EVE Search - Range, speed, hitpoints and the way combat has evolved.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Range, speed, hitpoints and the way combat has evolved.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
welsh wizard 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.08.20 18:24:00 - [1] Edited by: welsh wizard on 20/08/2007 18:24:35 So I was busy whining away in one of the many "boost Caldari!" threads... Most of them focus on the lack of damage from Caldari hybrid platforms. It's true they need more turrets, pretty much everyone agrees on this but I don't believe its the crux of the problem. The biggest problem with Eve combat today is the effective nerfing of a range advantage due to the rapid proliferation of insanely fast ships for very little isk. To a lesser extent the hitpoint buff has also contributed to the problem as a whole because sniper ships in small numbers are often unable to reach a desirable damage output in the timeframe required. It got me reminiscing, I remember when a lone sniping battleship was considered a threat at 200km. These days we just laugh at the prospect of a fool silly enough to sit alone at 200km in his Megathron. What happened to this style of combat? Where did it go? It doesn't happen anymore because 200km is a very small distance in post 'need for speed/hitpoint buff' Eve-Online. It's basically globalization on an Eve scale. The universe is a hell of a lot smaller since the introduction of capital ships (thats another discussion though). More importantly the strategical importance of the 250km radius around a fixed object (gate/station/even capital ship) has been diluted. As more and more people fly 10km/s+ ships the range advantage has effectively shrunk so far that we're playing a different game today than the one we used to play a year ago. We don't use warp in points on enemy fleets anymore (very rarely anyway), we just fly one of our very fast ships at them and in under 20 seconds we have have nullified the range advantage. I think most people are ignoring this and simpily blaming the tools we are given to fight with instead. The more I think about it the more I miss the old tactical grid warfare. It was complex and you had to rely on covert pilots to lock down an enemy fleet. This new style of warfare is also chiefly responsible for low damage railboats becoming largely undesirable. Discuss...
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2007.08.20 18:28:00 - [2] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 20/08/2007 18:29:11 4 years ago you were happy to get 2% more damage, tanking or speed. Today, we have so many ways to add to a specific attribute (skills, modules, rigs, implants, gang bonuses) that it becomes way too much. It doesnt help that some implants, while expensive, give insane bonuses. A nerf is hardly something that will be agreed on from people who have payed billions for their implants though. --- Originally by: CCP Wrangler You're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, thats what hello kitty online is for.
welsh wizard 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.08.20 18:31:00 - [3] Edited by: welsh wizard on 20/08/2007 18:31:08 Originally by: Jim McGregor Edited by: Jim McGregor on 20/08/2007 18:29:11 4 years ago you were happy to get 2% more damage, tanking or speed. Today, we have so many ways to add to a specific attribute (skills, modules, rigs, implants, gang bonuses) that it becomes way too much. It doesnt help that some implants, while expensive, give insane bonuses. A nerf is hardly something that will be agreed on from people who have payed billions for their implants though. I've spent billions in snakes over the past year or two... I guess its whether or not we're able to think about the game as a whole rather than ourselves only. Agree with you on all points though.
Crax McGee Silentium.	Posted - 2007.08.20 18:49:00 - [4] F*CK OFF WELSH with the nano's whines. some of us vets played with nano things years ago. it doesnt need a general nerf. i think people should still be able 2 go 8k in cruisers and stuff. but it should not be for the common man who has just put overdrives and polycarbons too his ship. it should be snakes only. so it can still be done but less often. flying fast is fun, so why nerf it. skirmish is fun. so why nerf it.
Berand Obsidian Inc.	Posted - 2007.08.20 18:53:00 - [5] It's somewhat ironic that as the servers suffer from more and more lag, we make our ships go faster and faster. Maybe we're unconsciously trying to compensate! Anyway, your assessment seems pretty accurate. I always felt that ODs and nanos should be limited to 1 per ship, like a DCU. I mean, in reality an engine either has overdrive or it doesn't. It doesn't have two overdrives. Same with the nanos. You're either replacing parts with lighter materials, or you're not. It really wouldn't be hard to get a handle on the crazy speed ships are capable of these days, if CCP wants to take the steps. Berand I had a great idea! We could copy Outbreak's sigs! I've only seen it done like, one or two or maybe three times, so it's sure to be funny.
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.08.20 18:54:00 - [6] Edited by: Laboratus on 20/08/2007 18:55:40 I think part of the problem is the fact that speed tanks need insane speeds. Generally tracking should be lowered so that a BS speed of 3k/s would be a viable speed tank. Edit: But yeah, you are right on most points. The "old school" fleets are still viable, but sadly only in larger rokh fleets (ya, those are so common...) ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
welsh wizard 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.08.20 18:56:00 - [7] Edited by: welsh wizard on 20/08/2007 18:56:10 Originally by: Crax McGee F*CK OFF WELSH with the nano's whines. some of us vets played with nano things years ago. it doesnt need a general nerf. i think people should still be able 2 go 8k in cruisers and stuff. but it should not be for the common man who has just put overdrives and polycarbons too his ship. it should be snakes only. so it can still be done but less often. flying fast is fun, so why nerf it. skirmish is fun. so why nerf it. Erm first of all its supposed to be a civil discussion, second of all I've been flying fast ships pretty much exclusively since I dumped my Ferox 18 months ago. I'm fully aware of how much fun it can be and just how effective it is too. It has changed grid warfare though and in my opinion a bit too much. Rather than crucify me for wanting to discuss it please add to the thread constructively. Ta.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Guardians of the Dawn Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.20 19:00:00 - [8] Originally by: Laboratus Edited by: Laboratus on 20/08/2007 18:55:40 I think part of the problem is the fact that speed tanks need insane speeds. Generally tracking should be lowered so that a BS speed of 3k/s would be a viable speed tank. Edit: But yeah, you are right on most points. The "old school" fleets are still viable, but sadly only in larger rokh fleets (ya, those are so common...) Problem is not tracking. Problem is.. need to avoid missiles AND you must be way faster than that .. because you need to be much faster than enemy tacklers. I really hate MWD. It makes eve an all or nothing game. Distance is irrelevant, speed >>>> everything. Who fits AB? almost no one why? because what is the point on 100% speed boost> When even if you are a fast frig with AB, you are Way slower than a BS with MWD? This is simply non-sense. I reaaally think MWD base seepd boost should be reduced to 200%. If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
CrestoftheStars Recoil Incorporated	Posted - 2007.08.20 19:21:00 - [9] i see two major problems at the time. first and most importent: all speed bonus is calculated on the ACTIVE speed not the BASE speed of a ship. this means that instead of the fastest bs going around 1,6k as max with implants rigs and everything. it now goest 6-7k. fix this and the speed problem is done with. secoundly: the one siezed alfa omega EW. exspecially WEBBERS. webbers are way overpowered considering it is a low req medslot module that effectively KILLS any fast ships that comes within 10km-19km(faction overheat). this means any fight will have to be above 20 km if your in the smaller ship attacking a bigger. and scramblers for that matter, same history.. these needs siezes and effect after what they are made to hurt, like everything else in the game... (dampers, ecm and target painters too.. ) ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Guardians of the Dawn Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.20 19:26:00 - [10] Still disagree. Think the whole problem is MWD. Everyone uses them. that force speed tanking to be EXTREME speed tanking. A moderate speed advantage means nothing. You must be able to get in and out of enemy range in 3 seconds... pfff idiotic. Remove MWD or Cut their power by HALF. Then you will see interesting fights and with teams having time to work together to position itself on field and controlling range. Not the ridiculous all out speed burst that happens every time a battle starts. If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Gort Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.08.20 19:30:00 - [11] I have to agree with the Op. I miss the days when a single skillful sniper at range might be a significant issue for the pilot of a support ship. Gort -- When in doubt, empty the magazine.
Maaku	Posted - 2007.08.20 19:30:00 - [12] Maybe buff range instead of nerfing speed? Eliminate or greatly increase the maximum targeting range (assuming that that is technically possible). New weapons with longer range but less tracking than current rails/artys/beams (or maybe T3 could be something like that), sensor boosters with more range boost and less scan res boost. Make a fleet sniper's effective range 225 or 250 or 300 (wherever balance lies). A fast ship can close, but he'd better keep that transversal up. Bingo...old school snipers become doable without sacrificing those sexy speed ships.
welsh wizard 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.08.20 19:34:00 - [13] Edited by: welsh wizard on 20/08/2007 19:34:55 Originally by: Maaku Maybe buff range instead of nerfing speed? Eliminate or greatly increase the maximum targeting range (assuming that that is technically possible). New weapons with longer range but less tracking than current rails/artys/beams (or maybe T3 could be something like that), sensor boosters with more range boost and less scan res boost. Make a fleet sniper's effective range 225 or 250 or 300 (wherever balance lies). A fast ship can close, but he'd better keep that transversal up. Bingo...old school snipers become doable without sacrificing those sexy speed ships. This is an alternative way to do it but to my knowledge there are only 2 ships that can operate at 250km+ (Raven/Rokh) with a useable setup. It would mean lock range buffs across the board which would throw many other things out of balance.
Tovarishch Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.20 19:42:00 - [14] I've been harping on the problem of missile velocity for a while in my thread in 'Features and Ideas' Forum. (Thread is located here.) Between the low alpha and DPS of most Caldari railboats, and the hilarious concept of using missiles at range, Caldari have been nothing but Ravens (PVE) and Rokhs (PVP) for a long while now. Unfortunately, I'm growing increasingly aware that the Devs don't seem to be interested in addressing these issues. But, hey... we have Heat. Right? My crusade for faster missiles.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.08.20 19:42:00 - [15] Edited by: Goumindong on 20/08/2007 19:44:05 The problem, if there is a problem, is threefold. []Smaller ships are hit too easily be larger ships guns []The combination of many different methods of increasing speeds have produced ridiculous top speeds []It is too easy to circumvent battlefield manuvering by warping The long and short of it is, in order to fix these you need to do a number of things. []Nerf webs such that webbed frigates will still be missed by battleship guns.[they have drones for a reason] []Increase the minimum warp distance from 150km to 300km. []Introduce Cruiser and Battleship sized warp scramblers. High powergrid, higher cap use, longer scramble range. []Make all speed bonuses stacking penalized. Move MWD/Ab speed bonus from the skirmish warfare command module to a mass reduction bonus. []Boost max speed bonus of afterburners by 50% At least, that is what i think.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Guardians of the Dawn Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.20 19:50:00 - [16] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 20/08/2007 19:44:05 The problem, if there is a problem, is threefold. []Smaller ships are hit too easily be larger ships guns []The combination of many different methods of increasing speeds have produced ridiculous top speeds []It is too easy to circumvent battlefield manuvering by warping The long and short of it is, in order to fix these you need to do a number of things. []Nerf webs such that webbed frigates will still be missed by battleship guns.[they have drones for a reason] []Increase the minimum warp distance from 150km to 300km. []Introduce Cruiser and Battleship sized warp scramblers. High powergrid, higher cap use, longer scramble range. []Make all speed bonuses stacking penalized. Move MWD/Ab speed bonus from the skirmish warfare command module to a mass reduction bonus. []Boost max speed bonus of afterburners by 50% At least, that is what i think. On general I agree, just still think MWD need some sort of reduction. FAction and deadspace MWD result in stupid speed boosts. If things were limited to only 500% would be not so bad, but 700-800% is plain WRONG. If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
SiJira	Posted - 2007.08.20 19:53:00 - [17] i remember back in 1943 we used to walk in 10 foot high snowsqualls to get to school and when we got there they beat us with a hard stick for shivering ____ __ ________ _sig below_ devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried! _lies above_ CCP Morpheus was here Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn
Nyxus GALAXIAN RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.20 20:06:00 - [18] I have to agree 100% with Welsh on this. We have had a lot of boosts to speed. Inertia stabs, a whole slew of rigs, heat. It's trivialized distance to an extent where ships that rely on distance for defense are much less useful. Speed can easily negate the dps of almost all missiles, even fired from ships with a velocity bonus. It has minimized strategic placement on the battlefield, not only for snipers but also for mid-range fighters. Why take anything other than close range + dps when you can close the distance in a matter of seconds? Not to mention speed allows you to get escape from almost any fight at will. There is no commitment to a fight. I agree with the guy who suggested that speed mods affect the BASE speed of a ship. Matari get a bigger boost than any other race while reducing overall speeds back to something more sane and better for gameplay overall. Nyxus The Gallente ideals of Freedom, Liberty and Equality will be met by the Amarr realities of Lasers, Armor and Battleships.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Guardians of the Dawn Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.20 20:15:00 - [19] Originally by: Nyxus I have to agree 100% with Welsh on this. We have had a lot of boosts to speed. Inertia stabs, a whole slew of rigs, heat. It's trivialized distance to an extent where ships that rely on distance for defense are much less useful. Speed can easily negate the dps of almost all missiles, even fired from ships with a velocity bonus. It has minimized strategic placement on the battlefield, not only for snipers but also for mid-range fighters. Why take anything other than close range + dps when you can close the distance in a matter of seconds? Not to mention speed allows you to get escape from almost any fight at will. There is no commitment to a fight. I agree with the guy who suggested that speed mods affect the BASE speed of a ship. Matari get a bigger boost than any other race while reducing overall speeds back to something more sane and better for gameplay overall. Nyxus The issue is, affecting base speed would demand speed mods to work different form all other mods in game. That is less likely to be implemented since its not simple balance people work. Also woudld not change balance on matari vs other races. We need that MWD become a non mandatori module! If you expect every battleship to be able to reach 1km/s then for sure you will put a lot more speed on your speed tank. AB are currently useless, since a frigate with AB will be catch by a BS with MD that will reach for it in seconds and web it. The speed mods like nano and overdrive are ok when used with an AF, nothing uber there. The failed module is the MWD!!! Its the source of all evil. Nerf it.. for god sake and we will have far more enjoyable PVP. If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
welsh wizard 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.08.20 20:22:00 - [20] Edited by: welsh wizard on 20/08/2007 20:22:02 I see your point Kagura but this thread is about discussing the way speed combined with large quantities of hitpoints affects the way we play. I'm not interested in nerfing any particular module even if it may go someway to rectifying the 'problem' (if there is one as Goumindong said). The nerf threads come later. :P
Nyxus GALAXIAN RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.20 20:33:00 - [21] Originally by: Welsh The nerf threads come later. :P This is Eve O, where the nerf threads come way before we actually analyze the problem to find out if it even exists, or by how much. Next thing you'll tell me is that you are supposed to put the horse ahead of the cart, and everyone knows it's done the other way around. Nyxus The Gallente ideals of Freedom, Liberty and Equality will be met by the Amarr realities of Lasers, Armor and Battleships.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.20 20:34:00 - [22] Originally by: Nyxus Originally by: Welsh The nerf threads come later. :P This is Eve O, where the nerf threads come way before we actually analyze the problem to find out if it even exists, or by how much. Next thing you'll tell me is that you are supposed to put the horse ahead of the cart, and everyone knows it's done the other way around. No, that's all wrong! Before you can do either of those you have to kill the horse and then strike it repeatedly. ------------ Whiners - Unite! Tarminic - 26 Million SP in Forum Warfare.
River Clear	Posted - 2007.08.20 20:38:00 - [23] Edited by: River Clear on 20/08/2007 20:38:11 is that rose byrne in your sig welshie ???
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2007.08.20 20:39:00 - [24] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 20/08/2007 20:39:59 Originally by: Tarminic Before you can do either of those you have to kill the horse and then strike it repeatedly. Where is that sig with how the dead horse has been turned into puree...I need it. This is a good topic though, ill try not to derail it. --- Originally by: CCP Wrangler You're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, thats what hello kitty online is for.
Jem'imah	Posted - 2007.08.20 20:42:00 - [25] Edited by: Jem''imah on 20/08/2007 20:41:58
welsh wizard 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.08.20 20:42:00 - [26] Originally by: River Clear Edited by: River Clear on 20/08/2007 20:38:11 is that rose byrne in your sig welshie ??? It is! Marvelous isn't she?
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.08.20 21:57:00 - [27] Originally by: Nyxus I have to agree 100% with Welsh on this. We have had a lot of boosts to speed. Inertia stabs, a whole slew of rigs, heat. It's trivialized distance to an extent where ships that rely on distance for defense are much less useful. Speed can easily negate the dps of almost all missiles, even fired from ships with a velocity bonus. It has minimized strategic placement on the battlefield, not only for snipers but also for mid-range fighters. Why take anything other than close range + dps when you can close the distance in a matter of seconds? Not to mention speed allows you to get escape from almost any fight at will. There is no commitment to a fight. signed!
Di Jiensai Gallente Domination.	Posted - 2007.08.20 22:07:00 - [28] I agree. Some very good points came up here. All speedy ships use MWD. i think reducing the bonus on that would be a very good idea. it will hit everyone equally. Boosting AB wouldnt be a good idea i think. doesnt realy help with the too fast ships. so, just tune down MWD to 0.5-0.75 and see how it works. Another point here i like is the only one engine mod of each kind per ship. or at least put some serious stacking penalty in place.
ThaMa Gebir Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.08.20 23:25:00 - [29] Edited by: ThaMa Gebir on 20/08/2007 23:25:46 Originally by: Kagura Nikon Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 20/08/2007 19:44:05 The problem, if there is a problem, is threefold. []Smaller ships are hit too easily be larger ships guns []The combination of many different methods of increasing speeds have produced ridiculous top speeds []It is too easy to circumvent battlefield manuvering by warping The long and short of it is, in order to fix these you need to do a number of things. []Nerf webs such that webbed frigates will still be missed by battleship guns.[they have drones for a reason] []Increase the minimum warp distance from 150km to 300km. []Introduce Cruiser and Battleship sized warp scramblers. High powergrid, higher cap use, longer scramble range. []Make all speed bonuses stacking penalized. Move MWD/Ab speed bonus from the skirmish warfare command module to a mass reduction bonus. []Boost max speed bonus of afterburners by 50% At least, that is what i think. On general I agree, just still think MWD need some sort of reduction. FAction and deadspace MWD result in stupid speed boosts. If things were limited to only 500% would be not so bad, but 700-800% is plain WRONG. Wrong, well Ok I can understand where you are coming from, but bugger man bs's should not get to that speed, same for cruisers, perhaps. Interceptors and frigates yes, they need that speed. however I believe battleships need to get to their top speed faster, like reduce the weight addition AND top speed mod you can get out of it. Sound fair? On another note I feel that it is high time we had different sized warp scramblers with the right type of powergrid needs etc. Possibly the same with webs... Possibly... ---------------------------- Confirmed heaviest member of RDEX........ Hah, no more hijacks here.
Gripen Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.08.21 02:35:00 - [30] Wow. Quite surprising for me how many people here agree on the subject. I'm fine with the nanoships who devote most of their slots to be faster than other and be able to escape unwanted engagement but range should be an advantage. Right now if you have your gang at gate and some sniper battleship warps in 150km form the gate it will be tackled in less time than it takes him to warp out. I'd like to see base MWD bonus changed from 500% to 300% velocity.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: 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.