open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked My Thoughts on Game Balance [WARNING: Post of Jade-like proportions]
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Alberta
Gallente
Wayne Solutions Amalgamated
Posted - 2005.01.31 23:53:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Alberta on 31/01/2005 23:56:05
I've been saying for months now (although not on these forums) that the biggest balance problem in the game is the small gap in DOT between the different classes of weapons. I want to both make my point here and expand on that a little (alright a lot). The argument first came up back in the days of oversized AB's. Almost everybody (including me) agreed that there was no way that small ships should be so effective against larger ones. I disagreed with most people as to what the root of the problem was though. Almost everybody seemed to think that the reason small ships were such a problem was that they were too hard to hit. I said, and still do say, that the problem was they could do too much damage to bigger ships.

Under the current game mechanics what do you think the chances are that a battleship can stand up to an attack by a group of 20 frigs?

I for one think virtually none. Let's look at that in terms of risk vs reward.

A standard frig fitted with standard equipment will cost you say 100k to lose after insurance. So collectively our gang of 20 frigs is risking the loss of 2 million isk. Our lone battleship which stands basically no chance of survival is risking maybe 5-15 million isk. Depending on setups for both sides I'd say that the battleship can expect to kill between 5 and 0 frigs before he dies (discounting the massive advances that appear to have been made in missile targeting recently). Not exactly a fair trade.

I think that the best solution is a massive overhaul of the whole way combat between ship classes works. Increase the gap between classes to the point where "punching above your weight" by a single class (I'm thinking in terms of frig/cruiser/battleship here. The new classes will bridge the gap to some extent) requires a relatively large group and I think you would get a much better game. The way to do this is to vastly reduce the ability of a ship to inflict harm on a larger class while at the same time reducing the ability of larger weapons to hit smaller ships. This is done by increasing the differences in damage mods and tracking speeds. Ship HP, sig radius and tanking abilities would also need to be altered in order to keep combat within classes much the same as it is now.

So where do we end up after these changes?

If you want to kill battleships you need to bring more firepower than a group of frigates (elite or otherwise) can offer. A group of cruisers will do the trick but it will take time and numbers. What you will be able to do with your smaller ships is hold a larger ship that hasn't kitted to deal with smaller ships down for a long time, allowing your ships that are capable of killing it to get there and do their job. The short version is that there's an obvious advantage to using a mixed fleet.

Frigates
Since you're safe from large and medium weapons, (as long as you're moving and the medium guns aren't stacked with tracking mods) you have a choice between tanking, damage or a hybrid of the two depending on what you're looking to achieve. Tanking would allow you to maintain scrambling longer under small weapons fire but you'll need to fit less damaging guns. More powerful guns and/or damage mods would allow you to kill of enemy frigates more quickly to allow friendly ships the chance to warp out.

Cruisers
You're would be safe from large weapons unless the ship has a significant number of tracking mods fitted or you're webbed and they have a decent amount of range on you. You can fit small guns and a strong tank to allow you to survive a swarm of frigates while still killing them. You can fit medium guns and stack up tracking mods and a web to tear through enemy frigates quickly and allow friendly ships to warp away while leaving yourself vulnerable to a cruiser killing ship. Obviously there's more options available but I'm not going to keep listing them all. You'll have more options than a figate but you can't handle everything at once and you're paying more for both flexibility and effectiveness on the battlefield. Logistics cruisers may finally even be useful (might be asking a little much here though).

Battleships
You can fit to counter any class of opponent (until bigger ship classes come in) but you can't do everything at once. You can however tank up and take comfort from the fact that without bringing out their own battleships it's going to take a lot of enemies and considerable effort to kill you, whatever weapons you have. Fitting for high damage with large turrets and no tank will make you an asset to a fleet but an easy target if you operate solo.

Edit: Post was owned by post size limit

Alberta
Gallente
Wayne Solutions Amalgamated
Posted - 2005.01.31 23:53:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Alberta on 31/01/2005 23:56:43
Edited by: Alberta on 31/01/2005 23:55:22
Drones
These chages would require increased diversity in drones. I would suggest having 3 types of drone intended for use against each class (frigate/cruiser/battleship, 12 types in total) one type for frigs to use, one for cruisers and one for battleships. The difference between the types would be the level of damage, HP and volume of the drones. The damage scale would be in line with the difference between types of gun within the same class not different classes of gun. The volume would limit the more damaging types to the larger ship classes. Each type of drone would have a version for each of the damage types.

Economics
Within a purely tech1 environment there wouldn't be too much of a problem. Since T2 ships would not be able to pose anything like the threat to larger ships that they do now however, something would need to be done to reduce their cost. Making them quicker to build and increasing the availability of components would probably be the best solution here. The reduction in cost of T2 ships should also allow pilots specialised in the use of these ships to earn enough money to replace them without training to fly a battleship.

Balancing Within Classes
As well as (I think) increaseing the quality of play overall, increasing the gaps between the ship classes should allow much more room to maneuver when balancing ships/weapons of the same class.

Miscellaneous Thoughts
The inability of turrets to damage smaller ships that they're designed for would have to be more of a function of signature radius than ship speed. Otherwise the slower assault ships are going to be at a great disadvantage.

The inability of missiles to damage smaller ships than they're designed for may need to be an “artificial” barrier based on signature radius.

The inability of ships with small or no drone bay to deal with smaller ships, particularly in the face of EW, may require some attention.

Not really related to the rest of the post but I think that the CPU use on warp stabs should be significantly increased. You should be able to fit for travel OR be fitted to PvP/PvE/mining not both.

Alberta
Gallente
Wayne Solutions Amalgamated
Posted - 2005.01.31 23:56:00 - [3]
 

So now add your thoughts on how stupid either all or parts of this are. Don't just say things are fine as they are, I'll tell you now that I disagree. Instead tell me why things wouldn't be better the way I've suggested. Point out the flaws and preferably any ideas you have to fix them.

Aphoxema G
PONIES EVERWHERE
Posted - 2005.02.01 04:49:00 - [4]
 

Those are extremely good points, but asking for a greater balance can sometimes be alot more than asking for a whole new feature of some sorts. I can stand to reason that the problem with the system now is basically because of the new implemention of phases of ships and classes over time. Destroyers and Battlecruisers are extremely new, and can't be expected to do what they're intended right away... or even left with the same intentions forever.

While balance is always appreciated in the more appropriate gamers (uh, -I- think...), it's a difficult task that takes a long time to pull off, especially with the constant expansion on the game, the new modules, all those tasks that still are being debugged this second.

I think alot of people already realize alot of the disbalance... and efforts are surely underway to correct the disbalance and make it more fair for everyone without "Nerfing" anything that everyone takes for granted already. Over time, the game will be balanced in a more natural way, and... everything you've explained, I believe, is actually being done to some extent already.

I agree that a Battleship shouldn't have a whole lot to worry about from Frigates... but twenty frigates is ALOT of frigates. Even with an alt each, that's still at least ten people who need to work together, and running two copies by yourself isn't the easiest thing to do in combat, anyhow. If anything... BS's should cost less or have a better insurance ratio... after all, people are starting to go through them like rice since Exodus. But, the fact is, there's a reason BS's have more to lose. They're really big ships that could pop five frigates on their own, if the pilot had the sense to arm some smaller missile launchers or some small howie's or something.

Either way, someone would have to be insane to fly through lowsec space by themself in a BS or cruiser and not expect to have a pretty hard fight on their hands if they get in one... and then there's all those bonus's that can be applied to larger groups of players. I personally feel that three cruisers should be able to wipe out a BS in a heartbeat, and just 10 frigates shouldn't have it much harder.

ArcticFox
The Night Crew
Posted - 2005.02.01 05:16:00 - [5]
 

I agree with some of what you said but I would like to point out that twenty frigates is hardly a small number to take on one battleship, I would even go so far as to call it a large group. Now if we have groups of two or three frigates destroying battleships easily (even assaults) that's a bit over the top, even five to ten is a bit too easy, but you honestly don't consider twenty frigates a large group?

Alberta
Gallente
Wayne Solutions Amalgamated
Posted - 2005.02.01 16:48:00 - [6]
 

Yes 20 is a large group. I'm saying make a large group able to fight a ship 1 class above, not 2. The trade off being they have less to be worried about from ships above their class that don't fit specifically to fight smaller ships. Given the way the game is now it's an extreme change, no doubt about it.

Kiithnaras
Minmatar
Lethal Injection.
Hedonistic Imperative
Posted - 2005.02.01 18:27:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Kiithnaras on 01/02/2005 18:36:43
Edited by: Kiithnaras on 01/02/2005 18:31:46
You must also take into account that many battleships and cruisers specifically fit for anti-cruiser and anti-frigate operations, particularly with ATC's and Blasters, and to a lesser degree pulse lasers. getting rid of that aspect of the game kills any sort of tactical advantage the larger ships have against frigate swarms. If you're in a frigate, or a moderately fast cruiser, you're already safe from the large, long-range high-damage guns. get in close enough and orbit fast enough. Learn tactics, not demand rebalances. CCP is already overzealous with the legendary Nerfbat. They need discouragement, not encouragement. The current system, aside from racial weapon biases *cough*projectiles*cough*, the system works rather smoothly.

There are certain aspects of the game that cannot be overcome by tactics and skills, but such things are limited to HP, weapon damage, speed, etc, but therein lies the initial choice of ships, mods, skills, and weaponry to begin with. (*rolls an 18 and resists urge to hijack post*)

Edit: I also just remembered. CCP did something similar to what you speak of not terribly long ago. Even if you get a perfect strike on a frigate with, say, a Tach I or 1400 howizter, it's very hard to do extreme damages that the gun would normally do against a battleship under exact same circumstances.

Alberta
Gallente
Wayne Solutions Amalgamated
Posted - 2005.02.01 19:19:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Kiithnaras
Learn tactics, not demand rebalances.


Firstly I'm not demanding anything, I'm putting forward an idea. Secondly I find you telling me to learn tactics quite amusing, probably a few people who know me do too. But then that could just be my ego talking.

Re-reading your post I'm starting to wonder if you even read half of my post.

Quote:
You must also take into account that many battleships and cruisers specifically fit for anti-cruiser and anti-frigate operations, particularly with ATC's and Blasters, and to a lesser degree pulse lasers. getting rid of that aspect of the game kills any sort of tactical advantage the larger ships have against frigate swarms.


Please explain how my idea would do this, I seem to have missed it.

Quote:
There are certain aspects of the game that cannot be overcome by tactics and skills, but such things are limited to HP, weapon damage, speed, etc, but therein lies the initial choice of ships, mods, skills, and weaponry to begin with.


This sounds like a perfect description of how the game would be if my idea was implemented.

Quote:
I also just remembered. CCP did something similar to what you speak of not terribly long ago. Even if you get a perfect strike on a frigate with, say, a Tach I or 1400 howizter, it's very hard to do extreme damages that the gun would normally do against a battleship under exact same circumstances.


Unless my memory is playing tricks on me if you get a wrecking shot on a frigate with a 1400mm there's usually a cargo can and a pod where the frigate used to be.

Adiion Agnod
Tactical Knightmare
Posted - 2005.02.01 20:44:00 - [9]
 

Isnt having a largish group of frigates being able to destroy a Battleship the epitomy of balance?. I can think of no other turn off in MMORPG than having to go against another player who quite simply can "power template" thier way to victory. In the current system of EVE the little guys have a chance to take out the big guy, just being in the game longer does not mean automatic victory like so many other MMORPG's.

EVE promotes team play by giving you a large variety of variables to counter, think of it as in star wars, the death star was vulnerable from fighter attack because of the empires over confidence in its big guns.

Clementina
The Scope
Posted - 2005.02.02 02:22:00 - [10]
 

It's harder to get 20 people together in one spot then it is to get 1 person together in one spot. Therefore the 20 people regardless of what they fly should be able to do significient damage, especally to 1 fool who thinks he's uber just because he flys a battleship.

Alberta
Gallente
Wayne Solutions Amalgamated
Posted - 2005.02.02 02:38:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Clementina
It's harder to get 20 people together in one spot then it is to get 1 person together in one spot. Therefore the 20 people regardless of what they fly should be able to do significient damage, especally to 1 fool who thinks he's uber just because he flys a battleship.


This is what I disagree with. I don't think you should be able to kill much bigger ships just by bringing numbers and not risking anything significant in game. If you want to kill something that's significant you should have to use something of similar significance either as a group or an individual.

Monclair
Excrutiating Dirge
Posted - 2005.02.02 06:19:00 - [12]
 

You see, doing it your way will only undercut the game. Frigs and crusiers need to used. They way you propose, is just going to make the game go back to the way it used to.. ALL BATTLESHIP FLEETS.

Do you remember those days? I sure do.
At least now, crusiers can kick some ass.. Frigites too. They have a specialized role in the game. While Crusiers, can do alot. Frigs are normally set for either tackling, or anti-frig and stuff..

If you fly your ship smartly, you should be able to evade fire pretty decently. Really its comes down to this.. Its not RISK VS REWARD.

Its ISK VS SURVIVABLITY.

Your BS has more armor, sheilds and weapons. While your frigs are hulks to metal with a gun on it and a big ass engine. Lets thing back to something we can all relate too. WORLD WAR 2.

A battleship = TANK
A frig = INFANTRY

I tank had visibilty issues, thus needed infantry to support it so it wouldnt get blindsighted. However, it doesnt mean, 1 enemy infantry cant jump ontop of your damn tank and toss a primed gernade in your control pit now eh? (EXPECIALLY IF YOU WERE ALONE AKA NO SUPPORT)

However, if you did have support your infantry would kill the ****er and stuff. Get the idea. Infrantry costed way less to train. Opposed to say the cost of building that tank. Oh yeah, it good protection from bullets and stuff..

But what if a lucky shot? or anotehr tank hits it? Or hell an artillary battery.. Its all about tackics..

Personally, the underlying issue in EVE is the log on and log off.

IF YOU LOG OFF YOUR SHIP WARPS AWAY, AND WELL.. SITS IN SPACE. ANYONE CAN FIND IT.. IF THEY ARE LUCKY ENOUGH AND STUFF. (However, well make it so they cant pod you if your offline)

Thats the problem with eve.. You talk about risk vs reward. What is the risk of you logging off an entire fleet in a active hostal system?

NONE! And personally thats bull****. Not only if this was implmented, it would force the use of outposts, aka POS. And smaller ships. Yes, thats right.. smaller ships.. why?? becuase they are faster. Unless your corp or allaince has a decent pos system. Get my drift on this? This is the REAL PROBLEM WITH EVE. And that needs to be addressed first. You will see, that it will change they way the entire game is played in some aspects.

--Monclair

Lizaa
Caldari
The Illuminatus Foundation
Posted - 2005.02.02 09:02:00 - [13]
 

I agree with you, glad u said it, nice one.


Aphoxema G
PONIES EVERWHERE
Posted - 2005.02.02 10:15:00 - [14]
 

Monclair. Everything you said times infinity.

Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
Posted - 2005.02.02 15:53:00 - [15]
 

20 ships = 20 people.
1 ship = 1 person.

Time investment is a factor too.


Also, at one point we HAD mixed fleets. We're moving right back to pure BS.

Monclair, can't disagree more. People have RL issues - if you implimented that, I'd never go into 0.0. There's allways a chance I WILL be called away (for a good period of time) for something serious, and I'm not going to lose a ship each time.

Heliodor Mordureau
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2005.02.02 16:35:00 - [16]
 

I agree in some ways but not others.

Frigs should be able to pose a threat to Battleships. Otherwise, people will revert to having all BS fleets and that limits the ability of low skill people to participate in fleet battles. I agree that a low number like 3 or 4 frigs should not pose a threat to BS, but in numbers of 8 or more it should give a BS pause.

What should be done is to equalize cruisers. Atm, Cruisers are nothing but cannon fodder. They cannot hit frigs, but are an easy target for BS. quad light turrets should have thier tracking speed increased so they can at least a threat to nme frigs and give them something that gives them an advantage against BS. Not so much that a cruiser could solo a BS, but enough that four cruisers should be a challenge for a BS.

What is really needed to make mixed fleets a requirement is a low cost frig carrier. I've submitted an thread in the ideas section about tenders, I think they would be the equalizer.

The thing is it should go like this:

frigs<destroyers<cruisers<battlecruisers<battleships

frigs should be disposable in combat, that is the reason they are so cheap. They however have to be beefed up because they're survival rate in battle is 0.001. Give frig pilots a means to replace thier ships while with the fleet instead of having to go back to empire to grab another one would mean less loving for frigs and more loving for everything else.

Lower the building costs for tech II frigs and everyone will be happy as clams.. =)

Xavier Perez
Caldari
Dawn of a new Empire
Posted - 2005.02.02 18:21:00 - [17]
 

Battleships are getting outdated. Too many smaller and cheaper ships with adequate killing power.

Fuze Rogue
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2005.02.02 22:59:00 - [18]
 

BATTLE-ships are meant to be used in BATTLE.
They shouldnt be used as uber solo ships, it would completely negate the point of having frigs and cruisers in the game. Wether IRL or in any sci-fi book/film BATTLE-ships are meant to be used in fleets, where frigate and cruiser escort can hope to protect them.

Don't forget that having a large group of 20frigs is an incredible waste of manpower, suppose corp A is fighting corp b,

corp a brings 20frigs
corp b brings 20battleships

Guess who wins?Rolling Eyes

PS: and btw battleships really are about as much fun to fly as haulers IMO.Confused

Alberta
Gallente
Wayne Solutions Amalgamated
Posted - 2005.02.03 07:07:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Fuze Rogue
BATTLE-ships are meant to be used in BATTLE.
They shouldnt be used as uber solo ships, it would completely negate the point of having frigs and cruisers in the game. Wether IRL or in any sci-fi book/film BATTLE-ships are meant to be used in fleets, where frigate and cruiser escort can hope to protect them.

Don't forget that having a large group of 20frigs is an incredible waste of manpower, suppose corp A is fighting corp b,

corp a brings 20frigs
corp b brings 20battleships

Guess who wins?Rolling Eyes

PS: and btw battleships really are about as much fun to fly as haulers IMO.Confused


So we agree then? Battleships should be used as part of a mixed fleet. How do YOU plan to bring this about from where we stand at the moment?

If you think that the game mechanics currently encourage the use of a mixed fleet (exhibit A) I'd like some of what you're smoking.

You seem to suggest that what I'm proposing would make battleships some kind of "über solo ship". I'd like you to explain how it would do this because I honestly don't see it.

P.S.
If we're talking about the game as it is today I guess the battleships win. Am I right? If so what do I win?

P.P.S.
Why was your question followed by one of those infamous rolling eye smilies?

ArcticFox
The Night Crew
Posted - 2005.02.03 08:15:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: ArcticFox on 03/02/2005 08:21:37
Alberta, the problem is that if even a large group of frigs can't kill a single battleship, there will cease to be a point to bringing frigs and cruisers into an encounter. If you corp A and corp B each have 10 pilots, all battleship capable, you'd be crazy to put a single one in a cruiser. Why? Because while you may need a few fast tacklers (frigates) the enemy frigates can't hurt your battleships at all, so no need to actually kill them, just equip a couple NOS and suck them dry. Basically, you're talking about putting an iron clad lock on the complete pointlessness of cruisers.

Granted, this is a problem to a degree even now, but making it impossible for anything less than 40 frigates to kill a single battleship is not gonna help that.

Quote:
Monclair, can't disagree more. People have RL issues - if you implimented that, I'd never go into 0.0. There's allways a chance I WILL be called away (for a good period of time) for something serious, and I'm not going to lose a ship each time.


There's always a chance you'll disconnect and be unable to get back on in the middle of a fleet battle, but people still do that all the time. If you're far enough out in 0.0 to be unable to get to a friendly station then you're taking the risk of losing your ship just by being there. If it's heavily patrolled friendly territory you've got no risk in loging out anyway, nobody is gonna scan for you. Besides, it's not as if they're asking for you to show up on local, you can make a safespot somewhere suitably far from the gates and log there. The chances that someone will be roaming around with scan probes and find you are fairly low, probably quite a lot less than the chances of getting caught at a gate and ganked.

There are downsides to this, just as every pvp feature has it's downsides for someone, but I see a lot more good than bad in being able to detect logged off ships (not to mention a lot more roleplay-type sense).

Schroni
PPN United
Posted - 2005.02.03 09:48:00 - [21]
 

well, here's my opinion on the original post:

the day isk(i.e. best ship/mods/etc) > tactics (& numbers to an extent) = the day i quit EVE

Aphoxema G
PONIES EVERWHERE
Posted - 2005.02.03 13:06:00 - [22]
 

Alright. I give up. I have determined that Alberta is a 'thick stump' and will not give up. Fortunately the suggestions are transparent and obscene, not to mention foundationless (except on whatever an Isk is worth)... so in all likelyhood, CCP won't find it difficult to sing past them with the click of a pointing device of their preferance.

Back to killing...

Heliodor Mordureau
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2005.02.03 15:57:00 - [23]
 

We ended up having a discussion in corp last night about this and have come to a better point.

What Alberta is trying to get across is more balance. Reallistically, hitting a small target like a frig at 60 to 100km should be next to impossible for a large turret. But in order to make sure everyone just doesn't roam in frigs and the BS is tossed out the airlock, there has to be a balancing act. What we had come up with is lessen the amount of damage NORMAL frig turrets do to Battleships. In my view, ten frigs would take about 10 to 15 mins to take down a normal BS, untanked. Before all you frig pilots get your panties in a knot, we introduce bomber frigs. Bomber frigs are fitted as follows, 1 or two high slots, and 2 mids, 2 lows. Bomber frigs are the only ships that can fit a ACS Launcher, ACS meaning Anti Capital Ship. An ACS missile is a fast moving but low tracking missile designed solely for anti BS warfare. Launching one at a frig would be stupid because not only would a frig out distance it, it could simply steer out of the way. Same with Cruisers. The Launcher would be a slow reload, only carry 1 missile. The bombers would be able to fit a light speed package to thier ships, making them easy prey for frigates and interceptors. This would force more fleets to take interceptors with them, to counter bomber frigs.

Schroni
PPN United
Posted - 2005.02.03 16:08:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Heliodor Mordureau
In my view, ten frigs would take about 10 to 15 mins to take down a normal BS, untanked.


Yay for even more log-offs! Rolling Eyes

Originally by: Heliodor Mordureau
Before all you frig pilots get your panties in a knot, we introduce bomber frigs... [snip] ...The Launcher would be a slow reload, only carry 1 missile.


Kestrels with cruise missiles, anyone?

Kiithnaras
Minmatar
Lethal Injection.
Hedonistic Imperative
Posted - 2005.02.03 16:33:00 - [25]
 

*applauds Monclair* My thoughts exactly

You know, I was thinking similarly on that "ACS" launcher, but not so complicated. Frig turrets are fine doing their normal damage to BS's, because, as you said, it'd take 10-15 for an unnaturally large swarm of them to take down an UNtanked BS. Who do you know that flies a BS these days into unsecure space and DOESNT tank in some way? And who, aside from Eve Radio Army, flies gigantic frigate swarms? About those launchers, I stated in my own rebalance thread that it'd be interesting to be able to lessen the power needs on Assault, Heavy, and Cruise launchers, such that the first two would be fittable on frigates, however at great expense to power (16-18 for assualt, 20-25 for heavy), and the last would be mountable on cruisers on the same, if not slightly higher, level as a howitzer or top-end beam (250-350 power usage).

Alberta
Gallente
Wayne Solutions Amalgamated
Posted - 2005.02.03 17:05:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Schroni
Originally by: Heliodor Mordureau
In my view, ten frigs would take about 10 to 15 mins to take down a normal BS, untanked.


Yay for even more log-offs! Rolling Eyes

Originally by: Heliodor Mordureau
Before all you frig pilots get your panties in a knot, we introduce bomber frigs... [snip] ...The Launcher would be a slow reload, only carry 1 missile.


Kestrels with cruise missiles, anyone?



Logoffs are lame and it needs fixing. If you're scrambled your ship should stay. We would ofc need more stability than we currently have to minimise losses due to CTD but it's something that needs to be done to the game as it is now just as much as in the version I'm suggesting.

On the subject of the bombers, kestrels with cruise missiles basically what I would have here (hadn't really thought about it until last night) rather than a completely new missile. They would also only have 2 highs, be considerably slower than a standard frig and have a bit more HP. The reason they would be more balanced than the old frigs with cruise is that their weapons would no longer pose a threat to another frigate or cruiser. They would also be T2 making then more costly than a standard frig and their lack of speed and ability to defend themselves would make them an easy kill for a frig.

Fuze Rogue
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2005.02.03 17:09:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Fuze Rogue on 03/02/2005 17:14:47
Originally by: Alberta
Originally by: Fuze Rogue
BATTLE-ships are meant to be used in BATTLE.
They shouldnt be used as uber solo ships, it would completely negate the point of having frigs and cruisers in the game. Wether IRL or in any sci-fi book/film BATTLE-ships are meant to be used in fleets, where frigate and cruiser escort can hope to protect them.

Don't forget that having a large group of 20frigs is an incredible waste of manpower, suppose corp A is fighting corp b,

corp a brings 20frigs
corp b brings 20battleships

Guess who wins?Rolling Eyes

PS: and btw battleships really are about as much fun to fly as haulers IMO.Confused


So we agree then? Battleships should be used as part of a mixed fleet. How do YOU plan to bring this about from where we stand at the moment?

If you think that the game mechanics currently encourage the use of a mixed fleet (exhibit A) I'd like some of what you're smoking.

You seem to suggest that what I'm proposing would make battleships some kind of "über solo ship". I'd like you to explain how it would do this because I honestly don't see it.

P.S.
If we're talking about the game as it is today I guess the battleships win. Am I right? If so what do I win?

P.P.S.
Why was your question followed by one of those infamous rolling eye smilies?


You are talking about making it harder for small ships to kill big ships right? Apart from the rock/paper/scissors type game balancing (wich is lame), im afraid you are mistaken about th current mechanics encouraging mixed fleets. Theres not much point in fighting fleet battles without tacklers and anti-tacklers.

And about making battleships into uber solo ships (and one point that you forgot to bring up), take the raven and its cruise missiles... nuff said, or better yet, take any BS (after your proposed changes) and fit small turrets/ light drones etc and there you have one uber ship easily capable of fighting off hundreds of frigates.

Besides your idea isnt at all original and most of the eve community is totally against it:

Exhibit B

*EDIT* : BTW i managed to take out a Cyclone in my assault frigate last night. i used a smaller ship, frigate class, to be the crap out of bigger ship, battlecruiser class. The point is that my AF is worth ~25mill if i ever lose it, whereas the BC costs about 10-15mill thanks to proper insurance, what do you have to say about that? Smile

Alberta
Gallente
Wayne Solutions Amalgamated
Posted - 2005.02.03 17:50:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Kiithnaras
Frig turrets are fine doing their normal damage to BS's, because, as you said, it'd take 10-15 for an unnaturally large swarm of them to take down an UNtanked BS.


You've been playing the game for a year and a half and you think it takes 10-15 minutes for an unnaturally large swarm of frigs to take down an untanked BS???

If you honestly do, meet me on the test server, bring out a battleship with no modules on and see how long you last against just me in an interceptor. I'll even make it a standard frig if you want.


Quote:
Who do you know that flies a BS these days into unsecure space and DOESNT tank in some way?


Sometimes BNC do, as do corps that we fly with. It works quite well for us.


Quote:
And who, aside from Eve Radio Army, flies gigantic frigate swarms?


Sometimes BNC do, it works quite well for us. Nemesis used to fly swarms of interceptors, not sure how much they do now. Also NSN are frig fans, although in my experience they tend to use assault frigs (except when they use Noobships) and less numbers. m0o have also been known to play around in frigs in their time. I'm sure there's many others but these are the ones that spring to mind.

Alberta
Gallente
Wayne Solutions Amalgamated
Posted - 2005.02.03 18:35:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Fuze Rogue
You are talking about making it harder for small ships to kill big ships right? Apart from the rock/paper/scissors type game balancing (wich is lame), im afraid you are mistaken about th current mechanics encouraging mixed fleets. Theres not much point in fighting fleet battles without tacklers and anti-tacklers.


Why bring dedicated anti-tacklers when your ravens and scorpions can do the job twice as well while still being effective against battleships? Or you can kill the enemy tacklers by warping in at range taking them out first with your large guns? Why bring tacklers when your high damage ships can kill battleships before they warp out?

Quote:
And about making battleships into uber solo ships (and one point that you forgot to bring up), take the raven and its cruise missiles... nuff said, or better yet, take any BS (after your proposed changes) and fit small turrets/ light drones etc and there you have one uber ship easily capable of fighting off hundreds of frigates.


Not sure what your point is about the raven, my proposed changes include making cruise missiles ineffective against frigs. You're right about a battleship kitted for frig killing being able to fight off hundreds of frigs though... assuming they choose engage it, don't dampen it to hell and don't targe its drones it'd probably even kill them. Then they bring in a battleship, it can't hope to hurt the battleship and ohnoes it's dead. They could even use a single cruiser to hold it there while they went and bought one, ran around collecting modules to kit it and then came back. So just how über does it look now?

Quote:
Besides your idea isnt at all original and most of the eve community is totally against it:

Exhibit B


The originality of an idea has nothing to do with its merit. That said, TomB's increased HP proposal is similar to a minor part of what I'm suggesting. It would have similar effects on some levels but fails to address many of the balance changes it would bring. I'm one of those people that's totally against that change.

Quote:
*EDIT* : BTW i managed to take out a Cyclone in my assault frigate last night. i used a smaller ship, frigate class, to be the crap out of bigger ship, battlecruiser class. The point is that my AF is worth ~25mill if i ever lose it, whereas the BC costs about 10-15mill thanks to proper insurance, what do you have to say about that? Smile


I say that's fine and congratulations. You brought ships of comparable value and equal numbers of people. The problem is that standard frigs costing nowhere near that much use the same weapons and it wouldn't take many of them to achieve what you did for a fraction of the in game risk.

Alberta
Gallente
Wayne Solutions Amalgamated
Posted - 2005.02.03 18:39:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Schroni
well, here's my opinion on the original post:

the day isk(i.e. best ship/mods/etc) > tactics (& numbers to an extent) = the day i quit EVE



This is not what I'm looking for at all.

The idea is for numbers to compete against numbers providing both sides are prepared to bring ships of equal significance. A numerical advantage could still be overcome with tactics and isk would not be able to "buy victory" as long as both sides were capable of fielding ships of every class.


Pages: [1] 2

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