| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aelius
   |
Posted - 2004.04.01 07:40:00 -
[1]
If you read the last CSM chat you will see that they are "planing" to change (add) HP on ships.
IMO this will make battles last longer what is good.
People might start to whine about not doing enough damage to other ships, but what does HP really mean?
Structural HP? Armor HP? Shield HP? or all of them?
Some Armor/Shield tanks are already hard to destroy in 1vs1 if not impossible.
If you add more HP this will prove even harder unless they introduce tech 2 weapons (also stated in CSM).
The question is:
Wouldn't the Tech 2 ships have more HP than Tech 1? wouldn't that invalidate the "tech 2 weapons" solution?!
Well all this questions are valid but, the tank setup relies at "regeneration" to survive. If he can't regenerate fast enough it will die sonner(TM) or latter.
I ask CCP to be carefull when they put the shield recharge rate "usable" because if the formula is similar to cap it will create uber shield tanks.
Any comments?
Selling Raven BPC ME20 3M at Yulai 1st Station |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 07:58:00 -
[2]
I don't think there will be tech 2 ships.
Just tier 3 ships?
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 08:01:00 -
[3]
50% increase in shields/armor/hull for frigates/cruisers/industrials.
leave battleships as they are.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Silverlancer
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 08:02:00 -
[4]
If you mean tech 2 ships as in elite ships, they don't and will never exist. If you mean tech 2 ships as in tech 2, they're already out (interceptors). Upcoming tech 2 ships will include battlecruisers, carriers, and that "thing between frigates and cruisers".
|
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 08:03:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Juan Andalusian on 01/04/2004 08:05:08
Jim's suggestion is more sound. But i would rather see Class balancing be effected through tweaking of tracking, speed, agility etc.
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 08:19:00 -
[6]
 Quote:
Edited by: Juan Andalusian on 01/04/2004 08:05:08
Jim's suggestion is more sound. But i would rather see Class balancing be effected through tweaking of tracking, speed, agility etc.
I think signature radius needs to factor more in tracking, right now it's 95% velocity 5% signature radius. Should be more like 60/40.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Aelius
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 08:38:00 -
[7]
What i mean is "How to make battle last longer" in order for people to use real tactics rather than concentrate all firepower on one ship.
Perhaps more HP is good if they reduce the "regeneration" rate of shields and armor (repairers and boosters).
I wonder how the EVE universe will be when there are tech 5 ships. Some can only afford tech 1 BS and others will be flying multi-billion state of the art BS. Perhaps then we will see longer battles? I don't know...
I agree with Raynor about the signature radius. It should count alot more.
Selling Raven BPC ME20 3M at Yulai 1st Station |
Carmen Priano
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 09:00:00 -
[8]
'Concentrate fire on one ship' is a valid method of engaging in a fleet battle; it is the quickest way to realize firepower investment on targets by degrading your opponent's firepower. I think this is generally attributed to the 'N^2 rule' or some such, which basically states that an advantage in firepower will increase exponentially as a battle progresses.
Now, the only cases where this -isn't- so are where survivability-to-firepower ratios aren't the only factor -- take, for instance, WW1-era naval engagements, where leaving a German battlecruiser without any fire would allow the crew an excellent situation to fire to full effect. But, well -- we don't exactly have to worry about that sort of thing so much, do we? ;)
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 09:06:00 -
[9]
I think battleships are very well balanced, think turrets are pretty well balanced too, missiles and drones need a lot of work but that's about it.
Cruisers need more defenses, they are very vulnerable ships, they fall prey to Rifters and Kestrels quite easily.
Frigates should get a slight speed nerf, at least the Minmatar ones, which I think are way way way too fast compared to other frigates. I think frigate MWD shoud perhaps use more capacitator. I'd like to see frigates be more durable as well, and I think signature radius should factor more, but I think they should get a speed nerf to go with the other changes.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Perera
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 10:41:00 -
[10]
Quote:
and that "thing between frigates and cruisers".
Destroyers?
ooooooo
Perera - Corp shrink!
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |