Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SAW 249
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 05:03:00 -
[61]
"Thumbs up to making ships do damage when they explode."
This is the solution to the problem, add ship explosions similar to smartbombs to discourage tight blob fleet formations, and have the magnitude of the explosion be based on the class of the ship. Maybe make it so smaller ships like frigs do not have a explosion, only larger ships such as battleships primarily and possibly cruisers.
|
Max Hardcase
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 07:04:00 -
[62]
The only problem is the tech2 ammo concept is totally borked for the long range stuff and a good bit of the short range stuff as well.
The rokh will take the problem to a new level.
|
Vicious Phoenix
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 07:08:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Max Hardcase The only problem is the tech2 ammo concept is totally borked for the long range stuff and a good bit of the short range stuff as well.
The rokh will take the problem to a new level.
Borked as in too good or horrible? Borked usually means horrible but I sense thats not what you mean.
CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too. |
Fred 104
1st Royal Marines
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 07:18:00 -
[64]
Originally by: BoinKlasik give me ender's weapon, the more there are, the more powerful it is.
Only if it can only be put on ravens.
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 08:13:00 -
[65]
there is only one solution to this problem: Introduce a more viable alternative.
AoE weapons or smartbomb changes will not solve the problem, just change it a bit.
We need better and more fleet/gang organisation options. This game should become a kind of strategy game with more increasing numbers. We lack ingame communication options (like short calls from counter strike and the like), finer gang organisation options (command hierarchy, wing/squadron objective designation. the fleet commander should play a strategic game with good gang overview and command controls. What we have now is a joke that works in up to 5-10 man gangs.
All the tools are there, what we need are a few UI improvements (UI is one of the worst aspects of EVE).
A fleet commander should be a FLEET COMMANDER, not a name calling monkey.
Originally by: JP Beauregard The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
|
Kasak Black
133rd Ghost Wing R i s e
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 08:22:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Kasak Black on 04/09/2006 08:23:30 I think people are looking at the AOE damage from the wrong side. Instead of boosting SmartBomb's or inventing some other AOE weapon to break up blobs, why not have AOE Damage applied to a dying ship.
Picture this, Sniper Blob 1 and Sniper Blob 2 are slugging it out at 200KM...
"Whats this, that Apoc just blew up. AARRGHHHH 2000 HP damage to my shields! Ahhh ****, there goes another! *******s I'm on armour, best move away from the other ships."
If you made the AOE around a dying ship 15KM you suddenly have very spread out group. And with such a group spead out, focus fire becomes slightly more trick as some targets will be a lot further than 200KM away from each other. So both fleets would have to get wing commanders to deal with certain areas of the other fleet.
Anyway, just my idea.
Off topic I just found out Steve Irwin has died.. A sad day for us all
|
Admiral IceBlock
Caldari Northern Intelligence SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 09:33:00 -
[67]
Make Carriers front line ships and make them be able to shoot energy destabilizors. Which is a bubble that can be shot at the enemy, on impact it becomes a 15km bubble draining x cap every x sec.
Why give this ability to Carriers? Because we do not want everyone and their mom to use this.
|
Lucre
STK Scientific Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 09:38:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Hayabusa Fury 5 was just an arbitrary number. It can be 8, 10, 15. But there should be a limit. A Battleship should never be insta popped is my point.
I don't think locking limits are the way to go. But how about this?
Any time a ship is hit, it becomes invulnerable for some (short) period thereafter - perhaps 0.25 seconds? [No, I don't know why in pseudo-science terms, but I'm sure it could be double-talked easily enough!] Probably also have the time depend on the size of ship (as it will essentially limit the dps that can be done so capitals should have a higher limit than BS and so forth).
For single ship or small unit actions this won't make a lot of difference to dps - you'd lose a few hits but not many. But in mass actions it'd mean beyond a certain point you get diminishing returns from extra ships focussing fire - which is exactly the effect Tux is looking for!
|
Haruko Red
Caldari Xenobytes Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 09:41:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Haruko Red on 04/09/2006 09:41:13
Originally by: Kasak Black Edited by: Kasak Black on 04/09/2006 08:23:30 I think people are looking at the AOE damage from the wrong side. Instead of boosting SmartBomb's or inventing some other AOE weapon to break up blobs, why not have AOE Damage applied to a dying ship.
Picture this, Sniper Blob 1 and Sniper Blob 2 are slugging it out at 200KM...
"Whats this, that Apoc just blew up. AARRGHHHH 2000 HP damage to my shields! Ahhh ****, there goes another! *******s I'm on armour, best move away from the other ships."
If you made the AOE around a dying ship 15KM you suddenly have very spread out group. And with such a group spead out, focus fire becomes slightly more trick as some targets will be a lot further than 200KM away from each other. So both fleets would have to get wing commanders to deal with certain areas of the other fleet.
Ever heard about tacklers or close combat fits? You idea makes them pointless and we just will get more sniping. ________________________________________________ "I dont smoke." (C) William Blake |
Xanfi
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 11:32:00 -
[70]
I have to say, everyone here who's said "tech 2 ammo needs a fix" seems to have hit the nail on the head.
Tech 2 ammo created the problem and we can't just suggest brand new weapons and rebalance the entire of all pvp around the few t2 ammo types that were brought out. That would be insane.
CCP needs to go back to t2 ammo and fix that, before they bring out even more stuff to try and nerf t2 ammos supreme rule over fleet battles.
I mean imagine this, if the 3 main sniper ammos currently rule fleet combat then everyone will use t2 sniper ammo, because anything less will be suicide. But if a new module comes out that nulls the usefulness of t2 ammo.. then everyone will HAVE to use the new tactic that rules over the old tactic that automatically wins, and we'll end up with a brand new overused tactic.
Increase T2 ammo's size so that you have to reload real often, (and give the t2 crystals an insanely low RoF), or something so that after the initial shots are fired it takes an age before the person can fire again.
Or knock down thair damage bonus, only let them keep their range, make the damage a lot more tankable.
Generally nerf t2 ammo (I hate saying nerf it makes me feel like a whiner :( )
|
|
Slan Traveller
Sniggerdly
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 11:44:00 -
[71]
Suggestion:
Combat performance of ships not under fire is normal, while ships under fire receive reduced DPS (being under pressure, targetting systems overloaded by impact).
Historically crew morale and focus on ships not under fire has prevented admirals from utterly focussing their gunnery from the age of Nelson up to Jutland.
Sic parvis magna |
Wikka
Sub-Genius inc
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 12:56:00 -
[72]
To fix the blob Don't touch weapons.
Just add an exponential targeting time penalty for number of ships in grid in the same gang/aliance/corp.
Result big camps - completely ineffective.
Small raiders will get a little more oppertunity to get to their senses adjust for lag / maybee even grab a kill before being aniahlated.
More mod/skill options for fleet command too.
Dealing with problems with bigger guns would be more likely to just escalate the arms race resulting in ever heavyer ships being bought into camps.
|
Dred 'Morte
Minmatar Sammael's Legion Arkhangelos Command
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 13:15:00 -
[73]
Just out of curiosity, what if you couldn't see the name of the pilot nor the nickname of the ship in the overview, and a blob vs blob would pretty much be a complete mess of random fire all over the place?
Personally, I'd prefer random s*** all over the place insted of "organized warfare". This would pretty much force close range warfare (where you can scramble yourself) and because of the absence of focused fire, logistics (shield, energy and transfer arrays) could become useful and that would pretty much be the only organization allowed.
Cool? Not Cool?
PS: Obviously this idea cannot make it into the game, but, for the sake of curiosity, tell me what you think of it. Ya I know, crazy idea, but I like to dream.
Signature made by Mr Floppykickners |
Kanuo Ashkeron
Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 14:00:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Wikka
Just add an exponential targeting time penalty for number of ships in grid in the same gang/aliance/corp.
IsnŠt this called lag?
|
St Dragon
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 14:05:00 -
[75]
Im glad that blobbing is getting looked at its the main reason i dont do fleet stuff anymore now.
As for tech 2 ammo im sure it will still be considered long range ammo its just that long range in the future wont be in the triple figres anymore maybee something like 60km would be considered long range. -----------------------------------------------
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god." -- Jean Rostand |
T'sar
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 14:19:00 -
[76]
Give Missiles and Torpedoes AOE effect
|
Vathar
Elegance
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 14:19:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Kasak Black Edited by: Kasak Black on 04/09/2006 08:23:30 I think people are looking at the AOE damage from the wrong side. Instead of boosting SmartBomb's or inventing some other AOE weapon to break up blobs, why not have AOE Damage applied to a dying ship.
Picture this, Sniper Blob 1 and Sniper Blob 2 are slugging it out at 200KM...
"Whats this, that Apoc just blew up. AARRGHHHH 2000 HP damage to my shields! Ahhh ****, there goes another! *******s I'm on armour, best move away from the other ships."
If you made the AOE around a dying ship 15KM you suddenly have very spread out group. And with such a group spead out, focus fire becomes slightly more trick as some targets will be a lot further than 200KM away from each other. So both fleets would have to get wing commanders to deal with certain areas of the other fleet.
Uh, two major problems here :
tacklers and closerangers would HATE this, and this would lead to closrange fleet being impossible to use ...
Gang warping and jumping would be a death trap ...
You gang warp and end up inside a tight ball, a bunch of alphastrikers are waiting for ya, and a pair of deaths causes a chain of destruction that annihilates your fleet. Same thing happens when you jump, except that you're a bit more scattered.
No, blowing ships would have too many side-effects.
On another concern, yes, gang options, better UI, squadron fonctionnalities have to be improved to get pas this name-calling system we currently have now! _
Originally by: Stamm Minmatar are kind of like going down a flight of stairs on an office chair firing an uzi
|
Daxes
Cataclysm Enterprises Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 14:21:00 -
[78]
blobbing doesnt need fixing, its not the problem.
The problem here is Eve's lack of tactical options/features on a grand scale. We all want fleet fights and blobbs are simply just fleets. Its not "our" fault that there are no formations for gangs or any reason why we shouldnt use focus fire. Eve is in this part a very simplistic game.
Instead of introducing some stupid AoE weapons which would be abused anyways (isnt that why missles lost their aoe damage?) think of ways to make big fleet battles more tactical. We need way to weaken focus fire. There are various ideas out there. I personaly would like a mix of stack penalty for ships shooting you and less range for weapons. There are also other good ideas out there but the problem of most is that they are either not possible or would take a long time. A change has to come in the next time and not in 2-3 years.
|
Hast
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 15:25:00 -
[79]
here's one for you.
lets make it so that you cant lock a ship at all
no?
|
Lisento Slaven
Amarr The Drekla Consortium New Eve Order
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 15:36:00 -
[80]
Here's an idea - Make close up fighting more viable.
Really that simple...to say! Hahaha! =D
Close Up Fighting = Range within only a few targets. Long Range Fighting = Range within all targets!
Why would you want a fleet that has to constantly maneuver when you can have a fleet that can hit everyone as soon as its deployed? ---
Lisento Slaven wants to be a Space Whaler in EVE.
Put in space whales!
|
|
Wilfan Ret'nub
Singularity.
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 16:05:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Hast here's one for you.
lets make it so that you cant lock a ship at all
no?
Ah, another ECM whiner.
------ No ISK, no fun |
Shayla Sh'inlux
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 16:42:00 -
[82]
I suggest they start with fixing Deathstar PoS in such a way that you're not FORCED to blob up in groups of 150 just to get something done.
Whatever changes are made, when a lot of people are going to get together, stuff is gonna go poof in seconds. It is that simple. No amount of non-gamebreaking changes is gonna change that.
What we need changed is the incentive for people to get into huge groups. The NEED for 15 dreads to take on a PoS is one. Do you have any idea how many people it takes in your blob to have 15 available in a dread at a given time? Clearly not. Then the fact that you NEED 100 BS just to protect the damned things from 10 enemy BS which is an absolutely silly proposition in the first place.
Then there's the sheer logistics involved in construction of motherships and outposts. Hundreds of Mark V runs need to be done just because a friggin' Freighter can only unload her cargo in a station. If 10% of your alliance's members are willing and able to fly a Mark V or Mammoth for a day or so and you need 50 to do it in a day you need 500 people to even consider doing it. And then we haven't counted the 200 BS that are needed on the gates to protect the operation (for 12-18 hours!) from 5 random Stababond pirates that are looking to blow up your 20bil investment, the people that mined all the minerals to raise the money and the guys planning and running the show.
Blobbing will *always* be there. Power of numbers. Being in the blob is safe; outnumbering the other guy 2:1 makes you not lose your ship. However, blobbing is currently ENCOURAGED by game mechanics and looking for a fix is like curing the symptoms instead of the disease.
What have Tech II ammo, PoS, Sovereignity, the Rokh with 10% range bonus, Stabs and ECM in common? Right, all of these 6 encourage longrange sniping and/or blobbing.
Fix your game first, then start thinking about the blob.
|
Shaikar
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 17:12:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Kasak Black Edited by: Kasak Black on 04/09/2006 08:23:30 I think people are looking at the AOE damage from the wrong side. Instead of boosting SmartBomb's or inventing some other AOE weapon to break up blobs, why not have AOE Damage applied to a dying ship.
Picture this, Sniper Blob 1 and Sniper Blob 2 are slugging it out at 200KM...
"Whats this, that Apoc just blew up. AARRGHHHH 2000 HP damage to my shields! Ahhh ****, there goes another! *******s I'm on armour, best move away from the other ships."
If you made the AOE around a dying ship 15KM you suddenly have very spread out group. And with such a group spead out, focus fire becomes slightly more trick as some targets will be a lot further than 200KM away from each other. So both fleets would have to get wing commanders to deal with certain areas of the other fleet.
Anyway, just my idea.
I like the concept a lot, would go nice with the wrecks-replacing-cans thingy. It needs some work to fix the problems already pointed out sure, but still - I like the idea.
Here's one change to fix most of the close range/tackling concerns - make the damage recieved a function of the ship's agility, and the damage dealt and AoE radius a function of the exploding ship's powergrid.
Reason being it is assumed that smaller/faster/more maneuverable ships can avoid or "ride out" a big random explosion with assorted chunks of ship better than a huge battleship which probably won't have time to even start to react before it gets hit. Meanwhile, powergrid seems a reasonable figure to choose for the overall "explodyness" of a ship, a measure of how much energy there is floating around in the ships systems, ready to break out and make things go boom.
The aimed for result being that if a frigate was close in, tackling the hypothetical Apocalypse, when the Apoc exploded, the frigate would take minimal damage at worst from the explosion. Meanwhile, if the Apocalypse destroyed the frigate instead, it would take full damage (assuming it was within the frigate's "death AE radius") but the actual numerical value of "full damage" would end up being almost negligible for a battleship anyway, as a frigate doesn't have that much to go boom in the first place.
Sniping does need to be stopped though, or at least stopped being as silly as it seems to be atm.
|
Za Po
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 17:25:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Haruko Red Edited by: Haruko Red on 04/09/2006 09:41:13
Originally by: Kasak Black Edited by: Kasak Black on 04/09/2006 08:23:30 I think people are looking at the AOE damage from the wrong side. Instead of boosting SmartBomb's or inventing some other AOE weapon to break up blobs, why not have AOE Damage applied to a dying ship.
Picture this, Sniper Blob 1 and Sniper Blob 2 are slugging it out at 200KM...
"Whats this, that Apoc just blew up. AARRGHHHH 2000 HP damage to my shields! Ahhh ****, there goes another! *******s I'm on armour, best move away from the other ships."
If you made the AOE around a dying ship 15KM you suddenly have very spread out group. And with such a group spead out, focus fire becomes slightly more trick as some targets will be a lot further than 200KM away from each other. So both fleets would have to get wing commanders to deal with certain areas of the other fleet.
Ever heard about tacklers or close combat fits? You idea makes them pointless and we just will get more sniping.
The damage should scale - like missiles - so that small ships don't get wiped out if a BS happens to explode near them. Think the stereotypical small spaceship flying out of a massive explosion, relatively unhurt. You don't need to kill people to get them to avoid excessively tight formations; some damage is enough. Especially since you want to avoid chain reactions, which would be just stupid.
I also agree that some better facilities for fleet management would be very useful.
|
Frezik
Celtic Anarchy Black Reign Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 17:33:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Xanfi Tech 2 ammo created the problem and we can't just suggest brand new weapons and rebalance the entire of all pvp around the few t2 ammo types that were brought out. That would be insane.
Tech 2 ammo didn't create the problem. It increased an existing problem. It makes sniper fleets able to add another 50-100km and do more damage overall, but focus fire has been a problem ever since blobs existed.
The solution is to make focus fire go away, preferably by providing tools to better orginize fleets. I'll take some improved AoE weapons, too (not just smart bombs, but ECM Burst as well, which everyone seems to be forgetting). ---- "Well in this case, he's being flamed, and rightly so, for whinning about a game mechanic that doesn't actually exist." -Lorth |
Nials Corva
Gallente Jumpgate Workers Local 1337
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 17:33:00 -
[86]
Every time a ship takes damage, reduce it's sig radius by 5% for the cycle time of the weapon (or just 3-5 seconds). Thus if 50 people hit at the same time, then it'll have the effect of 10 people hitting at the same time. Or the devs can use the same type of diminishing returns as they use in modules to scale the damage. Most modules asymptotically approach the effectiveness of 3x base as you add more. Scale it so that sig radius reduces such that the number of attackers asymptotically approaches 10 attackers. Use reasonable points such that 5 attackers is as effective as 4.5, 10 is 6, 20 is 8, etc.
It can all be roleplayed off by explaining that the flak, debris, and ablative pieces of armor make resolution more difficult.
|
Karsus Maim
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 17:37:00 -
[87]
Maya is correct here, T2 ammo needs to be looked at.
100% bonus to range is just insane, T2 ammo should be more like 70% (just and idea) with a slight improvement in damage over say iron charges.
Don't even get me started on the short range useless ammo (all types from rockets to conflag.), way way way too many penalties even for the high damage output (wouldn't even know where to go with this one).
|
Dryxonedes Sae
TunDraGon
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 19:27:00 -
[88]
Odd sidethought. A large mass of electronic/fuel etc components exploding next to your ship (any class) SHOULD have some kind of effect IMO. Ok, so damage is out because of making close range combat not a viable thing. There must be something else you can "penalise" or "incurr" when you have a detonation just beside you? Maybe an X% chance you'll lose y # of target locks, temporary tracking/range penalty, something?(only thinking 1 of those 2, more seriously the tracking/range penalty) This is the way to me, allow sub-grouping then add some "spice" for ship detonations.
The way i'd see that turning out, is you get 1 insta-pop, then the penalties have set in, long range starts to suffer... The time period would need to be set carefully so as not to also negate long range combat, but remove it from being the sole fleet operation. **** Where's the problem? It's called natural selection - The bottom of the ****ing food chain. -Denis Leary |
Frezik
Celtic Anarchy Black Reign Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 20:44:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Dryxonedes Sae Odd sidethought. A large mass of electronic/fuel etc components exploding next to your ship (any class) SHOULD have some kind of effect IMO.
For starters, I don't like making any game changes where the only argument is that "it's not realistic".
In this specific case, it should be possible in a vacuum for an explosion to go off close to you without feeling it. Without a gas to push against, the explosion cannot produce a shock wave. Only the hot expanding gasses from the explosive fuel itself, plus any shrapnel, can produce damage.
In any case, game changes should be made on the basis that the current mechanics don't work, not because they're unrealistic. For the purposes of breaking up blobs, I think there are better ways that are less problematic for small scale close-combat. ---- "Well in this case, he's being flamed, and rightly so, for whinning about a game mechanic that doesn't actually exist." -Lorth |
Prez21
coracao ardente
|
Posted - 2006.09.04 21:23:00 -
[90]
The main problem is range. why would anyone want to fight close range when u can warp in at 200k and insta pop your chosen target.
Now imagine guns such as rails and artys have a range of say 20-60k but have lower fitting requirments so you can also fit a tank, this making them still ok for close range engagements.
Picture two 80 man fleets both close combat because long range weapons now only hit upto 60k, one fleet jumps into the other, FC cant call 1 primary because the fight is spread out ova 80k around the gate and blasterthrons and ac tempests and other close range BS arnt going to be able to hit the primary target if it isnt in range, so this would mean maybe breaking your gang into smaller groups each having there own wing commander leading them.
The range changes might not suit alot of ppl but at the min the range at which ppl are fighting with is too high
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |