Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 04:53:26 -
[1] - Quote
One thing that has struck me about this game is how vulnerable larger ships are to fast moving frigates. Its fairly easy for frigates to play havoc with various systems for battleships and capitals who don't have the tracking required to swat down the small ships with their large guns.
The only issue is that this is completely contrary to the way such ships work in real life, and would be designed for actual warfare. One of the benefits of having a huge ship is that there is a lot of space for mounting turret hardpoints, and not all of these have to be for the largest possible weapon that the ship can support. Just as battleships in real life have miniguns to complement their missile launchers and main guns, battleships in Eve would realistically have mounts for smaller weapons in order to deal with swarms of smaller craft armed with heavy weaponry or jamming devices that provide cover for incoming attacks. Balancing this would be tricky, but it seems worth attempting to do in order to increase immersion and realism of the game.
Thoughts? |
13kr1d1
Hedion University Amarr Empire
135
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 05:22:44 -
[2] - Quote
Point defenses are destroyers.
At 5 drones of T2, the Tristan is nearly as powerful as the Algos, with a cheaper price tag, better maneuverability and speed, and smaller sig radius to avoid the lazy carebearish T3 station blapping -10s who have no life. Pick tristan for FW.
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
8033
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 05:24:07 -
[3] - Quote
Reaver Lupus wrote:One thing that has struck me about this game is how vulnerable larger ships are to fast moving frigates. Its fairly easy for frigates to play havoc with various systems for battleships and capitals who don't have the tracking required to swat down the small ships with their large guns.
...
battleships in Eve would realistically have mounts for smaller weapons in order to deal with swarms of smaller craft armed with heavy weaponry or jamming devices that provide cover for incoming attacks.
And, relative to frigates, battleships have the potential for fitting...
Stasis Webifiers. Drones. Energy Neutralizers. Warp Scramblers. Massive HP. Massive active tanking.
Not to mention them having the greatest ability of any subcapital to take advantage of force multipliers (e.g. remote repairs).
Reaver Lupus wrote:The only issue is that this is completely contrary to the way such ships work in real life, Stop right there.
This is a game.
You balance based on the GAME'S NEEDS. Not on what real life is about. In this game... encouraging bigger, more "powerful" ships to have support ships to act as point defense encourages greater teamplay.
If we balanced everything based on real life...
- the larger the ship... the faster the ship would go (frigates would be the slowest ship in the game).
- the larger the ship... the more functionally immune to would be to any small ship (anything a class above would win by default... no one should fly any ship smaller than the largest avilable).
- the larger the ship... the less support it needs because it fulfilled most functions and roles by itself (exception: unless it is hyper-specialized).
How did you Veterans start?
The Skillpoint System and You
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
690
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 05:27:01 -
[4] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Reaver Lupus wrote:One thing that has struck me about this game is how vulnerable larger ships are to fast moving frigates. Its fairly easy for frigates to play havoc with various systems for battleships and capitals who don't have the tracking required to swat down the small ships with their large guns.
...
battleships in Eve would realistically have mounts for smaller weapons in order to deal with swarms of smaller craft armed with heavy weaponry or jamming devices that provide cover for incoming attacks.
And, relative to frigates, battleships have the potential for fitting... Stasis Webifiers. Drones. Energy Neutralizers. Warp Scramblers. Massive HP. Massive active tanking. Not to mention them having the greatest ability of any subcapital to take advantage of force multipliers (e.g. remote repairs). Reaver Lupus wrote:The only issue is that this is completely contrary to the way such ships work in real life, Stop right there. This is a game. You balance based on the GAME'S NEEDS. Not on what real life is about. In this game... encouraging bigger, more "powerful" ships to have support ships to act as point defense encourages greater teamplay. If we balanced everything based on real life... - the larger the ship... the faster the ship would go (frigates would be the slowest ship in the game). - the larger the ship... the more functionally immune to would be to any small ship (anything a class above would win by default... no one should fly any ship smaller than the largest avilable). - the larger the ship... the less support it needs because it fulfilled most functions and roles by itself (exception: unless it is hyper-specialized). Cost would also scale exponentially rather than merely geometrically, and the most advanced systems would always be deployed as soon as fully tested on the largest platforms, always and forever.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
2
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 05:31:36 -
[5] - Quote
it would definitely change the way that frigates would need to approach combat with larger ships, but just because point defense will destroy one frigate without batting an eyelash doesnt mean that it turns the larger ship into a god of war. In the Millenium challenge the US navy was in fact almost wiped out through the enemy strategically overwhelming their point defenses, first through a missile barrage and then by a swarm attack of small boats armed with heavy launchers.
It's not hard to see how this could be extrapolated to Eve, and would be pretty fun to play as well. A battleship could more easily handle a low number of small ships on its own, but would be vulnerable to a concerted attack from a fleet of small ships that could overwhelm its defenses and land serious hits. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
8033
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 05:56:12 -
[6] - Quote
Reaver Lupus wrote:In the Millenium challenge the US navy was in fact almost wiped out through the enemy strategically overwhelming their point defenses, first through a missile barrage and then by a swarm attack of small boats armed with heavy launchers.
It's not hard to see how this could be extrapolated to Eve, and would be pretty fun to play as well. A battleship could more easily handle a low number of small ships on its own, but would be vulnerable to a concerted attack from a fleet of small ships that could overwhelm its defenses and land serious hits. This is the funny part...
it already IS this way.
People just seem to have a unconscious problem with that because the common assumption is; the bigger and more powerful I am, the more I am unassailable to smaller targets. And this is true... but up to a point.
A single battleship that is fit in a more "standard" way (i.e. with webs, scrams and drones) can wipe out a few frigates by itself. A battleship against a swarm dies miserably.
James Baboli wrote:Cost would also scale exponentially rather than merely geometrically, and the most advanced systems would always be deployed as soon as fully tested on the largest platforms, always and forever. It already is.
A "standard" frigate costs, at most, 5 to 10 million ISK. A batteship costs around 200+ million ISK.
Plus, this is a game.
While cost does initially limit who can field what kind of ship... it eventually comes to a head where cost ceases to be a factor. Case and point; RR-carrier/Supercarrier formations. The number of Titans in the game as a whole. How fast as easily alliances can replace whole battleship fleets. etc.
How did you Veterans start?
The Skillpoint System and You
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
690
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 06:23:27 -
[7] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:James Baboli wrote:Cost would also scale exponentially rather than merely geometrically, and the most advanced systems would always be deployed as soon as fully tested on the largest platforms, always and forever. It already is. A "standard" frigate costs, at most, 5 to 10 million ISK. A batteship costs around 200+ million ISK. Plus, this is a game. While cost does initially limit who can field what kind of ship... it eventually comes to a head where cost ceases to be a factor. Case and point; RR-carrier/Supercarrier formations. The number of Titans in the game as a whole. How fast as easily alliances can replace whole battleship fleets. etc.
This is still merely geometric, rather than exponential, but it's splitting hairs at this point. I was trying to back up the earlier post about reality not being anything other than a potential inspiration for the game, and that game balance and fun trump mirroring reality in our deep space submarine simulator.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2500
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 06:28:19 -
[8] - Quote
So instead of noobs playing well being a credible threat to vets playing badly, the players who plex their accounts and buy chars just steam roll through gangs of players unless they have enough bodies to literally plug the Gun nozzles on the bs?
The former sounds more fun.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
690
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 06:34:20 -
[9] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:So instead of noobs playing well being a credible threat to vets playing badly, the players who plex their accounts and buy chars just steam roll through gangs of players unless they have enough bodies to literally plug the Gun nozzles on the bs?
The former sounds more fun. I have a well known thing for battleships and battlecruisers and think this idea, as proposed, is garbage.
The point-defense turret threads, which were asking for medium and large turrets with decent burst DPS and close to the size smaller's application were a much better implementation of the same impetus, and are much less abusable.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
4
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 06:50:54 -
[10] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:So instead of noobs playing well being a credible threat to vets playing badly, the players who plex their accounts and buy chars just steam roll through gangs of players unless they have enough bodies to literally plug the Gun nozzles on the bs?
The former sounds more fun. I have a well known thing for battleships and battlecruisers and think this idea, as proposed, is garbage. The point-defense turret threads, which were asking for medium and large turrets with decent burst DPS and close to the size smaller's application were a much better implementation of the same impetus, and are much less abusable. I think I may not have explained my proposal with enough detail then. That's pretty much exactly what I'm proposing. Though it seems more efficient to just add points for small turrets in addition to or in replacement of a large turret slot rather than creating a new type of turret that would basically fill the same role. Maybe just give the option to fit multiple turret sizes in a single slot depending on the hardpoint's size. i.e, a large slot could hold two medium turrets or 4 small turrets. This could be adjusted for balance issues, but it could potentially also open up larger ships to being dedicated for dealing with smaller craft, at the expense of being unable to engage other vessels of their own size. |
|
Cristl
233
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 06:54:38 -
[11] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Cost would also scale exponentially rather than merely geometrically
James Baboli wrote:This is still merely geometric, rather than exponential, but it's splitting hairs at this point.
What do you believe the difference between geometric and exponential to be? I've never come across a nation where they mean different things. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
690
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 07:12:52 -
[12] - Quote
Reaver Lupus wrote:James Baboli wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:So instead of noobs playing well being a credible threat to vets playing badly, the players who plex their accounts and buy chars just steam roll through gangs of players unless they have enough bodies to literally plug the Gun nozzles on the bs?
The former sounds more fun. I have a well known thing for battleships and battlecruisers and think this idea, as proposed, is garbage. The point-defense turret threads, which were asking for medium and large turrets with decent burst DPS and close to the size smaller's application were a much better implementation of the same impetus, and are much less abusable. I think I may not have explained my proposal with enough detail then. That's pretty much exactly what I'm proposing. Though it seems more efficient to just add points for small turrets in addition to or in replacement of a large turret slot rather than creating a new type of turret that would basically fill the same role. Maybe just give the option to fit multiple turret sizes in a single slot depending on the hardpoint's size. i.e, a large slot could hold two medium turrets or 4 small turrets. This could be adjusted for balance issues, but it could potentially also open up larger ships to being dedicated for dealing with smaller craft, at the expense of being unable to engage other vessels of their own size. For the add hardpoints for smaller turrets: Sweet Except that now we need space to fit these turrets, a UI redesign to give us a visual slot, an art re-work for hardpoints for them..
For the multiple guns to one slot. Need new art for the legions of guns some ships may end up sporting, and to recode the 1:1 ratios that currently exist between slots and modules. Also, the 4:1 ratio of small turrets gets hillarious when you run 32 Small Focused pulse laser II on an abadon, for 1200DPS with 2 heat sinks, hitting to 11km (before tracking mods) and applying like it is from a frigate, while being able to make this monstrosity cap stable, and triple plate it. Hillarious mockup here
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
690
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 07:16:31 -
[13] - Quote
Cristl wrote:James Baboli wrote:Cost would also scale exponentially rather than merely geometrically James Baboli wrote:This is still merely geometric, rather than exponential, but it's splitting hairs at this point. What do you believe the difference between geometric and exponential to be? I've never come across a nation where they mean different things. edit: except I would probably use geometric when talking about discrete progressions, and exponential when continuous. I misthought. I meant logarithmic rather than exponential, or potentially squares vs cubes.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2501
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 15:25:04 -
[14] - Quote
Reaver Lupus wrote: I think I may not have explained my proposal with enough detail then.
I think you didnt think it through really.
So how do you make a ship dedicated to hurting small ships less useful against ships of their own size and larger when multiple small turrets do more dps than large turrets and adding on extra turrets to BS's can only add even more dps? (see threads below)
Drones already have the function in a way, allowing larger ships to target frigs somewhat effectively, but with the added dynamic that they can be destroyed by the frig. If you remove drones and add extra turrets to replace them, there is no way that a good frig pilot can mitigate the threat of the smaller turrets and is doomed to lose. He cant even hold point for very long whilst a friendly gang arrives.
Why make good piloting less useful against isk and SP?
Here are some other threads on the same subject. Medium and large 'small' turrets Will turrets ever see the same love that (rapid fire) missiles got?
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
4
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 17:07:02 -
[15] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Reaver Lupus wrote: I think I may not have explained my proposal with enough detail then.
I think you didnt think it through really. So how do you make a ship dedicated to hurting small ships less useful against ships of their own size and larger when multiple small turrets do more dps than large turrets and adding on extra turrets to BS's can only add even more dps? (see threads below) Drones already have the function in a way, allowing larger ships to target frigs somewhat effectively, but with the added dynamic that they can be destroyed by the frig. If you remove drones and add extra turrets to replace them, there is no way that a good frig pilot can mitigate the threat of the smaller turrets and is doomed to lose. He cant even hold point for very long whilst a friendly gang arrives. Why make good piloting less useful against isk and SP? Here are some other threads on the same subject. Medium and large 'small' turretsWill turrets ever see the same love that (rapid fire) missiles got? All you have to do is either reduce the number of turrets per slot, apply penalties to their use by larger ships, or think "huh. this battleship hits at over 1000 dps in under 15 kilometers, but can't scratch my paint at 20, and its slow as anything. Maybe I should keep my distance." |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
59
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 18:07:56 -
[16] - Quote
I think the only form of point defense I could get behind is one that made as little change as possible to models and the like to avoid putting more work than is warranted into what would actually be a limited use feature/modules/mode/etc
EX: Battleship hull ONLY HIgh slot "Point defense" loaded with cap booster charges T1 can hold 16 m3 while T2 can hold 32 m3 hold (I'm sure you can guess why) Does not require hard point ~15/10s cycle time before skills, 1 minute reload ~20km range Will fire at every LOCKED target within it's range Damage is a multiplier of cap charge consumed split between struck targets --Single locked interceptor with a cap booster 800 loaded would alpha it (1 dead interceptor a minute, not exactly staggering) --Smaller charges do less damage but allow for more consistent "small arms" fire at the hostiles
Notice, the range is crap so does nothing to defend against a long point or organized groups. This is POINT DEFENSE after all. Being charge dependent with a long reload means it's actual unfocused damage output would be significantly limited even on a fleet scale with the hostiles were staying within blaster range. This is not hurr durr smartbomb I hit everything around me with the push of a button, this is susceptible to ECM and range.
Now that I put that forward, I'm not actually for a point defense system. I'd rather see a tweaking of larger weapon systems/EHP pools or a complete attack on the speed creep that has taken hold within our game. Or better yet, let's start rolling out more varieties of T2 BS, such as logistics or BS hulls that specialize in smaller/medium weapon systems. Take large reps away from cruiser logistics and put them on the BS hulls, etc. |
Reaver Lupus
Grey Reavers
14
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 21:23:28 -
[17] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:I think the only form of point defense I could get behind is one that made as little change as possible to models and the like to avoid putting more work than is warranted into what would actually be a limited use feature/modules/mode/etc
EX: Battleship hull ONLY HIgh slot "Point defense" loaded with cap booster charges T1 can hold 16 m3 while T2 can hold 32 m3 hold (I'm sure you can guess why) Does not require hard point ~15/10s cycle time before skills, 1 minute reload ~20km range Will fire at every LOCKED target within it's range Damage is a multiplier of cap charge consumed split between struck targets --Single locked interceptor with a cap booster 800 loaded would alpha it (1 dead interceptor a minute, not exactly staggering) --Smaller charges do less damage but allow for more consistent "small arms" fire at the hostiles
Notice, the range is crap so does nothing to defend against a long point or organized groups. This is POINT DEFENSE after all. Being charge dependent with a long reload means it's actual unfocused damage output would be significantly limited even on a fleet scale with the hostiles were staying within blaster range. This is not hurr durr smartbomb I hit everything around me with the push of a button, this is susceptible to ECM and range.
Now that I put that forward, I'm not actually for a point defense system. I'd rather see a tweaking of larger weapon systems/EHP pools or a complete attack on the speed creep that has taken hold within our game. Or better yet, let's start rolling out more varieties of T2 BS, such as logistics or BS hulls that specialize in smaller/medium weapon systems. Take large reps away from cruiser logistics and put them on the BS hulls, etc.
I like that idea.
My idea for multiple turrets per hard point would probably require some extensive adjustments to the game, even if they kept the models the same by just having the turret's firing animation sped up to match the number of smaller guns that would be assigned to it (4 small turrets equals 4 shots per cycle, basically your turrets are automatically grouped).
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2502
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 22:24:26 -
[18] - Quote
Reaver Lupus wrote: All you have to do is either reduce the number of turrets per slot, apply penalties to their use by larger ships, or think "huh. this battleship hits at over 1000 dps in under 15 kilometers, but can't scratch my paint at 20, and its slow as anything. Maybe I should keep my distance."
Think about that for a moment...
- If two meds make a large and two small make a med, where do i reduce the turrets? Sure i can make 2 small a large, but what about multi-turrets for cruisers? or anti-cruiser weapons for battleships? how do you make 1.5 mediums a large?
- whats web and scram range again?? so everything with point defense cant be tackled by anything smaller (i.e. the MAIN job of a frigate) and free to mwd to the moon and back?
And did you even read the other threads?? i ask because much of this thread is repetition. You've come here with a concept that isnt new and arent sure how you want to pursue that concept, where as the threads ive linked have the same concept, only with the same ideas as here and more on how to pursue it.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
Kiryen O'Bannon
Silver Guardians Fidelas Constans
229
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 22:37:07 -
[19] - Quote
Reaver Lupus wrote:it would definitely change the way that frigates would need to approach combat with larger ships, but just because point defense will destroy one frigate without batting an eyelash doesnt mean that it turns the larger ship into a god of war. In the Millenium challenge the US navy was in fact almost wiped out through the enemy strategically overwhelming their point defenses, first through a missile barrage and then by a swarm attack of small boats armed with heavy launchers.
You should not go based on a scenario in which the winning commander relied on physically impossible tactics like teleporting units around in the simulation.
Also, that scenario only works in heavily confined waters. Small boats cannot carry "heavy launchers" (whatever the **** those are); antiship missiles rapidly scale up in size and weight as they increase power and range.
Eternal Father, King of birth, /Who didst create the heaven and earth, /And bid the planets and the sun/ Their own appointed orbits run; /O hear us when we seek thy grace /For those who soar through outer space.
|
Spacemover
Paradise Holding
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 22:37:38 -
[20] - Quote
if we want to bring some realism in the game we should first put that speedcap aside. a car has a speedcap, a spaceship has only a cap on velocityincrease not velosity itself.
i get your idea, i realy like the books covering that parts (Michael McCollum anyone?) but i think realistic space battle is of the table. |
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
643
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 22:53:48 -
[21] - Quote
Reaver Lupus wrote:One thing that has struck me about this game is how vulnerable larger ships are to fast moving frigates. Its fairly easy for frigates to play havoc with various systems for battleships and capitals who don't have the tracking required to swat down the small ships with their large guns.
The only issue is that this is completely contrary to the way such ships work in real life, and would be designed for actual warfare. One of the benefits of having a huge ship is that there is a lot of space for mounting turret hardpoints, and not all of these have to be for the largest possible weapon that the ship can support. Just as battleships in modern times have miniguns to complement their missile launchers and main guns, battleships in Eve would realistically have mounts for smaller weapons in order to deal with swarms of smaller craft armed with heavy weaponry or jamming devices that provide cover for incoming attacks. Balancing this would be tricky, but it seems worth attempting to do in order to increase immersion and realism of the game.
Thoughts?
You do know in real life even with point defences navies mix up the fleets, right?
Since you mention caps....a carrier does not launch all by itself. It has a fleet. Its called defence in layers. Elint ships, picket defence ships, fast moving responders (destroyers and such), backups....the whole 9 yards. Plus the carriers combat and ewar/radar planes. PLus the air force's awacs covering the space (you do know the air force doesn't go should we tell the carrier fleet there are 20 bogeys inbpound on them.....nah, screw em we are air force plus I lost 200 in the last army navy game...let em burn) . If close enough to shore the air forces's ready planes on the deck if needed. PLus subs under the sea. plus some guys in a special room somewhere looking over satellite pictures often. Hell if Marines being transported around it has their assets.
In short that carrier is doing anything BUT....floating alone and solo.
Funny fact is if the day comes the flagship of a navy fleet is attacked and uses its point defence while the gunner on that weapon will be the hero of the day that fleet commander and lots of other officers will have a nice little fact finding/witch hunt session as to how the damn missiles and/or migs (since a common plane amongst non Nato forces....Russians sold a few of them, communism wasn't free either lol) was even able to be a threat to the flagship in the first place. It/they passed a lot of layers of defence to reach the flagship, inquiring minds would like to know why.
In WWII..navies launched in layered fleets too. BS can't inspect and take care of pings too well. Ever seen one of those big boats turn? It takes minutes to do an extreme course change. Put more simply....BS can't handle sub contacts worth a damn.
Also as mentioned this is a game. Noobs fly the small ships. This makes them feel like they are more than just cannon fodder. They may be all the same crew depending....but they can at least be effective cannon fodder lol. Unlike my time in say world of warhammer where in tier 4 pvp which stretched from level 29 to max level at some point me running a melee dps witch elf was going so why am I here as the uber level uber raid gear tank swatted me away. I was just left to picking off easy targets If I could. Then I made the decision to reroll later in the game when I changed to a guild on the order side. On a server with heavy level 40+ population. +1 to the zerg basically as I had no easy targets and was just a number to push objective claiming. Not the most fun I had in that game tbh. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2452
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 23:19:39 -
[22] - Quote
I am of the group that large ships beat small ships too easily, Reaver.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
Christopher Mabata
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
321
|
Posted - 2015.05.18 23:28:22 -
[23] - Quote
The idea with eve was make it so larger ships aren't the end game and to encourage fleet cooperation. If a battleship can just insta-swat a frigate and everything larger can too without even batting an eyelash then what becomes the point of frigates ? Same goes for cruisers and destroyers, eventually they serve no use and they simply stagnate and die.
Point defense only gives us: - Laughably broken ship balancing - Stagnation both in variety and market for most smaller hulls - Reduced interfleet cooperation requirements - lack of incentive to fly with others when your large ship starts to do more than it should
I prefer the idea of an EvE where if a battleship gets tackled by a frigate gang unprepared they pay the price for it, or carriers caught ratting by cruiser gangs. Sure they can fight back, sometimes win, but they shouldn't get a free pass to just swat down everything they have a few meters on in size.
#USA #PODSQUAD #Waitthisisn'ttwitterthenewlookconfusedme
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6718
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 02:11:44 -
[24] - Quote
Some group of blobbers will form a ball of big ships and wreck someone...
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
13kr1d1
Hedion University Amarr Empire
138
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 04:41:42 -
[25] - Quote
Spacemover wrote:if we want to bring some realism in the game we should first put that speedcap aside. a car has a speedcap, a spaceship has only a cap on velocityincrease not velosity itself.
i get your idea, i realy like the books covering that parts (Michael McCollum anyone?) but i think realistic space battle is of the table.
In space war, and space relations, it makes sense to have a relative speedcap imposed on your ships.
If you shoot your ship to 10,000 km/s, you lose maneuverability, you expend tons of fuel to stop that ship, etc.
If you limit your relative speed to 500 m/s, you have reaction time for humans to do something in space when docking/undocking or firing weapons, you have much less fuel expended, etc.
It is entirely reasonable that speed limits in space for anything other than highly linear motion would be speedcapped.
How slow do you think space shuttles IRL go in order to pull forward and dock at a space station? That's relative speeds, and they certainly don't fly at 10,000 km/s towards a space station right before reversing thrust and docking.
At 5 drones of T2, the Tristan is nearly as powerful as the Algos, with a cheaper price tag, better maneuverability and speed, and smaller sig radius to avoid the lazy carebearish T3 station blapping -10s who have no life. Pick tristan for FW.
|
13kr1d1
Hedion University Amarr Empire
138
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 05:25:56 -
[26] - Quote
Speaking of point defense and battleships, ships today generally have only the big guns, and destroyers only have missiles and tanks only have a large main gun, rather than 4-5 different sizes of guns for different threats. This isn't world war 2 anymore, and they've designed their fleet to do the same thing we do in EvE: specialize the biggest gun the hull can carry for a certain job, defend with either "drones" a.k.a. aircraft, or smaller support ships.
At 5 drones of T2, the Tristan is nearly as powerful as the Algos, with a cheaper price tag, better maneuverability and speed, and smaller sig radius to avoid the lazy carebearish T3 station blapping -10s who have no life. Pick tristan for FW.
|
To mare
Advanced Technology
405
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 06:54:37 -
[27] - Quote
if you think about it battleships in EVE are going down the same path of battleships in real life, going extinct.
speak about realistic |
13kr1d1
Hedion University Amarr Empire
138
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 08:20:38 -
[28] - Quote
Christopher Mabata wrote:The idea with eve was make it so larger ships aren't the end game and to encourage fleet cooperation. If a battleship can just insta-swat a frigate and everything larger can too without even batting an eyelash then what becomes the point of frigates ? Same goes for cruisers and destroyers, eventually they serve no use and they simply stagnate and die.
Point defense only gives us: - Laughably broken ship balancing - Stagnation both in variety and market for most smaller hulls - Reduced interfleet cooperation requirements - lack of incentive to fly with others when your large ship starts to do more than it should
I prefer the idea of an EvE where if a battleship gets tackled by a frigate gang unprepared they pay the price for it, or carriers caught ratting by cruiser gangs. Sure they can fight back, sometimes win, but they shouldn't get a free pass to just swat down everything they have a few meters on in size.
Except we already have that scenario anyway.
Light drones, webs, large neuts. You'd have to be asleep to not realize that all BS fleets or all cap fleets are more powerful, precisely because of the whole drones and neuts trump cards.
At 5 drones of T2, the Tristan is nearly as powerful as the Algos, with a cheaper price tag, better maneuverability and speed, and smaller sig radius to avoid the lazy carebearish T3 station blapping -10s who have no life. Pick tristan for FW.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1156
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 08:58:14 -
[29] - Quote
13kr1d1 wrote:Speaking of point defense and battleships, ships today generally have only the big guns, and destroyers only have missiles and tanks only have a large main gun, rather than 4-5 different sizes of guns for different threats. This isn't world war 2 anymore, and they've designed their fleet to do the same thing we do in EvE: specialize the biggest gun the hull can carry for a certain job, defend with either "drones" a.k.a. aircraft, or smaller support ships.
Ships today don't have big guns at all, there are no battleships in service at the moment I think? And it was back in HMS Dreadnaught days when the shift was made to 'All big guns' with a standardized (eventually Dual Purpose) secondary armament. Carriers made all such ships obsolete (much as in Eve!) and modern fleets are centred around the carrier and the layered defence (above and below the water) thereof. Aircraft and missiles are the weapon of choice for modern fleets.
Something interesting I saw the other day that surprised me was that the original 'battleships' were actually heavily armoured frigates. It took a while for them to grow and that was only because the weapon mounts for the turrets grew. |
Anthar Thebess
1037
|
Posted - 2015.05.19 09:32:56 -
[30] - Quote
Because ....
Lets go just nuts. My carrier have 40x 4 RML for fighting smaller ships 20 x 3 250mm T2 Rails , just to get all those nasty cruisers 15 x 2 1600mm T2 artys , to hit potential battle ship targets over a bigger range.
( all this is controlled automatically )
Now i have additionally full wing of fighters , and tons of other drones.
I want this ship! Especially when it will come with 254 other similar friends on field.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |