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?
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]

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.