These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Rebalance] The Wrecks

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Anthar Thebess
#101 - 2015-07-08 10:31:34 UTC
CCP more ehp on wrecks pls.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Rayzilla Zaraki
Yin Jian Enterprises
#102 - 2015-07-08 14:33:27 UTC
I support/endorse this product/service. It makes sense.

The wreck HP should be a percentage of the ship's hull HP.

Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.
Anthar Thebess
#103 - 2015-07-13 08:42:21 UTC
Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:
I support/endorse this product/service. It makes sense.

The wreck HP should be a percentage of the ship's hull HP.

Yes this also could be the the way.
I think that this will require much more work than generic types based on ship class.
Each ship have different hp , player can also modify this fitting mods , and training proper skills , so again more and more things to calculate.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#104 - 2015-07-14 17:54:11 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Yes we are finally ready for this Roll
Why?
Currently almost any frigate can instantly kill any wreck. This have good and bad application in game, but usually it is abused to prevent someone from warp , salvage or loot something.

Just to prevent this from happening we should think about giving wrecks more EHP.
To simplify we will have 5 basic types of wrecks : S , M , L , XL , XXL
* S corresponds to current wreck ehp and all it is being created when destroyer or smaller ship dies ( no difference T1/T2 or T3)
* M will have around 1.5k EHP. It is created after destroying (battle)cruser or industrial ship
* L comes from Battleship (maybe also orca) and have 5k EHP
* XL wreck come from carrier, dread, freighter , jump freighter and rorqual , it have 20k EHP
* XXL wreck come from supper carrier or Titan, it have around 50k ehp.

What will this change?
2 simple examples:
- new fleet opportunity : common tactic is to kill all wrecks near your fleet to remove unwanted wapins.
- more dead freighters : after ganking a freighter , common thing is to kill the wreck. If this wreck could be left alive , someone will try to pick this stuff up in another freighter , gaining suspect timer

What you call abuse is a core game philosophy of this game basically the ability to annoy someone into a fight so you can get at your real objective which is to kill someone in a bling ship. so no.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Anthar Thebess
#105 - 2015-07-14 21:16:56 UTC
Read all posts.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Spectre 666
Doomheim
#106 - 2015-07-14 22:34:36 UTC
annoying other players is God (EVE) given right that should be cherished and protected, so no to your idea.
Anthar Thebess
#107 - 2015-07-16 11:23:50 UTC
It is not about annoy someone , but to balance battle field.

Look at this this way.
I have 8 battleship wrecks - if i want to remove all of them now i need 1 person in 8 gun battleship, that will split guns , and destroy all of them in 1 cycle.

Now lets assume that battleship wreck have 20k ehp in structure.
This give us 8*20 = 120k of ehp that needs to be applied to have the same effect.

Assuming 4k alpha from all guns , we need 5 ships per wreck to destroy it , so 40 people need to lock, and waste 1 gun cycle to achieve the same thing.

Before not all the people will find proper wreck , lock it fast enough we are talking about viable warpin points for around 10 seconds.

On a nullsec battleship - this is a long time.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
i make jobs2
Doomheim
#108 - 2015-07-16 16:36:58 UTC
I like this idea, I'm tired of abandoning wrecks so my friend can loot them and having some troll come into my mission and shoot them, not even take them.

good idea +1
Strata Maslav
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#109 - 2015-07-16 21:35:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Strata Maslav
It would be great if wrecks were to stay in space for a longer periods of time and have link to the kill mail available if you click on them.
Aeon Veritas
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2015-07-24 07:44:04 UTC
Hopefully CCP is realy considering this idea, since the fleet warp changes are again delayed, now to the (29th of) September Update.
Anthar Thebess
#111 - 2015-07-24 08:38:20 UTC
We can only have hope.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#112 - 2015-07-24 13:42:31 UTC
Kione Keikira wrote:
Suicide ganking is also a problem


It really isn't.

Kione Keikira wrote:
One day instead of suicide ganking it'll be suicide raids, where a gallente task force jumps into Jita to try and blap as many ships as possible


Now you're just turning me on.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#113 - 2015-07-24 15:23:40 UTC
+1
i make jobs2
Doomheim
#114 - 2015-07-24 19:15:27 UTC
how long is this going to be not implemented? this is imo a really good change and im shocked its taking this long with no one saying anything about it???
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#115 - 2015-07-25 01:53:48 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
It is not about annoy someone , but to balance battle field.

Look at this this way.
I have 8 battleship wrecks - if i want to remove all of them now i need 1 person in 8 gun battleship, that will split guns , and destroy all of them in 1 cycle.

Now lets assume that battleship wreck have 20k ehp in structure.
This give us 8*20 = 120k of ehp that needs to be applied to have the same effect.

Assuming 4k alpha from all guns , we need 5 ships per wreck to destroy it , so 40 people need to lock, and waste 1 gun cycle to achieve the same thing.

Before not all the people will find proper wreck , lock it fast enough we are talking about viable warpin points for around 10 seconds.

On a nullsec battleship - this is a long time.


In highsec a valid game playing technique is to blast cans and try and get the owner pissed enough to attack you the counter is to blow up your own cans, this idea doesnt stop this but would have a negative impact on it as the can killer uses a cheap ship usually a T1 frig with just enough firepower to blow up cans, you would be changing the dynamic considerably as you say and this would hurt highsec pvp.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#116 - 2015-07-25 01:55:32 UTC
i make jobs2 wrote:
I like this idea, I'm tired of abandoning wrecks so my friend can loot them and having some troll come into my mission and shoot them, not even take them.

good idea +1

Exactly why this should NOT be put into the game.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Anthar Thebess
#117 - 2015-07-28 07:07:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
i make jobs2 wrote:
I like this idea, I'm tired of abandoning wrecks so my friend can loot them and having some troll come into my mission and shoot them, not even take them.

good idea +1

Exactly why this should NOT be put into the game.

Sorry , this will be hard , fleet objectives are far more important than trolling other people. Cry
Trust me , I'm trolling FC's almost on every fleet.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Jason Amelana
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#118 - 2015-07-28 09:06:58 UTC
+1 And Life Span Too
Anthar Thebess
#119 - 2015-07-29 08:43:16 UTC
Lifespan is not so important , usually fight ends sooner than wrecks disappear , even if not there is usually enough new ones.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Ella Echerie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#120 - 2015-07-29 11:45:04 UTC
This makes sense for several reasons

+1