EVE Search - The current state of eve combat, and how it evolved.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The current state of eve combat, and how it evolved.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Gungankllr Caldari Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.06 23:03:00 - [1] About 3.5 years ago, when Eve was in Beta/going live, things were certainly far more different than they are now. I miss the days of about 2.5 years ago when sniping range wasn't much further than 75-80k, gangs were much smaller, no interdictors and HAC weren't in game yet. Battleships were kings of space, POS didn't exist and conquerable stations had just been added (And you could expect to sit at a station for hours with a hundred Battleships to take down its shields) Over the years the game has really become a color coded shooting match, where the art of "picking a fight" has devolved into traffic signal warfare. Part of the reason everyone relies on standings and colors and you see no warnings prior to getting shot at is the age of the warp core stabilizer, scouts, alts and lag with checking standings and bios. By the time you verify a neutral to be non-hostile, they've warped off and have created a safespot somewhere. Even with covert ops, a 99.9% retarded person can lead any number of people around on a wild goose chase as long as they like, after they get past the initial warp off from the gate. With so many alt scouts, spies, budding pirates, personal grudges and other various reasons there isn't time to check to see if someone has hostile intentions, if they aren't smurf they die. I think every single one of us with the exception of people that kill for epeen measuring would like combat to be more mobile, rely less on blobbage and long range sniping, and last longer. When I think of epic battles I think of the German Battleship Scharnhorst versus the British naval task forces, which was a running battle that lasted over 12 hours. Do I want battles that last over 12 hours? Not really. Do I want battles that last over 12 seconds? You betcha. So how do we make things better? Adding Hull/Armor/Shield points was an excellent start. Dealing with the other issues is infinitely more complex. Part one, is to get rid of stacking modules. Yes, most unpopular idea ever. I am the spawn of satan, I eat **, I am the worst idiot to ever log into eve. Now that you've got that out of your system, just hear me out for a moment. If you limit say, the mounting of sensor boosters to one per ship, modified by pilot skill and inate ship sensor strength, we get a quasi-reasonable range where combat can occur. (From 0k out to about 140k at the extreme, depending on the booster used) If you limit tracking computers to one per ship, modified by pilot skill, weapon baseline and ammo, you get a reasonable chance for a smaller ship to get in under your guns and engage you. (I'm drawing a blank what the baseline would be with tech II ammo and one tracking computer, with tech II guns. I think it to be somewhere around 150k, no?) Where this goes, is it encourages players to participate in mixed gangs. It gets people working together, bringing in support ships, and using hit and fade tactics. If you've got tech II modules, training and ammunition, you have the superior edge. Just because you've got 19 million sp in Gunnery, doesn't automatically mean that you get to hop in your pwnmobile at 235k away and plink at someone without risk. You'll be a holy terror in a fleetbattle versus similar sized ships, but you'll need destroyers, frigates, cruisers and logistics ships to defend you from targets your weapons are unable to traverse and hit properly. I know everyone is logging in a few times with all their alts to lay the holy stones of smack upon these thoughts, but I fail to see a huge downside. More versatile ships, less gankmobiles, more emphasis on tanking. More types of ships in the field, less willingness to camp gates due to range issues. One warp core stabilizer per ship, one scrambler per ship, one webber per ship. Modified by skills and module type. Continued. Hidden in this signature is a secret message.** I like pie.
Gungankllr Caldari Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.06 23:04:00 - [2] Edited by: Gungankllr on 06/09/2006 23:15:37 No longer will there be nigh-unkillable ships, PVPing without risk to themselves because they have the uber 8 WCS Amarr sniping ship. Or the WCS Raven. or the 235k sniping ship. Combat will be relatively close, EW will matter, missiles will be useful, and most of all, PVP might actually be fun again, and worth posting stuff on your killboard. Gone are the days of the dual plated or dual extender whatever. Armor plate is just that, plates that fit over the existing armor on your ship. You're going to tack weld plates to more plates? Get a bigger plate to begin with, but it comes with a mass penalty. Damage mods get the same treatment. One per ship. ONE??? ONOES!!!111-UNO-!!11 Kind of like MWD. Anyone want to go back to the days of quad MWD cap boosting scorps? or Dual MWD Ravens? Yes? You're a gomer. No? Yep, 99.9% of us agree. Sensor backups, there's a sticky issue. One per ship, modified by skills and inate ship ability. Wow, someone might actually decide to use remote sensor backups for a gang mate. But what about my cap batteries and cap power relays? What about my PDU's? What about my Overdrives so my crow can go 8,000 m/s? look, I don't claim to have all the answers, I just would like to hear from everyone I've played with over the last 3+ years tell me what they honestly think. Oh, and nerf Caldari. Hidden in this signature is a secret message. I like pie.
BoinaAzul	Posted - 2006.09.06 23:24:00 - [3] Truth is EVE was more fun back then, IMHO. But even though eve was more fun back then, eve is not worse now. Entertaining, challenging, etc.. are also cool concepts.
Dei Crystaline Green	Posted - 2006.09.06 23:24:00 - [4] Originally by: Gungankllr Edited by: Gungankllr on 06/09/2006 23:15:37But what about my cap batteries and cap power relays? What about my PDU's? What about my Overdrives so my crow can go 8,000 m/s? Now I haven't played for 3 years, let alone 1 yet. However, from the stories that I've read about PvP, it seems biased and very predictable. What you suggest about non-stacking seems reasonable to me. But, with the issue raised that I have quoted, I think that these would have to have bonuses fiddled with, maybe the ship bonuses played around with so the balance is right. For example, take the Industrial class and it's cargo expanders, they may need a boost in capacity increase and possibly a bigger capacity increase per level special ability (rather than the innate 5% increase per level, so you get a 5% increase ON TOP when using a cargo expander). The same would go for mining ships who use CPU upgrades, get a bonus for a specific class of item, or the rook and get a bonus for an ECM module used. Maybe throw in another bonus with tech II modules so that they really are worth the 150% increase in price. Remember that I am relatively new, and have only experienced one type of PvP, these are just my thoughts, added to the OP's.
Redwolf Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.07 00:04:00 - [5] Can't say i'd disagree too much, but there would be a heap of balancing to be done for that (like there isn't now _-_). But I think with the direction they are going with the Rokh, and the bonuses they gave t2 ammo, it's quite clear that ccp do want combat to be able to take place commonly at extreme ranges. And you have to remember that we are inately bastards, no matter what limitations are put in place we will figure out a way around them. Lets face it, they're never gonna do anything to fix the problems caused by / associated with alts. Nor are they gonna rebalance everything to enable no mod stacking. It'd just be too much work. But i'm gonna sit back and watch all the tards flame you for one of the more decent ideas i've heard in ages. Originally by: HippoKing Who cares if the game is coming up. Forums are back \o/
Jerick Ludhowe Arcana Imperii Ltd.	Posted - 2006.09.07 00:12:00 - [6] Amen Brutha. The only suggestion in there that I don't like is the increase to tankability. Now when I say tankability I mean the ability to rep damage rather than soak it. I do agree with you that fights need to last longer and the best way to do that is to increase hp, making battleships capable of tanking another solo battleships will just turn the game into blob wars more than it already is. My .2 iskies.
Pestillence Revelations Inc.	Posted - 2006.09.07 00:18:00 - [7] I agree with the proviso that if stacking penalties on dmg mods etc are nerfed then the jump/dock timer needs to be extended. More so for cap ships.
Amerame Section XIII	Posted - 2006.09.07 00:30:00 - [8] More efficient tank => focused fire getting even more important => bigger pvp gang in average (if you want to be efficient)
Wheya Amarr Bruderschaft des Wahrhaftigen	Posted - 2006.09.07 01:05:00 - [9] Gungankllr, I like the stuff you wrote and agree untill you've started to mention your idea getting rid of stacking modules. Yes, I agree there are a few modules I think that are too powerfull. Sensor booster comes first to my mind. Many people agree they should be splitted into 2 modules. One for giving range, the other one for faster targetting. It might sound paradox but the ability to stack modules gives a wider range of options to fit your ship. A 'no stacking rule' will enforce one thing: people will find out a ranking among the modules and fill their slots from most usefull to less usefull module untill their slots are occupied. Being able to stack modules allows specialization on one task and therefore allows a wider range of options. I agree with the goal you try to achieve. I admit some stacked setups need a nerf. Removing completely the ability to stack modules is wrong IMHO.
Darineah Charach Minmatar The Splinter Syndicate SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.07 01:11:00 - [10] Well thought out and well argued. You make a lot of sense. I for one am very much behind bringing other ships into fleet combat. As it stands, for major military operations the vast majority of ships in EVE are useless, as are pilots if they can't snipe. The picture of 2 fleets engaging, small ships dogfighting each other for the right to get close to the opposition Battleship, Destroyers positioning to take out frigates, logistics lending range, armor etc, and the Battleships unloading on each other.....looks good. ------- Boxing Kangaroo
Ghoest	Posted - 2006.09.07 01:30:00 - [11] Big ships can lock too fast(on small ships) and have too great of range. Wherever you went - here you are.
Vaslav Tchitcherine Swag Co.	Posted - 2006.09.07 01:49:00 - [12] Removing all stacking will obviously gimp tanks quite a lot, which works against one of CCP's often-stated current goals for combat: making it last longer. Aside from that (and the other quibbles mentioned, which basically comes down to the extreme difficulty in re-balancing everything) it's not a bad idea. v. swag
Arkanor Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2006.09.07 01:50:00 - [13] One of the biggest reasons for Primary Warfare is that ships can be hard to kill. If something's hard to kill, then people are going to focus fire on it unless there is some easier way to reduce the group's aggregate firepower WITHOUT destroying ships, and even then, the opposing fleet might simply want the ship out of the way. Think about it, how many times do you see people focus fire in Counter Strike? I'm all for longer battles (and not for CSey like fights especially with the lag) but that's the reality of it, and unless there's a reasonable tradeoff to not killing a ship, fleets will continue to focus-fire and "primary warfare" will remain the premier fighting style. Originally by: Ghosthowl WoW = hardcore paladins smashin dat face. Originally by: HippoKing I just cried, you know that?
Shaikar Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2006.09.07 01:51:00 - [14] Broadly, I like what you do here. I do think some modules should be exempt though, such as: - fitting modules (power cores, diagnostics, coprocessors etc) I don't see a problem with them stacking as they do now. - armour plates and shield extenders. More hits on ships is always good imo, makes fights last longer and makes them more fun. The way they scale could use looking at though - I have no idea about shield extenders, but armour plates scale oddly in fitting terms. (EG you can fit 2x400mm plates far easier than you can fit 1x800mm plates in terms or requirements...) - scramblers and stabilisers, mainly because as they are now, restricting them to a max of one would make stabilisers pretty pointless. For everything else I can think of off hand though, 1 max! (Actually, another way of putting what I mean might be "if it says fitting more than one will give you a penalty, the penalty you get is only one actually works".)
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.09.07 01:53:00 - [15] An idea in good faith, but balancing it would be utter hell. The entire module system would have to be totally reworked from scratch, basically, to deal with many of the imbalances this would create. And in the end, it would not solve "primary warfare" or NBSI. What is needed is a very major game mechanic change, possibly even a change in part of the entire game philosophy, not a ship fitting change. --[23] Member-- Originally by: DB Preacher The only time BoB's backs are to the wall is when Backdoor Bandit is in local.
Benglada Finite Auxiliary	Posted - 2006.09.07 02:50:00 - [16] my last bs 1v1 was 5 minutes, what the hell are you talking about? --------------------------- Originally by: Arkanor 0.0 is the Final Frontier. Bring money and friends.
jbob2000 Gallente The Taining corp Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2006.09.07 02:55:00 - [17] The problem is that the modules, ships, and setups are sooo tried and tested now that people know what to use and when to use it. I also think all T2 sucks. Especially the recon ships, which are better then HACS atm for pvp.
Kybane Atreides LoneStar Industries Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.09.07 02:57:00 - [18] Complete game revamps are scary, 'cus stuff might come out worse...
Tasty Burger	Posted - 2006.09.07 03:00:00 - [19] Originally by: jbob2000 I also think all T2 sucks. Especially the recon ships, which are better then HACS atm for pvp. HACs are great for pve though, and plenty of people will disagree that HACs suck at pvp.
Sidraket Amarr	Posted - 2006.09.07 03:05:00 - [20] Why do people care if someone is snooping around their space?
jbob2000 Gallente The Taining corp Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2006.09.07 03:47:00 - [21] Originally by: Tasty Burger Originally by: jbob2000 I also think all T2 sucks. Especially the recon ships, which are better then HACS atm for pvp. HACs are great for pve though, and plenty of people will disagree that HACs suck at pvp. Meh. Life was so much better before t2.
LUGAL MOP'N'GLO	Posted - 2006.09.07 03:49:00 - [22] For 1v1 Pvp in belts I could see a problem. Longer fights = more time to have his friends/you friends warp in and make the fight unfair. ~~~~~~~~~ I wish my lawn was EMO so it would cut itself. I approve of this message.
Cattraknoff Caldari Sha Kharn Corp Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.07 03:55:00 - [23] Edited by: Cattraknoff on 07/09/2006 03:55:27 Originally by: Sidraket Why do people care if someone is snooping around their space? Could be spying on your fleets, your mining ops, just looking for targets etc, also could have a cynosural field generator equipped and bring in capital ships. There are a lot of reasons, and I didn't get them all.
Skraelingz Gallente Gallente Federal Bank	Posted - 2006.09.07 04:31:00 - [24] non stacking could be viable... but maybe tweak the stuff that wont stack anymore to be slightly more effective to make up for the no stacking? -----------------------------------------------
Dukath	Posted - 2006.09.07 05:20:00 - [25] I disagree with the solution, if you limit the modules to 1 then everyone will be flying the same setup. 1 sensor booster, one tracking computer, ... 1 of each. I would much more prefer all the modules to have a measurable negative effect on another statistic. * Sensor range booster makes lock time worse. So you could lock at 250km but in stead of also getting instalock you would now take 3 times as long as default lock time. * Sensor lock time booster would then lower the lock range. * Tracking range computer vs tracking computer. * Damage mod would increase damage but cost more cap. * Rate of fire mod would increase rof but lower tracking. * ecm would lower your own resistance to hostile ecm * warp core stab decreases accuracy of exit point of the bubble, * ... just like a lot of modules already have a negative side effect, this should happen to all non basic modules. This way you wil get a clear distinction between long range and short range setups. Long range setups will be bad at short range and vice versa. Currently long range setups are also pretty good at short range since their long range bad tracking guns also get better tracking from the tracking computers.
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.09.07 05:46:00 - [26] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 07/09/2006 05:47:31 If this had been written by anyone with less than 3,5 years of game experience, the flaming would have been much worse... --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Oleg K77	Posted - 2006.09.07 06:23:00 - [27] Naval battles last for hours because of very low hit chances at distance. Decrease optimal range greatly and increase fallout. You can shoot far away, but farther you shoot - fewer you hit and less damage make. Long range balttles will last longer, but close fights will remain quick.
Infinity Ziona Privateers	Posted - 2006.09.07 06:36:00 - [28] I have to agree with dark shikari. Changing the modules to make up for the lack of zones of interaction is probably a bad choice. Im going to use WoW as an example, yes I am insane, to describe what a zone of interaction is and why we need it. In WoW if I want to run from Orgrimmer to the Cross Roads I can run along the road. Theres not a lot of NPCS that will attack me and its safer from them but its also more likely I will run into PKs. So I can cut through the wilderness, swim across the river, maybe risk being killed (since Im only young) by wildlife but less likely, possibly by a player I run across. Now if I see a player, they dont automatically 'have me' and if I evade them, they dont automatically lose me, since even while running away I am still vulnerable. Thats a proper 'zone of interaction', its huge and there are options. It takes minutes to cross and there are multiple ways of going about it, rather then the seconds of travel, and the single method of EvE. Take out a marshmallow ======{ }= Click Me
Akita T Caldari Session9	Posted - 2006.09.07 06:52:00 - [29] Originally by: Arkanor If something's hard to kill, then people are going to focus fire on it unless there is some easier way to reduce the group's aggregate firepower WITHOUT destroying ships, and even then, the opposing fleet might simply want the ship out of the way. I'm all for longer battles (and not for CSey like fights especially with the lag) but that's the reality of it, and unless there's a reasonable tradeoff to not killing a ship, fleets will continue to focus-fire and "primary warfare" will remain the premier fighting style. These lines here inspired a pretty weird idea (bear with me, I'm on a roll), I've posted it HERE for all to see. It should (and just might) solve quite a few of those issues. __ Always question everything. Including yourself.
Sidraket Amarr	Posted - 2006.09.07 07:19:00 - [30] Originally by: Cattraknoff Edited by: Cattraknoff on 07/09/2006 03:55:27 Originally by: Sidraket Why do people care if someone is snooping around their space? Could be spying on your fleets, your mining ops, just looking for targets etc, also could have a cynosural field generator equipped and bring in capital ships. There are a lot of reasons, and I didn't get them all. Aye, thats what i assumed, but i wanted it to be established. The real question is, why are people allowing those things to be a threat by overextending themselves?

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.