| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Lincoln Armm
   |
Posted - 2006.09.06 18:21:00 -
[271]
Fleet battles part I:
First off there is a problem and fixing lag, which is, again outside of the purview of design wonÆt fix it. The root problem is that s ingle strategy is dominating all fleet battles. Even worse this strategy is itself simple and can be done with a small fraction of the gameÆs skills, ships, and modules. This is clearly bad. To state this more clearly, its not that focus firing is bad inherently, its just that thereÆs nothing else nearly as good.
What is wanted is a dynamic environment where different strategies of varying levels of sophistication are available. Some might require a lot of character skills or equipment, others might require a large amount of player skills. How can we create a battle environment that does this?
There are other considerations as well. An solution will have to work within the following constraints:
Its elements must scale up and down from single ship encounters to fleet engagements. Making fleet combat fun is not worth the cost of breaking the rest of the game.
It should use existing skills and systems as much as possible. In particular you donÆt want to introduce large training times to new sets of fleet skills since this would be unfair to existing alliance forces.
We also want any solution to involve as wide a range of ships and equipment as possible. Focusing on one weapon system or ship class in isolation will just shift the problem around.
So thatÆs the problem. WhatÆs my proposed solution? See part II
|
Lincoln Armm
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 18:22:00 -
[272]
Fleet battles part II
To me the answer is to break up battlefield participation into defined roles. Each role would have groups of ships assigned to that role. Each role would have skills and modules associated with it. These roles are mutually supporting. What these roles are could vary but hereÆs a possible setup.
Offence force:
these are forces capable of delivering tremendous blows. Mounting fleet modules that augment the entire groups fire and the ability to be group targeted by the squadron commander. This is the offensive force of your fleet. Due to the mounting of fleet offence and coordination modules the defenses of these groups is weak.
Defense groups:
this is a group capable of generating a strong group defense. It is able to not only shelter itself but a limited number of other forces as well. This ability is range limited. Fleet defense link modules project a defensive force that only powerful Offence forces can penetrate. The presence of defense modules makes these groups slower and removes there ability to punch hard but allows survival on the battle field.
Screening force
These are light ships that use fleet ECM link modules to attempt to probe the enemy fleet while keeping your fleet composition a secret. The modules allow you to identify group types, group hierarchy and commander ships. Screening forces have a group cloak fleet module that makes them difficult to engage except by other powerful ecm platforms (usually their opponent screens). A screening forces composition will be a mix of combatants and sensor platforms.
Force composition is held together by C&C. Group size and capabilities is determined by leadership abilities, of which. Each group has a command staff. If you win the screen war and your sensor platforms collect enough data you will be able to decapitate the enemies groups, causing them to loose group cohesion and lose fleet bonuses.
So how would this work to meet our goals?.
More ships and modules are in use. Both large ships and small ships have roles. Fleet link modules amplify the power of existing modules making lots of other modules also matter at the fleet level.
Strategies involve:
group composition:
lots of offence or lots of defence. Lots of screen or not so much screen. Within a group ship composition will lead to many strategies. Some ships lend themselves to offensive or defensive groups but do you want to telegraph that much info to your opponents?
group positioning:
Offence groups have to be in range of the enemy and defence groups donÆt but have to be in range of anyone they want to protect. Screens want to close but they also want to keep back the enemy screen.
Dynamic battle:
Screens clash, data is gathered, offence groups attack probing for weak spots and the commanders switch offensive and defensive forces to meet the changing battle. Once one sides groups begin to collapse desperate measures are called for. Regroup or admit defeat?
This is all just a very rough idea but I think this or something like it would add to the game.
|
Fedaykin Naib
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 18:25:00 -
[273]
I'm kinda shocked that CCP sees blobbing as something that needs to be fixed. The only problem with blobs are lag. Not focus fire, fighting at 150+km or whatever tuxford is thinking in his head.
I'm amazed that CCP dont see how there thinking of breaking their own basic princples for EVE. Blobbing was an tactic that came about naturally, people come together because more people can provide better defense. This was not the idea of some evil genius to be of an exploit of game mechanics. This is a natural occurance of human nature, just as the idea of scamming, and even how dispecable scamming is, its a part of human nature.
CCP created EVE on the idea of a game where the players can do whatever they want, without being told exactly what to do,and how to do. This would be a game of survival of fittest, with whatever a person can do,whatever comes to them naturally, to succeed, it would be allowed. Be it mining, building, fighting, npcing, scamming, blobbing, etc. these would be allowed in the world of EVE.
Trying to fix blobbing(fix the lag) is in direct opposition of this princple. Now you want to control how exactly people are supposed to fight, instead of allowing the players to figure how to do.
"Long Live the Fighters!"
|
Lincoln Armm
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 18:45:00 -
[274]
Its not that blobbing is in itself bad, its that there are no effective alternitives. Reducing all fleet battles to s single tactic using a small range of tactics is just bad game design. The blob developed as an outgrowth of the underlying ship combat game mechanics and it's both CCP's right and responsibility to alter those game mechanics to make a better game.
|
Fedaykin Naib
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 18:57:00 -
[275]
 Originally by: Lincoln Armm
Its not that blobbing is in itself bad, its that there are no effective alternitives. Reducing all fleet battles to s single tactic using a small range of tactics is just bad game design. The blob developed as an outgrowth of the underlying ship combat game mechanics and it's both CCP's right and responsibility to alter those game mechanics to make a better game.
There are plenty of effective alternatives, and right now there not possible because of lag, not bad game design.
"Long Live the Fighters!"
|
Minnow maught
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 19:32:00 -
[276]
Originally by: Fedaykin Naib
There are plenty of effective alternatives
Trying to think what they are ..... nope cant think of any ... please enlighten us :)
assuming 2 gangs have similar ship types and 1 is 100 ships, the other is 50 then my money is on the bigger blob.
The only thing I can possibly think of is the drive through sniping run but I'd still put my money on the blob .... simply no effective counter except for luck or a serious defficiency in the larger blob e.g. they're in frigates and the smaller gang is in anti-frigate cruisers etc.
|
ponieus
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 20:03:00 -
[277]
Originally by: Fedaykin Naib
Originally by: Lincoln Armm
Its not that blobbing is in itself bad, its that there are no effective alternitives. Reducing all fleet battles to s single tactic using a small range of tactics is just bad game design. The blob developed as an outgrowth of the underlying ship combat game mechanics and it's both CCP's right and responsibility to alter those game mechanics to make a better game.
There are plenty of effective alternatives, and right now there not possible because of lag, not bad game design.
lag is the only thing that irrates both sides more than loosing a ship in one volley..
kill the lag and guess what everyone will be happy.
---------------------------------------------
Maybe we will win the war by getting every bob pilot banned from eve maybe.:/
--thebold |
Fedaykin Naib
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 20:23:00 -
[278]
Originally by: Minnow maught
Originally by: Fedaykin Naib
There are plenty of effective alternatives
Trying to think what they are ..... nope cant think of any ... please enlighten us :)
assuming 2 gangs have similar ship types and 1 is 100 ships, the other is 50 then my money is on the bigger blob.
The only thing I can possibly think of is the drive through sniping run but I'd still put my money on the blob .... simply no effective counter except for luck or a serious defficiency in the larger blob e.g. they're in frigates and the smaller gang is in anti-frigate cruisers etc.
I'm sure you would like to know, but if your not intelligent enough to think of them on your own, then are you really deserving of them?
"Long Live the Fighters!"
|
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 20:24:00 -
[279]
Originally by: Fedaykin Naib
I'm sure you would like to know, but if your not intelligent enough to think of them on your own, then are you really deserving of them?
Translation: Fedaykin can't think of any either. 
---
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 20:25:00 -
[280]
Originally by: ponieus
lag is the only thing that irrates both sides more than loosing a ship in one volley..
kill the lag and guess what everyone will be happy.
Actually, it's losing your ship to a single volley that you NEVER EVEN SAW because of the lag that is REALLY annoying. Making initial encounter range greater than weapon range would at least fix that part.
---
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Fedaykin Naib
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 21:22:00 -
[281]
Originally by: Grey Area
Originally by: Fedaykin Naib
I'm sure you would like to know, but if your not intelligent enough to think of them on your own, then are you really deserving of them?
Translation: Fedaykin can't think of any either.
Yes, keep thinking that. 
"Long Live the Fighters!"
|
Berrik Radhok
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 06:07:00 -
[282]
Good luck finding a way to nerf blobbing without also nerfing the utility of small ships.
Sig removed, inappropriate content - Cortes |
Kanuo Ashkeron
Eve Defence Force
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 06:38:00 -
[283]
Originally by: Lincoln Armm
Fleet battles part I:
First off there is a problem and fixing lag, which is, again outside of the purview of design wonÆt fix it.
If you mean, that fixing lag, wouldn¦t fix the fleet battle problem, you are wrong.
To part two of your post. What should defensive groups good for? I mean you suggested a few things, but how do they fit in the current game? Or how should the current game being altered so that you suggestions are useful?
Kanuo
|
Gabriel Karade
Office linebackers
Blood of the Innocents
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 08:38:00 -
[284]
Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 07/09/2006 08:38:59
You know re-adding torpedo splash damage would finally bury the Raven vs. Blasterthron argument 
I previously posted a couple of ideas on how to change turret accuracy at range without nerfing it completely here
----------
- Office Linebacker -
|
eLLioTT wave
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 09:01:00 -
[285]
introduce collisions then watch that blob of ships bouncing off each other (except now crashing into each other) and tearing apart. |
Gabriel Karade
Office linebackers
Blood of the Innocents
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 09:47:00 -
[286]
If warping wasn't possible with ships/objects too close to you, then that would also force fleets to disperse more widely.
Though, it would have significant repercussions for combat in general...
----------
- Office Linebacker -
|
Zothike
Eve Defence Force
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 11:20:00 -
[287]
I've started to read the thread but i stopped at page 7 as i'm too lazy (many interesting post, i peronnally recommand Trac3rt very good post page6)
Here are my thought about the subject
-Lag can't be resolved in the near future, unless a revolutionnary breakthrew happening in informatique either at software/hardware level (en even so it have to be cheap to be usefull at mass player level)
-dead in 2 seconds? then jump to a carrier and jump in a fitted frigate/cruiser/hac or wathever the carrier have as
ship and jump back in battle, that what carrier have been made for, perhaps a new capital ship class like 'carrier
depot' with less fighting potential but bigger hangar to store fitted ship, would be a good addition
-in some fleet battle you will be primary earlier and in some other, later and even not, trying to get a solution to have EVERYbody have fun for minutes before being destroyed would require a complete rewriting of the game, we must think about an easy way to modify the game as it is now, not building a brand new game, engaging in fleet battle invovle (in case of no lag....) that you will have between a few seconds and a few minutes of fun, it's how the game work
-keep focus fire as bs are cheap , and if getting kills are more rare, destroying enemy potential will be more
harder/impossible
-Range weapons are ok, it give some (more) tactics level in fleet battle
But overall the main trouble is how EVE war at strategical level is handled, if globaly tactical war with little gangs (less than 50 total ppl involved) is near lag free and globaly fun, warfare is made of borings hours(days) of gate camping/system locking/pos spamming (and i dont speak about exploits) and all theses boring hours of waiting that very often end in a lagfest where u got killed before being able to see 1 seconds of battle
Perhaps how POS war for sovereignity work should be re-writen
I have an idea that will prolly get me lot of flamming but let's go
I'm not player of Lineage II nor WoW ':p, but Lineage have a system of scheduled warfare is i think interesting, why
not making something like that, where some system become key system for a whole constellation and owning them in
certain condition give you sovereignity (for what use? it's another problem in some case) then if theses key system are identified ccp can schedule few hour(s) 1 day of each week(month?) when battle can occur and then allow load ressource to get less lag for theses system for the hour(s) involved, then battle(s) occurs and the winner will be determined by the side that gather certain victory conditions (to be defined)
The problem with a system like in lineage in EVE is that you have players from each time Zone, then determining that battle will happen between 20 and 23h for London would put ppl living in West Coast in USA as a major problem, then perhaps 3 (or more) scheduled 'battle windows' should be determinate to cover each timezone
Theses 'battle windows' could too be determinate by the alliances themselfs , with some rules enforced by ccp, like minimum of number of hours by week/month, variation etc
A mix between scheduled battle(they call it 'castle siege' i think) of lineage and WoW battleground please be constructive, critisize but not flame, dont be intTgrists 'OMG he said WoW' let's try to make EVE better
It's true it's cool to have a fully opened system when u can attack anywhere, anywhen, with any sized army, for how
long u want, but obviously it dont work nor it is fun
|
SugarDaddy
Comando Vermelho
Center for Disease Creation
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 14:26:00 -
[288]
Just dont let more than 5-6 ship target the same one.
|
Fubarski
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 15:54:00 -
[289]
Why not look for a more eloquent solution that makes certain ships/skills invaluable in fleet warfare?
For instance, field command, and fleet command ships, (or gang leader in the case of a skill based system) instead of drone controls, get "formation controls" on their overview pane. Have the number of formations, or bonuses from them increase according to a leadership type skill, with the bonuses applying to a number specifically set according to ship type (field/fleet) or skill type (field/fleet)
Have these different formations actually MEAN something. For instance, an aggressive, blobbesque stance grants greater focused fire on a single target, at the expense of mobility, and defense. Likewise a defensive posture provides much more spread out design, with the caveat that your overall damage is reduced, while your maneuverability, and defense get boosted. And provide in betweens/solutions for other types of vehicles besides the big ones. An alpha strike type formation grants bonuses to overall damage, but comes with slower target locking. An evasive maneuvering formation that grants a higher resistance to damage, while mitigating rate of fire, and rad/sec (in the case of turrets).
Pro's: If done correctly, it can allow for varied different types of engagements. Maybe it will breathe some life back into smaller fleet warfare, if the leader knows he can actually pit his/her tactics versus a larger enemy, with the possibilty of success.
Cons: It would add to the already deep skill tree; and counts on players to cure the lag problem themselves. Won't provide an immediate effect, but more of a future endeavor. It would also have to be carefully tested to make sure one formation type wasn't completely overpowering with certain fittings.
The only way I can see to avoid instapopping is to provide limitations not on the locking, but on the tracking and rate of fire for objects based on how many "locks" are currently on the target. That would provide a sense of reality, where one crafts radar can effectiely "jam" someone elses into mitigated utility. With all the signal going out to get the lock, with multiple ships in the area, there's going to be a lot of noise coming back.
Of course, CCP could always introduce a HARM missile, or something similar, that when activated, lofts large volkswagen sized objects into the windshield of that insta locker. Mileage may vary on this one, but damned if that wouldn't be funny as all get out to see.
Fubar
|
Shidhe
Minmatar
The Babylon5 Consortuim
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 17:15:00 -
[290]
Edited by: Shidhe on 07/09/2006 17:16:57
About splash damage...
I guess it probably can work, as a specialised item (not in general - I remember what
happened when it was standard...)
The Cloud tech II torp: effectively a smart bomb on a missile.
It is big (needs reloading more often), and as a result is
slow (dont fire at any frigs unless you have them webbed first...). However it does
area effect damage as a smart bomb when it does hit (vary damage to balance).
The slow bit means that it can only usefully be used against big targets, and combined with the more frequent reloads means that it wont be used as a general purpose missile. It has one purpose - area effect damage against large, difficult to manoevre blobs...
Just to show that it might be possible. 
|
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 19:51:00 -
[291]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
If warping wasn't possible with ships/objects too close to you, then that would also force fleets to disperse more widely.
Though, it would have significant repercussions for combat in general...
Yes, like warp scramblers would be come redundant, as all you'd have to do is stay within a certain distance of your target.
---
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Macath
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 20:58:00 -
[292]
While this may have been covered in one of the other posters posts, from what I understand Tux is talking about breaking up the blob. What he said about focus fire had me guessing. Talking out or doing any thing to nerf focus fire, which is not a game feature or mechanic but a tactic is silly. As was said, this is not cast in stone.
Focus fire is a tactic used in many situations to this say, as well as in history. For that matter I don't see a way of doing that other than to limit the number of ships that can target another ship, which is also silly.
You want to kill the big blob, limit gang sizes. Rather than 200 vs 200 its 4 50 man fleets vs the same. Communications nightmare, maybe. Is it workable, I think it is. Plus it opens up tactical options. Just a thought.
|
Apertotes
Nuevos Horizontes
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 23:28:00 -
[293]
Originally by: Macath
...
Focus fire is a tactic used in many situations to this say, as well as in history. For that matter I don't see a way of doing that other than to limit the number of ships that can target another ship...
bah, there are many suggestions on this thread very valid to limit focus fire effectiveness and they dont involve stupid limitations
Apertotes, the Guybrush Threepwood of New Eve |
Rolled
Eve Defence Force
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.08 03:24:00 -
[294]
If you want to break the back of the blob you need to make the short range setups viable in fleet battles.
lets look at what the main weakness of the short range setup is in fleet battles. It's really simple. It's the approach. Lets look at a prototypical fleet battle. 2 blobs with 200km of no mans land between them. They are both aligned to a safe spot ready to warp as soon as something starts locking them.
It's going to be sure suicide for any ship larger then an interceptor to close that distance. All that time spent in transit is also lost time as you are out of weapons range until you start to close (if you make it that far). The entire time you are approaching you are most likely not aligned to a safe spot. Even an interceptor is going to stand a good chance of being insta pop'd on it's way to the oppositions blob.
I think short range setups would be a great way to break the back of the blob. You wouldn't have to drastically alter game mechanics to make it viable either. So .. here is my idea....
The ability to warp to with in 15km of anything you have locked.
Lock your opposition and warp to them. You still have alignment time for the enemy blob to target and fire on you. You are deffinitally not safe even when in gun range as you will now be targets of the enemy fleet's drones and it's own short range ships. All this time in the enemy camp you also won't be aligned to a safe spot.
Thoughts?
|
c0rn1
Seraphin Technologies
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.09.08 04:02:00 -
[295]
Edited by: c0rn1 on 08/09/2006 04:03:06
I actually Do not understand the problem of focus firing. Removing that from the battle just removes every skill from fleet fights. A well organized group of people should always be able to kill a twice to triple time larger unorganized fleet.
Focus firing would be no problem if you'd finally remove the lag of battles 50vs50 at least. Since the so praised Dragon Patch our PvP gangs are lagging even more than before in engagements. I am in a system with 20 players and have to wait 5 seconds til my modules are activated when I press the buttons (don't wanna talk about the delay when 100 people are in local). Undocking from stations gives us black screens that almost the ship stopped when you finally enter your ship in space. Undock bookmarks are pretty worthless with this.
Have you ever tried to do a gatecamp with 20 people and have 20 people jumping into you? experienced the issues the server has with handling and distributing this to the clients involved (I Am not going into 50vs50 here since this is plain unplayable)? Not to mention the regroup order lag and the drone launch lag.
I mean those are things which need ALOT of love. Not nerfing another thing where actual skill and coordination of players is involved. Every half-way experienced player is always aligned in fleet battles, ready to warp out once he is called primary (which serves very well as ship saver but not if the lag is that huge that ur ships won't react within a minute and then it's too late).
What I see in Eve at the moment are tendencies which really make me said. Playing this game since 3 years after I played Ultima Online I see the same thing happening here which ORIGIN tried to do and flushed it into EA's arms.
People were crying for another territory without thiefs. So they created a copy of Felucca, Trammel and the GM thiefs and PvPer were bound to kill and rob each other. It took all my exitement away from UO when I didn't have to watch my stuff at bank anymore for thiefs. Or watch my back for a PK to show up. So I left UO a short time after. You're wearing the game out in nerfs and (sorry) STUPID ideas to attract a LARGER player base. Announcement of 30k+ players on one server, etc etc.. Nice PR, bad for the players.
What good is it for if the game is unplayable for the people who wanna do some serious PvP where every second counts? and this is not guaranteed at the current state of the server but that is what EVE makes EVE for a large amount of people. What good would be industry for in this game if there wouldn't be the players who shoot each other and destroy the stuff they build?
I don't even dare to take my dread out nowadays because I do know that with a 99% chance the lag will hit me in front of the POS. And if it doesn't I have to reboot my client after an hour anyways because my memory is full of junk of EVE.
What I see right now is that you're trying yourself in politics. It's a regular behaviour to focus on other unimportant things to pull the attraction away off the real problems.
The same with the bookmark thingie. Why is CCP trying to go the easiest ways nowadays? Who needs Kali if things aren't properly fixed? whats the problem in getting some dev effort along and rewriting the whole code for bookmarks? do they have to be items? why not just simple notices with X,Y,Z coordinate and system they are in which can be easily transferred by ship computers to another player. these are basically 4 fields in a database which have to be copied with a simple INSERT X,Y,Z,System INTO [players.bookmarktable]. those a database can do MILLIONS per second and bookmarks wouldn't even slightly be a problem at all. But no, instead of just putting some effort in you just limit it to 5 bookmarks copied. that's not a solution, this is plain crap, because now people start several threads in copying with the same amount and once the player base is even larger, the same CPU usage will appear again.
I thought CCP would be better than that.
Regards
c0rn1
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
-V- Diplomat
-V- High Council Member
Life's a waste of time ... |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.08 08:33:00 -
[296]
Originally by: c0rn1
....
Thanks you. Very good written and to the point sums all what I'd say about the problems of EVE.
You have to rely on tactics that yield the most within the restrictions you are facing. If you encounter massive lag in a large engagement, then there is no place to execute delicate strategies to win the battle. Hence the most simple and effective one is used (blob, focus fire).
Originally by: JP Beauregard
The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls.... 
|
kliop
|
Posted - 2006.09.08 09:53:00 -
[297]
Y not just make it so that if there is a gang of more then 30 ppl when u gangwarp ppl will be able to have 100+km distances between them? or be spread from the gang leader around him for 100km or something that way u would not be able to have concentrated fire... or make them warp around the gang leader but in random small (3-7 ppl) groups? or even if u can say what the groups will be like u wont be able to know at what exact range u will show up etc...and u cant ensure that everyone will be in range to shoot at the primary...instead we would have many small engagements
|
Kanuo Ashkeron
Eve Defence Force
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.08 10:57:00 -
[298]
Originally by: Rolled
The ability to warp to with in 15km of anything you have locked.
Lock your opposition and warp to them. You still have alignment time for the enemy blob to target and fire on you. You are deffinitally not safe even when in gun range as you will now be targets of the enemy fleet's drones and it's own short range ships. All this time in the enemy camp you also won't be aligned to a safe spot.
Thoughts?
Sounds good. But should come with the splitting of Sensor booster into two mods. So you need special ships which can lock the snipers (which are usually far away).
Kanuo
|
Sorja
E X O D U S
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.09.08 13:02:00 -
[299]
Edited by: Sorja on 08/09/2006 13:05:46
On Focus Firing: Introduce a new damage control module that shuts down all your mods (or turns off, whatever) and drains all your cap to divert all energy to strengthen your hull. You can't move, you can't do nothing, you're basically in 'reinforced mode' just like a POS, for 'some time', the point is not discussing about figures but about the concept.
That module would kick in automatically when you are down 20% structure, which takes your ship out of combat whatever the outcome of the fight.
If your fleet wins, you'll go repair, if your fleet loses, you'll be killed, simple as that.
[Edit:] That module can obviously not kick in from NPC fire.
On AoE damage: it won't work for the only reason that a camping fleet will be spread out (and still all at their optimal) while an attacking fleet will be all in 5km¦ when coming out of warp. So that would favor the campers.
On Range: being Caldari I still hold a grudge against our beloved Tux for what he has done (or not done  ) to the Moa/Eagle. Take out unbalancing ammo like Spike out of the game, fine with me, but cutting range down would be bad for Caldari.
Originally by: Tuxford
Take less damage the more people are shooting at you - This has always sounded to me like it would be severely exploitable.
Would you please care to elaborate?
Either way, with diminishing returns on focus firing or the new damage control I suggested, fleet fights would be much more enjoyable because:
1¦ People would fear fleet battles less and would be less inclined to blob.
2¦ Fights would occur faster instead of the sometimes hours waiting before jumping on an enemy because the first to uncloak are dead.
3¦ Less lag because of smaller blobs.
4¦ More tactics involved and more frigates necessary (there's no need for frigates in many fleet fights nowadays) to pin down ships when they get out of reinforced mode.
Whatever the devs decide, EVE needs more fight opportunities, it gets worse over time and all pilots I talk to agree with that. Fear is the reason. Lessen the fear factor and we'll get more fights and more fun.
____________________
Darko1107 > does anything in ascn space have tech II fittings?
Quillan Rage > Iron ships |
Shidhe
Minmatar
The Babylon5 Consortuim
|
Posted - 2006.09.08 13:03:00 -
[300]
Originally by: Rolled
If you want to break the back of the blob you need to make the short range setups viable in fleet battles.
lets look at what the main weakness of the short range setup is in fleet battles. It's really simple. It's the approach. Lets look at a prototypical fleet battle. 2 blobs with 200km of no mans land between them. They are both aligned to a safe spot ready to warp as soon as something starts locking them.
It's going to be sure suicide for any ship larger then an interceptor to close that distance. All that time spent in transit is also lost time as you are out of weapons range until you start to close (if you make it that far). The entire time you are approaching you are most likely not aligned to a safe spot. Even an interceptor is going to stand a good chance of being insta pop'd on it's way to the oppositions blob.
I think short range setups would be a great way to break the back of the blob. You wouldn't have to drastically alter game mechanics to make it viable either. So .. here is my idea....
The ability to warp to with in 15km of anything you have locked.
Lock your opposition and warp to them. You still have alignment time for the enemy blob to target and fire on you. You are deffinitally not safe even when in gun range as you will now be targets of the enemy fleet's drones and it's own short range ships. All this time in the enemy camp you also won't be aligned to a safe spot.
Thoughts?
Problem - goodbye to all long range PvP setups. This is too drastic - and removes nuch of the need to have fast ships.
A reply to some others - focus fire is bad because it is boring! We need a variety of tactics, and this particular tactic also means blobbing on a scale that cant easily be handles by the servers - thus lag. To say that lag causes blobs sounds rather strange. In history battles have been lost because of armies losing mobility, becoming crowded, and becoming disordered as a result. We need mobility inside battles.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |