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

Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Posted - 2011.08.25 11:18:00 - [151]
 

Originally by: James Duar

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.


Laughing

Agente
Posted - 2011.08.25 13:26:00 - [152]
 

A new module to increase fun in small combat: Chasing module.

With a range of 25km, if locked you follow the target ship in its warp, appearing aleatorily at 30-100 km of the destination. Of course, if the hunter is faster he will arrive sooner than the target and will have the advantage.

Agente
Posted - 2011.08.25 14:13:00 - [153]
 

Edited by: Agente on 25/08/2011 14:47:05
Edited by: Agente on 25/08/2011 14:45:56
Another idea that would improve small combat greatly. It was proposed some time ago, but I will post it here in condensed form.

Main change:
When jumping you appear not 20km away from the gate, but something like 100 km away.
It takes like 30 seconds at full speed to be able to warp and you are targetable all the time.

Consecuencies:
Gate camping is no more a fast click activity. When somebody comes, your interceptors have to go and catch him. Then the heavy pounders go and finish the target. Campers will have to develop tactics.

Targets have an opportunity to run away. Or they can lure the interceptors and kill them one after the other, or...

When large fleets are traveling, small gangs will be able to stay 200 km away from the gate and harass the poor battleships that appear close to them. Big fleets will need to send the support fleet in advance to clear the gates or face losses. I specially like this :-) Perhaps we will be able to kill the blobs while they are traveling and force more equilibrated fleets. Also, the support fleet would need several commanders because probably the enemy will have several small fleets waiting so you will need to split your forces.

Really small gangs will have little to do at gate camps, unless they are lucky and position themselves 100 km away from the gate and the incoming ship happends to appear close by. IMHO 3 ships with an interdictor shouldn't be able to effectivily close a system so its ok with me.

Positioning and movement have consecuencies.

In big battles you probably will be dead before warping, even if you are at full speed. More deadly battles.

Related.
To avoid increasing travel times, warp speeds should be increased. Although I would prefer the slightly increased travel times, so eve increases its size a bit.




Lin Fatale
Posted - 2011.08.25 15:49:00 - [154]
 

give small gangs something to do - a very rough idea

- a system "produces" ISK, lets say 100 mil each day -- call it tax or whatever
- a beacon or structure whatever starts collecting isk at a random time and holds that money

if nothing happens, the corp who owns the system gets the isk after 24h

if an enemy attack that "money holding structure", small timer start or fleet has to kill some struc hp
--> if no defence fleet shows up, the attacker gets the isk
every member of that fleet get isk, if ur gang has 10 members everyone get 10 mil

if someone comes to defend and is successfull then the members of this fleet get the isk



the thing is the attacker and defender have to decide with how many ppl they come

if u decide to come with 100 ppl then every participant get 1 mil = lol
if u decide to come with 4 dudes then everyone gets 20 mil = not bad
if u see that 4 rifters are attacking that beacon, u could decide to solo them in ur faction BS = 100 mil for u if u win


2nd thing is, ppl in small groups tend to do something only for money or if it affect the ppl or corp directly
and if ur corp directly lose 100 mil if u do nothing and there is a chance to get some isk out of pvp action, and the enemy only has 5 in fleet
then there is a high chance that u form a fleet even if u are not an fc

it would be cool to roam around the whole day and attack systems to steal money or hunt the guys doing it in ur systems.


additionaly
- provide a cool and easy map, where ppl can see where the action is
- sov costs and the amout of isk the system produce can be tied to secstatus


ofc this is lot of theoretical stuff u have to play with the amount of isk, struc/timers...





Wu Phat
Posted - 2011.08.25 21:40:00 - [155]
 

Stealth Bombers with Micro Compact Citadel Lunchers. Fighter bombers Have them Why not Stealth Bombers. for hunting unprotected Capital fleets. Also. Allows lower Sp pilots jump faster into fights

Ms Michigan
Gallente
Aviation Professionals for EVE
Fusion Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.26 03:59:00 - [156]
 

Edited by: Ms Michigan on 26/08/2011 04:00:30
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Ugleb
Quote:
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. This tilts the advantage slightly in favor of the defender against random gangs, but allows aggressors to negate that advantage with some work. Furthermore, using this sort of knowledge makes people feel smart, which in turn makes them enjoy themselves more.


What if EVE had features such as 'nebulas' (nebulae?) that are (semi-?)permanent anomalies that need to be scanned down, but allow for any ships hiding in them to not appear on the scanner? If I knew that there is a nebula in the system I could hide my small gang in it to mask our fleet composition, only to be busted if the other gang knew it was there too.


This is an interesting idea.

Originally by: Dwindlehop
I would note that current game mechanics do not support the nomad lifestyle you seem to want to force on "small combat" alliances. Carriers, motherships, and titans all require a player to log in frequently and in your timezone in order to become a base of operations. We need a nomadic base which can be accessed across all time-zones without a player who must be online constantly. The nomad base shouldn't be tied to any industry/manufacturing like POS are; it should really only be for PvP activities. It could require significant investment, but it would also need the capability to retreat rather than be blown up when a large space alliance gets tired of being raided.



Yup, the base-of-operations issue is a big deal that needs to be looked into.


Ok Greyscale I have your fix for you to encourage small growth. Fix POS's so that ALL SIZES are equally resilliant ........
BUT the bigger the POS the more Industry stuff you can run!

In other words a small POS could equip as much defense (guns, EWAR, hardners, etc) as a LARGE but if you want to make some isk or support the alliance you need bigger POS and that takes more fuel obviously. This way you have to scale up to make ISK (i.e. increased risk - more fuel and time/mtx. increased reward - more isk made from production).

Psi Omicron
Posted - 2011.08.26 13:56:00 - [157]
 


Speed rules the day in small combat, non-black ops. Assault Frigates and electronic attack frigate really have no well defined role and T2 interceptors have had there role taken over by a single ship the Dram. Why are faction frigates better than T2 frigate? Seems like a strange design choice.

T2 cruiser have a similar issue, with the majority of small gang PvP favoring the fastest ship classes Vagabond and Cynabal. the other T2 cruiser really have limited value especially Gallente and Caldari due to broken mechanisms in there favored dps type (missiles and rails).

Counter to very speedy ships are not really in the game. The only counter is to get into another speed ship or they just run. Maybe this is what is desired, but limits the types of engagement that are possible. Thus small gang warfare pretty much involves the same ship classes all of the time.

IMO small gang has no variety, but is not nearly as broken as supercaptials and those should be dealt with ASAP before you loose all of your non-russian speaking subscribers....

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.08.26 17:49:00 - [158]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Ugleb
Quote:
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. This tilts the advantage slightly in favor of the defender against random gangs, but allows aggressors to negate that advantage with some work. Furthermore, using this sort of knowledge makes people feel smart, which in turn makes them enjoy themselves more.


What if EVE had features such as 'nebulas' (nebulae?) that are (semi-?)permanent anomalies that need to be scanned down, but allow for any ships hiding in them to not appear on the scanner? If I knew that there is a nebula in the system I could hide my small gang in it to mask our fleet composition, only to be busted if the other gang knew it was there too.


This is an interesting idea.




We can combine this idea with the need to hide small holdings. A nebula shows as a sig, but the ships in it are hidden, to see them you got to get on-grid. But if you install a small holding structure and plug in an "anomaly amplifier" the entire nebula becomes unprobable. The only way to find it and anything there is to fly into grid.

To counter an alliance would need to claim sov in that system and turn on a "system scanner" which a few days later reveals all sites formerly hidden with the anomaly amplifier. The ships and structures in the nebula would still be hidden, but the nebula would be probable.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.08.27 04:57:00 - [159]
 

What "small combat" needs more than anything right now is a serious nerf to all forms of instant travel, besides the stargate. That specifically refers to cynos and bridges.

Those forms of transportation represent strong random factors in combat. They undermine ability to gather accurate intelligence on the enemy as well as ability for one force to outmaneuver another. Both of those factors are key to having interesting RTS gameplay. I know CCP was made aware of this topic in the past. If they understand anything about what makes combat fun, they'll know the problems. If not, it's pointless to try explaining.

1) counters: Cynos need to have a tactical level counter in form of limited radius cyno jammer. As it is now, the only viable counter to cynos is more cynos. And since "fight fire with fire" wasn't good enough for the Nano Nerf, it should also apply to cynos.

2) intelligence: there needs to be at least some vague information about what is coming thru the cyno before ships appear right on top of you. That means having some delay between cyno activation and ships appearing - 10-20 seconds. And there needs to be some way to estimate strength of the force coming in. It's not too much to ask for given 20 second window of opportunity.

3) strategic maneuverability: in all decent strategy games, positioning of forces plays key role. But not in EVE - because it is possible to near instantly cover large portions of the map with teleportation. The only redeeming feature CCP made was the system cyno jammer. So positioning of forces still plays some role in large scale fleet battles. But that option is unavailable for small scale battles. Most systems can't be jammed and people teleport with near complete disregard for the map.
Maintaining of large spheres of influence and POS logistics becomes super easy with teleportation. While that has good benefits for large scale wars, it's very bad for all small scale engagements.

Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2011.08.27 09:33:00 - [160]
 

Originally by: Vincent Athena
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Ugleb
Quote:
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. This tilts the advantage slightly in favor of the defender against random gangs, but allows aggressors to negate that advantage with some work. Furthermore, using this sort of knowledge makes people feel smart, which in turn makes them enjoy themselves more.


What if EVE had features such as 'nebulas' (nebulae?) that are (semi-?)permanent anomalies that need to be scanned down, but allow for any ships hiding in them to not appear on the scanner? If I knew that there is a nebula in the system I could hide my small gang in it to mask our fleet composition, only to be busted if the other gang knew it was there too.


This is an interesting idea.




We can combine this idea with the need to hide small holdings. A nebula shows as a sig, but the ships in it are hidden, to see them you got to get on-grid. But if you install a small holding structure and plug in an "anomaly amplifier" the entire nebula becomes unprobable. The only way to find it and anything there is to fly into grid.

To counter an alliance would need to claim sov in that system and turn on a "system scanner" which a few days later reveals all sites formerly hidden with the anomaly amplifier. The ships and structures in the nebula would still be hidden, but the nebula would be probable.


I know this isnt the right place to discuss this, but here goes.

I really like this idea, but I see a few problems.

1. What keeps alliances from claiming their own nebulae and thus blocking anyone else from claiming it.
2. what keeps alliances from simply putting a system scanner in all of their systems, and thus negating the advantage?
3. What keeps people from bookmarking the nebula before the other alliance cloaks it?

I have no answer to #1 except an arbitrary rule that you cant have both sov and a nebula base in the same system.

As for #2 Im thinking either making the scanner expensive and huge, requiring multiple freighters to put together, or make it require lots of fuel.

#3 Im thinking have a mechanism to despawn the nebula at its current point and then respawn it elsewhere, that way anyone wanting to put a nebula base up could despawn the nebula first then put their base in the newly spawned nebula which would be clear of bookmarks.

Nikuno
Posted - 2011.08.27 10:01:00 - [161]
 

Originally by: Sigras
Originally by: Ugleb
Quote:
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. This tilts the advantage slightly in favor of the defender against random gangs, but allows aggressors to negate that advantage with some work. Furthermore, using this sort of knowledge makes people feel smart, which in turn makes them enjoy themselves more.


What if EVE had features such as 'nebulas' (nebulae?) that are (semi-?)permanent anomalies that need to be scanned down, but allow for any ships hiding in them to not appear on the scanner? If I knew that there is a nebula in the system I could hide my small gang in it to mask our fleet composition, only to be busted if the other gang knew it was there too.


I know this isnt the right place to discuss this, but here goes.

I really like this idea, but I see a few problems.

1. What keeps alliances from claiming their own nebulae and thus blocking anyone else from claiming it.
2. what keeps alliances from simply putting a system scanner in all of their systems, and thus negating the advantage?
3. What keeps people from bookmarking the nebula before the other alliance cloaks it?

I have no answer to #1 except an arbitrary rule that you cant have both sov and a nebula base in the same system.

As for #2 Im thinking either making the scanner expensive and huge, requiring multiple freighters to put together, or make it require lots of fuel.

#3 Im thinking have a mechanism to despawn the nebula at its current point and then respawn it elsewhere, that way anyone wanting to put a nebula base up could despawn the nebula first then put their base in the newly spawned nebula which would be clear of bookmarks.


1. Sounds like a good solution. Bear in mind that if the sov holder chooses not to take sov in order to place smallholdings instead then they lose the ability to upgrade the space and so potentially income and members.

2. Even if the system scanner is already present, if it takes say 10 days to find the smallholding, and the smallholding infrastructure is either cheap enough to discard or simple enough to put up and take down again, and if the smallholder is given a daily report by the smallholding apparatus on how long until the system scanner identifies their presence (not location, only that a smallholding exists somewhere in the system, then this would work wonderfully. You go in, setup under cover of 'modified local', and raid the locals for the neext 9 days or so before packing up and moving on. Sites would have to resist reestablishment of the smallholding for a period of time too, to prevnt an unanchor/anchor scenarion, or have the system scanner give it's report regardless of the this mechanic.

3. Rather than this, just make the nebula sufficiently large that it's difficult to find things inside it. Say a cube 10,000km a side? That's a huge space to have to search through manually. Maybe the system scanner on day 11 could update it's report to a cube 5000km a side, then day 12 to 2500km, then day13 to 1250km, etc.

Swifty Blowback
Posted - 2011.08.27 16:42:00 - [162]
 

Edited by: Swifty Blowback on 27/08/2011 17:52:51
Just going to quote and briefly comment on some great points already made (apologies if I have butchered your posts too much. Post number included for reference)...

#3 also echoed by MeBiatch #17, Bilaz #40 and several others
Originally by: Green Shift

Also a distinction between small (2 - 12) and medium (20+) should be made. They play completely differently.

True and very important distinction. Often people do not have hours to spend for large fleets to form and get going. It's more convenient & fun to go roaming in a small gang.

#4
Originally by: Dragonzchilde
Give us back snipers.

Or basically the ability for small gangs / individuals to hassle gate camps and blobs. Obviously there still has to be risk involved though, but a higher disruption factor makes the small gang / individual more important.

#6
Originally by: Rhinanna
Hot-dropping and insta-bridges are simply what need to be nerfed. You can't engage any of a big alliance's gangs in a small fleet without the fear its going to hot-drop a load of caps on you, which is just fun killing.

Agree with hot dropping change - smaller gangs are scared to "have a go" against the big boys. Many small gangs getting stuck in could cause serious problems for the big boys.

#10
Originally by: Dwindlehop
I would note that current game mechanics do not support the nomad lifestyle ... We need a nomadic base which can be accessed across all time-zones ... The nomad base shouldn't be tied to any industry/manufacturing like POS are ... it would also need the capability to retreat rather than be blown up when a large space alliance gets tired of being raided.

Yes! Nomadic life would surely be a big draw and keep things a lot fresher for many players. Wormholes do go some way toward this, but more options would be nice.

Swifty Blowback
Posted - 2011.08.27 17:51:00 - [163]
 

I've not seen anything like this suggested yet (but I am fairly noob), so here's an idea that I guess most people will hate!

Main idea is to make finding some small gang/solo PVP an easier task without upsetting anything else too much.

PVP modules could have an associated factor that increases a ships visibility on either Dscan or some other quick scan mechanism. When fitted, PVP mods would have an adverse effect on your ability to hide, maybe making you show up as "warpable to" under the right conditions: variables being something like distance, mods fitted, sig radius. Not sure of details yet, just an idea still.

So, scrams, jammers would probably have a big "glow" factor, webs, tracking disruptors etc. to a lesser extent. As I see it this could improve several things:

  1. Easier to find a "good" fight that's not at a gate / station, avoiding jumping and docking nonsense.
  2. If local is going to disappear, this would help you find fights and ships.
  3. Eases life slightly for mission runners. They are still scanable as they are now, but relative to PVPers would be much harder to find. Fits in with the more feasible missioning ideas in null.
  4. The bigger the gang / fleet, the more they glow on the scan mechanism (cumulative effect) so big blobs are more also easily found or avoided if fitted with many PVP mods.
  5. Should lead to more frequent small gang fights and also more interesting gang compositions / individual fits depending on how stealthy / PVP you want to be.
  6. Actual combat mechanics remain unchanged. This idea is only to aid finding (or avoiding) PVP action.
  7. Don't worry gankers, ganking mission runners won't have changed, but the ganker is more easily hunted by other PVPers now.

I'm sure the idea is flawed so go ahead and tell me why!

TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2011.08.29 07:30:00 - [164]
 

Fix probing.

Make snipers viable.

Arbiter Reformed
Minmatar
Garnet Resources
Posted - 2011.08.30 12:51:00 - [165]
 

Edited by: Arbiter Reformed on 30/08/2011 12:57:41
following darks great logistic thread i think something needs to be said about the overuse of logistics that make it impossible for a small group of people (i consider small 10 or less) to kill larger fleets. a nerf is in order to re-allow small gangs to harras and pick off enemies. now that fights are much slower people drifting in and out of reprange is uncommon and the tactic has switched from speed to sig it litterally is blobbing.

but along with a nerf to logi repping power, and i might ad cap chains are far to strong . . i think logistics should have there helpful mods (re: traking comps) boosted, perhaps do away with cap transfer bonuses and have every logistics have racial bonuses towards one of these modules. but make it behave more like a a gang link and make it only squad wide with other things in place to stop them being used by large fleets (overiding commandship bonuses say, and making the bonus small) a small missile heavy gang might benefit from 15% exp velocity say, so it would make allot of sense to bring a solo basilisk to the fight even with its diminished repping power.

also dare i add nano nerf was far too strong give us back a bit of speed, proper faction mwd's and overdrives and such. people need to loose more isk give them a reason to spend more. i should be able to use my isk to feed ingenuity in my fits, i think speed fits should be more viable on alot of ships which are no longer viable fit in this way. you know mix it up a bit

Cosmo Raata
T-Cells
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.08.30 13:50:00 - [166]
 

Speaking for ex-0.0 players here but current empire dwellers.

A huge problem with 0.0 (not the only one) is the risk involved of not only losing your ship, but also your pod, implants and time.

All 3 is just too much to deal with to warrant going out when you have no guarantee of actually finding some combat.

While I do no proclaim this to be the only idea to fixing this, I do think it can help:

Remove anchorable bubbles from game or change them in some way to free up gate combat. Remove the bubble script from hictors and only allow small dictors to use bubbles. If you want to increase small gangs roaming in 0.0 you need to reduce risk to pod loss and increase travel speed and this will do both.

This is just one idea and from my point of view can increase 0.0 roaming. Hictors still would be used to tackle super capitals, small dictors could still bubble up, but no longer can bubbles be placed and held in place to prevent and/or slow down movement in 0.0

Thoughts?

Vanessa Vansen
Posted - 2011.08.30 15:44:00 - [167]
 

Originally by: Cosmo Raata
Speaking for ex-0.0 players here but current empire dwellers.

A huge problem with 0.0 (not the only one) is the risk involved of not only losing your ship, but also your pod, implants and time.

All 3 is just too much to deal with to warrant going out when you have no guarantee of actually finding some combat.

While I do no proclaim this to be the only idea to fixing this, I do think it can help:

Remove anchorable bubbles from game or change them in some way to free up gate combat. Remove the bubble script from hictors and only allow small dictors to use bubbles. If you want to increase small gangs roaming in 0.0 you need to reduce risk to pod loss and increase travel speed and this will do both.

This is just one idea and from my point of view can increase 0.0 roaming. Hictors still would be used to tackle super capitals, small dictors could still bubble up, but no longer can bubbles be placed and held in place to prevent and/or slow down movement in 0.0

Thoughts?


Or maybe upgrade the pods with interdictor nullifier drives, i.e. pods will be immune to bubbles but you could still catch them with modules

Tetragammatron Prime
Posted - 2011.08.30 19:31:00 - [168]
 

Just nerf local will be very good for small combat along with some ship rebalancing. Also I would like to see sniping be viable again.

Cosmo Raata
T-Cells
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.08.31 00:39:00 - [169]
 

Originally by: Vanessa Vansen
Originally by: Cosmo Raata
Speaking for ex-0.0 players here but current empire dwellers.

A huge problem with 0.0 (not the only one) is the risk involved of not only losing your ship, but also your pod, implants and time.

All 3 is just too much to deal with to warrant going out when you have no guarantee of actually finding some combat.

While I do no proclaim this to be the only idea to fixing this, I do think it can help:

Remove anchorable bubbles from game or change them in some way to free up gate combat. Remove the bubble script from hictors and only allow small dictors to use bubbles. If you want to increase small gangs roaming in 0.0 you need to reduce risk to pod loss and increase travel speed and this will do both.

This is just one idea and from my point of view can increase 0.0 roaming. Hictors still would be used to tackle super capitals, small dictors could still bubble up, but no longer can bubbles be placed and held in place to prevent and/or slow down movement in 0.0

Thoughts?


Or maybe upgrade the pods with interdictor nullifier drives, i.e. pods will be immune to bubbles but you could still catch them with modules


That works too I suppose.

But to those that don't see my point. Imagine you go on a 0.0 roam to pvp and you run into a large bubble camp and die horribly. Lets add the loss:

1. T2 Zealot (just an example) - 180 mil
2. 30 jumps of time - 1 min per jump, 30 minutes minumum, so we'll say 30 mil you could have been making.
3. Clone update - 20 mil for average character, 50+ mil for highly skilled characters
4. Implants - Since no one uses super expensive implants in 0.0 for fear losing them, we'll go with a conservative 50 mil.

Thats 300 MILLION for an average ship with average implants, that is an awfully steep price to get some pvp with no real incentive other than to kill someone.

Desire to do it again, low.

Alternative scenarios:
Ship lost, pod saved, but bubbles prevent a fast return without self destructing:

180 mil ship, 30 jumps there and 30 back = 60 mil lost + potentially days (if you want to save your pod) trying to safely return (millions).

Desire to do it again, low.

Next:

Ship lost, pod saved, bubbles not a problem:
180 mil ship, 60 mil in time for jumps.

50 or so mil saved, and a likely RETURN CUSTOMER



Lesson learned, bubbles make going through other peoples space a pain in the ass, not worth the time or effort. Without increased incentives for small gang pvp in 0.0 or a decreased risk there is no change in the amount of those that try it.

Stan Durden
Posted - 2011.08.31 07:36:00 - [170]
 

There obviously needs to be a reason for people to come out and fight when we have a gang outside their station. Too often you can go all over null sec and find no one willing to fight. It is much more cost effective for them to simply hide.

The other side of that coin is maybe the defenders could use a few advantages, because it is usually a good decision to hide rather then fight. If you go out to drive off invasion or rescue a buddy chances are you are simply walking into a trap. Many of the fleets I was in we would tackle a ratter in a belt and hope that he would be able to get some of his friends out of station to help him so we could bring the rest of the fleet in and get more kills. (And of course there are multiple versions of using the target to bait his friends. The point is, it is usually a bad idea to respond to cries for help.)

I think most people start the game with an idea that you should have combat dudes protecting the indy dudes, and the indy guys would like to build stuff for the combat guys to fight with and the combat guys will go through hell to protect their indy buddies.... But somewhere along the line everyone learns that if your gona be the indy dude you need intel and a clean system. And if your in null you bubble the gates all to hell and dock if a red/neut enters system. If you are the combat guys you don't move unless you have solid intel and initiative. If you are reacting it means the other guy has the initiative and probably will win. Going out to save your indy guys is stupid and will just get you killed. Flying "protection" for high value targets is all about eyes and not much about guns. Because if someone else sees a high value target then its a good bet someone with bigger guns then you have will be on the way soon.

Just throwing a few ideas out...

Perhaps there could be something worth stealing in system? Maybe if we hack a tower or station there could be a random chance of kicking out a ship or some loot or something from someones hanger? Perhaps the defenders can hire or build NPC navy of some sort that helps them with defense, gives good loot so we like to blow them up, and costs the defender something if we do destroy them. You could use a deadspace complex of some sort that we go into for something valuable. Let the defender warp to any room of the complex but the attackers need to go in gate by gate. So a defender could separate an enemy fleet through several rooms of a complex and be able to engage the attacking fleet that was shown while the attacking fleet that is backup in the next system needs to crawl through a bunch of rooms to get to where the fight happened.

Yulinki Atavuli
Minmatar
Caldari Investment and Security Industries
Innovia Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.31 12:14:00 - [171]
 

You can't take away risk away from a game that lives off of it. if we changed it, then people would just go and grab another ship i.e. like any fps out there. where you die and respawn like nothing ever happened. you should be afraid when you go into a system and engage in a fight. while you can do things to reduce the risk. you don't know if a fleet of 100 guys are on their way to have fun.

Arbiter Reformed
Minmatar
Garnet Resources
Posted - 2011.08.31 12:58:00 - [172]
 

before small gangs were fast and maneuverable and could control range with speed while large gangs were immobile.

now large gangs are still more or less immobile but small gangs are far less able to control range and cant get off gates fast enough. they are also poorer at killing small targets (tracking) and with the battlefield tightened with no change to range things are severely difficult for small gangs.

widen the battlefield with more speed and more viability for differently ranged gangs

Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Posted - 2011.08.31 14:18:00 - [173]
 

Edited by: Zey Nadar on 31/08/2011 14:18:50
Originally by: Stan Durden

The other side of that coin is maybe the defenders could use a few advantages, because it is usually a good decision to hide rather then fight.


Defenders have many advantages, but the reason for "not coming out to fight" is propably that the attacker gang that came in is already formed, has intended composition and ready to fight with people on TS, un like the defenders. The defenders have to propably form the fleet from scratch and lot may be afk doing this and that. This is just one of realities of life. One side comes prepared while the other is not.

Standing fleets are nice but if nothing happens for a long while, then people drift away and leave fleet.

Lord macattack
Posted - 2011.08.31 19:15:00 - [174]
 

Give the Titans doomsday weapon an option to use either the AoE but with just enough DPS to kill a heavily tanked BS. then you can let them use scripts to have the ability they have now. That way blobs are getting smaller.

And what about making the AoE effect on titans that the more ships the titan will hit with its AoE the more DPS it will give out. In other words, if theres a 200 man or 500 man fleet, they will all die, but if theres a 10-80 or something they would survive it.

That would really effectivly counter the blob problem. No more blobs as 1 titan could destroy most blobs and give room for smaller alliances to defend theyre small nullsec space from the big alliances that wipe enemies out at a whim.

And I know it sounds stupid and blob warfare enthusiasts would come with some genius plan to counter this, but hey. It must be one of the best ideas ever for countering blobs.Very Happy

Stan Durden
Posted - 2011.08.31 20:40:00 - [175]
 

I think blob is a silly term. It basically means a fleet bigger than yours. It also indicates a lack of imagination where tactics are concerned. Yes "blobs" would be an issue if all you plan on doing is activate-all-module warfare and see who leaves the field. But PvP in Eve allows for a lot more variation which can render a large fleet unable to deal with smaller groups in some situations.

Having tactics to allow effective harassment of larger fleets by smaller fleets is good. Punishing people for getting large groups of players to work together is bad imo.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.08.31 22:44:00 - [176]
 

Originally by: Stan Durden
I think blob is a silly term. It basically means a fleet bigger than yours. It also indicates a lack of imagination where tactics are concerned. Yes "blobs" would be an issue if all you plan on doing is activate-all-module warfare and see who leaves the field. But PvP in Eve allows for a lot more variation which can render a large fleet unable to deal with smaller groups in some situations.

Having tactics to allow effective harassment of larger fleets by smaller fleets is good. Punishing people for getting large groups of players to work together is bad imo.

EVE used to have just such a tactic - Nanos. A smaller fleet could successfully harass a much larger one. So the masses cried and whined to CCP about how unfair that it. CCP listened and nerfed it to hell. Now a larger fleet is always better than small one.

TheExtruder
Caldari
Malicious Destruction
War Against the Manifest
Posted - 2011.09.01 03:21:00 - [177]
 

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1571271

heres an idea that can give a bigger boost to small combat

Stan Durden
Posted - 2011.09.01 04:35:00 - [178]
 

Something I have been thinking about that also relates to ship balancing is about the accuracy of a ships navigation computer.

*** snip *** this is rambling skip if you like ***
I have not seen all the changes to the game. But I have seen bombers brought closer to the fights (torps vs cruise). I have heard a lot about the nano nerf, and some about a sniping nerf. It seems many of these changes are tending towards making the difference of range and speed more marginal. I am a big fan of the marginal all throughout the game. I believe it is one of the best things of Eve, that even the most awesome ship is only marginally better than its less expensive counterparts. It is enough to win with but not enough to fix stupid. If good gear is used by people who lack piloting skill then they still lose, because the piloting skill counts for a lot more than ship bonuses, or sp, or whatever. Also one awesome ship can do awesome things but it is always well within reason, unlike other games where a few upgrades makes an opponent completely unstoppable.
***snip***

What I notice is that many ship encounters can be won or lost by the control of a few KM. Those few KM where you are out of the enemy guns (or heavy neuts), but still keeping point for example. The few KM that separate a kite from being tackled and killed. But many times in my own piloting it seems more luck than anything, often depending on lag, that determines if I will be able to keep the distance I wish. Is my MWD cycle timer telling the truth or will it overheat halfway into next cycle when I need it now? If I double click in space, how long until my ship registers my command? Will I still be in point range? Will I slip up and cross into scram/web range?

So perhaps if we are going to be drawn into fights that are so close together with a few KM separating sniper from long range, long range bc from short range bs, Brutix from Hurricane, Stiletto keeping long point while outside range of the heavy neuts on a Tempest, then if we have better control of our ships the marginal distance differences can remain as they are, but still be enough for an intelligent pilot to exploit. I am not sure how much of the inaccuracy of ships navigation computer is intentional. But a simple test of turning on an interceptor MWD and orbiting a stationary object will yield obvious results. Isn't it strange I am flying a piece of refined space age weaponry but before I go use it I need to recalibrate my orbit settings manually? And ya it would be nice if I were pro enough to keep within a 3km window while moving at 4km/s with just double clicking, but the previously mentioned lag will hinder that effort even if I were quick enough to pull it off.

If I hit approach I don't want my ship to go to where the enemy ship is now, I want it to plot an intercept with the ship so that I can reach it in the least amount of time. If I hit keep at range, I don't want the ship modifying its course only after I've gone 5km past my range setting. It seems like a ships computer could plot the target ships speed and direction and recognize when it should plot a new course to hold the desired range. Same goes for orbit. Of course the target ship's computer will be attempting the best it can to match its own instructions. But I think the distance game should be won based on who gave good range commands, not based on who's double clicks got acknowledged first. In a lag rich environment with a marginally functional navigation computer it is not a test of piloting knowledge and skill, it can often simply go down to who has the largest workable margins for error.

If you give more control to pilots then skirmish and harassment flying becomes a lot more manageable, rather than having to give yourself a 10-20km buffer for lag, you could get right on into your range sweet spot and depend that so long as you piloted well you could stay there.

Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2011.09.01 08:26:00 - [179]
 

lets go back to your stated goals

Easy to rebase

Are you talking mobility of a small group vs mobility of a large group or the ability to relocate your PvP group so you can be in Fountain one week, then venal the next and then move down to delve the week after that?

Objectives and incentives

What if you made the infrastructure upgrades able to be incaped without deploying SBUs? give them say 500,000 to 1,000,000 EHP before they go invulnerable, but inactive. that way they cant destroy the upgrades, but they make it a good idea to defend your stuff.

If you wanna make it really risky, put moon miners and reactors outside the shield bubble, of course give their EHP like a X 20 buff, but make them able to be incapped, so large alliances have a reason to defend their space against small things not just huge blobs they get tons of warning from.

Interfere with larger ops

youve got me here . . . what kind of interference are you looking for? Obviously you dont want a smaller gang to beat a large gang outright, but im not sure what you mean by "interference" IE movement, combat effectiveness, etc.

Disrupt, not destroy

This would be why the upgrades would not be destructible, just able to be incaped.

Constant

I think adding the ability to drastically effect a large alliances income would make small gang PvP pretty much constant.

Reward local knowledge

Dont bookmarks kinda already do this?

What do you think of the ideas, or do you have answers to any of my questions?

Walextheone
The Red Circle Inc.
Posted - 2011.09.02 13:54:00 - [180]
 

I'd like to see some bonus added to small gangs that gets lower the bigger your fleet is.
So (just pulling some numbers here) 1-4 players get like a 100% of given bonus, 5-9 players 60% and 10-15 20%, 16+ stops getting any bonus.

The bonus could be some kind of mix of resistance / sig reduce / speed that helps smaller gangs a bit.




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