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) |
Gyn Seng
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 06:33:00 -
[181]
Edited by: Gyn Seng on 04/09/2006 06:33:34 re-introduce splash damage to all weapons which normally would have it.
then make it so that war targets in empire space are only affected by it and in 0.0 everyone.
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 07:04:00 -
[182]
Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 04/09/2006 07:06:01 Well I got my laugh at the blog :-)
Now I realy like that something like that is looked into. One note, I did not read the entire thread (I usualy do, but not always) so please spare me the flame when some of these have been already suggested, just say so, I'll read the thread when I have time.
Give us proper target designation abilities and warp in/movement capabilities. What makes blobs so easy is the absence of any terrain in space. Also that there is not obstacle impact calculated in eve. So we need to get around the obstacle calculation a bit. I will address all 3 points:
1. Target designation/calling. There is only one option and that is target tagging. I tried to use it once to coordinate a mission with corp mates. Short verdict: unusable. We need something that is clearly visible in overview, and that we can filter it. The number tagging is OK, but please make it visible in overview that the target is tagged (different icon or something like that). This way target calling gets easier and even non-TS folks can participate in a fleet fight.
2. Warping/movement. Right now we have the ability to warp to a few ranges from a target. Usualy this means covops ships in front of the enemy. The problem is that the warp in is strictly constrained in the direction from which you warp. If I could warp at all the range BEHIND the warp target, that would be usefull. Imagine you have a fleet waiting at a SS, fleet commander warps in to enemy fleet in covops at say 100km. Then the snipers warp to 100km in the conventional style, while close range ships warp 100km BEHIND him, so they end right in the middle of enemy fleet. This also helps with the T2 long range ammo issue. T1 snipers can warp in at their optimal, this way we get a nice layered fleet at different distances. It would be good if we would get also the option to warp in at a different plane like 15km above/below etc. This should ONLY work with gang mambers, not normal warps to celestial objects and gates.
3. Obstacle impact calculation. There is no terrain in space. This means no obstacles in the path of the shot/missile. Actualy this I think was already suggested. Make another "tracking" parameter that measures blob density and make guns miss based on that parameter. If there are 100 ships cramed into a 10km sphere, they should shoot each other and not the enemy !!! So in this case they do not shoot from time to time. This should simulate the friendly ship in line of fire situation. Something like a stacking penalty should apply. The more ship density the less fire goes through.
The above points deal only with larger fleets. And should introduce some more tactical decisions. However it does not do that at the side of the target. There is one idea that comes in mind from conentional warfare.
Imagine a few heavy howitzers shooting a target on mother Earth. They will throw so much dust and earth in the air, that they will not be able to see the target after a few rounds and have to shoot only by balistic coordinates. This could be applied to EVE also. Let us introduce a sensor interference when shells/missiles impact ship armor/shield. This should work in a way that calculates DPS and impact shots per second. The more shots and DPS on the target, the harder it is to hit (reducing signature radius for example to affect both missiles and guns). In an extreme scenario, the target would not be locakble for a short duration.
/flame away
Originally by: JP Beauregard The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 07:57:00 -
[183]
Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 04/09/2006 07:58:28 Well after reading a few pages. I see many of my points above have been voiced.
The BEST way of solving the blob problem is to ENHANCE the tactical/strategical possibilities we have in game. NOT byt restricting the blob. Introduce more effective ways of fleet combat that however require som more coordination. That way the stupid and blobing ppl will get eaten by the smart and coordinated.
As I said above, we have too few options to coordinate and manouver a large fleet ingame. gang organisation is NONEXISTENT. We have to rely on out of game tools like teamspeak to get some organisation. Nobody will use delicate tactics if they are difficult to execute.
Fleet formation templates, gang command hierarchy, designating objectives ingame, more effective ship movement and warping are some of the points that would help. A fleet commander should be a fleet commander, not a name calling monkey.
DO NOT NERF existing options, INTRODUCE NEW ONES that are more effective when used right. The game should EVOLVE and not degenerate (be nerfs). The most effective tactic today should be only an option tomorrow as new ways of accomplishing the same are introduced.
Originally by: JP Beauregard The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
|
Storm Mage
Amarr Forgotten Souls
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 08:00:00 -
[184]
Why not make it so gun projectiles/beams don't go through objects anymore? IE currently a gun can shoot and pass through anything in its path until it hits the target, change it so that it will hit anything between it and the target. I mean missles go around stuff so why can't guns hit stuff between them and the target?
Let the lightning be your warning and the thunder your battlecry!
|
Kanuo Ashkeron
Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 08:25:00 -
[185]
Edited by: Kanuo Ashkeron on 04/09/2006 08:24:54 I think the lag is the real problem. And maybe a few things like Tracking computers and sensor boosters (as they do both enhance range/locking time AND tracking/locking range). But the lag actually denies you to use tactics which need good timing and coordination. And that are the key features of good tactics: Timing and coordination.
If you send a few interceptors to the enemy blob to provide a warp in point for the close range group, they actually cannot determine the right time to issue the warp-in command.
A second problem is of course the sniping small-ships on long range. I don¦t know how easy it would be to implement, but I think making the sig radius of guns dependant on the target range should solve such problems.
425mm t2 rail, Sig radius: 400m + 1 m/km range
Kanuo
|
Garia666
Amarr adeptus gattacus Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 08:53:00 -
[186]
Edited by: Garia666 on 04/09/2006 08:54:21 Mabe its an idea to focus on your customer support first instead of thinking about yet another change.
What about the drones which supposed to be give out less lag and make things way faster.
With every new change you solve one problem and get more problems back and unless people get rich of the new problem it takes a VERY LONG time to get it solved. And by this i am not stating you guys are doing a bad job, but if i was CCP i would set my priority`s differently.
And work on customer support first!
Take a look at the forum rule 21. You see that email adress? it doesnt even work..
|
Sharcy
Sonnema
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 09:28:00 -
[187]
Originally by: Runt Mcgoire
Originally by: Tao Han
Originally by: Kunming Reading.. looks like a nerf on long range... finally! pulls out blaster
Or one hell of a boost to Smartbombs
Grenades type weapons?
Return of mines?
Nucleair missiles and shells? --
|
|
Tuxford
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 09:35:00 -
[188]
Sorry I haven't replied to this sooner, I've had a rather busy weekend. I've glanced through the thread a bit and have a few comments.
We've been through how different people have different roles at CCP. Do I really need to say it again? I can't fix lag, there are other people working on it and I doubt they need my help or that I can give any to them.
Splash damage to missiles - There was a reason for it being removed, very good reason. Yes I know it was great fun but it made fighting with missiles in empire really really dangerous.
AoE weapon - We are not limited to smartbombs, we can make new modules. I'm afraid we are a bit limited in the effects we can achieve right now, we can make burst effects, like damage and burst jamming but not continuing effects.
Take less damage the more people are shooting at you - This has always sounded to me like it would be severely exploitable. This also just doesn't make logical sense to me. Lowering the rate of fire depending on ships close to you makes a bit more sense but I'm still not sure its the way to go.
Less ranting, more on what you're going to do - Usually I get knocked around for just telling what we're doing and not explaining why we're doing it. I guess I just have to find that golden ratio of how and why. This blog wasn't originally supposed to be about blobs and how they are bad it was supposed to state the reason why we need to reduce range. How we're going to do that is subject for another blog. _______________ |
|
Sharcy
Sonnema
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 09:38:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka If there are 100 ships cramed into a 10km sphere, they should shoot each other and not the enemy !!!
This is so logical that it's hilarious (or sad) this isn't the case in EVE today... --
|
Garia666
Amarr adeptus gattacus Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 09:42:00 -
[190]
Edited by: Garia666 on 04/09/2006 09:42:58
Originally by: Tuxford Sorry I haven't replied to this sooner, I've had a rather busy weekend. I've glanced through the thread a bit and have a few comments.
We've been through how different people have different roles at CCP. Do I really need to say it again? I can't fix lag, there are other people working on it and I doubt they need my help or that I can give any to them.
Splash damage to missiles - There was a reason for it being removed, very good reason. Yes I know it was great fun but it made fighting with missiles in empire really really dangerous.
AoE weapon - We are not limited to smartbombs, we can make new modules. I'm afraid we are a bit limited in the effects we can achieve right now, we can make burst effects, like damage and burst jamming but not continuing effects.
Take less damage the more people are shooting at you - This has always sounded to me like it would be severely exploitable. This also just doesn't make logical sense to me. Lowering the rate of fire depending on ships close to you makes a bit more sense but I'm still not sure its the way to go.
Less ranting, more on what you're going to do - Usually I get knocked around for just telling what we're doing and not explaining why we're doing it. I guess I just have to find that golden ratio of how and why. This blog wasn't originally supposed to be about blobs and how they are bad it was supposed to state the reason why we need to reduce range. How we're going to do that is subject for another blog.
Well first of all Its good that CCP is telling the community what they think of. And they should keep doing t hat.
However CCP has to keep inmind that what you say can have big Impact. Dont forget Many people in EVE are walking on there toes ATM. There is a lot going on and it seems there is no end to it.
|
|
Demon Johnson
The Scope
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 10:28:00 -
[191]
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. This also just doesn't make logical sense to me.
Hmmm... I know what you mean: 5 people shooting a pirate with civilian guns and make him immune to fire from somebody who really wants to harm him. To counter this not the number of people fireing at you should decrease damage, but the amount of damage taken. This should be a exponential function. The result would be that there is a theoretical minimum time to loose a given ship, like a battleship lasts at least 1 Minute, a Cruiser 40 seconds and so on.
But how can we do this RP-wise?
The targeting computer on your ship simply does not target any part of a ship, but known weak-spots. A good hit with high damage means, that you have hit a critical area, a bad shot simply bounces off. When a ship now gets under heavy fire (meaning it takes damage), the disintegrating hybride-shells, the EMP of lasers and the explosions of missles and projectiles create such a high amount of electromagnetic interferences, that the computers cannot aim so well and must wait for a short break in the electromagnetic interferences to fire, reducing the ROF.
|
Zarch AlDain
Friends of Everyone
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 10:40:00 -
[192]
Originally by: Mrmuttley One problem with AoE weapons is fleet battles in Jita and the like
Today I undocked in Jita in a freighter right into the midle of a 20 man fight (thanks guys I just had to sit there ping-ponging between ships like a fool while you fight around me. ) However had any of them been using AoE weapons I would likely have got caught and some-one would have been Insta-Ganked by Concord.
Remeber the days of blast radius on missiles hitting some miners can in a belt in empire when your killing NPCs. WHile thats funny in low sec its not so great when some tard flys a shuttle into npcs your shooting at just to watch you get Insta-ganked by Concord.
Good point, but I think restrict it exclusively to Torpedos (not all missiles) and you could have a winner here...(would need a clear warning on torps as well to avoid using them in empire).
You now actually have a use for missile boats in fleet fights as they try to get some torpedos into the middle of that nicely packed fleet.
It would need the problems with torpedos not working if you start to die/warp/cloak/do anything fancy though as you would die before your torpedos hit unless you had some options.
Zarch AlDain
|
Zarch AlDain
Friends of Everyone
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 10:55:00 -
[193]
Originally by: MysticNZ
Originally by: Idara
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??!?!
Ever read what it says on the eve retail box? That's right, huge 'fleet' combat.
But we still want huge fleet combat - we just want it to involve a little bit more than 'shoot primary, lock secondary, repeat until dead'.
Zarch AlDain
|
Dux Dar
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 10:59:00 -
[194]
Edited by: Dux Dar on 04/09/2006 11:04:03
Originally by: Grey Area
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.
Love this idea, but i would like to take this one step further.
Assumes your ROF penalty is calulated as the number of non-enemy player ship inside a sphere radius around your ship. You also get a inertia/speed penalty, as you got to be careful not to crash into your neighbour.
The ROF penalty should be reduced if you're flying in "formation", to a degree that flying in formation would be REALY good.
The larger the angle between your formations present direction and your present target, the larger the ROF penalty you would get. If your target is more or less streight ahead of your formation, the ROF could even be INCREASED (if in formation), while the ROF penalty gets realy large if the target is behind you.
Gang/fleet skill could play a even lareger role in ROF/inertia/speed penalty and the "influence radius".
Then we will still have blobs (with strong fast focused fire streight ahead), but gradually peeling a blob from the sides or from behind would be very dooable by smaler more agile forces
With the interia/speed reduction, ships in a blob would be slow to repond to flanking attack, but smaler ships in a blob/fleet should be able to respond faster, as they should be able to move faster to a point where the number of ships in its "influence radius" is starting to become neglectable.
With something like this i think the end result would be smaler groups flying in formations, spread out all over, trying to constantly outflank eachother, joining into blobs (for better focused fire in one direction) or peeling off into smaler groups for better defence and flanking attacks, as the situation dictate.
Also, as ships in a group starts to go kaboom, the rest of the group starts to get better ROF/intertia/speed (and a better chance of escape).
|
Kanuo Ashkeron
Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 11:45:00 -
[195]
Edited by: Kanuo Ashkeron on 04/09/2006 11:46:54 I think many people see the problem from a wrong angle. I think the problem is not the blob. The problem is, that you can do nothing about it. If there would be the stone-scissor-paper game with tactics as well as with modules there would be no problem.
If someone is using the blob-tactic, take out the anti-blob tactic and you win. But that¦s not possible today. And as stated above, and I think many other posters have the same opinion, lag is the first and biggest enemy of advanced (anti-blob) tactics.
Again, the blob is only the symptom not the cause.
Kanuo
|
The Major
Caldari StateCorp Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 11:56:00 -
[196]
I am so not reading the whole topic but I just thought of something:
Friendly Fire and Collateral damage.
Any shots that "Miss" their target have a chance to hit a random target within a short range of the original target instead. The greater the number of ships within this space the greater the chance one of them will get hit by a stray shots. These stray shots can hit anything (Frind or foe but NOT cargo containers, drones or pods) withthe chance of hitting determined by relative signature radius (so Interceptors are the least likely to get accidently blatted by a 425mm Rail).
At the same time the large concentration of targets around your locked target makes your weapon systems less accurate (lots of noise, fog of war etc). Can even have a skill to reduce the effect of this a bit.
This by no means removes blobbing from the game but it will break up focussed fire as the primary target will be taking less hits.
Might not work brilliantly as it turns blobbing into a defensive technique while reducing it's effectiveness as an offensive one.
I did just think that Autocannons versus blob of Interceptors would be interesting. You'd have guns firing wildly at fast moving ships and every shot that misses has a chance to hit one of the other ships. Could be interesting.
|
Admiral IceBlock
Caldari Northern Intelligence SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 12:00:00 -
[197]
Well another way to fix focused fire to make it less powerful is to reduce the amount of weapons you can have fitted.
In the old days fitting 4 tachyons on an apoc was normal because really you could not fitt any more. The extreme people that fitted 5 and 6 tachyons had to use at least 5 grid extension modules.
These days fitting 7 tachyons is no problem, neither is 8. It is infact just normal. If you made it normal to fitt 4 tachyons and almost impossible to fitt 8 people would not be able to fitt 8 tachyons and full rack of damage mods and tracking enhancers.
|
Gunship
Amarr FATAL REVELATIONS Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 12:35:00 -
[198]
lag is your problem in big fights #1
#2 is that ships need better hit points, perhaps another 25-50% inc on all.
So you want to join us? |
Death Kill
Caldari direkte
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 13:34:00 -
[199]
Edited by: Death Kill on 04/09/2006 13:42:58
Originally by: Tuxford This blog wasn't originally supposed to be about blobs and how they are bad
are they?
Recruitment |
Sable Schroedinger
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 14:07:00 -
[200]
My opening thoughts are this:
Increased effectiveness of Smart Bombs and the creation of AoE ammo for missles and Arty's (as was hinted at). With concorde taking out anyone that fires such a thing in empire - maybe even making them illegal to have in empire? Change ECM bursts to actually work well. With their cycle time and range they are a pale immitation of an ECM module. Increase the effectiveness of transversal. A large blob sitting around in one spot should have more problems hitting than a mobile dog fighting squad (looks cooler too ). Make range effect things far more than they do - as has been mentioned many times before, the whole locking range/speed mod thing. coupled with an increased range/sig radius effect. Thus forcing a fleet to split into different ranges.
At the end of the day, there should be a trade off for every tactic and only by combining can someone reach the optimal. --------------------------------------------
Nothing is as cruel as the righteousness of innocents |
|
Gabriel Karade
Office linebackers Blood of the Innocents
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 14:21:00 -
[201]
Originally by: dalman
3. To simple make it impossible to call out targets. Remove the player name from the overview for example (after all, it doesn't make sence it takes me 20 seconds to lock a frigate but I somehow instanly knows who flies it).
I suggested this some months back, and the typical response recieved was "I don't want to shoot nameless squares" - well I still think it could warrent looking at in conjunction with improved gang functionality e.t.c ----------
- Office Linebacker -
|
Sable Schroedinger
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 14:30:00 -
[202]
I don't like the idea of removing names, purely because it opens a whole "disguse" can of worms - also prolly means things like fleets all naming their ships the same and other sillyness. --------------------------------------------
Nothing is as cruel as the righteousness of innocents |
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 14:37:00 -
[203]
Originally by: Maya Rkell 10% each. A mission runner can take a 20% range hit and live.
Nope. Not against the swarms of interceptors in some missions. The single best tactic is to target them all and fire one, maybe two modules at each from extreme range...they turn their MWD on to come in and take massive damage, killing them much more quickly.
Using this tactic, if there are four Inty's, I normally get three before they have closed. If you make them 20% closer, then more of them are going to get in close, thus taking much longer to kill, thus making me spend more time in the dangerous places where the PVPers can find me. --- Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums; Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?" Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Koronos
Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 14:45:00 -
[204]
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.
I agree. I really feel like the line of this blog is working on fixing something that ain't broke (tech 2 battleships and using them successfully in large scale combat). IMO adding massively powerfol AoE weapons would only increase suicide ganking, and some of the other suggested ideas would result in their own problems. My suggestion: work on reducing lag, not on changing the whole way fleet battles are fought. Successful unlaggy fleet battles are incredibly exciting, when you can have them, and part ot the intensity of that is whether you can get out in structure and get back into the mix.
Koronos
|
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 14:46:00 -
[205]
Originally by: Dux Dar Assumes your ROF penalty is calulated as the number of non-enemy player ship inside a sphere radius around your ship.
I wanted to suggest something like that, but I'm sure it would place a hell of a load on the server...how often would you want to update that number?
I DO like the formations idea though...would give a better use fo tactics like "squadron leader" etc. I liked the way Homeworld (I know, EVE is not Homeworld) used formations. Some dealt more damage but took more, others dealt less but took less.
And maybe, just maybe, range ISN'T the problem. Maybe it's the fact that range is greater than visibility. If we keep maximum warp in at 100km, then maybe maximum range should be reduced to 75km. If we keep current ranges (250km) then maybe there should be a "warp to 350km" option and you should actually be able to see ships from that distance. It always did seem odd to me that there is no "approach" of enemy fleets by the time you are up to BS size - if you can see 'em, you can hit 'em. IF there was some period BETWEEN sighting the enemy and engaging them it might give more possibilities - for instance...blobs would become self defeating...if you are THAT badly outnumbered then you choose not to engage (or, as I often put it "Run Awaaaaaaaaay!"). A blob therefore might choose to disband into smaller units, with the other units being called upon when combat was joined. --- Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums; Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?" Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 14:52:00 -
[206]
Edited by: Malachon Draco on 04/09/2006 14:52:49 Does the solution really lie with combat itself?
Isn't the real problem that if we would want to assemble 200 BS from all over alliance space, the travel time is only 20 mins for 20 jumps?
Just like when an alliance is attacking. Isn't the problem that if ASCN would send a fleet to fight D2 in Tenal or wherever they live these days, and we get a report about a hostile fleet coming in, that we can dock at the nearest station and clonejump home? if we had to fly all the way back, we never would have sent 200 BS up north. Too risky. We might send 50, but certainly not 200.
Big alliances are the ones making huge blobs generally. Short traveltimes make these blobs very valid, both in offense and in defense. Make traveltime longer, and blobs will be smaller.
|
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 14:55:00 -
[207]
Originally by: Tuxford Splash damage to missiles - There was a reason for it being removed, very good reason. Yes I know it was great fun but it made fighting with missiles in empire really really dangerous.
Yes it did. And taking it away was the first step in creating all the cries of "Missiles are easy mode" and "Missiles are for noobs".
I HATE it. I use missiles all the time, and if anyone starts a petition to reintroduce splash damage I'll be at the head of the line signing it. Twice. For each alt. I may even open another account to sign the damn thing again.
I repsectfullly submit that the devs caved in too quickly to those who found themselves Concordokkened having just "defended" a corp mate by launching several hundred tonnes of high explosive into the fray. Real life analogies were often used..."Why can't I help my friend who is being attacked?". If my frined was being mugged and I shot the mugger, he might thank me. I doubt he'd be so pleased if I lobbed a hand grenade in his attacker's (and HIS) general direction.
You removed the one main negative of using missile systems. Now we are left with missiles that were neutered because they were regarded as overpowered...and we still have turret users who claim we don't have to think about transversal and speeds of target because "missiles always hit".
PLEASE...reintroduce splash damage. It would be the best thing ever to happen to EVE, even though I know as I say this, it would make my style of play in particular considerably more difficult. --- Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums; Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?" Cleese: "I've told you once." |
Reachok
Amarr Low Grade Ore
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 15:27:00 -
[208]
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!!!
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 15:31:00 -
[209]
Originally by: Grey Area
Originally by: Tuxford Splash damage to missiles - There was a reason for it being removed, very good reason. Yes I know it was great fun but it made fighting with missiles in empire really really dangerous.
Yes it did. And taking it away was the first step in creating all the cries of "Missiles are easy mode" and "Missiles are for noobs".
I HATE it. I use missiles all the time, and if anyone starts a petition to reintroduce splash damage I'll be at the head of the line signing it. Twice. For each alt. I may even open another account to sign the damn thing again.
I repsectfullly submit that the devs caved in too quickly to those who found themselves Concordokkened having just "defended" a corp mate by launching several hundred tonnes of high explosive into the fray. Real life analogies were often used..."Why can't I help my friend who is being attacked?". If my frined was being mugged and I shot the mugger, he might thank me. I doubt he'd be so pleased if I lobbed a hand grenade in his attacker's (and HIS) general direction.
You removed the one main negative of using missile systems. Now we are left with missiles that were neutered because they were regarded as overpowered...and we still have turret users who claim we don't have to think about transversal and speeds of target because "missiles always hit".
PLEASE...reintroduce splash damage. It would be the best thing ever to happen to EVE, even though I know as I say this, it would make my style of play in particular considerably more difficult.
generaly I am against missile splash damage. but you did put it nicely in your post and I tend to agree.
there is a middle ground however. make t2 missile with splash damage, leave t1 without (or the other way around).
Tux: the damage reduction based on amount of fire on the ships is quite easy to do. you have to calculate shots as well as damage per second. any friendly ship will not shoot a target with barrage fire for much damage, so it would be neglected in the formula.
one problem with the damage reduction base on "ship density" around the attacker is very easy exploitation. imagine a larger group of frigs hugging a bs. the BS would not be able to shoot (or for minimal damage). and if we base it on a gang member basis, the result will be small gangs. the second may be a good thing, but it puts more strain on the out of game coordination of the fleet (and you need a warp target in each gang to warp them in). However this could promote mixed tactics.
Originally by: JP Beauregard The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
|
Goberth Ludwig
eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 15:45:00 -
[210]
Quote: The average ship running around in fleets today has over 200km range and that's one hell of a "Coconut of Death". The more CoDs you have overlapping, the bigger area you contain and the more concentrated firepower your fleet has in that area. You probably see where I'm going with this, the range of ships in fleet today is simply too great.
This blog makes me moist.
Thank you Tux \o/
- Gob
[IXC] Admiral Goberius |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |