| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Righteous Fury
   |
Posted - 2006.06.06 00:13:00 -
[1]
Since Tux gave us a nice new devblog dealing mostly about ship changes, we may as well have a thread here to discuss it.
Overall I thought the blog was good, but I do have one bit that concerned me:
 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.
I'm not sure why range is even a problem. I haven't been up to my usually whoruming the past few weeks and probably missed any threads that had to do with it. I'd really like to hear the "good reasons" behind reducing combat range, as honestly I cannot think of any. That said, I could come up with an arms-lenght list of why reducing range is bad and why it works fine as is. (Example? The 1000m optimal range of a heavy ion blaster II with Void M *really* doesn't need to be reduced).
I may be chicken-littleing a bit now, but I'm honestly interested in hearing the pros and cons of a reduction in optimal ranges.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 00:22:00 -
[2]
I can come up with an arms-lenght list of why T2 amo doing more damage than T1 (rather than secondary effects) is bad tbh.
And that, with the other changes being poked arround...well, let's just say that I really don't think a drastic range rework is necessary. Small ships don't need the boost in smaller combat, and in fleet it still won't get them used.
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 00:27:00 -
[3]
eve would be more fun if it was more than purple box shoots red box stuff.. obviously they'd have to change a lot for this to happen
------
FPDOMS MINER KILLBOARD |
Aeaus
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 00:37:00 -
[4]
Horrible idea, comparing how much damage medium does vs light weapons, especially considering T2 ships with bonuses, such a "nerf" would effectively be removing the entire role of large gunned ships.
My Guides (Recomended Reading) |
Kitty O'Shay
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 00:40:00 -
[5]
Your forum-fu is lacking, already posted stuff.
--
|
Kcel Chim
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 00:50:00 -
[6]
reducing optimal range wont change anything apart from boosting small and medium ships as they were the ones suffering the most in 100 km battles.
If the lag situation isnt improving we will still see ppl maximum zoomed out fire at little squares with all effects turned off. If those squares are 50km away or 100km away makes no difference if its "purely bs vs bs". However if u add other ships into that scenario it imbalances unfairly.
BS were already pushed back in the last function of beeing "uber at range", reducing that will steal alot of taste of the game.
Ontop tracking would be seriously influenced not to mention that a 1400 (before ammo, skills and shipbonis are applied) would have an optimal range of 24km. Sorry but even with skills and t2 ammo thats merely 50km, a range tacklers can break in under a minute and even a bs with mwd can manage in no time which would make a differenciation between "shortrange" and "longrange" guns pointless. Ultimate winner would be missiles since they arent handicapped by predesigned roles (in bs battles) and a closer targetdestination would support their flighttimes..
All in all a very dissappointing idea, like the hp increase. Tux raised a few valid points but we are looking atm at a situation where a single bs (ofc with a good setup) can tank 2-3 bs for awhile. Fleetbattles will ALWAYS have an instantpop option if the gamemechanics dont change completely because frankly said if lag gets under control and the game prospers playerwise further it wont matter if youre now instantly popped by 100 ppl shooting you or then by 150 or 200.
Last but not least this once again would favor smaller ships because they already have the highest damage output compared to bigger ships, so any hp increase has a double effect for them combined with speed and hardhitting.
|
Minerdog
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 04:06:00 -
[7]
Well, why don't they just switch everything over to this very accurate 1, 1.5x, 2x method.
cruisers should have 1.5x the HPs of frigates, and battleships should only have 2x that. i think battleships should also only do 2x as much damage as frigates.
|
Audri Fisher
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 05:40:00 -
[8]
damn, I guess I have to train up noss, EW, and blasters then, since range will have no point.
Seriously though, with inties as fast as they are, what is the point of this?
Sniping gatecamps make covert ops pilots wanted and useful.
If you fill your lows with WCS, even with tech II ammo, you are gonna have a hard time killing peeps before they warp.
Some people say it virtualy eliminates risk while gatecamping. I have seen ASCN pull some very dirty tricks on corpmates to catch snipers, so it can be done.
Longer range fighting encourages running fleet battles, esp small scale ones, that last for a long time, rather than the everybody jump into a massive furball pop pop pop everybody is dead. If you want to encourage longer fights, the way NOT to do it is force evryone into Ultra high damage range.
I remember seeing the exact same conundrums going on in the SWG alpha forums leading up to the disasterous Combat upgrade and even worse NGE.
The fact is that Eve is a sandbox, where players are limited more by there imaginations than the devs.
Certain things, like basic battlefield tactics carry over from another sandox, called 21st Century Earth.
A very good example of range, armor, tracking, and speed for example was in late WWII when the US Sherman tanks met the German main battle tanks for the first time.
Shermans were much lighter armored, and there guns had a very hard time penatrating the armor of German tanks. They were absolutely mauled in the tight confines of the Normandy Hedgerows. once they broke out though, with the help of the most massive bombing campaighn up to that point, they began to shine. For although the german tanks were armored much heavier, and carried bigger guns, the Sherman's lighter armor let them travel and turn faster. Not only that, but there smaller guns let them track there target's much faster than there adversaries, who often had to stop to reduce tranversal and get a good shot off.
It is to late for me to get into the whole range/tank/damge issue on these forums, however, I will say this, if you want to massively rebalance an existing MMOG, look what happened to SWG. Even if done well, you lose a lot of playerbase. I think it will be worse in EVE because you can't just regrind a skill set in a month, heck, I have trained for almost 6 moths to be able to kill close range setups, not by being a better close range setup, but useing tactics and equipment that allows me to win because I am presenting a rock to scissors, not trying to beat a 3 year vet at making a better pair of scissors.
I am just now starting to win some fights to, give me 3 more months and I will start training for the new caldari Battleship.
Finaly, this is not a Fantasy game. Eve mirrors a lot of truth from the real world. (the whole sandox thing) Thsi whole deal that long close range dukes it out in the middle while long range "supports from afar" works until somebody figuers out that if you put all your long range guys up front, they can project power, then you use your close range guys for support and insurance, in case somebody sneaks a covert ops ship in and drops a load of Nos Dommis on top of you. 
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 05:54:00 -
[9]
Guys, THINK!
Do you think that everything will stay the same if Optimal was decreased? Do you really believe that sir Tuxford WILL NOT change speed, tracking and optimal ranges of other modules when he is gonna make this change? This change will effect all of EVE. All equipment, all guns and all ships to balance this out. EVE will just be the "same" just scaled down, meaning now 50km to 60km means uber long range instead of 240km. Uber speed on frigate would now maybe be 2000 m/s instead of 8000 m/s and so on? Dont you get ****?!
13 -_- |
Gronsak
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 05:55:00 -
[10]
Which bright dev came up with this or read it on a post and thought it was a good idea 
look at the frig and crusier class ships, how many of them fit long range guns, almost none compaired to close range guns, optimal decrease will do the same for BS which isnt good at all, a better way to nerf snipers is to do what DC suggested, and make sensor boosters incrase lock range but nerf scan res!
-------------------Sig-----------------------
welcome to eve, a game for the unemployed, the t2 bpo winners, GTC sellers, macro miners and agent *****s |
|
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 08:18:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
Guys, THINK!
Do you think that everything will stay the same if Optimal was decreased? Do you really believe that sir Tuxford WILL NOT change speed, tracking and optimal ranges of other modules when he is gonna make this change? This change will effect all of EVE. All equipment, all guns and all ships to balance this out. EVE will just be the "same" just scaled down, meaning now 50km to 60km means uber long range instead of 240km. Uber speed on frigate would now maybe be 2000 m/s instead of 8000 m/s and so on? Dont you get ****?!
What would be the point? What is it about shortening optimal that is so valuable that it justifies changing every ship and module in the entire game? You realize that an effort of this magnitude has the potential to totally screw up game balance and affect the future plans of other features in a very significant way?
---
The Eve Wiki Project |
Alex Harumichi
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 08:25:00 -
[12]
The whole idea sounds pointless, and risks throwing balance out the window for a good long while. I don't really see what the problem is with the current ranges. Sure, there are some sniper ships. So what? Does CCP want to remove the sniper role from the game? What exactly is the problem that is being solved by this?
|
Lorette
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 08:26:00 -
[13]
very bad idea imo, unless they also reduce ship speeds by and equal ammount or boost the dmg of ranged weapons/ammo. As it is i can kill stuff faster if i shoot with AM (for ex) from 30km than i do using ranged ammo starting at about 60km.
Also most long range setups dont allow for a good tank, so if you bring them in closer they will be useless and everyone will use medium/short range weaponry.
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 08:27:00 -
[14]
The big things that would change are:
- viability of shorter-range setups
- no more evading EW by outranging it
- more effective short-ranged EW (damps, disruptors, painters)
- Tacklers become a bigger risk to BS.
It won't lead to more mixed fleets as fleets already are very mixed. A BoB fleet with more then 50% BS in it is an exception these days. Why ? Because smaller ships get all the fun, and are hugely more effective and quick hit and run or fast gankage of less numerous targets.
It also won't lead to longer fights however. When all of the above named are dealt with in this way, nothign stops anyone from going in right on top anymore. And at 0-15km range, ships die faster then they do now, regardless of EW.
What you need is a reason to get longer ranged BSW to engage at up to 80-120km, but not higher or much lower.
Old blog |
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 08:30:00 -
[15]
I think the changes mentioned in the blog are a little drastic. I like my howitzers to throw shells for miles, its cool.
Reducing the ranges would be good, but reducing large guns to 2x small range is a bit silly.
Ranges should go like this, in terms of balance (not in terms of physics, though), imo
Artillery - Top Range
Lasers - Next highest
Rails - Lowest of the longrange guns
Max range should be capping out at around 100km with max range ammo and such, imo. Anything farther gives us the yawnalicious fights we see now. Not to mention rendering EW and such useless.
Please bear in mind this post hasn't been thought out and may have a few inconsistencies :P
Testy's Eve Blog, Updated 01/06/06
Someone sell me an Amarr Alt!
|
Emno
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 08:39:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Testy Mctest
Artillery - Top Range
Lasers - Next highest
Rails - Lowest of the longrange guns
Also lets make
Rails - Highest alpha strike
Lasers - Next highest
Artillery - Lowest alpha strike
|
wismerhil
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 09:04:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
Guys, THINK!
Do you think that everything will stay the same if Optimal was decreased? Do you really believe that sir Tuxford WILL NOT change speed, tracking and optimal ranges of other modules when he is gonna make this change? This change will effect all of EVE. All equipment, all guns and all ships to balance this out. EVE will just be the "same" just scaled down, meaning now 50km to 60km means uber long range instead of 240km. Uber speed on frigate would now maybe be 2000 m/s instead of 8000 m/s and so on? Dont you get ****?!
MMM. if they change the whole principle of EVE then traveling will take also longer because a bs with a speed of 150m/s will then fly 75m/s and a dreadnought 40m/s so what will the point changing this if, like you think, everything will be balanced.
gatecamps will still excist the only problem they will have is that they cannot snipe anymore outside sentry gun range. TUX re-think this! You will start a HELL for yourself i think.
greetz to all
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 09:04:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Testy Mctest
Reducing the ranges would be good, but reducing large guns to 2x small range is a bit silly.
Yes it is a bit drastic. Maybe just divide everything by two instead? Then it would be a "real" scale down.
13 -_- |
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 09:05:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Lorette
very bad idea imo, unless they also reduce ship speeds by and equal ammount or boost the dmg of ranged weapons/ammo. As it is i can kill stuff faster if i shoot with AM (for ex) from 30km than i do using ranged ammo starting at about 60km.
Also most long range setups dont allow for a good tank, so if you bring them in closer they will be useless and everyone will use medium/short range weaponry.
I believe it will make EVE has it is now just that 120km equals 60km instead. Think it like a scale down by 50%.
13 -_- |
Tehyarec
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 09:09:00 -
[20]
There are SO many changes and fixes that need to be done before something like this. This would be a HUGE task, since all the optimal ranges, tracking speeds, damages, etc etc would need to be adjusted. Just doesn't seem worth the huge hassle at this point.
|
|
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 09:09:00 -
[21]
Originally by: wismerhil
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
Guys, THINK!
Do you think that everything will stay the same if Optimal was decreased? Do you really believe that sir Tuxford WILL NOT change speed, tracking and optimal ranges of other modules when he is gonna make this change? This change will effect all of EVE. All equipment, all guns and all ships to balance this out. EVE will just be the "same" just scaled down, meaning now 50km to 60km means uber long range instead of 240km. Uber speed on frigate would now maybe be 2000 m/s instead of 8000 m/s and so on? Dont you get ****?!
MMM. if they change the whole principle of EVE then traveling will take also longer because a bs with a speed of 150m/s will then fly 75m/s and a dreadnought 40m/s so what will the point changing this if, like you think, everything will be balanced.
gatecamps will still excist the only problem they will have is that they cannot snipe anymore outside sentry gun range. TUX re-think this! You will start a HELL for yourself i think.
greetz to all
They dont have to change the ship speed to alter speed. They could just change AB and MWD.
Make a frigate going 420 m/s go 1250 m/s with AB and 2000 m/s with MWD? Also remove all penalties from MWD and give it a agility penalty instead. When using MWD you can only MWD in a straight line. This will make MWD a travel mod.
Just thinking out loud really, but overall I believe that if its balanced right and done right, it will be better and make EVE more fun isntead of brackets shooting brackets. Now you can actully see the ships, and that alone is worth it!
13 -_- |
Cpt Abestos
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 09:11:00 -
[22]
This will make large scale fights happen at 50km or less and while that may sound fun, 200ppl poping drones will make an allready laggy situation even worse.
|
Cpt Abestos
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 09:16:00 -
[23]
Not to mention this would render most long range guns useless as well as mega pulse, so everyone would be flying ravens since it seems their range isnt getting nurfed.
|
Jon Xylur
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 09:18:00 -
[24]
If they do this they better keep the blaster rnage a sit is. Atlest that way the rnage wouldn't be uber short compared to even the other short range guns.
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, and not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty - Cortes |
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 09:23:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Cpt Abestos
Not to mention this would render most long range guns useless as well as mega pulse, so everyone would be flying ravens since it seems their range isnt getting nurfed.
Everything will be changed. Nothing is left without if a such change is comin...
13 -_- |
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 09:26:00 -
[26]
Dont blame Tux. Blame snipers, T2 ammos and > 200km engagements. 
----------------
RecruitMe@NOINT!
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
EvE is ecstatically malevolent.
|
Scirinyx
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 09:45:00 -
[27]
What a stupid idea, why change something if it isn't broken.
|
Izo Azlion
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 09:50:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
Guys, THINK!
Do you think that everything will stay the same if Optimal was decreased? Do you really believe that sir Tuxford WILL NOT change speed, tracking and optimal ranges of other modules when he is gonna make this change? This change will effect all of EVE. All equipment, all guns and all ships to balance this out. EVE will just be the "same" just scaled down, meaning now 50km to 60km means uber long range instead of 240km. Uber speed on frigate would now maybe be 2000 m/s instead of 8000 m/s and so on? Dont you get ****?!
Lets do the opposite of what EVE does best, and make the game, effectively, smaller?
No, i highly, highly disagree with this statement about decreasing optimal range. You'd be Nerfing a battleship so that a Frig is more useful.
Not in the mood to discuss this right now, but I dont agree with it at all.
Izo Azlion.
Sha Kharn.
Ascendant Frontier
---
|
Quarantine
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 10:37:00 -
[29]
Nerf T2 longrange ammo - problem solved.
|
maGz
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 10:53:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Quarantine
Nerf T2 longrange ammo - problem solved.
QFT.
That 100% bonus to range is stupid anyways...
PS. Seems a bit stupid to implement ammo that results in 150km+ battles, then suddenly turning on a daim and starts talking about reducing optimals on guns
______________________
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |