| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Earthan
Gallente
GREY COUNCIL
R i s e
   |
Posted - 2006.09.07 07:33:00 -
[31]
Agreed Gungan.
Well to me this so old age pvp wasnt so dreamy either with only worth ship of use was bs:)
But there was a moment it was much much better somwhere after castor , no t2 modules yet, you fought in fleets usually around 60-100 km from each other, you didnt pop instantly, interceptors and cruisers startd to have arole and were worth using.
I could agree to your solutions.( replyign to someones saying one module per ship would force everybody to use same setup well how is it different from now?we all use same setups, just with multitple same modules)
Or i had a counter idea, increase hull armour hp and also limit dmg from focused fire in fleet,if target recives more then x dmg/second in fact he recieves 80 % of dmg and the higher the dmg the harsher the penalty so optimal would be 5-6 bs firing at same target.It would unlock so many possiblities, forcing squads withint blobs , amking the fleet fight on squad level
-
Grey Council military officer,Rise Wing Commander.
Grey Council webpage
|
Gunstar Zero
Caldari
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 07:47:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: Dukath
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.
Agree, have thought for a long time that this would be the best way forward.
Penalties done even have to be that great, but subtle enough to make ships setups more interesting.
|
SmEdD
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 08:05:00 -
[33]
Splitting sensor boosters (rang or speed) would go a long way or just have them so they can't stack. That right there would solve alot of issues and I would like to see how that would play out . . .
|
Lazuran
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 08:55:00 -
[34]
Wouldn't this be solved by something that allows you to warp to your enemy as well? For example, a module like a target painter that makes an enemy a valid "warp to" target? It would not kill sniping completely, since a fleet could still be distributed all over the place, making it difficult to engage it like this in one go.
"The whole of NYC is not 1.0. Some back alley in the Bronx is deep 0.0, while right outside NYPD headquarters is 1.0." -- Slaaght Bana |
Caztra Tor
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 09:36:00 -
[35]
/signed
I really don't know what the result would actually be if the OP's idea is implimented, but I would like to see. Can we install this on the test server?
|
Haverloth
Amarr
1st Praetorian Guard
Vigilia Valeria
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 10:33:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Haverloth on 07/09/2006 10:33:46
Generally, I agree with the OP.
I dislike "blob" tactics, I would much rather see shorter-ranged, longer-lasting "fleet" battles (with fleets consisting of actual mixed elements - Lots of Frigates and Intys, Destroyers, most of fleet in either cruiser or BC, some BS which can't hit the smaller ships...) which involve actual tactics over and above "primary is..."
The limitations that Gungankllr suggests are sensible - it would eliminate some of the ridiculous bonuses that you see and we could say byebye to the 235km instapop.
Want to pirate? Expose yourself to a little risk and get in real close to your target...
What Dukath says about having one item give a bonus in one area but a negative in the other area is not a bad plan either, particularly when it comes to WCS - yes your warp strength is increased but due to more CPU power being diverted or some reason your accuracy is not as great.
One thing I'd like to see (don't know about feasibility) is localised damage - that is, if I'm being shot at and lost my shields, then various systems maybe start going offline? Maybe a turret or two, or my painter or whatever... it would need a LOT of balancing (Caldari ships who have much more shield then, say, Amarr ships which rely more on armour - so when does each start having components disabled?... maybe the component disabling only takes place in structure? But by then it's usually too late...)
Edit - maybe something like Earthan says and increase structure and structure resistances? That could work...
Definitely proper fleet battles need to be "fixed" though.
Proudly part of the Vigilia Valeria Alliance |
eLLioTT wave
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 10:47:00 -
[37]
/signed
|
The Armin
Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 13:54:00 -
[38]
It's eve we're playing, not wow, heroes, or sims for that matter.
I disagree strongly with all the suggestions in this thread.
You wanna have 1 mod pr type pr ship ? I aint playing heroes where I'm allowed to have 1 artifact pr type pr hero pr arm pr leg pr head pr ......
I never played WoW so I can't make any examples there tbh. Nor sims, for that matter.
Stacking is here already. Why nerf it anymore ? You got rid of 8 Heatsink Geddons. With 1 mod / type / ship everyone's gonna have the same mods, except some with more expensive mods. You call EvE predictable now, what's gonna happen when I can't fit any surprises on my ships due to 1 mod / type / ship ? I can't fit triple web on my Apoc to give someone a nasty surprise for an instance, or 4 times Tracking Disruptors on my Arbitrator fleet support ship, neither can I fit 2 cap injectors to feed my smartbomb geddon.
To the guy suggesting to split up modules(Ie lock at 250 but 3x locking time): I'll agree with this if you also add the following into your equation:
- Nerf sentry guns(So I can tackle you in a frig with low lock time at the gate then you die too)
- Make warp speed 90% instead of the 75% today (So I can tackle you without a sensor booster)
Got sniped ? Too bad, use a scout in lowsec.
Sensor Boosters are fine, Heat Sinks, Gyros, Magstabs, and BCU's(Though fairly overpriced) are fine. Tracking enhancers and Tracking computers are fine. Tanking is ok(Though some tanks are "ñ to break)
The reason most fleet fights are at extreme ranges is due to ECM beeing overpowered. Everyone has more fun shooting with Gleam L at 30-40km.
If you're smart enough, no sniping ship will be able to shoot your ab/mwd Cruiser to death. If you're stupid, you die and hopefully learn something.
Then we have the blobs... Well as long as there is alliances with thousands of pilots ingame, blobs will excist. You don't like ? Leave the alliances.
|
Falkrich Swifthand
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 14:30:00 -
[39]
How about increasing lock-on time against ships much smaller than you? Or increasing lock-on time at longer range? (Or both?)
IMO that would make smaller ships more useful, and remove a lot of "drop out of jump and get killed instantly".
The idea of giving each of those targetting type modules a downside is good as well (increase targetting range worsen lock-on time, etc).
No?
|
MrTripps
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 15:03:00 -
[40]
It seems like the suggestions would make the game different, but I'm not so sure it would be better. Rebalancing everything would be a PITA. I could see a lot of things being higher priority.
Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell |
Glyn Davish
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 15:06:00 -
[41]
No one is saying that all stackable modules shouldn't be that way anymore, only certain game-breaking ones.
PVP as it is now is in dire straits and I don't think that'll change without some serious, serious gameplay changes. Tactical environments would be a huge step in the right direction, I think.
Feel free to donate to the cause.(NSFW) |
Detavi Kade
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 15:15:00 -
[42]
mwd's used to stack. now they don't. ccp has made changes in the past like this, so I can definitely see this happening again.
would love to see sensor boosters get split, as proposed by many players. There needs to be some negative effect to using them, besides taking up a slot(which by default is a penalty for every module already).
I would oppose a drastic change such as no stacking modules at all, just because it would be hard to understand the full ramifications. But incremental changes such as the sensor booster seems very workable.
amazing that this thread so far has been relatively flame free.
|
LORD STEALTH
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 15:27:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Ghoest
Big ships can lock too fast(on small ships) and have too great of range.
Personally, i never figured out how a kestrel can have more room for faster/more advanced targeting computers than say... an apoc. I get that the bigger weapons don't swivel to point at the target as fast...makes sense. For me the locking should be pretty near instantaneous on all boats. Instead put in a a targetting timer based on the weapons. meh. But thats just me.
Some interesting ideas, but the downsides I see (at least a couple) Bigger gangs to focus the fire to kill the threat quicker. Loss of some specialization, by that i mean yes, the snipiing ship. the loaded to the gills with damage mods blaster boat etc...
In a wider sense, i think it will play into the larger PVP groups, in that it will limit some of the gurellia tactics. others i think it will boost, jumping on top of a lone enemy via covert ops. sniping that larger force that just decided to make your home system its hobby for a few days. I mean hey... if you are jumping into a guranteed loss...no thanks.
ideas are i *think* starting to lean in the right direction pvp wise anyway.
|
ForceAttuned Krogoth
InterGalactic Corp.
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 15:37:00 -
[44]
i agree on most of this but some mods you need to be able to fit more than one, like noss (curse), ecm (blackbird), scram(galene recons), web(hugon), dual med armor reps (cruisers) there is nothing between larg and med and there is no way of fitting a large on a cruiser. most of these ships where made to fit more than one of these mods.
I do agree on the 1 wcs, 1 over drive, 1 sencor booster, 1 dmg mod. This would make it more intresting with ship implants that are comming out soon(tm). *remembers when you could have cruise missiles on a frig ^^*
ForceAttuned Krogoth [INTG]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Starbuck 4tw!
|
The Armin
Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 15:40:00 -
[45]
Edited by: The Armin on 07/09/2006 15:40:48
Originally by: Detavi Kade
would love to see sensor boosters get split, as proposed by many players. There needs to be some negative effect to using them, besides taking up a slot(which by default is a penalty for every module already).
Then the entire engine has to be redone cause then scan resolution won't matter anymore.
Secound of all why do you want to make Amarr next to useless ? I can barely spare 2 mids for Sensor Boosters on my Apoc/Geddon, while Megathron and Tempest can fit 4 if they want. So you're indirectly suggesting to make Amarr more useless than they already are.
I don't get all the Sensor Booster whining tbh.. Stop going into lowsec without a scout..
|
Ambre Blanche
Amarr
Royal Amarr Institute
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 15:42:00 -
[46]
I agree.
|
The Armin
Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 15:48:00 -
[47]
Originally by: ForceAttuned Krogoth
I do agree on the 1 wcs, 1 over drive, 1 sencor booster, 1 dmg mod. This would make it more intresting with ship implants that are comming out soon(tm).
You're all saying "I agree", but none of you is saying why. Why should you be allowed to fit all the wcs you want but I shouldn't be able to fit more than one damage mod ? Should Caldari still be allowed to fit 8x Multispec and get away with it ?
Why give any more nerfs to solo gameplay wich will force more blobbing ? Thats the way I see the proposed changes tbh. 1 dmg mod = less dmg, 1 tracking mod = less tracking, more mods for boosting lock on time and lock on range = less offensive modules. Hence, sniping in a large group, with an alt in a blackbird or 4 boosting your range / lockon time, or roaming in a large group will be even more efficient than the current focus fire we see today.
What I'm trying to say is that stacking penalty already excists. Lock on time on frigs and some cruisers is still big enough for those flying em to get away. On your hauler however.
|
Hawk Fireblade
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 15:48:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Hawk Fireblade on 07/09/2006 15:54:41
Whole heartedly agree, it was one of the main points I brought up in another thread discussing design but it promptly got locked.
Older players will know more than anyone the old design while VERY basic functioned okie with far lower player numbers the combat design in Eve hasn't changed one iota, and as a result with 30k players the blobs have grown to ridiculous sizes, because that's the path the design put players down.
It needs to change and radically, if the games going to have any long term future and not be yet anotehr vicim of oh another MPOG has come out like star trek online and everybody vacates the premises.
Something I think with eve's enourmous untapped potential is next to criminal.
CCP's Developement focus needs to change RADICALLY, away from content and back to basics and Design, improving the gameplay the real core gameplay elements.
As 90% of everything in Eve revolves around ships and everything you do in them that's the place to start and combat especially.
And I'm not talking about a few tweaks either but a total overhaul of the entire design of the combat gameplay, how players conduct it and how it plays out so combat is more fun and more strategic.
Were talking chages to the UI, how ships move turn, firing arcs the works and a proper sensor model, and transit model that also has the benefit of getting shut of bookmarks and removing that load off the servers but also giving something back to the players so they don't actually require them anymore.
And by far a bigger strategic everviroment that requires combat to be playeed out across a far wider area no blobing, and one of the main reasons behind blobing is the way ships move in eve well don't move they are static pretty much there's no dogfighting, or very little way of tactical manuvering so everybody sits in a blob F1 F2 F3...
That's NOT a good design.
Smart design, no more content plz lay the smooth gameplay on us, that's only going to come from dedicated long term developement of forging the design forward not ignoring it as has been the case since beta.
|
Detavi Kade
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 15:51:00 -
[49]
Originally by: The Armin
Stop going into lowsec without a scout..
Please stop assuming that all "whining" is caused by someone being ganked. I have yet to be ganked in any situation at all. I rarely ever use scouts, while spending 90% of my time in lowsec. I'm quite happy there, thank you very much.
Furthermore, I strongly believe that the use of scouts is somewhat exploitish. You can survive without scouts.
Stop telling folks that scouts are required for lowsec...it's not and you're not doing the game any favors by saying so.
|
The Armin
Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 15:56:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Detavi Kade
Originally by: The Armin
Furthermore, I strongly believe that the use of scouts is somewhat exploitish. You can survive without scouts.
Stop telling folks that scouts are required for lowsec...it's not and you're not doing the game any favors by saying so.
Then whats all the fuss about Sensor Boosters then if it aint whining ? Sounds a lot like whining to me tbh. And did I tell you to xploi ? Get a sidekick in a frig, they ain't hard to find.
Oh and stop telling me to stop giving everyone a friendly and good advice.
|
Vasiliyan
PAX Interstellar Services
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 15:57:00 -
[51]
I do think it's a problem that WCS have no stacking penalty, unlike everything else.
|
The Armin
Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 16:07:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Vasiliyan
I do think it's a problem that WCS have no stacking penalty, unlike everything else.
I agree to this, on combat ships such as the infamous Vagabond, Raven, and others.
What, in my opinion, would've been unfair is force pvp onto those who's not into pvp, and travelers who fits stabs on a hauler or a battleship. Adding a 50% rof penalty to them would easily have solved that.
|
Auldare
Soundless Storm
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 17:32:00 -
[53]
it is an interesting concept. If certain modules were effected with this it could end the whole tank or gank polarisation we currently have. With the introduction of rigs this could be expanded so that depending on what way you want to play you have to use a rig to get more effective instead of the usual whacking 3 similar modules on.
One thing i was just thinking about, how about a new batch of skills that allow you to specialise in certain areas but if you train one area you cant train in another one. Only an idea but would make specialisation mean something.
================================================
|
Tasty Burger
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 19:25:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Dukath
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.
I like these suggestions. Old ones, but still, they are good ones.
|
DrAtomic
Polytope
Ghosts of Retribution
|
Posted - 2006.09.13 14:48:00 -
[55]
I wholeheartly agree with the OP, except for the stabs unless -2, -3, etc stabs arrive or if the effect of a WCS depends on the amount of ships around (interference from other ships around) in a certain radius around the tackler giving the solos a chance to escape the gatecamping blobs (we call em bloobs hehehe).
-----------------------------------------------
The BIG Lottery |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |