Well, Tux steps up to the plate and smacks one out of the park with information on why he posts (or doesn't post) to forum threads, Tier 3 battleships, tier 2 battlecruisers, missile adjustments, combat and other nifty insights into future EVE development.
Little bit about forums and little bit about whats to come.
kieron Community Manager, EVE Online |
|
Velsharoon
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 19:59:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Velsharoon on 05/06/2006 20:03:17
1st! content coming soon!
Erm cant wait to fly my blastermega with 10m optimal range, hope i get a tracking boost
Nice to see the BC gallente being a drone shi, and anything that prolongs combat is good, had a fight the other day that couldnt have been more than 30 seconds, was 3 vs 7 i think and it ended with 4 dead ships..should at least last a minute...
|
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:00:00 -
[3]
Edited by: HippoKing on 05/06/2006 20:08:28 not first!
edit: with the bringing combat close issue, there will be a lot of balancing issues. It would have a big effect on how easy it is to get into and away from combat, and would change the sniping system totally (especially low sec empire gates: sentry range changing too?)
|
Asael
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:01:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Asael on 05/06/2006 20:12:59 Third! *reads*
Hmm, those Assault missiles sound pretty sweet. It may just be the thing to make me love missile's as a weapon. But about the lowering of the optimal ranges of the turrets. It sounds nice to prolong the battle and to 'force' everybody to get a bit closer. But what about the range of the missile's? Since missile's dont have an optimal range, i hope that you guys are not forgetting the missile weapon type with its range. I hate to see everybody jumpng to missile's just because they cant sit at 100+ km with their turrets. ______________________________
-Everto es hic servo mihi-
100% Hax proof sig ~ Asael
|
The Enslaver
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:06:00 -
[5]
Fourth? --------
|
SengH
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:07:00 -
[6]
reducing optimal range? lol... projectiles better get a huge tracking boost.... The other side effect is that it would bring alot more ships into NOS range....
|
Tuang Pao
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:08:00 -
[7]
Reduce combat ranges? Whatever for?
The ranges are already far too short for deep space combat. Modern oceanic naval weapons routinely reach 100km in atmosphere. Don't you think that space based weapons will have appropriately longer ranges?
Then there's the issue of maneuver to engage the enemy. Speed enhancement would be virtually pointless at the 1.0/1.5/2.0 progression Tux describes.
Why would they want to reduce combat ranges? I don't get it.
|
Kitty O'Shay
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:10:00 -
[8]
I think that raising ship HP would just be another laser nerf, due the built-in armor resistances.
If you're going to raise HP, please look at reducing the base EM resists across the board, and raising sheild EM resists perpotionally.
Please think of the little lasers!
--
|
Sprak
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:14:00 -
[9]
If optimal ranges are going to be greatly reduced, are sig radiuses going up? Or are tracking speeds being changed? IMO changing the optimal ranges of the guns is a very bad idea. Perhaps you should work on something like.... dock -> redock and aggro timer at stations first.
|
SengH
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:15:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Kitty O'Shay I think that raising ship HP would just be another laser nerf, due the built-in armor resistances.
If you're going to raise HP, please look at reducing the base EM resists across the board, and raising sheild EM resists perpotionally.
Please think of the little lasers!
lasers are fine compariatively... as hp rises DPS matters even more. That means arty users (besides those in the mach) are VERY screwed.
|
|
Gunstar Zero
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:21:00 -
[11]
sounds good.
Anything you could do to make missiles more useful in fleet combat would be cool, though I cant really think of an answer.
|
Elaron
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:22:00 -
[12]
I'm dubious about reducing overall combat range as well, and there would have to be a long hard look taken at things like the effect of letting shorter ranged ships have a shorter time in the effective range of the long-range guns before their transversal makes tracking impossible. I can see that sensor boosters could get swapped out on a mass basis for webs.
Elaron
It is never too late to correct the mistakes of the past. |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:30:00 -
[13]
"Lately we've been working on Tier 3 battleships. We've had some crazy bonuses on them and some little less crazy."
ahahahaa embrace your target painting bonus, Minmatar xD
* runs like heck. double so in case people recall who's responsible for optimal nerf idea >>;
|
SengH
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:32:00 -
[14]
Originally by: j0sephine "Lately we've been working on Tier 3 battleships. We've had some crazy bonuses on them and some little less crazy."
ahahahaa embrace your target painting bonus, Minmatar xD
* runs like heck. double so in case people recall who's responsible for optimal nerf idea >>;
The only way I could see a target painting BS work... was if it was a armor tanking missile ship. Then you'd see everyone running like hell as the T2 dmg torps blow the #$@#$k out of everyone since sig rad doesnt matter anymore.
|
Torm Ilmater
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:34:00 -
[15]
Most of the blog sounds good except for the part about changing optimal ranges.
Also I don't quite understand this need to prolong fights (too much at least). Sure slightly longer engagements would be fun (possibly) but it's not like that will add some unseen tactical content all on its own. Since we do uniform damage no matter where we are on the field of battle (ie no flanking damage) and the fact that there are no gang formations (or at least no uses for such.
The only real reason to prolong fights is either to allow more time to warp out (yay carebears rejoice) or to allow more time for reinforcements. More time for reinforcements you say? That sounds ok until you think that these prolonged fights will probably result in larger fights (at least when you're engaged in your own territory) and as such will begin to see the ebil lag monster rear its head. How about before trying to prolong fights into massive slugfests we try to work on code optimization (more so than currently done) and server load eh?
|
Conwright
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:39:00 -
[16]
I like the optimal nerf idea. Especially with the introduction of T2 long range ammo and being able to hit a 200km+ easily theres way to much sniping going on in my opinion. It would be nice to bring fights closer together so fleets can consist of more than megas, tempets and scorps for a change.
|
HammaSlamma
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:41:00 -
[17]
Making a battleship gun have 2x the range on a frigate gun is probably the worst Idea Ive ever heard.... whats a battleship got over a frigate thats moving really fast? Range. Range = negation of tracking speed. It also lets a battleship escape a situation where 20 ceptors, who will definatly smoke him, can then run.
|
Eli Bredeux
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:42:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Eli Bredeux on 05/06/2006 20:46:37 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. Increase the damage capacity of all ships and the smaller ships suddenly need more individual DPS (which they don't get or we're right back to the same place balance-wise) or more ships to win. End state is that either people don't bother fighting in small ships (excepting disposable tacklers and/or interdictors), or they form up in huge blobs to ensure kills, or both. Deadly dull, homogeneous combat either way.
What about taking the long way around? Make it so that ships have 4 classes of protection that correspond to the 4 sizes of weapons. Damage penalties for smaller weapons vs. larger targets, large tracking nerf for larger weapons vs. smaller targets. Same-size fights basically unchanged. What this does is make it so that you don't need to consider balance from frig-BS, just BS-BS, frig-frig, etc. It also opens up some roles for Assault class ships that are different from the DPS machines they are now. Give Assault class ships a bonus to fitting larger size weapons and they suddenly become pocket battleships.
Of course, this completely marginalizes smaller ships as (for instance) a frig can't even damage a BS given the size disparity between the two. What to do about this?
Answer: sub-system damage.
Make it so that smaller class weapons have a chance per shot (modified by weapon type, arty > missile > hybrid > laser) of damaging a given module. Enough damage inflicted and said module is destroyed. As you go up the weapon scale, the chance of "critical hits" reduces, but the damage of such a hit increases (one-hit module kills).
Opens the door for wild differences in tactics and gameplay. Hit-and-run attacks have the chance to do some kind of damage to a larger ship, but that individual large ship is less likely to be destroyed by ships that cost far less in skillpoints and ISK to fly.
Racial weapons can have a different kind of balance too. Minmatar weapons have a low DPS, keep it there but give them a higher chance of subsystem damage. That way, Minnies are for gamblers - maybe your first shot knocks out their armour rep, or warp stabs, or maybe it doesn't and you're in trouble.
End of the day, there are advantages to a mixed fleet that just won't be there if damage capacity (DPS vs. tanking) is the only balance point.
Once you've uncoupled the various ship classes from each other you can increase armour as much as you need to make equal size slugfests longer. Of course, you'll still have the problem of focused fire making combat short - but then again, a change to ECM bursts such that they drop all locks on you (rather than disrupting all locks from the affected enemy ship) might do the trick there too.
Finally, something really should be done about the serious lack of places where combat can occur. Gates, stations and sometimes belts and that's it. Once the other aspects of combat are rejiggered - what about making interceptor actually live up to their name? Nerf their damage ability so that they're not competing with assault frigs, and give them the role ability to follow other ships in warp, and force them out of warp on a chance basis (competing modules for instance). So that way you've got the inty taking off after prey, forcing it down, but basically unable to do much damage to it without other gang members warping in to help. That lag time is where the other ship gets it's chance to escape (jamming, drones, or whatever).
Sorry if this is all a little jumbled, but that one para about making combat longer made me a sad panda and I wanted to get this stuff out.
|
Blind Man
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:45:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Blind Man on 05/06/2006 20:46:11
Originally by: SengH reducing optimal range? lol... projectiles better get a huge tracking boost.... The other side effect is that it would bring alot more ships into NOS range....
my thoughts exactly
Originally by: j0sephine "Lately we've been working on Tier 3 battleships. We've had some crazy bonuses on them and some little less crazy."
ahahahaa embrace your target painting bonus, Minmatar xD
* runs like heck. double so in case people recall who's responsible for optimal nerf idea >>;
|
Callie Nefarious
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:46:00 -
[20]
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.
/me likes the sound of this very much
|
|
Deva Blackfire
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:48:00 -
[21]
Yay for removing mid-range combat :) Now Amarr - masters of mid-range wont be as useful as blaster/AC users :)
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:54:00 -
[22]
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.
Best... EVER!!
13 -_- |
Xrak
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:55:00 -
[23]
Would the simpliest way to prolong combat simply be to slow everything down a bit?
Slower ROF, slower cap recharge, slower repairing?
Ofc the danger would be not to slow it down so much that it becomes boring.
|
Sarmaul
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 20:58:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Sarmaul on 05/06/2006 21:01:52 why do you want to decrease the range of combat? ships bounce off each other enough as it is :/. to be honest I would rather increase the optimal and falloff of all modules with an optimal and falloff
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 21:04:00 -
[25]
Its a bit annoying that people naming threads Tux in the title are destroying for the rest of us. I want a good communication with the guy that balances ships. Its not good for the game if you feel you need to avoid getting involved in threads. I blame some people in Ships & Modules for this...
You have alot of ideas for changing the game, but are these changes really needed? What is the advantage of having fighting ships close to eachother? And what is the reasons for prolonging combat? Ive heard you guys mention this before, but I dont see anyone complaining about the fights being too short. Most of the times you want to kill the other guy as quickly as possible to avoid his friends warping in. If you make fights take longer, it will only require more blobbing to kill the target. Im just not sure this would be better for the game. Right now, killing someone as quick as possible and make alot of damage is what makes it fun.
--- The Eve Wiki Project |
Jesho
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 21:05:00 -
[26]
"We still want to prolong combat."
You do realize that if you make battles last too long, people won't have time to play?
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 21:09:00 -
[27]
Reducing ranges makes maneuvering more significant, particularly in that it's easier to move into or out of yours or another player's optimal.
As to the realism question, well, it's wholly secondary to gameplay IMO. Yes, we should all be discussing engagement ranges in terms of AU rather than km. However, realism tends to be inversely proportional to fun. Right out at one end you have Banks/Culture warfare, where you're engaging at light-years distances, entirely controlled by computers and over before you can blink. Further down the scale you have say Hamilton/Confederation (Night's Dawn) engagements, which are "mid-range" (hundreds of kilometres) but again amounts to just deciding how many wasps to launch. Right down near the other end you have Freespace 2, where huge capital ships engage at ranges of around a kilometer. Horribly unrealistic, but huge fun, even if you're just flying a fighter and avoiding beam fire. Moral of the story is that the more "realism" you add, the more sterile you make combat, and sterile combat is boring combat.
|
Kurren
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 21:10:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Tuxford I mentioned that we're planning to do assault missiles the other day. What are assault missiles some might ask? Well they are close range, high damage missiles. People quickly expressed their concerns that the very idea is overpowered and pointed out that Cerberus would pwn all heavy assault ships. The problem people see is that Cerberus gets two range bonuses and two damage bonuses. As it is now the second range bonus, missile flight time isn't all that useful, if I remember correctly it boosts the range from 120km to something like 180km. On a short range missile this bonus would be pretty sweet. Two range bonuses would in effect more than double the range of any short range missile and make it more of a mid range or even long range missile with the damage output of a short range missile.
The Cerberus is already better than any other. As well is the Caldari AF missile boat. My small rails at a distance can't put out enough to hurt them, but their missiles can kick my crapper anywhere within 40km. Why must you hand out missiles that do more damage? Unless you're planning on lowering every other HAC/AF's siggy radius, they will PWN absolutely.
Originally by: Tuxford 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.
I understand you wanting to do this, but from what I've read in my time on the forums, the only ones that want combat to last longer are the ones that are losing. There is no real point in adding HP, imho, because a fight is a fight. The winner will be decided quickly no matter what, and the loser will try to warp out no matter what.
Originally by: Tuxford 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.
Again, another pointless change. The ammo people use can do this. I equip a mid-range ammo because I WANT to be far away. All you'll really be doing is funneling everybody into the "2 Stabs [at least] in the low slots" ship set-up. I'm not sure what reducing turret range will help accomplish, but I can't see the accomplishments as being useful.
As for the Gallente Tier 3 BattleShip... it looks like crap. I hope it has stats to make up for it's smell.
I'll try to be less pezemistic in the future... when that is will be hard to determine if we're able to determine it at all.
--- --- --- ---
SobaKai.com
|
Monica Foulkes
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 21:11:00 -
[29]
I guess assault missiles is a better name than heavy rockets... __________
Get rid of the insta bookmarks |
Lisa Payne
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 21:17:00 -
[30]
Tux,
I strongly suggest you get us to try out all these great idea's on the test server.. why not organize some sheduled test events where we come down to try out different scenario's , loadz of ppl have good idea's here, and i would rather help you guys test out idea's than talk about it on the forums :)
|
|
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
|
|
d'hofren
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 10:53:00 -
[61]
Edited by: d''hofren on 06/06/2006 10:53:16 dbl post -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Galactic Exploration and Mining - Web and T II Shop
|
Avaleric
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 15:02:00 -
[62]
That range-suggestion is utter horse****...
- Ignorance is bliss... |
Ilmonstre
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 15:39:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Gunstar Zero sounds good.
Anything you could do to make missiles more useful in fleet combat would be cool, though I cant really think of an answer.
he is looking into that with the reduction of the optimals on guns wich gets ships closerby thus making the missils more effective again
|
Weirda
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 16:21:00 -
[64]
good blog and some good idea. it is really a house of card with which you play, be sure to play carefully. digital communist have some good idea over in ships and mods (you prolly aware)... don't like them all, but they ARE different perspective and well thought out.
Weirda think that the biggest problem that you face is balancing Fleets and balancing smaller engagement and balancing 1v1 all at once. Have been working on ideas self... and generally everything to gimp one overpowered aspect tend to make weaker aspect become overpowered. so feel you pain...
have been having some thoughts about gang UI improvement though - will hopefully be able to post them soon... something that you guys seem to talk about long long ago then it went way of DoDo....
as with most people, really don't like the idea 'o halving optimal... for reason that many other have stated.
it is good that you made it clear how much you DO read ppl idea, even if you don't 'pollute' their post.
weirda wondering if you ever took a look at that guy's butt though, it really *was* very unbalanced... __ Weirda Assault Ship need 4th Bonus and More! |
Sirkill
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 16:32:00 -
[65]
I think the point about lowering optimal range is that shooting something you can actualy make out as another ship rather than a spec on the screen is more fun.
|
Max Hardcase
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 16:46:00 -
[66]
The only problem with range atm is the long range tech2 ammo. Its just crazy effective. Better damage AND a range boost ? Where is the drawback in that ?
---------------------------------------------- Max Hardcase > yawn-o-rama Max Hardcase > is this typical of RA warfare ? FreaKsh0 > yes boredom fitted in all their high slots |
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 17:25:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Justin Cody 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.
I suspect part of the rationale behind this change is that it means that the aggressor does not have full control over combat range, as is currently the case for most non-frigs. You will of course still be able to dictate combat, range, but only if you have superior speed to your target. How important is it to you that you can control engagement range? How much will you sacrifice to be the one making that decision?
What's being suggested is, roughly, halving the range of BS guns, it would seem (based on Med Pulse -> Mega Pulse optimals). Currently, with standard crystals a sniper BS with Mega Beams and Radios has a 36km range advantage over a BS with Mega Pulse. That means that the short-range BS has to close the gap by 36km before he dies in order to do any significant damage. Note that that's not "fly 24km", it's "close the gap 24km" - the important thing is the relative speeds, not the absolute ones. Currently that's very hard to do, because making a BS go that fast gimps it utterly in most cases (hi Mega pilots). The change will bring that down to an 18km closure distance, which becomes more reasonable. It's still going to be hard to do in most ships, but it's less of a big deal. In fact, in standard situations sniping will work as now, because you be shooting at 36km base rather than 72, and he'll be shooting at 18 base rather than 36. What it does do is mean that in more close-range circumstances, such as cruiser battles, short-range BS fights (hah!) and the like, your ship's speed ceases to be largely academic and starts being more important, to the point where a faster ship is actually an advantage, as you can kite/tail-hug as much as you like.
This will likely act as a mild boost to the Matari, who already have fast ships, and a rather larger one to the Mega, as it'll make getting in range easier. It should also make mid- and close-range combat more dynamic, as you're playing with smaller distances and smaller margins with the same speeds and thus can actually hope to alter the range equations over the course of an engagement. In this respect it'll probably also benefit the Amarr to a degree, as they are the most range-flexible race during combat. The Gallente will, aside from the Mega, have more engagements taking place in drone range, and also have less issues with drones being miles away. As to the Caldari, less distance means less flight time means less of a handicap and more usefulness in fleet fights, on the assumption that CCP do (what would seem to be) the sensible thing and nerf flight time rather than speed, although I can see them doing both.
The other difference this has, of course, is to make T2 sniper duels slightly less ridiculous and ever so slightly more risky. I don't see this being a particularly bad thing either.
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 18:00:00 -
[68]
All this to get rid of long distance sniping? Sounds like an extreme amount of work to rebalance all the ships and modules to make this thing work. And the result would be the same game but but with combat at a shorter range? The effort isnt worth it.
--- The Eve Wiki Project |
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 18:14:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
All this to get rid of long distance sniping? Sounds like an extreme amount of work to rebalance all the ships and modules to make this thing work. And the result would be the same game but but with combat at a shorter range? The effort isnt worth it.
You're ignoring the fact that ship speeds would not be changing, and neither would existing static distances such as warp-ranges, gate turret positions etc.
|
Elve Sorrow
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 20:07:00 -
[70]
You say Tier 2 BCs are going to be quite straightforward. With no further info on the Amarr one posted, am i to assume we're going to get another Prophecy?
|
|
Kitty O'Shay
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 20:31:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Elve Sorrow You say Tier 2 BCs are going to be quite straightforward. With no further info on the Amarr one posted, am i to assume we're going to get another Prophecy?
How about a BC sized Arbi? I think that would make for a nice upgrade path. --
Carebear > Why'd you do that? I just got that ship! Pirate > I just got that ammo, do you hear me whining? |
Scythus Aratan
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 21:59:00 -
[72]
Decreasing the rangle of combat with further work to make ECM more valuable, as sensor dampeners and tracking disruptors will be next to worthless with everyone engaging within those ranges anyway, leaving the only real option of EW as ECM.
|
Beringe
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 23:10:00 -
[73]
If the fleet commanders are given tools for target selection/squadron assignment and such, then focus fire would become much less of a win-all tactic, and longer combat would be much more desirable.
We might get a lot more manouvering (besides the standard "warp-in/out at different ranges") in fleets, as well as more interesting small-gang warfare.
------------------------------------------- "Never underestimate the power of language."
--Daitan Beringe, honorary director in charge of bottles-- |
Beringe
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 23:14:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Scythus Aratan sensor dampeners and tracking disruptors will be next to worthless with everyone engaging within those ranges anyway
Tracking disruptors actually work better at closer ranges, since it is easier to track something that is really far away from you.
Sensor dampeners might need a boost if the changes happen, though. ------------------------------------------- "Never underestimate the power of language."
--Daitan Beringe, honorary director in charge of bottles-- |
Gaven Lok'ri
|
Posted - 2006.06.07 01:33:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Gaven Lok''ri on 07/06/2006 01:34:02 Edited by: Gaven Lok''ri on 07/06/2006 01:33:10 The optimal changes described would require just about the entire balance of the game to be changed.
I also think lowering the range on a game that already seems absurdly close range for space... is a bit silly.
Finding another solution would be far better, really.
I suggest looking at the way warping works.
Deus Vult! PIE Website |
Noriath
|
Posted - 2006.06.07 01:39:00 -
[76]
ECM should be reworked anyways.
Sensor range and locking speed should not be boosted by the same module, and Electronic warfare should also be waged on one or the other. Completly stopping people from locking anything should be impossible. Lockbreakers should only work on all locks on your ship, not on all locks another ship has. Lockbreaking should also not prevent people from locking, only from locking the ship that broke their lock on it right back.
|
Grash Freedom
|
Posted - 2006.06.07 02:10:00 -
[77]
Why change ranges?
Nobody has complained so far afaik,
And if you change range you should really check frigs speeds as well
as you suggested range of Large weapons will be something like 2x range of small ones, then you should work visa versa the speed factor as well
bs 1x cruiser 1.5x frigs 2x
If speed will not change then say so long to all beam,rail,arti weapons as they will be useless with the same trackings as today
btw still we need some answer, why?????
As for people saying that with tech2 ammo the range is extreme and pwns, well do your tests a 425mm II megathron can't hit jack with Spike L on moving frigs at 150km+
|
Razor Jaxx
|
Posted - 2006.06.07 07:22:00 -
[78]
Nerfing the BS combat range is a very bad idea. Range is one of the very last advantages BS (esp. gunboats) pilots have over other ship classes.
Consider that if the BS range is only 2x that of a frigate range, it will be way too easy for the frigate to get into its own range (thanks to frig speed), where it becomes virtually unhitable (thanks to poor L guns tracking and good frig sig radius). While drones would dispatch one, maybe two frigate-class ships, any more than that would eventually overwhelm the BS pilot.
With the proposed changes, it almost looks as if you'd given creedence to the Goonies' constant moaning about T2 sniping.
Range is the BS answer to speed, it's the BS pilot's lifeline.
You should really look for incentives to make people fly BS again, not the other way around. Hardly anyone flies a BS solo these days. It's become a fleet tool.
|
Brute Helmet
|
Posted - 2006.06.07 08:50:00 -
[79]
Remove all turrets except close range, high tracking ones. Replace them with missile slots. Make long range enagagements missile only. Introduce missile defence EW and long range antimissile systems that work.
Introduce assault missiles as the main weapon for fleets. This way controlling range means greater chance at winning the battle. Frigates reclassified into bomber and fighter types, the bombers have launchers to attack larger ships with and the fighters are anti-bomber ships.
Battleships rely on a mix of long range missiles and short range missiles. Cruisers and destroyers are designed as turret and missile ships for antifrigate duty.
That would make fights last longer and increase the skill and maneuver factors drastically. _____________________________
Support the MGRL - uncover your six |
Zhor
|
Posted - 2006.06.07 11:41:00 -
[80]
aren't battleships traditionally *fleet* tools? There is no cow! |
|
Krayl
|
Posted - 2006.06.07 12:45:00 -
[81]
Eve combat takes place at very short ranges or very long ones. Because scram/web ranges are limited to very short ranges (unless you have a fleet of Recons) you need to have combat that close unless you have bubbles. Otherwise, you're left sniping from 150+ away so that (a) the enemy can't shoot you (b) you can get away if targeted. There's no incentive for staying at mid range other than slightly more dps, perhaps one could be thought up?
The other problem is changing ranges. It is impossible to move from one extreme to the other without a whole fleet of covert ops on your side that have already spent ages getting into position. Maybe you could make covert ops speeds faster and there'd be more warping on top of each other in fleet battles? The ones I've seen, combat often doesn't happen simply because one side can't get in range before having to warp out or having their opponents warp out. MWD sig penalty really doesn't help here, anything approaching is a target anyway and MWD just helps kill it off. Of course, MWD is also the only good way to close the distances without a covert ops. Maybe some third propulsion module or an alternate mode of MWD use could work here? I'm thinking less speed than a MWD, maybe 250-350% instead of 500-600%, but without the sig radius problem and with some other dehabilitating effect, such as weapon ROF decreased sharply.
The sensor booster split into two mods sounds like a good idea, not so sure about the dmg mod idea, it doesn't really sounds like it'll work to me since rof is equivalent to damage anyway. Sure, you can make some large alpha strike, but that's only useful for ganking things really, and I thought we were trying to prolong combat?
|
Dezzereth
|
Posted - 2006.06.07 15:50:00 -
[82]
Well the information given in this blog is a bit vague to either flame or commend Tuxford.
BUT
Reducing optimal is bad, for the reasons that several others already mentioned. Why would that help in anyway, except that even more people will use stabs or avoid combat altogether. Especially newer players are better off at range, because range gives them a better reaction time to the events that unfold. True for PvP and PvE the same.
Prolonging combat... why? and most importantly: Don't you think that this will even make ganking a more used "tactic"? Small to 1 vs 1 combat will get even rarer. There is one big rule to combat: "If its hard to kill, bring in more friends" and that exactly will happen.
Generally I feel that EVE starts to lose it diversity. First with the Mk2 changes most ships got a boring damge or tracking bonus (esp. minmatar ships lost a a lot of uniqueness), and now even long range combat should be cut out of possible tactics plus on top of it artillery guns become a Hybrid gun with less cap use. Not good.
@the idea to split Damage mod and Sensor booster: Why? Damage mods have been dealt with and I never heard a PVP-ler I would take seriously whine about the "nber" sensorbooster in EVE. Don't change what works.
|
Gorath Vaan
|
Posted - 2006.06.07 19:58:00 -
[83]
All sounds good, but will it add realism? Realistically, turrets (external) and mods (internal) would suffer some kind of damage in combat. This effectively would mean (if applied ingame) that firepower/nos etc would dwindle as quickly as shield/armour while tanking ability would decrease at a much slower rate due to being protected by the ship. Wouldn't factoring these aspects of damage into combat help to improve and sustain the pvp experience and get you the desired effect of extending combat time?
|
Xendie
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 07:50:00 -
[84]
the range changes would kill piracy even more. that would give BS around what? 30-60k range? and force all pirates to sentry tank? they got it hard enough with everyone doing missions in empire instead of mining and ratting in fruitless lowsec.
and the prolonging combat will be another deathblow to amarr who does mainly EM damage with the addition of more resist or lower dmg and more armor.
what the heck are you thinking on? you already screwed up everything for amarr ships, cheesus.
Originally by: F'nog This would be great, because lag is not at all a problem currently.
|
ChronoLynx
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 18:06:00 -
[85]
These changes would nerf everything I ever wanted and am currently doing. I will cry if any of the Weapon changes go through, and btw, Assault Launchers with Standard Missiles on a Cerberus 4TW!! Kicks out about 15% more Damage per second than heavies at a cost of half the range atm, please don't change them.
Elitest Carebear with Fangs and Claws |
Synapse Archae
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 20:47:00 -
[86]
I still want to point the devs to this suggestion here on prolonging combat. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=349194&page=1
Adding HP or reducing dammage isnt going to fix the issue that concentrated fire will still be an instant death for fleet ships. if it takes 20 ships instead of 10 to instakill a battleship, its still going to mean fleet combat is short, boring, brutal and blobby.
---------------------------------------------
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=349194&page=1Redo Fleets[/ur |
Crellion
|
Posted - 2006.06.12 01:41:00 -
[87]
Hum Hum... read all the threads about how altering optimals means altering everything else to to balabce that (like tracking and speeds etc) and .... I fear that not what he us saying... he is saying (for some obscure reason) than he does want to make it so BSs cant use range aginst frigs etc etc etc...
Scary..
Stay of the liquid fire?
|
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2006.06.12 02:48:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Callie Nefarious
/me likes the sound of this very much
Well of course you would. I would if I were a Gal too. Reducing range helps Gal more than any one. Galapanties and all those silly drones ;)
-AS |
Nate D
|
Posted - 2006.06.12 11:41:00 -
[89]
I just don't know how people are suposed to snipe if they have to be up close... I also don't know how I'll be able to kill rats when all they do is run away... and the best I can do is keep up with them. I'm not a big fan of the range nerfing idea of the big guns. I like it how it is.
*shrug* But sounds like you're hard at work and have lots to do... Good luck and have fun. -Nate
----------------------------------- My Resume is bait for a job at CCP. If I come off as sarcastic or rude, it's just my American humor. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |