Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
wjonlemon
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 15:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
So I heard about this lock-breaker module at fanfest and have been thinking about it in detail-ish so the idea behind this is trying to break up large blobby fights.
So here is my idea scrap the module and add it as a mechanic that a ship cannot be locked by more then 40 or so ships this would stop 2000 man fleets saying primary this and shoot and would break into lots of small gang engagements. So here are the key points of how id think it would work
-This rule would only apply to sub capital ships
-Locks from within your fleet donGÇÖt count in the 40 total
-Lock total at 40+ would allow small gangs to all get on a mail if it isnGÇÖt a huge fleet
-The target painter would be changed to also allow +1 lock on a target making it far more useful as E-WAR
Now I'm sure there are things I have not thought of and I'm sure there are exploits would be nice if anyone could point out the problems and fill in the gaps if possible, but I hope this would make the game far more tactical and interesting.
looking forward to all your raging |
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
488
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 17:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
wjonlemon wrote:So I heard about this lock-breaker module at fanfest and have been thinking about it in detail-ish so the idea behind this is trying to break up large blobby fights. So here is my idea scrap the module and add it as a mechanic that a ship cannot be locked by more then 40 or so ships this would stop 2000 man fleets saying primary this and shoot and would break into lots of small gang engagements. So here are the key points of how id think it would work -This rule would only apply to sub capital ships -Locks from within your fleet donGÇÖt count in the 40 total -Lock total at 40+ would allow small gangs to all get on a mail if it isnGÇÖt a huge fleet -The target painter would be changed to also allow +1 lock on a target making it far more useful as E-WAR Now I'm sure there are things I have not thought of and I'm sure there are exploits would be nice if anyone could point out the problems and fill in the gaps if possible, but I hope this would make the game far more tactical and interesting. looking forward to all your raging
I'm sorry but common sense says your idea is beyond stupid (sorry but its true)..... I mean for crying out loud...in a role playing sense..just visually seeing the target and firing at point-blank range begs the question....are you really thinking this through or you just raging over blobs? ================ Get PAID FOR SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152 |
wjonlemon
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 17:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
I really don't understand what point your trying to make drake, but no I donGÇÖt hate blobs I would just like to see battle a little more complex and diverse rather then parking up and shooting at each other with 2000 maelstroms you still have huge fleets they just couldnGÇÖt all shoot the same thing making it more chaotic and opening up new avenues of combat tactics, I would hope at least anyway |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1322
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 18:10:00 -
[4] - Quote
A while back someone posted the idea of "sensor glare", basically saying that the more people targeted a single ship, the longer it would take to target. It had the obvious flaw of fleets self-targeting to increase lock times, making a sort of passive ECM that would make fleet fights even more tedious. However, it gave me an idea that I never posted, but remembered when I looked at this thread.
What if every weapon system that was activated on a target caused its signature radius to drop a small percentage? And I'm talking maybe .05% or less. SMALL. The premise is this: simply targeting someone would not create the sensor glare, but the weapon (turret, launcher, ECM module, whatever) would. For the duration of its cycle, every offensive module would have this effect.
Thinking it through: A 20-man gang even with 8 turrets each would drop the sig radius by 8%. 100 battleships would drop it by 40%. You'd get a 100% drop at 250 8-turret ships, so obviously there would need to be a stacking penalty or hard cap, or a number smaller than .05%.
The actual numbers would of course be set by CCP and tested thoroughly on SiSi for balance, but I'm rather fond of the idea. It creates real penalties for mindless "orbit anchor, shoot primary" fleet behavior by actually reducing their damage output, not just their lock times. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
489
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 19:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:A while back someone posted the idea of "sensor glare", basically saying that the more people targeted a single ship, the longer it would take to target. It had the obvious flaw of fleets self-targeting to increase lock times, making a sort of passive ECM that would make fleet fights even more tedious. However, it gave me an idea that I never posted, but remembered when I looked at this thread.
What if every weapon system that was activated on a target caused its signature radius to drop a small percentage? And I'm talking maybe .05% or less. SMALL. The premise is this: simply targeting someone would not create the sensor glare, but the weapon (turret, launcher, ECM module, whatever) would. For the duration of its cycle, every offensive module would have this effect.
Thinking it through: A 20-man gang even with 8 turrets each would drop the sig radius by 8%. 100 battleships would drop it by 40%. You'd get a 100% drop at 250 8-turret ships, so obviously there would need to be a stacking penalty or hard cap, or a number smaller than .05%.
The actual numbers would of course be set by CCP and tested thoroughly on SiSi for balance, but I'm rather fond of the idea. It creates real penalties for mindless "orbit anchor, shoot primary" fleet behavior by actually reducing their damage output, not just their lock times.
By that logic (ignoring the OP) it would DECREASE snesor lock on time.
Glare only means its more visible..harder to ignore....maybe harder to target other ships in the background but even then thats reaching.
Likening to get a few hundred people to get laser pointers out and paint one target....how would that make it harder to find it? More like bloody easy at that rate.
I get what your talking about and the idea...but CCP themselves have made it VERY clear at fanfest.
They want thousands of players fighting it out in one space....not dozens. ================ Get PAID FOR SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152 |
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
489
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 19:27:00 -
[6] - Quote
wjonlemon wrote:I really don't understand what point your trying to make drake, but no I donGÇÖt hate blobs I would just like to see battle a little more complex and diverse rather then parking up and shooting at each other with 2000 maelstroms you still have huge fleets they just couldnGÇÖt all shoot the same thing making it more chaotic and opening up new avenues of combat tactics, I would hope at least anyway
Id just like to add that even if this isnGÇÖt the way to do it all I'm trying to achieve with this idea is smaller engagements within the two opposing large fleets everyone knows small gang fights are more fun and if we could split these larger fights into several smaller fights id think that would be a change for the better.
First off....your ignorance is showing.....the reasoning is for tactics....alpha damage...etc.
IF you can't handle the heat...then get out.
Secondly.... your proposal is beyond the point of rationality....you want to stop blobs? Well your better off proposing spacial distoration to the massive numbers of "subspace drives/reactors" or something at that rate...better than the drivel you came up with.
At least I can get behind that....and actually support it... but all I see is "whaa whaa I hate blobs"
Yes I'm in the CFC....I can't help the fact they have a great sense of tactics and actually endorse avoiding of cap use if at all possible. (from my tiny little peep hole granted but even then) ================ Get PAID FOR SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152 |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
279
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 19:50:00 -
[7] - Quote
I don't know if you've been in fleet fights... but its not uncommon to have 10+ logistics ships to rep up people....
The biggest reason you see large groups of ships primarying 1 target, is they need to focus fire to overcome logistics....
Anything that limits how much you can focus fire, needs to also limit how much logistics a ship can receive too....
Sensor glare is a fairly neat idea.... IMO, to balance it, the ship getting locked by everything should also receive the glare penalty....
Now, if your fleet mates all lock up some logis to prevent it from being primaried, that logi becomes less effective at locking other ships too...
Leave EWAR immune ships immune to sensor glare.... (i.e. triage carriers)
The only way this could be taken advantage of, is everyone might lock the fleet booster.... But I don't think this would be OP or even all that problematic... |
wjonlemon
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 20:19:00 -
[8] - Quote
well I did think of people locking up the logi to make him immune which is why I suggested that locks from within your own fleet wouldnGÇÖt tally in the 40 lock Max per ship. However I like the other idea much more then my own with the reduction in signature radius per offensive module it scales well with the number it being such a tiny percent and would encourage people to avoid the calling primary style of FC'ing when in larger numbers which is really the target market anyway.
also drake is trolling hard |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
390
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 22:03:00 -
[9] - Quote
wjonlemon wrote:So I heard about this lock-breaker module at fanfest and have been thinking about it in detail-ish so the idea behind this is trying to break up large blobby fights. So here is my idea scrap the module and add it as a mechanic that a ship cannot be locked by more then 40 or so ships this would stop 2000 man fleets saying primary this and shoot and would break into lots of small gang engagements. So here are the key points of how id think it would work -This rule would only apply to sub capital ships -Locks from within your fleet donGÇÖt count in the 40 total -Lock total at 40+ would allow small gangs to all get on a mail if it isnGÇÖt a huge fleet -The target painter would be changed to also allow +1 lock on a target making it far more useful as E-WAR Now I'm sure there are things I have not thought of and I'm sure there are exploits would be nice if anyone could point out the problems and fill in the gaps if possible, but I hope this would make the game far more tactical and interesting. looking forward to all your raging
Stop trying to take sand out of the box. Some of us happen to like large fights.
Also, post with your main. |
Valerie Tessel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
109
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 06:20:00 -
[10] - Quote
Sensor glare just doesn't make sense. As more ships acquire a lock, each successive ship in the fleet should acquire it faster because the ships' computers share information.
The real problems with blobs are the scale of incoming damage, not the number of ships that acquire a lock. Reps can't deal with it because they repair damage already done. You'd need a new mechanic like, say, this: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=97610 |
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
672
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 09:42:00 -
[11] - Quote
npc corp poster gives his valuable input on large scale nullsec fights. |
Teshania
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 13:37:00 -
[12] - Quote
Few things for thought,
Large blobs are slow to put together, and get moving to destination. They are great at taking Structures in space. Great against other large fleets.
If you are a small fleet, you should be faster then the blob, and just stay out of its way. Small fleet warfare is great for shutting down enemy operations and disrupting their day to day business.
so Each type of fleet has their place and purpose.
If you are in small fleet warefare stop trying to face off with the big fleets, Get behind them and **** with their daily operations, i don't know like blow up their damn miners. This will hurt them more then anything ;)
Just saying. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1323
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 14:03:00 -
[13] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:By that logic (ignoring the OP) it would DECREASE snesor lock on time.
Glare only means its more visible..harder to ignore....maybe harder to target other ships in the background but even then thats reaching.
Likening to get a few hundred people to get laser pointers out and paint one target....how would that make it harder to find it? More like bloody easy at that rate.
http://elibishop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Glare.jpg
That's the kind of glare I'm envisioning. We're not talking about something being well-lit, we're talking about it having so much light shone on it that it dazzles the sensors and appears larger than it really is, causing the computer to calculate shots that miss when it looks like they would hit.
Drake DraconisI get what your talking about and the idea...but CCP themselves have made it [u wrote:VERY[/u] clear at fanfest.
They want thousands of players fighting it out in one space....not dozens. This isn't about reducing the number of ships on the field. This is about fleet tactics that go beyond "orbit anchor, shoot primary". CCP's vision of Eve combat as portrayed in every trailer they show is the chaotic "shoot everything at once" fleet fights of sci fi cinema. By creating a form of stacking penalty, this might encourage more of that style of combat. I guess it really depends on what CCP really intends for combat in Eve to look like. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
495
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 14:11:00 -
[14] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Drake Draconis wrote:By that logic (ignoring the OP) it would DECREASE snesor lock on time.
Glare only means its more visible..harder to ignore....maybe harder to target other ships in the background but even then thats reaching.
Likening to get a few hundred people to get laser pointers out and paint one target....how would that make it harder to find it? More like bloody easy at that rate. http://elibishop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Glare.jpgThat's the kind of glare I'm envisioning. We're not talking about something being well-lit, we're talking about it having so much light shone on it that it dazzles the sensors and appears larger than it really is, causing the computer to calculate shots that miss when it looks like they would hit. Drake DraconisI get what your talking about and the idea...but CCP themselves have made it [u wrote:VERY[/u] clear at fanfest.
They want thousands of players fighting it out in one space....not dozens. This isn't about reducing the number of ships on the field. This is about fleet tactics that go beyond "orbit anchor, shoot primary". CCP's vision of Eve combat as portrayed in every trailer they show is the chaotic "shoot everything at once" fleet fights of sci fi cinema. By creating a form of stacking penalty, this might encourage more of that style of combat. I guess it really depends on what CCP really intends for combat in Eve to look like.
Understandable...but lets be honest....concetraited fire on a indicated target is common sense in battle field tactics....especially if said target is especailly difficult to eliminate....
Your never gonna get away from that...no matter how hard you try...you may make it harder...but it will still be used...quite frequently. ================ Get PAID FOR SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152 |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1323
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 14:12:00 -
[15] - Quote
Valerie Tessel wrote:Sensor glare just doesn't make sense. As more ships acquire a lock, each successive ship in the fleet should acquire it faster because the ships' computers share information.
Because grids make any sort of sense at all. Or fluid space. Or capacitor warfare.
I'm suggesting a mechanic that would achieve a specific effect, and then making a pseudotechnical explanation for it so that CCP can explain it in the game lore. Since when do we expect Eve to make perfect sense?
(also, who ever said fleet ships share information? I've seen no evidence of this) It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
495
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 14:14:00 -
[16] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Valerie Tessel wrote:Sensor glare just doesn't make sense. As more ships acquire a lock, each successive ship in the fleet should acquire it faster because the ships' computers share information. Because grids make any sort of sense at all. Or fluid space. Or capacitor warfare. I'm suggesting a mechanic that would achieve a specific effect, and then making a pseudotechnical explanation for it so that CCP can explain it in the game lore. Since when do we expect Eve to make perfect sense? (also, who ever said fleet ships share information? I've seen no evidence of this)
It's called voice comms/fleet broadcasts. *shameless smart assed remark*
Snesor Glare doesn't fit the bill as a name but I understand what your shooting for...I'll sit back and wait for a bette rendition TBQH...OP is a little too nutty/far fetched for my tastes. ================ Get PAID FOR SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152 |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1323
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 14:40:00 -
[17] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:Understandable...but lets be honest....concetraited fire on a indicated target is common sense in battle field tactics....especially if said target is especailly difficult to eliminate...
Your never gonna get away from that...no matter how hard you try...you may make it harder...but it will still be used...quite frequently.
No argument there. And there would be ways to counter the effect, specifically pointing a half dozen target painters at the primary
There are two things I'd like to see change in large fleet warfare: homogenous fleet compositions, and primary volleys. Every fleet fight I've observed in the past six months has been fought the same way: Bring lots of the same ship, and shoot one enemy at a time. I want to see Eve become more rewarding for creative players and unique strategies. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1323
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 14:41:00 -
[18] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:Snesor Glare doesn't fit the bill as a name Fair enough. I took the name from someone else's proposal that inspired my idea. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
279
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 17:42:00 -
[19] - Quote
wjonlemon wrote:well I did think of people locking up the logi to make him immune which is why I suggested that locks from within your own fleet wouldnGÇÖt tally in the 40 lock Max per ship. However I like the other idea much more then my own with the reduction in signature radius per offensive module it scales well with the number it being such a tiny percent and would encourage people to avoid the calling primary style of FC'ing when in larger numbers which is really the target market anyway. also drake is trolling hard
@WJ... you need to think outside the box more....
What's to stop a 200 man fleet will split into 2x 100man fleets and then locking up the friendly logistics in your neighboring fleet, or any other mission-critical ships they want to protect.... You're suggestion would be very much broken and abused....
@Floppie
The sig reduction per offensive module is the start of a nice idea... It's small enough that shooting your fleetmate with 100 extra gattling guns isn't worth the effort. It also scales nicely when looking at similar sized ships... However, I fear there is a big discrepency between BS weapons and cruiser sized weapons.... Basically, the 125m sig radius of medium guns means damage reduction won't be felt on BS's until you reach the 100+ ships category, whereas the 400m sig radius of large guns means the damage reduction is significantly felt when you surpass 25 ships.. Essentially, BS fleets will not only lose to AHACs, but will lose very badly to BC fleets too. Additionally, significantly webbing a target will negate the sig radius penalties, and if the target is MWDing, sig radius effects cease to matter, too... Finally, the sig radius penalty is so small, that it would not alter logistics in any way.... their lock times might increase by 1-3s... but the incoming dps is substantially reduced... meaning it becomes much harder to actually kill targets...
IMO, this change would put AHACs and Tengu fleets as the most potent fleets, and almost nullify BS fleets.
|
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
392
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 21:18:00 -
[20] - Quote
Quote: This isn't about reducing the number of ships on the field. This is about fleet tactics that go beyond "orbit anchor, shoot primary". CCP's vision of Eve combat as portrayed in every trailer they show is the chaotic "shoot everything at once" fleet fights of sci fi cinema. By creating a form of stacking penalty, this might encourage more of that style of combat. I guess it really depends on what CCP really intends for combat in Eve to look like.
Shoot everything on the field at random and you won't be able to apply enough DPS to break logistics reps though... |
|
Cyprus Black
Golden Shellbacks Surely You're Joking
194
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 21:46:00 -
[21] - Quote
No, just no.
Any anti-blob mechanics should not be forced upon the players. It should be some sort of weapon that enemy blob fleets are worried the other guy is carrying. EvE is famous for having thousands upon thousands of people involved in large fleet fights. If this horrible idea was ever implemented, it would kill one of the main attractions EvE has. You wouldn't complain about needles when you get a tattoo. So why would you complain about PvP when you play EVE? |
Valerie Tessel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
109
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 22:32:00 -
[22] - Quote
Cyprus Black wrote:No, just no.
Any anti-blob mechanics should not be forced upon the players. It should be some sort of weapon that enemy blob fleets are worried the other guy is carrying. EvE is famous for having thousands upon thousands of people involved in large fleet fights. If this horrible idea was ever implemented, it would kill one of the main attractions EvE has. Agreed, that's why I proposed a new ship role and new modules for active defense (logistics are not active defense, rep is reactive) in the Aegis destroyer thread. More useful for prevention of alpha, but could potentially blunt the blob. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1330
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 22:32:00 -
[23] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Shoot everything on the field at random and you won't be able to apply enough DPS to break logistics reps though... Hey, I never said it was perfect. I'm just trying to offer up a more sensible idea that would have the desired effect.
I really think fleet diversity is a bigger issue in today's fleet fights. swarms of identical ships should have more vulnerabilities than a properly-built mixed fleet. There's a reason every good navy in the world today uses large task forces that use combined arms. I'd rather see CCP focus more on encouraging fleets that make use of more types of ships, as I believe that would encourage more tactical thinking and more frenetic fights. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
392
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 23:04:00 -
[24] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Shoot everything on the field at random and you won't be able to apply enough DPS to break logistics reps though... Hey, I never said it was perfect. I'm just trying to offer up a more sensible idea that would have the desired effect. I really think fleet diversity is a bigger issue in today's fleet fights. swarms of identical ships should have more vulnerabilities than a properly-built mixed fleet. There's a reason every good navy in the world today uses large task forces that use combined arms. I'd rather see CCP focus more on encouraging fleets that make use of more types of ships, as I believe that would encourage more tactical thinking and more frenetic fights.
Nobody uses 100% homogeneous fleets though. The average alphafleet containes BS, logis, fast tackle, webs, ECM, dictors, hictors, recons, BCs, command ships and maybe others. Anyone using purely one type of ship is going to lose pretty quickly. |
Katalci
Creative Cookie Procuring Veto Corp
67
|
Posted - 2012.04.20 00:37:00 -
[25] - Quote
Scrap the dumbassed lockbreaker module, then burn this thread and gas the OP.
Anti-blob weapons already exist. Bombs, titans, good logis, ewar, sniping/nanofagging, etc. |
wjonlemon
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.20 10:10:00 -
[26] - Quote
Well its nice to know at least someone has had the same vision as me with chaotic fleet fights, but this seems to be trending to a resounding slap in the face no to the idea. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1334
|
Posted - 2012.04.20 13:51:00 -
[27] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Nobody uses 100% homogeneous fleets though. The average alphafleet containes BS, logis, fast tackle, webs, ECM, dictors, hictors, recons, BCs, command ships and maybe others. Anyone using purely one type of ship is going to lose pretty quickly.
Command ships? People still use those when they can give better bonuses and stronger tanks with T3s?
The biggest fleet fight I've ever seen (I've watched quite a few, but never engaged in any) consisted of a big blob of drakes versus a big blob of maelstroms. It was early on in my first ventures into low/null and I couldn't even tell you who the involved parties were; I was utterly ignorant of space politics at the time.
These blobs made up probably 90% of their respective fleets. That's close enough to homogeneous for me to see it as a problem. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
509
|
Posted - 2012.04.20 14:10:00 -
[28] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Nobody uses 100% homogeneous fleets though. The average alphafleet containes BS, logis, fast tackle, webs, ECM, dictors, hictors, recons, BCs, command ships and maybe others. Anyone using purely one type of ship is going to lose pretty quickly. Command ships? People still use those when they can give better bonuses and stronger tanks with T3s?The biggest fleet fight I've ever seen (I've watched quite a few, but never engaged in any) consisted of a big blob of drakes versus a big blob of maelstroms. It was early on in my first ventures into low/null and I couldn't even tell you who the involved parties were; I was utterly ignorant of space politics at the time. These blobs made up probably 90% of their respective fleets. That's close enough to homogeneous for me to see it as a problem.
Oh hell yes.
There is always a costant demand for them (Command Ships) in the "CFC"
FYI: They are still cheaper than T3's floppie. *but you knew that...just being a smartass (ribs)*
================ Get PAID FOR SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152 |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1335
|
Posted - 2012.04.20 15:36:00 -
[29] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:Oh hell yes. There is always a costant demand for them (Command Ships) in the "CFC" FYI: They are still cheaper than T3's floppie. *but you knew that...just being a smartass (ribs)* Yeah, my Abso was about half the price of any of my Legions. it also doesn't do any of the jobs as well. It's a lot of fun to fly, but command ships DEFINITELY need some buffs to make them do what they should be doing. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Valerie Tessel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
109
|
Posted - 2012.04.20 15:57:00 -
[30] - Quote
wjonlemon wrote:Well its nice to know at least someone has had the same vision as me with chaotic fleet fights, but this seems to be trending to a resounding slap in the face no to the idea. We definitely want more variety in fleet fights, just not through nerfing existing functionality. A more natural way to achieve this would be to model a military's natural response to the problem: change the capabilities of the fleet. If the real problem with blobs is focused fire, find a way to handle focused fire. You must assume that you cannot directly alter your enemy (except, perhaps through infiltration and sabotage). Therefore, reduce the incoming damage with active defense as opposed to reactive repair. Developing technology that would interfere or intercept incoming fire (like an Aegis destroyer), or that could temporarily soak up some of the damage (Remote Shield Extender modules with a cool-down, Remote Resistance Amplifier modules with a cool down) could achieve this.
The enemy's response would end up having to be taking the defense apart in detail to increase the effectiveness of their offense. Mixed ewar and tackle packages become important (depending on how the active defense roles are implemented).
I'm not saying that the fleet with the most ships won't still win. If both sides bring a balanced fleet, all else being equal the one with the numbers should win. That doesn't need fixing. But there should be more room for tactics to make a difference than there is today.
As mentioned, I've created a thread in this forum for those interested in the notion of Aegis destroyer, though perhaps it should be modified to "active defense". |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |