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

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.09.02 18:42:00 - [181]
 

Originally by: Walextheone
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.



That's not very practical. Either the bonus would have to be insignificantly small, or large fleets will simply split up into small gangs while coordinating on 1 TeamSpeak / Vent - functioning identical to a large gang. And there would be much, much complaining about being forced to split to get the bonus.

Walextheone
The Red Circle Inc.
Posted - 2011.09.02 23:13:00 - [182]
 

But forcing people to split up could be a way to split the blob mentality where bigger numbers are the only key to win.

Marak Mocam
Posted - 2011.09.03 11:58:00 - [183]
 

Originally by: SATAN
Originally by: Woulvesbaine
Edited by: Woulvesbaine on 17/08/2011 00:14:00
Remove local.

Removing local will accomplish several of CCP's stated goals. It will create more roles for new players (means more subs for you guys). It will reward intelligence and communication over numbers. It will create more pvp.

More roles: Scouts and escorts will be needed for mining, ratting gangs and transport.

More people will play together: To rat in safety, people may want to bring a buddy or two. Same goes for mining.

More pvp: People will either be great at scouting or will stumble onto gangs in pipe. I am guessing both will happen.

Reward thought, not density: So what will this mean? Intelligence, and planning, and knowledge will be rewarded; not mere numbers.

If you want, keep local in Jita or the rest of empire. But if you want to make 0.0 more interesting, visceral, and challenging, remove local.


And yes this...

SIGNED REMOVE LOCAL


I kind of like the Nebula idea - don't necessarily remove local but make pockets WITHIN a system that have their own local without jump gates, etc.

Such a natural phenomenon would give you the ability to be "gone" but anyone inside it with you would see you on-grid. It could natively block cloak use so you can't use one to hide within a hidden area but it would give you the ability to be in-system but not show on local. Probes would only see the Nebula. Sending a probe inside would work - as well as sending probes out of it to check the system out.

It would also prevent the use of cyno's - no "hot drops" into the pocket, etc. Just a hiding spot with as many advantages as penalties.

SATAN
BURN EDEN
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.09.03 14:55:00 - [184]
 

So after at least a month of having this thread up CCP has yet to make any serious answers to anything we posted, and I'm betting NO ONE in CCP even knows these threads exist.

GG CCP Rick rolled yet again by the spin masters. You guys really do deserve a job in the fast food industry cause minimum wage is all any of you are really worth.

PS. How are the projected sales figures looking? Cause your last set of books didn't look so good, and that was before 20% of your player base gave you the finger and started playing something else.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.09.04 02:11:00 - [185]
 

oh I'm sure the lowly devs know about these threads and may actually want to do something about it. But the upper management of CCP won't let them do anything.

The fish rots from the head

Ai Mei
Starfish Operating Syndicate
Posted - 2011.09.05 03:54:00 - [186]
 

Originally by: SATAN
So after at least a month of having this thread up CCP has yet to make any serious answers to anything we posted, and I'm betting NO ONE in CCP even knows these threads exist.

GG CCP Rick rolled yet again by the spin masters. You guys really do deserve a job in the fast food industry cause minimum wage is all any of you are really worth.

PS. How are the projected sales figures looking? Cause your last set of books didn't look so good, and that was before 20% of your player base gave you the finger and started playing something else.


QFT - if you read the dev blog they wanted our opinions and they are getting them. You cannot just implement stuff at the drop of the hat. Also no one is really posting ideas in here anymore.

Everyoen get your 0.0 friends to post or nothing changes.

Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2011.09.05 09:46:00 - [187]
 

I still think putting moon miners on the outside of towers, and giving them 300,000 EHP or something like that would be a step in the right direction:
It highlights the small gang's mobility advantage
It gives small groups targets and objectives
It allows smaller groups to split blobs by attacking multiple places at once
It would be very disruptive, but not destructive
It would be constant if you could take an alliances moon goo supply away
It would kinda reward local knowledge as to where the moon miner is on the tower and where the good moons are

This and a significant nerf to hotdrops and I think you'd see a change in tactics because alliances would be forced to actively defend their space instead of passively waiting for respawn timers which are really the only threats to their space.

Attrezzo Pox
Amarr
The Concordiat
Concordiat Alliance
Posted - 2011.09.06 15:30:00 - [188]
 

Edited by: Attrezzo Pox on 06/09/2011 18:35:41
Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Easy to rebase
Groups running regular small fleets should find it pretty straightforward to move their base of operations. This allows them to "go where the action is", and allows any given part of the cluster to get a much more regular rotation of "local gangs", which in turn should lead to more combat variety for the average player on both sides of the fence (ie roaming groups and defense gangs).


The biggest issue you've left out is a safe place to stop. This is a good place to put that. No one logs out only to log on the next day at the same time, and no one wants to get left behind enemy lines. Small gangs typically embody this problem because everyone knows on the way out that if something goes wrong they're more likely to be left out on their own. I hate to envoke the hearthstone mentality but perhaps that's not a bad idea. The ability to use a cyno generator to make a short-duration wormhole. Put strict limits, no aggression timer etc, maximum size is battle-cruiser, maximum total number is about 20. 30 minute cooldown based on which constellation you're leaving. And have a counter... If you are being actively chased you are still committed and therefore you can't simply jump home. If the enemy stops chasing you, you should be able to declare a rally point and get your remaining pilots back home quickly. You are transported home to a pos. The ability to roam away from home without having such a high risk of limping back on your own.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

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. This means having things to do that are both satisfying and deliver some kind of long-term value (ideally things with tangible ISK-relative value as well as intangible strategic value) to offset the opportunity cost of a roam. We want people out PvPing, and if they're thinking "I wish I'd stayed at home and run missions" then something is wrong.


Perhaps sov space could have roaming guard npcs. They represent a cost of some sort to the controlling faction and a minimum defense. Perhaps received as a reward to a corp mission. Once destroyed they can be looted... Killing enough of them may have an effect on sov? Create a class of deployables that have a desirable effect for home defense but can be salvaged or looted somehow.


Attrezzo Pox
Amarr
The Concordiat
Concordiat Alliance
Posted - 2011.09.06 16:27:00 - [189]
 

Edited by: Attrezzo Pox on 06/09/2011 17:50:03
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Interfere with larger ops
Smaller fleets should have some avenue via which they can have some impact on larger fleets, without just getting killed. There should be some sensible way to defend against this with some sensible amount of effort on the larger fleet's part. A smaller fleet should not feel that it simply has to run away from a larger one, but neither should it be able to have a disproportionate impact on a larger one.



Currently the only way to effect a large fleet (short of blowing it up) is to slow it down. Tactically other options include weakening, and directing.

Weakening is the easiest option to add. Ways small ships can target larger ship systems rather than the ship itself in an AOE fashion. Resulting in weakened armor, firepower, or logistics. The trick would be to make the effect linger for a time past the engagement rather than ending as soon as the modules were turned off. A good way to modify an underutilized ship type perhaps? You would have to make the effect tiny per ship only being useful when a large number of ships was involved. So some type of AOE effect that say reduced shield recharge by 1-2%. That could have a decisive effect on a large fleet but not a small fleet. Options might be: minefields based on aoe/bubble mechanics, bomb/missle based mechanic, a psuedo mechanic like a computer virus hacking or otherwise, or drone based, even AOE ammo based with the right limitations. Like making the effect of the special ammo limited to the enemy ships of the same alliance or fleet in the same grid and the effect be calculated based on that.

Directing is tougher. You can do this by choice (lure or re-direction) or force. Choice might be deployables that fortify a small gang but force them to remain in a small area. It would be obvious that this has happened. Even a system or two away. Maybe a logistics boost, take the role of the current cyno "hot-drop" but it has GROUP-wide effects. Ie noone in the group can warp while the effect is active and it takes a certain number to allow up to x total mass. I can't think of any good lures other than some way to alter map information to make an area seem more desirable. Maybe see below about NPC corp contracts. A force option might include targeted effects that prevent jumping or force it. Perhaps make attacking gates possible but repairable with the right stuff in 5-10 minutes. Attacking a gate wouldn't break it entirely but might allow only a certain mass of ships to go through in a set amount of time, or may flake out allowing some ships to go through and others to wait.

Finally, the most interesting way small fleets might "interfere" with larger fleets is by giving intelligence. Alter existing modules to be group based to get better results. For instance, give the ship scanner scripts, in gang mode (scripted), though it's still activated on a target, range increases and/or scan speed and it becomes an AOE module, giving information for every ship in a given area even though a single ship is targeted. Or small tracking ammo. Ammo that does T1 level damage but embeds tracking devices in the enemy ship that are not removed or detected until a repair at station. Other ammo may be used to give meta effects, such as easier scanning with probes.

If using weakening mechanics, you need to keep this kind of warfare targetted to large numbers. So make the effect depend on the number of ships in fleet/alliance on grid during the attack. If you have weakening ammo make it AOE, it weakens not only the target but all ships under the same booster, wing, squad, etc. And/or scale it's quantity or effect with the number or pilots .5 or less percent effect in gangs smaller than 10 pilots but scaling up to say 2-3% in larger gangs, or only the target is effected with less than 10 on grid, but if more are on grid scale from say 20% to 50% of the ships are effected.

Attrezzo Pox
Amarr
The Concordiat
Concordiat Alliance
Posted - 2011.09.06 17:25:00 - [190]
 

Edited by: Attrezzo Pox on 06/09/2011 18:13:13
Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Disrupt, not destroy
When interfering with infrastructure, smaller fleets should as a rule be causing damage that can be brought back to its pre-damage state in a short timeframe, and without costing that much money. A single small-scale roam is not a large investment, and it should not require a large investment to undo the damage. A sustained harassment campaign should be possible to disrupt activities for longer periods, if the harasser puts in the hours to do so.


Smaller munitions can get past some shielding and effect certain modules of sov structure perhaps. Or disableing agents, access to complexes, disrupting spawns somehow. Again make gates attack-able (see above). If you use the special areas (below) make their effects disruptable.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Constant
Small-scale combat should be going on all the damn time. Set in the context of ongoing nullsec struggles, it's one of our strong points as a game, and we should be trying hard to enable it as much as possible.


Create dynamic, constant incentives for getting into a fight. Right now the only incentive is to see stuff blow up, or that there is some larger initiative started by the alliance/corp. This is why eventually everyone makes up and start to become buddies. Simply putting resources out there isn't enough, you have to create a resource that requires conflict to fully exploit and is desireable. The easiest example I can think of is Deployable corporation property. Make some cheap deployables produce drops.
Corp agents could be of great use here. Perhaps, unknown to them, two alliances are given the same mission objectives. They both go and end up starting a fight.
Perhaps offer npc contracts. An alliance agent brokers a deal with an npc corp to host their miners at x time in x system. In return, everyone in that alliance gets something valuable for participating by defending the NPCs or helping them mine. The couriers and miners of this op would be ideal targets for a small gang, however. Perhaps your agent makes the prospect of attacking this op juicier saying that such and such competing corp in empire wants you to disrupt the op and is willing to pay you to do it.
Do you see the concept at work in the examples I just gave? Something that requires a fight to exploit.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

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.


This is only useful if the whole corp benefits from it. Corp shared bookmarks are a good start, bookmark shareing that isn't done by tediously duping dropped bms in corp hangers.
Following with the alliance agent stuff, completing objectives might give your alliance bonuses. Warp-to-zero, occassional system scans, etc.
You could do the same thing with "covert deployables" They don't show up on directional but do show up with a good enough scan probe strength.
Either way, all of this has to come back to a repository that can be easily shared with other corp members that have a role that might use this info.
System anomolies, a little like wormhole space but with less effect. Or even special scannable areas with special effects that lend themselves to strategic goals. Like more cyno volume, or a place you can't be d-scanned, or an abandoned scanner array that allows periodic system scans, or an abandoned ship maintenance array open to the public, or an area where pos guns can be arbitrarily deployed and used with no pos or truely hidden gates, that can only be located with scan probes and change every so often.

Frosteye
Posted - 2011.09.07 04:02:00 - [191]
 

Originally by: Stan Durden
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.


THIS - Fix accuracy!

Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2011.09.08 04:58:00 - [192]
 

They already have, its called player skill.

of youre using approach and orbit at, or keep at range instead of double clicking exactly where you want to go in space, youre doing it wrong.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.09.08 20:06:00 - [193]
 

Originally by: Sigras
They already have, its called player skill.

of youre using approach and orbit at, or keep at range instead of double clicking exactly where you want to go in space, youre doing it wrong.
The double click is essential for experienced player, but the tools of Orbit and Approach are also very valuable.

If you never take advantage of Orbit and Approach, you are doing it wrong.


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