open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Nerf Weapons or Buff Ships
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Jade Mitch
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.24 13:35:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Jade Mitch on 25/05/2011 11:43:50

There are three basic types of pvp encounters that all Eve players eventually find themselves in: 1. one vs one, 2. one vs a fleet, and 3. a fleet vs a fleet. Even in the case of a fleet vs a fleet, the FCs are calling primaries in order to focus down the opposite fleet one ship at a time. So the vast majority of pvp encounters involve the same basic "one vs a fleet" situation.

If you take two characters of equal SP, train one for maximum tanking and stick him in a ship with the strongest possible tank, and train the other characters for maximum damage and stick him in the exact same ship but fitted for maximum DPS, the DPS will always be stronger than the tank. (Don't believe me? Try it.)

The combination of "one vs many" gameplay and inferior ship defense results in extremely one-sided combat. It's comparable to, but not quit as harsh as, the pvp experience of Diablo II, where win or loss is decided within seconds of stepping out of town. It leaves very little time for tactics and maneuvers. If Eve Online is a thinking man's game, then combat should last long enough to give players time to think, don't you think?

So there's clearly a need for one of two things: nerf weapons or buff ships. Either measure would help extend fleet battles but, I'd prefer that ships get buffed. Enough of a buff to make it impossible for any ship to kill another ship of the same class all by itself, even with level 5 skills and T2 weapons, and I'm only talking about sub-capital ships.

Shieldss
Northern Freight Unlimited
Clockwork Pineapple
Posted - 2011.05.24 13:55:00 - [2]
 

Let me get this straight.

You want destroyers to be unable to kill frigates in 1v1 situations.
You want cruisers to be unable to kill destroyers in 1v1 situations.
You want battlecruisers to be unable to kill cruisers in 1v1 situations.
You want battleships to be unable to kill battlecruisers in 1v1 situations.

Last time I checked, the following were true:
Destroyers were designed to kill frigates in 1v1 situations.
Cruisers were designed to kill destroyers in 1v1 situations.
Battlecruisers were designed to kill cruisers in 1v1 situations.
Battleships were designed to kill battlecruisers in 1v1 situations.

Your idea goes completely contrary to the way the game was designed. A ship of a single higher class should be able to kill a ship of a single lower class, it should be able to kill with some difficulty a ship two classes lower, and it should have a difficult time killing a ship three classes lower. Additionally, a ship should have some ability to kill a ship of a single class higher, a much more difficult time killing something two classes higher, and a very difficult time killing a ship three classes higher.

Please use some common sense prior to posting things that make no sense whatsoever. Thanks in advance.

Halbert Vector
Posted - 2011.05.24 14:01:00 - [3]
 

Eve ships are already very tough, a reasonably evenly matched battle of any sort can take quite a while. There's plenty of time for manoeuvering and tactical decisions, the problem is there aren't many worthwhile mid-battle tactical moves you can make, so most of your time is taken up performing the musket drill of activating all your modules correctly.

Jade Mitch
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.24 14:01:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Jade Mitch on 24/05/2011 14:06:34
Originally by: Shieldss
Let me get this straight.
Your idea goes completely contrary to the way the game was designed. A ship of a single higher class should be able to kill a ship of a single lower class, it should be able to kill with some difficulty a ship two classes lower, and it should have a difficult time killing a ship three classes lower. Additionally, a ship should have some ability to kill a ship of a single class higher, a much more difficult time killing something two classes higher, and a very difficult time killing a ship three classes higher.

Please use some common sense prior to posting things that make no sense whatsoever. Thanks in advance.

But the game isn't mostly 1 vs 1, it's 1 vs OMGWTFBBQ! So buffing ships does make sense.

MaxiM Sachs
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.05.24 14:05:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: MaxiM Sachs on 24/05/2011 14:06:51
Edited by: MaxiM Sachs on 24/05/2011 14:06:28
Edited by: MaxiM Sachs on 24/05/2011 14:06:08
Originally by: Shieldss
Let me get this straight.

You want destroyers to be unable to kill frigates in 1v1 situations.
You want cruisers to be unable to kill destroyers in 1v1 situations.
You want battlecruisers to be unable to kill cruisers in 1v1 situations.
You want battleships to be unable to kill battlecruisers in 1v1 situations.

Last time I checked, the following were true:
Destroyers were designed to kill frigates in 1v1 situations.
Cruisers were designed to kill destroyers in 1v1 situations.
Battlecruisers were designed to kill cruisers in 1v1 situations.
Battleships were designed to kill battlecruisers in 1v1 situations.

Your idea goes completely contrary to the way the game was designed. A ship of a single higher class should be able to kill a ship of a single lower class, it should be able to kill with some difficulty a ship two classes lower, and it should have a difficult time killing a ship three classes lower. Additionally, a ship should have some ability to kill a ship of a single class higher, a much more difficult time killing something two classes higher, and a very difficult time killing a ship three classes higher.

Please use some common sense prior to posting things that make no sense whatsoever. Thanks in advance.


I agree compleetly with this.

@Jade Mitch
Yes, Eve is harsh in your first half year of play.
You want a thinking mans game?
Try to think off a good learing plan for your skills and think about what to fit for that pvp moment.
I'm playing EVE for 3 years now and still learning!

Jade Mitch
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.24 14:19:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: MaxiM Sachs

Yes, Eve is harsh in your first half year of play.
You want a thinking mans game?
Try to think off a good learing plan for your skills and think about what to fit for that pvp moment. I'm playing EVE for 3 years now and still learning!

I've been playing for six years. But your advice is appreciated all the same.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.05.24 14:28:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Jade Mitch
But the game isn't mostly 1 vs 1, it's 1 vs OMGWTFBBQ! So buffing ships does make sense.
The problem is that it's solutions very much akin to what you're describing that has made it that way. All you're doing is increasing the blob-vs-1 mentality and making it a requirement. That doesn't sound like a particularly good thing.

It also creates something that sounds dangerously close to a classic level system: Level 1 can't hurt Level 10; Level 10 can't hurt Level 20 etc. One of the things that makes EVE special is that none of that nonsense exists, and while what you're suggesting doesn't quite go that far, it's very much a step in that (awful) direction…

Tubares Shting
Posted - 2011.05.24 14:41:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Jade Mitch
Edited by: Jade Mitch on 24/05/2011 14:06:34
Originally by: Shieldss
Let me get this straight.
Your idea goes completely contrary to the way the game was designed. A ship of a single higher class should be able to kill a ship of a single lower class, it should be able to kill with some difficulty a ship two classes lower, and it should have a difficult time killing a ship three classes lower. Additionally, a ship should have some ability to kill a ship of a single class higher, a much more difficult time killing something two classes higher, and a very difficult time killing a ship three classes higher.

Please use some common sense prior to posting things that make no sense whatsoever. Thanks in advance.

But the game isn't mostly 1 vs 1, it's 1 vs OMGWTFBBQ! So buffing ships does make sense.


Actually, this is incorrect. Buffing ships is just going to move from 1v100 to 1v1000. Blobs are simply going to get larger, while at the same time effectively removing any chance for small gangs to be viable.

If anything, ships should be nerfed in order to make them easier to kill. Not just subcaps, but ALL ships. This would also have the effect of causing more people to get into industry in order to supply ships and equipment to everyone who will then be losing ships more regularly.

shadowace00007
Amarr
Beyond The Gates
Posted - 2011.05.24 14:55:00 - [9]
 


Jade Mitch
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.24 15:01:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Tippia

All you're doing is increasing the blob-vs-1 mentality and making it a requirement.

It's not a mentality, it's a perfectly valid tactic. Given the choice, most players choose to the blob-vs-1 tactic because it naturally works better than 1 vs 1. Nerfing ship defenses isn't going to reduce the use of this tactic so, who cares if buffing ship defenses increases it?

Originally by: Tippia

It also creates something that sounds dangerously close to a classic level system: Level 1 can't hurt Level 10; Level 10 can't hurt Level 20 etc. One of the things that makes EVE special is that none of that nonsense exists, and while what you're suggesting doesn't quite go that far, it's very much a step in that (awful) direction…

In classic level systems, higher level characters CAN kill lower level characters, that's the whole point. What I'm talking about with ship classes works in reverse, i.e. a step in the right direction.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.05.24 15:22:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Jade Mitch
Nerfing ship defenses isn't going to reduce the use of this tactic so, who cares if buffing ship defenses increases it?
Because then you're not actually changing anything — 1v1 will happen even less and blob-vs-1 will happen even more. People who are frustrated by "one vs. many" (the problem you want to solve) will only be even more frustrated because that's all they'll ever face.
Quote:
In classic level systems, higher level characters CAN kill lower level characters, that's the whole point. What I'm talking about with ship classes works in reverse, i.e. a step in the right direction.
That may be what you're talking about (somehow), but it's not what you're suggesting. What you're suggesting is a "higher level" class being entirely impervious to lower-level ones — the exact thing those level systems enforce.

If you need a battleship to destroy a cruiser (a higher-tier to kill a lower tier), then guess what? A lower-tier ship (say a destroyer) will have no chance whatsoever to kill that cruiser either. It doesn't work in reverse — it works in a "higher > lower" scale, only you've added the further complication that you have to go two tiers up to be able to destroy something, rather than just a higher level, as in most level systems (and that's a godawful structure to emulate to begin with).

You even say it yourself: "And a single frigate shouldn't be able to kill anything except rats, wrecks, and cargo containers." In other words, you're suggesting making small ships worthless. You're suggesting a tier progression where higher = better. You're suggesting a balancing where 100-vs-1 is mandatory.

None of these are good things, and they go against pretty much everything EVE has going for it. It's already less than satisfactory in some ways, but you're taking the bad parts of ship and class balancing and making them much much worse.

No thanks. The current "everything works against everything" and "bigger is not better" balancing that EVE offers is roughly eighty-five bazillion times better than the extreme D&D-style you've suggested…

Jade Mitch
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.24 15:43:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Jade Mitch on 25/05/2011 07:03:29
Originally by: Tubares Shting

Actually, this is incorrect. Buffing ships is just going to move from 1v100 to 1v1000. Blobs are simply going to get larger, while at the same time effectively removing any chance for small gangs to be viable.

Actually it is. Fleets already blob up as much as they can because of the natural incentive of power in numbers. So buffing ships isn't going increase blob numbers because the numbers are already maxed.

The best way to break up extreme blobbing is to lower the maximum number of ships in fleets and limit the number of fleets in systems increase the maximum number of squads in fleets.

Originally by: Tubares Shting

If anything, ships should be nerfed in order to make them easier to kill. Not just subcaps, but ALL ships. This would also have the effect of causing more people to get into industry in order to supply ships and equipment to everyone who will then be losing ships more regularly.

The reason most players don't pvp is because ships are too expensive and too easy to loose. This is quite bothersome for anyone not settled in null sec or engaged in trading ISK or PLEX on ebay. So making ships weaker is not going to stimulate industry because it's not going to encourage anyone to pvp. If ships got buffed, it would.

EnderCapitalG
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.05.24 15:52:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Jade Mitch
Actually it is. Fleets already blob up as much as they can because of the natural incentive of power in numbers. So buffing ships isn't going increase blob numbers because the numbers are already maxed.

The best way to break up extreme blobbing is to lower the maximum number of ships in fleets and limit the number of fleets in systems.


Because then the players definitely wouldn't stop using fleet mechanics altogether and just use red/orange only overviews, right?

PS You're wrong.

Jade Mitch
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.24 16:08:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Jade Mitch on 24/05/2011 16:27:31
Originally by: Tippia

People who are frustrated by "one vs. many" (the problem you want to solve) will only be even more frustrated because that's all they'll ever face.

I never said "one vs many" was a problem. I only said it was a common situation. The problem, as I pointed out in my OP, is that ships aren't strong enough to handle it.

Originally by: Tippia

...you've added the further complication that you have to go two tiers up to be able to destroy something...

Or multiple ships of the next larger class. One BC wouldn't be able to kill a cruiser but multiple BCs would. And so would multiple destroyers if you have enough of them. We are, after all, talking about "one vs. many" combat.

Originally by: Tippia

What you're suggesting is a "higher level" class being entirely impervious to lower-level ones — the exact thing those level systems enforce.

No, that's not what I suggested. Go back and read my OP before you ask any more questions.

Jade Mitch
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.24 16:15:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: EnderCapitalG

Originally by: Jade Mitch

The best way to break up extreme blobbing is to lower the maximum number of ships in fleets and limit the number of fleets in systems.

Because then the players definitely wouldn't stop using fleet mechanics altogether and just use red/orange only overviews, right?

No, some might.

Originally by: Tippia

PS You're wrong.

It would be a trade off between order and disorder. Either use the fleet mechanics or risk friendly fire. The larger the crowd, the greater the risk. I lulz just thinking about it.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.05.24 16:40:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Jade Mitch
The problem, as I pointed out in my OP, is that ships aren't strong enough to handle it.
You're looking at it backwards then — the problem is that ships are so strong already that there's not much choice but to go many-vs-one. Making that situation even worse won't make the problem go away — it will make it… well… worse.

You're just shifting "the situation" into larger blobs. That's not a solution.
Quote:
Or multiple ships of the next larger class. One BC wouldn't be able to kill a cruiser but multiple BCs would. And so would multiple destroyers if you have enough of them. We are, after all, talking about "one vs. many" combat.
Yes, but we have that already, so why make it worse?
Quote:
No, that's not what I suggested.
Yes it was. From your OP: "A single BS shouldn't be able to kill a BC. A single BC should be able to kill a cruiser. ... A single destroyer shouldn't be able to kill a frigate. And a single frigate shouldn't be able to kill anything except rats, wrecks, and cargo containers." A higher-tier ship will be entirely impervious to a lower-tier one (as will same-tier to same-tier). Maybe you should go back and read your OP and see what it was you actually suggested…

Regardless, your suggestion creates even larger incentives to blob; it creates even bigger gaps between ship classes and tiers; it obsoletes whole categories of ships; it rather ruins the rock-scissors-papers balance; it creates a level-structure that EVE has blissfully (and successfully) been without. All of these are very bad things. In exchange, you're not actually solving the problem you're seeing, but rather make it worse…

ilammy
Red Alliance
Posted - 2011.05.24 17:04:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: ilammy on 24/05/2011 17:06:22
So you want to kill blobbing with buffing the tank? While the blobbing is caused by uber-mega-10000000-EHP-tanking of battleships and sov-structures (more HP is to be dps'ed & less time is wanted to be spent -> bring more ships to bring more DPS)?

But wait, if we buff the gank instead, it still be a stimule for blobbing: more ships to kill & less time is wanted to be spent - >bring more ships for alphastriking.

Maybe the blobbing isn't related to all this gank-tank balance?

Ruze Ahkor'Murkon
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
Posted - 2011.05.24 17:17:00 - [18]
 

Personally, I just want a very simple system for diminishing returns applied to attacking ships. More ships attacking a single target, less damage done. Diminishing returns has become a staple for nearly every other mechanic in the game. Why not pvp?



So, when your four campers are attacking one ship, you'll all be doing damage at 85-90% of what you would normally do. Would that kill camps? Hell no (because let's be honest, four BS's at 90% of total damage is still enough against even one BS, much less a hauler). But as the numbers of attackers go up, so the results of combining fire go down.

What would be the reason for this? A few good ones come to mind: the effects of firing and striking the target from your teammates reduces your ability to properly aquire a target (too much debris flying in space, too many lasers or explosions going off in that small area, etc).



Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2011.05.24 18:38:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Jade Mitch
Originally by: Tubares Shting

Actually, this is incorrect. Buffing ships is just going to move from 1v100 to 1v1000. Blobs are simply going to get larger, while at the same time effectively removing any chance for small gangs to be viable.

Actually it is. Fleets already blob up as much as they can because of the natural incentive of power in numbers. So buffing ships isn't going increase blob numbers because the numbers are already maxed.

The best way to break up extreme blobbing is to lower the maximum number of ships in fleets and limit the number of fleets in systems.

Originally by: Tubares Shting

If anything, ships should be nerfed in order to make them easier to kill. Not just subcaps, but ALL ships. This would also have the effect of causing more people to get into industry in order to supply ships and equipment to everyone who will then be losing ships more regularly.

The reason most players don't pvp is because ships are too expensive and too easy to loose. This is quite bothersome for anyone not settled in null sec or engaged in trading ISK or PLEX on ebay. So making ships weaker is not going to stimulate industry because it's not going to encourage anyone to pvp. If ships got buffed, it would.


Please stop....... Your suggestion is NOT well thought out!!!!

I regularly kill BC's and BS's in a frigate... solo! I'll be very upset if you take that ability away from me! Solo and small gang PvP are pretty much the core of my EvE career, and your suggestion would basically limit or negate this aspect.

One thing that makes Eve great is that bigger != better. But this is exactly what your proposal wants to change. Bad Mitch, go sit in a corner!!!

If you want to solve the blob, you need to make blobbing less effective. There are 2 ways to do this:
1.) Apply diminishing returns based on the number of attackers (this is probably the best solution, but I highly doubt its implementable). Of Course, the same diminishing returns would need to be applied to RR too.
2.) Nerf ship EHP to the point that shooting the same ship with the entire fleet becomes a huge waste of ammo. It would make fleet battles more interesting/engaging, but balancing this would be an impossible nightmare. I doubt this solution exists, and I don't think we want it to either!


Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
Posted - 2011.05.24 19:02:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Ruze Ahkor'Murkon
Personally, I just want a very simple system for diminishing returns applied to attacking ships. More ships attacking a single target, less damage done. Diminishing returns has become a staple for nearly every other mechanic in the game. Why not pvp?



So, when your four campers are attacking one ship, you'll all be doing damage at 85-90% of what you would normally do. Would that kill camps? Hell no (because let's be honest, four BS's at 90% of total damage is still enough against even one BS, much less a hauler). But as the numbers of attackers go up, so the results of combining fire go down.

What would be the reason for this? A few good ones come to mind: the effects of firing and striking the target from your teammates reduces your ability to properly aquire a target (too much debris flying in space, too many lasers or explosions going off in that small area, etc).





That's the worst idea ever. Why would you add it? What exactly is the problem you think you're solving? I'd like to point out that absolute values aren't stacking penalized in the game even now. The purpose of stacking penalty is to prevent ships from recieving game breaking values by module stacking and help keep the game somewhat balanced, while making more ship fittings viable and adding variation to the game. Point being that CCP had very strong reasons to stack nerf certain things. Do you have any such reasons?

You say you have a few good reasons in mind to justify the change, but you clearly forgot to write any of them in your post. You just wrote a lame RP reason why you could add it. LOL RP is fun and nice, but it's not a reason to change gameplay mechanics.

Ruze Ahkor'Murkon
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
Posted - 2011.05.24 19:33:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
Originally by: Ruze Ahkor'Murkon
Personally, I just want a very simple system for diminishing returns applied to attacking ships. More ships attacking a single target, less damage done. Diminishing returns has become a staple for nearly every other mechanic in the game. Why not pvp?



So, when your four campers are attacking one ship, you'll all be doing damage at 85-90% of what you would normally do. Would that kill camps? Hell no (because let's be honest, four BS's at 90% of total damage is still enough against even one BS, much less a hauler). But as the numbers of attackers go up, so the results of combining fire go down.

What would be the reason for this? A few good ones come to mind: the effects of firing and striking the target from your teammates reduces your ability to properly aquire a target (too much debris flying in space, too many lasers or explosions going off in that small area, etc).





That's the worst idea ever. Why would you add it? What exactly is the problem you think you're solving? I'd like to point out that absolute values aren't stacking penalized in the game even now. The purpose of stacking penalty is to prevent ships from recieving game breaking values by module stacking and help keep the game somewhat balanced, while making more ship fittings viable and adding variation to the game. Point being that CCP had very strong reasons to stack nerf certain things. Do you have any such reasons?

You say you have a few good reasons in mind to justify the change, but you clearly forgot to write any of them in your post. You just wrote a lame RP reason why you could add it. LOL RP is fun and nice, but it's not a reason to change gameplay mechanics.


Fair. Let me help then:

As most know in pvp, more numbers is the smarter way to play. I'm not going to say it's unfair, or shouldn't be the rule. But if you bring in a four man group, and I'm running in my 10 man group, we'd have to fail pretty significantly (read, be massively ******ed and shouldn't be fighting you in the first place) in order NOT to win the engagement.

That is part of life in EvE. If your group loses to an opponent, recruit more players. Put more ships on the board.

Faction Warfare, as an example, takes a tremendous hit from this. Your 5-man group launches, jumps a few systems, run into an 8-man group. Quite often, you'll see the five man group leave, and come back with 10 players 30mins later. Then the 8-man group does the same, over and over again.

Nullsec fights work along the very same lines. Assemble as large a force as possible, and only engage with superior numbers.



The concept of providing a stacking penalty to the number of attacking targets is to make it so that the argument of 'more players' will not always be the smart choice. And even if you HAVE more players, the smarter, more organized force that distributes damage across more than one primary will have the better result.

More options for smaller gangs, and more incentive to play smaller gangs. More push for fleet commanders to use the squadrons at their disposal as individual units, instead of simply calling primary.

I will not argue that 'blobs' are game-breaking. But the self-guided cycle of smart players to choose to blob in order to reduce the risk is definitely a detractor. It's not the players fault, nor CCP's, but it is an element of human nature which makes smaller fights nearly non-existent.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2011.05.24 19:34:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Destination SkillQueue

You say you have a few good reasons in mind to justify the change, but you clearly forgot to write any of them in your post.


The goal is to limit the blob by creating an Optimal number of ships firing on a target. The reality, however, is that an optimal size is highly subjective to the fight, and any arbitrarily chosen size would have no/little impact on small gang warfare while dramatically altering fleet fights in many unforeseeable ways! I don't know if this would help or hurt the game..... (probably both).

Ruze Ahkor'Murkon
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
Posted - 2011.05.24 19:42:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Gizznitt Malikite
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue

You say you have a few good reasons in mind to justify the change, but you clearly forgot to write any of them in your post.


The goal is to limit the blob by creating an Optimal number of ships firing on a target. The reality, however, is that an optimal size is highly subjective to the fight, and any arbitrarily chosen size would have no/little impact on small gang warfare while dramatically altering fleet fights in many unforeseeable ways! I don't know if this would help or hurt the game..... (probably both).


It couldn't be a standing number, I'll agree with you there. What if, a cruiser attacking another cruiser had 100% damage. But two cruisers attacking another cruiser reduces damage to 98%. Three cruisers, 96%. This means that at a group of five, or the preferred squadron size of 10, your reducing to 90% and 80%. Thats when all ten are firing on a single target.

This will not save that target. 10 cruisers against one cruiser, even if damage is reduced by 80% a hit, will still take out that cruiser. But that cruiser will be able to claim one or two opponents.

Large fleets would still function and do damage. But instead of one FC calling a rolling primary, it would be more important to have primary for each individual squadron. Fleet fights would lengthen, for sure (good or bad?).



As a side note, this diminishing returns could be applied to remote reps, neuts, and all forms of ship-to-ship modules. Find that remote reppers are hurting fleet battles? Instead of nerfing the module itself, you can nerf the stacking penalty so that having more than a preferred amount of reppers on a target reduces the effectiveness.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2011.05.24 20:28:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Ruze Ahkor'Murkon

Large fleets would still function and do damage. But instead of one FC calling a rolling primary, it would be more important to have primary for each individual squadron. Fleet fights would lengthen, for sure (good or bad?).


A change to make squads the most efficient combat units would be a huge improvement to the game. Diminishing returns is the most effective method of implementing this. However, programming diminishing returns on damage/RR in a manner to balance fleets of frigs to capitals is far more complicated than I dare to assume. I’m pretty sure this mechanism does NOT exist in game for incoming DPS, and I don’t think it can be implemented without a significant amount of CCP resources.

Finally, we’re hijacking Mitch’s thread… and that’s probably inappropriate.

Glyken Touchon
Gallente
Independent Alchemists
Posted - 2011.05.24 21:31:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Ruze Ahkor'Murkon
So, when your four campers are attacking one ship, you'll all be doing damage at 85-90% of what you would normally do. Would that kill camps? Hell no (because let's be honest, four BS's at 90% of total damage is still enough against even one BS, much less a hauler). But as the numbers of attackers go up, so the results of combining fire go down.


fit your fleet with a couple of civilian blasters each, and shoot each other from 10k+.

If 3 extra ships induce a 10-15%DPS penalty, just imagine what an entire wing will to the opposing fleet's dps. not exploitable at all.Rolling Eyes

Darth Helmat
Posted - 2011.05.24 22:55:00 - [26]
 

If the OPs suggestion hadn't included rep/boost ammount, but only proposed changing buffer size (ignoring shield recharge for a moment), that wouldn't affect who could kill who, it would only affect the time taken to do it, but does give a buff to evasive options/tactics/thinking time. It shouldn't really affect market driven blob sizes.

So if we have some hypothetical (simplified) ships 11v11 (but really 11v1) fitted 500/500 with 100K ehp death arrives in 20s, the second death arrives in another 22s... when its down to 2v2, the final kills takes 200s and the two remaining ships can't kill each other.

The real question here is what values do people think are reasonable for the initial kill and and the final ones. The OP suggested tripling tank which would make 60s and 600s. Is 10 minutes too long for a 2v1 combat? Shouldn't nailing a BS actually take a while?

Ruze Ahkor'Murkon
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
Posted - 2011.05.24 23:30:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Glyken Touchon
Originally by: Ruze Ahkor'Murkon
So, when your four campers are attacking one ship, you'll all be doing damage at 85-90% of what you would normally do. Would that kill camps? Hell no (because let's be honest, four BS's at 90% of total damage is still enough against even one BS, much less a hauler). But as the numbers of attackers go up, so the results of combining fire go down.


fit your fleet with a couple of civilian blasters each, and shoot each other from 10k+.

If 3 extra ships induce a 10-15%DPS penalty, just imagine what an entire wing will to the opposing fleet's dps. not exploitable at all.Rolling Eyes


Now, I see what your saying. Instead of having neutral remote reppers, we use our own members to attack whatever person in our fleet the enemy has primaried, to reduce the damage done by said enemy. Which makes a very fair point.

The dynamic then is to make sure that the reduction is either dependent to overall dps (i.e. if those three players are only doing 10% the damage the seven other players in the opposing fleet are doing, they don't cause a full reduction), or specific to fleets.

Course, make it specific to fleets, and then we have five or six fleets of 10 members running around trying to do the exact same thing that a fleet normally does.

Hey, the points valid.

sentinel22uk
Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors
Posted - 2011.05.25 03:34:00 - [28]
 

I support.

Make all ships have 10x more hp and fights will last 10x longer ( more fun ) ftw.

Kelly Kavanagh
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.25 03:57:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Kelly Kavanagh on 25/05/2011 04:04:45

As an indy pilot, I could sure use a buff! Laughing

But it would only delay the inevitable.

Instead, just cut the material requirements of all blueprints by 50%.

Zan Shiro
Posted - 2011.05.25 04:24:00 - [30]
 

I'll take the bait....why would a cruiser jumped by a bc, seeing they can't break tank, not disengage and run away? What cruiser speed is for besides speed tanking.

part of pvp is knowing how to fight. Another part is knowing when to do a tactical retreat. You can stay for your honorable death all old school Japanese style since you lost....thats a player choice, not game mechanics.


Also you idea...why is going up and down the tree. dessies cna't kill frigs, and frigs can't kill dessies (you say they can only kill rats and cans). Your idea would have invulnerable dictors in 0.0. Frigs can't kill them. Cruisers can't kill them. Only dictors could. Dictors who on both sides blow bubbles and gtfo as fast as possible to setup a 2nd run.


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