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


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic

Drazi1
Minmatar
The Knights Templar
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2011.08.16 14:32:00 - [31]
 

Super caps should have there hp reduced, and take away their invul to ewar. Also make them use Liquid ozone to fuel the fighters and the bomber thus forcing them to refuel them after few mins say 15 mins, after that they will have recall the fighter or bombers to the bays then relaunch them. Bring back the old dd

Also allow regular hic/dics to stop them going into warp.

GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.16 15:08:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Drazi1
Super caps should have there hp reduced, and take away their invul to ewar. Also make them use Liquid ozone to fuel the fighters and the bomber thus forcing them to refuel them after few mins say 15 mins, after that they will have recall the fighter or bombers to the bays then relaunch them. Bring back the old dd

Also allow regular hic/dics to stop them going into warp.


i sort of agree bout the super hp thing.. tho im not sure if it needs a big nerf in any way.. just needs to be balanced with titans.

bringing back the old dd isnt going to happen cause it causes suuuch a huuge lag spike so dont expect it to ever come back.

tbh ships aggro timers need to be tied into their ship size as some situations allows cap pilots to escape certain death due to aggro timers expiring before the ships die, even with a concerted effort to kill it.

i like that subsystem targetting idea, though i dont think it should be done on a subcap level.. maybe only a cap level.

im all for the new cyno ship idea too! awesomesauce!

E man Industries
Posted - 2011.08.16 15:10:00 - [33]
 

would like to see large fleets broken up in smaller elements.

Right now most fleets all work as one giant blob. Wings are simply a way to get everyone leadersship boosts.

Be amazing if wings where encouraged to work as a wing towards the over all fleets objective. Also be neat if it mattered what wing you are in.


Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.08.16 15:21:00 - [34]
 

Has CCP been thinking about the idea of cynos scaling to fleets? You have various sized wormholes that destabilize after a certain mass passes through them. Why not various sized cynos that do the same? Small, medium, large, perhaps XL.

Blatanicus Alticus
Posted - 2011.08.16 16:28:00 - [35]
 

Quote:
People should not be sitting at a starbase for three hours, warping into a fight and getting instapopped before they've really done anything.


I don't know what you can do about the sitting at a starbase for 3 hours part but if your targeted by 100 ships you should instapop. I think the fact that logistics lets you tank 100 ships is the problem. If you don't need the dps of an enire fleet to get kills the dps will get split up. The solution is to remove logistics from the field. Put it off grid. Make rr mods a can be fitted item then give the logi ships a glass tank that can be insta'd by a few ships. If that means making a new cap so we can rep our structures then do it. It will open up everything from fitting options to fleet composition and doctrines. It will help small fleet fights too. No more logi heavy 30 man gangs firing at each other for 20 min without a kill. With the victor determined by who can organize a cap drop or get a second fleet there 1st.

Adding some arbitrary fleet penalties isn't the way to go. Using the number of taget locks to create ewar effect will just restrict fitting options. We already have those effects in the game. They are called sensor dampeners and tracking disruptors. If you replace them with a certain number of target locks I will exploit that to know end. I'll have x number of my ships target my caps and make them invulnerable till you eliminate the rest of my fleet. And if I don't have caps it will be the ecm boats.

Placing penalties on my ships by fleet size won't fix anything. All that will do is make several smaller fleets. Everyone will stil be on the same comm firing at the same target. The knowledge barrier for a fc's is big enough as it is. Lets not add some penalty tables to what they need to know.

And yes changing logi means changing missions but thats supposed to be redone too.

Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
Posted - 2011.08.16 17:52:00 - [36]
 



You have the foundation for smaller delegation in fleet organization, but the issue is that people don't use it.


A large part of this is training on the part of the players.


It takes a lot of skill and a lot of work to establish the command structure to manage 200 people. Add the, "i'm a random person from the internet that you have never met" factor, and that most of them have never even thought about military discipline, it gets even more exaggerated.


To me, the bigger issue to having more unique fleet compositions also comes from the viability of certain ships in those large fleet battles.


Lets take the Destroyer for example. It's not used for its role TOO often. I HAVE seen 1 or 2 destroyers in massive fleet battles, and they do go out of their way to target smaller ships, interceptors, stealth bombers, etc. I've seen it first hand, but it's not too common. Part of that is because they're really big targets for other battleships and cruisers, easily disassembled.

They also have a pretty poor chance of surviving if they get any logistics support, since they have a shallow buffer compared to other ships.


Stealth bombers are probably the most successful addition to a large fleets arsenal that contributes variety. Any smart FC with a well trained SB fleet is going to use it in a large fleet battle. It just makes sense.

400 man BS fleet vs 400 man BS fleet, throw in 20 Stealth Bombers for AOE and you have a fun addition to a big fleet battle that can provide a real advantage that can't be provided by just having more numbers and more battleships.


Historically, the biggest ground battles in the world were fought with mostly being comprised of the cheapest combat units available.

A Man with a Rifle.

In naval combat though, historically most battles were quite inconclusive because it was easy to look over the horizon, see that those 40 Battleships had more and bigger guns, and you would turn around and run.

EVE provides the ability to ambush, and attack in ways that force an opponent at a disadvantage to fight, also you have "space stuff" to protect, and that is significantly lacking in most naval combat in history. Naval Ships are also significantly more expensive than a Man with a Rifle and navies were much less likely to risk these assets for the long term because that would be more destructive to a nation, even if you lost an important asset, because you'd give your opponent total control over the sea and it would be impossible to rebuild a navy during war time if your enemy controlled your harbors.



So there are 2 contributing factors to this discussion to diversify fleet composition.


1. Cost to Value
2. Value for Effect


The cost of Battleships is relatively cheap when compared to the value they provide. They are the Man with a Rifle of massive battles. Battlecruisers also fall into this category, I'll say they're the Man with the SMG.

But, the cost of other T2 ships is going to fall short of the value they provide to the cost and risk on the field. They take longer to build, their insurance is poor, and they aren't as hardy as a battleship, and so on. T1 cruisers and below are generally inefficient in quantity on the scale of massive battles.

The exception is the Stealth Bomber for it's ability to apply AOE, their ability to apply battleship damage for cheap costs, and such.

So, to break up these blobs into smaller chunks you need to provide a reason for them to be broken down. Perhaps the SOV needs to have locations that only admit certain size ships to complete the SOV. The issue with this is it takes away the sandbox feel and makes it into a mini-game. I don't like it.

When putting it on paper, on massive sized battles, what does X____ ship provide that can't be provided by a Battleship. That's the question to breaking this ships down. And then do a cost to value estimation, and see what you come up with.

Solving that will solve the need for massive fights with smaller squads.

continued...

Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
Posted - 2011.08.16 18:01:00 - [37]
 



In terms of separating fire control into smaller units, that comes down to training and usage.


I like the ideas you're coming up with "sensor noise" and other ways to minimize the amount of incoming damage a ship can take, that will provide the defense necessary to cause fleets to break into smaller units and split fire.

The counter to that is what stops me from bringing 80 logistics and making sure you will never break my fleet between the damage reduction and that my 80 logi's can rep anyone in the fleet, including themselves.

Ultimate stalemate.

Maybe that's what you're looking for when we talk about requiring other ship types on the field to break that "chain". Now you bring neutralizing ships, ECM, etc that is going to break that Logi chain, and so on.

How does that trickle down then?

Logistics become the backbone of any fleet to maintain it together, since they can guarantee success. Fleet must counter opposing fleets logistics with some type of EWAR. EWAR can be setup to counter EWAR and then you have a series of switches that can lead to success on the battlefield.

Perhaps that is the answer you are looking for, and anyone who can't see beyond the "400 people fire here" situation is simply going to be left in the stone age.


I'd describe that by saying that by providing a stalemate scenario to the typical massive fleets on the battlefield, you are forcing ingenuity to enter into the equation to win the fight, which contributes to a variety of strategies that can be brought to the fight.


I don't necessarily think this exact example is what I would go with for a stalemate idea, but it does work as a proof of concept that it can work. The numbers can still work in your favor, but now in a different way that forces diversity, rather than focus fire.


I have 100 extra dudes, so I'm going to bring the necessary EWAR to defeat your 80 logistics, rather than worry about more logistics and more firepower.



Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
Posted - 2011.08.16 20:35:00 - [38]
 

Not an original idea, but my thouhgts are certain smaller shipclasses and varied shiptypes in fleets need "formation" support before they'd be viable in larger fleets.

I'd suggest something like a tiered structure of formations available depending on the number of pilots in fleet.

For example tier 1 could be 20 pilots and offer perhaps 3 formations:
Just for example
A frigate heavy formation - [A 10% Sig radius reduction, 20% AB speed for frigates]
A range formation - [10% optimal bonus for all ships, 10% tracking]
A logistics formation - [10% less RR cap used, 5% Rep bonus, 50% Rep done speed]

Tier 2 formation could apply after 60 pilots

An armour fleet formation
- Requires 2 Squads to enable tier 1 formations (Any types)
Plus 5% Armour Repair bonus (all ships), 5% resist bonus for all cruisers and below

An agile fleet formation
- Requires 3 squads of tier 1 formations
5% Agility all ships, 10% AB/MWD speed for Battlecruisers and above

A stealth fleet
- Allows 2 squads using tier 1 formations
Recons gain 10% targeting range, 10% scan res, -25% cloaking delay
Stealth bombers gain 10% explosion radius
etc etc etc

Upto Tier 3,4,5 formations for over 100, 150, 240 members. With tier 5 perhaps requiring 2 wings of frigates using tier 1 formations)

My take on this idea is that a formation is not just fleet structure bonus, but also only works with Squad movement (controlled perhaps by the commander, but does allow pilots to move themselves too) but pilots must remain in formation" within perhaps a formation overlay for the bonus to apply.

Some other useful formation tricks could be in large fleets to reduce enemy BS targetting speed of frigates in a formation by 50% for example, to have less incentive for them to be nuked by BS.

Ideally I'd like to see perhaps large fights where smaller ships of similar sizes are primarying their own ship size classes for example because they get some bonus, incentive and tactical advantage for doing it and being there compared to "just another BS".


Jack Tronic
Posted - 2011.08.16 21:51:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: Jack Tronic on 16/08/2011 21:52:20
Edited by: Jack Tronic on 16/08/2011 21:51:43
An interesting thing would be to cause sig radius based AOE damage whenever more than say 1 super jumps to the same cyno. Any other supers start to create stacked up AOE damage that not only damages whatever is around them, but also themselves, it should lead it causing their cyno ship to explode from damage forcing logistics on the cyno. i.e. 100 supers jumping to one cyno should cause most of them to go BOOM without proper carrier logistics to rep them.

It would add another element to dropping super blobs on people.

xp3ll3d
Posted - 2011.08.17 04:06:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Vyktor Abyss
I'd suggest something like a tiered structure of formations available depending on the number of pilots in fleet.
For example tier 1 could be 20 pilots and offer perhaps 3 formations:
...



An interesting idea.
I really think there needs to be more to split the giant fleet battles up into smaller squads with objectives, and have each of the ship types have a roles. The frigates are taking each other out, the BS are pounding on each other.
And it helps with the idea of smaller objectives. You need to have enough frigates in your fleet to cut through their frigate defenses, before you BS's can start dealing some real damage to each other.
But again, you need to do something that just stops everyone targetting the frigates straight off. Maybe more sig bonuses / penalties. Or the sensor noise suggestions

WisdomLikeSilence
The Cursed Navy
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.08.17 12:23:00 - [41]
 

People will always be able to afford more of the best thing, as CCP have pointed out scarcity cannot be implemented by fiscal policy alone.

One resource that is finite is trained pilots.

Have capital require more than one toon to fly. Have them in an incarna environment with say 8 to a titan (each one titan-skilled), then you will see 8 times less titans

Takashi Halamoto
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.17 13:02:00 - [42]
 

no you just see more botting and alts,

and i imagine the coding issues of that idea would make ccp cry blood

Bilaz
Minmatar
Fremen Sietch
DarkSide.
Posted - 2011.08.17 15:19:00 - [43]
 

Problem with large scale combat is that its very simple and blob-oriented. to have more decision making grunts one would have to force them to operate independent from the rest of the fleet. my point is that only by making combat more complex and position-dependable one can find place for less robust shiptypes and low-level decision making.

For instance that would be possible if there would be aoe e-war. unlike doomsday it have to be much more compact and unlike probes and bombs - be constantly projected from ship staying on field, not launched. that would from one end make disperce formations more viable, on the other - quite diferent ranges to hostiles may create need for low-level navigation and target calling for damage dealers and e-war.
Other possiblity is in making space - less empty - e.g creating obstacles for movement and shooting. be that other ships, fields, clouds or celestial objects.

GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.17 17:30:00 - [44]
 

my issue with large sub cap combat isnt the fact u cannot delegate task to smaller parts of the fleet. its that ccp has to understand that as much as they might think they can provide ALL services for pvp battles, they cannot compete with some services provided by other companies.

it would be better for ccp to endorse certain services from companies. there are many times when eve servers hiccup and throws a system off and tbh, if the whole fleet were using eves voice chat ingame, that fleet would be sooo dead when people log in again with all the chaos of whats going on, rather than knowing whats going on and being able to notify other fleet members of their status.

having services not connected with ccp servers means you have marginally more stability with keeping your **** together when the Eve client, your connection or the server fails in some form.

any1 who says that u cant delegate tasks to part of a fleet when in game fail soo hard, and most likely dies and whelps fleets. current null sec pvp combat, even sub-cap have multiple aspects, that can give you an advantage over a pure DPS and logi fleet.

CApital combat need to be fixed cause as seen up in deklein, when u take large swarms of supers out of the situation, fleets that have delegated sub tasks win out against stuff like pure single aspect hellcat fleets.

Gripen
Posted - 2011.08.18 00:18:00 - [45]
 

I think you've hit the nail on the head here with the amount of fleet commanders being a limiting factor on the fight frequency. But the reason for this is not an absense of authority delegation mechanics but the current state of the game when all the responsibility being put on FCs while as the fleet grows bigger it takes less and less personal skill from the other pilots. Even more: in the big fights it is desirable for pilots to follow orders as close as possible without thinking on their own.

Thus looking at your next point about "decisions beating the numbers" I think you shouldn't simply aim for a more commanding positions but try to make every person in fleet equally important and capable to affect the battle in a more than his basic contribution of 1/(amount of ppl in fleet) to lessen FCs moral responsibility on the fight outcome.

TL;DR: I believe solving "decisions beat the numbers" should automatically lessen lack of incentives to be a FC.

Strata Maslav
Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors
0ccupational Hazzard
Posted - 2011.08.18 01:34:00 - [46]
 

Edited by: Strata Maslav on 20/08/2011 23:31:09


I have read all the above posts and I would like piece together a great concept which many people have been driving towards


The Problem
To allow for more diverse fleet compositions and sub-commanders, every ship type (example: frigates) needs a important role in a large fight.

Currently large fleets consist of very homogeneous ships working together synchronised by the fleet commander telling them when to shoot and when to run. Eve’s current system awards homogeneous play as it takes less leadership and organising and the grunts do not have to make decisions.

At the moment if a pilot flying a frigate in a large BS gang would find himself not very useful in terms of making a reasonable contribution to the fight. As if he moved into his optimal range of the enemy battleship fleet would be nueted scrammed and killed almost instantly.

Unlike smaller fleets you have room for a lot more diversity as there are different required roles such as tackling and E-War but in a large fleet these are normally negated in favor of pure dps and some logistics support.

Give Smaller Ships more Room!
To allow for smaller ships to have a role in battle containing many larger ships you need to to give them smaller better survival and functionality in the presence of larger ships.

In a small gang fleet a solo battleship could be tackled by a frigate and allow larger ships to get into range to tackle it. This works because there is a room for error where if the frigate gets too close he could be nueted and slowed and then is an easy kill for the battleship whilst the frigs friends get into range. Within larger battle a tackling frig does not have the room to be effective.

More Support!
I propose that frigates and cruiser would have there own fight which would an important battle to win. A ‘battle with in a battle’ you could say! Once and if they win they gain dominance in their specific class range they should be able to use certain tactics against the larger ships and thus affecting the rest of the battle within the larger ships.

These smaller ships should be able to fight among the larger enemy ships, dodging and weaving between battleships. Focusing most of their attention on ships their own size without worrying too much about to be insta-poped by and opposing larger ships.

Having smaller ship dominance should be part of the strategy for all fleets. In the way that a balanced fleets containing ships off many sizes should easily take out an homogeneous fleet of say battleships as the battleship fleet would lose the smaller ship dominance too easily.

Sub-commanders
With frigates fighting other frigates you reach the second goal of sub-commanders within a fleet. There would be commander calling out orders for frigate pilots and other commanders calling targets for other pilots of other classes to follow. This will open up FC who might get experience and specialise large fleet small craft commanding!

Small Ship Dominance: E-WAR
This a great area for E-War frigates to take a more interesting role. If a fleet's frigates were able to take out the other fleet's frigates ships the E-War frigs would not be vulnerable; but able hinder larger ships within the enemy fleet.


Strata Maslav
Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors
0ccupational Hazzard
Posted - 2011.08.18 01:39:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: Strata Maslav on 20/08/2011 23:27:17

Carriers & Logistics

With carriers on the field frigate pilots would be able to reship mid battle entering back into the fray for frigate dominance and assisting the larger ships left vulnerable those stomaller. Since carriers can hold many smaller ships they would be very effective at keeping the battle between smaller ships incredibly dynamic

Logistics of keeping smaller ships on the battle field would be a key role in all large fights making Carriers and Logistics a key backbone to winning.
The victor of the frigate fight could also reship at the carrier for an ewar frig to use the increase their dominance on the larger they had gained from defeating the enemy's frigates.

Issues
Every great concept has issues with implementation. An obvious problem would be the effect of smaller ship’s increase in ability to take on larger ship in a small gang environment. Due to their immunity to the damage of larger ships.

To address this issue the ability for small ships to engage larger ships there should be a way to limit or make this immunity only occur during larger fights or only when a certain ship is deployed.

-Gang links that affect only smaller ships giving them
  • squad based

  • smaller signature radius

  • reducing damage done to them from a volley to maximum of say 200 damage (cant be alpha by larger ships but does not effect the damage of smaller ship trying to counter them.

  • Medium/Large Guns or Neut immunity

  • Immunity to webs or scrams from larger ships so they dont get bogged down by large ships


-Activating a module on say a carrier such as a triage or other large ship to allow frigates to be ‘buffed’ from larger ships (allowing the enemy to have to take out the carrier and then take out the frigates. This could be another way to take supercarrier if they need nerfing in damage but could use more utility.

GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.18 03:54:00 - [48]
 

^^taking this into account, what would happen if u added a tracking property to both webs, neuts and nos's that worked on the ratio of your ships sig radius vs the target ships sig radius.

that way pilot skill would have to come into play to keep traversal velocity up to stay out of trouble, regardless of what ship your orbiting.

basically if ur doing your job well u wouldnt get neuted or webbed cause ur moving to quick for the target ships sensors to process. but if circumstances change and ur knocked off course etc... ur traversal goes below what the target ships tracking sensors can pick up... u get neuted/webbd and ur life gets that lil bit more expensive.

that way it wouldnt be a small ship vs big ship = small ship dead endgame, but would depend on the circumstance of the situation, reaction time and skill of each pilot.

Another thing is u wouldnt be adding some "magical" quick fix thats totally illogical,
eg: the space ship equivalent of 'i swung a baseball bat at ur head but for some reason its magically turned into a broken chopstick'

Abdiel Kavash
Caldari
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2011.08.18 09:26:00 - [49]
 

Perhaps the most serious thing turning people off big fights is the terrible performance. While anyone who reads devblogs is aware of Team Gridlock's excellent progress, little to nothing is being done to improve client-side performance. It's becoming less and less "my guns are not cycling, F this" and more and more "I get 3 SPF, F this" (that's seconds per frame).

One thing I'm sure would help tremendously, especially for people with older computers, is an option to turn off all subcapital ship models and POS batteries completely, and only display their brackets.

Thur Barbek
Posted - 2011.08.18 11:10:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Jack Tronic
Edited by: Jack Tronic on 16/08/2011 21:52:20
Edited by: Jack Tronic on 16/08/2011 21:51:43
An interesting thing would be to cause sig radius based AOE damage whenever more than say 1 super jumps to the same cyno. Any other supers start to create stacked up AOE damage that not only damages whatever is around them, but also themselves, it should lead it causing their cyno ship to explode from damage forcing logistics on the cyno. i.e. 100 supers jumping to one cyno should cause most of them to go BOOM without proper carrier logistics to rep them.

It would add another element to dropping super blobs on people.


Only if orcas and rorquals applied. Would love to see two rorquals cyno in on some frigates and murder them. :D

Bob Niac
Gallente
freelancers inc
Imperial 0rder
Posted - 2011.08.18 14:22:00 - [51]
 

"Moar different"

Need more racial capitals in my opinion. We have supermegahappy fleet fights with only capitals and supers on the field, for the most part. Basically, If we can get more ships in the 400m - 600m range, I think we could see some interesting developmemts in large fleets.

It would be nice to see a dread w/o a jump drive. (Orca dread?)
I wouldn't mind seeing EWAR "paper tigers" on the field.
Perhaps a "pond jumper" class of capital ships. They are jump capable, but can go about the same range as a skilled black ops.
Or a dread that uses large turrets + siege module (tactical modules ... SCRIPTS PLEASE!) for gate warfare.

"I Win"
So I have been thinking. The DD is awesome right now. But was it not designed to break up blobs? Why can't we have some of that back? I mean... the SC only ECM module mechanics would be right up it's alley. (SCRIPTS!!!) 20km radius, max targets affected 25. (Just about any RPG you play will have a limit on targets, it just makes "sense.")

Note: I am hardly a wise person

catinboots
Minmatar
Vintage heavy industries
Posted - 2011.08.19 08:43:00 - [52]
 

My 5 cent. On making a more balancedand enjoyable fleetbattles

Rebalance supercaps by making them vulnerable to ewar
They idea that the can carry only fighterbombers/ fighters sounds more than logic

Create a new counter to the supercaps, because the only reason there isa proliferation of supercarriers is because only thing against another super cap is another supercap
Repeat of rl history when the first dreadnoughbattleships were launced and several. Powers started a arms race to build enough new. Ships to counter the other party

May give the dreadnought some love making it a supercap killer by introducing a new module
The assault module , works like a siege module but is intended to kill ships of same size and bigger
Module when activated gives better tracking/explosion velocity, more mobility, faster lock times and much more resists for a short duration, do away with the cool down time , use is still lmited to the. Fuelconsumption , justa idea tho

Ultimate goal would be fleet battles where manouvering and fleet formations are just as important as. Fire power but i think for now that will only stay a wet dreamfor now

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.08.20 02:50:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Lolion Reglo on 20/08/2011 16:52:56
I recently chimed in on the small gang PvP page and i think the idea i had for there could also be scaled for large scale PvP fighting. The idea is formations, but for larger combat you would have to scale them up to include more ships. For example, if your fleet contains a number of a type of ships, then you get bonuses like leadership but its based on fleet composition. for example,

Every wing should posses a single or handful capital class ship. - dreadnaught squads will gain a bonus to siege (timers or power) based upon the number there are, and how many sub capital ships are present in the wings other squads. This makes a fleet contain sub capital ships in order to gain bonuses. Carrier fleets can get a bonus to fighter DPS if there is a group of frigates in the fleet, and frigates likewise get the same kind of DPS bonus. or carrier logistics could be boosted from a logistics wing or squad. this can also be applied to super caps and other ships.

Limit super capitals to designated Anti capital/Heavy structure ships. - As someone said earlier, remove the sup capitals fighters and make them fighter bomber only, they should have a support fleet around them for sub capital defense anyway. Limit supers and titans to null sec only, so low sec can be a lower difficulty level than null sec and give carriers and dreads more purpose there. make supers use more fuel to jump, making the logistics of moving these ships in large groups a little more daunting. Make the Titan DD a capital damaging weapon only, that way sub capital ships don't have to worry about being wiped out and more anti capital too.

[Edit]Create Sub systems for Capital ships. Running from a small amount for carriers and dreads to quite a few for titans and supers. This will aid fleets with smaller ships still be able to kill capitals by not only damaging some of their abilities and systems to taking a chunk away from their HP. For example you knock out the engineering bay of a carrier it gets a minus to its shield recharge and or armor repair. You knock out its sensor array it not only takes longer to target but your limited to one target only. Target a Carriers Launch strip you limit the number of fighters it can deploy at once. The sub systems can be determined by looking at what capital ship modules were used in constructing it. obviously ones like armor and such are pure HP but i would love to attack an enemies jump drive to strand him and keep him pinned. The capitals could also have a unique feature of in house repair to a working level... such as 50% HP on the sub system so if they survive the fight they aren't stranded for good until help arrives or more enemies kill you. [/Edit]

The idea behind these concepts is that large fleets can still blob if they want, and ignore fleet composition but to the FC who plans ahead for a fight, they can maximize their fighting ability and support ability with bonuses by getting bonuses for including sub caps in cap fleets granting greater power in a fight. how these bonuses scale will depend on what combinations are brought to the table and implemented by CCP but this opens the door for more tactics and strategy than just plain blobbing.

[Edit] I also think the remote rep limit should be considered too.

and as for the Super caps and titans it shouldn't be so much they cant hit smaller ships, it should be more that by giving them weapons that are only effective against ships of their class will make the need for a support fleet for those ships. SO i say remove a super caps fighters and only let it have fighter bombers. have it classified as anti capital but more cost effective than a titan. thats the roll i see for it.

I still think keeping these vessels out of null sec would give carriers and dreads more of a purpose then too. It gives them both defined rolls in that dreads and carriers are the main capitals of low sec and supers and titans are the kings of null. [/Edit]

Lord Zlok
Posted - 2011.08.20 06:21:00 - [54]
 

Edited by: Lord Zlok on 20/08/2011 16:32:18
Edited by: Lord Zlok on 20/08/2011 06:28:38
Edited by: Lord Zlok on 20/08/2011 06:25:02
Edited by: Lord Zlok on 20/08/2011 06:22:18
Problem - Lag, balance(Large vs Small Alliance), Blob of single ship type.

Solution - The Mechanics are already in game, only small changes are needed.

#1 - Sub system targeting on Capital ships only.
#2 - Food chain theory - Sigs modified via gang links in large battles(50 man FLeet+)- Make it so each ship type can only effectively hit/fight its own class and one class lower/higher.
***With the above two changes, Frigs/Destroyers/Cruisers now have a place, Capital Ship sub systems as they are almost immune to Cap/BS fire. Granted, CAP vs CAP and BS VS CAP is still possible, just would take a very long time due to the huge EHP buffer instead of taking out the sub systems. So each fleet would need them for taking on the caps as well as taking out their enemies smaller ships. Sub systems: Sheilds, Engines(Sub light or Warp), Weapons, etc ***
#3 - Remove Drones/Fighters from Carriers. Make them CARRIERS! Clone Vat bay them, they warp on seen and Deploy 50 Frig pilots or 30 Destroyers or 20 Cruisers or 10 Battle Cruisers or 5 Battle ships. The carrier can then give the fleet bonus(Gang link mentioned above, only when within range of its deployed ships) Defenses should be high, but its up to its deployed fighters to provide its offense. **Make Capitol Ships a CORP/ALLIANCE asset, not a one man gun slinger that it is today**Supers would just carrier more to the field**
#4 - Titans should be multi manned. I know alts and bots were brought up, but that would be impossible if you setup tasks for each pilot. For example, one pilot would fly the ship, 4 others would man gun turrets to defend the ship. Another would operate Engineering that could counter act the sub system attacks by transferring power from other systems. Alot of options here. Also remove the Titan Bridge, as now Carriers have a real ROLE in combat.

With the above changes, Capitals are effective but in a much more limited capacity than just blobs. Showing up with 400 battle ships, you would be owned if a few carriers showed up on grid full of frigs/cruisers. Fleets would be forced to diversify or die. No need to change or limit the structure of most game mechanics. These small tweaks would make every ship in the game effective, and capitals would be seen in more limited but amazing roll. **Super Cap or even just Capital blobs would fall to frigs/cruisers and battle cruisers making the blob battles a thing of the past.

As far as # of people on grid at a time.. I liked the idea of multiple objectives needing completion at the same time in different systems to win kinda thing. Maybe Shooting I-hubs or T-claim units in all systems in a constellation to take sov in any system.Or something like that.

Oh, on the Cyno thing.. Change Cyno's to 5 min timers and Make it so only one ship can jump to each Cyno. You want a large fleet, better have the support to get them there.... Maybe make a Dread or Carrier Cyno mod that Can cyno in multiple Caps but is stuck for 10 mins or longer.

Just my thoughts....Shocked

Draahk Chimera
Interstellar eXodus
Posted - 2011.08.20 08:37:00 - [55]
 

I am not going to make myself popular here but one thing that I think it's time to adress is a remote rep nerf. It has become a fact that you now cannot kill a single battleship under the consentrated fire of over 70 battleships. Some people will whine and cry but fact is that things have been nerfed before: nos, nanos, dual-mwd ravens, ECM multispec and so on. Yes there are counters but the counters need to be excact and precise and used at exactly the correct moment, where the 200 abbadons supported by 50 guardians can be kind of sloppy and still not loose a ship.

-Stacking nerf-

I also dont want to ruin logistics for smaller fleets and for PVE fleets. My suggestion is therefore to stacking nerf remote repair modules in such a way that 3-4, on the same target, works just fine but using more than say 6 would be quite useless. Also, this stacking nerf should only apply to ships as to still allow a fleet of carriers and logis to repair stations, iHUBs and so on.

Bass Player
Posted - 2011.08.20 12:50:00 - [56]
 

Edited by: Bass Player on 20/08/2011 14:52:28
My 2cents...

Titans are the last ship in EVE, the last dream of every pilot, the Epeen object of desire. This means lot of ISK, skills, time, logistic and more than 1 account to manage and keep alive one of these monsters. So i think they must be really monsters of the space.
Imho Titans must be allowed to lowsec (and SC too), because for example we use them to bridge fleets; we are a small pirate corp, and we live in lowsec. Titan bridges are part of different gameplay that we may do in lowsec. Could be fine the idea to use "scripts" for the DD. Some script for 0.0 with AOE with maximum target allowed (maybe based on skills), other script for the actual DD, maybe some script for lowsec (dunno something not too overpowered specific for lowsec).

For Supercapitals, imho the problem is that there is a too much proliferation of them. Maybe make more expensive move them (more fuel needed). For non capital targets problem, simply make them use only 10 fighters like a simple carrier (they may always use bombers in the number of 20). Maybe balance the EHP because there are SC that can tank like a Titan.

For large combats, i like the idea of the bonuses based on fleets compositions (frigates, cruisers, etc etc). I dont agree with idea that SC or Titans cannot shot non capital ships, because its right that everybody can kill everybody without limitations. Like in chess imagine if a Queen cannot kill a pawn.

BP.

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.08.20 16:55:00 - [57]
 

Updated my outlines for large combat.

Post 53

Strata Maslav
Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors
0ccupational Hazzard
Posted - 2011.08.20 23:21:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Draahk Chimera
I am not going to make myself popular here but one thing that I think it's time to adress is a remote rep nerf.


Remote repairing is a great facet to the game as it brings great teamwork to fleets and more flavor to battles.
Dedicated remote repair needs remain effective as the rewarding aspect of flying them is the fact that you feel your play is effective.

It is not necessary to nerf remote repair but being able to counter it could be quite a nice idea and could potentially add great ship diversity to fleets.

  • Activate a E-WAR module that would make the RR less effective on the target ship. There are several way to accomplish this:
    E-WAR that reduces remote repairs a % less effective. This % could be in fact ramp up over time so you might start with 10% reduction and when left on the ship for several cycles reach 50%. Alternative it could lose effective over time and therefor calling for ships to switch to the target ASAP and if there isnt' engh of a quick hit the ship would have a greater chance of survival. It depends whether CCP want people focus firing for large amounts of time or trying to switch targets to burst a ship down fast.


  • Similarly you could have a module that ramps up a Resistance Reduction to target ship. The disadvantage to this is that it changes more then just remote repair.


Dedicated Ships
The role should be given to smaller ships and should be vulnerable to those smaller ships creating an advantage to the fleet with small ship control. Ensure that the ship is also a dedicated to this role which would allow the enemy fleet to react to its presence and able to react to the threat according.

This could a field where new E-WAR frigates could be implemented and given great utility.

Creating a vulnerability for fleets who decide for what ever reason did not bring the appropriate small ship counter measures and giving an advantage to a more diverse and balanced group.

GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.21 03:14:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Draahk Chimera
I am not going to make myself popular here


ur not wrong!

Originally by: Draahk Chimera
It has become a fact that you now cannot kill a single battleship under the consentrated fire of over 70 battleships.

ive seen many ships die under the watchfull eye of an absolute ton of logis, you just need the right tools to do it! and no its not more DPS.

Originally by: Draahk Chimera
Yes there are counters but the counters need to be excact and precise and used at exactly the correct moment, where the 200 abbadons supported by 50 guardians can be kind of sloppy and still not loose a ship.



well 2 counters i know of being alpha and bombers tend to work pretty effectively and depending on how u deploy such things they can be very exact and very precise.

so unfortunately for you your argument fails on all accounts! try delving into other areas of Eve Online, and broaden your knowledge base.

Thankyouplease!

Zarnak Wulf
Posted - 2011.08.21 04:26:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud on 15/08/2011 17:21:50

im appalled that this hasn't been re-posted yet so im going to have to start it off!

nb - this is not my idea, but one of the best ideas ive seen for a while!

Originally by: Mioelnir
[Continue...]

Supercaps: While I am biased as the owner of half a supercarrier (or a full Hel in this case), I do not think supercaps can ever be truly balanced in a rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock fashion. From the background alone, they will either not live up to them at all and be close to worthless from a game tactics standpoint (leaving players disappointed), or they will pronounce their arrival on the battlefield in confident, bold letters. The last set of changes made supercap use explode, yes. But only because it stagnated for years. As players got older, numbers should have continually increased but did not.
The only people that got into them were basically doing it for the looks and the fluff (kind of similar to the reasons behind my Hel). So right now, we are seeing a big rebound to what the numbers should have been all along, meaning we should not overreact.

But, there are certainly tweaks that could and/or need to be made. Personally, I always find it incredible that you put a generic module on a frigate, and *boom* instant wormhole big enough for 250 Titans. Orly?! Often proposed is powering the jump drives up, but I think that is the right idea on the wrong side of the equation. Not the source should need to power up, but the target - the cyno.

So why not introduce a third cyno harmonic for supers, activated not by a feeble module, but a ship (event horizon style)?
This ship powers up and creates a cyno that needs cap with mechanics similar to w-space wormholes. Upon activation, and on its own cap, it can't sustain a cyno worth anything but could eventually be enough for one supercarrier if it survives long enough to increase its mass limit sufficiently. Now, if you want to move 40 supercarriers through it, you need to power it up. Feed it cap. Protect it. You need to run it for 7 minutes and constantly pump the output of 8-10 large energy transfer array IIs into it, to swell it to sufficient levels. You need an actual fleet protecting it, defending it, summoning the might of your fleet onto the battlefield. It is hard. It should be hard.
And if you succeed, it does have an impact. Your enemies' counter escalation is not instant either but needs to go through the same, and you can disrupt them like they tried to disrupt you. It is also a lot harder to have an escape cyno in place, so if you actually run into a trap, there is only fight and no flight.

Cyno Harmonic 1 (regular cyno): Dread, Carrier, JFreighter, Rorqual, BlackOps, Titan bridge
Cyno Harmonic 2 (covert cyno): BlackOps
Cyno Harmonic 3 (cyno ship): Supercarrier, Titan itself



+1.

To be honest- there's no sense of economy with supercaps. A vessel like that should be a massive AND an ongoing investment for a corporation/ alliance. Your infrastructure is developed to 'X', which allows you to support 'Y' supercapitals. But the cat is out of the bag so to speak so the above suggestion is one of the best ways to deal with them. Other ideas I like:

  • Increase the fuel needed to jump for supercapitals.
  • Make fighter bombers resupply after 'x' number of shots or minutes.
  • Introduce Interceptors whose sole purpose is to kill fighter bombers.
  • Give destroyers a bonus to kill fighters and fighter bombers.
  • Move Supercapital construction yards outside of POS shields.
  • Prevent supercapitals from leaving space after logoff.
  • Remove Supercarrier drone bays.
  • Make Doomsday a Arc of Fire weapon - can only shoot if target is withing a 45 degree arc of the front of the ship.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

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