These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

THE RIDICULOUS FAIL WHICH IS EVE'S PVP

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#21 - 2012-09-02 04:05:33 UTC
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#22 - 2012-09-02 07:34:10 UTC
Gerrick Palivorn wrote:
Mars Theran wrote:
You guys really don't understand the difference between realism and sci-fi EVE PvP do you. The OP is saying that the system of PvP is flawed in EVE, in that larger ships are unrealistically balanced against smaller ships. He's right. There is no way any military force in the modern or even ancient world would spend so much more on a larger fighting vessel, then leave it incapable of defeating smaller vessels.

Do you think a Galleon in the 15th century couldn't defend itself from a single Caraval? Of course it could, and with only a minimum of effort; that's how it works in the real world.

PvP isn't realistic in video games, that much is true, and neither should we expect it to be, but don't call a person a sodding idiot because he points out the truth of the situation and makes some argument about how unrealistic it is.

It's completely daft that a Battleship can't pick off a Frigate in one or two shots, but it wouldn't be particularly fair gameplay if it could given the game. Not to say that a game built on similar principles but with the system scaled to suit realistic expectations of combat capability and survivability wouldn't work just fine.

It would have to start that way though, so players wouldn't have unrealistic preconceptions of how things should be.


So using your theory, a Nimitz class carrier would be fine sailing by itself with no support ships. All that money that the US spends on smaller ships is completely wasted. Carrier groups are just a nice concept with no basis in realism or facts.

The fact is that smaller elements can easily outflank and outmaneuver larger forces with ease. You see this with the fly vs the baseball example and you also see this in actual warfare where much of the fighting forces are broken up into small teams of 15-20 men that are extremely flexible in combat situations. The modern navies are going forward with smaller carriers and support ships due to cost and ease of logistics, and if the larger ships don't have support elements they can easily be destroyed by lighter/stealthier ships without much trouble.


I'm not disputing that large ships sail with support ships. Ships aren't men as you seem to be implying with your example, and they don't fight or act like them. Support vessels are often in place for long range reconaissance duty, fast response, and various other situations. They don't provide the means by which a Battleship defends itself, but rather a more mobile operations force.

The only guns on a modern Battleship that couldn't track and kill a Frigate are the Sea to Land or Battleship to Battleship guns, of which there are only typically 3-4 IIRC. Battleships also have air/sea defense weapons in the form of Gatling guns which can be used equally well on smaller craft I imagine, as well as smaller turret batteries for use.. Let's just use wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armament_of_the_Iowa_class_battleship

That's 3*3 16-inch guns, 10*2 5-inch guns, and either up to 20 quad 40mm and 49 single 20mm anti-aircraft guns or 4 Phalanx CIWS guns, (20mm M61 Vulcan Gatling guns for anti-missile/anti-aircraft use), which unironically have limited capability to penetrate a Battleships armor, as well as, (at the expense of 4*2 5-inch guns), 2 Armored Box launchers capable of firing 4 Tomahawk Missiles in rapid succession each, with a total of 32 available missiles on board, and 4*4 Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

In EVE terms:

9 Large 406mm Cannons with a surface* range of 38.7 km
6 Medium Dual 127mm Cannons with a surface range of ~16 km
4 small 20mm Vulcan Gatling guns with variable limited surface range of just over a km effective.
2 X-Large Quad-missile Launchers with a surface range of 460-870 km(TASM anti-ship missile), 1250 km(TLAM-C), or 2800 km(TLAM-N).
4 Large Quad-missile Launchers with a surface range of ~140 km

*within atmosphere at Earth gravity.

All that on a 58'000 ton ship, (fully loaded), with a length of ~263 m and Beam of ~33m, (66 m total width IIRC).

..and lets not forget the 5 RQ-2 Pioneer Unmanned aerial vehicles carried during the Gulf and Cold War on these ships, (i.e: Small Drones).

All are currently decommisioned, but it's a pretty good example I think.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Luminus Mallus
Haul Chill And Kill All
#23 - 2012-09-02 09:37:24 UTC
For a start let me thank those people that, even if they don't agree with my post, at least understood it. You know who you are.
The rest? You're a bunch of bandwagon jumping subnormal simians that just took a dump on their keyboard: you should have saved your time and the bytes, really. You too know who you are. Now get back to your delusional game world.

Kusum Fawn wrote:
Interesting arument plus

I just have a question, is "white whales" supposed to be a racist reference?


White whales is an economical term related to the biggest spenders in a certain community, generically speaking. Usually, just a handful of these represent a major portion of the income in scenarios like eve's and dust pay2win.

Mars Theran wrote:
You guys really don't understand the difference between realism and sci-fi EVE PvP do you. The OP is saying that the system of PvP is flawed in EVE, in that larger ships are unrealistically balanced against smaller ships. He's right. There is no way any military force in the modern or even ancient world would spend so much more on a larger fighting vessel, then leave it incapable of defeating smaller vessels.

Do you think a Galleon in the 15th century couldn't defend itself from a single Caraval? Of course it could, and with only a minimum of effort; that's how it works in the real world.

PvP isn't realistic in video games, that much is true, and neither should we expect it to be, but don't call a person a sodding idiot because he points out the truth of the situation and makes some argument about how unrealistic it is.

It's completely daft that a Battleship can't pick off a Frigate in one or two shots, but it wouldn't be particularly fair gameplay if it could given the game. Not to say that a game built on similar principles but with the system scaled to suit realistic expectations of combat capability and survivability wouldn't work just fine.

It would have to start that way though, so players wouldn't have unrealistic preconceptions of how things should be.


*KA-CHING!* Nailed right on the head. It's actually because and for people like you that I post. Hopefully, there's someone in ccp that can see the fail, and where eve and dust are heading, like burning kamikaze airplanes made of ****.

Random clueless derp (RCD) wrote:
Also - you are wrong on all accounts.
Clearly you don't understand reasons beyond the mechanics.

The fact you believe that the reasons behind are relevant, is perfect example of the 'dimwitness' and abhorrent delusion that plagues the fail behind eve. Newsflash: the reasons are irrelevant.
**** GAMEPLAY IS **** GAMEPLAY REGARDLESS OF REASON. Eve's pvp is obvious ****.
Why otherwise the population keeps on diminishing? Just last year there was a third more people.

stupid ape wrote:
tl;dr: OP doesn't understand how PVP works, whatsoever.

Actually, it is completely the contrary. I have run countless tests with alt accounts and other players to perfectly understand the countless limits and the failures which deprive eve's pvp of any and all skill.
eve's pvp is such a miserable ****, that you only need MEMORY to 'win' a fight. 'Which fitting is better' is all is needed.
Pressing F1 or any other key requires absolutely no skill. Owning a PVE fitted -anything- when you're in a pvp fitted -anything- is just a matter of fitting.

A Soporific wrote:
Some Valid Argumentation

- For a start, it is quite certain that if you just 'put more weapons in' things get somehow broken. Finetuning that **** is ccp's idiots jobs, for sure. Giving them the correct idea to fix a hopelessly broken game mechanic is good enough value to me, honestly.
- As a side note, let me clarify that my ability or understanding of what it takes to be effective against any ship class, in any ship class, should be irrelevant. These I'm listing are de-facto failures of an unbalanced 'pvp' system that favours cowardice, and that is completely based upon pay2win, and absolutely devoid of human skill (to the extent in which it normally applies to human player versus player online multiplayer fights)
- Regarding 'bigger real life ship vs smaller real life ship'. I honestly believe there's no way for contestation here. Smaller ships can pose a threat, but a 'big ship' doesn't need to FIT for it. Bigger ships can kick any smaller ships asses ANY TIME.
Eve's pvp works as if a real life battleship needed head for the dock to refit turrets just because it might encounter an oar powered boat with a machinegun on top. Come on. You know it's like this, only a deluded, truly subnormal fanboy is still willing to deny such an obvious and blatant true fail.
- Lastly, your conclusion about 'going more guns way is going even deeper into pay2win' is simply WRONG.
Such an approach would simply create different CLASSES of pvp players: those that would still want to RISK going versus a bigger ship, and those who won't. After all, weapon-wise, the bigger ship would certainly be WAY less effective than the smaller ship, in a 'caliber parity situation', and its only advantage would be the total hitpoints, in respect to the smaller ship.
As a matter of fact, this would not require so much rebalancing or so much thinking.

Lastly, for those still unsure, a perfect limitation could be the ability to only use for example N total guns (based on ship), of all available, at the same time.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#24 - 2012-09-02 09:55:07 UTC
Luminus Mallus wrote:
I'm a drooling moron without the first clue about game balance and EVE's combat should be just about making sure the guy with the bigger ship wins.


You could have saved a lot of wasted keystrokes by just putting this.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Morgan North
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#25 - 2012-09-02 11:02:11 UTC
I'm seeing that after reading all of this, the main point of the OP's can be summed up as:

"Why, on earth, when I fit a lower sized gun to a larger class vessel, I fit only one when realistically, including by scale and relative size, there's plenty of room for more than one turret?"

Disregarding the fact that the weapons are bonused in each hull in terms of being small/medium/large and extra large, thusly by design giving the players a good and strong suggestion that "they should fit these and as many as they can possibly can" when using that hull, the reality of the thing is that you often gain no bonuses (practically speaking) if you do fit smaller sized guns.

Ironically, this could be solved with basically introducing new weapons, that would consist of just lower classed weapons grouped together. with no difference in stats from the smaller guns otherthan being doubled up.

For instance:

You get yourself a Rokh. It can have, say, 8 rail guns. But you want 4 rail guns and you really want to be a anti frigate brawler, for some reason. Lelts assume that you don't simply do the obvious which is replace all guns with Blasters, and then slapping possibly a Haavy Neutralizer, and webs on your mid slots, and target painters and you know, the things that will make you hit a frigate.

Lets assume you go and start by fitting cruiser sized weaponery to your Rokh. Your turrets look silly and small, but you could potentially have two on tht slot, either by CCP allowing you to purchase and slap on two guns per slot, or but CCP making a "new" turret that consisted of "dual heavy electron blasters" which was in essence a turret with two electron blasters side by side, with all stats doubled except for tracking. Now lets assume you want even more tracking, and you fit say... Quad Light electron Blasters.

While the idea sound nice, and you get to scale up the DPS, you'd still make no bonuses, and there's the whole fact that you might never use those guns since you lack the speed to approach a frigate. But then there's another which is, the number of possible combinations fit. And there's also the annoying detail that they wouldnt' be covered by the battleship's bonuses.

I'd liketo see somethign like this, but I don't think it'll ever show up.
Weasel Juice
Mayhem and Destruction
#26 - 2012-09-02 11:27:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Weasel Juice
Luminus Mallus wrote:
[...]

White whales is an economical term related to the biggest spenders in a certain community, generically speaking. Usually, just a handful of these represent a major portion of the income in scenarios like eve's and dust pay2win.

Funny. I thought pay2win (as in buying bigger more expensive ships) is exactly what you're asking for.

Mars Theran wrote:
[...]


*KA-CHING!* Nailed right on the head. It's actually because and for people like you that I post. Hopefully, there's someone in ccp that can see the fail, and where eve and dust are heading, like burning kamikaze airplanes made of ****.

I recommend you read that part again, as you seem to have completely missed the point of it.



Random clueless derp (RCD) wrote:
Also - you are wrong on all accounts.
Clearly you don't understand reasons beyond the mechanics.

The fact you believe that the reasons behind are relevant, is perfect example of the 'dimwitness' and abhorrent delusion that plagues the fail behind eve. Newsflash: the reasons are irrelevant.
**** GAMEPLAY IS **** GAMEPLAY REGARDLESS OF REASON. Eve's pvp is obvious ****.
Why otherwise the population keeps on diminishing? Just last year there was a third more people.

Where did you get that number from exactly? I have a feeling this is just a random number you pulled out of your head. At least demonstrate that you possess the ability to do your research.


stupid ape wrote:
tl;dr: OP doesn't understand how PVP works, whatsoever.

Actually, it is completely the contrary. I have run countless tests with alt accounts and other players to perfectly understand the countless limits and the failures which deprive eve's pvp of any and all skill.
eve's pvp is such a miserable ****, that you only need MEMORY to 'win' a fight. 'Which fitting is better' is all is needed.
Pressing F1 or any other key requires absolutely no skill. Owning a PVE fitted -anything- when you're in a pvp fitted -anything- is just a matter of fitting.

Beyond your so-called tests, have you done any actual PvP? http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=572916 seems to suggest that you have not.

A Soporific wrote:
Some Valid Argumentation

- For a start, it is quite certain that if you just 'put more weapons in' things get somehow broken. Finetuning that **** is ccp's idiots jobs, for sure. Giving them the correct idea to fix a hopelessly broken game mechanic is good enough value to me, honestly.
Your only argument that it's broken is that it does not concur with reality.
- As a side note, let me clarify that my ability or understanding of what it takes to be effective against any ship class, in any ship class, should be irrelevant. These I'm listing are de-facto failures of an unbalanced 'pvp' system that favours cowardice, and that is completely based upon pay2win, and absolutely devoid of human skill (to the extent in which it normally applies to human player versus player online multiplayer fights)
You keep mentioning "unbalanced", but demonstrate a lack of any experience to judge it.
- Regarding 'bigger real life ship vs smaller real life ship'. I honestly believe there's no way for contestation here. Smaller ships can pose a threat, but a 'big ship' doesn't need to FIT for it. Bigger ships can kick any smaller ships asses ANY TIME.
Eve's pvp works as if a real life battleship needed head for the dock to refit turrets just because it might encounter an oar powered boat with a machinegun on top. Come on. You know it's like this, only a deluded, truly subnormal fanboy is still willing to deny such an obvious and blatant true fail.
Enlist in the military if you care about reallife, play EVE if you want to play a game.
- Lastly, your conclusion about 'going more guns way is going even deeper into pay2win' is simply WRONG.
Such an approach would simply create different CLASSES of pvp players: those that would still want to RISK going versus a bigger ship, and those who won't. After all, weapon-wise, the bigger ship would certainly be WAY less effective than the smaller ship, in a 'caliber parity situation', and its only advantage would be the total hitpoints, in respect to the smaller ship.
As a matter of fact, this would not require so much rebalancing or so much thinking.
Congratulations. You just realized how the current EVE balance works.


Lastly, for those still unsure, a perfect limitation could be the ability to only use for example N total guns (based on ship), of all available, at the same time.
So basically you want an "I can adapt to any situation with one ship and one fitting" win-ship. Roll

My Comments inside the quotes in bold/italic.

Overall:

Send your complaints to Hasbro Gaming for UTTERLY BROKEN Monopoly, designed by Idiots, that in reality you are not forced to enter a hotel by a dice. Also that they mispresent your human being with a metal figure. It makes the whole thing unbalanced. They should sell a dice where you can write the numbers on it, so you never land on somebody elses hotel. Also that dice should always give you 10,000$ whenever you throw it.

This is the kind of thing you're doing here.
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan
#27 - 2012-09-02 13:09:37 UTC
I, for one, wonder which frigate it was that the OP lost his battleship to.

"Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom."
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#28 - 2012-09-02 15:13:26 UTC
MisterNick wrote:
I, for one, wonder which frigate it was that the OP lost his battleship to.


It does seem very negative doesn't it.

@Morgan North: That actually isn't a bad idea, but you're right and ne of the reasons nobody fits smaller weapons on BS except for the odd occaision I think. No bonuses mean they do terrible DPS, have very poor range, and generally aren't worth fitting.

That said, given you drop all the Heavies generally, you'd have more PG and CPU to fit other stuff like MWDs. Not really helpful, but it might help you get close enough.

I like the idea of doubling up the guns, and figure it'd actually be appropriate to class them as Large guns and grant the bonuses standard to any Battleship to them. Make things much simpler anyway, and a Battleship would actually be something to reckon with fit right, rather than the Subpar 2 role ship it ended up as in EVE: Tank and Structure Gank.

Okay, I'm exagerating a bit, but that really is true for anyone without >40 million SP. Anything less, and the only thing protecting you is your Fleet. I understand that many players feel that is as it should be, citing 'MMO', but really, EVE isn't that kind of MMO. I'm not sure any MMO ever is, but EVE definitely is not, and provided you aren't plying safety in numbers in some big fleet, you know it.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Vassal Zeren
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2012-09-02 16:50:59 UTC
Mars Theran wrote:
You guys really don't understand the difference between realism and sci-fi EVE PvP do you. The OP is saying that the system of PvP is flawed in EVE, in that larger ships are unrealistically balanced against smaller ships. He's right. There is no way any military force in the modern or even ancient world would spend so much more on a larger fighting vessel, then leave it incapable of defeating smaller vessels.

Do you think a Galleon in the 15th century couldn't defend itself from a single Caraval? Of course it could, and with only a minimum of effort; that's how it works in the real world.

PvP isn't realistic in video games, that much is true, and neither should we expect it to be, but don't call a person a sodding idiot because he points out the truth of the situation and makes some argument about how unrealistic it is.

It's completely daft that a Battleship can't pick off a Frigate in one or two shots, but it wouldn't be particularly fair gameplay if it could given the game. Not to say that a game built on similar principles but with the system scaled to suit realistic expectations of combat capability and survivability wouldn't work just fine.

It would have to start that way though, so players wouldn't have unrealistic preconceptions of how things should be.


I logged into eve gate to plus this post. You sir, are spot on! Theres no need to start name calling, guys. The op is presenting a valid however ragey point. Just tell him y he is mistaken about balancing in an even, factual, and respectful way. It should be easy, but a lot of people seem to enjoy being smart asses and putting others down. Well I've got news for you: You can tell a big man by the way he treats little men. You aren't proving anything to the world by putting others down. Act your age not your shoe size.

A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
tankus2
HeartVenom Inc.
#30 - 2012-09-02 17:35:40 UTC
Morgan North wrote:
...For instance:

You get yourself a Rokh. It can have, say, 8 rail guns. But you want 4 rail guns and you really want to be a anti frigate brawler, for some reason. Let's assume that you don't simply do the obvious which is replace all guns with Blasters, and then slapping possibly a Heavy Neutralizer, and webs on your mid slots, and target painters and you know, the things that will make you hit a frigate.

Lets assume you go and start by fitting cruiser sized weaponry to your Rokh. Your turrets look silly and small, but you could potentially have two on that slot, either by CCP allowing you to purchase and slap on two guns per slot, or but CCP making a "new" turret that consisted of "dual heavy electron blasters" which was in essence a turret with two electron blasters side by side, with all stats doubled except for tracking. Now lets assume you want even more tracking, and you fit say... Quad Light electron Blasters.

While the idea sound nice, and you get to scale up the DPS, you'd still make no bonuses, and there's the whole fact that you might never use those guns since you lack the speed to approach a frigate. But then there's another which is, the number of possible combinations fit. And there's also the annoying detail that they wouldn't be covered by the battleship's bonuses.

I'd like to see something like this, but I don't think it'll ever show up.


Ya know Morgan, I'd also like battleship-class anti-frigate weaponry as well as battleship-class anti-cruiser weapons, though you are right. Probably never get them :(

Where the science gets done
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#31 - 2012-09-02 19:26:09 UTC
Seems Op wants Titans to be able to solo entire fleets until they ran out of ammo.


This is a game. Balance (making no ship completely on top) is much more important that things being "real".




Also, destroyers are not the same size as frigates, they are as big as BCs.
A Soporific
Perkone
Caldari State
#32 - 2012-09-02 20:03:18 UTC
Luminus Mallus wrote:
A Soporific wrote:
Some Valid Argumentation

- For a start, it is quite certain that if you just 'put more weapons in' things get somehow broken. Finetuning that **** is ccp's idiots jobs, for sure. Giving them the correct idea to fix a hopelessly broken game mechanic is good enough value to me, honestly.
- As a side note, let me clarify that my ability or understanding of what it takes to be effective against any ship class, in any ship class, should be irrelevant. These I'm listing are de-facto failures of an unbalanced 'pvp' system that favours cowardice, and that is completely based upon pay2win, and absolutely devoid of human skill (to the extent in which it normally applies to human player versus player online multiplayer fights)
- Regarding 'bigger real life ship vs smaller real life ship'. I honestly believe there's no way for contestation here. Smaller ships can pose a threat, but a 'big ship' doesn't need to FIT for it. Bigger ships can kick any smaller ships asses ANY TIME.
Eve's pvp works as if a real life battleship needed head for the dock to refit turrets just because it might encounter an oar powered boat with a machinegun on top. Come on. You know it's like this, only a deluded, truly subnormal fanboy is still willing to deny such an obvious and blatant true fail.
- Lastly, your conclusion about 'going more guns way is going even deeper into pay2win' is simply WRONG.
Such an approach would simply create different CLASSES of pvp players: those that would still want to RISK going versus a bigger ship, and those who won't. After all, weapon-wise, the bigger ship would certainly be WAY less effective than the smaller ship, in a 'caliber parity situation', and its only advantage would be the total hitpoints, in respect to the smaller ship.
As a matter of fact, this would not require so much rebalancing or so much thinking.

Lastly, for those still unsure, a perfect limitation could be the ability to only use for example N total guns (based on ship), of all available, at the same time.



- You are going to have to explain how it is broken, exactly. I understand that you can finetune a lot of problems out, but you're talking about a complete redesign of all ships larger than a frigate. As it stands, people still use Battleships, and a lot of them are on lists of the most commonly used ships.
- How is it pay to win? People can finish frigate skills in about a year. After that point it doesn't matter if you have been playing one year or from launch, your stats are identical. That difference, the pay to win, is more pronounced in Battleships and Capitals, which require months to get from level 4 to 5 in the relevant skills as opposed to a week for the equivalent frigate skill. Anything that favors larger ship will increase the impact of age in a character. In most frigate duels the only differences are fiting and piloting, both of which are player skills.
- As some folks have pointed out, small guns on battleships persisted for some time beyond the Dreadnought. This was out of fear of torpedo-wielding destroyers, the smallest class of fleet warship. For a few decades navies resisted the obvious benefit of all big guns and an AA armorment in fleet engagements for a selection of smaller guns for defense. Even during World War II, the Battle of Leyte Gulf was decided by an American Task Force of Destroyers and Destroyer Escorts backed up by a couple of Escort Carriers holding off the primary Japanese Battlefleet. Look it up, the element of the battle in question is called the Battle off Samar where four battleships failed to make headway against six ships destroyer sized and smaller.
- Yes, it would require more in the way of time. In order to have any chance of succeeding with the Raven I would have to master Torpedo/Cruise Missiles, Heavy/Assault Missiles, and Light Missiles/Rockets. As it stands now, as a new player I can largely ignore the optional secondary skills for light and medium weapons and reach stat equality with older players months sooner. The skill system is shallow in eve, the difference between a one year account and a seven year account is that the seven year account can do more different things, not the same thing better than the one year account. Anything the requires more different things to be used on a single hull delays new users from reaching equality. A six month character can be the equal of a seven year character in a single race's frigates.
Gunnlaugur
EVE University
Ivy League
#33 - 2012-09-02 20:16:41 UTC
Dude, if 99% of the player base thinks it isint broken it aint broken.
Jax Bederen
Dark Horse RM
#34 - 2012-09-02 22:00:22 UTC
Gunnlaugur wrote:
Dude, if 99% of the player base thinks it isint broken it aint broken.


99%? really?
Vakr Onzo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#35 - 2012-09-02 22:23:57 UTC
Morgan North wrote:


Ironically, this could be solved with basically introducing new weapons, that would consist of just lower classed weapons grouped together. with no difference in stats from the smaller guns otherthan being doubled up.

For instance:

You get yourself a Rokh. It can have, say, 8 rail guns. But you want 4 rail guns and you really want to be a anti frigate brawler, for some reason. Lelts assume that you don't simply do the obvious which is replace all guns with Blasters, and then slapping possibly a Haavy Neutralizer, and webs on your mid slots, and target painters and you know, the things that will make you hit a frigate.

Lets assume you go and start by fitting cruiser sized weaponery to your Rokh. Your turrets look silly and small, but you could potentially have two on tht slot, either by CCP allowing you to purchase and slap on two guns per slot, or but CCP making a "new" turret that consisted of "dual heavy electron blasters" which was in essence a turret with two electron blasters side by side, with all stats doubled except for tracking. Now lets assume you want even more tracking, and you fit say... Quad Light electron Blasters.

While the idea sound nice, and you get to scale up the DPS, you'd still make no bonuses, and there's the whole fact that you might never use those guns since you lack the speed to approach a frigate. But then there's another which is, the number of possible combinations fit. And there's also the annoying detail that they wouldnt' be covered by the battleship's bonuses.

I'd liketo see somethign like this, but I don't think it'll ever show up.
Looking at some autocannons and lasers, you see indications of lower 'calibre' weapons being grouped together in a single turret. Usually they have better tracking or smaller fitting needs.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#36 - 2012-09-02 23:15:51 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
I was going to write a long, drawn out post... but then laziness got the best of me.

OP... why are you complaining about "realism" in a game where physics mirror water, planets don't orbit, and ships can't destroy each other through collisions?

It's nice to have SOME realism in a game. It makes things interesting. But push comes to shove... gameplay mechanics trump realism.

Would it be more realistic to make bigger ships able to WTFPWN smaller ships without breaking a sweat? Certainly.
Would such realism obsolete all smaller classes (see: classes dominated by younger players) and effectively make capital pilots almost godlike? Absolutely.

How did you Veterans start?
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#37 - 2012-09-02 23:35:56 UTC
All RL examples aside, the game is made with different playstyles in mind.

Industry
- Mining
- Manufacturing

Trading
- Wholesale markets
- Working the markets (buy low, sell high)

PVE
- Exploration
- Missions
- Incursions
- Ratting

PVP
- Frigates/Destroyers
- Cruisers/Battlecruisers
- Battleships
- Capital/Supercapital

One of the main reasons that this game has a consistant player base with only really one year of negative growth is the fact that you can play whatever way you want and still have a fighting chance if you know what your doing. This is what I love about this game and that is why I play it and keep playing it. The moment they make it so you have to have a Supercarrier in order to be effective and essentially destroy the balance that they are trying so hard to maintain is the day I'll end my accounts, biomass and all.

Realism be shot in the head, I play eve to escape from the reality of my life. I want to be the underdog in a frigate to take down a Battleship, and it feels good when I finally do it.

@ OP Blasting my previous comments on ground forces. If you look into tactical small arms situations it plays out strikingly similar to naval battles, because both situations are controled by people. Humans react the same way whether using ships, planes, or platoons of soldiers.

Join the military and go to war, get some real experience in real tactics and get shot at; or complain from your armchair that your internet spaceships videogame isn't real enough according to Terran Naval History. The game was created this way, and it probably isn't going to change ever, as far as I know, and as far as CCP's actions are concerned thats how they want to keep it. If you don't like it give me your stuff, biomass your characters and unsub, obviously this isn't the game for you.

MMOs come and go, but Eve remains.  -Garresh-
Katie Frost
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#38 - 2012-09-03 00:11:39 UTC
MisterNick wrote:
I, for one, wonder which frigate it was that the OP lost his battleship to.


Some NOIR guys took his ratting BS out back in Jan 2010... I would say there are probably a few alt accounts of his out there with similar and more recent KMs

I had quite a bit of fun reading the thread though.

There is no point arguing with somebody that is clearly very butt-hurt and teary. Invoking the 'realism argument' in a Sci-Fi online computer game... I mean if it was a simulator or even a FPS, perhaps I could even fathom the premise but this... Shocked
betoli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2012-09-03 00:17:00 UTC
Mars Theran wrote:

Do you think a Galleon in the 15th century couldn't defend itself from a single Caraval? Of course it could, and with only a minimum of effort; that's how it works in the real world.


I'm loving this thread :-)

Navel historians may also recollect Nelsons victory at Trafalgar where he broke the conventional navel engagement rules by sailing up to the enemy in a tiny, yet amazingly fast, rowing boat and throwing an enormous net over the enemy ships of the line, thus preventing them from running away. The battle was long running but eventually he sank all 33 craft by battering them with a tiny oar over a period of 12 years. The massive array of hundreds of guns were not able to sink the rower, with analysts unclear as to whether this was because the tiny boat was actually faster than the cannonballs or somehow didn't do as much damage... for some reason. This changed the landscape of conflict in years to come as ship construction moved from solid planking to cardboard and glue in combination with an army of monkeys continually spreading bitumen over the hull to offset these nasty oar attacks.



Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#40 - 2012-09-03 01:00:11 UTC
betoli wrote:
Mars Theran wrote:

Do you think a Galleon in the 15th century couldn't defend itself from a single Caraval? Of course it could, and with only a minimum of effort; that's how it works in the real world.


I'm loving this thread :-)

Navel historians may also recollect Nelsons victory at Trafalgar where he broke the conventional navel engagement rules by sailing up to the enemy in a tiny, yet amazingly fast, rowing boat and throwing an enormous net over the enemy ships of the line, thus preventing them from running away. The battle was long running but eventually he sank all 33 craft by battering them with a tiny oar over a period of 12 years. The massive array of hundreds of guns were not able to sink the rower, with analysts unclear as to whether this was because the tiny boat was actually faster than the cannonballs or somehow didn't do as much damage... for some reason. This changed the landscape of conflict in years to come as ship construction moved from solid planking to cardboard and glue in combination with an army of monkeys continually spreading bitumen over the hull to offset these nasty oar attacks.




I... am not sure what this is.