| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jim Raynor
   |
Posted - 2004.02.24 08:25:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Jim Raynor on 24/02/2004 08:29:40
The shiva patch didn't work at balancing ship classes, people still use nothing but battleships for PvP.
What if these ships were more durable? I think that might help, 50% isn't a lot really, they still would be far inferior to battleships in defenses and hi/mid/low slots and firepower, but they will atleast have some more staying power in combat.
Right now frigates have speed, but a lucky shot from a battleship is game over for them and cruisers lack speed and firepower to even think about hanging with battleships, only the blackbird is of any use, as a pure support ship.
What do you guys think?
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
KamiCrazy
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 08:30:00 -
[2]
I think the problem comes from battleships being able to mine.
They should create a "mining hardpoint" and make it so that no battleships have any of those hardpoints.
|
Karsten
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 08:36:00 -
[3]
Why should most people use anything less then the biggest stick around for fighting?
Execptions: special purpose ships like krestals, caracals and blackbirds. And these are something like the "biggest stick" in special capabilities or cost effetivity.
No one will voluntier to face a assault rifle armed guy with a old musket
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
Dukath
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 08:37:00 -
[4]
Linking tracking of guns to signature radius of the ship would go a long way to bring back frigates. The description of the interceptor hints to that but i doubt its actually implemented since some battleships still have an insanely high hit ration against an interceptor orbiting at 5000km with a speed over 600m/sec
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 08:38:00 -
[5]
 Quote:
Why should most people use anything less then the biggest stick around for fighting?
Execptions: special purpose ships like krestals, caracals and blackbirds. And these are something like the "biggest stick" in special capabilities or cost effetivity.
No one will voluntier to face a assault rifle armed guy with a old musket
Why does the army use infantry? Why not just put everyone in tanks? Infantry can do things a tank obviously can't.
It's reasoning such as yours that has turned PVP in EVE into a huge battleship slugfest. I would like to see more tactics and diversity, to be honest.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Karsten
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 08:42:00 -
[6]
yes and what part of the army has the highest loss rate?
armies use infantry also because they are cheap to maintain and fast to get.
as soon as a state has money it will upgrade this foot guys to special trained guys, motorised, airmobile or mechanised infantry.
Only the poorest states use pure plain leg infantry and these poor guys will not survive long on a battlefield.
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
Karsten
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 08:43:00 -
[7]
you are right combined arms is missing here but on a more personally centered game thats hard to achive.
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 08:45:00 -
[8]
Quote:
yes and what part of the army has the highest loss rate?
armies use infantry also because they are cheap to maintain and fast to get.
as soon as a state has money it will upgrade this foot guys to special trained guys, motorised, airmobile or mechanised infantry.
Only the poorest states use pure plain leg infantry and these poor guys will not survive long on a battlefield.
So what you are saying is that frigates and cruisers should have no tactical relevence what so ever in combat, even though todays navys obviously use submarines, frigates, destroyers, and cruisers in support of aircraft carriers (naval battleships are more or less obsolete).
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Karsten
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 08:48:00 -
[9]
i do not say this.
speical purpose ships have thier place. btu its the nature of things that people want the biggest newest best stuff.
its natural. you can force them to use other stuff only by making the "other stuff" de facto the best stuff around.
then you end up with something named battleship and the real battleships
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
Karsten
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 08:53:00 -
[10]
yes but a today frigate is larger then a WW2 destroyer and nearly a light crusier in size in most cases.
give a amiral unlimited resource and you end up with the big stuff. Example Norfork class anti submarine cruiser of the USA navy build at teh end of WW2 and to late to join the fightin.
what limits stuff is economics and the need to cover wide areas of course to show the flag in peace or to protect stuff at war.
econmics is a factor here to.
But as a role play games any player would prefere a battle ship to a frigatte in a show of flag mission.
Btw i use my frigates and cruiser for special jobs but i enjoy flying my real big toy. call it childish but thats the way it is.
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
Karsten
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 08:59:00 -
[11]
Quote:
(naval battleships are more or less obsolete).
the soviet kirow class ships could be called battle crusier but not even the US Navy could afford such a ship and carriers. so they made a choise for carriers and refitting some half a century old battleships. the reason the USN canceled the planned strike crusier (modern battleship/battle crusier equivalent) was money and not lack of interest. They had allready assigned hull numbers to them. The gap in the numbering sequence of crusiers. money rules the world.
here you can concentrate your resources so players go for quality instead of quantity
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
Karsten
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 09:02:00 -
[12]
every one able to get a battle ship could afford several crusiers but he can only ONE ship at a time. so why stay in less then what seems best for a certain task. in many cases this is a battleship.
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
Karsten
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 09:09:00 -
[13]
Carriers is another example for this in real live.
Earlier you got light, escort and fleet carriers. Now every navy uses the biggest carrier it can get.
Take the fate of the suggest Sea Control ship (basicly a escort carrier) in the 70s and earily 80s. it was killed in order to have more of the big sticks (nimitz class).
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
Omniwar
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 09:11:00 -
[14]
I think its stupid balancing when I kill a cruiser before I can activate my 6Šth turret at 60km range.
Cruisers should be upped in HP.
Spawn of the Devil
|
Siddy
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 09:11:00 -
[15]
so.. now Cruiser will last 4 shot more then before?
grate idea 
-------------------------------------------
|
Karsten
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 09:20:00 -
[16]
Quote:
I think its stupid balancing when I kill a cruiser before I can activate my 6Šth turret at 60km range.
Cruisers should be upped in HP.
Or lower battleship weapons - this would archive the same.
Anyway this will lead only to a endless circle of lowering/highering values of arms/ships/classes.
What you want is to make battleships less powerful or convert them to level 4/5 crusiers in the end. next step is to complain why a moa can kill a osprey fast. Or why a cruiser can kill a frigate so fast.
As long as you have different sizes the bigger side has more punch. The only realy balance would be that we all sit in the same "default" ship. Somehow i dont think this would be a lot of fun.
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 09:26:00 -
[17]
Quote:
Quote:
I think its stupid balancing when I kill a cruiser before I can activate my 6Šth turret at 60km range.
Cruisers should be upped in HP.
Or lower battleship weapons - this would archive the same.
Anyway this will lead only to a endless circle of lowering/highering values of arms/ships/classes.
What you want is to make battleships less powerful or convert them to level 4/5 crusiers in the end. next step is to complain why a moa can kill a osprey fast. Or why a cruiser can kill a frigate so fast.
As long as you have different sizes the bigger side has more punch. The only realy balance would be that we all sit in the same "default" ship. Somehow i dont think this would be a lot of fun.
Battleships already have enough difficulty taking down other battleships, it's quite balanced atm.. 1v1 a battleship vs a battleship the fight can go on for quite a while.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 09:28:00 -
[18]
Quote:
so.. now Cruiser will last 4 shot more then before?
grate idea
What would you suggest, troll?
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Karsten
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 09:31:00 -
[19]
he is right about the net effect.
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 09:34:00 -
[20]
Quote:
he is right about the net effect.
better than nothing, it would effectively increase say a Moa's shields from 1200 to 1800 + skills, well you get much better defense, enough defenses perhaps to warrant some degree of shield tanking, which I do believe most cruiser pilots ignore because if a bship locks them they are dead anyways.
frigates/cruisers would still be downright cheap
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Nicholas Marshal
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 09:52:00 -
[21]
Large BS guns need to have virtually 0 chance of hitting a frigate at speed.
This would make frigates deadly to an unescorted Battleship.
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 09:56:00 -
[22]
i agree totally Jim, i have suggested something like this but didnt get any respons... but i also belive that they should increase the dmg of Small and Medium guns... at least their range must get a little higher...
"We brake for nobody"
|
Siddy
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 09:56:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Siddy on 24/02/2004 09:58:08
Quote:
Quote:
so.. now Cruiser will last 4 shot more then before?
grate idea
What would you suggest, troll?
no rili... orher day i was killing peeps... a single moa took Incredible Beating from me . i still cant believe my eyes 
that thing took like 10 cruisemissiles and several 1400mm hits from optimal range, and survived. when i chekked logs, the thing took like 3000 damage
i dont know what u are thinkking.. but tire 3 cruisers are fairly durable at the moment
The thing i am sugjesting is that CCP whuld change the Wrekking hit Formula: so that u cant land Wrekking hits on MWD frigsate if u cant hit the thing in first plase  (and nerf the Heavy drones to not hit so well on fast targets either...they are Heavy drones after all)
but comparing the Damage Caracal can cause and the damage it can take i dont rili see the need for major HP boost....
Maybe a upgrating they Shield/armor Resistance by 10%/15% in all areas (Smaller Shield bubble is easier to generate and modulate its resistance)
whuld make intresting option and enable to use Tankked Cruisers
-------------------------------------------
|
Siddy
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 10:01:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Siddy on 24/02/2004 10:02:40
Besides.. lets face it
Cruisers are just abaut the right size targets for BS guns to Chew in few wolleys...
in fleetbattles they may got advantage for Being low profile targets and left alone .. but i dont know...
too durable cruisers arent good thing either..
-------------------------------------------
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 10:03:00 -
[25]
the movies i have seen frigates and cruisers r always targeted when spotted, 1-4 volleys and its dead!
"We brake for nobody"
|
Omniwar
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 10:03:00 -
[26]
Quote:
Large BS guns need to have virtually 0 chance of hitting a frigate at speed.
Already almost 0% chance of hitting a mwd frigate even if he is going in a straight line away from you.
Quote:
This would make frigates deadly to an unescorted Battleship.
Enough frigates are deadly to any ship, even a tanked out raven, I and few mates knew of 11 frigates coming to fountain so we decided to go and meet them, I jumped in first in my raven with FOF cruise missiles, when I landed at the other side I activated my hardeners asap and then my launchers, after about 5 seconds I dropping shields fast so I activated my XL booster but didnt work, I lost all but 10% shields in about 25-30 seconds and then I finally could warp out because many of the frigs weree dead and my mates were at the scene killing the rest.
Note that we knew the first one in would take a beating and be warp jammed, target jammed and webbed and I had the best ship setup to counter that so I went in first to be their main target to allow the rest to come in and kill them.
Spawn of the Devil
|
Siddy
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 10:06:00 -
[27]
Quote:
Quote:
Large BS guns need to have virtually 0 chance of hitting a frigate at speed.
Already almost 0% chance of hitting a mwd frigate even if he is going in a straight line away from you.
Quote:
This would make frigates deadly to an unescorted Battleship.
Enough frigates are deadly to any ship, even a tanked out raven, I and few mates knew of 11 frigates coming to fountain so we decided to go and meet them, I jumped in first in my raven with FOF cruise missiles, when I landed at the other side I activated my hardeners asap and then my launchers, after about 5 seconds I dropping shields fast so I activated my XL booster but didnt work, I lost all but 10% shields in about 25-30 seconds and then I finally could warp out because many of the frigs weree dead and my mates were at the scene killing the rest.
Note that we knew the first one in would take a beating and be warp jammed, target jammed and webbed and I had the best ship setup to counter that so I went in first to be their main target to allow the rest to come in and kill them.
now... imagine that horde supportted by 2 BS's 
-------------------------------------------
|
TWD
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 10:06:00 -
[28]
Frigates are *very* useful in locking down battleships, while being too fast for missiles to impact, for most L turrets to track.
But when people use drones on them, frigates become kinda useless..
Maybe make a defence against drones for frigates..
Like ECM Bursts, that disable drones for x amount of seconds
Wouldnt say cruisers arent used.. they can have quite some firepower,
and are able to dampen/jam battleships
If you can afford/fly a battleship.. why fly a cruiser/frigate? |
Iluyen
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 10:07:00 -
[29]
What I don't understand is why people think a 100k isk frigate should have any chance against a 100 million isk BS. 3 or 4 cruisers have a very good chance of killing a BS as it is, I don't see why they should get better odds.
|
ElCoCo
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 10:09:00 -
[30]
Quote:
i agree totally Jim, i have suggested something like this but didnt get any respons... but i also belive that they should increase the dmg of Small and Medium guns... at least their range must get a little higher...
I don`t think they need to increase their damage...
Medium turret DOT compared to large turrets is not 1/4th as their HP`s are.
Actualy their DOT can be sometimes better than large turrets due to better tracking... their staying power is just short.
I would agree on increasing the effect that ship size and transversal velocity has on the probability to hit.
Increasing HP`s sounds like a half-measure.
|
Siddy
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 10:09:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Siddy on 24/02/2004 11:06:16
Quote:
Frigates are *very* useful in locking down battleships, while being too fast for missiles to impact, for most L turrets to track.
But when people use drones on them, frigates become kinda useless..
Maybe make a defence against drones for frigates..
Like ECM Bursts, that disable drones for x amount of seconds
Wouldnt say cruisers arent used.. they can have quite some firepower,
and are able to dampen/jam battleships
If you can afford/fly a battleship.. why fly a cruiser/frigate?
MAN got point.. but usualy if peep got BS.. he will prefer to use it over Cruiser or friggy....
and if he dont have BS.. he wont fight.. he whuld just sit and mine it like a good carebear
-------------------------------------------
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 10:10:00 -
[32]
when frigates use mwd's they sacrifice lots of firepower they could have...
"We brake for nobody"
|
Siddy
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 11:05:00 -
[33]
i can fit 3 M-12 in MWD breacher No problem.....
and even one 200mm plate just in case 
-------------------------------------------
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 11:14:00 -
[34]
"Or lower battleship weapons - this would archive the same."
There's really not enough difference in how much damage you can do with different turret classes, to allow that. Increasing the endurance of cruisers/frigates would be nice, though.
Mind you, i think the main problem is, in the large battles everyone targets frigates/cruisers first because they know those ships are weaker, so there's more chance to kill them before they warp out... and it will be something to write on the score board. And hardly surprising the smaller ships die in few seconds when fired at by number of battleships. ^^;
|
sokkusu
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 11:44:00 -
[35]
heavy Drones are a great threat for fregate. they never miss, lock very fast. a fregate can live 6 secondes at 15Km from a BS with drones. A nerf is needed on some parameters (takes a long time to lock a fregates. , often miss fregates).
|
Severe McCald
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 12:13:00 -
[36]
Quote:
What I don't understand is why people think a 100k isk frigate should have any chance against a 100 million isk BS.
For the same reason that one guy armed with a $2000 rocket launcher can destroy a $20 million jet. Sometimes money can't buy the game (in RL). Although it does in Eve.
Severe
And Moses was content to dwell with the man:and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter. And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom:for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land. |
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 12:27:00 -
[37]
Quote:
i can fit 3 M-12 in MWD breacher No problem.....
and even one 200mm plate just in case
fitting launcher's isnt a problem, they use like 3 PG and 10 CPU, what about the 280mm, Neutron Blaster, Heavy Beam and even the 150mm?
"We brake for nobody"
|
Rahzelk
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 12:27:00 -
[38]
Armor boost for frigs and cruiser seems very good idea !
I would add : the difference in speed isn't enought.
Cruisers are way too slow. They should go at least at 350m/s without any boost.
Same goes for frigs, they should have a base speed of 700.
While battleship shouldn't be over 100m/s (isn't is BIG ??)...
and yes, battleship hits frigates way too easily....
(elegance-corp.net)
Do not look where you fell, but where you slipped. |
Toran Mehtar
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 12:51:00 -
[39]
Increase hit points to frigates and cruisers and what do you have? - Small battleships.
I agree that fleet combat should contain a mix of ship types, but to achieve this you have to give people better reasons to do so.
I think we should have more specialist weapons/mods available specifically for fleet combat. How about powerful short range (<5km) ecm units for frigates that hamper affected ships ability to target other ships. Or sensor relays that allow smaller craft to boost the targeting/tracking ability of allied battleships.
Another idea is to have the ability to get inside a ship's 'shield radius', which would vary dependent on the class of ship (say 500m for frigs, 1km for cruisers, 2.5k for bs) This would be of minimal use for like v like combat, but would allow smaller, faster ships the ability to bypass shields and deal real damage.
Any thoughts?
|
Siddy
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 12:54:00 -
[40]
Quote:
Quote:
i can fit 3 M-12 in MWD breacher No problem.....
and even one 200mm plate just in case
fitting launcher's isnt a problem, they use like 3 PG and 10 CPU, what about the 280mm, Neutron Blaster, Heavy Beam and even the 150mm?
who on earth use that C.rap in frigs in PVP ?
Cruises are must
-------------------------------------------
|
Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 12:58:00 -
[41]
my thoughts have always been that large turrets as a class should not be able to hit a small frig unless at a standstill. using the old analogy, a WWII Battleship never shot down a Jap zero with its main guns. Neither should an Eve BS IMO even with multiple alts and badgers using tracking links.
Something is needed for frig's vs drones, drones just pwn frigs every time since most frigs get in close to a BS to get under their large turret range and use EW only to get pwned by drones in seconds. They do need some defence against them.
Untill each class offers a unique role in fleet battle, everyone will use BS since everyone can afford to lose them mostly. Interceptors fill a role nicely in fleet battle however the drone problem makes them useless.
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Randuin MaraL
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 13:41:00 -
[42]
Quote:
I think the problem comes from battleships being able to mine.
They should create a "mining hardpoint" and make it so that no battleships have any of those hardpoints.
I would cheer to that.
____________________________________________________
Never be in the company of anyone with whom you would not want to die.
MEDUSA veteran, Khumaak Award winner |
Cpt Trenchard
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 13:58:00 -
[43]
Quote:
yes but a today frigate is larger then a WW2 destroyer and nearly a light crusier in size in most cases.
give a amiral unlimited resource and you end up with the big stuff. Example Norfork class anti submarine cruiser of the USA navy build at teh end of WW2 and to late to join the fightin.
what limits stuff is economics and the need to cover wide areas of course to show the flag in peace or to protect stuff at war.
econmics is a factor here to.
But as a role play games any player would prefere a battle ship to a frigatte in a show of flag mission.
Btw i use my frigates and cruiser for special jobs but i enjoy flying my real big toy. call it childish but thats the way it is.
Karsten hit the nail on the head here "What's limits stuff is economics" If you really want to see balanced fleet battles it would come not from changing ship stats but from quadrupuling the cost of BS, doubling the cost of cruisers and leaving Frigates alone. The major problem is as has been said many times on these boards anyone who can mine can have a battle ship in a week or two. Of course the problem with this becomes in a subscription based game 90% on your player base will not be willing to work over a year to obtain a BS and then they go away cause they can't have the big toy the first day in the game.
|
Karsten
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 16:35:00 -
[44]
Quote:
using the old analogy, a WWII Battleship never shot down a Jap zero with its main guns.
not really accurate
standard anti torpedo bomber drill: fire the big guns in front of the incoming low level planes in the sea. the resulting waterfront had some effect on the attackers.
even todays guided ammo is able to hit nimble targets with big guns (i.e. copper head guided artillery rounds - 80s technology).
and eve ships are not fast. speeds are very low in fact. less then mach 2 in most cases.
no ship here is "fast" even in our current time.
no to mention things like proxy fuses (WW2 technology) and terminal guided ammo (80s technology).
Karsten
"All your ISK belong to the Viking Brewery" |
Stoop
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 18:18:00 -
[45]
Very good idea Jim. Im not sure if it will really balance things but it is a step in the right direction.
I know this isnt apples to apples but I think that counterstrike and bf1942 are pretty balanced.
Almost all guns in CS get used (admintingly I havent played since 1.3) AWP is obviously the most powerful but only 20% of the people use it. The AK/Colt/Sig/and Terrorist counterpart to the Sig are very popular as well as the P-90 and MP-5. Even the pistols are very useful, the Deagle being the most obvious but the HK Tactical 45 pistol in that game is still pretty bad ass.
BF1942, every class gets used, every ground vehicle gets used, and every plane gets used. And the best part about it is.. A Tank (Battleship for Eve?) can slaughter infantry over and over but if you get a smart infantry dude with the right strategy he can trash a tank in no time. It doesnt work 100% and more accurately around 20% and is skill is a huge factor, both of the tank driver and the engineer/anti-tank fellow.
Like I said, not apples to apples but those games are pretty well balanced and its very fun.
In this game it takes a really really dumb/ill prepared BS pilot to die to 4 frigates or 2-4 cruisers. Drones pwn frigates and FoF missles/Drones pwn cruisers. Or they can simply log out. If you have some sheild boosters/hardeners on and drones/Fof (assuming you are target jammed) you can avoid death by logging .
|
pooti
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 18:24:00 -
[46]
i dunno about frigates and cruisers, but indies are far too weak defensively. i would be happy to see them get a armor/shield boost
|
Isonkon Serikain
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 18:50:00 -
[47]
Last time I checked, you can buy ten cruisers for the price of the cheapest battleship... And I never tried myself, but 10 cruisers ought to be able to waste that battleship... This means that pound for pound, cruisers are more powerful than battleships, right? I mean, a bb and two top tier cruisers ought to handle that battleship...
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Jim's beef is that PVP is all battleships, well unless you can have ten buddies with you to fight an opponent in battleship, why bother with anything less? NO one likes to lose on purpose. Or maybe Jim just wants to feel more manly while ganking frigates and cruisers from his battleship ;)
The real issue is game mechanics, namely the feasability of having massive battles due to lag. I do agree with Jim on the frigate issue... But I think interceptors may solve this... Wait and see.
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 18:53:00 -
[48]
Just introduce tier 4 cruisers with the suggestions Jim gave concerning HP.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Damajink
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 19:02:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Damajink on 24/02/2004 19:04:52
Quote:
The shiva patch didn't work at balancing ship classes
Eh? Did I miss something? I wasn't greeted with a 'Downloading Patch' message today.....
On the subject, I haven't been playing anywhere near long enough for my opinion to matter, but I agree. 'Lower' ships need to remain useable for situations instead of BSes being the end all, be all.
|
Imperishable
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 19:11:00 -
[50]
Maybe instead of trying to reduce the vast gap between frigates/cruisers and battleships, we could just insert new ship class in middle of that power/cost gap.
|
shakaZ XIV
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 19:31:00 -
[51]
Quote:
i dunno about frigates and cruisers, but indies are far too weak defensively. i would be happy to see them get a armor/shield boost
yup /me agrees
its impossible to protect them, the only useful thing u can do for an indy is scout ahead a bit...protecting on the spot wont help. they are dead in 1/2 volleys of.. anyhting really :P
|
Cao Cao
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 19:40:00 -
[52]
A long time ago I started a thread that had the suggestion that indies should be armored and shielded like battleships. They should have like a 10mw power grid. Basically big lumbering armored, tanked, shielded hulks. Anyway the point was that it is too easy to kill them.
I pretty much agree with the purpose of making cruisers and frigs tougher nuts to ***** but I dunno if unilaterally boosting their hit points is the solution. I think more appropriate would be to make tracking and signature radius more extreme in its effect: REALLY REALLY hard to hit smaller objects with larger guns, but REALLY REALLY easy to hit larger objects with larger guns. You get the idea. Right now there is no reason to equip smaller weapons to counter smaller ships.
|
Ashantee
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 19:52:00 -
[53]
Who wants to know the reason 5 200k frigs should be able to kill 1 100mil BS? I'll give you my take
1 mil creds for the frigs, and a little more for weapons
100mil creds for BS and a good deal more for weapons
5 pilots with good enough skills to use MWD's and good gunnery skills (or missile skills for kestrels)
1 Pilot with BS skill at 1 or 2 and either good gunnery skills or missile/gunnery skills (for you raven pilots out there)
THERE! see that? thats the BIG reason why "a 100k ship kill my 100 mil ship" PEOPLE
When you have 5 people working togther as a team, they become FAR greater than the sum of them.
Drones take ZERO people to fly, so heavy drone does NOT = a frig.
Lets take a good look at the important stuff.
5 frigs= 5 people working together
1 BS= 1 person with a load of heavy drones
in a Multiplayer game, one would think the groups of people would win, this is not the case, and i think it should be.
Frigs can kill BS's, if frigs move faster than cruise missiles, they are safe from everything EXCEPT drones. there are ways to work around this, but it shouldn't be this much of a problem. And i have no great ideas on how to change this without throwing everything out of balance.
Anyone who read this, do you have any ideas?
|
Jayad
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 20:57:00 -
[54]
Ashantee, 
Ive never argued the topics problem using that angle but you have articulated a very good point. Team work is a main part of eve, and this should always be true in combat.
"A team is greater than the sum of their parts"
NOT, (but more than often is):
"a team IS the sum of their parts"
|
N0b0dy
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 21:42:00 -
[55]
A size relative hit factor, based on gun size, heavily biased on radial velocity would be very helpful.
Large guns can't hit small targets moving quickly with respect to tracking rate of the gun. Small guns can't miss giant targets if they tried. The lock time helped, but you really need this to gain survivability with frigs and cruisers.
Might be nice to see battleships have to mount a couple medium and a couple small guns along with those 2-4 large ones.
Small guns on small targets: usual hit miss
Small guns on medium targets: increased hit frequency
Small guns on large targets: virtually never miss
Medium guns on small targets: decreased hit frequency
Medium guns on medium targets: usual hit miss
Medium guns on large targets: increased hit frequency
Large guns on small targets: fat chance
Large guns on medium targets: decreased hit frequency
Large guns on large targets: usual hit miss
All guns on super large targets (stations, titans, etc.): virtually no misses
So, add a base number to account for size difference, then add an offset to that value to modify for gun angle relative motion. It's can't just be base velocity because it's easy to track a ship moving directly at you or away from you. It would give people a reason to zig-zag.
If this were implemented, you'd probably need to give the shield and hit point bonus to battleships. Ironic eh? 
|
Cirle
|
Posted - 2004.02.26 06:03:00 -
[56]
Quote:
Right now frigates have speed, but a lucky shot from a battleship is game over for them and cruisers lack speed and firepower to even think about hanging with battleships, only the blackbird is of any use, as a pure support ship.
What do you guys think?
Is the speed achieved by the use of MWD? In which case, remove or reduce the shield/cap penalties; bingo, twenty five to forty percent more shield and cap on a frigate or cruiser. It would be too much to hope it would ever happen on a battleship though :)
Of course, this would make running away easier as well, which would generate complaints on the other side of the argument.
Cirle |
Vel Kyri
|
Posted - 2004.02.26 13:07:00 -
[57]
This is touching on points in other threads..
the gun size-target size mode is GREAT.
i would also make it a BIG modifier...
ie - large turrut == impossible to hit small fast frigate
big thing also - change the speeds..
make shuttle/frigate base speed aroun 1k/sec
cruiser/indy base speed around 400m/sec
battleship base speed around 50m/sec
then with the overdrives/nanos/burners/MWD you can change the speeds, but make instead ot "+30m/s" speed for overdrives etc, make it a %... like a permanent afterburner - +25% speed (so again more effective for frigs, less for bs)
indys do need more armour/shields. they are basically cruiser size anyway.
a frigate should be able to run in, jam/scramble/web a battleship and stay safe from damage. Need to use small guns (ideally) or med guns to actually shoo them away - better yet use other frigates.
But BIG things was teamwork should really be improved - or the effect of it.
5 frigs should own a battleship
3 cruisers too
need the reasons for classes..
-----
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2004.02.26 14:19:00 -
[58]
"Small guns on small targets: usual hit miss
Small guns on medium targets: increased hit frequency
Small guns on large targets: virtually never miss
Medium guns on small targets: decreased hit frequency
Medium guns on medium targets: usual hit miss
Medium guns on large targets: increased hit frequency
Large guns on small targets: fat chance
Large guns on medium targets: decreased hit frequency
Large guns on large targets: usual hit miss"
... There's still a problem that 'tis idea doesn't address. Namely, the small/medium guns don't really do that less damage than their heavier counterparts. Which means, with current shield/armour sizes a frigate vs frigate fight lasts mere seconds if they get the target within gun range. Cruiser vs cruiser is similar -- rarely lasts a minute, and that's with shield boosters and stuff going.
That's why i wouldn't mind to see the hitpoints increased acros the board to be honest. The frigate fight should be a bit longer. The cruiser should be able to duel for quite a while. Battleship vs battleship should really take time (with nerfed cap relays the ability to tank damage will be reduced and consequently fights become shorter) unless it's few ships vs one -- battleships are supposed to be huge, so they should be able to take lot of beating before finally going down...
|
Grim Vandal
|
Posted - 2004.02.26 15:15:00 -
[59]
What about that way: 1 BS and 1 frig should be a significant threat even more like 2 BS's.
But 2 frigs on their own shouldnt be able to kill a BS.
BS owns a cruiser and is good vs BS's
Cruiser owns a frig and is good vs cruisers and BS's
Frigs LOCK DOWN BS's and is good vs frigs and cruiser
That way you would see frigs cuz they can lock down BS's and you would see cruisers to take out frigs and help BS's to kill other BS's and of course BS's to take out BS's and cruiser.
To solve the problem you shouldnt need 5 people in frigs to kill one BS but you should favor a mixed fleet instead of BS's only.
It should be all about a mixed fleet!!!
Greetings Grim |
Xelios
|
Posted - 2004.02.26 19:03:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Xelios on 26/02/2004 19:05:36
Battleships have always been too self-reliant. What ever happened to 'battleships will need frigate or cruiser escort to be effective'? Sure they're slow, but if you're travelling 2 mwd's fix that. Sure they can be jammed and scrambled by a cruiser, but if you carry some FOF cruise missiles you're fine. Anything to help lower class ships a bit is great, but I don't think giving them 50% more hitpoints is the right solution, they still won't be able to compete with 8 turrets doing 200 damage each. On the other hand, they shouldn't be able to compete with that, not alone.
"They should create a "mining hardpoint" and make it so that no battleships have any of those hardpoints."
Yeah really, it's a BATTLESHIP, not an uber miner. Make mining lasers use seperate mining hardpoints please.
|
Logan West
|
Posted - 2004.02.26 19:48:00 -
[61]
In most Sci-Novels and movies Battleships can only shoot from the bow, though smaller weapons may be placed on the sides and rear. This makes their crappy turining radius really count against them. I don't think this is a solution, but at least it will ofer something to think about.
Anyone notice flanking has no use in this game? The weapons can shoot anywhere in 360 degrees. That really takes tactics outta the game.
"I solemnly swear never to camp a spawn, to twink a mule, to farm a mob. I will not beg for nerfs, or macro for money. I am a gamer, and I swear to have fun."
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.02.26 19:52:00 -
[62]
Quote:
In most Sci-Novels and movies Battleships can only shoot from the bow, though smaller weapons may be placed on the sides and rear. This makes their crappy turining radius really count against them. I don't think this is a solution, but at least it will ofer something to think about.
Anyone notice flanking has no use in this game? The weapons can shoot anywhere in 360 degrees. That really takes tactics outta the game.
Yes the way weapons work in Eve kind of sucks.
I would much prefer large, spine mounted guns used for taking out other battleship, and smaller turrets as anti-frigate fire, ect.
But honestly Eve isn't signed in that way at all, so why bother discussing it, it is how it is.
I WOULD like to see hardpoints for launchers though, so they act sort of like turrets, I'm kind of tired of missiles magically appearing infront of my Raven. ^^
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.02.26 20:26:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Admiral IceBlock on 26/02/2004 22:12:39
if you ever tried Freelancer, there is the Turrets which can shoot in any direction and the "Mounted" guns were u must turn ur ship to shoot.
I think that if CCP changed the way guns worked it would be better and worse, like the 425mm's would be a Mounted Gun while the Dual 250mm would be a Turret gun. just an example... so they have like 60 degree line of sight
"We brake for nobody"
|
Belzavior
|
Posted - 2004.02.26 22:18:00 -
[64]
I would like to see increased shields, reduced booster effect across the board. All ships of all classes.
Perhaps Armor also so that Armor dependant ships aren't hurt.
This will of course extend battles in all aspects, but also make it very hard/next to impossible to tank dmg indefinately.
A frigate wouldn't be killed in one lucky shot either. The battleship would also keep it's endurance lvl.
That aside.
A real big problem with pvp and mixed fleets is:
Server performance. If its gonna lag with any more than 10-20 ships, make sure those 10-20 are battleships. If a corp could field say 120 pilots, then yah outfit those guys in frigates cruisers and they'll own almost any fleet out there.
I also like the idea of adding a tracking penalty based on the difference of the weapon to the ship size. (sounds pretty fair)
SOMETHING has to be done about the drones, but I think that's something that everyone agrees with.
Another big enemy of haveing multiple types of ships for fleet warfare, is of course INSURANCE. The current system eliminates any type of economical reason to use a frigate over a battleship. Though People will never be willing to give up their free replacements. While I agree frigs and cruisers need a tactical reason to use. I think there should DEFINATELY be an economical reason to use them.
|
Wraeththu
|
Posted - 2004.02.26 22:57:00 -
[65]
Quote:
I would much prefer large, spine mounted guns used for taking out other battleship, and smaller turrets as anti-frigate fire, ect.
But honestly Eve isn't signed in that way at all, so why bother discussing it, it is how it is.
Yeah, that would have been awesome. As would the mining hardpoints. Though, I wish there was more specialization in 'component' installs in general, such as "transmission devices" "central core items" "hull areas" etc, so that an ECM ship was actually an ECM ship. It would mean you could produce and sell more ship types and variation.
I sat and thought about this for a while, and the scorp/apoc description and imperial apocs kept popping into my mind.
It's obvious the origional intent was to make BSs rare. As per most MMORPGs, they underestimated player resolve, and BSs became common place. Irrelivent to the cause, it's a fact of Eve. The BS is the workhorse of the eve fleet.
So maybe Eve's 'name' classifications are just off. maybe the Titan's will fill the battleship role. BS's fill the cruiser role, and cruisers more like frigates and escort boats, and frigates more like patrol boats.
I mean, realistically, if a titan cost something large (say 3-5 Billion ISK to make) I don't think we'd be seeing a lot of them. And taking one down would probably create the same 'huzzahs' as the sinking of the Yamato or Bismark. Think about when dude got his Imp Apoc blasted. It made a stir. Heck, most people haven't even seen one. Rarity is cool.
Unfortunatly, given the fact that 8/slot max and slot genericness of the system, titan's aren't going to be powerful enough to warrent that cost, or to be given that level or respect. It's just a tier 3 battleship. with big holds.
Yeah, I know this is old news, but it seems trying to buff frigs and cruisers is kinda like watching some guy try to bail his sinking ship with a teaspoon and giving him a serving spoon istead. Sure, it'll help, but it's just prolonging the inevitable.
That said. I love my frigs. they're far more attractive than the stupid porky BSs.
--
TomB: End the speed-race. 1 propulsion mod allowed, make turrets affect ship attributes like +speed/+ab speed +agil for progressivly smaller/lighter turrets, -speed/-ab speed -agil for long-range. |
KamiCrazy
|
Posted - 2004.02.26 23:07:00 -
[66]
Titans aren't going to be uber huge ulimate killer ships. Their benefits are mobile docking and jump drives. Coupled with their massive hold.
|
Wraeththu
|
Posted - 2004.02.26 23:11:00 -
[67]
Quote:
Titans aren't going to be uber huge ulimate killer ships. Their benefits are mobile docking and jump drives. Coupled with their massive hold.
Yeah, but I'm saying maybe that role could be filled. Maybe a Dreadnought class of ship as an advanced battleship. Who knows, maybe that's already planned in tech II/infinity.
Renegade Legion had a great frig/cruiser/bs balance. It also had various mounting abilities and cannon sizes. Wing commander comes to mind too but they didn't really have too many battleships, it was mostly fighters supporting the cruiser/carrier model.
--
TomB: End the speed-race. 1 propulsion mod allowed, make turrets affect ship attributes like +speed/+ab speed +agil for progressivly smaller/lighter turrets, -speed/-ab speed -agil for long-range. |
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.02.26 23:28:00 -
[68]
i would rather have bs lvl3 then a titan. and if ccp makes bs lvl3, make the caldari one turret based, please! 
"We brake for nobody"
|
Wraeththu
|
Posted - 2004.02.26 23:48:00 -
[69]
Quote:
i would rather have bs lvl3 then a titan. and if ccp makes bs lvl3, make the caldari one turret based, please!
Yeah, but it sorta defeats the economic aspect of the balance equation. I mean, look at interceptors. They're basically level 6 frigates, but they cost 15-25x as expensive (depending on whether you contrast against it's parent ship or the level 3 frigs). If elite battleships were 15-25x as expensive, it would be economically noticable. If they were level 4 frigates, people probably wouldn't be as keen (not that they're keen as it is) on forking over the sizable price difference.
I keep reading people say "I pod people because it creates a financial burdon upon the oponnent". Maybe that's just idle justification for being murderous, but I'm going to assume it's true for now. If that's the case, then this facilities this. A person can leverage himself or his corp to produce a super weapon, which will turn the tides of battle, but it's loss will also create an equally burdonsom pain.
It's kinda like the market changes and Tech II BP limitations in reverse.
This occurs to me that it's off-topic, so I apologize Jim. I'll stop diverting your thread. I was going to not post it, but I hope the ideas will be read sometime.
--
TomB: End the speed-race. 1 propulsion mod allowed, make turrets affect ship attributes like +speed/+ab speed +agil for progressivly smaller/lighter turrets, -speed/-ab speed -agil for long-range. |
Belzavior
|
Posted - 2004.02.27 00:10:00 -
[70]
Hehe I wouldn't be surprised if one of the Elite Battleship types was a Dreadnought class.
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.02.27 01:35:00 -
[71]
i didnt mean it to come as a tech 2 ship, just tech 1. why cant battleships have a lvl3 bs when cruisers and frigs have?
"We brake for nobody"
|
Hanns
|
Posted - 2004.02.27 01:41:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Hanns on 27/02/2004 01:46:40
I think drones and large weps (especially megathrons with blasters) are frigates problems, IMO drones are ***, I hate drones with a passion, I never use them as they are virtually useless in fleet battles, they only pose a threat to frigates and cruisers, they just get left behind when people run away, they are far too effective against frigates, the problem is going to be a hard one to fix, make drones weaker to frigates, then they are even more worthless against BS and cruisers.
CCP have made all these problems for themselves, TomB said we all got into battleships to fast, I agree, and do you want to know why everyone wants a BS? its because they are the pinnacle of EVERYTHING you name it PVP, NPC hunting, MINING, TRAVEL (2MWD's and big cargo) the only thing they donÆt RULE at is Hauling, they far to effective against other types of ships, nobody wants to fly frigates and cruisers, because a single battleship can decimate multiple cruisers and frigates (even if frigs and cruisers are using ECM) because of FOF's drones and large smart bombs!
And IÆm just talking about multiple frigs and cruiser vs. ONE battleship, any more than one BS and the smaller ships have NO chance that is why EVERYONE wants battleships, and thatÆs not right in my book, ask anyone who knows me well, I love frigates, youÆll find me on the test server ALL the time trying frigate setups out, and find me on TQ flying around in my raptor, but when it comes to the crunch, do you think I use frigate for PVP or fleet battles?? The answer is HELL NO! Do I look like I wanna spend like 50mill getting a new clone and all my implants back every time I get shot down!
I donÆt think a lone frigate should be able to take down a battleship, but I equally donÆt think a single battle ship should be able to kill a frigate when itÆs fitted to fight other battleships, IMO make large guns impossible to hit a moving frigate! I think this is totally fair, people might thin k about fitting small guns to there battleships, or actually getting corp members to pilot frigates.
Overall I think itÆs a shame CCP didnÆt see all this coming in beta!
*edit* Ohh wait i forgot, were still in beta.......
|
Belzavior
|
Posted - 2004.02.27 04:03:00 -
[73]
I don't want it to be impossible for BS to hit a frig with its guns, just damn hard.
I would think of adding a huge tracking penalty to turrets attacking a lower size than it's self.
Example for a large turret
Against a BS: normal tracking
Against a Cruiser: 50% Tracking penalty
Against a Frigate: 75% Tracking penalty
Also determine the quality of the shot AFTER the shot was determined a hit, so if you land that 1 in 100 shot on a fast moving interceptor, you only got another 1 in 100 chance to get off a perfect.
|
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2004.02.27 12:56:00 -
[74]
Quote:
Overall I think it’s a shame CCP didn’t see all this coming in beta!
Not a shame... It's a crime they didn't see it. A crime against a game with huge potential.
Oh well...
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
Ruffles
|
Posted - 2004.02.27 13:19:00 -
[75]
I am sorry, but battleships are still way too versitle, which is why you still only see groups and fleets of battleships.
Take drones away from battleships whose race doesn't normally use them, and you make at least one vulnerability.
Link turret accuracy to signature radius. Its still too easy for a second battleship to be the only support another battleship requires. Until this point is addressed you really won't see that many frigates and cruisers supporting these ships. If battleships litterally can't hit moving frigates with guns, then they require support. Once a blaster frigate is orbiting their target they are still too easy for another supporting battleship to dispatch in one volley, pretty much nullifying the frigates role/race style.
Apply the same harsh stacking to sensor boosters. The 50%+ bonus ones really shouldn't be stacked it is somewhat defeating the penalty you provided them with. Yep, we already use sensor dampeners to help but they only work when we are in range, and yet you can still get silly-fast locking times with battleships.
If you don't have it that the biggest ships require cruisers and frigates to defend them from smaller ships (cruisers/frigs), then really you haven't got any further in resolving this problem. You won't have cruisers and frigates providing fleet defenses, which they should be doing to protect the big beasts.
I do agree that cruisers and indies should get a little bump, perhaps 20% for the top end cruisers, increasing to 25% for the lower end cruisers. It looks apparent that some tech 2 frigates will have similar hits to the top end cruisers now (tech 2 ships flown by Race Operatives in agent missions), isn't that just a little too daft?
No one in the frigate community minds loosing ships, loosing their clone because the escape pod doesn't work like an ejector seat is somewhat more daft, but another topic. No one in the frigate community expects a super-frig to take down battleships with one frigate, but we do ask for a little more chance to do our job/role and a little longevity in a battle.
|
Grim Vandal
|
Posted - 2004.02.27 13:26:00 -
[76]
Lets CANCEL the WRECKING HITS, easy to do isnt it?!!!
And btw YES Freespace 2 was ubber in terms of capital ships. I dreamed, flying one of them. Its awesome to watch them fighting and turning, similar as in BABYLON 5!!!
Sorry for the add but its the easiest way to tell people how it could work.
Greetings Grim |
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2004.02.27 13:45:00 -
[77]
Quote:
Lets CANCEL the WRECKING HITS, easy to do isnt it?!!!
No need to be that drastic and cancel them. The luck factor is always nice to have around.
The change needed is a change in calculation. At the moment a critical works like this: A x% of it occuring. No other factors. You get x and you will get a crit, no matter range, transversial speed, signature radius of target, etc etc.
The Critical "Check roll" should only happen in cases you get a normal hit, not every time one of the turrets fire.
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2004.02.27 14:01:00 -
[78]
Quote:
In most Sci-Novels and movies Battleships can only shoot from the bow, though smaller weapons may be placed on the sides and rear. This makes their crappy turining radius really count against them. I don't think this is a solution, but at least it will ofer something to think about.
Anyone notice flanking has no use in this game? The weapons can shoot anywhere in 360 degrees. That really takes tactics outta the game.
WWI & WWII Battleships and Pre-Dreadnought Battlecruisers had 1-2 Turrets on the bow and 1-2 Turrets on the stern. Rotation was about 270 degrees. They essentially had full 360 coverage however not all turrets could fire at the same time except when firing from the broadside past a certain minimum distance. Gunnery skills where more important than navigational skills.
15th-17th century frigates, galleons and battleships (aka Man o' wars) had very limited frontal and rear attacking capabilities. Out manuevering your opponent in order to bring him in a position where his bow or stern was facing your broadside with a ~10 degree angel was the key in such battles. Navigational skills were more important than gunnery skills.
EVE resembles the former situation the most.
Unfortunately the mentality is to minimize "twitch". Having to navigate in order to be effective in EVE's naval battles would bring in the "twitch" factor. Dev's don't really like that i think. Then you have the lag as well to think about.
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
Ruffles
|
Posted - 2004.02.27 14:12:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Ruffles on 27/02/2004 14:25:05
Quote:
Juan:
The change needed is a change in calculation. At the moment a critical works like this: A x% of it occuring. No other factors. You get x and you will get a crit, no matter range, transversial speed, signature radius of target, etc etc.
The Critical "Check roll" should only happen in cases you get a normal hit, not every time one of the turrets fire.
Totally agree. Why should you crit when the maths has determined you missed anyway? IF you hit, then IF you are lucky, big bang hit.
Hanns, I agree and to that effect I suggested a drones situation akin to turrets and ammo. Use the right drones for the right job. Speed up drones a fraction. Have light drones used to attack anything, Heavy drones against Cruisers and Battleships. It does leave mediums in possibly either category, but its just an idea. Likewise I think light missiles should be increased in speed to be an anti-frigate type weapon, and heavies a little faster so as to catch a cruiser in initial stages of MWD, but torps and cruise shouldn't hit a frigate unless they are standing still. All just my opinions of course
|
Vel Kyri
|
Posted - 2004.02.27 14:16:00 -
[80]
Ruffles said it well.
Unless you make it that Battleships NEED frigates and cruisers for protection, we wont see them.
Price is not a factor here - not for dedicated groups working together.
make frigates IMPOSSIBLE to hit with large guns.
give them a straight 50% miss rate from Medium guns.
no more wrecking shots. (which hit regardless)
make shield boosters add a % to the shield recharge, not a straight amount (make tanking harder) - BUT increase base damage
(all thats been said above somewhere)
drones are MEANT to be anti-frigate weapons, so reduce their damage and make them easier to target by frigates., but pretty crappy vs cruisers/battleships
make frigate base speed around the 1k mark
cruisers about 400
battleship around 50.
-----
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.02.27 14:48:00 -
[81]
Quote:
Lets CANCEL the WRECKING HITS, easy to do isnt it?!!!
And btw YES Freespace 2 was ubber in terms of capital ships. I dreamed, flying one of them. Its awesome to watch them fighting and turning, similar as in BABYLON 5!!!
Sorry for the add but its the easiest way to tell people how it could work.
u know, there is a Babylon 5 mod for Freespace 2!
"We brake for nobody"
|
Rahzelk
|
Posted - 2004.02.27 15:51:00 -
[82]
yes, Fed up of all these Battleships !! It's plainly stupid, every other ship are kinda useless facing a BS... It shouldn't be the case...
I hope TomB looks at this thread ! I really Hope !
(elegance-corp.net)
Do not look where you fell, but where you slipped. |
Dirtball
|
Posted - 2004.02.27 17:25:00 -
[83]
Quote:
Why does the army use infantry? Why not just put everyone in tanks? Infantry can do things a tank obviously can't.
One reason is because infantry can go where tanks can't. It would be interesting to try and translate that into game mechanics.
|
Imperishable
|
Posted - 2004.02.27 18:34:00 -
[84]
Also, in battle, tank assaults are always accompanied by infantry, that go right behind the tanks. This is so enemy infantry wouldn't sneak in behind and on the flank. A single infantry guy with proper weapon can kill or disable a tank if he gets close enough.
|
Mirimon
|
Posted - 2004.02.28 05:20:00 -
[85]
"u know, there is a Babylon 5 mod for Freespace 2!"
People still play that game? Freespace 2 is one of my all time favorite space games ever...it was so amazing...wish I hadn't lost it. How cool would it be if they implemented nebula in the 3d world of eve, instead of just in the backgrounds...it would make for a fun battle, haha.
"Then I guess I have no choice...but to kill you all." |
Managalar
|
Posted - 2004.02.28 07:26:00 -
[86]
What about a little tiny upgrade to armor resistance? Maybe 15% to all stats or something, just to give cruisers and frigs a few more seconds of combat, maybe survive 2 hits!
I tried to run past Lord Zap the other day in my BB, and I knew he was there so I hit both of my MWDs and my shield booster as soon as I reached the gate, and in about 2 seconds my shields were down, then my armor was vaporized, and I loaded in my pod. There is no way I'd want to take a cruiser into battle against a BS.
=======Abaddon=======
=======Abaddon======= |
Nelia Hawk
|
Posted - 2004.02.28 09:08:00 -
[87]
i am atm too lazy to write down 1000 lines of ideas again like i did in my 2 idea lab topics (if you want to read them click on the links in my signature)
the prob in eve is that you can fit everything in everything (yes its good, but bad too!)
i.e.
battleships:
have a very slow speed so they move slowly in combat (etc etc)
just fit some MWDs and they are faster then frigates. so they lost one of their disadvantages...
same with placing hybrids on amarr ships
or large guns hitting small ships
or turrets fireing to 360Š all around the ships
or the disadvantage smaller ships have to battleships.
normaly smaller ships should have an advantage to larger ships because they are more "agile" and smallerships should be a thread to bigger ones because of that...
and so on, there are hundred of examples...
a little (and fast to implent) improvement would be that large turrets get a -25% hit chance to cruisers and -50% chance to hit to frigates (and i am not talking about tracking or falloff or whatever. just base chance to hit i.e. when a shot would hit (after all falloff and tracking etc calculations) then the game checks what turret it is and what size the target is and adds the chance to hit factor)
medium guns get a -25% when shooting frigates and +25% when shooting battleships,
small guns get a +25% to cruisers and +50% to battleships
ofcourse this would be in npc battle too!!!
we vs npc AND npc shooting us!!! (stop making npc "cheating" by i.e. never reload missiles or doing more dammage with the same turrets or whatever! make them a bit more like player ships in the setup, turrets etc)
for more ideas read my 2 idea topics by a click on the link in my signature (yeah they are some months old but still not everything is solved in eve)
----------------------------------
some of my ideas:
Very Long Balancing Suggestion !!!
and
My Ideas for EVE |
TrueFlame
|
Posted - 2004.02.28 16:08:00 -
[88]
I think people are calling for measures to drastic that it would really unbalance the game (this time, tilting the other way).
Going back to the Musket vs. Assault Rifle deal... Let's say you had a choice between the two: which are you going to pick? I think it is pretty obvious which everyone is going to pick for combat. A battleship is the assault rifle - why would you want to take a frigate into combat when you could have a battleship? Lets say you had to pay for your weapon now, and you cant afford your assault rifle - I dont think that should mean you cant go into combat. Of course you can! You still have a weapon capable of killing. However, this is all luck. Lets say you see each other at the same time. He holds down the trigger (as opposed to more accurate bursts). You can still get a headshot in, first shot, and then you win. See where Im going with this? Why he just let loose, full force, you took some time to aim. STRATEGY. TACTICS.
Why I definately dont want one frigate, or even 5, taking down a battleship (a standard frigate is about 3.5% of a battleship), I think that one using tactics and special modules should be able to. I really dont want to balance to be something statistical (is that a word?), as in tracking bous. I mean, you guys are saying 1 in 2 shots from a large turret will miss a frigate. Even if 100% of the shots miss, do you really think that the frigate will be doing enough damage to kill a battleship? Im looking down the lines of special modules (MONEY - if you arent going to spend the money on the ship, its going to be the modules) that help you combat bigger ships. These modules are also somewhat skill intensive. That way, you might see more frigates and cruisers in the field, while also stopping anyone with some money and an alt from going in.
Just my thoughts. While I would be the beneficiary in my current state with most these suggestions, I dont want everyone in PvP - it should still require skills to do so, just like a battleship. I think the solution is to take a somewhat more strategical approach, as opposed to brute force. Agree with me or disagree, I dont care.
On my final note, its too late to alter prices.
"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate of everyone drops to zero."
-Fight Club |
Jarjar
|
Posted - 2004.02.28 19:09:00 -
[89]
Quote:
j0sephine:
... There's still a problem that 'tis idea doesn't address. Namely, the small/medium guns don't really do that less damage than their heavier counterparts.
Post starting to get old (page 3), but I just have to give people an idea.
Since I was thinking about getting myself an interceptor, here's the stats of a tachyon beam on an apocalypse vs a modal neutron (best named frig blaster) on a Taranis interceptor.
I know, meta vs regular, but still... Frigate vs battleship weapons.
Modal Light Neutron Particle Accelerator I
Dmg 4.2x + Small hybrid 4 + surgical strike 4 + Taranis bonus : 7.056x
ROF 3.5 sec + Gunnery 5 + Rapid firing 5 + Taranis bonus: 1.89 sec
7.056/1.89 = 3,7333333333333x / sec
Tachyon Beam Laser I
Dmg 4.25x + Large energy 4 + surgical strike 4 + Apocalypse bonus: 5.712x
ROF 12.5 sec + Gunnery 5 + Rapid Firing 5 + Apocalypse bonus: 9 sec
5.712/9 = 0,63466666x / sec
Antimatter S raw damage = 12 dmg
Multifreq L raw damage = 44 dmg
Modal Light Neutron @ Taranis : 3.7333333*12 = 44,78 damage per second
Tachyon Beam Laser @ Apocalypse: 0.6346666*44 = 27,92 damage per second
So, 4 tachyons on an apocalypse do less damage over time than 3 modal neutrons on a Taranis. ^^
|
Ruffles
|
Posted - 2004.03.01 11:03:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Ruffles on 01/03/2004 11:19:02
TrueFlame, hate to break it to you bud, but NO navy that has battleships left in service lets them roam ANYWHERE without a **** load of escourts, precisely BECAUSE they are vulnerable to small ships!!!!
**** ME people when will some of you get the bigger-is-better n00b envy outta your mind and think realistically.
The point we are trying to continually make is there is NO POINT in having the other ships in a fleet presently, the only support one battleship needs is yet another battleship. That is just WRONG.
One speedboat loaded with bombs seriously damaged a US escourt ship. 1 aircraft with an exocet missile sinks cruisers.
WHY do you think there are anti-aircraft ships, missile-interceptor cruisers, frigates, sub hunters, etc. You ever though how big the ship would be if you actually could load every piece of equipment needed onto it?
You know how fast modern day submarines are? You seriously think a 15-25 knot battleship loaded with every thing a navy could think to put on it could effectively do all the jobs?
OF COURSE NOT. That is why other ships exist in real life, each with their own dedicated role. Anti-missile, air-defense, anti-sub, etc etc etc.
Next time you see the news on the TV with a battleship or a Carrier in sight, count the number of support vessels and look at the fact that they seem to be tactically surrounding the biggest ships to PROTECT THEM.
In EVE the battleship CAN DO EVERYTHING, AND it can do it better then any other ship.
I don't care if you don't think 5 frigates should take out your precious, in real life they sure as hell would be a significant damage threat.
I re-state, until cruisers and frigates are REQUIRED by a battleship because it has weaknesses that make it VULNERABLE and REQUIRES defence, you will NOT SEE mixed combat fleets. Make it so that another battleship can't support his friend in a battleship in danger with large turrets, and all of a sudden you have introduced a need for crusiers and frigates in both offensive and defensive roles.
There IS a place for frigates and cruiser in PvP, you just don't want the battleships to have a weakness. I personally think that isn't a fair opinion.
Edit: Thank you Jarjar for pointing that out.
Perhaps mathematical people will rethink things if they see that strangely enough there are other things in the game that can work better then the biggest battleships and their biggest guns.
|
Vel Kyri
|
Posted - 2004.03.01 12:48:00 -
[91]
Again i have to agree
battleships, cruisers and frigs all need there weaknesses and plusses.
frig should be small, fast and hard to hit...
but also takes no real damage so IF hit are pretty muhch dead.
cruisers SHOULD be the ship of choice - able to do everything ok.
battleships should be the huge damage, huge armour, huge range ship, but should be slow and damn easy to hit (think mobile artillery units)
the other big thing is the time of battles - still tooo fast
-----
|
Ruffles
|
Posted - 2004.03.01 15:47:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Ruffles on 01/03/2004 15:50:07
Quote:
battleships should be the huge damage, huge armour, huge range ship, but should be slow and damn easy to hit (think mobile artillery units)
Isn't this exactly what they are in real life? Do they shoot down jet fighters with those huge 18 inch turrets? Hell no.
As for the fights being to fast. Sadly there is very little else to say there. CCP already know people run out of capacitor fast, and the Cap Power Relays are being balanced. Perhaps a reduction in systems power drain by about 10-20% would prolong fights a little longer.
I still can't believe that anyone would design a cruiser or battleships to be completely out of power inside 60-120 seconds of fighting. Must just be the engineer in me.
|
Carla Stormwind
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 08:49:00 -
[93]
Quote:
Quote:
Why should most people use anything less then the biggest stick around for fighting?
Execptions: special purpose ships like krestals, caracals and blackbirds. And these are something like the "biggest stick" in special capabilities or cost effetivity.
No one will voluntier to face a assault rifle armed guy with a old musket
Why does the army use infantry? Why not just put everyone in tanks? Infantry can do things a tank obviously can't.
It's reasoning such as yours that has turned PVP in EVE into a huge battleship slugfest. I would like to see more tactics and diversity, to be honest.
Absolutely right, we frigate flyers should be useful in a battle.
EVE is supposed to be diverse. When its just 3 or 4 different ships that only the best can fly in any one of about 3 set different combinations there is no room for strategy anymore which is what kills any game eventually.
Make frigs and cruisers useful for something be it anti-drone defense, missile firing or ecm and bring them back into the game.
Don't nerf battleships by any means, but make it so they need backup to fight with.
|
Vel Kyri
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 09:26:00 -
[94]
Quote:
Don't nerf battleships by any means, but make it so they need backup to fight with.
umm, that implies a nerf of some kind...
if they NEED backup, it means that they need the help in something.
so - nerf battleships.
-----
|
Janus Rebelknight
|
Posted - 2004.03.02 09:27:00 -
[95]
Quote:
Quote:
Why does the army use infantry? Why not just put everyone in tanks? Infantry can do things a tank obviously can't.
One reason is because infantry can go where tanks can't. It would be interesting to try and translate that into game mechanics.
Even in star trek they have that. They have gravitational eddies and regions of space such as the Badlands where big ships cannot go because only small ships can navigate around the eddies.
-----
Janus
"I'm not a stripper, I'm a miner." |
Lukom N'Sharii
|
Posted - 2004.03.03 15:44:00 -
[96]
My opinion is that the problem is rather lack of people then lack of game balance.
The game is pretty balanced atm except the drone/frig problem. Many of you tried to find analogy with modern or historical navy. Ok its good point but you have to remember that the key to victory using small less armored vessels over Battleship is the number of this vessels.
Theoretically if you gather minimum 10 frigs pilots or 4 cruisers pilot you always win with battleship. Sometimes your losses will be bigger sometimes smaller which depends your tactics and luck. But the problem is that it is extremely hard to find 10 frig pilots ready to attack because it is very risky to every of them . Much easier is to find 2 BS pilots for that job. Other Thing is that if you want to attack fleet of 3 BS and 5 cruisers you should use about 50-60 frigs. Good luck in finding them ! Single frigate is and always should be only a annoying mosquito for battleship IMHO.
|
Bu5H
|
Posted - 2004.03.03 17:01:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Bu5H on 03/03/2004 17:03:00
This is not real life. Let's get that out of the way, so we can stop making references to Navy vessels and aircraft.
Don't nerf anything. That's just going to cause more problems that will have to be fixed in the long run. From what I see, we have specialized ships as it is. We have electronic warfare vessels, mining vessels, small, fast ships, and complete balls-to-the-wall battleships. Why does everybody use battleships because of PvP? Because they have the power to equip the biggest and best equipment, and when it comes to PvP, it's really all about killing the other guy before he kills you, that's what matters.
Instead, impose limits. Give us more ships with more specialized tasks and bonuses. This has been discussed in numerous forums, and I applaud CCP for giving the game so much new content lately. Here's what I mean:
Impose limits on battleship mining. -5% mining yield. In an effort to balance this back out, introduce a DEDICATED MINING SHIP with the ability to fit only mining lasers. Give it the structrual HP of an indy, with a little less space and 6-8 turrets, then give a +5% mining yield to using these ships per level. Make them about as nimble and speedy as a high level cruiser, and make the skill requirements and cost be high enough that not every noob in the game can AFK mine and make 50 million an hour.
As for the frigates, I think they are just fine. They are quick little ships that serve well in higher level empire space. You want something stronger, USE A CRUISER.
[EDIT]
I forgot to mention this, but many times when I see people complain about unfair use of battleships (not in reference to CaoCao), they are usually the ones who are in cruisers who have no idea how to handle themselves in battle.
|
Ruffles
|
Posted - 2004.03.03 17:55:00 -
[98]
Quote:
As for the frigates, I think they are just fine. They are quick little ships that serve well in higher level empire space. You want something stronger, USE A CRUISER.
Actually I choose to fly a frigate into combat as its survivability is somewhat higher then a cruiser until the drones come out.
Most cruisers fall within one volley of a battleships large guns, because they are bigger and slower then a frigate, and substantially easier to hit and when you equated 5 big guns doing 100-300 or more per hit a cruiser falls fast.
Take away what you like, but you will never see a continual use of mixed fleet in this game until battleships have more vulnerabilities and limitations and NEED protecting by a ship other then another battleship.
In this regard Jim and all the others are right, cruisers and indies fall very fast, and far to easily for some situations.
|
Cirle
|
Posted - 2004.03.04 00:07:00 -
[99]
Edited by: Cirle on 04/03/2004 00:08:54
Quote:
Take away what you like, but you will never see a continual use of mixed fleet in this game until battleships have more vulnerabilities and limitations and NEED protecting by a ship other then another battleship.
The problem with this is that while fleet battles are great, what percentage of the (paying) players are actually organised enough to always travel around in a gang?
I am genuinely asking here, btw, rather than trying to make a point, as I have no idea of the percentage break down of players; almost all the ones I associate with are singletons.
Quote:
In this regard Jim and all the others are right, cruisers and indies fall very fast, and far to easily for some situations.
Yes, which brings the topic around to the start again. The new shield extender statistics are quite fun, but for all practical purposes probably are not enough. I do like that fact that my Badger II now has more shield and armour than most standard cruiser layouts though...
Not that this is any consolation when staggering around at 300m/s to a gate, of course ;)
Cirle |
Ruffles
|
Posted - 2004.03.04 10:46:00 -
[100]
Yep Cirle, I am sure a lot would agree on the loner-side of things.
However if you have a gang, its rather daft to have everyone configured to do the same job just because, well, in the current state of the game its best to be all gun-boat?
This game does lack a lot of support roles, and really because the top end ships don't need anything other then another battleship to protect them.
Gangs are all about having that diversity where someone else is better at X then you, and you complement each other well as a team. Is it really like that at present? I personally don't think so.
I would hazard a guess that most gangs comprise almost all of ships configured for self defense and attack, as if to rely only on themselves, just in greater numbers.
Just my opinions of course, and only words
|
Cirle
|
Posted - 2004.03.04 11:28:00 -
[101]
Quote:
I would hazard a guess that most gangs comprise almost all of ships configured for self defense and attack, as if to rely only on themselves, just in greater numbers.
Yes, but then again most people in most games follow an almost identical hierarchy of approach to the situation. So you will by default end up with most people going for offense, and having a group just means you hit harder; which works fine up until someone comes along with more refined tactics. Of course, then you end up with what is usually a minority being able to beat the majority most (if not all) of the time, and people start to become unhappy, because it just isn't fun for the majority to have their faces stamped into the dirt all of the time.
On a different subject, and the wrong forum, does anyone know who has the shield extender II BPs? Specifically small and medium (I want to see how far this BadgerII will go... 1356 shield and counting).
Cirle |
Xraal I
|
Posted - 2004.03.04 12:15:00 -
[102]
I do not think this issue is all that dramatic.
First they nerf targeting speed. What is it with that? - My ship is Bigger and so pr. default its scanners suddenly suck?
That makes absolutely no sense. Sure make it easier to target a BS over a frigate, but the time it takes a frigate to target a frigate, and a BS to target a frigate should be the same.
I like the suggestion of adding a target speed modifier to the tohit chance of guns. It makes good sense and can be countered by mounting smaller and faster guns.
Firing in any direction is very handy, but not very realistic. However, the way EVE is designed doesn't cater real well to aiming your ship at your enemy.
You also have to stop comparing RL warfare to EVE.. This is space, in space you can see your enemy from a very long distance away. There is no way a small item can "sneak up" on a Battleship.
Now the discussing about drones being able to target fast, always hit and in return be hard to counter for frigates, where exactly is the unfair part in that?
An Ogre costs about 1/3 of a frigate. And 1 vs. 1 the frigate would kick the Ogres ass.
The trouble for the frigate begins when there are 6-10 Ogres + a BS all trying to kill him. This Should be a near certain death situation for a solo frigates.
Remember also that you are a Captain. A BS represents millions of ISK, and has a crew of thousands of NPC's. So to speak the single player has an entire army at his beck and call.
If you are in a frigate, you do not have near the same resources.
We have no real levelling system in EVE. But really, a frigate is what you fly when your skills are too low to fly anything else. Its comparable to flying trash.
In any other MMORPG you would be seriously ****ed if your level 50-60-99 (depending on game) super level highlord even had to consider for a second that those 10 lvl 1 characters over by the gate could be a threat.
Thats what frigates are to a BS. Level insignificant things that can be ignored.
If you have a romantic dream of going into combat in a frigate, then you have to accept that getting hit by a battleship is going to mean death.
In my opinion, these changes would help Some of the issues, but not tamper too much with power levels:
- Set a Base targeting speed that all ships, all races, all classes, are equipped with. Depending on size of the Target it takes longer or shorter to target it, size of the targeter should Not affect targeting time as it currently does.
- Introduce a greater miss chance on shots fired at objects moving up or down in relation to the shooters own speed. Moving towards or away from the shooter should increase chance to hit.
- Drones should be able to share the owners targeted foes. If the owner is jammed the drones should have to use their own targeting speed which should be similar to any other ships, as per suggestion above.
- The new interceptors have measures meant specifically to make them harder to target. Continue this trend by giving them a bonus to avoiding tracking of the enemy turrets. It takes as long, or longer, to train for an Interceptor as it does a BS, they are considered High Level and should be able to duke it out in combat involving BS's. - This may mean warping in and out of the combat zone to survive though.
CEO - Clan Chief - Diplomat - Trader |
Ruffles
|
Posted - 2004.03.04 12:46:00 -
[103]
Edited by: Ruffles on 04/03/2004 12:52:05
Quote:
If you have a romantic dream of going into combat in a frigate, then you have to accept that getting hit by a battleship is going to mean death.
Hate to say it but whilst people like yourself keep stating this, and wanting bigger-is-best over anything that might resemble an interesting mixed fleet fight, you probably will have your way and never see them.
I give up on this, sorry Jim, but I am not arguing over the same points that have been discussed many many times before by many other people just to come back to the same people arguing "Ohh mine is bigger, its gotta be better then yours".
/emote wonders if n00b envy is becoming that bad a problem in real life.
* Looks for shares in a Viagra company
I would also disagree with you. Most n00bs in battleships require less skills then the people that Choose to fly frigate effectively into combat. That requires a broad range of skills at high level to keep the ship working. Then again, I am probably just a n00b in your eyes, so I will just stop bothering now.
Nice idea Jim, and some nice posts from the others
|
Xraal I
|
Posted - 2004.03.04 13:40:00 -
[104]
Edited by: Xraal I on 04/03/2004 13:48:12
Ruffles, what makes using a frigate, and dying in it so unattractive?
The Clone and Implants. The value of the pilot is so great that most can't afford to waste their lives flying low defence frigates.
I have an alt, specificly trained to fly and fight in frigates. And to die doing that.
- I like frigate combat. I Like attacking enemies that will blow my brains to hell if they get a lock and hit on me.
But I do not expect the game to be altered so that it is made any easier for me to use inferior ships and modules and still, as a solo pilot, be viable in combat.
If I may, again, draw a parallel to other MMORPG's, or any other game for that matter. Using a frigate in combat, instead of your BS, is to use a dagger over your +5 Hackmaster2000 (of Doom) Longsword. You deliberately nerf your ability to do damage and survive.
You can do alot of customization on a BS.. In fact I bet you could make a BS fly as fast as a frigate, deal more damage and still be able to take more of a beating.
Its not a matter of Bigger is Better as you try to simplify it into being. If a smaller ship was introduced, that was designed with high skill requirements and special countermeasures to being targeted and withstanding damage from BS's, then it would be awesome.
CEO - Clan Chief - Diplomat - Trader |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.03.04 20:57:00 -
[105]
I think the problem is people feel that frigates are somehow one man fighters, such as the X Wing from Star Wars, they aren't.
Frigates are actually much larger, by todays terms a frigate is actually larger than a destroyer.
I really think frigates and cruisers should be beefed up in their shields/armor/structure, this might promote more use for them.
Battleships should be the "best", but they should be slow and VERY vulnerable to the smaller ships of EVE in numbers. (and no not 50 frigates vs 1 battleship, more like 4 vs 1).
Battleships should be a premium ship for the wealthy, not the PVP standard, imo..
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Imperishable
|
Posted - 2004.03.04 21:16:00 -
[106]
So what's wrong with this system?
Frigates (many) are good against BS
Cruisers are good against frigates
BS are good against cruisers and other BS.
This creates a triangle relationship which meakes all ships useful.
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.03.04 21:22:00 -
[107]
Quote:
So what's wrong with this system?
Frigates (many) are good against BS
Cruisers are good against frigates
BS are good against cruisers and other BS.
This creates a triangle relationship which meakes all ships useful.
Do you honestly think that frigates/cruisers have any tactical role what so ever in EVE? they dont.
The current system is:
Battleship > *
Battleships have no weakness.
Problem with frigates? Deploy your heavy drones.
Problem with Blackbirds jamming you? Deploy your heavy drones and fire your FOF.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Imperishable
|
Posted - 2004.03.04 23:03:00 -
[108]
Yea I know that, Jim. I was asking people why they don't want that system, where frigates and cruisers have a role.
|
Kalast Raven
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 02:02:00 -
[109]
Simple, most ppl put whats best for themselves ahead of what would make a better and more interesting game.
-------
K. Raven
|
Cirle
|
Posted - 2004.03.05 06:18:00 -
[110]
Quote:
Simple, most ppl put whats best for themselves ahead of what would make a better and more interesting game.
Outside of the world of PvP, one thing a battleship gives you a higher percentage chance of surviving if something goes wrong, for example heavy lag or disconnection problems (and yes, I can think of a few situations where a cruiser might give a better survival rate, but they are slightly contrived).
Cirle |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |