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

PanKrolik
Posted - 2011.08.21 04:55:00 - [61]
 

Edited by: PanKrolik on 21/08/2011 04:56:55
There is another way to force smart use of supercaps instead of universal problem solver that can be moved from one end of eve to another in a day. Puting a limit on how many jumps or a distance a supercap can travel every day. If you are limited for example to 4 or x Ly jumps a day and after that you will start to get armor and structural damage. (it will give shield supers a small advantage since they will teake less damage ehp wise on additional jumps) On a 5th one is shouldnt be a big deal(max 20% of armor/structure) on 6th it would be bad. On 7th you are risking losing a ship. Suddenly its a completly different ball game. Under such limit super is a strategic tool. Should we drop them on that random passing gang or save it in cease of emergency. Should we deploy them in mass or leave some at home because we wont be able to drag them all the way and risk that it might not be possible to bring them back if lets say CSAA gets reinforced. It might also make dread more usefull because you can use them without limits saving supers to deploy in cease of emergency.

Reson for this is because we can already throw away traditional strategic games limits on such tools. Yes i am saying strategic because sov war is beyond normal mmo.
1. Fiscal limit. With current income and no super upkeep cost it dont work. Puting it now would be bad for those without supers.
2. Fuel limit with current income wouldnt work well. Still cost of moving supers should increase but it might be necessarty to think how it would affect pos fuel/normal caps.
3. Travel times and this is where where it is possible to do some changes. Jump range changes wont do much because players are using travel fits and cap chaining to reduce time on midpoints giving them ablitity to travel entire map in hours. Soo the only possible limit would be travel range limits.

Nasro Drags
Posted - 2011.08.21 20:43:00 - [62]
 

With the amount of lag you face in fleet battles, it's kind of pointless to think about anything else. Because one reason why fleet battles don't use diversified ships is lag.

What's the point of bringing electronic warfare ships, for instance, if your modules lock up due to lag, if you can't issue orders and have the game execute them?

Today I was in my first fleet battle, we were about 300 total (150 on 150 more or less) and the system lagged out. I almost felt like saying: "I was there... fighting in the lagfest"

Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
Posted - 2011.08.22 07:30:00 - [63]
 

Edited by: Nova Fox on 22/08/2011 07:31:05
New Weapons come to mind for large scale combat null sec oftenly occurs and its about time eve needs new niche to further increase roles.

The new weapons almost require large fleets to worker proper though there is little stopping thier use else where other than facilities.

A Tier 3 tech2 battleship that can deploy various fields (Flagships) with different effects (stealthing field, scatter field, stasis fields) though none of the fields can stack thier bonuses they can stagger to further a combined covereage.

Suicide Drones (Mines!) Tieing a low hp mine into the drone system prevents set it and forget it spam at a gate it also ensures that damage caused using mines is not sufficent enough to wipe out entire fleets but enough to knock thier teeth in when you try to slam the door on them. Newer ships or specialized ships existing can have larger drone bays to use the mines as a main but limited fire weapon.

Dogfight option - Allow drones (or fighters) the ability to dog fight, when set defensivly the drones only engage other drones in thier attack range. When set offensively they will attack all the drones of the currently drone targeted ship.

Grid to Grid weapon systems? I would like to ask if its technically possible? I would love some form of off site artillery bombardment and having specialized ships (minmatar racial target painter maybe?) raining down on an preoccupied fleet. Maybe even tie this to certain ships or structures.

This follows up with my next question

System to System weapon systems? Is it possible to launch missiles though a gate? Make some sort of door buster to clear around the gate and remove the mines and gate guns and possibly bubbles? Though highly innaccurate it may be possible if the money is to be burned to prevent the safe use of a gate though I think equipping a missile with jump drives is going to be awfully more expensive than the stealth bomber bombs.

If either of these are tied into a sturcutre then it would make it one of the goals to knock out with a large fleet or something to locate with a smaller gang and possibly try to hamper its use like taking out its ammo storage or targeting link sturcures.

Tech 2 Warfare Ganglinks - Instead of a gang link that does something better make it able to stack with an existing ganglink instead this forces the use of two links for the same benifit.

More warfare ganglink options - in an age of ships able to equip 3 ganglinks and there are only 3 in each catagory the options are pertty limited to which ones should be fitted. If every catagory had maybe 6 ganglinks players would then have to consider how to best fit the fleet.

AOE Heal Smartbombs? not sure how effective players may use this option but when there are alot of targets to be delt with and having to be healed it may be a proper option if everything around you is falling apart.



Defiah Kadeyooh
Posted - 2011.08.22 18:04:00 - [64]
 

As ppl have pointed out in other threads; Ease of movement and ability to cross large distances in a very short amount of time is detrimental to 0.0 game. Not only for fleetfights, but also for smallscale pvp, local production & markets and the ability for smaller entities to grab smaller pokets of space for themselves. Probably more as well.

EVE has grown from being wast to a small poket of space that you can cross from one end to the other in like an hour and a half. This makes it so easy to gather the blobs that reduce large combat to a slideshow and "who loads first wins" type of game. 0.0 today isn't only about capital and supercapital force projection. it's also about subcap force projection, and that comes from the ease of travelling!

EVE has grown to become so small that you can call on friends from afar to CTA's and theres no effort getting there. Thus loads of ppl gather to fight and that ends up with crashed servers, slideshows, shiplosses from blackscreens and ppl not being able to log back in and so forth. I dont need 1000 vs 1000 to have a "epic" fight... 300 vs 300 would do easily!

So by decreasing the ease of travel, hopefully large combat, small combat, local production and what not would all benefit. For instance bring back the "warp to 15" would make battleshipsblobs move quite alot slower, and maybe would have to make the choice between moving quicker and expose parts of the fleet for ambush or to be picked at or move very slowly. Reinforcemetns would be further out, the blobs would be smaller. Less ppl would bother travelling the greater distances for CTAs as it wont only take 30 mins home. If one were to combine this with reduced range on jump portals or the simple removal of them as well as changing titan portals to either a wormholelike type which wont let a 400 man bs fleet jump through at once, im convinced youd end up with much more local fights and thus reduce the blobs so our gameplay could improve.

  • Ease of travelling makes it too easy to gather too many ppl for large scale fights to be any fun.
  • It makes everyone get to the same spot too easily, thus making attacks on reinforcements or parts of the blob itself impossible
  • "Too epic" fights aren't epic at all. Not for the players and not for the servers


Things that might alleviate this somewhat
  • Remove warp to 0 again
  • Change the way jump bridges work, or reduce their ranges to make it harder to quickly formup on roaming gangs
  • Change the Titan Portals to wormholelike-function that only allows a certain mass to go through or reduce their range
  • Reduce range on capitals and change the way supers move


Added benefits as making Jita further away isn't bad either...

Agente
Posted - 2011.08.23 07:33:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: Defiah Kadeyooh
For instance bring back the "warp to 15" would make battleshipsblobs move quite alot slower


I really like the idea of the return of Warp to 15. Besides large fleets, it will also increase small fleet battles because it wont be so easy to run away and will force combats.

The only point is that the way to get it is by adding a warp disruption bubble to the gate, to avoid going back to the times of waypoints placed in such a way that you land on top of the gate.

PanKrolik
Posted - 2011.08.23 09:17:00 - [66]
 

Warp to 15 wont change much other than making server choke with those hundreds of thousants 0 bookmarks once more. A 5-6 ppl would be able to bm entire region in hours then just copy bm for lets say 20 other ppl that would copy them for rest of the fleet. Half hour later fleet is able to move around with ease and sever has few thousants new bm to choke on. The noobs will die everyone else will have 0 bookmarks.

Kogh Ayon
Posted - 2011.08.23 12:12:00 - [67]
 

I think people have not been used to the large combats yet, lots of potentials have not been invented, just leave it alone.....

Defiah Kadeyooh
Posted - 2011.08.23 13:00:00 - [68]
 

Just make it so that you cant make bms close to gates

Keddaj Diemos
Posted - 2011.08.23 16:12:00 - [69]
 

Edited by: Keddaj Diemos on 23/08/2011 16:27:46
Just want to throw in my view:

I absolutely LOVE the idea of huge fleet battles, and that's the biggest reason I joined Eve Online. But, after the learning curve, I learned that all I would be doing would be listening to someone calling out a target, shoot it, call out a target, shoot it...rinse repeat. Until I have viable decisions to make myself as a ship captain, fleet battles will continue to be boring, and non-epic for me. Keep resubbing to Eve because I LOVE the idea, but I never make it the full month before I unsub again thinking, eh.

One possible design which would encourage full fleet engagement:
Ship damage. I know this is always on the forums, but it's where Eve needs to be. Ships need to have their operational effectiveness decline the instant they start to receive enemy fire sufficient to their size class - not after their tanking ability fails and they blow up. Tanking can support survival of the ship itself, but not maintain it's combat ability. If I know that by hammering a battleship with my battlecruiser for even 30sec, the battleship's damage output will be measurably lower for a significant duration of the battle, it gives me a reason to do something different than my 30 fleet-mates.

Strata Maslav
Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors
0ccupational Hazzard
Posted - 2011.08.23 22:09:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Strata Maslav on 24/08/2011 02:28:22
Edited by: Strata Maslav on 24/08/2011 02:23:09


Support Pyramid

As i explained in my large post on page 2 in greater detail large fleets should be more like a support pyramid. A larger quantity of smaller ships supporting larger ships and in engagements you would fight for superiority among ships of a similar class.


The Dream...


'Frigates dodging and weaving between carriers and battleships; dog fighting enemy small ships. Battleships looking into the distance blasting chunks out of the other big guns'


...Made Reality

You and your friends flying frigates aim to take out the opposition's small ship support. Once you overcome your competition you have an easy pickings on the larger ships left vulnerable; an advantage that helps you and your allies win the battle.

This style would benefit increased ship diversity and subcommanders leading ships of a certain size against their immediate enemies.

Fleets with a unbalanced support pyramids would find themselves disadvantaged against a more thought out and diverse fleet composition.
This would effect Supercapital blobbing; you should NOT be able to drop pure caps and super caps without frigates/cruiser/battleship support. Not to mention giving a lower level entry for younger pilots!

There is a much more detail post in which the issues preventing this and ideas on implementation: Detail


This is vision of eve battles that you see in all EVE promo trailers and SCI-FI fleet fights!

Its what we want CCP.

Dream BIG.

Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Posted - 2011.08.24 04:52:00 - [71]
 

Edited by: Zey Nadar on 24/08/2011 04:52:56
Heres a quote from evenews24:
Quote:
Last night, another -A- system fell to RA and friends. Local in GE-8JV was filled with Russian as the final counter ticked down. -A- allies had formed up sub cap fleets and were holding ready to harass the attacking fleet while -A- formed up their super cap and cap fleets. Cursors hovered over the jump command as scouts reported the state of local. The defenders counted their numbers while looking wide eyed at the reports of what was sitting in GE. The attacking force knew they outnumbered the defenders both numerically and in terms of firepower. The number of titans they brought to the system was simply staggering, let alone the super carriers. They were so secure in their control of the system that more than once through the night they warped titans to various locations to accomplish tasks normally handled by industrial ships without escort.
.. One Rag pilot was so bored he started chasing down a dram scout, warping from gate to gate, in an attempt to doomsday the scout. He was denied the killmail, in the end however, when it fell into an Armor-HAC gang bubble at a planet.


Something obviously needs to be done about the supercap proliferation, I would like to hear CCP open up what they are going to do about it, as we aren't likely to hear objective analysis about it from the players. At least give us something to discuss so we aren't stuck with "kill all supercaps" posts. The problem obviously is that you cant fight supercaps with anything else than supercaps.

Captain Black Jack
Posted - 2011.08.24 08:24:00 - [72]
 

Edited by: Captain Black Jack on 24/08/2011 08:28:15
What if one could rig Jumpgates to self-destruct with a blast wave powerfull enough to destroying all ships and structures in that system?

In " The Lost Fleet " Novel and Babylon 5 this technique was used to destroy hostile superior forces.

Captain Black Jack
Posted - 2011.08.24 08:49:00 - [73]
 

Capital ships have to much HP for sub-capital DPS ships to be effective.

What if Capital Ships had subsystems that could only be targeted by sub-capital ships? Loosing this subsytems wont destroy them, but could render then useless in one field or another. Perhapes force them to retreat from the battlefield?

Nova Soldier
Caldari
ROMANIA Renegades
ROMANIAN-LEGION
Posted - 2011.08.24 15:46:00 - [74]
 

Until they rebalance the capital ships, i am afraid there won't be any Large Scale Combat.

GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.24 23:22:00 - [75]
 

Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud on 24/08/2011 23:26:05

Theres a lot of things wrong with battles at the moment come to think of it. a lot of it stems from minor oversights and game mechanics that have been overlooked when new larger ships we implemented.

Quite importantly, ship damage.

Ships currently if they receive hull damage, end up having their top speed reduced slightly, and this tbh is pretty poor.
I find it ridiculous that a ship can be pulverized to the point its got 3% hull or something and still be fully operational with only a slight reduction in top speed!! WTF??

Modules should offline and/or be irreparably damaged when receiving hull damaged, speed should be drastically reduced and/or warp drives should become non functional at extreme damage levels regardless of if armor and shield levels have been repped back up.


Quade Warren
Posted - 2011.08.25 00:42:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Tippia
Hmm… I suppose this should go in here instead:

Just one thing…
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
  • Decisions beat numbers
    • It should always be the case that inferior numbers can win with superior decision-making. Large fleets should be much less about who has the most ships and much more about who has the smartest commanders and sub-commanders.

…good luck.

Yup, it's a non-trivial exercise, for sure, but there are other avenues we can explore as well. Sensor noise, ways to strip off elements of other fleets, new tools that force new tactics, that sort of thing. Honestly I have a suspicion that the way fleet combat is conducted today is already pretty inefficient in principle, it's just that the tools don't exist to delegate properly and there's only so much a single FC can think about at once.


I think you're butting up against a wall that cannot be broken with current weapon mechanics. I have read most of the posts on this thread and I've noticed a common factor... they are comparing fleet combat in Eve with real life combat. The reason you have squad based combat at all is due to limiting factors, such as terrain and general line of sight, just to name a few. These factors are completely negated in Eve because there is no weapon based collision detection (evil phrase, sorry) in this game. In reality, I believe the pilots in this game are using the current system very efficiently, because they're realizing that there is no limit when numbers come into play.

Eve has no reason to support squad based combat because it is ultimately more inefficient than a single well trained FC utilizing a fleet of homogenous ships at proper ranges with proper ammunition. Tactically, this is actually better than a heterogeneous squad because losing a percentage of ships to enemy fire in this situation does not truly limit your forces ability to strategically engage, thus their center of gravity cannot be broken, as Von Clausewitz would say.

Additionally, there is a limit on the control that can be implemented due to third party software, such as Vent or TS. Even if there were factors in game that would limit fleets to target or lock a single target for alpha strikes, it could still be overcome by out of game communication. Eve's player base has demonstrated an enthusiasm about the game that, imho, is unrivaled in the creation of third party software or website support. So, in effect, I believe placing in game limiting mechanics would result in development only pushing this problem up hill. You're pitting your cleverness against the collective cleverness of your player base. Statistically you're just not going to beat them.

Let me try an example. Sensor noise on grid due to proximity (probably not healthy for processors) or just the sheer number of ships on a single grid will be a bandaid. Players WILL figure out a way around this, it will become an obstacle to overcome, not a mechanic to work with. At worst, I think it could result in limiting the number of ships players want to bring to a large engagement because of the cumulative effect. Granted, I'm only speculating on how you'd implement this. From there, you cycle smaller scale fleets onto larger fleets, focus fire and then bail as another fleet is just starting to warp in. Actually, now that I think about it, that would be pretty cool, but it would be ultimately a work around. It's guerrilla tactics, but not for the reason of using guerrilla tactics, it's because the game has limiting factors. <- This is possibly a bad example.

I have no real recommendations, I'm unfortunately just nay-saying. My only true recommendation, now that I backpedal, is to begin implementing collision detection in battle with weaponry. That forces the use of formations, maneuvers, you name it. Otherwise, it's all a bunch of bandaids. You are proud of your players because they surprise you. They won't stop doing that.

Cloak Ghost
Posted - 2011.08.25 07:13:00 - [77]
 

Some interesting ideas. biggest issue with large fleet battles is lag, i know time dilation is being looked at but big fights take long enough as they are and i cant see folks wanting to take even longer, also its not the matrix. so i think the fundamental thing is that it needs to be looked at is trying to stop the lag not try to get round it.

As sugested super caps are way too powerfull, with the rmt and botting some alliance just have way way too much isk and can buy any they want to (pretty sure we all know who that is). Your never gonna stop that, so your left with two options, one, nerf the hell out of them so there not so good, or two how about creating an anti supercap ship. Is allowed to lock, tackle and jam a super, could be a capital ship so tanks well and means that a supercap fleet can be countered, meaning that a big isk outlay of super caps isn't as effective any more. Maybe dreads could be tweeked to fill this role, give them some bonus's that only work on supercaps, so doesn't over power the dread, but does gi eyou more options engaging a supercap blob.

As far as out manouvering sronger fleets, it does happen even now, i dont think that needs to be looked at, a good FC will engage on there own terms or GTFO. Players come up with some mega setups that confound even the best FC's. Kite gangs are a good example of this.


Agnemon
Posted - 2011.08.25 11:04:00 - [78]
 

I personally, would love to see the opportunity to specialize within fleets. seems to me the only use for squads within a fleet is that is where you put the fleet members.
Why not allow squads to specialize.

Examples,

ECM squad:
Say 5 members, 3 ECM boats, a remote repper and a point man. The point man warps in to the warp in
point, the other members warp to him, point then warps out to make a warp out point. structure the
squad interface to allow default warping to the point man, allow the repper to select repping targets
from the squad interface.

Light Attack Squad:
Counterpoint to the ECM squad would be a point man in a recon to get in close, then warp in the
cavalry.

Stealth bombers:
Point man to give warp in / warp out locations, allow squad members to see each other even when
cloaked.
Squad uncloak and launch etc

Scout Squad:
Designated chat channel (one assumes the Fleet / Wing commanders with have this open)
Prefix the star system name to the scouts name in the chat window

Allow formation flying within the squad ( orbit center @ range , maintain range etc). Make formation flying a skill (High rank).

Make the changes to the squad interface to facilitate this.(warp to point man button etc) allow the squad to warp in it's chosen formation.

Extend this to wings as well, this would promote the situation where Fleet commanders designate tasks to wing commanders who then delegate to individual squads.

Advantages of doing this

  • Gives a clear training path for future FC's.
    Allows the development of real FLEETS, not just large blobs of ships.
    Allows players to specialize within a fleet.
    Makes Fleet management more granular which will ease the load on FC's.




Quade Warren
Posted - 2011.08.25 13:47:00 - [79]
 

Edited by: Quade Warren on 25/08/2011 14:01:57
Originally by: Agnemon
I personally, would love to see the opportunity to specialize within fleets. seems to me the only use for squads within a fleet is that is where you put the fleet members.
Why not allow squads to specialize.

Examples,

ECM squad:
Say 5 members, 3 ECM boats, a remote repper and a point man. The point man warps in to the warp in
point, the other members warp to him, point then warps out to make a warp out point. structure the
squad interface to allow default warping to the point man, allow the repper to select repping targets
from the squad interface.

Light Attack Squad:
Counterpoint to the ECM squad would be a point man in a recon to get in close, then warp in the
cavalry.

Stealth bombers:
Point man to give warp in / warp out locations, allow squad members to see each other even when
cloaked.
Squad uncloak and launch etc

Scout Squad:
Designated chat channel (one assumes the Fleet / Wing commanders with have this open)
Prefix the star system name to the scouts name in the chat window

Allow formation flying within the squad ( orbit center @ range , maintain range etc). Make formation flying a skill (High rank).

Make the changes to the squad interface to facilitate this.(warp to point man button etc) allow the squad to warp in it's chosen formation.

Extend this to wings as well, this would promote the situation where Fleet commanders designate tasks to wing commanders who then delegate to individual squads.

Advantages of doing this

  • Gives a clear training path for future FC's.
    Allows the development of real FLEETS, not just large blobs of ships.
    Allows players to specialize within a fleet.
    Makes Fleet management more granular which will ease the load on FC's.






Actually, I take back what I had previously said. Agnemon's post just gave me an idea. Why not really tie in leadership skills into squads like the above described? For instance, take the current buffer skills, like Siege Warfare or Information Warfare, and actually have those limit FC's on what types of ships may fly under their command. It's probably pretty difficult to do, but if you tier it appropriately and actually limit what types of ships can be in a squad, you might see more specialized combat, even in small fleet fights. Let me briefly explain.

It wouldn't be much different than the racial restrictions on a corporation, except that it would apply to ships. I want to fly a small gang or a large fleet, it doesn't matter, with a mixture of logistics, ECM and straight up DPS. In order to have so many members in a squad that will utilize ECM ships, you need so many levels in Information Warfare (this is a placeholder, probably would need a different skill). Other current skills, such as Wing Command or Fleet Command, multiply the number of these ships you can have under your command, but there is maximum limit.

Who wants to limit the size of these fleets? So now you have delegated sub-commanders who have the same skills and can control the same number of ships as you, only they are controlling a portion of the master fleet. Finally, add a leadership skill that delegates how many of these sub-commanders you can have under your FC's command and it is possible you have the beginnings of squad based, specialized combat.

Thanks to Agnemon for the idea!

Edit: I'm aware that there are fleet limitations already in place like that described above, but some of the current leadership skills are not really necessary to fly large fleets. They're a bonus, but the bonuses provided are not substantial enough unless you are using gang links, at least from what I can tell. That also just makes you a nice primary target. Putting something in place that would actually shape the nature of your fleets by ALLOWING diversity would be a bonus. Hell, maybe even a leadership skill that determines how many different races of ships you can have?

Lt Soontodie
Posted - 2011.08.26 00:00:00 - [80]
 

Edited by: Lt Soontodie on 26/08/2011 00:06:37
I'll take a shot and put up some unfinished thoughts.

Specialisation is good, if you give us more targets/goals to do other than "put maximum DPS on X" it will quickly become too much for one FC to manage, which - in my book - is a good thing. Players organising themselves in Scout/Logistics channels and only reporting "results" to the main FC are a good examples. Those "minor tasks" should be reasonably easy to manage to provide a starting point for those that want to go down the FC path.


How about - Every ship class can ONLY KILL the same class of ship effectively. You should be able to harass and bother other classes of ships, but if for example you run out of frigates your fleet should have a problem.

Examples: trying to shoot a frigate with a battleship - forget it. If it is that single frigate warp scrambling you the best chance is to pop out some drones (which I see as just another - the smallest - ship class) which will - over time - eat away that frigate. But if you need to get out quickly you better have some small support ready to kill that hostile support.

It ties in nicely with the mentioned idea of sub system/module targeting. A group of cruisers might be able to disable a carriers jumpdrive, but to kill it off you need at least a good number of battleships. Cue that with specialised frigates (EWAR, Drone killers, anti-support, frigs with scrambling bonuses?) and you might get a system where a BS fleet could be crippled by a frig/cruiser gang - althought the support would take ages to actually kill some of the big guys.

In return, those subsystems might just be too small a target for the big guys - if you want to take out a Titans jumpdrive you better come with hordes of frigates (not that the subsystem has so many HP, but its sig radius is REALLY small so you want to send a lot of frigs for one to get lucky and hit that single exhaust tunnel on the planet destroyer ... oh wait ... :-)


In game terms (thats where the "unfinished thoughts" part comes in :)

1. Add subsystems (and modules) as possible targets to big ships (capitals, maybe BS)
2. "Widen the spread" of
- tracking (making it practically impossible for BS guns to hit a frig)
- Damage output and HP balance by shiptype/gun type (if you want to kill the big guys you need to bring the big guys - or a lot of time - but anti-support BS with small guns might suddenly be an option)


The beauty of this scheme - as far as I can think now - is a relatively easy implementation within existing game mechanics.


-----

Also, +1 on the above mentioned

- moar powa to the clone vat bay. frigs will probably still die quickly to hostile support, give the player a quick way to get back in the game/fight (a Titans clone bay or ship maintainance bay (think "launch hangar") might be the logical secondary after taking out its jump drive)

- "Wormhole"-Mechanics for cynos - to bring in a lot of capitals it takes time to create a wormhole big enough. Maybe cue with capital-sized cyno mods (quicker wormhole/cyno generation - "Support kill that cyno generator NOW")

ChromeStriker
Posted - 2011.08.26 10:11:00 - [81]
 

Break the back of the blob.
Mitigate lock tymes, damage, ecm effects, depending on fleet size (lots of smaller fleets banding together) this would throw a spanner in the works for logi, ecm, target calling, and damage profiles (delayed alphas between fleets).
ship size (capitals) would also have to be a factor, bring 2 or 3 you get an advantage, drop 20 on grid everything gets messed up sensor strength/range ect.
Or Something like that anyway Rolling Eyes

Evva Ready
Posted - 2011.08.26 12:47:00 - [82]
 

BIG FLEETS = BIG LAG ISSUES
SORT OUT THE LAG BEFORE EVEN DISCUSSING ANYTHING ELSE
CMON NOOBS FFS

Psi Omicron
Posted - 2011.08.26 13:46:00 - [83]
 


Currently Supercapitals blobs are just completely over powered compared to other ship classes. I am sure that you didn't expect 100 Supercarrier fleets and 50 Titan fleets. Right now these exist and as such the game is almost broken and the problem is getting worse since manufacturing it outpacing losses. IMO right now the game would be better off with their complete removal. As I doubt this will occur, a sever nerf to them relative to their ability to defend against sup-capital ships is needed. This includes the Titan. 50 Titans can pretty much DD a battleship class fleet in 10 to 20 minutes. As to how to balance I think there are a large number of options from removal of supercapitals to extremely limiting their ability to damage sub-capital class ships. I am not even sure that they should do as much damage against carrier and dreadnought, as these ships right now are very sparingly used due to the overpowered nature of supercapitals

On Fleet Battleship - Battlecruiser level fights; there are just limited option to what produces and effective fleet. Gun and Missile balance is completely out of whack right now relative to logistics. The ability to alpha strike a ship pretty much make logistics irrelevant and the only gun that can perform in that matter is a artillery. The only other even close option for a viable Battleship fleet is Pulse Abbadons. Rails and Cruise missile are borked. IMO I can live with this for now, as long as the supercapital issue is fixed.

Achaiah7
Posted - 2011.08.26 17:28:00 - [84]
 

I like the idea of big super-barges. Maybe you can turn supercaps into those or something. Basically, to enjoy PvP on a large scale you want to make sure that you make a difference. I would love to see fights go on for an hour or two instead of the current 10 min pew pew until the superblob cynoes in. Imagine a fleet of 200 pilots on either side that is able to reship and get back into a fight in the same system ... without doing 292873 jumps. And then imagine ability to destroy those barges so that you can send one of the sides packing with a well-timed and maybe a sneaky blow. What fleet have you ever seen in real life that does not travel with a main base + lots of support? You want a sustained (but movable) presence. Heck, at the extreme, you could imagine large structures (read DeathStar) moving around maybe one jump per day and provide a mobile and ever-changing tactical landscape. Then you'd need intel to keep track of these structures, and you'd need new supply lanes to keep them operational, and small gangs could disrupt those supplies with a well-timed attack and you'd get very varied PvP!

The other suggestion I had is regarding fleet fights in general. There should be a system in place to prioritize targets beyond bubblers and logis. We already have fleet "boss" so why not make that role more important but also make him harder to kill. You already have that concept in PvE (and in real life). So maybe, without the boss being alive, the fleet cannot maintain it's maximum size and so it breaks up into chunks that then have harder time coordinating the attack. Now we're talking about strategy and each fleet commander will have to decide whether to go for the other fleet's boss or grind through bubblers & logi like they used to.

Courtesan Anna
Posted - 2011.08.27 03:52:00 - [85]
 

What about an area effect capability for dreads? meaning, in siege mode, dreads do splash damage. not an insane amount of damage, but lets say deploying 20-30 dreads in siege would be able to easily kill fighter/fighter bombers that are clustered around a target, as well as forcing large fleets to fight in a way that isnt a blob/fist formation. This would hinder concepts like a-hacs considerably, and change fleet concepts to cover more distance and focus on mobility(possibly could bring back old school sniper bs's).
in its current state, fleet fights arent always close range, but adding a dynamic to the game that isnt akin to the offensive and defensive line of american football would be nice....(line people up, someone says hike, crash into people, dust settles). not every strategic, and not terribly fun to watch.... where it gets fun is when the action is centered around the periphery. ie qb, rb, receivers.
while this is a lame comparison, and doesnt translate particularly well to pvp in EVE, it is an area where large fleet fights could use some work....

Christos Hendez
Warhamsters
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2011.08.27 15:19:00 - [86]
 


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



---------

needs to be said again and again.

Nova Soldier
Caldari
ROMANIA Renegades
ROMANIAN-LEGION
Posted - 2011.08.29 00:02:00 - [87]
 

Well in Large Combat these days we have a subcap fleet that is 80% ballanced (see Gallente) and we have the capital fleet that is totally unbalanced for the capital ships and subcapitals.

Someone mentioned above about a new type of cyno / cyno ship specialy for the Supercaps that is a good ideea.

Supercarrier: Reduce the number of fighters/fighter bombers to 1/2 and add 100% bonus. Hopefully you reduce the lag.
- maybe add like someone else said, a "triage" like module to allow the usage of fighter bombers.
- Reduce the EHp of the supercarrier to be under the titan Ehp and not above it.
- Remove the remote repping ability and force the usage of the Carrier as a logistic platform
- Remove ability to engage sov structures (See Dreads)

Titan : - Having an "I win" Button that kills every subcap is just weird, so maybe make DD to targhet capitals only.
- Make the guns on the titan to be less effective on a Battleship.Insta Battleships with titan guns is frustrating.

Dreads : when they were introduced in eve they were meant for tacking out the sov structure of it's time (Pos). In our time they are usseless with the introduction of supercarriers.
- So adding them some extra Hp to make them usefull once more in capital combat.
- Add some extra damage to make them usefull against Sov Structure.
- Reduce Siege Time to 5 min and 50% less stront.

Carrier : they are ok balanced for what they are, a logistical platform for capitals and subcapitals as well.

I sincerely hope this Feedback helps out.

Sinooko
Gallente
The Night Wardens
Viro Mors Non Est
Posted - 2011.08.29 09:02:00 - [88]
 

Please make this priority!

Oluap Seuqirneh
Posted - 2011.08.29 21:45:00 - [89]
 

Edited by: Oluap Seuqirneh on 29/08/2011 21:57:50
The biggest issue at the moment in Large engagements are the SC's unbalance. A lto of people already provided very good solutions to a Super carriers balancing. Regarding Titans a way to actually balance the ship would be a minimal cap to actually fire it.

Pretty much like you need 95% capacitor to online a weapon. The DD would require 95% cap to actually be fired, not counting the fuel to fire it also. It makes all the sense really since a DD is a weapon that requires a lot of power to do what it does. So if a Titan pilot fires the DD it actually dries is cap and until it reaches the 95% limit will not be able to fire it again. So this will be an added risk to Titan pilots, since as soon he fires the DD he will not be able to jump out for a (big) while also. It will depend of Titan pilots to reformulate is fits in order to choose resistance and EHP or fit to recover cap asap.

If the Titan Pilots want to waist their DD's in sub caps ... well it's their problem...

The final objective would be to effectively limit the number of DD that can actually be fired by a fleet of titans.

EI Digin
Caldari
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.08.29 22:55:00 - [90]
 

The problem with supercaps/titans is that currently the only true way to kill a fleet of them is to have more numbers than the other side. It's difficult to fight that because most of the fights will be simply over once that side drops their supers in, and because the subcapital fleet simply cannot handle the magnitude of capital ships people can drop, and there is no way that a counter-drop will occur by the group with less numbers, fights are mostly predetermined.

Like I stated in my previous post, the solution is to buff SUPPORT CLASSES (logi, i'd go as far as saying carriers too) so that every fight isn't a huge DPS race, and to draw the fights out so that they take longer. This means that if you want to deploy supercaps, you better be damn sure that your subcap fleet is going to be able to handle the other fleet's subcap fleet. If the fleet fights take longer, you also have the ability to pick off straggling supercaps at cyno midpoints, and alliances would be more ready to use supercaps against a foe who doesn't have quite as many supercaps, but have the subcap advantage or a tactical advantage.

Because the larger capital ships have so much EHP, it's difficult to kill a supercap within the 15 minute logoff timer. It's saddening to see a pinned down enemy supercap (entire fleets in some cases) disappear because they were able to log off in time, turning game-changing victories into simply modest ones. This issue needs to be addressed.

I would also suggest limiting carriers and supercarriers to a fighter/fighterbomber bay and have a much smaller drone bay to make it more difficult (but not impossible!) to attack smaller ships. Dreads also need 5 minute siege timers, potentially give them enough ehp to survive a DD. Titan gun tracking should also be looked at.

Titan doomsdays on subcaps are mostly fine. If you're going to direct your titans to doomsday subcapitals, that means you can cyno in carriers who can rep or dreadnaughts to mess up an enemy's fleet without dying the second they are on grid!


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