| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Rickenbacker
   |
Posted - 2003.12.05 11:43:00 -
[331]
 Quote:
Merlin, small and fast, but lower power(thus range) can lock onto the Scorp in 2seconds and the Dom in 2.1, due to the large size and sig.
Other way around, right? The bigger target should take less time to lock. Other than that this makes a lot of sense. Bigger targets should take shorter time, smaller ones longer time, regardless of the size of your ship.
|
Miri Tirzan
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 12:19:00 -
[332]
Quote:
Quote:
Merlin, small and fast, but lower power(thus range) can lock onto the Scorp in 2seconds and the Dom in 2.1, due to the large size and sig.
Other way around, right? The bigger target should take less time to lock. Other than that this makes a lot of sense. Bigger targets should take shorter time, smaller ones longer time, regardless of the size of your ship.
That last statements logic just lost me. How can bigger be regardless of size?
svetlana - "whining gets you stuff. that is why humans got to the top of the food chain and all the other animals got nerfed."
|
Miri Tirzan
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 12:34:00 -
[333]
TomB,
can you explain the logic behind this? The part I dont understand is why larger ships have worse scanners than smaller ships? I easily understand the logic behind signature radius.
Actually I think that signature radius is a great addition because it now establishs the mechanics that could be used to make EW be more than the "I got first lock, so I own you that it currently is."
What I dont understand is how a bigger ship has worse scanners. Everything else I have seen in RL, which does not necessarily apply to a game, indicates that larger warships have the better than smaller warships with the same technology.
I also have a suggestion. Have two levels of target locks, a weapons grade lock needed to fire weapons or targeted missiles and a general lock used for navigation, EW, mining, and other non-direct combat operations.
This would allow the smaller ship to attemp to approach a larger ship without being fired on but would still allow all ships to use the various navigation commands (orbit, keep at range, etc... .), mining, EW. I also think that the general lock should not be effected by EW to allow two ships to use EW on each other.
svetlana - "whining gets you stuff. that is why humans got to the top of the food chain and all the other animals got nerfed."
|
Vel Kyri
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 13:32:00 -
[334]
You do realise that you can use those "navigation commands" keep at range etc without having to lock the target...
-----
|
Rickenbacker
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 13:56:00 -
[335]
I meant that the size of the target should matter, regardless of the size of your ship. I.e. a cruiser and a BS should target the same size enemy in the same time.
|
SwitchBl4d3
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 14:02:00 -
[336]
from what ive read skipping a few pages this means to be effient in combat you will need a USAF style fleet to activly participate in combat. which is great on the whole but you will need to remove mwd for this truly to be effective and bring otu a tech 2 frig pronto
"Teh lord of Nonni"
|
Soul Reaver
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 14:06:00 -
[337]
:)
Be you a Pirate or a Simple Alt creeper! Sooner or later you'll dance with Soul Reaver and His Amazing Underpants
Currently chasing Lianhaun |
Gan Ning
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 15:39:00 -
[338]
Tomb, I like the change, it makes much more sence and and it balanced well.
There isn't a lot of difference between battleships so I dont really undestand why some are complaining.
I had lots of fun on Chaos flying around BS's in a frigate tormenting them. And taking pot shots.
I kept doing it, and using tracking disruptors until someone Smart bombed me.
 |
SwitchBl4d3
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 16:09:00 -
[339]
this will definetly be welcomed as you will see frigate cruiser BS combo, used to the full potential. and as said previous BS vs BS wont make a different, /me runs to buy a vigil BP.
"Teh lord of Nonni"
|
Gan Howorth
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 16:34:00 -
[340]
Edited by: Gan Howorth on 05/12/2003 16:35:14
I see the big problem is why should a bs take longer to lock than a frig Vs the same target. Way l see it, both may well lock in the same time frame, but a frig pilot simply squeezes his virtual trigger to start firing, a BS captain has to inform and co-ordinate his staff, bring massive guns to bear on the target etc..
e.g. Capt Picard "fire photon torpedoes fire control" Weapons officer passes order along to crew who carry out task, internal communication on BS will take longer. Otherwise, what exactly are those 1000's of other staff doing on the ship in the first place eh??
Nuff said.
|
|
|
McWatt
|
Posted - 2003.12.05 20:31:00 -
[341]
Edited by: McWatt on 05/12/2003 20:33:35
good point made by Gan Howorth above, for all you dudes who need explantions.
this is a game, so don t worry too much about stuff like this while we have real problems, will you?
so if small ships targetting faster helps them, let them do it.
|
White Tiger
|
Posted - 2003.12.06 01:43:00 -
[342]
The system works fine the way it is now? Why muck with it?
Seriously...I haven't read all these pages yet but it seems that, from what I have heard, the Devs want to get Cruisers and Frigates "back into the game" so to speak. To do this they are going to Penalize the Battleships.
Why?
Everybody seems to think that the only way that you can currently win against a Battleship is by having another Battleship. This is not the case. I ROUTINELY go up against battleships in a Cruiser or group of cruisers. In my experience this has resulted in one of three outcomes: 1) I get blown up, 2) The Battleship runs away because of damage or 3) I run away because of Damage.
If I am in a group of Cruisers 9 times out of 10 the battleship runs away.
So I guess my point, or question, is this: How is reducing the effectiveness of Battleships going to increase the use of Frigates and cruisers?
White Tiger
Founding Member and CEO of Tactical Advisory Group
"The Only Easy Day was Yesterday." |
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2003.12.06 15:43:00 -
[343]
@TomB:
@TomB:
@TomB:
No mather what u do or change: this game needs more pvp! Players that dont like pvp have empire space. Players that want pvp must have a playground or they will all leave.
Plz consider this:
- jumpgates like stations: docking and undocking (player decision).
- warp to any location with selectable ranges between 30-200k distance. NOT LESS THAN 30k to make blockades possible. (player decision)
- Dont change lock times...change the way speed affects to hit ships and make small (weak) ships fast and big heavy ships slow. For example a 425 gun should do massive damage on a slow Raven but only small damage to a frigate. Use speed of target as value, not rad-speed of turret.
My opinion is: this fixes pvp, because:
- jumpin-problem solved: players have to undock jumpgates after entering the solar system and if they undock...it was their own decision. They can check local.
- Blockades will be possible. This is most important for all pvp players to be able to trap enemys and block them away.
- Small ships will get interesting when BS are not able to kill them with 1 shot.
|
Keefus
|
Posted - 2003.12.06 22:10:00 -
[344]
mmm i think they goona go Break it again.......
Why try to Fix something thats not Broken?
seesh they never Learn 
------------------------------------------------
mmmmm Carrot juice! |
McWatt
|
Posted - 2003.12.07 19:50:00 -
[345]
Quote:
It would also have to be displayed in the attribute tablet for the guns, either that it has simply extra attributes to the already long list:
Large Gun
Chance of hitting battleship: 100%
Chance of hitting cruiser: 50%
Chance of hitting frigate: 25%
Or by some other means which would be based on signature radius which would be even more complex than current accuracy/targeting system is.
It does sound simple, but it would still be much more of a hassle to create. In all it would have very similar outcome as longer targeting time for smaller vessels, but for two fleets meeting in battle you would know that you can target a frigate/cruiser in your battleship that is bugging your battleship friend at long range and make him toast in very few shots.
i don t understand this argument.
changing targeting speed (and frigate MWDs) will allow frigates to slip through blockades unless there is "stopper" frigate present. this is a good thing
it too will allow a frigate to close in with a battleship. this is good, too.
problem is, so what?
apart from being easy prey to different anti-frigate weapons, it s an easy target for other battleships after the locking time runs out.
and a typical frigate wont be able to do relevant damage, anyway.
only speed based damage reduction to heavy weapons could fix this, assuming frigates become faster than other ships.
a good idea to increase the damage a frigate can do with turrets, would be to consider them to be inside the hardeners while being on low orbit...
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.12.08 08:49:00 -
[346]
"apart from being easy prey to different anti-frigate weapons, it s an easy target for other battleships after the locking time runs out.
and a typical frigate wont be able to do relevant damage, anyway."
... You should check what kind of damage the 'typical frigates' can do to battleships on Chaos. For last couple of days m0o people have been taking on the battleships and cruisers in pack of 3-4 frigates there, killing them left and right or sending them running...
Small turrets are often underestimated. ;s
|
Sassinak
|
Posted - 2003.12.08 10:06:00 -
[347]
its actually quite straightforward to take out a bship with a small group of frigates now. as long as you loadout to compliment each other.the only problems we run into was either an army of drones :P or if the battleship launched a buttload of torps/cruise missiles. other than that, we were pretty much immune to any turret fire. the only hits being scored on us were by chance. if they opened fire at 20k however would of been a different story. ph33r teh fr1gate 
Sass
Arcane Technologies |
Woetra
|
Posted - 2003.12.08 10:36:00 -
[348]
Can we have specialized modules that allow us to specialize our targetting?
e.g:
Broad Spectral scan Mod
"tunes ships scanners to optimise locking times against battleships"
75% faster lock on battleships
100% slower lock on frigates and cruisers
and same for other ship classes?
This would give players even more reason to use a wider variety of ship classes, but stillallow PvP'ers to fight without needing 30mil of implants to sit in a warzone in a paper frigate
Sig Thief
|
Ninja Panda
|
Posted - 2003.12.08 12:38:00 -
[349]
I should really create a new thread as my comments definately fall under category of flame. In fact I probably will after my rant
Ive read through this thread though and I see lots of people saying 'oh yeah, mixed fleet battles , oh I love it' - get real !!!
Most of you saying this have never PVP'd in eve in your life or if you did you wasnt very good and got ganked by a player in a Battleship
TO ENGAGE SOMEONE IN EVE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO FIGHT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE - unless he/she is a noob.
The above is FACT, if you PVP a lot you know what I am saying is correct. You are now effectively saying that instead of sitting at a gate in my BS alone praying for some unsuspecting noob to fly by afk (coz if they have a brain they warp away) , I now have to get 5 friends in various vessels to also sit bored out of their minds with me just praying said noob victim doesnt have 2 MWD on.
If you no longer want PVP just have the guts to say so ?
1. Fix client vs server load times
2. Remove invunerability timer
3. Create a warp to module for use when using scanner.
Once you have done the 3 things above, THEN you should thinking about making other ship types viable.
If you go live as is its the end of PVP and the end of EVE for me. You will see 4 Kestrals which cost less than a million isk destroying every 90million isk battleship they come across.
The plan currently is VERY BAD
Nubtastic Nubmen, to the Nubmobile
|
Nicholas Marshal
|
Posted - 2003.12.08 12:40:00 -
[350]
Sounds good to me.
|
|
|
Chatelaine
|
Posted - 2003.12.08 14:34:00 -
[351]
Edited by: Chatelaine on 08/12/2003 14:35:48
This might have been said before in this thread but I don't have time to read it all through.
It seems like there is already a system in place to make smaller ships harder to target by larger ships. That's why battleships have a higher base targeting time than cruisers etc. Now it's proposed that yet another, although more rational, system is placed on top of it.
The game will not get better by having as many variables as possible that noone can understand or predict.
All ships should have the same base targeting time, assuming they are using similar technology. Then take in account for signature size, that's logical for me. Bigger ships have bigger equipment and greater range. That's logical too.
What is the PvP aspect on this again? Giving small ships time to close in on the bigger ones so they can use their shorter ranged weapons and avoid fire because the large weapons have poorer tracking? Then tactical shields should also depend on signature size (larger signature->larger field->less field density/protection) to protect somewhat from the smartbombs.
Keep it simple, keep it logical. |
Bruen
|
Posted - 2003.12.08 14:38:00 -
[352]
Quote:
TO ENGAGE SOMEONE IN EVE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO FIGHT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE - unless he/she is a noob.
Why would you want to attack someone who doesn't want to PVP?
If you believe the boards then there are lots of people who do want to PVP just like you, just go and fight with them.
Or are you really saying that you are only interested in "PVP" where your opponant stands no chance.
-----------------
The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.
- J. B. S. Haldane |
Ninja Panda
|
Posted - 2003.12.08 16:35:00 -
[353]
Bruen, I see where you may have mis-understood me but to me it seems even if explain you will not agree as you seem to have already painted me as some coward.
I welcome 1vs1 battles etc and NO I dont mean defenseless people.
I mean when you attempt to control and area of space and 1 lone vessel enters. With the current poor state of EVE, if that 1 person is clued up he never has to fight, except due to lag. Even if I chased him from belt to belt (not that this would happen as he would either find safe spot or make run at gate) I could not engage him due to invunerability timers. Even if I called in 40,50 or 60 other ships to help me he could still warp around between safe spots talking smack knowing he is safe.
Honestly Bruen , trust me and the other 20 or 30 people who actually try to PVP daily and have posted to this thread. There are other things to address before lock times. If this change is to be in conjuction with removal of invun times etc then that needs to be clearly stated before constructive comments can be made.
I don't like it when people use RL or other Sci Fi examples to make points but when have you ever seen a space ship scan a system, see its target but not be able to do **** about it.
The star trek bod Ensign Suicide 'Captain, we have found our sister ship on the scanner, she is emitting distress call'
Captain Picard 'Ok Ensign take us to her, warp 7'
Ensign Suicide 'Sorry sir, we dont have that feature. All our scanners can do is give us pretty names for things'
Nubtastic Nubmen, to the Nubmobile
|
Estios
|
Posted - 2003.12.08 16:50:00 -
[354]
Edited by: Estios on 08/12/2003 17:07:27
Ana, I think you should probably quit your whole speed calculations idea now. You dont have a clue.
I cant beleive you said Jash talks out his ass.
Not only have you been proven wrong a few times you then say about Nav skill that it gives bonus to BS as well as Frig so isn't a factor ....LOL Nav 4 gives 20% more speed. 20% of base 150 isnt nearly as much as 20% of base 315
Also AB's give PERCENTAGE increase to speed. 30% of 300 is bigger increase in m/s than 30% of 150. I suggest you get a calculator out before calling other people an ass
Drop the fact, your maths isn't up to it Im afraid
So HMV consider Andy Williams and Dean Martin to be "easy listening" do they? Tell that to my mate Dave, he's been deaf for 20 years.
|
drunkenmaster
|
Posted - 2003.12.08 17:47:00 -
[355]
Ninja Panda, have you even *tried* these new changes on chaos? Or are you just complaining because you misinterpreted what you read?
Check the JIP thread (sticky) in Patch Review.
Check the speed changes thread.
And maybe reread this one.
All these things are happening together.
.
|
McWatt
|
Posted - 2003.12.08 19:55:00 -
[356]
Quote:
Small turrets are often underestimated. ;s
always nice to hear this. thx.
anyone tested a second battleship giving protective crossfire so far???
|
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.12.09 11:36:00 -
[357]
Edited by: Ana Khouri on 09/12/2003 11:37:37
Quote:
Edited by: Estios on 08/12/2003 17:07:27
Ana, I think you should probably quit your whole speed calculations idea now. You dont have a clue.
I cant beleive you said Jash talks out his ass.
Not only have you been proven wrong a few times you then say about Nav skill that it gives bonus to BS as well as Frig so isn't a factor ....LOL Nav 4 gives 20% more speed. 20% of base 150 isnt nearly as much as 20% of base 315
Also AB's give PERCENTAGE increase to speed. 30% of 300 is bigger increase in m/s than 30% of 150. I suggest you get a calculator out before calling other people an ass
Drop the fact, your maths isn't up to it Im afraid
First - could you please use a quote the next time, I had to search this thread up to page10 so I found what you are talking about.
As for math - I would rather suggest this to you. Or get glasses.
Again:
My statement was: A BS is as fast/faster than a frig if you use 2 overdrives and 1 AB. Jash told me to proove it with a Virgil and a Typhoon.
A typhoon. 150 speed. Now add to this 2 32 ms overdrives. 150 + 2 * 32 = 214. Now stir this with a AB. Which uses these 214 ms as speed. With lvl4 in the acelleration control skill and the rarest AB (Lif) it will give you a nice 56% bonus. So, 214 * 1.56 = 333
333 > 315
Navigation does not matter here because it gives boni to the CURRENT speed, not the BASE speed. Same thing with ABs.
free speech not allowed here |
Estios
|
Posted - 2003.12.09 12:58:00 -
[358]
Ok Ana, I'm not in game right now so will not flame you again here. I just don't feel their is a need to call someone an ass to prove a point even if Jash does seem a little 'all knowing' some of the time.
I still don't think you have a valid point. I'm still pretty sure that Nav skill boosts base speed and doesnt Min Frig skill on most frigs boost speed ? We are getting way off topic here so I will stop.
TomB, I have been on Chaos and things are beginning to look and feel a LITTLE better. Your initial figures were way too extreme and I still stick by my feelings that PVP is currently hard to ever initiate and not sure this is helping matters. Coupled however with other changes being made such as warp distances and possible removal of Invun Timers they begin to make sense.
This Ninja Panda guy may be hasty in his posts but he does have a fairly humorous point regarding ship scanners, they are not very realistic or even that useful. Will this be addressed soon ? (apologies if their is another thread regarding this)
It is clear and easy to make a summary of this thread though:
1. People feel mixed fleets are a good idea
2. People feel making smaller faster ships harder to hit with large guns is a MUCH better solution than slowing lock times.
3. People feel there are other area's of EVE in its current state that should be addressed before pipe dreams of huge fleet battles.
I personally urge you to leave this change until after Castor as its receiving a lot of hostility (then again what hasn't I guess )
My pipe dream - people who play on Chaos should get some sort of reduction in their monthly subscription. Who wants to pay a monthly fee to spend half their game time playing on a test server ???
Tranq server figures too low ? coz they're all on Chaos
So HMV consider Andy Williams and Dean Martin to be "easy listening" do they? Tell that to my mate Dave, he's been deaf for 20 years.
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2003.12.09 13:33:00 -
[359]
Edited by: Zyrla Bladestorm on 09/12/2003 13:35:04
Quote:
My statement was: A BS is as fast/faster than a frig if you use 2 overdrives and 1 AB. Jash told me to proove it with a Virgil and a Typhoon.
A typhoon. 150 speed. Now add to this 2 32 ms overdrives. 150 + 2 * 32 = 214. Now stir this with a AB. Which uses these 214 ms as speed. With lvl4 in the acelleration control skill and the rarest AB (Lif) it will give you a nice 56% bonus. So, 214 * 1.56 = 333
333 > 315
Navigation does not matter here because it gives boni to the CURRENT speed, not the BASE speed. Same thing with ABs.
ok this thread is about a future version of eve .. as a result you really have to take into acount the future environment .. this includes the speed changes which you yourself have also posted about
to wit different ships get different amounts of speed out of items such as afterburners, typically the slowest frigate gets a lot more % out of an AB than an battleship now
Edit add :
also the targeting changes work well ... I think now is the perfect time since they go with the other changes so well :D
.
-----
Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Rodj Blake
|
Posted - 2003.12.09 14:34:00 -
[360]
Quote:
Edited by: Gan Howorth on 05/12/2003 16:35:14
I see the big problem is why should a bs take longer to lock than a frig Vs the same target. Way l see it, both may well lock in the same time frame, but a frig pilot simply squeezes his virtual trigger to start firing, a BS captain has to inform and co-ordinate his staff, bring massive guns to bear on the target etc..
e.g. Capt Picard "fire photon torpedoes fire control" Weapons officer passes order along to crew who carry out task, internal communication on BS will take longer. Otherwise, what exactly are those 1000's of other staff doing on the ship in the first place eh??
Nuff said.
Another thing to consider is that because a battleship has a larger scanning range, it's scanning a larger volume of space in order to get a lock.
Dolce et decorum est pro imperator mori |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |