open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Bloggers #5, some words from Tuxford
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic

babylonstew
Caldari
Caldari Scouting and Intel Group
Posted - 2006.06.06 10:50:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: keepiru
And no info about the 2 BCs i realy care about, amarr/minnie... tux is a meanie Crying or Very sad


its balanced out by the fact your piccies came out first Laughing

d'hofren
Queens of the Stone Age
Black Legion.
Posted - 2006.06.06 10:52:00 - [62]
 

Not too keen on the optimal nerf for large guns. As iceblock said: there is a whole gamut of balancing to be done here, tracking needs to go up to compensate for potential higher transversals.

Closer combat also increases the chance of being tackled which is a very bad thing for tankless sniper ships

d'hofren
Queens of the Stone Age
Black Legion.
Posted - 2006.06.06 10:53:00 - [63]
 

Edited by: d''hofren on 06/06/2006 10:53:16
dbl post

Avaleric
Amarr
SC Special Circumstances
Posted - 2006.06.06 15:02:00 - [64]
 

That range-suggestion is utter horse****...

Ilmonstre
The Secret Fleet
Posted - 2006.06.06 15:39:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: Gunstar Zero
sounds good.

Anything you could do to make missiles more useful in fleet combat would be cool, though I cant really think of an answer.


he is looking into that with the reduction of the optimals on guns wich gets ships closerby thus making the missils more effective again

Weirda
Minmatar
Queens of the Stone Age
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2006.06.06 16:21:00 - [66]
 

good blog and some good idea. it is really a house of card with which you play, be sure to play carefully. digital communist have some good idea over in ships and mods (you prolly aware)... don't like them all, but they ARE different perspective and well thought out.

Weirda think that the biggest problem that you face is balancing Fleets and balancing smaller engagement and balancing 1v1 all at once. Have been working on ideas self... and generally everything to gimp one overpowered aspect tend to make weaker aspect become overpowered. so feel you pain... ugh

have been having some thoughts about gang UI improvement though - will hopefully be able to post them soon... something that you guys seem to talk about long long ago then it went way of DoDo.... Embarassed

as with most people, really don't like the idea 'o halving optimal... for reason that many other have stated. Evil or Very Mad

it is good that you made it clear how much you DO read ppl idea, even if you don't 'pollute' their post. Very Happy

weirda wondering if you ever took a look at that guy's butt though, it really *was* very unbalanced... Wink

Sirkill
Posted - 2006.06.06 16:32:00 - [67]
 

I think the point about lowering optimal range is that shooting something you can actualy make out as another ship rather than a spec on the screen is more fun.

Max Hardcase
The Scope
Posted - 2006.06.06 16:46:00 - [68]
 

The only problem with range atm is the long range tech2 ammo. Its just crazy effective. Better damage AND a range boost Shocked ? Where is the drawback in that ?


Joerd Toastius
Octavian Vanguard
Posted - 2006.06.06 17:25:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: Justin Cody
One of those is dictating the range of combat. CCP please do not force us to fight in at close ranges if we decide that our choice of tactics is to fight at long ranges.


I suspect part of the rationale behind this change is that it means that the aggressor does not have full control over combat range, as is currently the case for most non-frigs. You will of course still be able to dictate combat, range, but only if you have superior speed to your target. How important is it to you that you can control engagement range? How much will you sacrifice to be the one making that decision?

What's being suggested is, roughly, halving the range of BS guns, it would seem (based on Med Pulse -> Mega Pulse optimals). Currently, with standard crystals a sniper BS with Mega Beams and Radios has a 36km range advantage over a BS with Mega Pulse. That means that the short-range BS has to close the gap by 36km before he dies in order to do any significant damage. Note that that's not "fly 24km", it's "close the gap 24km" - the important thing is the relative speeds, not the absolute ones. Currently that's very hard to do, because making a BS go that fast gimps it utterly in most cases (hi Mega pilots). The change will bring that down to an 18km closure distance, which becomes more reasonable. It's still going to be hard to do in most ships, but it's less of a big deal. In fact, in standard situations sniping will work as now, because you be shooting at 36km base rather than 72, and he'll be shooting at 18 base rather than 36. What it does do is mean that in more close-range circumstances, such as cruiser battles, short-range BS fights (hah!) and the like, your ship's speed ceases to be largely academic and starts being more important, to the point where a faster ship is actually an advantage, as you can kite/tail-hug as much as you like.

This will likely act as a mild boost to the Matari, who already have fast ships, and a rather larger one to the Mega, as it'll make getting in range easier. It should also make mid- and close-range combat more dynamic, as you're playing with smaller distances and smaller margins with the same speeds and thus can actually hope to alter the range equations over the course of an engagement. In this respect it'll probably also benefit the Amarr to a degree, as they are the most range-flexible race during combat. The Gallente will, aside from the Mega, have more engagements taking place in drone range, and also have less issues with drones being miles away. As to the Caldari, less distance means less flight time means less of a handicap and more usefulness in fleet fights, on the assumption that CCP do (what would seem to be) the sensible thing and nerf flight time rather than speed, although I can see them doing both.

The other difference this has, of course, is to make T2 sniper duels slightly less ridiculous and ever so slightly more risky. I don't see this being a particularly bad thing either.

Jim McGregor
Posted - 2006.06.06 18:00:00 - [70]
 


All this to get rid of long distance sniping? Sounds like an extreme amount of work to rebalance all the ships and modules to make this thing work. And the result would be the same game but but with combat at a shorter range? The effort isnt worth it.

Joerd Toastius
Octavian Vanguard
Posted - 2006.06.06 18:14:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: Jim McGregor

All this to get rid of long distance sniping? Sounds like an extreme amount of work to rebalance all the ships and modules to make this thing work. And the result would be the same game but but with combat at a shorter range? The effort isnt worth it.



You're ignoring the fact that ship speeds would not be changing, and neither would existing static distances such as warp-ranges, gate turret positions etc.

Elve Sorrow
Amarr
Celestial Apocalypse
Posted - 2006.06.06 20:07:00 - [72]
 

You say Tier 2 BCs are going to be quite straightforward. With no further info on the Amarr one posted, am i to assume we're going to get another Prophecy?

Kitty O'Shay
Tharsis Security
Posted - 2006.06.06 20:31:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Elve Sorrow
You say Tier 2 BCs are going to be quite straightforward. With no further info on the Amarr one posted, am i to assume we're going to get another Prophecy?

Crying or Very sad

How about a BC sized Arbi? I think that would make for a nice upgrade path.

Scythus Aratan
Poseidon's Wingmen
Perihelion Alliance
Posted - 2006.06.06 21:59:00 - [74]
 

Decreasing the rangle of combat with further work to make ECM more valuable, as sensor dampeners and tracking disruptors will be next to worthless with everyone engaging within those ranges anyway, leaving the only real option of EW as ECM.

Beringe
Caldari
Mercurialis Inc.
Posted - 2006.06.06 23:10:00 - [75]
 

If the fleet commanders are given tools for target selection/squadron assignment and such, then focus fire would become much less of a win-all tactic, and longer combat would be much more desirable.

We might get a lot more manouvering (besides the standard "warp-in/out at different ranges") in fleets, as well as more interesting small-gang warfare.


Beringe
Caldari
Mercurialis Inc.
Posted - 2006.06.06 23:14:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Scythus Aratan
sensor dampeners and tracking disruptors will be next to worthless with everyone engaging within those ranges anyway

Tracking disruptors actually work better at closer ranges, since it is easier to track something that is really far away from you.

Sensor dampeners might need a boost if the changes happen, though.

Gaven Lok'ri
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2006.06.07 01:33:00 - [77]
 

Edited by: Gaven Lok''ri on 07/06/2006 01:34:02
Edited by: Gaven Lok''ri on 07/06/2006 01:33:10
The optimal changes described would require just about the entire balance of the game to be changed.

I also think lowering the range on a game that already seems absurdly close range for space... is a bit silly.

Finding another solution would be far better, really.

I suggest looking at the way warping works.


Noriath
Posted - 2006.06.07 01:39:00 - [78]
 

Edited by: Noriath on 07/06/2006 01:47:07
ECM should be reworked anyways.

Sensor range and locking speed should not be boosted by the same module, and all electronic warfare that affects target locking should be waged on one or the other. Completly stopping people from locking anything should be impossible. Lockbreakers should only work on all locks on your ship, not on all locks another ship has. Lockbreaking should also not prevent people from locking, only from locking the ship that broke their lock on it right back.

Grash Freedom
Gallente
I Maza
Posted - 2006.06.07 02:10:00 - [79]
 

Why change ranges?

Nobody has complained so far afaik,

And if you change range you should really check frigs speeds as well

as you suggested range of Large weapons will be something like 2x range of small ones, then you should work visa versa the speed factor as well

bs 1x
cruiser 1.5x
frigs 2x

If speed will not change then say so long to all beam,rail,arti weapons as they will be useless with the same trackings as today

btw still we need some answer, why?????

As for people saying that with tech2 ammo the range is extreme and pwns, well do your tests a 425mm II megathron can't hit jack with Spike L on moving frigs at 150km+




Razor Jaxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2006.06.07 07:22:00 - [80]
 

Nerfing the BS combat range is a very bad idea. Range is one of the very last advantages BS (esp. gunboats) pilots have over other ship classes.

Consider that if the BS range is only 2x that of a frigate range, it will be way too easy for the frigate to get into its own range (thanks to frig speed), where it becomes virtually unhitable (thanks to poor L guns tracking and good frig sig radius). While drones would dispatch one, maybe two frigate-class ships, any more than that would eventually overwhelm the BS pilot.

With the proposed changes, it almost looks as if you'd given creedence to the Goonies' constant moaning about T2 sniping.

Range is the BS answer to speed, it's the BS pilot's lifeline.

You should really look for incentives to make people fly BS again, not the other way around. Hardly anyone flies a BS solo these days. It's become a fleet tool.

Brute Helmet
Minmatar
Posted - 2006.06.07 08:50:00 - [81]
 

Remove all turrets except close range, high tracking ones. Replace them with missile slots. Make long range enagagements missile only. Introduce missile defence EW and long range antimissile systems that work.

Introduce assault missiles as the main weapon for fleets. This way controlling range means greater chance at winning the battle. Frigates reclassified into bomber and fighter types, the bombers have launchers to attack larger ships with and the fighters are anti-bomber ships.

Battleships rely on a mix of long range missiles and short range missiles. Cruisers and destroyers are designed as turret and missile ships for antifrigate duty.

That would make fights last longer and increase the skill and maneuver factors drastically.

Zhor
Caldari
The Alpha Company
Posted - 2006.06.07 11:41:00 - [82]
 

aren't battleships traditionally *fleet* tools?

Krayl
Quantum Industries
Prime Orbital Systems
Posted - 2006.06.07 12:45:00 - [83]
 

Eve combat takes place at very short ranges or very long ones. Because scram/web ranges are limited to very short ranges (unless you have a fleet of Recons) you need to have combat that close unless you have bubbles. Otherwise, you're left sniping from 150+ away so that (a) the enemy can't shoot you (b) you can get away if targeted. There's no incentive for staying at mid range other than slightly more dps, perhaps one could be thought up?

The other problem is changing ranges. It is impossible to move from one extreme to the other without a whole fleet of covert ops on your side that have already spent ages getting into position. Maybe you could make covert ops speeds faster and there'd be more warping on top of each other in fleet battles? The ones I've seen, combat often doesn't happen simply because one side can't get in range before having to warp out or having their opponents warp out. MWD sig penalty really doesn't help here, anything approaching is a target anyway and MWD just helps kill it off. Of course, MWD is also the only good way to close the distances without a covert ops. Maybe some third propulsion module or an alternate mode of MWD use could work here? I'm thinking less speed than a MWD, maybe 250-350% instead of 500-600%, but without the sig radius problem and with some other dehabilitating effect, such as weapon ROF decreased sharply.

The sensor booster split into two mods sounds like a good idea, not so sure about the dmg mod idea, it doesn't really sounds like it'll work to me since rof is equivalent to damage anyway. Sure, you can make some large alpha strike, but that's only useful for ganking things really, and I thought we were trying to prolong combat?

Dezzereth
Two Swords Guild
Posted - 2006.06.07 15:50:00 - [84]
 

Well the information given in this blog is a bit vague to either flame or commend Tuxford.

BUT

Reducing optimal is bad, for the reasons that several others already mentioned. Why would that help in anyway, except that even more people will use stabs or avoid combat altogether. Especially newer players are better off at range, because range gives them a better reaction time to the events that unfold. True for PvP and PvE the same.

Prolonging combat... why? and most importantly: Don't you think that this will even make ganking a more used "tactic"? Small to 1 vs 1 combat will get even rarer. There is one big rule to combat: "If its hard to kill, bring in more friends" and that exactly will happen.

Generally I feel that EVE starts to lose it diversity. First with the Mk2 changes most ships got a boring damge or tracking bonus (esp. minmatar ships lost a a lot of uniqueness), and now even long range combat should be cut out of possible tactics plus on top of it artillery guns become a Hybrid gun with less cap use. Not good.

@the idea to split Damage mod and Sensor booster: Why? Damage mods have been dealt with and I never heard a PVP-ler I would take seriously whine about the "über" sensorbooster in EVE. Don't change what works.

Gorath Vaan
Amarr
Posted - 2006.06.07 19:58:00 - [85]
 

All sounds good, but will it add realism?
Realistically, turrets (external) and mods (internal) would suffer some kind of damage in combat. This effectively would mean (if applied ingame) that firepower/nos etc would dwindle as quickly as shield/armour while tanking ability would decrease at a much slower rate due to being protected by the ship.
Wouldn't factoring these aspects of damage into combat help to improve and sustain the pvp experience and get you the desired effect of extending combat time?

Xendie
Ad Astra Vexillum
Sc0rched Earth
Posted - 2006.06.08 07:50:00 - [86]
 

the range changes would kill piracy even more.
that would give BS around what? 30-60k range?
and force all pirates to sentry tank?
they got it hard enough with everyone doing missions in empire instead of mining and ratting in fruitless lowsec.

and the prolonging combat will be another deathblow to amarr who does mainly EM damage with the addition of more resist or lower dmg and more armor.

what the heck are you thinking on?
you already screwed up everything for amarr ships, cheesus.


ChronoLynx
Caldari
Federation of Freedom Fighters
Posted - 2006.06.09 18:06:00 - [87]
 

These changes would nerf everything I ever wanted and am currently doing. I will cry if any of the Weapon changes go through, and btw, Assault Launchers with Standard Missiles on a Cerberus 4TW!! Kicks out about 15% more Damage per second than heavies at a cost of half the range atm, please don't change them.
Very Happy

Synapse Archae
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2006.06.09 20:47:00 - [88]
 

I still want to point the devs to this suggestion here on prolonging combat.
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=349194&page=1

Adding HP or reducing dammage isnt going to fix the issue that concentrated fire will still be an instant death for fleet ships.
if it takes 20 ships instead of 10 to instakill a battleship, its still going to mean fleet combat is short, boring, brutal and blobby.

Crellion
Parental Control
Merciless.
Posted - 2006.06.12 01:41:00 - [89]
 

Hum Hum... read all the threads about how altering optimals means altering everything else to to balabce that (like tracking and speeds etc) and .... I fear that not what he us saying... he is saying (for some obscure reason) than he does want to make it so BSs cant use range aginst frigs etc etc etc...

Scary..

Stay of the liquid fire? Embarassed

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2006.06.12 02:45:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: Tuang Pao
Reduce combat ranges? Whatever for?

The ranges are already far too short for deep space combat. Modern oceanic naval weapons routinely reach 100km in atmosphere. Don't you think that space based weapons will have appropriately longer ranges?

Then there's the issue of maneuver to engage the enemy. Speed enhancement would be virtually pointless at the 1.0/1.5/2.0 progression Tux describes.

Why would they want to reduce combat ranges? I don't get it.



I don't get it either. Missles go 1000s of KM in today's world with gravity, air resistance and what not, space? Little gravity, no air resistance. Space is huge.

Ok - There are "play ability" issues versus reality ... but if we get to close, I want a knife or a sword module for my ships. Maybe a nice "Elector-Magnetic Flail" would be nice, thermic dagger ...



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