open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Combat scaling in Eve- how to improve it?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
Posted - 2009.11.05 21:34:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 05/11/2009 21:35:13


Bellum often posts a lot of... 'excessive' stuff on forums, but he's 100% right with this very thread. Currect passive/buffer tanked abominations are the problem. Not only it's just not fun to kill those, it's not fun to be flying one either. Been there, done that (see slaved up Abaddon). My active-tanked command ship PvP is way way better from any point of view. Except it requiring way more isk/attention etc.

I'm sure many hate their drakes, but they aren't that idealistic and courage to fly proper ships. Well, and you can't blame even them. The mass will always chose FOTM over any interesting and creative thing.
So we need to help those innocents and fix both trimarks and shield extender rigs. Just the sheer introduction of a general stacking penalty could already help a lot. The second step is to increase calibration amount up to 150/200 units for tech 1/2 mods.

But I still agree that a general reduction of HP across the board would be the best choise.

Merdaneth
Amarr
Defensores Fidei
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.11.05 21:36:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Kronos Hopeslayer

Have you see the Eve Online: The Butterfly Effect video? I suggest you watch it for some insight into how CCP feels about their game.

This is the core principal behind Eve, and the devs keep that in mind at all times. This is a sandbox game, however it's a sandbox for 50,000+ people to play in together. The Devs has systematically made changes to the game to make it more difficult for solo players for a reason, and I believe that reason is to force us to co-operate together to achieve greater goals.


*Forcing* and sandbox don't go together. In a true sandbox you can play with the sand by yourself or with others. Just don't expect to make a big as sandcastle alone as you can in a group.

Additionally, the Butterfly Effect video, while nice, does not reflect EVE. Everyone with some EVE experience knows you almost never meet a lone miner mining away in 0.0, and you never never are in time to 'save' a lone miner from getting ganked. And even if you do, the general NBSI rules will mean the friends of the guy you save will likely target and shoot you on sight.

It would be nice if EVE *did* work like that, but The Butterfly Effect video doesn't reflect current EVE gameplay very well.

You are a Lone Wolf, roaming through space, get caught in a bubble in 0.0 and killed by people that don't know you and don't really care to know you. That's the real EVE.


Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
Posted - 2009.11.05 23:07:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Actually, strong active tanking is bad for solo PvP. With buffer tanks, you at least know that you can win if you can stay alive long enough to get through all that HP. On the other hand, if you make active tanks effective enough to be worth using in general PvP, you quickly run into the problem where you're tanking 100% of the incoming dps as long as you have cap charges. It's already to that point with some ships, the only balancing factor is the current superiority of buffer tanks overall. Nerf buffer tanks, and say hi to the unkillable Hyperion/Maelstrom/etc.


And why is this such a bad thing? Shouldn't it allow a specialized solo player with an active tank to catch and kill a buffer-fit ship intended for general PvP? Sure, it might, except that the best solution to a strong active tank is to bring more people. If I can't gank your Hyperion with one ship, I'm going to bring more ships (probably including ewar) until I have way more dps than your active tank can handle.


Ffs Merin. Re-read the OP plz. I didn't say increase active tanking, simply that by reducing EHP tanks active tanks would by comparison be buffed. I know full well that an increase to current active tanking peak performance would nerf solo PVP.




FFS, read my post please.


Nerfing buffer tanks is a boost to active tanking. It is already possible to fit enough of an active tank that you can't be killed by a single ship of the same class, the only reason this isn't a problem is because buffer tanks (which can't stalemate a 1v1) are much better in general so nobody fits the active tank. Nerf buffer tanks enough to make the active tank popular, and suddenly a two-ship gang is mandatory at all times.


Not only that, but by nerfing buffer tanks, you're also nerfing the only tank that actually works outside of a 1v1. Which might be a good idea in a few cases, but not as an across-the-board nerf to every ship.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.11.06 00:27:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Merin Ryskin



FFS, read my post please.


Nerfing buffer tanks is a boost to active tanking. It is already possible to fit enough of an active tank that you can't be killed by a single ship of the same class, the only reason this isn't a problem is because buffer tanks (which can't stalemate a 1v1) are much better in general so nobody fits the active tank. Nerf buffer tanks enough to make the active tank popular, and suddenly a two-ship gang is mandatory at all times.


Not only that, but by nerfing buffer tanks, you're also nerfing the only tank that actually works outside of a 1v1. Which might be a good idea in a few cases, but not as an across-the-board nerf to every ship.


Ok, sorry for jumping on your case.

So to clarify, you're saying that if buffer tanks are nerfed enough that active tanks are clearly superior, then everyone will fit one, making two ships mandatory in order to kill a single ship in a timely fashion?

What I'm saying is that if you reduce the effectiveness of buffer tanks slightly then the gap between them and active tanks is reduced and allows the option of choosing one or the other. Nerfing buffer tanks to the point of uselessness isn't the way to go and isn't what I'm suggesting.

It used to be a viable option to run a dual rep electron blasterthron with a heavy nos, or even a dual rep ion setup with fair effectiveness. Dual rep Tempests and Typhoons were also pretty popular. IMO one of the main reasons the Tempest is so unpopular today is that it's advantage of capless guns isn't pronounced enough with the advent of passive tanking. If active tanking were more common and effective then you'd see the cap efficiency of projectiles be more pronounced and valuable. With the upcoming changes to the Typhoon and a reduction in passive tanking the Phoon starts to look particularly promising.

If my suggestions aren't what would be best in your opinion, then please suggest some other ideas that would accomplish the same thing. I'm totally open to new ideas.

Right now I think that cap warfare has diminished in effectiveness substantially due to the fact that most people passive tank and that removes the need to run a single or dual rep from the cap load, which in turn alleviates the majority of cap concerns for most ships.

Currently the playing field looks far too homogeneous (everyone using a variation of the buffer tank) for the game design to be balanced. If it were balanced correctly you'd be seeing a more even split between ship setups.

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2009.11.06 01:24:00 - [35]
 

The playing field is homogeneous because for years players have moaned that their ship isnt as good as that other guys ship and demanded nerfs.

The overall effect has been that specialised ships have gone the way of the dodo - most ships of specific classes are, broadly speaking, pretty much the same.

Encouraging solo pvp or at least smaller scale combat has far more to do with redesigning the 'intel suite' of ship borne scanners, probes and the universe map than a comparison of relative armor values in my view.

C.


Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
Posted - 2009.11.06 01:45:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
So to clarify, you're saying that if buffer tanks are nerfed enough that active tanks are clearly superior, then everyone will fit one, making two ships mandatory in order to kill a single ship in a timely fashion?



What I'm saying is I have a choice to make when I undock my shiny new nano-Ishtar (or whatever pirate ship I happen to prefer at the time). I can either go out solo and keep the loot/ransoms for myself, or I can go out with a friend or three and split the loot but ensure I can get the kill. A major deciding factor is going to be whether I have the dps to break the average tank or not.


Currently, since buffer tanks are overwhelmingly popular, I don't really need the extra dps from other ships. Assuming I can reduce the incoming dps enough to survive, all I have to do is wait long enough and I'll get through the buffer. Sure, I lose in the unlikely event that I run into a good active tanker, but they are rare enough that the loss is offset by the extra loot gained from more solo kills.


If you boost active tanks, even indirectly, you make them more popular, which changes everything. I can no longer count on being able to break the tank with just my single ship, a much higher proportion of my fights are going to require multiple ships just to overcome the active repair amount. And since I'm already losing money by bringing a gang, I have even less motivation not to just bring a 15-man gang with a few Falcons and some capitals on standby just in case you have a second ship.

Quote:
It used to be a viable option to run a dual rep electron blasterthron with a heavy nos, or even a dual rep ion setup with fair effectiveness. Dual rep Tempests and Typhoons were also pretty popular. IMO one of the main reasons the Tempest is so unpopular today is that it's advantage of capless guns isn't pronounced enough with the advent of passive tanking. If active tanking were more common and effective then you'd see the cap efficiency of projectiles be more pronounced and valuable. With the upcoming changes to the Typhoon and a reduction in passive tanking the Phoon starts to look particularly promising.



Honestly, I suspect a lot of this has more to do with people not understanding how effective buffer tanking is (after all, armor reps are there for a reason, and they work so well on my mission ship!) in PvP than active tanks really being that strong. While I can't prove it, I suspect if you took 2009 knowledge of game mechanics back to the "good old days" you would find that the buffer tanks work just as well as they do now.

Consider it something like the Drake: everyone used to think it was trash, but now everyone loves it. Did the Drake itself change? No. People just finally understood how to use it properly.


Quote:
If my suggestions aren't what would be best in your opinion, then please suggest some other ideas that would accomplish the same thing. I'm totally open to new ideas.


To make solo PvP more popular, you need to work with the fundamental motivations, not the game mechanics. Whether that means spreading out the objectives so a blob can't cover everything at once (like FW tried to do), providing better profits from a kill so that it's possible to make a living flying solo (as opposed to just farming killmails), who knows. But something needs to be done beyond just changing some ship stats.

Quote:
Currently the playing field looks far too homogeneous (everyone using a variation of the buffer tank) for the game design to be balanced. If it were balanced correctly you'd be seeing a more even split between ship setups.



The problem is buffer tanks are a direct result of the math of combat: short fights favor buffer over active reps. To reach the break-even point, you need longer fights, but longer 1v1 fights ALSO favor blobbing because you want to kill the target and get away with the loot before his friends can arrive to kill you.

Warrio
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.06 01:58:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: MatrixSkye MkII
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
In general I think that solo players...
This isn't a game for solo players. Or does that line only apply to professions you don't like? Rolling Eyes

Follow your own advice when you're regurgitating the usual rhetoric. "Get some friends to help you".

End of.




Solo players != mindless soul destroying carebear scum.

Sigh, thread was good until this came along.
Bellum your threads are good but throwing in ******ed generalisation based solely on opinion ruins things. While I agree with you that is not really the point.

Rastigan
Caldari
Ars ex Discordia
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2009.11.06 02:30:00 - [38]
 

Active tanking is alive and well, in the form of RR and logistics.. It works so well that people cry and gnash their teeth at it all the time.

And a good active tank still does well against a buffer tank. Take an Abaddon, rig/fit it for a decent buffer tank and you get 160k ehp.. Lets say 5 ships shoot at it doing 400 dps each ship for a total of 2000 dps.. That Abaddon should last roughly 80 seconds.

Replace the double 1600mm plates for dual large reppers. That Abaddon then has 80k ehp, but can tank 850dps. Those same ships will kill the Abaddon only 10 seconds faster at best. Thats not that bad of a trade off for being able to take on several ships.



You really want to boost active tanking vs buffer tanking without altering buffer tanks ? Lower the CPU/PG requirements of reppers, they are waaay to high compared to passive tanks.

MightyRhinox
Minmatar
Rhinox Heavy Industries
Twilight Military Industrial Complex Alliance
Posted - 2009.11.06 09:06:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Kronos Hopeslayer


This is the core principal behind Eve, and the devs keep that in mind at all times. This is a sandbox game, however it's a sandbox for 50,000+ people to play in together. The Devs has systematically made changes to the game to make it more difficult for solo players for a reason, and I believe that reason is to force us to co-operate together to achieve greater goals.

Like I said this isn't a single player game, and with that in mind the devs SHOULD make an effort to make group play more exciting and worthwhile. If you look at all the other MMOs on the market you'll find a similar trend of making the best items, content, and advancement only accessible by using a GROUP effort. Why should EvE go against the grain, and cater to the single player?




I think you kinda miss the point there. 1v1 PvP isn't a single player activity, the whole "Player" vs. "Player" thing I would think gives that away.

But that's a very semantic argument and not really relevant.


Mutnin
Amarr
Mutineers
Posted - 2009.11.06 09:16:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: Mutnin on 06/11/2009 09:26:03

Originally by: Kronos Hopeslayer
Edited by: Kronos Hopeslayer on 05/11/2009 19:10:09
I see this same stupid argument repeat itself in every single MMO I've played. This is not a single player game. I thought that was obvious to anyone who logs in and sees XXXXX people logged into the game already while typing in your name/password. The devs do not, and should not ever balance this game for 1v1. Get some friends, and go b bbq some dude trying to solo pvp it's fun.





Yes you are correct there are other people in the game, and soloing another player is not single player. It's called PVP..

BTW to the OP, active tanking isn't really dead IMO, there is just not a lot of ships that can do it well. My favorite solo boat at the moment is the Dual Rep Myrm, as I haven't found another BC that can tank several targets and still kill them as well as it can.

Let's also not forget about the Rifter.. The active fit small rep Rifter will out kill the 400 buffer fit any day of the week, assuming the pilot is half competent.

Kazang
Wrecking Shots
Posted - 2009.11.06 11:38:00 - [41]
 

Reducing base EHP amounts would not have the effect you want.

On top on that active tanking is already superior to buffer for solo play. Particularly active shield tanking. Reducing buffers further would make not change that it would simply make ships that favour buffer tanks useless.


You are right about the cap charge and "endurance" issue however. Currently most ships can only carry enough cap charges for one short engagement, this does lead to a problem where you facing a extended battle verses multiple ships, whilst solo or otherwise.
Reducing the size of cap charges by a small amount would be reasonable fix. This however would require careful balancing and tweaking to insure that 1v1 active tanking BS fights do not get extended too much, as right now they are often a matter of who has the most cap charges which is not an ideal situation.

The other solution would be reduce the cost of T3 further to a affordable level. T3 are perfect solo ships except for the price, as its just far too expensive for most pvpers to fly solo. If T3 was around the price level of commandships you would have a viable solo platform capable fighting against the odds. Currently it's just hugely un-cost-effective to do that, similar to the black-ops and marauders, which incidentally would also make fantastic solo ships if the price was reduced.


Nerfing buffer tanks so you can get quick ganks is a terrible idea and would create more problems and solve none.


Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.11.06 12:15:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Warrio
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: MatrixSkye MkII
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
In general I think that solo players...
This isn't a game for solo players. Or does that line only apply to professions you don't like? Rolling Eyes

Follow your own advice when you're regurgitating the usual rhetoric. "Get some friends to help you".

End of.




Solo players != mindless soul destroying carebear scum.

Sigh, thread was good until this came along.
Bellum your threads are good but throwing in ******ed generalisation based solely on opinion ruins things. While I agree with you that is not really the point.


He was being dense and obtuse on purpose and I was simply being sarcastic in return. Why does everyone take everything so seriously around here? Laughing

Matrix was intentionally trying to derail the thread, which I didn't appreciate.

Back on topic: what are your thoughts on small vs. large scale combat in Eve? Do you think it's currently balanced or would you like to see some changes?

Droog 1
Posted - 2009.11.06 12:36:00 - [43]
 

It's an MMO. Solo players are not welcome.

Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
Posted - 2009.11.06 12:38:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Kazang
...
The other solution would be reduce the cost of T3 further to a affordable level. T3 are perfect solo ships except for the price, as its just far too expensive for most pvpers to fly solo. If T3 was around the price level of commandships you would have a viable solo platform capable fighting against the odds. Currently it's just hugely un-cost-effective to do that, similar to the black-ops and marauders, which incidentally would also make fantastic solo ships if the price was reduced.
...


that wouldn't solve anything. if T3 becomes affordable, it would, as well, would become baseline for comparison. problem would still stay.

Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
Posted - 2009.11.06 13:05:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Jagga Spikes on 06/11/2009 13:09:28
possible solution would be to stack nerf incoming damage (and RR, to compensate). it would reduce effects of alpha strikes, require better coordination and fire control, but increase server calculations. tank would probably be hybrid between active and buffer.

i know it's not "realistic", but that didn't stop anyone that matters in EVE :)

edit: also, it would somewhat solve deficiency of remote shield rep. if incoming RR is stack nerfed, even small number of shield RR ships would benefit in large fleet.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.11.06 13:17:00 - [46]
 

I think we're getting a little off track here...

Let's start thinking a little less about the nuances of small scale systems like the merits of active vs. passive tanking and let's start thinking about how combat scales from the individual to the various sizes of groups and how combat plays out across those groups with respect to changing tactics and setups and whether or not it seems reasonably balanced or not, and how we can improve the situation.

Personally, I feel that with the development and introduction of rigs, the various gameplay changes like HP boots (two of those), T2 ammo damage reduction (by 24% or so off the top IIRC) and other changes that have contributed to longer fight times have decreased the capability of the solo player. This is particularly evident when numerous small ships are engaged with a single larger ship.

@ Cailais-

I agree that one of the major issues is the easy availability of accurate and precise real time intelligence of where people are, who they are and what they're flying. I think we'd see a lot more variety in combat if local were to be removed etc., but that isn't what I'm talking about here in particular. I'm interested in the balancing of combat around 1v1 systems vs. 20v20 and 200v200.

And the point I'm trying to make is this: if it can't be balanced in a workable fashion with the existing tools (ships and modules) that we currently have, then why not build tools for the specific job of smaller fights and then another tool for the larger jobs, make each more specialized and then be done with it?

Additionally, someone mentioned earlier about how all of the specialized ships have been nerfed into uselessness to the point that we now have this homogeneous playing field of bland setups. This is only partly true. The Curse and Falcon both come to mind as ships that have quite a bit of focus and are notable for the fact that they do their job and they do it very well. If only CCP would carry these design principles over to every other class of ship in the game and build in more specialization and less generalization. Make each ship very good at one thing and make it's role more clearly defined rather than having each ship only fairly good at most things and excellent in none.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.11.06 13:27:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Jagga Spikes
Edited by: Jagga Spikes on 06/11/2009 13:09:28
possible solution would be to stack nerf incoming damage (and RR, to compensate). it would reduce effects of alpha strikes, require better coordination and fire control, but increase server calculations. tank would probably be hybrid between active and buffer.

i know it's not "realistic", but that didn't stop anyone that matters in EVE :)

edit: also, it would somewhat solve deficiency of remote shield rep. if incoming RR is stack nerfed, even small number of shield RR ships would benefit in large fleet.


I don't think applying a stacking nerf to incoming DPS is a good idea under any circumstance, but your concept of stacking nerfs to remote reps is interesting due to the idea of gaining benefit from applying both shield and armor remote reps to a single target in order to get the most repping performance out of a given fleet.

MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.11.06 14:00:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Matrix was intentionally trying to derail the thread, which I didn't appreciate.
Rolling Eyes Let's see. You openly admit your disdain for solo carebear players precisely because they're solo players. And here you are advocating a boost to solo play... But not just any solo play, just the one you happen to embrace and do yourself.

I call you out on your hypocrisy, and your response is I'm derailing your thread? When someone asks for a boost to something you disagree with they're whiners. When you ask for something it's common sense and anyone that disagrees with you is either trolling or derailing. That's called hypocrisy, Bellum. Learn the word.


Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.11.06 15:34:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Matrix was intentionally trying to derail the thread, which I didn't appreciate.
Rolling Eyes Let's see. You openly admit your disdain for solo carebear players precisely because they're solo players. And here you are advocating a boost to solo play... But not just any solo play, just the one you happen to embrace and do yourself.

I call you out on your hypocrisy, and your response is I'm derailing your thread? When someone asks for a boost to something you disagree with they're whiners. When you ask for something it's common sense and anyone that disagrees with you is either trolling or derailing. That's called hypocrisy, Bellum. Learn the word.




So horribly wrong it's disgusting.

Don't put words in my mouth. I have nothing against solo players. I personally dislike players who insist on avoiding PVP at every turn. The two are COMPLETELY different and absolutely separate.

Stop LYING and MAKING THINGS UP. It's really sad that you have to resort to complete fabrications in order to support your argument and continue this childish vendetta of yours. You're pathetic.

Endless Subversion
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.11.06 16:04:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Endless Subversion on 06/11/2009 16:09:49

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

Additionally, someone mentioned earlier about how all of the specialized ships have been nerfed into uselessness to the point that we now have this homogeneous playing field of bland setups...Curse and Falcon... If only CCP would carry these design principles over to every other class of ship in the game and build in more specialization and less generalization. Make each ship very good at one thing and make it's role more clearly defined rather than having each ship only fairly good at most things and excellent in none.


I love how you suggest solo needs help, and nearly in the same breathe, suggest ships should be more specialized. Specialization increases gang size, which in turn hurts solo. Solo ships, by definition, have to be able to be a jack of all trades. If a solo ship can't tackle, kill, and survive another ship, it can't solo.

While I would love to see more incentives for solo pvp (or more penalties for outnumbering people), I think most of OPs suggestions aren't relevant to the actual problem.

Solo does not mean 1v1. Solo is almost always 1vMany.

To win 1vMany (or at least get kills and get out) you need to break the enemy gang down into a series of smaller engagements. And to survive a series of smaller engagements you need to be able to recover hit points. Active tanks out-perform buffer tanks for solo work, they're already better!

To me, the real issue comes down to the facts that players want to win and Eve doesn't offer strong enough disincentives to discourage MORE NUMBERS or BIGGER SHIPS as the best option for winning.

1) Too often I get groups of players dropping such large numbers of ships on me that it's impossible to engage them and have a chance to do anything besides pop. If there is no downside to more numbers, players are going to employ them to insure they win =/. There needs to be more incentive for players to fly smaller gangs.

2) Too often I get capitals deployed versus my sub-capitals or battleships deployed versus my sub-bs ships. The time it takes for larger-class ships to reach and engage smaller class ships is too long relative to how long it takes smaller class ships to finish engagements versus one another**.

** I realize OP thinks nerfing tank relative to gank will fix the problem of situation 2, but I don't think it does. Tank vs Gank is pretty reasonable for same class engagements. There is enough time to make tactical decisions matter, a decent balance between buffer and active (in small scale, buffer obviously is ALWAYS going to be better in very large scale, and should be), but the fights don't take forever. The problem lies with how quickly over-sized ships can reach the fight and apply their DPS, RR, Tackle and ewar.

Relative speeds and lock times come to mind as do warp speeds and warp speed acceleration.

Making larger ships take significantly more time to cover the same distance seems a good thing to me. They have a BC and BS and the BC comes and engages me, I get a good period of time before his oversized friend can actually reach me and engage me.

*Edit* Ship size dependent tackle comes to mind as an option as well.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.11.06 17:32:00 - [51]
 

Good points Endless. I agree that Solo doesn't mean 1v1 and indeed means 1 vs. many most of the time.

Wouldn't you also agree then that faster kills and less buffer would do well when trying to split up an opposing group and able to whittle them down in single engagements before their reinforcements can arrive?

I think that a major issue with a solo player trying to fight a smallish blob of 5-7 smaller ships is that you simply can't kill the smaller ships fast enough to get them out of the fight before you're completely overwhelmed and shut down.

Additionally, I think that there isn't enough gap between ship classes with respect to tank and DPS. With the advent of rigs, and particularly the various sized rigs, smaller ships have much more tank now.

Katy Karkinoff
Minmatar
Psycho Chicks
Posted - 2009.11.06 18:16:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
With the advent of rigs, and particularly the various sized rigs, smaller ships have much more tank now.



Especially when considering frig sig rez. Would now be a bad time to bring up the tracking formula again? I mean the whole "the tracking formula doesn't consider that a target at 1km seems MUCH largerr than the same target at 100km."

Also, in S&M I sort of see a similar argument in the "gallente ships aren't what they used to be" but thats just me.... Plus I know people like to troll bellum when he says gallente. Point is though, maybe an increase in ammo damage would be appropriate? Or maybe just in T2 ammo even, make them a viable choice again.


As for the guy raving bellum said that they should nerf high sec solo players that mission, I'd think it was more along the lines of "high sec carebearing running missions is too profitable and should be reduced" not "lvl 4's should be harder and need more people."

/endfanboi

Endless Subversion
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.11.06 21:45:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Endless Subversion on 06/11/2009 21:47:35

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

Wouldn't you also agree then that faster kills and less buffer would do well when trying to split up an opposing group and able to whittle them down in single engagements before their reinforcements can arrive?


No, because I don't think relative balance of buffer vs active is broken, nor do I think ships' buffer tanks last too long. What IS broken, and ought to be changed, is the time it takes larger ships to arrive on scene and influence the fight and aggression timers.

So whereas I often feel like I need more time before the rest of their gang shows up, I don't think changing the balance between buffer/active and dps is the key. I think something like changing how fast ships accelerate in warp, how fast larger ships are in warp and how fast larger ships can lock smaller ships are the way to go.

So that if they want to quickly blob me, they need a multitude of small ships, where as if they want to tackle me and bring in the heavy stuff, their tacklers better have more skill than hitting orbit at 1000m and going afk as the BS blob instantly lands.

This makes doing things like running a few systems, or moving around a few celestials actually split their gang up some, where as right now big stuff too easily follows smaller stuff.

And of course aggression timers are way too short. But I don't think this means nerf buffer so much as it means increase aggression timers.

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
I think that a major issue with a solo player trying to fight a smallish blob of 5-7 smaller ships is that you simply can't kill the smaller ships fast enough to get them out of the fight before you're completely overwhelmed and shut down.


I agree, but I think we need to slow how fast the larger ships can reach the field and slow down how long before they can target/influence smaller stuff on the field. This way you either blob with a mix of sizes (and thus are vulnerable to a few big guys being able to handle your lighter stuff) or you blob with big stuff and your tacklers are vulnerable to being picked off.

Where as right now you just grab a few tacklers and all large stuff and the lone enemy hasn't got a chance.

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Additionally, I think that there isn't enough gap between ship classes with respect to tank and DPS. With the advent of rigs, and particularly the various sized rigs, smaller ships have much more tank now.


Cheap rigs have made smaller stuff really nasty. You 100% have to have a neut or bonused light drones with a web now. Not sure what I think of this quite yet. I'm really not looking forward to 90% faction frigate webs. I have nightmares of gang modded faction frigates happily webbing me from 18km totally untouchable by any sort of medium ship sized counter...

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.11.06 22:11:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Endless Subversion


Cheap rigs have made smaller stuff really nasty. You 100% have to have a neut or bonused light drones with a web now. Not sure what I think of this quite yet. I'm really not looking forward to 90% faction frigate webs. I have nightmares of gang modded faction frigates happily webbing me from 18km totally untouchable by any sort of medium ship sized counter...



@ large ships needing to take longer to get around- wouldn't removing WTZ solve some of this? Assuming of course the inability to have any sort of 'insta' bookmark. Then the best large ships could do would be to MWD to the gate as quickly as possible. Small ships would easily be able to close the distance to pursue ships that they are chasing, but larger ships would take a while (relatively).

90% faction frig webs? What faction frigs are getting 90% webs? I haven't been paying attention lately...


Endless Subversion
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.11.06 22:26:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Endless Subversion on 06/11/2009 22:26:46

Frigs: Daredevil and Cruor will both have 90% webs
Cruisers: Ashimu, Vigilant
BS: Paladin, Kronos, Vindicator

I don't think we're going to see WTZ removed.

If we tweaked ships to actually reach their au/sec speed instantly and then balanced that based on size, so that BS were significantly slower than BC who were significantly slower than cruisers and then possibly tweaked the scan res formula for locking targets smaller than you...

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2009.11.07 00:09:00 - [56]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/11/2009 00:10:32
I'm sorry, but when you consider all the 1v multiple smaller ships engagements and want to boost what works there (tanking DPS), you nerf 1 v 1 / 1 v multiple (but worse skilled/etc) engagements between same or comparably sized ships.

Besides, max max DPS (plus good EHP) is what you generally want for 1vmany fights, since that's how you can eliminate a part of the hostile gang before everyone else lands and exploit their possible lack of coordination. Repping just doesn't work for max DPS fits, and prolonging the fights in any way (not to mention making unbreakable 1v1 ships by boosting repping) works against you here.

Increasing the time larger ships take to accelerate to their full warp speed would do the trick (would also make warping take longer, but this is hardly a problem) if you wanted more opportunities to split gangs.

Xander XacXorien
Posted - 2009.11.07 01:19:00 - [57]
 

Wouldn't it be best to have a max number of weapons that can be targetted on any 1 ship at any time ?

No matter the size of the fleet say only 16 weapons can be targetted at a frig, 24 at a cruiser and 36 at a BS, 72 at a carrier etc.

This would force smaller seperate fleet sizes and a broader range of targets therefore making all battles take longer, more choices having to be made.

If the number of weapons targetted possible on any 1 ship was related to the signature radius of the ship,,, static HP would have a disadvantage over active HP.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.11.07 12:31:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Endless Subversion
Edited by: Endless Subversion on 06/11/2009 22:26:46

Frigs: Daredevil and Cruor will both have 90% webs
Cruisers: Ashimu, Vigilant
BS: Paladin, Kronos, Vindicator

I don't think we're going to see WTZ removed.

If we tweaked ships to actually reach their au/sec speed instantly and then balanced that based on size, so that BS were significantly slower than BC who were significantly slower than cruisers and then possibly tweaked the scan res formula for locking targets smaller than you...


Laughing Yeah, I know we won't see WTZ removed. Wishful thinking...

Kazang
Wrecking Shots
Posted - 2009.11.07 14:22:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/11/2009 00:10:32
I'm sorry, but when you consider all the 1v multiple smaller ships engagements and want to boost what works there (tanking DPS), you nerf 1 v 1 / 1 v multiple (but worse skilled/etc) engagements between same or comparably sized ships.

Besides, max max DPS (plus good EHP) is what you generally want for 1vmany fights, since that's how you can eliminate a part of the hostile gang before everyone else lands and exploit their possible lack of coordination. Repping just doesn't work for max DPS fits, and prolonging the fights in any way (not to mention making unbreakable 1v1 ships by boosting repping) works against you here.

Increasing the time larger ships take to accelerate to their full warp speed would do the trick (would also make warping take longer, but this is hardly a problem) if you wanted more opportunities to split gangs.




This is a good point. The buffer Vs active discussion and fight length(becasue of high EHP) is really not the problem.

Spilting up forces and tactical movement is more of an issue, and atm it doesn't really matter much. If battleships and the other large ships accelerated into warp at a slower speed with frigates and cruisers being faster it would be a more viable tactic to spilt up a gang using raw distance in a system.

Currently this is done to some extent with cap use of warping and align times, but this isn't really enough.
Placing more emphasis on tactical movement (rather than ships stats like EHP) would enable a skilled player to out manoeuvre a cumbersome un-organized gang on the AU scale. This currently isn't really much of an advantage, it of course possible to spilt up a gang with good movement but the advantage it confers is often in the region of seconds and is not really balanced with amount of time, skill and luck it requires to pull off well.

One thing I have been thinking about is warp-drive cooldown for BS and above ships, the cap use thing was intended as "soft" cooldown for warping but it only really works like that in really large systems and leaves pretty much all ships at a disadvantage when they come out of warp sans cap.
I was thinking along the lines of a 25 second period of being unable to warp again after having exited warp, this could also apply to smaller ship classes too but at a reduced cooldown, but the CD for the smaller classes would require very, very careful balancing. With certain ships such as interceptors and HACs without any cooldown, giving those ships a relative tactical advantage.
A module to remove the warp drive reactivation delay would also be available but that again needs a lot of careful thought and balancing to make it not a required module but also not disadvantage the fitted ship too much. I think combining it with the sensor booster/signal amp (and/or possibly eccm) module would be a reasonable solution both increasing the use of a sebo and making it open for a variety of different fits(both low and mid slot versions) and ships without too much compromise but enough to make it not mandatory. Having it as a rig would also be a possible option, replacing the(currently prettty useless) increased warp speed rig.

This would work to both separate HACs and frigates from larger support to allow for time to skirmish before the bigger combat vessels come into play and to make gang compositions more important and tactical, increasing the skill difference and making it easier to engage a bad gang with a single ship. The advantage this would give a well organised 2 man gang would huge as you could separate the light from the heavy ships and tackle the heavy ships while your wing mate makes the light support follow him to be easily picked off, double back and then finish of the heavy ships as a team.

More tactical options is the key.

This is pretty blunt solution though and needs work, suggestions and discussion welcome.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2009.11.07 14:42:00 - [60]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/11/2009 14:43:46
Originally by: Kazang

snip



I like your ideas.

I do think that tinkering with the speed at which larger ships (cruiser hulls to a smallish extent, noticeable for BCs and very significant for BS) accelerate to full warp speed combined with a possible smallish cooldown on rewarping would offer a lot more tactical options for small gang and solo combat within a system.

If you could setup someone to chase you across a system you could separate the gang and easily buy yourself up to a minute or even more (if they're already in warp to spot A, and you've started moving to spot B with support chasing you) to play with the light ships before the heavy hitters arrive on the scene. Generally giving you more options to outsmart people, which is the fun part of EVE PVP.


Pages: 1 [2] 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only