EVE Search - Thoughts on how to improve the current combat system

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Thoughts on how to improve the current combat system - The Fours rule

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Morlock Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2007.03.05 11:25:00 - [1] Edited by: Morlock on 05/03/2007 11:23:29 In an approach to improve the current combat system of Eve focusing on the following issues: - Shooting an an enemy blob of squares 100's kms away is not very intense - Focus fire on one target creates short battles which isn't very epic - Tanking forever in 1vs1s is not realistic (weapon designers will always come up with a way to beat the heaviest armor) The solution: 1. Reduce optimal range of all turrets by 1/4 and decrease speed of all ships by 1/4 of current. -> will encourage closer fights so you can actually see the enemy in sight and see his shields running down. Also, since it will reduce focus fire due to your range being so short and your speed being slower you'd be better off shooting the nearest target. 2. Reduce Shield/armor boost rate by 1/4 and increase HP by 4 times of current amount. -> will increase current battle times as well as stop infinate tanking in 1 vs 1 battles which is more realistic and epic at the same time. Ofcouse these ideas will involve a total rehaul of the current system, but some something along these lines will help eve's combat system be somewhat closer to that of games like Homeworld.(which IMO has a far realistic as well as epic combat system) Just a few thoughts. Feel free to share yours as well.
Natasha Kerensky The Company Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.03.05 11:39:00 - [2] As much as I hate the idea of reduced range....that might work. But really I'd like to see formations, and area effect capital weapons. I think that will solve the problem.
Wolverine PL Gallente ClanKillers Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2007.03.05 11:40:00 - [3] Originally by: Morlock ...decrease speed of all ships by 1/4 of current. Originally by: Morlock -> will encourage closer fights Hmm, lower speed and closer fights?? LOL to get close you need speed.
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2007.03.05 11:44:00 - [4] Any reduction in optimal would have to be accompanied by a similar reduction in fall-off. Otherwise, those guns with poor fall-off would be more affected by the change. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Flaming sambuka Infinitus Odium Curse Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.05 11:47:00 - [5] Edited by: Flaming sambuka on 05/03/2007 11:44:07 NO! The points you have made there will turn eve into an fps, click click click ~ fast as you can. No strategy, just warp in blast nearest target warp out.
Sokratesz Guardians of Hell's Gate Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2007.03.05 11:48:00 - [6] Edited by: Sokratesz on 05/03/2007 11:47:03 I like it. More HP means longer fights, more chances for 'reinforcements' to actually mean something, and thus more intense pvp. What i would like to see, on a diff note, is that your locking time increases proportional not only to the size of your target, but also the the distance between you and him (with something like a 2x multiplier when at max range, and 0.5x multiplier within 1/4th of max range). This wil make fleet battles require more tactical planning and less 'shoot him now', and greatly improve close-range gang combat. Suicide is bad, hmkay? (clickety clickety)
Bellum Eternus Gallente CRICE Corporation Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2007.03.05 12:07:00 - [7] Brilliant. Let's reduce my blaster's range from nothing to even less. And let's ruin my effective tracking while you're at it. Additionally let's just completely screw armor tankers and make passive shield tanking the only game in town. Sounds like a plan. Probably the best setup for your proposed changes: passively shield tanked Dominix with all Nos (no range nerf, no tracking) and drones. Great. Back to nos boats. If you really want to fix long range (and I'm talking about super long range fleet combat here) combat, then just remove all T2 long range ammo from the game. Then you either have to get in close, or you do **** all for damage. Nobody is going to be downed by 20 Megathrons shooting iron ammo w/ T2 guns before they can jump, unless they're already tackled, and even then it'll take a while. Everyone is having a stupid contest, and you're in first place! FIX RECON PROBES
Jack Farness	Posted - 2007.03.05 12:09:00 - [8] What I would like to see is that fire would not go trought all things to get you. In that case manouvering would actually mean much more (hiding behind asteroid or even hiding behind you own side BS in frigate) and battles could get much more tactical.
Darqion Zenix	Posted - 2007.03.05 12:25:00 - [9] with ammo having collision detect you will lag the server more.. also a very small ammount of lag on 2 players will ammount to whine posts on the forum "i was behind him and... weeh weeh" while he wasnt, but he thought he was because he had a second lag. tho i agree it would be more fun, and would allow for FAR more tactical options, its hard to code right and keep the server happy
Jack Farness	Posted - 2007.03.05 12:40:00 - [10] Originally by: Darqion Zenix with ammo having collision detect you will lag the server more.. also a very small ammount of lag on 2 players will ammount to whine posts on the forum "i was behind him and... weeh weeh" while he wasnt, but he thought he was because he had a second lag. tho i agree it would be more fun, and would allow for FAR more tactical options, its hard to code right and keep the server happy Actually it would not lag servers more than it currently does. Detection would be calculated in shooters client (basically it just detects does it send damage packet or not). So it would not create any lag to servers. Now problems might be in lag (was he behind rock or not? In his client he was and in you not), but thats just normal in games. Also what shooter see is "correct" and if he see you behind rock then he cannot shoot you.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.03.05 13:23:00 - [11] Originally by: Jack Farness Detection would be calculated in shooters client Client side calculations have been a big no-no for EVE, because it has been proven in other MMOs that if client side calculations are used, they will be abused.
Chronos VIII Thirteen Monkeys	Posted - 2007.03.05 13:48:00 - [12] Originally by: Morlock Edited by: Morlock on 05/03/2007 11:23:29 2. Reduce Shield/armor boost rate by 1/4 and increase HP by 4 times of current amount. -> will increase current battle times as well as stop infinate tanking in 1 vs 1 battles which is more realistic and epic at the same time. Just a few thoughts. Feel free to share yours as well. Dear Lord, why do we need longer battles? In my opionion something goes wrong when an inty has 2-2,5k armor Especially the vaga would suffer from this alot, because it's designed for 'hit n' run' - fast-gankage operations.
Taipan Gedscho Taipan Industries	Posted - 2007.03.05 14:01:00 - [13] i like the thought behind the op. (not the idea itself 100%, but yeah) but the changes are a lil too drastic. you cant really effectively predict what it will do to subscription rates. Only you can save mmorpgs - Stop crying for nerfs today!
Jack Farness	Posted - 2007.03.06 05:29:00 - [14] Originally by: Elaron Originally by: Jack Farness Detection would be calculated in shooters client Client side calculations have been a big no-no for EVE, because it has been proven in other MMOs that if client side calculations are used, they will be abused. Really? Does EVE actually calculate damage in server side? That is very inefficient way to do it and do actually cause lag problems (I really dont believe that damage is calculated in server side. It is calculated in YOUR client and just send to server which check it and forwards it to other player). Every other MMO does calculation in client side and those are protected several ways. Abusing can happen, but most of them can be also detected.
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.03.06 08:33:00 - [15] No. Encourages blobbing, while eliminating tactical maneuvering. Not to mention reduces all reason to fit long range guns, since you can always survive to get in blaster optimal range and rip anything to bits with the shortest range guns. Hit and run tactics no longer viable, as fights last so long. unless warp speed is cut to 14th. Making travel a pain. So, all in all. No. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Dragonrazor Amarr	Posted - 2007.03.07 02:37:00 - [16] Ideas I like: Decrease Rep/Boost (both passive and active) of shield/armor rep modules. Increase Armor and shields a further 50% or so. Intended effect: Your repping CANNOT overcome the DPS of most incoming fire as easily as it does now. Result: Fights actually take less time than they do now, and winning a fight isn't reliant on doing enough damage or nos to "break" a tank... Because the tank will be broken by all but the more pitiful offenders. To compensate for PVE players: All NPC's suffer the same changes. All spawns for missions etc shrink in size, but increase in bounty payout value. As each individual ship will be breaking your tank. Note that combat won't actually take longer despite the boosted HP. Because super repping/boosting/passive regen won't be able to overcome the DPS of most attackers. TBH I always thought the idea of armor repping as a tank method was kinda silly... Seems a LOT more realistic and efficient to have a shield system that recharges quickly, rather than have nano bots able to literaly rebuild your ship around you faster than the enemy can blow it up. Range issue: I see no issue with ranges period... 100KM even 200KM isn't that far for a ship as advanced as we're talking to be able to lock and shoot at something with the right guns... Focus fire is and will always be a valid tactic IMHO and should remain as such. i can see no direct nerfs to this that arn't contrary to common sense... Focus fire isn't just something you do to overcome good tanks... As most fleet BS's don't bother with any tank at all as range and damage are what count. You focus fire to instapop an enemy ship... There is no "realistic" nerf you can do to this that won't be heavy handed and unimersive. Further tweaks to the system: Reduce the PG of all ships by a small margin to discourage fitting all 8 slots or whatever with the biggest same type guns, and encourage larger ships to fit smaller guns. For example. Create point defense batteries intended to help deal with smaller craft. This way BS's CAN defend against smaller ships without resorting to wierd tactics and modules... The point defense guns should always be guns which have lower end tracking however to allow smaller ships the edge up close. Ie like fighters evading flack. Make them alpha strike oriented... IE since no one is using destroyers for this role (IE thier intended role as hanging around a BS providing anti frigate covering fire) Example hybrid point defense batteries: Cruiser size anti frig: Dual 150MM (already have it) make it a bit more like 2 150MM rails in every way. Slower ROF, higher Per hit damage. Same tracking as a normal 150MM, uses small ammo and similar cap to the same number of 150MM rails. These would be the long range guns. Quad 75MM gatling: As with the 150MM buff the damage, drop down the ROF. These would be the short range guns. BS sized anti cruiser: dual 250MM rails. Currently this isn't too far from what we have, except there is no reason at all whatsoever for most ships to fit anything but the biggest or hardest hitting that can fit. If a cruiser or BS was forced to drop 1 main gun but had enough fitting left over for one of these smaller point defense guns... Several things would happen: 1: Bigger ships would have a "reasonable" defense against smaller ships. 2: If balanced right, smaller ships would still have the advantage, but the bigger ships wouldn't be helpless once the enemy is under thier main guns without using Nos and other strange tactics. Seriously, look at a modern day warship... They fit a LOT more than just the biggest guns they can... They are often bristling with smaller guns too. I'd like to see thus some kind of mirror of this, not enough to make frigs or cruisers obsolete mind you... But enough to make EVE feel more diverse. If a BS pilot wants to fit a BS full of dual 150MM point defense banks and kill frigs. good for them! ******************************************* "Stars Die... Empires fall... We are dust..." *******************************************
starship enginer	Posted - 2007.03.07 02:40:00 - [17] orrrr quite simply if a grid has more than say, 30 people in it take away the overview. no real primary, no real concentrated fire, more like a free for all would mean more skill in fights, and that they last longer
Siakel	Posted - 2007.03.07 03:04:00 - [18] Originally by: starship enginer orrrr quite simply if a grid has more than say, 30 people in it take away the overview. no real primary, no real concentrated fire, more like a free for all would mean more skill in fights, and that they last longer How would removing the abililty to coordinate your fleet and make an organized attack mean 'more skill in fights'? All this does is remove skill and substitute it with luck. And are you trying to say that it isn't 'skill' to have an organized, disciplined fleet that follows orders well, knows what they're supposed to do, has well set-up ships, and is led by a good fleet commander? All of those are skill, and I can't stand people who seem to think that 'skill' is only equal to twitch-skill. As to the OP.. Shortening range won't stop focus firing (There's a reason focus firing is used, and it has nothing to do with longrange weapons or heavy tanks), and coupled with a 4x increase in HP, all you'd be doing is promoting focus-firing blobs, because nothing else can kill a hostile group of 4 before their friendly fleet travels 14 jumps to kill you.
starship enginer	Posted - 2007.03.07 03:09:00 - [19] Originally by: Siakel How would removing the abililty to coordinate your fleet and make an organized attack mean 'more skill in fights'? All this does is remove skill and substitute it with luck. And are you trying to say that it isn't 'skill' to have an organized, disciplined fleet that follows orders well, knows what they're supposed to do, has well set-up ships, and is led by a good fleet commander? All of those are skill, and I can't stand people who seem to think that 'skill' is only equal to twitch-skill. where is the skill in 100bs firing on 100bs at 175km range? someone calls pirmary and secondary, you shoot if overview was taken out, as a sniper you would have to decide which taget is best for you to take out to help your side for example, i would mock up all t1 crusiers first, and only shoot when they have low tras. then move onto locking a lot of BS and shooting at those already taking damage. all the while trying to take out specific threts, like recons, low trans frigs ect bit more skillfull than pirmary, f1-f8
Siakel	Posted - 2007.03.07 03:30:00 - [20] Originally by: starship enginer where is the skill in 100bs firing on 100bs at 175km range? The skill of an organized, disciplined fleet. Listening to commands, paying attention, the skill of the Fleet Commander picking the right targets at the right time. The skill of the scouts, determining when to jump in, which targets are the biggest threat, making sure it's not a trap. The setups of the members of said fleet, etc. These are all skill involved in a fleet. Originally by: starship enginer if overview was taken out, as a sniper you would have to decide which taget is best for you to take out to help your side for example, i would mock up all t1 crusiers first, and only shoot when they have low tras. then move onto locking a lot of BS and shooting at those already taking damage. Ok. So you're going to go sifting through the squares, looking for Cruiser-sized ones, making sure they're T1 Cruisers and not HACs, or Recons, or Destroyers, or Interdictors, then try shooting when they only have low transversal, but as you're 180km away and have no overview, you can't actually see what their transversal is, so you're just shooting away at a target that looks like it's sitting still, though it's moving at 760 m/s. You miss constantly. In the meantime, your fleet was annihilated because the other guys shot your BS and you're down to support now. Originally by: starship enginer all the while trying to take out specific threts, like recons, low trans frigs ect Right. You're going to sift through the squares to find specific targets with no aid, and shoot targets with 'low transversal' with no way to know what their transversal is. See above. Originally by: starship enginer bit more skillfull than pirmary, f1-f8 No, it isn't. It's blind luck. You're randomly picking Cruiser or Frigate sized targets and firing at them with no information to back up you decision. You don't know if they've got low transversal or not, you're taking 2-3 minutes to pick a target, and you're shooting the wrong targets.
starship enginer	Posted - 2007.03.07 03:39:00 - [21] fine, just take away names in overview that way, you cant really call a primary in large groups. you still have all the info you need just hard to co-ordinate primary and secondary and for fleet ops with sniping, i used to use 2 char at the same time, that is how easy it is and low skilled. i can not use two blaster boats at the same time because of all the factors you need to take into account, like your speed, their speed, distance, cap, nosf, drones. Those things can come into fleet ops if concentrated fire was removed, and it can be done with loosing names in overview.
Siakel	Posted - 2007.03.07 04:00:00 - [22] So you want to remove a tried and true tactic in warfare, one that has been used since warfare began, and remove discipline and organizational skills (Both of which have been proven more valuable than individual valor/skill/bravery time and time again in warfare), and replace it with a lot of chaos and a bit more personal skill, which has been proven to be less reliable, valuable, and effective than discipline and organization in warfare? I suppose there'll always be some that want this, but I'm sure many, many other players (And hopefully CCP...) like it the way it is.
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.03.07 09:26:00 - [23] Originally by: Dragonrazor stuff About the Battleships: Read the part about "All big gun consept". There are no "modern Battleships" IRL. Modern surface crafts are basically launch platforms for missiles, capable of succesfully launching all of their munitions in a few minutes. Devastating eggshels. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
CasC Gallente Cash Money Brothers O X I D E	Posted - 2007.03.07 10:37:00 - [24] Hell if we are talking about doing this game realistic i want to be able to fire my rails without locking a target!
2ippy	Posted - 2007.03.07 11:07:00 - [25] good idea capital ships should have area effect guns. Seems evil to self destruct a doomed carrier after 20min of tanking...

Pages: [1] :: 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.