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) |
The Speaker
The Clue Factory
|
Posted - 2006.09.01 22:01:00 -
[31]
Originally by: War Ping Edited by: War Ping on 01/09/2006 21:40:15
Originally by: Vincent Gaines an initial simple solution?
remove player names as ship identifiers.
winner ;/
Removing player names would be interesting. I could go with this if you also allowed player names to show up for gang/corp/alliance and also if there's mutually positive standings (corp/alliance OR personal). |
FireFoxx80
Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.09.01 22:01:00 -
[32]
Ideas:
Bringing back splash damage to missiles would work, but it'd need some serious analysis before implementation.
Also, simply limiting sizes of gangs as I've mentioned in the past could prevent the blob-strike Tux mentions.
Umm, the smartbomb superchargers, I've seen data for. Or even a second class of smartbomb: double/triple range, but half damage.
Or ships cause splash damage to others when they explode?
Umm, forcing gangs into a formation? Make ships a minimum distance of 3000m from each other?
Harsh: But limit the number of ships that can lock a specific ship: 3 for frigate, 5 for cruiser, 7 for battleship, etc...
I cant think of any more... More bree^H^H^Heer!
What I do the rest of the time - Vote for a Jita bypass! |
Noriath
|
Posted - 2006.09.01 22:03:00 -
[33]
This is a great blog! I love that fleet battles are being adressed...
On ships being incapacitated though, even if it doesn't help against fleet fights, I think the game would still be better if there was more to a ship then "Alive and kicking" and "Blown to dust" Especially as far as capital ships are concerned that just sucks...
|
FireFoxx80
Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.09.01 22:04:00 -
[34]
I guess increasing structure HPs and making module damage could be more effective. Especially as CCP mentioned sub-system damage at one point.
What I do the rest of the time - Vote for a Jita bypass! |
Sphynx Stormlord
|
Posted - 2006.09.01 22:06:00 -
[35]
Having super large strategic targets (500km+) with different parts that are targetable, defendable, and able to provide benefits in different places, might help split up battles.
This might be suitable for tasks such as capturing stations (although they are not currently large enough; maybe alien super dreadnaughts to capture and research?).
|
Noriath
|
Posted - 2006.09.01 22:07:00 -
[36]
I think you really shouldn't be able to destroy a capital ship without destroying its picket first. So I think when it's HP drops to 0 it should not blow up, but start drifting, and only blow up if you can fly up to it and hack into its self destruct system or something like that, which you can't do when you're being atacked.
That would make capitals on the battlefield more desirable, because they wouldn't just be huge focuss fire magnets that are so expensive that destroying them makes it smart to just ignore everything else on the battlefield if you *have* to kill everything else in order to take them down.
|
The Speaker
The Clue Factory
|
Posted - 2006.09.01 22:07:00 -
[37]
Edited by: The Speaker on 01/09/2006 22:10:16
Originally by: FireFoxx80 I guess increasing structure HPs and making module damage could be more effective. Especially as CCP mentioned sub-system damage at one point.
Module/subsystem damage would rock actually. Personally, I think that it should be pretty draconian in terms of how much gets disabled/destroyed as you get further and further into structure since let's be real here - in a lot of cases when you go into structure, your survival chances are purely yes/no. By having a harsh ratio of modules disabled/destroyed as you go into structure, you can adequately harm/disable an opponent even if they do manage to escape or survive.
I'm not entirely sure I'd be behind a significant increase in structure HP since this borks a lot of the rest of the game balance stuff and adds another level of balancing complexity/hell.
I think that with harsh enough module/subsystem destruction, enough will be gained tactically even if your quarry manages to disengage. |
Steppa
Gallente Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e
|
Posted - 2006.09.01 22:11:00 -
[38]
I don't know why everyone fights this so much, but why not put stacking penalties on successive pilots attacking the same target? Adjust it for the size of the targeted ship and call it "target lock redundancy interference" or some such. To rationalize, if you have multiple sensors sweeping back and forth over a target, the more sensors (ie the more individual pilots) you have hitting the same target, the more disrupted the returns get to the originating ships and, thus, progressively poorer fire control and thus, progressively poorer damage.
For an example, let's say we arbitrarily decide that 4 battleships can attack a single battleship before stacking penalty (ie less damage for each successive pilot). Maybe 8 cruisers and 16 frigates could do the same before stacking penalties apply, but remember, I'm just being arbitrary. Maybe the rigth mix is 4 battleships, 6 cruisers, 8 frigates. Whatever.
This doesn't have to apply to just damage. Progressive penalties could apply to jammers as well.
The point is, if you're in a 200 man fleet and the stacking penalties are that structured, and you as a fleet commander (knowing full well the weaknesses of modern scanners and their drawbacks), you know that you need to organize your fleet into squadrons and wings, of which EACH ONE would be calling it's own primary and secondary. THEN, in addition to the reduced extreme ranges Tux was talking about, we would get the kind of running, mixed, Star Wars-type battle I think everyone is wanting but no one will admit to.
I have grown to hate Star Wars, so don't label me as a fanboy. But damn, I would LOVE Eve fleet combat to resemble that.
If we use a mechanism like this to force commanders to organize their fleets into squadrons and wings, then we need to provide in-game supports for this. We need easy-to-manipulate fleet templates (able to create, manipulate and save ingame) that a fleet commander can simply drag gang-member portraits from the gang channel into blank spaces on this org chart........and BANG, they are now in mini-gangs that not only allow the mini-gang leaders all the abilities as a normal gang leader (over his members only), but would allow the fleet commander to issue warp to orders that would be followed by all sub-groups. Tie this all in with the upcoming VOIP and make it all seamless and you have given the Eve community a POWERFUL tool for tactical fleet combat.
|
Verone
|
Posted - 2006.09.01 22:13:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Tuxford Well thats it for now, sorry about the length.
That's something you should NEVER have to apologise about...
Tux 4tw ♥
BACKSTORY AND FAN FICTION
|
Tao Han
Caldari Crucial Electronics
|
Posted - 2006.09.01 22:20:00 -
[40]
While I'm here I'll throw some ideas...
Damage depending on Hull status?
100% Hull = 100% Damage
50% Hull = 50% Damage
If a ship gets taken to Hull it will not be disabled as that would suck for the disabled guy but it becomes less useful in combat.
Sig removed, lacks Eve-related content - Cortes Leave my sigs alone *sob - Tao Han |
|
Rehmes
|
Posted - 2006.09.01 22:34:00 -
[41]
IMHO what i see in fleet combat is this: Blob of mainly battleships come in guy calls out targets one by one and that = the end. It really lends itself very little to strategy/tactics. "Most of the times" the bigger blob wins and calls it a day. Lets not forget the lag 200+ battleships create in a 50km radius. I think many people have posted some usefull suggestions so ill post some i think would make things more fun imo.
1.bring in aoe weapons (decent damage but larget radious 10-20km) this could be in the form of missles and guns aswell, im sure many of u are aware of delayed explosion projectiles used in some future tech rifles which r in prodiction. A laser version could mean a strong laser beam that once it his a certain target it spreads into many smaller rays and hits anything nearby, Hybrids ( have no clue someone help me w this.) 2. There should be more structure to fleet battles just like in real naval situations. For example: a gang can only have a certain amount of battleships within it, thus allowing more spaces for smaller ships: BC (command),ruisers(HACS) Frigs (t1 or t2). 3. Allow for formation maneuvering. For example: when u gang warp people follow u into warp if ur the leader. IN a fleet battle u can allow the commander to maneuver his/fleet in certain ways (move it a ceratin distance away in any direction) this gives the commander some tactical tools while letting the individual perform his own maneuvering if he so wished. 4. mines....id say they should be allowd by a specific mine ship (cloacked is so possible) and could only be used in 0.0 and ony a certain amount can be deplyed at a time. The mines could be for aoe damage, but could also be a wbber mine with a 10km radius...or maybe an ecm mine W/E u know where im headed. 5. Defensive tools....such as fleet shield generators (not pos powerfull but stron enough to provive a buffer) mind u i dont want to make it that the shield absorbs all damage just merely reduce damage taken when its up.
....ill post again when i have other ideas.
|
Vincent Gaines
|
Posted - 2006.09.01 22:41:00 -
[42]
Originally by: The Speaker
Originally by: War Ping Edited by: War Ping on 01/09/2006 21:40:15
Originally by: Vincent Gaines an initial simple solution?
remove player names as ship identifiers.
winner ;/
Removing player names would be interesting. I could go with this if you also allowed player names to show up for gang/corp/alliance and also if there's mutually positive standings (corp/alliance OR personal).
you'd still be able to mouseover, but just remove them from the overview... it'd take CCP 5 minutes to pull the code and release a small patch
Sure it won't stop scorps from being called primary, but it would force FCs to do more than just call out random names
|
pardux
Minmatar The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2006.09.01 23:18:00 -
[43]
Edited by: pardux on 01/09/2006 23:18:34 plz dont do any of this except maybe torps AoE ;|
only reason fleets are boring is because you need to wait for the combat and then get lagged to death. if there would be no lag it would be alot more fun =|, actually seeing your ship die is better then jumping in and seeing nothing/nothing responding/other random lag effect and then ending up in a station ._.
|
chillz
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.09.01 23:28:00 -
[44]
Edited by: chillz on 01/09/2006 23:28:51 Why not turn freindly fire on.
You wouldn't be launching those torps (or projectiles / lasers / etc) if they were going to hit the guy infront of you. ----------------------------------- A gun and a packet of sandwiches.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - Hunter S Thompson
|
Nafri
Caldari Cataclysm Enterprises Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.09.01 23:36:00 -
[45]
Not very interesting, but I give my input.
Why blob?
No friendly fire No hitzones No direction of guns
A blob just concentrates your firepower on one spot. If you want to optimize the surfuace of many dots, you just make one big dot.
Ill make some pictures to explain it:
Linkage
When you would introduce friendly fire, direction in which your guns can fire and some other stuff like plated sides and stuff, this game would be less blobby.
When you have to align your fleet like shown above, you have to maximize your surface direction towars your enemy. That would need tactics, and you could finally protect smaller ships with bigger ships.
A enemy also would need to shoot targets he can hit, and you could move more armored ships towards the frontline.
It would also enable the implention of realy primary, secondary and teriary weapon systems. Primary weapon systems would point into one direction, to oprimize the firewpoer of the ship. Secondary and tertiary would cover other sides, and are just there to cover unguarded points.
You could also enable people to decide where to place their guns, give ships more possible weapon places than they actual can fit, so that you can suripise your enemy with a unusual and creative weapon placement.
Then you can introduce automatic and self created fligth maneuvers, since you have to point your weapons in the direction of your enemey.
A ship with all its weapons as the front can get easy attacked from the rear. But when the ship with the weapons at the front can attack, it will have a huge advantage.
For fleets you can arrange your weapons at one side, which will make it easiert to maintain formations, and keep transversal to your enemy.
When you combine this modular system with rigs, you can also reinforce certain sides of your ship with additional shield and armor. So that you can create guarding ships with tons of HP, which are able to shield weaker ships in the background.
I.E.
Megathron:
12 Possible Weapon places. 7 *****ble turrets. 2 *****ble launchers
6x turret front 0x launcher 4x turret left side 1x launcher 2x turret rightside 2x launcher
directions of fire.
Frontturrets: 6x front or 3x left or 3x right
Leftturrets: 4x left 3x rear Leftlaunchers: 1x left 1x rear
rightturrets: 2x front 2x right 2x front 2x rear
Explanation:
All turrets at the front can fire forward. 3 of them can also fire to the left, 3 of them can also fire towards the right All turrets on the left can fire towards left. 3 of them can also fire backwards All turrets on the right can also fire towards right 2 of them can fire also forward 2 of them can also fire backwards
Same goes for launchers, like mentioned in the list.
Setups:
When your solo, its obvius the best to fit the guns so that all weapons can fire into one direction, I think the front would be nice, since you can easily get 7 turrets firing in one direction (fit 5 in front, 2 right). Then you can adjust the guns so that you either have all on the front-right side, or some front-left. Like you want.
For solo the launchers will be best to be placed on the left, since they can fire in 3 directions from there.
Lowslot distribution:
Megathron:
2x frontlowslots 6x rightlowslots 3x backlowslots 0x leftlowslots
As you can see, the sides with more guns have bigger problems to fit armorplates and other stuff, since the turretbays will take lot of space. The rightside with hardly any turrets can be heavinly fortified so that you can turn this side towards the enemy when you want to tank a lot of damage.
Too make it a bit more complicated. Every fitted gun on one side stops you from fitting armor plates on the same side.
Midslot distribution:
1x Front 3x Left 0x right 2x back
Midslots are mostly utility slots. Fitted lowslots take away a midslots again. So you cant tank the backside of your ship and place your mwd there to protect it with tons of armor.
From Dusk till Dawn
|
Nafri
Caldari Cataclysm Enterprises Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.09.01 23:36:00 -
[46]
will be edited
From Dusk till Dawn
|
Yggdrassil
Amarrian Missionaires
|
Posted - 2006.09.01 23:45:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Yggdrassil on 01/09/2006 23:58:45 EDIT: Reading lessons FTW. Steppa's post a few above here covers most I said here
Probably a bad idea - its early morning - and dead tired - but....
One way to reduce the effect of focused fire would simply be to reduce the signature radius of the targetted ship by x%. Lets use 10% for the simplicity.
So, you got your fleet prepped and ready, and you order all your 300 ships to shoot at one ship. Result: Dang - that thing had 0.33 sign radius - and for some strange reason, you all keep missing it...
This way - you will get a lot better result dividing your fleet in smaller task forces, each taking out their own target.
The job gets a lot harder for the fleet commmander - who will need to manage a lot more thingys - but you suddenly got a whole lot of squad commanders and wing commanders you delegate tasks to.
The complexity of balancing such a radical change will be a real ***** though... Would have to be REALLY careful not to drift too far towards tank > damage dealing.
Also - balancing missiles in this... will be really tough. BIG issue: Guns will hit a non-moving target for full damage even if very low sign radius - while missiles won't. Possible solution: Missiles uses "base" sign radius, but suffers a %chance of missing due to the reduced sign radius?
I won't even try to make up a believable physics explanation: If it makes GAMEPLAY better - I don't care about realistic physics....
Yggdrassil |
Yggdrassil
Amarrian Missionaires
|
Posted - 2006.09.01 23:50:00 -
[48]
About turning of Friendly Fire.
The servers are suffering badly in fleet fights. Adding a lot of calculations about which direction you can shoot at/damage targets in the line between your ship and the target will "probably" not ease the load on the servers...
Yggdrassil |
Nafri
Caldari Cataclysm Enterprises Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.09.01 23:51:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Nafri on 01/09/2006 23:52:01
Originally by: Yggdrassil About turning of Friendly Fire.
The servers are suffering badly in fleet fights. Adding a lot of calculations about which direction you can shoot at/damage targets in the line between your ship and the target will "probably" not ease the load on the servers...
Well, of course not, but then CCP cant complain about blobbing tactics
But enforcing people with artificial limitations is not great, they should encourage tactics which are logical, not the other way
From Dusk till Dawn
|
Nifel
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.02 00:01:00 -
[50]
There's been a lot of ideas floating around on these boards about this for a long time. Here's some examples.
Modules+skills Tracking Damage distribution The diminishing return when focused fired. Can't find the link.
"When I die I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandpa. Not yelling and screaming like the passengers in his car." RKK Ranking: (MIN14) |
|
Caedicus
|
Posted - 2006.09.02 00:23:00 -
[51]
What about a EMP type of AOE weapon? It would work like the same way it did in Starcraft. It would put a huge dent on the ships' shields (and maybe powerful EMP bombs would completely disentegrate the shields) that are within the blast radius. This wouldn't hurt people who happen to be bystanders that much, because there's really no way they could die from it. But it will encourage fleets to spread out.
Then of course allow gang leaders to be able to set formations that forces ships to un-blob.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." -Ghandi |
Miss Overlord
Gallente Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2006.09.02 00:37:00 -
[52]
as it stands now in additon to tacklers destoryers or cruisers with ECM bombs are able to disrupt focused gangs. Thats a key element not many consider but have seen used.
Penalties sure with over 50 in gang could work force smaller gangs and make leadership bonuses more required.
More server resources CCP stated with the new code 1500 in jita before she overflowed this has been reduced to 800 not mcuh of an improvement over the ol 32 bit.
Once again very good ideas but CCP needs to boost resources and cater for the blobs (well small blobs) anyway
I think there is a very serious database issue atm and they are looking to nerf before fixing capacity
|
Pepperami
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2006.09.02 00:41:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Amthrianius Edited by: Amthrianius on 01/09/2006 21:18:54 "What is the problem here? Some say its focus firing and I would have to agree."
No it's lag.
Clicking warp waiting 20 seconds and not warping out then your ship pops.
Yes. So true.
This last month has been such a dissapointment in stability (really bad, surely the rate must be not far off 1 unscheduled downtime a day - that's gotta be unacceptable) and changes to gameplay (even if they're due to be fixed god-knows when).
|
Riley Craven
Caldari Black Eclipse Corp
|
Posted - 2006.09.02 00:46:00 -
[54]
As I have read another one of you blogs I am starting to be convinced that you actaully a carebare hidding in Dev's cloths.
First, ALOT of people like LARGE SCALE BATTLES. I know a number of people especially in my alliance play just to try and get some proper fleet fights out of people. In fact, if you've done alot of reading allainces can be judged simply on how big a fleet they can muster and how well they can manage it. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this.
Secondly, there is nothing wrong with the range of fleets. CCP themselves have coded this into the game and there is nothing wrong with fleets engaging at such ranges. The problem I see with trying to "fix" this is that in order to do so you are going to have to cut back on the range that individuals can obtain, and that frankly is a horrible idea.
Thirdly, you are trying to fix something that really doesnt need to be fixed. Fleets happen because players make them happen. If players didnt want them, they wouldnt happen. If anything needs to be "fixed" its your ability to reduce lag for such engagements. People dont want smaller fleets, they want less lag. Try reading the corp and alliance forum someday and maybe you will figure this out.
|
Kldraina
|
Posted - 2006.09.02 00:58:00 -
[55]
Wow, you CCP guys are good, really good. I'm not accustomed to people actually identifying the core problems so accurately. Normally, people just notice the symptoms, and completely fail to understand what causes it. Indirect nerfage for the win (nerfing range, nerfs focused fire. That's why blaster ships don't work well in large groups). |
Apertotes
Nuevos Horizontes
|
Posted - 2006.09.02 01:00:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Apertotes on 02/09/2006 01:04:22 to end with blobbing is quite difficult i think. only thing that would work is line of sight and friendly fire, but that would probably make EVE unplayable when more than 15 moving and shooting bodys are on the same grid. too many calculations.
reducing combat distance would be good nevetheless, even if it wouldn solve blobbing, at least it would make fighting more interesting, since there would be more useful modules that dont work at such long distances as fleet fights are today. for example, i have always thought it would be coold that warp disruptors outranged long range guns.
anyway, getting rid of blobbing isn't easy. but getting rid of focus fire is. just release a new module. high slot, easy to fit, moderate cap compsumption. what does this module do? when fitted on ship #1 and activated on a target (ship #2), it creates a kind of targetting link between the two, so that the first 5 (or 10, or 15, dont know, it needs some thinking) entities that try to target ship #2, target ship #1 instead.
this would create a new whole tactical layer where big gangs could be arranged on many interesting ways. for example. get 5 dedicated tankers with 8 of those modules, protecting up to 40 friendly ships. of course, each of those tankers would have to withstand to fire that should be hitting 8 different ships, so it could be a suicide. to prevent this you could have another 5 ships specially fitted to remote transfer cap and shields to those tankers.
another option would be to fit every ship on the gang with 1 of those modules and create a kind of defensive net, where everybody targets a friendly ship preventing everybody on the gang from being instapopped.
or even another tactic. everybody on the gang activates the module on the carrier, so that it doesnt go down on 10 seconds, but instead the enemy fleet would have to finish everybody on the gang before starting to shoot the carrier (or command ship, or logistic ship, or titan )
this module would have another very good consequence on my opinion. it would create a new profession. BODYGUARDS! imagine you need to move a very expensive tech 2 BPO and you are not very confident of doing it even on a claw through hig sec. you could contract somebody to be your bodyguard. nowadays we have scorts, but they arent very effective since the ship being scorted is usually very fragile and it can still be destroyed. but with this module, you would be safe (even from scramblers unless you fall on a bubble) until your bodyguard is dead. of course, the bodyguard could betray you, but that is another topic .
but think about the possibilities. a whole new profession. pilots could offer their services as bodyguards, and they would win reputation, just like the MC have gotten their reputation as deadly mercenaires.
upps, getting a little bit offtopic . the thing is that i believe such a module would make focus-fire tactics much less effective, because at least you would have a way to control how enemy targets are gonna get distributed on your own fleet. of course, AoE weapons would be inmune to this , so, another reason for getting in close and dirty.
Apertotes, the Guybrush Threepwood of New Eve |
Idara
Caldari Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.09.02 01:18:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Nyphur So much for letting people play the way they like. Now blobbing needs "fixed"?
People want to play the generic blob style of combat??!?! ---
|
rodgerd
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2006.09.02 01:31:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Alessar Kaldorei Hehe, give torpedoes AoE damage to go with the disproportionately huge shockwave they generate, and you'll see blobs dispersing.
Yeah, that'll be the uber Caldari buff.
"Well, lesse. We'll halve ship ranges, making the Rokh the uber pwnmobile, and the Raven will be able to obliterate whole fleets with AoE weapons. Maybe we should update the new player guide to warn people not to pick races other than Caldari..."
(Of course, if that was counterbalanced by shields suffering a stacking penalty in a blob it might make up for it 8)
|
rodgerd
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2006.09.02 01:41:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Ernest Graefenberg
Originally by: "Tuxford" Not much really, theoretically you could warp in a group of closer range ships and use your transversal to keep the blob's damage down and use the superior damage output to kill the opponent's ships.
This is actually false, due to the Megathron tracking bonus, tracking computers and sensorboosters. Before people start looking at me funny, take a quick look at the total tracking modifiers involved in a sniping 'thron :
(snippage)
That and of course the sheer concept of 200km sniping is just way, way broken :o
Unfortunately the Rokh's preliminary stats are the same, only moreso. Seems like a lack of co-ordination between the senior devs.
|
DigitalCommunist
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.02 01:43:00 -
[60]
Its really hard to have a discussion, when theres nothing to comment on. Tuxford paraphrased something we already know. Theres enough whining about fleet battles to prove it.
I was dissapointed with "we are looking into it", instead of "this is what we're going to do about it".
Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |