open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked [Discussion] Role Diversity and Hull Tiers
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Sin Meng
Gallente
Creative Assembly
Posted - 2011.08.17 19:51:00 - [1]
 

Quote:
Diverse fleets
There should be good reasons to field a diverse fleet at this scale, with as many ship classes as possible having a clear reason to be fielded. Diversity here allows more players to fly the sorts of ships that they prefer in large fights; it allows players to specialize more and have that specialization mark them out from others; and it creates more tactical options which should make the fights more interesting. Homogeneous fleets are workable but bland.

-CCP Greyscale Source (Large Combat Heading)



CCP's desire for more diverse fleet makeups is very clear. The intention of this thread is to discuss what I believe to be two major obstacles in making this desire a reality: . While the above quote is referring to large scale combat (100+ ships), I believe these two issues affect fleets of all sizes, so I'd like to have a broader discussion about them. This thread is meant more to generate food for thought than to advocate for specific changes to any given ships or modules, so please keep that in mind.


Role Diversity

For the sake of this issue there are two major questions to be answered:

Are there enough different primary roles (DPS, Logistics, E-War, Tackling / Interdiction, Scouting) in the game to adequately promote the use of diverse fleets?

Are the differences between ship classes and hulls within the same general role (ex. Ares vs. Malediction, Moros vs. Revelation, Tempest vs. Apocalypse) conducive to player choice as opposed to one being declared significantly "better" than the other?


Hull Tiers

Currently basic T1 hulls (As in NOT T2, Faction, or Pirate variants) are tiered to accommodate the following design idea:

Frigate, cruiser, battlecruiser, battleship, mining barge, and industrial hulls have a "progression tier" setup. From the perspective of a new player this would make perfect sense; you enter a new hull size and you start off with the cheaper "entry level" ship and upgrade to the higher tier ones once you have better skills and the money to afford them. However this design breaks down when the skill and cost issues change from being barriers to entry into relevant but certainly less important figures to consider. As players grow in skillpoints and wealth, the "entry level" ships become less and less attractive compared to their higher level tiermates (This is particularly true of battlecruisers, mining barges, and industrials).

I believe this flies in the face of promoting diverse fleets. A Celestis should be just as good at providing e-war support and light damage as a Vexor is at dealing heavy turret and drone-based damage. A Ferox should be just as good at dealing turret-based damage as a Drake is at dealing missile-based damage.


I'll not delve too far into my own opinions about these things because I want this thread to be a discussion, not dissolve into "argue with the OP." Please post your thoughts and try to keep it civil and productive. Again please try to refrain from nitpicking anyone one ship, module, weapon class, etc. Think overarching design philosophy.

Drakan Ichor
Posted - 2011.08.17 20:15:00 - [2]
 

Originally by: Sin Meng
I believe this flies in the face of promoting diverse fleets. A Celestis should be just as good at providing e-war support and light damage as a Vexor is at dealing heavy turret and drone-based damage. A Ferox should be just as good at dealing turret-based damage as a Drake is at dealing missile-based damage.


A lot of the issues with this idea boil more down to imbalances in weapon/ewar types than with the ships themselves.

For example the Brutix looks every bit as awesome as the Myrm in eft, but the limitations of blasters in practise make it a bit of a lame duck, ditto the Ferox vs the drake (although you do get the option of ACs over hybrids there I guess). Likewise, ewar support cruisers being as handy in their role as the DPS cruisers, celestis and scythe are crap because their respective ewar types are crap. Would you rather have an extra blackbird or an extra caracal in your fleet?

stoicfaux
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.17 20:25:00 - [3]
 

Diversity increases complexity which makes managing fleets more difficult and thus unappealing. Diversity of ships, ammo, and modules also complicates logistics.

Of course a potential pitfall to making diversity practical is that you make everything superficially diverse. Cosmetically ACs, Blasters, and HAMs look different but they wind up having similar range and damage profiles. Diversity without depth.

Case in point would be Shield fleets versus Armor fleets. If you can solve the problem of mixing shield and armor RR in the same fleet without introducing a Generic RR module that repairs both shields and armor, then you're well on the way to solving the diversity problem you described.


Vaurion Infara
Gallente
Beyond Divinity Inc
Posted - 2011.08.18 01:01:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Vaurion Infara on 18/08/2011 01:02:57
Originally by: Sin Meng

I believe this flies in the face of promoting diverse fleets. A Celestis should be just as good at providing e-war support and light damage as a Vexor is at dealing heavy turret and drone-based damage. A Ferox should be just as good at dealing turret-based damage as a Drake is at dealing missile-based damage.






^ This. The difference in quality between the tiers of tech 1 sub-battleships is not justifiable. Price, skills required, and ease of acquisition are all too similar throughout the classes to make the "progression tier" theory valid. The current situation of the entire cruiser and battlecruiser classes being dominated by 3-4 ships each is ridiculous, and just encourages people to overlook two thirds of the ships in the game.

tikktokk tokkzikk
Switchblade Incorporated
Posted - 2011.08.18 08:55:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: stoicfaux

Case in point would be Shield fleets versus Armor fleets. If you can solve the problem of mixing shield and armor RR in the same fleet without introducing a Generic RR module that repairs both shields and armor, then you're well on the way to solving the diversity problem you described.



Like a RR module with script?

RR module w/o script: 25 shield, 25 armor
RR module w/ shield script: 75/100 shield
RR module w/ armor script: 75/100 armor

Each logistic keeps its bonii and get a new bonus for its script (e.g. Guardian get a bonus to armor script)

Is this the fix you are looking for?

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
Posted - 2011.08.18 10:06:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: tikktokk tokkzikk
Originally by: stoicfaux

Case in point would be Shield fleets versus Armor fleets. If you can solve the problem of mixing shield and armor RR in the same fleet without introducing a Generic RR module that repairs both shields and armor, then you're well on the way to solving the diversity problem you described.



Like a RR module with script?

RR module w/o script: 25 shield, 25 armor
RR module w/ shield script: 75/100 shield
RR module w/ armor script: 75/100 armor

Each logistic keeps its bonii and get a new bonus for its script (e.g. Guardian get a bonus to armor script)

Is this the fix you are looking for?

just no, a specialised SHIELD rr ship should never get bonuses to repairing ARMOR, and vice versa

Also, just say no to a single module that repairs both armor AND shields, OP MUCH?

support diversity, not homogenisation!


 

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