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) |
Sae Marr
Amarr 0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 10:31:00 -
[151]
Did I misunderstand something, or is CCP trying to discourage fleet engagements through changing game mechanics instead of giving the server more juice? -
|
Hermia
HIVE
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 11:31:00 -
[152]
Originally by: Sae Marr Did I misunderstand something, or is CCP trying to discourage fleet engagements through changing game mechanics instead of giving the server more juice?
Unless we're running optronic processors (which is still a good 10 years away), you get what your given in terms of technology. We can deal with it through clever game mechanics.
Plus, even if it was possible to "brute force it" with un-economically viable server power, the gameplay would be such that 1000 vs 1000 people fighting (without lag) wouldnt create excellent play because of current mechanics.
|
murder one
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 11:52:00 -
[153]
With respect to the idea of splash damage for exploding ships: if that is included, which I think would be cool, make the optimal range for blasters 25km so I don't have to be inside the core of the explosion EVERY TIME.
Because I said so...
|
Ling Xiao
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 11:54:00 -
[154]
Edited by: Ling Xiao on 03/09/2006 11:56:21 Wow, a whole blog to say "whoops, we gave everyone too much range".
Yeah no **** sherlock. And here comes the Rokh
Just hire DigitalCommunist already and let him fix it. At least dig up his monumental post describing what needs to be done, which most of the community was behind 100%.
edit - here it is
|
Death Kill
Caldari direkte
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 12:55:00 -
[155]
Originally by: Ling Xiao
Just hire DigitalCommunist already and let him fix it.
lol you nutter.
Recruitment |
Marcus Aurelius
Colossus Security Services
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 13:48:00 -
[156]
Edited by: Marcus Aurelius on 03/09/2006 13:51:02 So like, alot of words stating that nothig's been done about an issue that's been one of the main discussion points of Eve pvp combat since...like...launch ?
You even haven't really thoguht about it in depth yet ?
Unimpressed, to the extreme.
edit: hell no, i'm not unimpressed, i'm ******* flabbergasted that CCP hasn't even studdied an issue that you've been told is at the core of Eve's main combat issues for ******* YEARS !
So what did you do all that time ?
Rod Blaine is on holiday, I'm replacing for the moment |
Trac3rt
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 13:59:00 -
[157]
Blobbing and focused fire are not problems, and do not need to be fixed with in-game mechanics.
It is blatently obvious that Tux does not have much experiance of actual 'blob' combat. There is a lot more to this style of combat than simply focusing fire to win. There is a lot of skill involved in managing a fleet, and the choice of what to call primary can make or break a fleet engagement.
There are three main types of Blob combat.
1)Individual vs Blob. If a solo ship warps into 50 hostiles they are dead, any game mechanic to change this would be silly.
2) Blob vs Blob. This is the main reason that large blobs are formed, fleets facing off in space each one trying to capitalise on their advantages and prevent their opponent from attacking their weak spot.
3) Siege/Cap Ship combat. Combat involving capitol ships, you pretty much need a blob to kill a dread/carrier/mothership/titan, and anyone placing such ships in a combat situation hae to field their own blob for protection or risk billions of ISK loss.
Blob on Blob combat is the most common. The objective is to reduce the combat potential the opposing blob has as quickly as possible, and while focusing fire is the primary tool used to acheive this, being able to select which targets to call primary in which order is the real skill to blob combat and is what seperates a good fleet commander from a bad one.
Fleets have four main componets. 1) DPS. Mainly Battleships and HACs, they deal the most damage over the largest range and are the most important element of almost every fleet. 2) Electronic Warfare. Frigates, Cruisers, Recons and Scorpions. They have the ability to instantly 'shut down' one or more ships without destroying them using ECM, tracking disruptors and sensor damps. 3) Tacklers. Interceptors, Frigates, and Interdictors. Used to prevent enemy ships from escaping the battle. 4) Support. AF's, Cruisers, anything not covered by the above. Usually used to take out hostile tacklers, but can be redeloyed easily to other tasks if required.
A fleet commander has to manage each group, and apadt to the tactics being used against them. For instance if the enemy EW is completely shutting down your DPS, you may reassign your support to attack the EW as well as calling EW primary. If their support are taking out your tacklers and their DPS are warping out before you get the kill, then you may have your EW take out their support.
There is an awful lot of decision making to do, and one or two mistakes can be the differance between the win and the loss. Fleet combat while looking simple on the outside has a massive amount of depth and a huge amount of skill involved, it does not need to be nerfed at all.
The only thing that needs to be seriously looked at is POS combat. With the introduction of Cyno-capable ships, POS's can be fueled risk-free without suply lines to hit, and with a static there is no 'cat and mouse' gameplay where two fleets dance around each other both trying to get optimal warp-ins. POS warfare is simply a case of gathering a big enough blob that the opposition cannot do anything to stop it, shoot the POS with dreads, and then wait 12 hours to repeat.
The joke that CCP calls load balancing doesn't help either. The server cannot dynamically reallocate server resources, and canot cope with any sort of large scale combat unless both parties have been logged into the same system 24/7 for several days.
Warping/jumping one fleet into another can lead to one fleet being completely destroyed before they even load the space around them, and if they do it takes several minutes to activate a single module or warp out, and heaven forbid there is a hostile POS on grid.
Large scale fleet combat doesn't need any changes, it works well as it is, and requires a large amount of skill. The only changes need to be made with the load-balancing lag situation, and with POS warfare where the attacking blob doesn't get to do anything 90% of the time.
___
|
Godar Marak
Amarr Return Of Red Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 14:06:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Trac3rt
It is blatently obvious that Tux does not have much experiance of actual 'blob' combat.
Nor in flying Amarr lol
|
La Tortura
Infinite Style Incorporated Chorus of Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 14:10:00 -
[159]
What if we just would allow to shoot if the line of shooting is blocked by other ship? Not friendly fire, it would be to harsh, but just deactiveting weapon if you're "behind" would break the blob. -- ignorance is bliss |
Lacero Callrisian
Minmatar Solar Storm Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 14:16:00 -
[160]
Edited by: Lacero Callrisian on 03/09/2006 14:21:51 Edited by: Lacero Callrisian on 03/09/2006 14:18:41
Originally by: Kerr AVON Edited by: Kerr AVON on 02/09/2006 21:44:34 VERY high hullpoints (i.e. it can take an age to destroy a ship, depending on its size) Hullpoints are hidden from opponents, so they are not sure when it's 'about to blow' Modules and propulsion can be damaged to a point where they stop working
This is brilliant, mostly solves the problem (although as you say warping needs to be changed, and range is still an issue).
Originally by: Kerr AVON
Originally by: Gabriel Karade Under most situations you would want to put as many of the opponents under 'stress' as possible, as a combatant not taking fire, not suppressed, is far more dangerous than one who is
I really like this idea. Maybe something along the lines of a percentage reduction in your offensive effectiveness when under fire (your crew are running around like maniacs trying to keep everything working while explosions are happening all around them). This would make a force much more likely to split their fire among many targets at once.
Honestly, this solves even more of the problem. Reducing damage dealt based on number of hits taken (rather than damage dealt) might be even more interesting as teams of frigs could effectively pin down a battleship so it's only dealing half damage or something.
[Edit: ok thats maybe kinda dumb, it makes autocannons insanely good. But the poor acs need some love they have no range :(]
I think this would have to work even if the enemy misses, you're still having to avoid the shot right? This makes range even more powerful but we can't sovle everything at once.
Best post I've read in a while, thanks :)
|
|
Nicholai Pestot
Gallente Havoc Inc
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 14:47:00 -
[161]
Firstly-fix the lag. I dont care if its not your job Tuxford, just fix it
Give a bonus to a persons sig radius for every weapon over the first 8 that hits them. Set the bonus to last for 5 seconds.
Small weapon- 0.5% Medium weapon- 1% Large weapon- 2% XL weapon- 4%
If a person takes a wack from the firepower of multiple battleships, there is going to be a hell of alot of debree/shockwaves/energy released around them, making it damn hard to hold a good bead on them.
If, for example, a person took a broadside from 4 megathrons then for the next 5 seconds their sig would be reduced by 40%.
I heartily endorse the reduction of weapon ranges and ask only that capital ships are not touched by this. Suddenly they have a use in a fleet fight .
One final thing that always bugged me, shouldn't the sig radius of the ship your shooting at vary based on distance from your point of view?
A cruiser at point blank range is going to damn near fill your screens. The same cruiser 100km away is going to be smaller than a pin*****. Might actually make it worth it to take logistic cruisers into a fleet fight.
Hmmm, what else....
Kill tactical BM's Change POS models so they dont cause so much lag (i dont care if its not your department...DO IT ) Introduce kipper kannons
There, jobs a goodun. I want the proposal ready and blogged by 6 am monday morning. ________________ What you do is you store up the rage, let it fester while you gain strength, then use it to gank those weaker than you... and so the circle of life is complete |
Grymm Arann
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 15:02:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Linerra Tedora ahh read it.. and downloaded alot at the same time...
so he's looking for a way to discourage blobbing... never seen one myself, but if it's going on at 10-20 km, couldn't one make a special ship that could suicide, delivering massive damage in an area around it...
then you have your fleet with a few of these in front.. if the first scout finds a blob, the rest jumps in, spaced with a few seconds between... and nuke the blob to heck..
but if the guys on the other side is spread out, this ship won't accomplish anything but damaging a few ships a bit..
I could see this actually. Possibly a destroyer sized ship for speed and make it instantly self-destruct. It does massive damage within 2-3 km and the damage lessens all the way to 15km or more. |
Mitch Manus
Regeneration Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 16:41:00 -
[163]
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.
agreed
|
Eriv Kendri
Caldari Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 17:56:00 -
[164]
Edited by: Eriv Kendri on 03/09/2006 17:57:30 Some ideas ive had on this subject. 1. Allow control of your own ships transponder broadcast. For example you could limit it to only corp/alliance and/or gang members. Ships not broadcasting transponders are only seen on the overview by their ship size or alternatively signature size no other info is gleaned without a ship scanner or physically looking at the target. 2. Hide the hitpoint display on targets unless the target is locked with a ship scanner. Ship scanners can be countered with a new module. 3. Targets under fire take stress. Can be implemented either by module damage or a simple across the board percentage degrading of effectiveness. This would include agility and other propulsion effects. 4. Increase hull hps. 5. Perhaps allow all ships (maybe not frigs or cruisers) a fortified mode that would significantly increase hull hps or resistance but not allow warping or module activation (ships in fortified mode do not warp out if the player logs off - they stay in space until fortification wears off and then warp off with normal aggression timer in effect).
|
Caanan
Finite Horizon
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 18:12:00 -
[165]
Lag is the killer of blob warfare. If we had no lag at all then blob warfare would be more fun, because you would actually have a chance to survive, instead of having to load the screen for 10 minutes then finding out you're podded. Because we cannot remove lag entirely we should be looking for ways to reduce lag using ingame mechanics. What tux is proposing is going to help fleet battles be more interesting, but it's not going to stop you from getting killed before you can see it.
|
Lurtz
Caldari Gunrunners and Gamblers
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 19:19:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Kunming Reading.. looks like a nerf on long range... finally! pulls out blaster
no what I read is big splash damage from weapons and ships blowing up.... stay further apart if your wingman is being shot at unless you want some too!
|
Cemial
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 19:27:00 -
[167]
Your shipÆs gravity field and active sensor systems should interfere with any ship too close to you, making it slightly more difficult or even impossible for big concentrations of ships to lock a target.
Make EW modules that have a spread like are of effect in the shape of a cone, so that a whole blob of 10km radius could be jammed by a single ship. They should only be effective towards a direction rather than following a target or they could be exploited by jamming a friendly interceptor which is flying at top speed through the battlefield.
EW grenades that generate an area of electronic interferences so that any ship inside would be affected by some negative effect to force ships into moving out of them. When the grenade explodes you can see a nice sphere marking the position and size of the field. Limit the duration of the effect, to prevent lag, as well as the recharge speed of the module, and give it some high fitting requirement to balance it.
Also, in my opinion, reducing weapon ranges and increasing base speed for ships would help to get ships moving in a battlefield rather than sitting in a blob.
I love damage from ship explosions. A kamikaze module to detonate your ship making as much damage as energy stored in your capacitor could be a good idea as someone mentioned before.
|
DigitalCommunist
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 19:51:00 -
[168]
Heres a summary of suggestions in this thread
- Lag is the problem, fixing lag will make fights longer - Make people lock slower if they're too close to one another - tactical environments - nerf gang sizes - bring back mines - split sensor boosters - boost smartbombs - nerf tech 2 ammo - introduce personal jump drives - directional shielding - bring back torpedo splash - make ECM ineffective at close range - remove player names as ship identifiers - reduce range of all ammo - have only 3 different ranges to ammo - kamikaze ships - bring back gang warp bumpage - diminishing returns to focus fire - collision damage - healing auras - AOE weapons - line of sight computations - splash damage as a result of ship death - ship formations to space out the blob - limit the number of people that can lock you - increasing HP + tanking - terrain; fighting inside an incomplete Death Star - module/subsystem damage - restrict the amount of certain ships a gang can have - fleet shield generators - firing arcs for each ship - reduce target sig for each successive lock - Semi-autonomous repair drones - limit the number of friendly ships you can have on a grid - remove tactical bookmarks - allow warping to ships over 200km away - subsystem targetting
I got up to page 4 or something. Tired of rolling my eyes, so I'll stop here.
Its sad to see that most of the people here think overcomplicating the game with arbitrary mechanics will fix it, when in fact it will make it worse.
Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame. |
vipeer
Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 20:16:00 -
[169]
Littletuk said it first. I was thinking about this idea and developing it in my head for the last 24 hours. I am sure we all agree that in the areas where there is a lot of different signals radiating there will be interference. You can easily test this by calling someone on a cell phone and put that cell phone near a speaker. The cell phone's signal will interfere with the speaker signal and the radio will start making funny noises. Im sure everyone knows that. When solar wind erupts 150 million km away it jams the satelites in orbit and sometimes even disrupts electrical power supply and signal on the planet we live on. During the night radio works a lot better. My radio bought 15 years ago for 229 Deutsch Mark can, with a broken off antena, get a signal from all over Europe and even north Africa. Night is the time when radio signal waves are least polluted by other signals and thus can reach great distances.
Why not implement this into large blob warfare. In battles of 200 vs 200 there at the ranges of 200km each ship will need to have at least 2 sensor boosters equipped. That's 800 devices made to amplify the signal for it to gain a lock on an enemy ship far beyond the range the ship sensors were designed for. The signals in large blobs will be overlapping each other and create interferences making them less powerful as originally intended. This should manifest itself in a decrease of locking range and maybe a very slight decrease of the locking speed. The penalty should start working at an arbitrary combined maximum targetting range of the ships in gang. Yes that would mean if half the gang warps to one side of the enemy fleet and the other on another side the penalty would still apply. This would encourage FC's to create more gangs instead of one blob. The sensor penalty would apply to all ships from the same gang on a grid. The exception would be the grids where a POS is erected. More on this subject later. Maybe a combined max targeting range of 2000 km would be that arbitrary number. The ships attributing to this number should only be the ones that have two sensor boosters / sensor amplifiers or more equipped and online. It would still be able to fly a short range BS in the same gang without adding a penalty by using only one sensor booster. This would cap maximum number of super range shiper BS to 8 û 9 which is still a massive amount of alpha strike but will render huge blobs of near server crash proportions useless. These 8 BS would be able to acquire a target lock at their maximum possible distance. Maybe make this penalty a 2% decrease of maximum targetting range for every 100km of max targetting range above 2000 km. This will still enable a bigger than 9 sniper BS gang but if there is like 50 sniper BS in gang and each has 2 sensor boosters and a sensor amp online they will have like 250km max targetting range each before penalty. That means a combined targetting range of 12.500 km. That is 10.500 km above where the penalty starts kicking in. That's also a stack of 105 1% range decrease penalties. That means their original max targetting range being 250km would be decreased back to 87.023 meters to about where it started and the pilots in a blob would have wasted 2 or 3 slots. I think this solution is quite mild on the resources needed to implement and use it.Since you'd be only adding a small amount of data that needs to update constantly. It also opens a box of other tactical posibilities. You can have 5 gangs of 8 BS along with one or two command ships for support shooting at an enemy blob and anhilliating it. It would require a high degree of communication and tactical planning but what's better than to outperform a bigger enemy and literally crush it. Use the behemoth's size against it.
This way T2 long range ammo stays in use because in smaller gangs you can still use it at uber ranges and will end the blob warfare as we know it today.
|
vipeer
Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 20:17:00 -
[170]
Above post is work in progress but if i could get some input and constructive critisism that would be wonderful. Maybe Tux or some Dev could comment...
Wait and see ;)
More coming
|
|
Celinthis
Gallente Titans - Royal Antwerp Warriors 3rd Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 20:38:00 -
[171]
Most of the statements are all just patches that are mostly purely out of game thinking instead of finding the most natural solution!
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=388549
|
Maya Rkell
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 22:27:00 -
[172]
Tux,
As you well know there is ONE reason why sniping, long range, is so effective - T2 amo. Short range damage with +100% range. THAT ALONE causes a nasty part of the problem. And yes, sensor boosters need slashing in their effect by a third too.
Those changes, alone, will shorten engagement ranges and allow the tanking changes to really matter a heck of a lot more in larger combats.. the EW changes too, if you pick something like my partial jamming / flare jamming not to mention WCS range reductions.
There *are* soloutions, which have been discussed over and over on these forums.
//Maya |
Eriv Kendri
Caldari Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 22:28:00 -
[173]
Originally by: Celinthis Most of the statements are all just patches that are mostly purely out of game thinking instead of finding the most natural solution!
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=388549
LOS is not practicable because of the lag associated with its implementation. Additionally it contains a turret nerf as a side effect. Furthermore, if LOS is added, the fire concentrating blob will just adapt a line or ring formation to negate it.
|
Maya Rkell
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 22:31:00 -
[174]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 03/09/2006 22:31:14 dp (?)
//Maya |
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 22:43:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Ghoest 3 Tux didnt mention this. In a real fleet your damage would be reduced by blobing. A good part of the time your gunners(or really a computer) would have to halt firing so as to not hit friendly ships in your way. Since EVE physics dont work like this there should be a damage penalty.
Love this idea...but not a damage penalty...a rate of fire penalty. Not sure how the maths would work, but say no penalty up to a 5 man gang, then an exponentially increasing penalty such that for gangs of (example) 50 or more ROF was down to about 1/50th of normal. This would reflect the amount of time that a shot was not viable due to a friendly being in the way. Could also work in conjunction with a locking time penalty - not because of all the scanners as someone suggested, but simply to reflect the difficulty in picking out the desired target in a sea of friendly ships.
Maybe the ROF penalty could be less sever for smaller, more nimble ships, reflecting their better ability to get in the best position for a shot...this might balance smaller groups of frigates against "top heavy" fleets consisiting of mostly battleships. --- Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums; Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?" Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Maya Rkell
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 23:04:00 -
[176]
Yes, let's PUNISH TEAMWORK.
Moreover, you want to do it in a way which dosn't hurt pirate gankers who one-volley indsutrials and frigates one bit. Gee, wonder why that is!
So basically under your system there is NEVER any point to bring more than 10 ships, and any ship which is not a gank-fitted BS actively REDUCES the gang damage potential and is a plain parasite.
Oh yes, I forgot global ECM in my last post too. All these things have been discussed to death. The "nerf teamwork" lobby is a bad idea...making smaller ships more viable, making ECM work against focused fire, making WCS reduce range and most of all removing the broken T2 amo will do it ALL without massively impacting the smaller group combat which is allready interesting and varied!
//Maya |
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 23:24:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Maya Rkell Moreover, you want to do it in a way which dosn't hurt pirate gankers who one-volley indsutrials and frigates one bit. Gee, wonder why that is!
If you're implying I'm one of the gankers, then you know nothing about my play style. I am, if anything, the gankee. Try to keep your wild speculations to yourself.
Originally by: Maya Rkell So basically under your system there is NEVER any point to bring more than 10 ships, and any ship which is not a gank-fitted BS actively REDUCES the gang damage potential and is a plain parasite.
That said, this is a good point, and reducing damage rather than ROF would be a better option...it prevents that devastating first strike.
Originally by: Maya Rkell making WCS reduce range
Ah, so you get all gooey eyed about haulers being ganked, but are quite happy to cripple mission runners who may actually want to run a mission in a 0.4 because their idiot agent sent them there, and fit WCS to give them a chance to run from an opportunist ganker.
Let me tell you about missions...they're not particularly clever. They involve doing a lot of damage as quickly as possible. The NPCs don't use anything I would be happy to describe as "tactics"...they are just pretty tough (VERY tough, in a couple of notable cases). Thus if you fit out to give yourself a chance against PVPers, you are in SERIOUS danger of not being able to complete the mission in the first place - or, it taking MUCH longer which increases the risk you WILL be found by a PVPer.
You don't need ECM mods for the mission, so carrying them "just in case" would be a total waste (and, for them to be effective, you need quite a few). WCS are a good backup plan. They do NOT need a nerf that affects the combat effectiveness of mission runners. --- Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums; Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?" Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Maya Rkell
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.09.03 23:28:00 -
[178]
I'm implying that you are suggesting gameplay to favours one gameplay style. And yes, Grey Area is a carebare. Your other characters? Um. (I can't know...)
"happy to cripple mission runners who may actually want to run a mission in a 0.4 because their idiot agent sent them there"
10% each. A mission runner can take a 20% range hit and live. The Vagabonds and sniper BS with a 50% range hit have viability issues.
A sensible alteration, in other words.
//Maya |
Rift Scorn
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 01:23:00 -
[179]
Edited by: Rift Scorn on 04/09/2006 01:24:15 I have to say that there are two sides to this coin that i've seen so far.
Nerf blobs eh? Annoying seeing as this is meant to be a game where players/groups of players are meant to be totally free to play in anyway they like. On the postive, it means 'blobbing' par se will still be here; your FC in fleet situations will just have to be more tactical/creative about how to distribute his 100+ strong fleet and where. Stagger ranges, different warp in points and play much more to the assembled fleets ships strenghts; it won't be an end of fleet fights as such. There will still be 200+ fleet fights that go on for 30 mins and lay waste to hundreds of players. There's nothing like that feeling when you sit there burning up in 50% structure with enemy cans & drones all over the place and you got the warm glowy feeling of winning. Much like there is that bitter disappointment when your the ones sat at a safe spot scanning for probes after you've taken an absolute drubbing and are in a pod surrounded by 90% of your mates, also in pods. That's the reason i play this game above all others.
On the Negative, as i mentioned restricting people's game play in such a way is frustrating. Nothing like a slug fest, calling primaries & Secondaries and going through the list and seeing who comes out on top. All fleet allignment un-hindered but close to each other and just go crazey and duke it out. To have the nerfed is a big strong, as it nerf people's prefered playing style, or in some cases when they're hugely outnumbered, the only thing you can do is keep everyone together get various positions with coverts load long range, and try and whittle down the numbers with Alpha strikes whilst keeping your losses to a minimum, until you can engage; or are willing to. Doing this will mean more time sat at safes, or bouncing around safes, whilst reducing combat time. For those that love the PvP this will be a monumental kick in the testicular region.
Well, those are just the potivies and negatives i see at the moment. I've probabley missed a bunch, but i do find it worrying that for the first time in 3 years, i've seen talk of nerfing player tactics in a player driven game. Mess with modules, mess with ammo, balance and change this that or the other, but not player tactics.
Your friendly clone activation expert, free of service to the eve community since '03! |
Maya Rkell
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 01:48:00 -
[180]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 04/09/2006 01:47:57
Originally by: Rift Scorn Mess with modules, mess with ammo, balance and change this that or the other, but not player tactics.
/agree
//Maya |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |