EVE Search - Tux, are you happy with the state of Combat?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Tux, are you happy with the state of Combat?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2007.01.14 22:42:00 - [1] Are you happy with the state of combat? I see several problems at the moment, firstly short range ships being of extremely limited in use beyond 1 vs. 1 and very small scale engagements, the second that of multiple km/sec Battleships zipping around like interceptors. Thirdly, large numbers ships blobbing into tiny volumes of space with no penalty or risk. Short range Battleships: Simply put, these are too short ranged. All of them have to realistically operate a MWD over an afterburner; all are limited pretty much to web range. A long range turret ship (E.g Megathron using 425mm IIÆs) is able to typically control its range from 40km (+30km falloff) through to around 150km (+30km falloff) simply by changing ammunition. The short range equivalent (Neutron Blaster Cannon IIÆs) a mere 4.5km (+12.5km falloff) through to 11.25km (+15.6km falloff). For this +600% range advantage, the long range ship is still dealing 65% of the DPS of the short range ship. Where is the role for the short range ship again? Where is the role for the entire Gallente racial doctrine? (blasters and drones)à àNow what if all Short range turrets had their combined optimal + falloff range increased by +50%... Mega Pulse II: Current - 24km + 8km Boosted û 36km + 12km Boosted skills û 45km + 15km àWith T2 ranged ammo û 67.5km +15km 800mm II: Current û 4.8km + 16km Boosted û 7.2km + 24km Boosted with skills û 9km + 30km àWith T2 ranged ammo 9km + 45km Neutron Blaster II Current û 7.2km + 10km Boosted û 10.8km + 15km Boosted with skills û 13.5km + 18.75 àWith T2 ranged ammo û 16.9km + 23.4km à.Blasters and Autocannons fall into a æShort rangeÆ band which is now in the 10-50km, MWDs are no longer mandatory, though Afterburners would still be desirable, both as a method of finer range control and as a way of keeping transversal velocity up (taking advantage of the superior tracking of their own turrets). Pulse lasers sit in their own æMid rangeÆ band as before, but it is now around 30-80km, Very little manoeuvring is required here, sitting well with the Amarrian doctrine of a Phalanx of laser equipped ships, neither MWD or AB are required. Long range turrets meanwhile still have their 100-200km dominance. Final note: As a consequence of the range increases, it may or may not be worth considering a 50% increase to Warp disrupter range, i.e. T1/Meta - 30km, Top faction(Domination) û 45km ---------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2007.01.14 22:43:00 - [2] Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 14/01/2007 22:40:39 Insane speed setups As for 100MN MWDS? These would no longer needed for short range Battleships to be viable, simply remove 100MN MWDÆs from the game. Nano-Battleships using Afterburners will still be able approach the speeds of MWDÆing cruisers (and with no increase in signature radius, will still avoid large turret fire very effectively), but the ridiculous situation of Battleship setups out-pacing interceptors/drones/the works will no longer be possible. Battleships are the heavy hitters and should operate as such. The Blob ItÆs already been hinted at in past Dev blogs about æpotent AOE weaponsÆ. Well take a look at the fittings for the Apocalypse Tempest and Megathron and notice the one thing rarely ever used: Launcher hardpoints Few people tend to use these as, well, missiles are to be frank a bit cack on non-dedicated ships, and why waste that last slot when you can contribute to the NOS-fest?à àBlast/Fragmentation Torpedoesà Damage: 500 Blast radius: 8km RoF penalty: 0.75x Volume: 0.3m^3 Max velocity: 900 m/sec +5% damage per level of Torpedo skill) Upon hitting its target it is basically a Smartbomb blast, yes that makes it more of a 0.0 weapon (unless youÆre feeling brave in a battle in empire space). The Rof Penalty is there to prevent them becoming dealing out more DPS than regular torpedoes. By itself a single Blast torpedo is not much of a threat to a Battleship, however, get overlapping detonations on that tightly packed blob (i.e. multiple torpedoes fired at multiple targets) and itÆs a different story. Forcing blobs to spread out reduces the fire arcs that the entire blob can focus its fire on, leading to more interesting possibilities (e.g. flanking). ---------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial	Posted - 2007.01.14 22:49:00 - [3] Those changes are ridiculous. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2007.01.14 23:07:00 - [4] Place-holder for a valid argument? ---------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Stelteck Minmatar FRENCH NAVY Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.01.14 23:13:00 - [5] Another point is that short range turret need less powergrid and CPU, so using short range BS allow the fitting of a far better tank than a sniper BS. Stelteck. Tau ceti FEDERATION F-NAVY "Brakes are for cowards"
Xendie Forsaken Empire The Forsaken Empire	Posted - 2007.01.14 23:17:00 - [6] Originally by: Goumindong Those changes are ridiculous. actually he is on to a not so bad idea. maybe it needs fiddling abit with it to get it just right. the long range guns of today is "extreme range" and the short range are "micro range" and this idea puts the question out there if there isnt any better way of doing it. it sure needs some thinking and tweaking propably. good stuff. Quote: Nertzius > having fun being incompetitent? Quote: jake sisko > its f-e's bob dev alt making lag
Ihar Enda Caldari	Posted - 2007.01.14 23:34:00 - [7] Edited by: Ihar Enda on 14/01/2007 23:33:12 Interesting changes. The OP is definitely onto something. I like it mostly because it helps battle "the blob". Nice. edit: I approve the range changes, I don't really care about the new missles.
korrey Taurus Inc	Posted - 2007.01.15 00:06:00 - [8] Originally by: Goumindong Those changes are ridiculous. No, current combat is ridiculous. This guy is posting his ideas so they can be considered, with backing. So...why are they ridiculous? There isnt much any one person could do to screw up combat more than its been in the last few months.
Aleph Phrozen	Posted - 2007.01.15 00:23:00 - [9] Why limit AoE weaponry to just missiles and smartbombs? Gimme some flak guns, explosive shells, and (??bouncing lasers??) One blob vs another blob at 100km out, is there anything important that determines the outcome besides numbers of snipers?
El Yatta Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.01.15 00:26:00 - [10] Most recent dev thinking on combat range has been to reduce it - I dont know whether the full result of that was the 20% nerf of spike/aurora/tremor or whether that was just the firs part of it, but more range is generally not desirable with most current thinking. That said your argument of making BS ab very common but removing BS MWD, enhancing blasters and such, and removing uberspeedbs is quite well thought out. A minor criticism: Enhancing short range weapons by such a margin means nobody will ever use long-range weapons with anything other than spike/aurora/tremor because it will always be more economical with fittings and better tracking to use short range weapons with their longrange ammo. Nobody will ever use am/emp/javelin/quake etc, which impinges a lot on certain ships that seem only good in that role (Maelstrom anyone?). This is already kinda the case with lasers as the range/damage with megapulses and scorch is similar to tachs with gleam but are much easier to fit. ---\|\|---
Kazender Caldari	Posted - 2007.01.15 00:32:00 - [11] Edited by: Kazender on 15/01/2007 00:29:00 Ok, firstly it's good to see a post that has an idea backed up by an argument rather than "this is my idea, isn't it 1337". However I'm afraid I don't agree with it. Seems to me like your ideas stem entirely from the nano setup problem, you suggest an awful lot of changes to counter one specific setup .. wouldn't it just be easier to say you can only fit 1 module that lowers mass or something ... Anyway onto a few reasons why I disagree. Mega Pulses with a minimum range of 67.5km ... thats ridiculous. You're saying extend the ranges of short ranged weapons so that ships don't have to fit a mwd but in this case all that would happen is amarr have to fit a mwd or otherwise everyone just comes along and orbits them within their huge optimal and they wont hit anything. Talk about kicking someone when they're down (I do concede you could just lower the range on mega pulses, but if they end up being too similar to other guns they will never get used). As for the torpedoes .. I don't know if you are aware of this but torpedoes used to have splash damage already. It was removed (iI'm not sure but I think because it caused too much lag when everyone got hit). I find it unlikely they will bring something else to replace it. Also, the torpedo idea doesn't actually discourage the blob at all, or solve the problems of the blob. You're saying that it will force fleets to not blob together .. but if they just kept distance between them they would be fine? (yes I understand thats hard to actually do). Ok lets just say that some people do decide that because of this they'll use smaller fleets ... so what happens when they meet a fleet with the attitude "sod this if these torpedoes are a problem lets just make sure we have more!". So the little fleet warps in or gets jumped (or whatever), they start to fight and then suddenly they get bombarded by loads of the area of effect weapons .. thats going to work out really well for them. So in the end they will just continue to blob up too. A final note on the torpedoes, what about all the small ships? Would this not just be an I-Win button against them? Wouldn't it just lead to huge fleets comprising of just battleships ... sounds great Nice idea but I think there has to be an easier way to stop nano ships. ------------------------------------------------ The purpose of life: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, hear the lamentation of their women.
Laboratus Gallente BGG	Posted - 2007.01.15 00:53:00 - [12] I like the idea of increasing gun ranges And I think AoE weapons are a good idea. But removing MWDs is not the way to go. Instead, agility modifiers need a stacking penalty. At the moment the effects from I-stabs and nanos stack without any penalties. And this leads to redicilous results. But, the I-stabs and nanos still need to perform well, when only a one or two they really have to make a difference. But the effect with 5 or 6 mods is just nuts. There is the problem, not the MWD module in it self. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Maeltstome	Posted - 2007.01.15 01:05:00 - [13] Originally by: Gabriel Karade Short range Battleships: Simply put, these are too short ranged. All of them have to realistically operate a MWD over an afterburner; all are limited pretty much to web range. *******s, tempest can operate autocannons up to 36KM fairly effectively, and with decent skills hit 1km/s. Long range ships generally have no tank and no means of keeping distance other than starting far away... in which case its the close range ships job to get close using his brain.
Maeltstome	Posted - 2007.01.15 01:10:00 - [14] Originally by: Gabriel Karade Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 14/01/2007 22:40:39 Insane speed setups simply remove 100MN MWDÆs from the game. Nano-Battleships using Afterburners will still be able approach the speeds of MWDÆing cruisers what ARE you smoking. PLENTY of non-nano ships use 100mn microwarps, and what your saying would basically KILL close range battleships, if they ahve to fit a full rack of nano's in the lows just to reach 1k/s that means dropping their entire tank for 3/4 races of the game. My advice? get better interceptors, no interceptor should be out-paced by a nano-BS if its fitted for speed, christ sae you can get a crusader to over 17k/s. This is jsut another "nerf nano ships" thread in diguise. I think you'll find other than the typhoon and some VERY expensive faction fitted ship, most nano-ships are actually pretty ****. If your in a gang a nano ship wont pose a threat, however if your out ratting in your raven in a belt, it will own you (unless you have the sense to go INTO an asteroid belt.) Stop getting things nerfed just cause you cant think as outside of the box as the pilots who invented these setups have.
Maeltstome	Posted - 2007.01.15 01:12:00 - [15] Originally by: Laboratus agility modifiers need a stacking penalty. Give that man a prize :) perfect solution
dalman Finite Horizon	Posted - 2007.01.15 01:12:00 - [16] Hmmm, didn't we have this discussion before? At least regarding blasters, ahead of the changes Tux did. Hell yea. That's one of the major problems with EVE today. Short range guns basicly have the same range today as they did when really long range was 80km. Plus that the long range guns still have the same tracking. Short range guns have been reduced to 1vs1/rly small gangs only, and it needs to be fixed. Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me
Laboratus Gallente BGG	Posted - 2007.01.15 01:53:00 - [17] Originally by: Maeltstome Originally by: Laboratus agility modifiers need a stacking penalty. Give that man a prize :) perfect solution Well, the what do you call it, the thing that is reduced that makes the MWD take you faster. That makes MWDs work like they were oversized? ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Neuromandis	Posted - 2007.01.15 02:11:00 - [18] Originally by: Kazender Mega Pulses with a minimum range of 67.5km ... thats ridiculous. You're saying extend the ranges of short ranged weapons so that ships don't have to fit a mwd but in this case all that would happen is amarr have to fit a mwd or otherwise everyone just comes along and orbits them within their huge optimal and they wont hit anything. Mate, sorry to break it to you, but it just does not work that way. Being closer than your optimal does not reduce chance to hit. That is caused by tracking only. If you increase optimal in a ship you jsut make it hit farther without disrupting its ability to hit closer. That would only happen if you also reduce its tracking.
Mortimer Phinn	Posted - 2007.01.15 04:16:00 - [19] I don't really think you can make blobs go away unless you make them detrimental to the operation of the ships within. For instance, CCP could introduce a new game mechanic where the warp engines generate fields of energy that can disrupt the field of a nearby ship. In small numbers this wouldn't be a problem, but having 30 ships near each other would make it so warping would take much longer. Start having it affect targeting and other ship functions and you solve the blob problem. The range issue might be addressed by something as simple as a short range warp. You warp your fleet in at 100 km, then have your short range ships be able to micro-warp to a target so they can scramble them and engage them up close and personal, no flying 100 km trying to get in range. Fleets would have to begin to mount defenses for both long and short range attacks.
X99 Z990	Posted - 2007.01.15 04:24:00 - [20] Edited by: X99 Z990 on 15/01/2007 04:20:48 Edited by: X99 Z990 on 15/01/2007 04:20:22 With those changes proposed you could have extemely high damage mega pulse sniper abaddon at 100km+ with 3x tracking mods. And if you didnt boost the pulses the "medium ranged" pulse lasers wouldnt have a defined advantage over the "short ranged blasters" and autocannons can hit far fine so basically its just a boost to blasters which dont really need it, they just nerfed the range on null ammo and you are basically asking to undo that nerf again. the hyperion has all that extra capacitor and the 5 med slots because its designed to mount a MWD. The changes just seem unnecessary.
Fauza	Posted - 2007.01.15 04:26:00 - [21] Originally by: Mortimer Phinn I don't really think you can make blobs go away unless you make them detrimental to the operation of the ships within. For instance, CCP could introduce a new game mechanic where the warp engines generate fields of energy that can disrupt the field of a nearby ship. In small numbers this wouldn't be a problem, but having 30 ships near each other would make it so warping would take much longer. Start having it affect targeting and other ship functions and you solve the blob problem. The range issue might be addressed by something as simple as a short range warp. You warp your fleet in at 100 km, then have your short range ships be able to micro-warp to a target so they can scramble them and engage them up close and personal, no flying 100 km trying to get in range. Fleets would have to begin to mount defenses for both long and short range attacks. Hm... good idea... almost like some kind of... micro warp drive
Arushia Nova Inc.	Posted - 2007.01.15 04:43:00 - [22] Originally by: Gabriel Karade Place-holder for a valid argument? Place-holder for sarcastic comment. ---- I accept that this post reflects upon my corp, even if I claim it does not.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial	Posted - 2007.01.15 05:30:00 - [23] I was short last time, but that is about all this thread deserves. 1) Increasing the range of all ships will increase the range advantage Amarr have. This is the single reason why the Armageddon is such a good battleship. Increasing this farther will make it even stronger. 2) If you simultainiously kill the ability of battleships to MWD then you farhther increase the dominance of the Armageddon that you just boosted. 67.5km? That is utterly ridiculous. Can you imagine trying to close 30km with an afterburner against a 750 dps @ 67.5km and 950 DPS @ 45km armageddon? Assuming you hit 333m/s then the Armageddon will do some 67500 damage to you before you get in range[no drones] 3) Long range ships, for the most part, suffer in damage due to tracking issues and fitting issues[aside from a few types of medium range rail-boat] that are not present in short range ships. Similarly they do not have the quality of tech 2 ammo that short range ships do, further reducing their damage. 4) This change would utterly destroy ships smaller than battleships. As it stands the only short range ship able to bring its guns to bear on a target withlout moving is the Armageddon [and the Maelstrom with falloff rigs, which would have 74km falloff in your exmaple with a 6 slot tank(5 mid, 1 low), injector, full rack of damage mods, and a slot to spare] 5) Ranged AoE damage will not reduce gang sizes. It will simply move ships farther away from each other. Now instead of a blob of battleships in the distance you have a wall off battleships in the distance. Is that any better? No. The gang is still in the same grid still bringing as many battleships to the game as it can. Not to mention that at 900 M/S the fleet battle will be pretty much over and ravens tossing that blob damage destroyed by the time they get to the fleet. All in all, these changes herald the end of cruiser combat, the complete and utter dominance of the Armageddon and the Abaddon[with cap use rigs], and the end of most long range setups in non-large scale fleet ops. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Mar vel Caldari H.Y.D.R.A. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.01.15 05:34:00 - [24] Torps used to do proximity damage. It was quite effective. Unfortunately it made torp raven ratting a mess, and often times swatted frienlies incl drones. Personally. I liked the top radisu damage - and it's in-line with both the skill descriptions / training, and with the intended role of the weapon itself. Agree wholeheartedly with the bulk of this OP. Add: Fleet engagements involving 100+ people are just totally hopeless from a lag perspective. Same principles apply for overloaded systems (try undocking from Jita 4.4 with an active war dec - same result) I'd like to see much more emphasis on small team engagements (sub 10-20 man gangs) - thinking on this a bit more I realized the issue at hand can be conquered several ways - but obviously there are architectural challenges (from an IT standpoint - game/WAN) that make almost all of them incredibly difficult to achieve: except one: change the terrain. A fixed terrain (of stargates) makes it impossible to affect any tactical elements that would normally present themselves in a typical real-world battle (e.g. 3-D + terrain). Presently almost all fighting happens at places with no tactical explotation based upon terrain. The other elements that are being attempted to create tactical situations that can be exploited are, at best, inefficient, and more often than not, quite ineffective. Scenario A: sit @ gate with Dictor or sm/med/lrg bubble, wait for enemy to warp into you, or jump into your camp - case closed. Shoot at individual targets en-mass, biggest ships are lost first and then on down the line. Scenario B: fat-finger your WMD for a 30-ship kill and then smirk behind POS shield Scenario C: Warp around tauntingly in your nanophooon/ inty / mwd af / mwd hac and then rollup to a gate and/or just jump whenever things get a bit dicey. Scenario D: Logon/Logoff and the ever-present ctrl+Q. Scenario E: Snipe with 12 man BS turret fleets who all have 250km range and are basically flying guns - all targeting the same object and giggling at their favorite safespot after Frapping the kill. Scenario: ECM + NOS + Drones 4tw. He with more suckage wins. There is an element of tactical experience that is not being experienced by combat pilots in general - and there is less and less intelligence that is required to engage in combat. Pick one of the above and apply. And did I mention that true fleet engagements are a horrible joke? Oh, I did. Did I mentino that the ongoing calculations that are churning on COmmand / Leadership skills and Gang Mods makes a gang over 10 impractical, if not an outright disadvantage, due to the constant threat of the impending lag-fest? CCP: Got a lot of work to do guys - ping your combat playerbase (if you don't know yourselves, which is unlikely) - I'm sure that you'll get lots of great feedback that will VASTLY improve the game. You are fighting that battle of features (content) and playability - time to give the playability aspects some attention. In terms of combat in general, I am finding it increasingly dis-interesting. The mechanics of combat interaction (tactical), the mechanics of travel (gates), and the mechanics of inter-system interaction/travel are (IMO) what could really change the game for the positive atm - I don't profess to know exactly what that formula is - I just know what the limiting features are atm (from my hunble perspective, ofc) o/ Originally by: Gabriel Karade Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 14/01/2007 22:40:39 Insane speed setups àBlast/Fragmentation Torpedoesà Damage: 500 Blast radius: 8km RoF penalty: 0.75x Volume: 0.3m^3 Max velocity: 900 m/sec +5% damage per level of Torpedo skill) Upon hitting its target it is basically a Smartbomb blast, yes that makes it more of a 0.0 weapon (unless youÆre feeling brave in a battle in empire space).
Fon Revedhort Aeria Gloris Inc United Legion	Posted - 2007.01.15 05:39:00 - [25] Now Heavy Pulse with Scorch has 22.5 km optimal. Heavy Beam with Multifreq. has 15... (care to count what the optimal would be with Gleam? ). You are saying short range weapon needs a boost? Lmao, if you multiply 22.5 by 1.5 this gonna net 33.75 km of optimal range with damage drastically higher then Beams can pull out! WTF? Do you call this a balance? What's a use in my Beams than? Seems all you want to do is to expand cookie-cutter side of the game even further
Xelios Minmatar Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.01.15 05:53:00 - [26] The only thing I'm not happy with are nano bs. A battleship pushing 4km/s and maneuvering like a frigate is ridiculous, not to mention they're invulnerable to any kind of missile while they're moving at speed. And it's not a matter of getting owned by one and whining about it, I could fit one up just as easily and use it too. It's a matter of balance. Battleships simply shouldn't move like this, even webs don't stop them unless you get 3 or 4 on them at the same time.
Ephemeron The Syndicate Inc Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.01.15 06:39:00 - [27] I think the current state of combat in EVE is pretty good. I do see a problem with battleships moving like intercepters tho. I think that adding a stacking penalty for agility mods would be well inline with EVE design style. As far as scrambler range and short range weapon range goes, it's pretty good. The effective range of weapons is directly proportional to effective blobing. In other words: long range weapons allow more effective focus fire attacks, where large number of people can attack 1 person effectively. I don't like that, so I don't like long range weapons. Some people want to increase the ranges of scrambler and short range weapons, to make them more inline with range of long range weapons. I'd want to opposite, lets reduce the effective range of long range weapons to make them more inline with current short range weapons.
Audri Fisher Caldari The Keep THE R0CK	Posted - 2007.01.15 07:01:00 - [28] Edited by: Audri Fisher on 15/01/2007 06:57:59 I don't like the fact that long range weapons not only use more fitting, but require a lot more med/low slots for non tank modules to use effectively
Benglada Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2007.01.15 07:08:00 - [29] flak cannons would be fun as hell, hurricane uber anti frigate weapon anyone? reminds me of homeworld, squad of 10 flak ships taking out thousands of fighters...mmm --------------------------- Originally by: Arkanor 0.0 is the Final Frontier. Bring money and friends. Sig nerfz0r - maximum allowed siz0r is 24000 bytz0r. - Devil ([email protected]) Sig By Ortos
Ryysa North Face Force	Posted - 2007.01.15 07:45:00 - [30] There's something I agree on. The game has so many subscribers now, that we need crowd control. Every other MMORPG I've played has it. Lineage 2 has Overlords, WoW has mages, Guild Wars has lots of AoE too... Yet the only crowd control weapon in EvE is a doomsday device. Imo we need more... and it wasn't that bad idea with the fragmentation things, it would give caldari a distinct role in fleet battles. Or some sort of mini doomsday... or I dunno... suicide bomber module "When you activate this module, you get instantly podded, but everything around you gets hit for omgwtfbbq damage". All about target jamming & The Logoffski guide

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.