open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Issue] Ideas to encourage more mid-range combat
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Tarminic
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.06.08 19:10:00 - [1]
 

DISCLAIMER: I am an Armchair Tactician

Currently, mid-range combat is nearly non-existent in EVE. I think that there are a few things we can do to encourage more mid-range combat.

Currently, these are the reasons (as I see it) why combat occurs at extreme close or extreme long range:
1.Viable range of high-DPS weapons
2.Range of warp scramblers
3.Range of stasis webifiers
4.Prevalence of MWDs in PvP



Things that we should do, however:

A. Create new forms of T2 ammunition designed to give high DPS at moderate ranges (40-60KM). This would be part of a general overhaul to T2 ammunition and should not be unbalanced relative to close-range T2 ammo.

B. Extend the range of warp scramblers and warp jammers, like so:
Warp Core Burst Scrambler: 3 Jamming strength, 7.5KM range
Warp Core Modulation Scrambler: 2 Jamming strength, 15 KM range
Warp Core Attenuation Scrambler: 1 Jamming Strength, 30KM range

C. Discourage MWD use in PvP. Currently almost all ships in any PvP situation use MWDs due to the lack of importance of signature radius and the prevalence of capacitor boosters in PvP (making maximum capacitor less important). Goumindong actually proposed an interesting solution that would address this problem by making stasis webifier effectiveness dependent on signature radius. Another possibility could be to change their penalty to something that would be more painful in PvP - perhaps weapon tracking and missile explosion velocity.

D. Increase the range of stasis webifiers. Currently all non-faction stasis webs have a maximum range of approximately 12KM, meaning that any ship fitting one must be fit for close-range combat. This ties in with Goumindong's suggestion covered in point C, but something else that is also a possibility - create different sized stasis webs:
Frigate webs: 80-90% effectiveness, 10KM base range
Cruiser webs: 50-60% effectiveness, 20KM base range
Battleship webs: 25-30% effectiveness, 40KM base range

I realize that the above changes will affect nano-ships and perhaps hurt their effectiveness a bit, but it will also give them a greater operating range as they will be able to take advantage of these changes as well.

Yay or nay? Am I on to something here or am I just another carebear that thinks he knows what's going on in PvP? Wink

Krowst
Posted - 2008.06.09 00:04:00 - [2]
 

With these changes it seems more like a nerf nano-ship thread, trying to be disguised as a helpful "encourage more mid-range combat" thread. Mid-range combat does exist, just look at any long range cruiser set ups (40-60KM).

And when making suggestions like these try to see the ramifications of the suggestion and how it would effect a ship or type of ship please.

P.S. Tarminic if your intention was not a nerf nano then please forgive me if my opinion sounds harsh

Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2008.06.09 01:22:00 - [3]
 

A lot wrong with this. Sniper ships can easily load short range T1 ammo and do massive amounts of damage at 40-60km. But why? You are so much more vulnerable to getting bubbled or tackled.

Non-faction webs have a max range of 10km, not 12km, and they can be overloaded to 13km.

How would a 30km scram promote fighting at 40-60km. They can just warp off so wtf does that do?

Mid-range combat is actually QUITE available using standard in-game tactics. All you need is to drop a bubble/interceptors on the opponent and you can go out to any engagement range you desire. HACs/BCs can hit quite well at 40-60km and are very effective as they can be much more mobile than a BS group.

So yeah, your proposal doesn't show how your changes will promote 40-60km fighting and sounds like you want to nerf something else. 20km webs and 30km scrams doesn't sound like it will have any bearing on 40-60km fights for obvious reasons.

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2008.06.09 09:35:00 - [4]
 

I do agree with the webs a bit and with the scramblers a little less than that :-)

Mid range combat takes place in medium gang sizes, where the tackler and primary damage dealers are short ranged ships while all the support is mid ranged so they DON'T need to travel (or at least not that much) to apply damage on the target.

Solo mid-range was never viable due to DPS limits and fleet mid range is also stupid due to usual fleet ranges being 2x the longest mid-range ...

Tarminic
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.06.09 13:43:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Krowst
With these changes it seems more like a nerf nano-ship thread, trying to be disguised as a helpful "encourage more mid-range combat" thread. Mid-range combat does exist, just look at any long range cruiser set ups (40-60KM).

And when making suggestions like these try to see the ramifications of the suggestion and how it would effect a ship or type of ship please.

P.S. Tarminic if your intention was not a nerf nano then please forgive me if my opinion sounds harsh

No problem, after writing it I could easily see how it could negatively impact nanoships, thus my note at the bottom. Though I do think that the prevalence of nanoships alone and in small gangs is too high, that wasn't the intention of the post although it would be a side effect.


Originally by: Hugh Ruka
I do agree with the webs a bit and with the scramblers a little less than that :-)

Mid range combat takes place in medium gang sizes, where the tackler and primary damage dealers are short ranged ships while all the support is mid ranged so they DON'T need to travel (or at least not that much) to apply damage on the target.

This may speak to my recent inexperience as a PvPer then. I've never been in a fight that's taken place over a range longer than 15-20KM.

P.S. Am I allowed to support my own topic? Laughing

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:02:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Tarminic
Originally by: Krowst
With these changes it seems more like a nerf nano-ship thread, trying to be disguised as a helpful "encourage more mid-range combat" thread. Mid-range combat does exist, just look at any long range cruiser set ups (40-60KM).

And when making suggestions like these try to see the ramifications of the suggestion and how it would effect a ship or type of ship please.

P.S. Tarminic if your intention was not a nerf nano then please forgive me if my opinion sounds harsh

No problem, after writing it I could easily see how it could negatively impact nanoships, thus my note at the bottom. Though I do think that the prevalence of nanoships alone and in small gangs is too high, that wasn't the intention of the post although it would be a side effect.


Originally by: Hugh Ruka
I do agree with the webs a bit and with the scramblers a little less than that :-)

Mid range combat takes place in medium gang sizes, where the tackler and primary damage dealers are short ranged ships while all the support is mid ranged so they DON'T need to travel (or at least not that much) to apply damage on the target.

This may speak to my recent inexperience as a PvPer then. I've never been in a fight that's taken place over a range longer than 15-20KM.

P.S. Am I allowed to support my own topic? Laughing


well I am no PvPer myself. but my limited 0.0 experience tought me to rely on mid range and stay out of harms way :-) it has a few benefits:

1. easier to stay out of bubbles
2. faster target switch as there is less distance to travel
3. the best option for a caldari specced character :-)
4. option to pick alternate targets

small gangs don't have the player resources to separate roles, so you have to do all (tackle, tank, damage). thus they are 99% short range.

medium sized gangs do have the luxury of numbers, so you can safely ignore the tackling part and fit for range and damage (with a little tank if left alone). usualy that's the best options for missile ships and mid-range snipers (moa, ferox, munnin, zealot etc.).

fleets are very dedicated in their roles and mid-range is not one that works there.

Also for mid-range to work properly, you'd need a mechanic to keep your target longer at that range. Webs are unfair, because they work from 0 to max of their range with same efficiency. In fact there is no effect in EVE that does not work at closer range but works at longer range (not talking about usability but about effect).

Tesseract d'Urberville
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:18:00 - [7]
 

(Disclaimer: I am an armchair tactician too.)

There are some interesting ideas here, although I'm not sure that mid-range combat is "broken" enough to need "fixing." That said, though, A and C sound reasonable. I remember seeing a nice thread about slightly buffing ABs and/or slightly nerfing MWDs a while ago.

B and D could be seriously unbalancing, though, but you're right in thinking that they're necessary to get combat occurring at greater range. Making webs and scrams effective at longer ranges makes them more powerful, and broadly speaking they don't need to be more powerful - they're doing their job fine already. Perhaps instead of extending the range of all scrams and webs, introduce new scrams and webs that can operate at greater range - but make them harder to fit (grid- or CPU-wise) or operate (cap-wise), except on certain ships which could get bonuses to their use.

Nariana Verex
Amarr
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:26:00 - [8]
 

It would be nice to see longer ranged scrambling, but the problem lies in how to implement it. Either it costs more to fit, costs more to use, or the whole Warp Core strength thing is completely re-done.

Maybe make bigger ships gradually harder to scramble, starting with 0 strength for Frigates and Destroyers, 1 strength for Cruisers and Battlecruisers, and 2 strength for Battleships. Then another jump for Carriers and Dreads, up to the 'invulnerability' of supercaps. Then you could use a longer ranged, less intense scrambler on weaker ships, but require more for larger ships with more sophisticated warp systems.

Interceptors could get a role bonus of +2 warp core scrambling, and whatnot.

I just ramble a lot.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:50:00 - [9]
 

The webber strength being affected by sig radius is interesting. Although I could see a problem with the disparity between a large slow ship trying to web a smaller faster ship (which even with the sig radius increase from the MWD would still be smaller than its target) - in a gang situation wouldn't that mean the smaller faster ship could tackle even more easily with less threat of being counter-webbed and blown up?

Still it seems like something that could be tuned with specific numbers, if you combined it with different range on webbers (or better, a falloff for webbers where their effectiveness fades out at higher distances).

Maybe the stasis webifier section could be reposted as its own issue though?

Krowst
Posted - 2008.06.11 04:40:00 - [10]
 

No need for all these changes to mwds,webs, and ws, just add mid range weapons that can do slighty less damage then short range, but has a better ROF then long range

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:20:00 - [11]
 

First off I am going to say that medium ranged combat is fairly common. Especially with the proliferation of HACs and the locus rig bug the most powerful ships for most all types of small to medium gang combat are high dps medium ranged ships.

It doesn't exist everywhere. It doesn't exist in empire and low-sec due to gate guns. But it certainly does exist in 0.0

Second off I am going to reply to this

Originally by: Kelsin
Although I could see a problem with the disparity between a large slow ship trying to web a smaller faster ship (which even with the sig radius increase from the MWD would still be smaller than its target) - in a gang situation wouldn't that mean the smaller faster ship could tackle even more easily with less threat of being counter-webbed and blown up?


That is the entire point. Smaller ships being effected by longer range webs worse encourages smaller ships to get closer to larger targets rather than farther away. That is to say you have an advantage in getting into situations where you cannot as easily run away rather than having an advantage in staying in situations where you can easily run away.

Doing something like changing webs in the proposed ways however is probably something that should not be done yet, if its done at all. Its a huge change to the game and would mean massive upheavals in optimal fittings. That might not be a bad thing because everyone loves theory crafting. But it is also something that would need to be tested throughly because figuring out all the interactions we would be looking at would simply be too difficult without testing it out and tweaking it to be right. And getting it right is better than ruining an entire style of combat which by CCPs record won't be fixed for 1-2 years.

Furthermore i do not trust the current CSM to give any such topic the required community discussion regarding the disadvantages and advantages that it would need to be properly refined with both reservations and purpose


 

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