EVE Search - How to extend combat without proposed changes

All Channels

Ships and Modules

How to extend combat without proposed changes

» 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)
Eben Rochelle Gallente British Space Corporation	Posted - 2006.10.21 09:13:00 - [1] As the title says. How would YOU like to see it done? damage nerf? tacking nerf? boost resists across the board? i understand the trepidation surrounding the new changes but i think we all agree that we would like combat to last longer. on a side note would you agree that we need to nerf sniping and if so how would you do it?
AKULA UrQuan Caldari STK Scientific Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.21 09:16:00 - [2] Chop all weapon damage by 25%....course the minnies will still spaz. Originally by: Wrangler Win ME is more a some sort of virus than a OS..
MECTO	Posted - 2006.10.21 09:52:00 - [3] Originally by: Eben Rochelle but i think we all agree that we would like combat to last longer. i don't wanna, let devs balance what we have at current state and not make CHANGES that affect whole balance and eve! ** "LONGER" combat Originally by:** Kusotarre I am awesome in fleets, everyone on teamspeak trembles in fear as my battlecry blasts through their headphones, heralding a new era of target-less randomosity.
Verus Potestas Caldari The I-Win Button	Posted - 2006.10.21 10:02:00 - [4] Originally by: AKULA UrQuan Chop all weapon damage by 25%....course the minnies will still spaz. That just increases the chance of permatanking people, which is fun for no-one. RAWR!111 Sig Hijackz0r!!11 - Immy
Old Geeza The Retirement Home	Posted - 2006.10.21 10:08:00 - [5] Halve all speeds (that's ship and module speeds) and ranges (targeting, optimal, falloff, etc).
Heikki Gallente Wreckless Abandon	Posted - 2006.10.21 10:11:00 - [6] Figure a way to reduce blobbing efect. That is, a stacking penalty for damage sources shooting single ship. Thus you could survive 2 mins against one ship, 1 min against 3, and 45 secs against 10-100. Although not easy thing to figure and implement, especially if we want to allow effective swarms. -Lasse
Polinus	Posted - 2006.10.21 11:00:00 - [7] For slowing dawn small scale and solo. REduce RoF in between 30-50% and reduce shield regen, armor repair on same ammount. TO reduce the insta poping on fleet blattes. Limit the number of ships that can lock on a same ship at same time. Also what could be done as well is reduec tracking and all ship speeds by 25% (but this would prejudice close combat, so its not that a good idea without tweaking all weapon ranges)
Ather Ialeas Amarr	Posted - 2006.10.21 11:07:00 - [8] Lower weapon damage, make warp scrambling/setting up bubbles easier, heavily nerf ranges.
Mallick	Posted - 2006.10.21 11:11:00 - [9] Remove most ammmo ranges! Once you warp in to a fleet, you just sitt and shoot at whatever moves, no matter where it is. Now if ranges was limited like Mega Beams from 0km to 40km, tachyons from 0km to 60km and no way to make their range bigger. positioning your ship will be vital to be usefull in a fleet. Also reduce all ships Powergrids! In the old days you could barely fitt 4 of your best race weapons + a tank. By revoming powergrid and/or cpu you will limit damage output. Of course if people wanted they could sacrifice their whole lowslot to be able to fitt 8 weapons, but that would not be so smart considering you would only have maybe 1 or 2 slots availbile for something else the reactor control unit.
Radioactive Babe	Posted - 2006.10.21 11:12:00 - [10] Originally by: MECTO i don't wanna, let devs balance what we have at current state and not make CHANGES that affect whole balance and eve! **** "LONGER" combat Neither do I, I want to just gank people in one volley and run like a little girl .. of course thats going to take longer for MECTO because with 5xWCS on it will take a long time to lock
starship enginer	Posted - 2006.10.21 11:15:00 - [11] boost structure by 4x when a ship gets 25% structure damage [ie its got 75% left] it goes into an unuseable state, all high/mid/low/drones stop working. this means instapoping is much harder, and it adds a whole new way of fighting in small groups take ships down to 70% structure then switch target. get all into this broke state then swat them all! should also then add a +5% to structure HP every 45seconds once structure is sub 75%
Radioactive Babe	Posted - 2006.10.21 11:27:00 - [12] Originally by: starship enginer boost structure by 4x when a ship gets 25% structure damage [ie its got 75% left] it goes into an unuseable state, all high/mid/low/drones stop working. this means instapoping is much harder, and it adds a whole new way of fighting in small groups take ships down to 70% structure then switch target. get all into this broke state then swat them all! should also then add a +5% to structure HP every 45seconds once structure is sub 75% interesting .. but I would prefer a % chance that slots will become inactive that increases as structure is blown away ...
Polinus	Posted - 2006.10.21 11:29:00 - [13] Originally by: Radioactive Babe Originally by: MECTO i don't wanna, let devs balance what we have at current state and not make CHANGES that affect whole balance and eve! **** "LONGER" combat Neither do I, I want to just gank people in one volley and run like a little girl .. of course thats going to take longer for MECTO because with 5xWCS on it will take a long time to lock If someone is able to do it with you they deserve the victory! That is called tatical and inteligent combat. Just sit in frotn of other and wait until one tank wears out is plain dumb, non fun, non diverse etc.... Ones who make ships for hit an run sacrifiec some stuff for that. Want to resit hit and run? Sacrifice something for shield extenders or armor enhancers. Making EVE a game of only one fight style is ruining all of what is good on it! CCP .. forget dummie I click and stand stil watching croud as your game market! That is Blizzard, maket and no one will take it over soon. So focus on the players that lkike a more interesting game.
JustBlaze	Posted - 2006.10.21 11:30:00 - [14] a mixed combination of 5% off everything damaging and a 5% boost to everything tanking.
Exiled One Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2006.10.21 11:32:00 - [15] Originally by: starship enginer boost structure by 4x when a ship gets 25% structure damage [ie its got 75% left] it goes into an unuseable state, all high/mid/low/drones stop working. this means instapoping is much harder, and it adds a whole new way of fighting in small groups take ships down to 70% structure then switch target. get all into this broke state then swat them all! should also then add a +5% to structure HP every 45seconds once structure is sub 75% -We're into structure, sir. Bridge is on fire, all decks sealed off, ship is out of control but she is holding, sir !! -/sigh..Hope our squad can eliminate the threat so we can start repair works.
Polinus	Posted - 2006.10.21 11:44:00 - [16] Originally by: starship enginer boost structure by 4x when a ship gets 25% structure damage [ie its got 75% left] it goes into an unuseable state, all high/mid/low/drones stop working. this means instapoping is much harder, and it adds a whole new way of fighting in small groups take ships down to 70% structure then switch target. get all into this broke state then swat them all! should also then add a +5% to structure HP every 45seconds once structure is sub 75% This idead could indeed be tunned to a great enhancer to the gameplay. But I would prefer something like at every 10% struct damage one random slot stops working (and if is changes PG output it can on side effect stop others) Something I would love was if there were imunities (much like resist, but based onshield armor HP) Soemething like 1000hp shield with 1%% (pert thousand) kinetic imunitie would reduce 1 poitn of damage of any kinetic attack. Same imunitie on 10000hp would make it imune to <10 damage. Of course that would drastically change all the balance and is not a simple thing to do since all rof and damage would need to be tuned. But would increase the importance of ship roles. Since attacking large armored ships will be bussiness for big guns of slow fire. At same time guns with low damage per HP can have DPS increased vastly(by rof) so they are superior when fighting less armored ships.. etc... That would diminish the focus firing since it would be more effective to put fire oh the type of target you are better suited to kill.
Valea Silpha Death Monkey's With Knives	Posted - 2006.10.21 12:12:00 - [17] Personally i don't think that small fights need to be slowed down. If you catch someone out of position or get the exact right warp in distance on them, you should be able to harm them. Lots. Also, for fights around stations and gates it would mean that instead of having to not fire at all to re-dock or jump, you could start the fight, then if it looks like its not going your way you can disappear. If you commit to a fight you should be just that, commited. Range isn't the problem either. One vs One, if you have a reasonable tank, you can make it into warp before you get killed. If your in a small ship, then get over it. Its just a frigate. Also, if you cut ALL ranges by half then it screws everyone except gallente again. Blasters have **** all range now, so cutting that in half doesn't matter, but forcing pulse/autocannon ships to fight inside webrange against blasterboats is stupid. <Hammerhead> TomB is doing the nerfing <Hammerhead> I just stand behind him, look at his monitor and shake my head
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries	Posted - 2006.10.21 12:37:00 - [18] I like the 50% HP boost. Aslong as they balance the other things it affects, it'll be great. They just need to make sure they don't bork Amarr + Gallente Cap, and fix the Artillery bonus. -----------------------------------------------
Cheese999	Posted - 2006.10.21 13:54:00 - [19] Remove T2 ammo crystals and missiles (miners can keep their t2 crystals), keep all other T2 items. Instant reduction in DPS and range. No rebalancing required.
Mila Prestoc	Posted - 2006.10.21 14:03:00 - [20] Edited by: Mila Prestoc on 21/10/2006 14:04:30 If something HAD to be done I would say: Reduce ROF slightly, 10% to 15% range. Increase signatures of all weapons slightly (with similar effect to missiles - Will increase times TP's are useful. When ships blow up make a blast radius, such as the effect of a big Smartbomb, that should reduce blobing... not sure if its possible to code and extra strain it would put on servers though. Would really make the effect of the new gang systems in Kali bigger. 3 is by far my favorite, it doesn't effect small scale combat which I think is fine currently hence would only like to see small changes, nothing like 50% increases. ------------------------- Originally by: "Lord Violent" EvE is slowly becoming a game for the stupid, catered to by devs as they lack ability to kill/survive anything.
Scordite	Posted - 2006.10.21 14:35:00 - [21] All the "reduce damage" or "reduce rof" suggestions fail to take into account how much more boring (if that is even possible) mission running and such would become as a result. At least with hp increase, they can make it only count for player ships, and it won't make that much of a difference, since missioning is more about perma-tank anyways. ----------------------------------------------- The only legitimate use of the BLINK tag: Schr÷dinger's cat is [BLINK] not [/BLINK] dead.
Mila Prestoc	Posted - 2006.10.21 14:40:00 - [22] Originally by: Scordite All the "reduce damage" or "reduce rof" suggestions fail to take into account how much more boring (if that is even possible) mission running and such would become as a result. At least with hp increase, they can make it only count for player ships, and it won't make that much of a difference, since missioning is more about perma-tank anyways. It's boring already... Do same ROF pr whatever changes to NPC's and you have to tank less... ------------------------- Originally by: "Lord Violent" EvE is slowly becoming a game for the stupid, catered to by devs as they lack ability to kill/survive anything.
vanBuskirk Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.21 14:44:00 - [23] Originally by: Scordite All the "reduce damage" or "reduce rof" suggestions fail to take into account how much more boring (if that is even possible) mission running and such would become as a result. At least with hp increase, they can make it only count for player ships, and it won't make that much of a difference, since missioning is more about perma-tank anyways. Exactly. With the addition that some missions would become impossible. Examples include Vengeance - the uber-tanking end boss's tank is hard enough to break now! Even when not made impossible, the ammo costs would become astronomical. These costs are not inversely proportional to the damage ammo does, but more than that - because most rats repair themselves while you are trying to kill them. Also, some buildings are EXTREMELY difficult to kill, even now. ---------------------------------------------- "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." ----------------------------------------------
Cecil Montague Minmatar KarWal Corporation Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.21 14:48:00 - [24] Originally by: Mila Prestoc When ships blow up make a blast radius, such as the effect of a big Smartbomb, that should reduce blobing... not sure if its possible to code and extra strain it would put on servers though. Would really make the effect of the new gang systems in Kali bigger. And watch as everyone who uses blasters cries when they get blown up by the ship they just took out. "There is no such thing as an effective segment of totality." - Bruce Lee Karwal Security Director and corp Jester.
CptEagle Gallente Stargate Command...	Posted - 2006.10.21 15:04:00 - [25] Edited by: CptEagle on 21/10/2006 15:04:39 Remove T2 ammo. Edit: Or fix it.
Arleonenis Minmatar Republic Defenders	Posted - 2006.10.21 15:09:00 - [26] Originally by: Cecil Montague Originally by: Mila Prestoc When ships blow up make a blast radius, such as the effect of a big Smartbomb, that should reduce blobing... not sure if its possible to code and extra strain it would put on servers though. Would really make the effect of the new gang systems in Kali bigger. And watch as everyone who uses blasters cries when they get blown up by the ship they just took out. Mmmm not really if you slightly tweak this idea and add some timer between destruction and explosion, some nice graphical effects of ships burning and falling appart and on last stage it will explode with AoE... enough time for blaster pilots to move away CLICK - TheKiller8 flash, funny stuff man keep it up... but unfortunetly every one bit is true
Nyphur Pillowsoft Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.21 15:45:00 - [27] I didn't expect them to go the extra-HP route. If it's just a straight percentage boost, it'll make shields better than armour since the shield will also get more recharge/second out of it. Since they're also planning on boosting recharge rate by 50%, shield tanking will end up at about 2-3 times better than armour tanking on the same number of slots. It'll actually be better to shield tank gallente ships, all minmatar ships and some amarr ships. Unless, of course, I am misinterpreting it and he's planning on slowing the recharge rate by 50%, which would keep things as they are now but make would provide a small nerf to shield extenders as they would get less regen/second out of each point they add but the number of points they add hasn't increased, unless they plan to increase extenders and plate HP too. What I expected was a kill-two-birds-with-one-nerf approach by introducing the concentrated fire nerf - the introduction of the stacking penalty for multiple targets attacking a single target. It would be a future-proof mechanism, too. Increasing HP only delays the problem by making each side need 50% more ships to kill their enemies in the time they are accustomed to. All it does is promote bigger blobs. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Tasty Burger	Posted - 2006.10.21 15:46:00 - [28] Repeat after me... COMBAT DOES NOT NEED TO BE LENGTHENED. IT IS FINE AS IT IS.
Weirda Minmatar Queens of the Stone Age Black Reign Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.21 15:56:00 - [29] Edited by: Weirda on 21/10/2006 15:56:38 Originally by: Tasty Burger Repeat after me... COMBAT DOES NOT NEED TO BE LENGTHENED. IT IS FINE AS IT IS. bull****. you are wrong. why do you think you are right? @nyphur, they are making it so that the shield recharge move in tandem w/shield size and hp/sec remain same. there is still advantage though as with more shield, they will spend more 'time' recharging shield... but meh. same will happen w/armor, but at greater cap cost. Weirda still concerned that they are not boosting active 'tanking' at all (or have not stated). once everything is movied to passive/hp tanking, that will not be so much fun. __ Weirda Join QOTSA Now Stealth Bomber Tweaks
Kaeten Hybrid Syndicate SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.21 16:01:00 - [30] Originally by: Verus Potestas Originally by: AKULA UrQuan Chop all weapon damage by 25%....course the minnies will still spaz. That just increases the chance of permatanking people, which is fun for no-one. this is why the hp bounes is probably the best solution 0.0 Gang PvP Recruitment
Nyphur Pillowsoft Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.21 16:21:00 - [31] Edited by: Nyphur on 21/10/2006 16:23:29 Originally by: Weirda Weirda still concerned that they are not boosting active 'tanking' at all (or have not stated). once everything is movied to passive/hp tanking, that will not be so much fun. Ditto. I know people that fit out tons of megathrons with nothing but neutron blasters, cap boosters, MWD, web, scram, armour plates and EANMs in the proportion that gives them the highest hp. The idea is that they fly in and gank whatever it is they are attacking before it manages to kill them, then they safespot and rep/remote rep. With that high HP, passive armour tanking until you kill something is a real option and it lets you fit increased offensive gear. More HP may make tanking take on the more logistical nature seen in fleet battles (warp in, shoot, warp out, get remote repaired, repeat) rather than ships repairing themselves in engagements. It might be good, actually.. EDIT: And yes, I didn't read the tuxford thread until posting my previous post ^^. It all looks quite good to me. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Ithildin Gallente The Corporation	Posted - 2006.10.21 17:14:00 - [32] Well, they are increasing plate and extender gain by as much as ship HPs. Personally I'd actually boost all ship hit points even further than what Tuxford suggested. I'd shoot for 300% rather than 50%. It'd also require a few additional changes, though: 1. Controlled Burst skill reduces capacitor need by 10% instead of current 50%. 2. Autocannons gain 50% damage and rate of fire (i.e. time between shots is doubled). 3. Medium energy vampires drain 20% less, large energy vampires drain 40% less. 4. Energy neutralizers drain half as much with half as long duration. Why? 1. Energy and Hybrid weapons require so much capacitor that they may very well run out of capacitor against a heavily plated target even under the current build, unless they fit boosters. 2. Do you have any idea how much ammo ACs eat? This especially compared to Arties. 3. Reduce nosferatus, really, since nosferatus will become much more valuable against especially hybrid and laser users. The smaller ones aren't as impacting as the larger ones. 4. Neutralizers are fine. They nerf you as much as the enemy. They just have slightly silly activation times. --- Spinning on Tuxford's Broad-side ideaÖ * Increase turret size by 50%, decrease turret "mount stick thingy" by 50% (visual) * Each ship has four sides where turrets are placed - right, left, front and rear. * Each turret is a turret pair, they are mounted on the same fronting * Cut turret damage by about 25%. * Halve turret rate of fire. * A turret mount can fire only in roughly 180180 degrees, meaning a side-mounted turret can't shoot on stuff in front of it. Examples Megathron (i.e. typical CC mounts). Hardpoints: 7 Front: 1 Rear: 0 Left: 3 Right: 3 Comment: At any given time it can have at most 4 turret pairs firing on the target. It does broad-sides best, but when getting close it can be difficult getting the front turret in alignment. Rokh (i.e. typical ranged mounts). Hardpoints: 8 Front: 4 Rear: 2 Left: 1 Right: 1 Comment: At most it can bring five turret pairs to bear on a target, significantly less if it tries to align away from the enemy, although it's rear turret placements mean that it will still do damage when firing during retreat. Raven (i.e. Typical non-turret ship) Hardpoints: 4 Front: 1 Rear: 1 Left: 1 Right: 1 Comment: You can get additional fire power if your enemy is in the right direction. Crusader (i.e. typical interceptor) Hardpoints: 4 Front: 2 Rear: 0 Left: 1 Right: 1 Comment: Fire power is focused on approach, ideal when pursuing a target. Catalyst (i.e. typical destroyer) Hardpoints: 8 Front: 8 Rear: 0 Left: 0 Right: 0 Comment: Everything to the front. If you're wondering about the weird design where all turrets are placed on top or bottom of the ship - that's a forward placement. Revelation (i.e. typical dreadnought) Hardpoints: 4 Front: 0 Rear: 0 Left: 2 Right: 2 Comment: At best, you can get two pairs aligned. Damage should be similar to now. Oddities: Turret placement isn't always going to be symmetrical, you may end up with a ship that's got a left and a front turret. * On some ships, like the Catalyst, facing placement isn't going to be entirely possible all the way. In these cases, the game animates the correctly aligned turret to fire. (For example, the enemy is in front and below you're current altitude, a turret pair would then have one turret above the ship and one turret below the ship - the lower turret would then animate as firing each shot for the pair) Tweaking required: * Particularly the turret damage on close range turrets may need a buff, even though this would be about reducing damage over all, because they'll be orbiting the enemy they aren't ever going to be able to have all turret placements on the same fronting the way a Destroyer can have. * Missiles are self-targeted, and as such need no facing at all. Same goes for drones. Not that I particularly want this facing system, but it's a fun mind-toy - What am I listening to?
Uglyone Deep Can Mining Inc.	Posted - 2006.10.21 18:04:00 - [33] do a fundamental change to the flawed T2 ammo to start with. instead of having the extra dmg with negative bonuses to speed and caprecharge and shield amount they should do same amount of dmg as T1 but have positive bonuses instead wher they previous had negative bonuses.
Jak'ai	Posted - 2006.10.21 19:43:00 - [34] How about making ECM a defensive module as well as an offensive tactic? Sort of an electronic "smokescreen". Take the Multispectral ECM as it is now, but change it's function such that it only breaks the lock (or lock-cycle)of ships that have targeted or are currently targeting the ECM-using ship. Still chance based as it is now. Something like this wouldn't affect small fights much, but larger fleet battles should be lengthened simply because a ship that's called primary won't necessarily be hit with all available guns. Balance can be tweaked by increasing or decreasing the strength of the module and it doesn't have the knock-on effects that a flat boost to hitpoints will have.
Montolio Spontaneous Defenestration	Posted - 2006.10.21 19:49:00 - [35] Originally by: Cheese999 Remove T2 ammo crystals and missiles (miners can keep their t2 crystals), keep all other T2 items. Instant reduction in DPS and range. No rebalancing required. Yes, please.
sesanti Minmatar Universal Exports Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2006.10.21 19:50:00 - [36] Edited by: sesanti on 21/10/2006 19:51:37 Isn't reduction by a certain % of the damage the weapons do, actually, quite the same as increasing HP? _______________________________________________ The ShadowMaster - <I am a guy... don't mind the portrait>
Wilfan Ret'nub Singularity.	Posted - 2006.10.21 19:59:00 - [37] Which combat needs extending and by how much? If it's extended by 50%, will it matter for every situation? 10 vs 1, gate gank? 50 vs 1, fleet snip-a-thon? 1 vs 1, interceptor duel? 1 vs 1, battleship duel? 1 vs 1, ambush of a NPCer in a belt? 1 vs 1, high sec indy suicide blowup? 20 vs 1, frigs trying to take down a Rattlesnake? ------ No ISK, no fun
starship enginer	Posted - 2006.10.21 20:07:00 - [38] Originally by: Wilfan Ret'nub Which combat needs extending and by how much? If it's extended by 50%, will it matter for every situation? 10 vs 1, gate gank? 50 vs 1, fleet snip-a-thon? 1 vs 1, interceptor duel? 1 vs 1, battleship duel? 1 vs 1, ambush of a NPCer in a belt? 1 vs 1, high sec indy suicide blowup? 20 vs 1, frigs trying to take down a Rattlesnake? imo 1: Doesnt matter, will not hurt 2: 50 vs 1 is instapop for all ships so doesnt matter 3: definitly, 1v1 intercepter or frig or cruiser can be way to fast, making it almost impossible to use tacktics [a good fight i once has was me in a harpy vs a blaster enyo, i had a tracking desrupter on him and he was finding it hard hitting me at his close orbits, me having rails ment i was too missing him too often, so i decide to turn off my guns and concerve cap, wait for 80% cap then allign and shoot, he started with low cap and i ended up winning, the fight lasted a good 3 mins and was uber.] 4: wount hurt, 1v1 BS duals are about right in time but i think some more time would benifit this 5: 1v1 npcer? erm yes why not, atm they cant really call for help, they are dead before any pals can come, this way at least ur a little safer if ur npcing with others in the system 6: high sec ganks will happen no matter the HP, im sure we will see a few freighter ganks in high sec once they drop loots 7: 20small vs 1 big: the one big will die VERY fast no matter his HP, he would also probably be jamed/damoped/nosf so his hp doesnt really matter but i still like the buff structure by 400% and make ships unuseable at 25% structure dmg

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.