open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Nullsec design goals feedback: Small combat
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7

Author Topic

Korvin
Gallente
Shadow Kingdom
Best Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.20 10:17:00 - [121]
 

Originally by: Lolion Reglo

Make a bonus for diversity. - You could have a bonus that upgrades a small gangs ability to fight overall, such as a boost to defensive capacities like shields for caldari based fleets, or armor for gallente and amarr. Maybe even a small bonus to DPS or volley damage if a battleship or 2 are included. But the main caveat for this bonus would possibly be the need for a Logistics ship, an interceptor, and 3 other styles of ships.


They are available now.
Most small fleets can have a ship with a set of special links, and fleet can be grouped to squads according to them. That doesn't solve the problem.
There is links for logistics efficiency, warp disruptor and web range, shield and armour tank, ets. What is your proposal about?

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.08.20 16:20:00 - [122]
 

Originally by: Korvin
They are available now.
Most small fleets can have a ship with a set of special links, and fleet can be grouped to squads according to them. That doesn't solve the problem.
There is links for logistics efficiency, warp disruptor and web range, shield and armour tank, ets. What is your proposal about?


Alright yes i did forget about those ships and the modules that they use. However i ask who actually uses them in a fight? who has the skills to use a command ship right now? or is willing to risk that much isk?

The goal i think we want to come to is to have smaller groups specialize in a wider diversity of ships than just all choose drakes or vaggas and blob and enemy. Id rather use tactics and strategy to win than sheer numbers. So how do we reach this goal? how about make bonuses that anyone can access and are based upon fleet composition rather than who has what fitted on their ships? im not saying get rid of the fleet bonus modules all together already there but make it so that if you have a good balance between logistics, defensive, attack and support you get a bonus and the like. perhaps it does mean the modules should be traded out in favor of basing them on fleet composition. I think that would give people more desire to balance a fleet more or even specialize it depending on their goal.

DanMck
Amarr
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.08.20 16:50:00 - [123]
 

Edited by: DanMck on 20/08/2011 18:25:26

to help small scale pvp you need traffic.

remove jumpbridges. ships without a jumpdrive use a gate.

titan bridges are used way too often and stops traffic,alliances now taken a titan with them to bridge themself home.

when an alliance travels 2 regions via titan portals and never passes via a gate something is totally broken.

nerf titan bridges so it is too expensive/uses silly amounts of fuel/disables titan for x amount of time... it should be used rarely not hourly.

warp scramblers are broken and overpowered. disabling a MWD is stupid and disables solo pvp and also repeated skirmishing. the ability to disable a mwd via scrambler should be linked to a ship class i.e recon (arazu/lach) or EAF (make them get used) etc not to a module that has no counter.


make all stations kickouts in 0.0 ... you undock you commit. if scared get a scout.

dictors get killed too quickly , give them an afterburner and sig reduction bonus or something similar that means they have a little more survivability.

belts/plexes etc should have alot more warp scrambing npcs.

fix the broken self destruct timers on capital ships so when a roaming gang catches something it cannot self destruct before it dies.

everyone misses nano after the nerf. nano ships used to be able to attack any ship classes and roam great distances. bring back faster ships... the game is too slow - deync is almost(!) fixed. HACS should be the main ship class for roaming , not just cynabal and vaga. why do you think they get used 10x more than other classes. speed. undo the stupid nano nerf. nobody wants back nano domi/phoon but the rest should be fast. it used to be skill > skillpoints.

the less small roaming is like a game of chess the better. The smaller the gang the less you need FC's , so people form and leave faster and more often. Not waiting for blobs to form.

Join the map together east to west - north to south.

change the drops from loot on a destroyed ship , make the decent loot drop more often so pvp helps towards your income. Make pods drop rig style parts to build impants.







Jack Tronic
Posted - 2011.08.20 17:00:00 - [124]
 

Edited by: Jack Tronic on 20/08/2011 17:00:13
Originally by: DanMck
to help small scale pvp you need traffic.

remove jumpbridges. ships without a jumpdrive use a gate.

titan bridges are used way too often and stops traffic,alliances now taken a titan with them to bridge themself home.

when an alliance travels 2 regions via titan portals and never passes via a gate something is totally broken.

nerf titan bridges so it is too expensive/uses silly amounts of fuel/disables titan for x amount of time... it should be used rarely not hourly.

warp scramblers are broken and overpowered. disabling a MWD is stupid and disables solo pvp and also repeated skirmishing. the ability to disable a mwd via scrambler should be linked to a ship class i.e recon (arazu/lach) or EAF (make them get used) etc not to a module that has no counter.


make all stations kickouts in 0.0 ... you undock you commit. if scared get a scout.

dictors get killed too quickly , give them an afterburner and sig reduction bonus or something similar that means they have a little more survivability.

belts/plexes etc should have alot more warp scrambing npcs.

fix the broken self destruct timers on capital ships so when a roaming gang catches something it cannot self destruct before it dies.

everyone misses nano after the nerf. nano ships used to be at attack any ships classes and roam great distances. bring back faster ships... the game is too slow - deync is almost(!) fixed. HACS should be the main ship class for roaming , not just cynabal and vaga. why do you think they get used 10x more than other classes. speed. undo the stupid nano nerf. nobody wants back nano domi/phoon but the rest should be fast. it used to be skill > skillpoints.

the less small roaming is like a game of chess the better. The smaller the gang the less you need FC's , so people form and leave faster and more often. Not waiting for blobs to form.

Join the map together east to west - north to south.









Self destruct is fine, I don't understand why I should be forced to wait for you to kill me when I want to play the game :P Either way you caused the destruction of a capital ship.

Kickout nerfs yes in 0.0, the gallente ***** stations are just ridiculous in this regard.

Warp scramblers are only overpowered and stupid if YOU are stupid to get in close with a ship meant for skirmishing. If you are in a brawl ship, then it's simply BRING IT ON. You can warp stab yourself to not get your mwd disabled ;)


DanMck
Amarr
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.08.20 17:16:00 - [125]
 

Originally by: Jack Tronic
Edited by: Jack Tronic on 20/08/2011 17:00:13
Originally by: DanMck
to help small scale pvp you need traffic.

remove jumpbridges. ships without a jumpdrive use a gate.

titan bridges are used way too often and stops traffic,alliances now taken a titan with them to bridge themself home.

when an alliance travels 2 regions via titan portals and never passes via a gate something is totally broken.

nerf titan bridges so it is too expensive/uses silly amounts of fuel/disables titan for x amount of time... it should be used rarely not hourly.

warp scramblers are broken and overpowered. disabling a MWD is stupid and disables solo pvp and also repeated skirmishing. the ability to disable a mwd via scrambler should be linked to a ship class i.e recon (arazu/lach) or EAF (make them get used) etc not to a module that has no counter.


make all stations kickouts in 0.0 ... you undock you commit. if scared get a scout.

dictors get killed too quickly , give them an afterburner and sig reduction bonus or something similar that means they have a little more survivability.

belts/plexes etc should have alot more warp scrambing npcs.

fix the broken self destruct timers on capital ships so when a roaming gang catches something it cannot self destruct before it dies.

everyone misses nano after the nerf. nano ships used to be at attack any ships classes and roam great distances. bring back faster ships... the game is too slow - deync is almost(!) fixed. HACS should be the main ship class for roaming , not just cynabal and vaga. why do you think they get used 10x more than other classes. speed. undo the stupid nano nerf. nobody wants back nano domi/phoon but the rest should be fast. it used to be skill > skillpoints.

the less small roaming is like a game of chess the better. The smaller the gang the less you need FC's , so people form and leave faster and more often. Not waiting for blobs to form.

Join the map together east to west - north to south.









Self destruct is fine, I don't understand why I should be forced to wait for you to kill me when I want to play the game :P Either way you caused the destruction of a capital ship.

Kickout nerfs yes in 0.0, the gallente ***** stations are just ridiculous in this regard.

Warp scramblers are only overpowered and stupid if YOU are stupid to get in close with a ship meant for skirmishing. If you are in a brawl ship, then it's simply BRING IT ON. You can warp stab yourself to not get your mwd disabled ;)





fine keep self destruct as it is and let every module drop from your ship drop and let a killmail be produced.

warp scramblers are overpowered when you can have any class of ship using them.


MeBiatch
Posted - 2011.08.20 17:35:00 - [126]
 

Originally by: DanMck


fine keep self destruct as it is and let every module drop from your ship drop and let a killmail be produced.

warp scramblers are overpowered when you can have any class of ship using them.




scrams hardly go beyond 10 km... they are fine... if you dont want to be shut down duel prop or just fit an AB... or dont be a dolt and get out of kiting range... heck they were useless back in the day... i remeber i had about 7 ts scrams that were worth 4 mill each... then one day i log in and bam 90 mill a pop!

and the fact that you are all butt hurt about kill mails is worth it... if you cant kill the ship in under 2 min tuff... your epeen will have to be satified other ways...

as for 0.0 stations yes make them all kick out...

a titan brige should work like this:

titan open bridge it then jumps to destination system and leaves a recidual worm whole that can be traversed both ways...

Nikuno
Posted - 2011.08.20 19:43:00 - [127]
 

Edited by: Nikuno on 20/08/2011 19:44:30
I've seen it mentioned here and in several other threads related to null sec changes, so posting here seems as good as any.

Back in the day, Eve felt huge when logistics runs had to be made in haulers, before the day of capitals. Undoubtedly bridges and cynos have made Eve a lot smaller, but contrary wise the argument is that it makes logistics less boring. Rather than boring I'd say it'd made it safer and simpler. The problem with resorting back to gate jumping for logistics is that even a relatively small fleet could target a well supported freighter and destroy it before the defending fleet could reduce the attacker to space dust. This is caused partly by Eve not using line of sight mechanics for fire, but that's a massive undertaking for the game and unrealistic even if desirable. The problem then boils down to the fact that the defenders cannot DEFEND the logistic ships, they can only SUPPORT them -unless the supporting fleet was remote repairing the freighters; but this then means you need even more defenders to move this convoy along. Suddenly it becomes either unmanagable for smaller entities and they fail to be able to support a null sec presence, or the defending fleet has become so large that you are back to the problem of not being able to engage in small fleet combat.

You could remedy this by extending the benefits of current remote repair mechanics, but that risks making fleets unbreakable; or you could alter the mechanics in such a way as to only be able to benefit the hauling ships in this expanded form; or you could invent some new game mechanic like the oft suggested projected shield bubble; or you could toughen up the current range of hauling vessels considerably. Whichever way, until you can actually offer some form of defense that extends the life expectancy of ships of this nature, and you curtail the ease of the jump bridge/cyno mechanism, then you will not see the return of the larger feel of Eve without other major game changing alterations and you lose one of the classic confrontation situations for the smaller fleet fights.

What we need to see is the combat ships being able to fight each other to a conclusion before attacking the haulers becomes a sensible option.

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
Posted - 2011.08.20 19:46:00 - [128]
 

Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 20/08/2011 19:48:05


Firmly against getting nano back, but scramblers do need to be looked at. It's the only module in the whole EVE which renders another module totally uselss. They were talking about 10km zone-of-death yet they decided to leave it basically as-is with the exception that it is now provoked by scram rather than web of the old days.

I think scrams must reduce speed boost by 50-80% - in this case the target still gets ist sig bloom and cap consumption, but it also retains some speed.

As for titan bridges - sure, scrap this crap altogether. Setting an ultimate goal everyone must long for - wow, can you even imagine this stupidity and how dumb it will be after everyone finally gets one?

Evira Alivar
Posted - 2011.08.20 20:37:00 - [129]
 

I would like to see environmental effects that limit the ship size you can operate effetively. You all remember Star Wars, the empire strikes back? The Falcon dodging into a asteroid field where the star destroyer could not follow it fast enough? Where sensors only worked to a limited distance? Thats the kind of fight i want to see.

Have parts of the system where captial ships suffer heavy penaltys. They can be used as a base, but not as a fighting ship. (No warping deeper into the anomaly, damage from asteroid impacts on movement...) This means you have to use smaller ships inside that environment. There is no point in bringing a captial fleet there.

Have parts of the system with limited view range. (You can only see things inside sensor range, the range is reduced.) This means what you see is actually in fighting range. If you hunt someone, you need to spread out and find him. Fighting under fog of war. This gives an advantage to small mobile ships for searching and avoiding fleets. Fast ships can flee into the fog of war and trick their hunters.

Have vital structures in those environments to make it worthwile fighting in that space. Small fleets attacking small structures there in a cloack and dagger manner sounds exciting.


The other part:
Make Capitals and especially supercaptials vounerable to a well organized fleet of small ships. Here again Star Wars as an example: Remember the trench run?
I am not saying that you should be able to one shot a capital with a frig sized ship, but you should be able to hurt it. An idea for that:
Have hacking modules (either the ones we have or special ones tied to a small vessel) turn off enemy modules. It can be chance based (5% chance per cycle to disable) and random (disable a random module). That form of ewar should work against supercapitals also (they have a lot of computer equipment, there should be something to hack). There is already a counter to that in the game: Cap transfer and turn the mod on again.
The main point is: In small engagements there is no point is using this, fights are over too fast and ecm hurts more and is more reliable. But against a supercaptial, one big target, the combined effort of a small ship fleet can totally incapacitate the ship. This means no capital neuts, not remote ewar, no tanking mods, no remote repairs. And you would need small ships to fight of the nasty little things turning off your supercaps.

There should be a chance to compensate small ship size with amount of people and tactics.

Another idea to take on supercaps and caps with small agile ships: Have a weapon that stacks when used constantly. No limit to the dps, but very slow building of the dps. Like shooting agressive nanobots on the surface of the enemy ship and then just projecting power to make the effect last. Each layer (even when used from diffrent ships) adds to the dps. The enemy ship can only get rid of the effect when it stops the energy transfers to the nanobots long enough to make them wear off. The time needed to wear of should also be tied to the ship size: the larger the ship, the longer the effect lasts. So an inty could just burn out of range for some time to make the effect wear off, bs need to warp off and caps /supercaps need to jump out and be repped for quite some time before they can enter battle again. Building enough dps to severely hurt a supercap should take some time, but if you manage to dodge his attacks that long, there should be nothing preventing you from destroying him.

I am not against supercaps, but its annoying that one person can field enough power to deal with a whole fleet of smaller ships. Thats not a question of isk value of the ship and production effort, its an expesive ship and should be powerfull. but having more than ten times the people in smaller ships and not standing a chance is not very balanced. I would roughly guess that a fleet of 50 bs would need about 20min to burn down a supercap, even if its not repped. Thats broken.

Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.08.21 08:57:00 - [130]
 

My two cents: increase the minimum warp distance to 250 km and make warp speed matter by either slowing down bigger ships or reducing time spent in acceleration for smaller ships.

While both of these could be said to affect general mobility and large fleet battles too, they also help the small gang harassment scenario. The first one brings long range BS guns back in play, something that pretty much went obsolete with the probing changes. The second one gives smaller ships a reasonable advantage in manoeuvring around system or when travelling to either outrun or intercept larger fleets even outside 9-266Q.

James Duar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.21 10:21:00 - [131]
 

Originally by: Lucas Quaan
My two cents: increase the minimum warp distance to 250 km and make warp speed matter by either slowing down bigger ships or reducing time spent in acceleration for smaller ships.


I'd say changing warp acceleration to be instant would be the better solution. Overall it would be a slight buff to travel times, but it would mean ships with high warp velocities would have a definite advantage that they could exercise.

You'd need an extra graphical effect when ships entered warp to retain the "where did they go/come from" element though - something like a Star Trek warp-drive I guess.

Lunce
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.21 10:38:00 - [132]
 

Originally by: Nikuno
Edited by: Nikuno on 20/08/2011 19:44:30
I've seen it mentioned here and in several other threads related to null sec changes, so posting here seems as good as any.

Back in the day, Eve felt huge when logistics runs had to be made in haulers, before the day of capitals. Undoubtedly bridges and cynos have made Eve a lot smaller, but contrary wise the argument is that it makes logistics less boring. Rather than boring I'd say it'd made it safer and simpler. The problem with resorting back to gate jumping for logistics is that even a relatively small fleet could target a well supported freighter and destroy it before the defending fleet could reduce the attacker to space dust. This is caused partly by Eve not using line of sight mechanics for fire, but that's a massive undertaking for the game and unrealistic even if desirable. The problem then boils down to the fact that the defenders cannot DEFEND the logistic ships, they can only SUPPORT them -unless the supporting fleet was remote repairing the freighters; but this then means you need even more defenders to move this convoy along. Suddenly it becomes either unmanagable for smaller entities and they fail to be able to support a null sec presence, or the defending fleet has become so large that you are back to the problem of not being able to engage in small fleet combat.

You could remedy this by extending the benefits of current remote repair mechanics, but that risks making fleets unbreakable; or you could alter the mechanics in such a way as to only be able to benefit the hauling ships in this expanded form; or you could invent some new game mechanic like the oft suggested projected shield bubble; or you could toughen up the current range of hauling vessels considerably. Whichever way, until you can actually offer some form of defense that extends the life expectancy of ships of this nature, and you curtail the ease of the jump bridge/cyno mechanism, then you will not see the return of the larger feel of Eve without other major game changing alterations and you lose one of the classic confrontation situations for the smaller fleet fights.

What we need to see is the combat ships being able to fight each other to a conclusion before attacking the haulers becomes a sensible option.



If the goal is to make it possible to defend logistics ships without having to field a major fleet, perhaps simply making logistics ships tougher = make it take longer to kill them, is an answer. This would give escorting ships a chance to destroy or drive off attacking ships before the hauler went down.

Jaz911
Posted - 2011.08.21 11:32:00 - [133]
 

I would like the option that a small movable force can fight a bigger more slow moving force, without getting melted within a minute. This could be done by the ability to concentrate your resist to either left or right(with the opportunity to have a lower resist omni tank).

By doing this its opening a new aspect of pvp where You're position toward the hostile(then its not only range), may cost you the fight.

Krall Junior
Posted - 2011.08.21 12:03:00 - [134]
 

bringing back sniping mechanics would solve a lot of problems as it was an awesome way to fight big fleets with small numbers

also, bring back warp to 15km
get rid of the web /nano/ missle/ damp/ ecm/ blaster/ nos/ AoE DD nerf

open your eyes and see your nerfs have been killing the game since you started nerfing. It is way more imbalanced than it has ever been.

judging by the numer of replies by ccp and the content of their actual replies I don't think CCP actually cares

Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
Posted - 2011.08.21 16:50:00 - [135]
 

+1 for scanning out "nebulae" for hiding ships (and structures!).
+1 for more objectives for smaller ships/gangs

The more types of nebulae the better, so for example persistent nebulae that cause increased damage to ships based on their increased mass thus making tactical battlegrounds for cruisers and below - you could even throw some structures in these smaller ships only nebulae to provide smaller "raidable" targets for the smaller ships to attack. Nebulae that reduce locking range, numbers of targets lockable, explodes for x2 damage from explosive ammo etc etc would all be fun, interesting additions to the game.

+1 for removing local

I liked the idea someone mentioned of local only for Sov holders based on standings, but also allow people to deny a reciprocated local request, so they appear as +1 but with no name/details etc.

+1 for removing/nerfing titan jump portals and cynos

Small gang pvp is fraught with the hotdrop right now of either caps or a subcap fleet of uberships landing on you without any notice or penalty. The cyno spool up time is a decent one, but not the entire solution to kerbing this trend.

Small gang pvp mainly needs objectives in 0.0, then it needs a use for smaller ships, then it needs advantages for using 10 battleships and 40 frigates compared to using 50 battleships for example. Smaller mixed gangs pew-pewing each other are in the best interest of everyone playing the game. Cheers.

Lord Booya
Posted - 2011.08.21 20:46:00 - [136]
 

Originally by: Fon Revedhort
Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 20/08/2011 19:48:05


Firmly against getting nano back, but scramblers do need to be looked at. It's the only module in the whole EVE which renders another module totally uselss. They were talking about 10km zone-of-death yet they decided to leave it basically as-is with the exception that it is now provoked by scram rather than web of the old days.

I think scrams must reduce speed boost by 50-80% - in this case the target still gets ist sig bloom and cap consumption, but it also retains some speed.

As for titan bridges - sure, scrap this crap altogether. Setting an ultimate goal everyone must long for - wow, can you even imagine this stupidity and how dumb it will be after everyone finally gets one?



I read the first sentence and must say that scrams are not the only thing that makes a mod useless. ECM anything completely makes my ability / guns / td's/ painters / damps / scrams / webs / slavagers ect.... ect.... completely useless.

Just saying

oh and yeah perma jammed does happen more often that not.

Tiny Mongo
Posted - 2011.08.22 00:47:00 - [137]
 

From a low sec dweller who makes the occasional foray into null. My definition of small is likely very different from CCP's and most Sov dwellers. To me small consists of maybe a dozen pilots on either side and normally BC down. But with the stated design goals of 1-50 players 50 players on a side likely involves at least a few logistics ships and maybe a cap or two per side. With that said the biggest hindrance for me to using anything larger than a battle cruiser in normal combat ops is the ease and speed of which capitols are deployed. With that said here is my list of "improvements" for small gang combat.

1) Add a spool up timer for normal cyno's - 30-90 seconds should be sufficient
2) Add a spool up timer for jumping ships - deploying fighters/bombers cancels the spin up.
- 0 seconds for JF's
- 30 seconds for carriers and dreads
- 90 seconds for Supers and titans - note Titan bridging needs to be included in the 90 second timer
3) Give the "cyno lighter" a 500% sig bloom once they deploy a cyno.
4) I choose to not take part in sov so I won't comment on jump bridges other than to say I would prefer it to be easier to do supply interdiction for small groups.
5) Cov ops and covops cyno's are not affected by these penalties.

These changes will make both the lighter and jumper more vulnerable by leaving them exposed in space while also necessitating support fleets.

Nothing is worse for small battles involving 20-30 people per side than a surprise face melting by the nearest bored power block/bat phone. Fighting small battles shouldn't be decided by who has the most supers on standby

Aside from global balance among the ships/races/weapon systems not much you can do to force people to fight in small gangs. Small gangs - like running in sov - is a life style choice. I'd much rather fly in a group with 5-10 of my closest Eve friends then wait and join the "blob" where I'm almost guaranteed to "hurry up and wait" before running into an engagement where piloting skill doesn't matter much due to lag/alpha striking.

Lunce
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.22 06:07:00 - [138]
 

Originally by: Tiny Mongo

Nothing is worse for small battles involving 20-30 people per side than a surprise face melting by the nearest bored power block/bat phone. Fighting small battles shouldn't be decided by who has the most supers on standby




This

Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
Posted - 2011.08.22 07:16:00 - [139]
 

When it comes to small combat I mostly think the problem is the lack of 'targets'.

Intel is a bit TOO good in determining who is going where when and why but thats antoher thread just about.

Net result intel reduces player targets usually where its too safe to stay in and going out to engage them is a net loss most of the time becuase you're litterally defending nothing as nothing can be threatened by a small gang that isnt a pilot as star bases are too hard to bash as well as outposts and thier associated structures.

My solution is multiple thread but it specifically deals with small combat.
Automated Structures ('Automons') which are tied into a parent starbase for power and cpu. Could the perfect hit and run targets that should be easily disabled and raidable. Even some automons should be easily destroyed instead of just disabled.

Lets take a ice fueler sturcture as an example, this structure sits at a belt and it will automatically fuel (fuel on demand to prevent net material gains of fuel) another starbase over time. A raid group can fly in bash the structure and not only steal the fuel but in its disabled state the related starbase or sturcture that its tied too would no longer be automatically fueled and all the fuel that would have been sent off in the next demand cycle get dropped and becomes lootable by the raiders.

Other automons can include security based ones like sensor stations, gate guns, belt guns,
Or economic ones such as belt refineries, gas refineries and observatories ect ect

Automons should be cheap enough to always consider their deployment but expensive enough (in terms of system resource IE POS 'fitting' limiting deployment of too many)

Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Posted - 2011.08.22 13:51:00 - [140]
 

Edited by: Zey Nadar on 22/08/2011 13:51:21
Originally by: Dragonzchilde

Go live your safe lemming life, hide in the blob pack that engages the other mindless blob. We have proven since beta that small gang pvp is possible.


Of course it is possible, the problem is that it's consentual. Thats why people opt out of it.

ps. And the thing about the threat of cyno making afk-cloaking a big issue is very true.

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.08.22 17:46:00 - [141]
 

So to outline what people have been saying is that...

Local needs to be reworked, whether it be delayed or completly removed.

Cyno's need to have a time nerf to them and possibly a mass nerf in that not only does it take longer with larger ships to be able to travel through them but there is a limit to how many you can send through at one time.

Populate the space with more smaller targets to give a reason for smaller gangs to go and "harass" other players drawing them out and fighting.

allow a greater roll for smaller ships to be able to destroy bigger ships (such as sub systems for capitals)

Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2011.08.22 18:08:00 - [142]
 

When I think of strategy games, which, on a macro scale, Eve is; the thing that usually keeps you from blobbing is AOE.

What about adding a T2 tier 3 battleship with a 10% bonus to smartbomb range and race specific damage per level, 15% reduction in cap use per level, and 5% reduction in CPU usage for smartbombs per level.

I think this would go a long way toward breaking up blobs and making smaller groups more normal.

Bloody2k
Gallente
ZERO T0LERANCE
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.22 23:17:00 - [143]
 

1. Make different "fighting-rules" in different solar systems/places in solar systems. (Like the WH space, always Fighting at
gates is not fun!)
2. Don't allow to jumpe the gate if you are locked.
3. Allow mobile cyno jammer ships/modules!!! (Mothership Blobb destroy the game)

Arin Lagrange
Posted - 2011.08.23 03:27:00 - [144]
 

Edited by: Arin Lagrange on 23/08/2011 03:30:59
Originally by: Cassandra Drumheller
I was originally thinking about this for small groups in W space but I can see the use for small groups in K space as well. Create a new transport class vessel that surrenders all of it's cargo space for a small corp hanger and provides a fitting service. The ships main job will be to hide at a safe and provide storage for ammo, modules, and salvage while allowing fitting services for on the fly fleet modification. The ship should not slow the group down to much as they move from area to area.



You just reinvented the Orca.


Kogh Ayon
Posted - 2011.08.23 11:54:00 - [145]
 

Lots people here keep talking about "How to make it easier to catch a care-bear and have a 10 beat 1 fight", let's just ignore them and consider some real "small scale combats":

1. Easy to rebase
Groups running regular small fleets should find it pretty straightforward to move their base of operations.
----------------------------------------------------
The mother ships should be originally designed for this sort of things, not counter titan DPS. The clone vat bay, currently is broken, simply because the clone can only be upgraded in a station. This useless feature that only griefs people with bad memory with no contribution to the game should be removed, the system should automatically charge and upgrade the clone.

2.Objectives and incentives
Smaller fleets moving through enemy space should always have something to do, and doing that something should make them feel like they've achieved something worthwhile even if they didn't get any actual fights.
-----------------------------------------------
They should be able to destroy something which match the fleet's size. If they can be rewarded with isk, that's will be better. Loots are difficult to carry, it's might be good to drop loots but the size ought to be small.

The destroyable object should be:
1. The object should be dangerous to ops ships: does good dps, web, neut, ecm.
2. Easy to recover(several hours) or cheap to replace
3. Create value(minerals, bonus) to the defenders
4. Drop value(isk/items) to the destroyers

Brainstorm: bot mining post, rat bounty booster.

3.Interfere with larger ops
Smaller fleets should have some avenue via which they can have some impact on larger fleets, without just getting killed.
-------------------------------------------------------
This may need to change the other aspect of the game mechanism. such as reduce the effectiveness of logistics.

Reward local knowledge
Doing research on and scouting of the area you're running fleets in, and getting a feel for the layout and the local quirks, should give you a small but noticeable advantage over other fleets without this knowledge.
-------------------------------------
Drop some large obstructive objects(drone structure/station ruin are good examples) to the place there the combat may occur: belt, planet, even station

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.23 12:06:00 - [146]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 23/08/2011 12:07:22
Originally by: Sigras
When I think of strategy games, which, on a macro scale, Eve is; the thing that usually keeps you from blobbing is AOE.

What about adding a T2 tier 3 battleship with a 10% bonus to smartbomb range and race specific damage per level, 15% reduction in cap use per level, and 5% reduction in CPU usage for smartbombs per level.

I think this would go a long way toward breaking up blobs and making smaller groups more normal.

While that is true, also look at strategy games when army sizes increase further: the AOE weapons become the only viable choice and it becomes a matter who spams more AOE weapons. See also: Eve AOE DD.



I agree with previous post, too many people here see small gang combat as one sided ganks vs ratters (like making all stations kickout stations, wtf, i guess also without local and windows). Easy rule: people dont like to be killed in completely one sided ganks, people will just leave for high sec and you only will have fewer targets. Yes those fewer targets are easier to get, but in the end you dont get more kills.
Look also at low sec, once upon a time there were actually quite some people missioning in low sec, than they made scanning mission runners trivial, pirates rejoiced. That was immediatly the end of lowsec mission running (okay unprobable ships made it a bit viable again, but only because they directly counteracted the initial change).


Maybe instead of thinking new ways to get even easier ganks think of ways to PROMOTE combat (read: ~good fites~, not ganking). The initial simple way that definately will have to happen is adding spool up time for jump drives and bridges. Knowing you get hotdropped anyway really removes alot of fun out of pvp.


Quote:
remove jumpbridges. ships without a jumpdrive use a gate.

So this not, this is simply someone from the alliance with probably the second highest caps/pilot ratio wanting to have the scrubs spend more time travelling while not affecting (super) caps in any way.

TheExtruder
Caldari
Malicious Destruction
War Against the Manifest
Posted - 2011.08.23 17:32:00 - [147]
 

hi

i adressed several things that you guys are trying to achieve in a proposal (assembly hall)

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1568049

hope you enjoy trying it out for a size

Uala
Posted - 2011.08.23 20:10:00 - [148]
 

2.Objectives and incentives
the Idea CCP had about moving moon harvester out from shield so it can be attacked would give purpose for a small alliance to go get some alliance fund and who knows maybe they are lucky and get a fight from the defending alliance(who probably don't have time to muster a a blob to defend).
this would make more small fleet venture into sov 0.0 to earn a quick cash and thereby more pvp.

X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2011.08.24 12:26:00 - [149]
 

Increase the "depth" of each system by adding (lots of) static plexes that players can colonize. Have them accessible by wormholes (mass limitations), and long abandoned acceleration gates (ship limitations). I like the idea of the anomolies damaging different types of ships too. Anything to increase the "depth" of each system. Now small ships have a real purpose.

Wanna dislodge that pesky, poor alliance with lots of members? Grab a bunch of buddies, ship down, and start searching.

Big fleets: Null sec sovereignty, Control of strategic assets.
Smaller fleets: Clearing out the riff raff in a system, patroling all the nooks and crevices, etc..


Jeni Blacksmith
Posted - 2011.08.24 19:39:00 - [150]
 

Edited by: Jeni Blacksmith on 24/08/2011 19:39:24
Edited by: Jeni Blacksmith on 24/08/2011 19:39:01
From what iv read, it all sounds like a bunch of carebears sat down and talked about how they can make life easy for them. Everything talked about other then removing local in 0 is geared towards friendship and hugging each other while pvping.

Oh and whats with the crap about small gangs.. The damage done by a small gang should be fixed easily isk wise cause it was a small gang ??? how ******ed is that. I would post more but i gotta go to work.

Bloody Carebears... YARRRR!!


Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7

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