These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Small ships being boring

Author
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2016-07-24 11:29:45 UTC
Tried the game out again and I'm quite impressed with the improvements CCP has made to EvE. Its almost worthwhile to pay for a sub or 10 again however the enjoy-ability of the game has been reduced by the astronomical increase in small ship.

Why are small ships bad for the game?

They're not. Support ships are great. Small ships are great. But so are medium sized ships, as are large ships and huge ships. Small ships become a problem when using small ships becomes a requirement for fighting small ships and when using medium, large or huge ships means PvP in small ships becomes consensual.


Whats wrong with small ship only gameplay?
EvE is a game of ship combat. That ship combat should include balanced fleets and tactical choice. Balanced fleets are fleets made of multiple types and classes of ships. Tactical choice is where you choose from a number of different fleet compositions and tactics (close range, brawling, tanking, kiting, long range etc). Yet at the moment we clearly are seeing fleets of only *) Interceptors *) Tactical destroyers *) Cruisers (not often) *) T1 frigates (griffs) etc.


What was / is the role of the small ship?
The role of small ships is supposed to be one of support - tackle, ecm, repping, scouting. Yet we're seeing these ships being the end all and be all of the fleet. Recently an outnumbered group of tactical destroyers defeated a numerically superior force of faction battleships. Why would anyone field a fleet of battleships, those ships designed apparently with the main role of directly fighting an opposing fleet, when a smaller fleet of small support ships can overwhelmingly defeat that superior and vastly more expensive force? Its entirely imbalanced to the point of ludicrousness.


Why are people choosing small ships?
People are naturally risk averse. EvE's small ships despite being designed for supporting fleets and thus being relatively cheap perform often better than the medium, large and huge ships they're supposed to support. When a cheap small ship can go faster, put out often more dps than a medium ship, and almost equal dps to a large ship, makes engaging consensual, causes losses to be minimal and can avoid almost all damage from medium, large and huge ships why would anyone choose to use larger ships.?


How would you fix the current imbalance?
That's the question and one that would need a significant amount of time and effort to get right. The one question that can be answered if you've read the above points is that something should be done to encourage the use of other classes of ships in null other than frig, interceptor or destroyer.


CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Raphael Deimatar
Cynosural Samurai
#2 - 2016-07-24 14:28:40 UTC
I have never liked the "risk averse" argument...

I have always felt we as eve players have gotten "Too Good At Eve" if that makes sense. Every good FC can immediatly see a lost cause when it happens and will just disengage, not because he's afraid of wiping a few billion isk of fleet but because there is no ******* point in even playing. I mean the SRP can cover an infinite number of t1 cruisers/frigates/battleships doesnt matter.


Everyone knows the optimal strat, weather that is slowcats or hellcats or ishtars or the artilleryabaddons of old doesnt matter. Everyone knows the current "go too" strategy the one that is mathematically best, and maybe knows the counter to that thing concludes there is no point in undocking for a lost cause. Since no amount of player skill or smart target calling or whatever can "fix" the matchup that is there one of the two FCs just "goes home".

I mean those minecraft avatar projects arent going to build themselves now are they?
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#3 - 2016-07-24 14:31:06 UTC
Nerf people?

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2016-07-24 14:54:24 UTC
Raphael Deimatar wrote:
I have never liked the "risk averse" argument...

I have always felt we as eve players have gotten "Too Good At Eve" if that makes sense. Every good FC can immediatly see a lost cause when it happens and will just disengage, not because he's afraid of wiping a few billion isk of fleet but because there is no ******* point in even playing. I mean the SRP can cover an infinite number of t1 cruisers/frigates/battleships doesnt matter.


Everyone knows the optimal strat, weather that is slowcats or hellcats or ishtars or the artilleryabaddons of old doesnt matter. Everyone knows the current "go too" strategy the one that is mathematically best, and maybe knows the counter to that thing concludes there is no point in undocking for a lost cause. Since no amount of player skill or smart target calling or whatever can "fix" the matchup that is there one of the two FCs just "goes home".

I mean those minecraft avatar projects arent going to build themselves now are they?

So what are you saying? There's no way to balance the game to achieve a relatively balanced fleet meta?

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Gadget Helmsdottir
Gadget's Workshop
#5 - 2016-07-24 15:09:01 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Raphael Deimatar wrote:
I have never liked the "risk averse" argument...

I have always felt we as eve players have gotten "Too Good At Eve" if that makes sense. Every good FC can immediatly see a lost cause when it happens and will just disengage, not because he's afraid of wiping a few billion isk of fleet but because there is no ******* point in even playing. I mean the SRP can cover an infinite number of t1 cruisers/frigates/battleships doesnt matter.


Everyone knows the optimal strat, weather that is slowcats or hellcats or ishtars or the artilleryabaddons of old doesnt matter. Everyone knows the current "go too" strategy the one that is mathematically best, and maybe knows the counter to that thing concludes there is no point in undocking for a lost cause. Since no amount of player skill or smart target calling or whatever can "fix" the matchup that is there one of the two FCs just "goes home".

I mean those minecraft avatar projects arent going to build themselves now are they?

So what are you saying? There's no way to balance the game to achieve a relatively balanced fleet meta?


Less about the game, and more about human psyche.

No technical fix will make getting decimated for no gain.... fun.

--Gadget

Work smarter, not harder. --Scrooge McDuck, an eminent old-Earth economist

Given an hour to save New Eden, how would respected scientist, Albertus Eisenstein compose his thoughts? "Fifty-five minutes to define the problem; save the galaxy in five."

Doctor Gallento
Doctor Gallento - the Rock'n'Roll Clown
#6 - 2016-07-24 15:33:22 UTC
Well.

Quote:

What was / is the role of the small ship?
The role of small ships is supposed to be one of support - tackle, ecm, repping, scouting. Yet we're seeing these ships being the end all and be all of the fleet. Recently an outnumbered group of tactical destroyers defeated a numerically superior force of faction battleships. Why would anyone field a fleet of battleships, those ships designed apparently with the main role of directly fighting an opposing fleet, when a smaller fleet of small support ships can overwhelmingly defeat that superior and vastly more expensive force? Its entirely imbalanced to the point of ludicrousness.


Get good?

Aside from svipuls desperately needing a nerf I'm not sure what your suggestion is. It looks like someone got outplayed - and didn't have enough support with them. If you take the biggest and most expensive ship and expect to win every fight you, sometimes, get sorely disappointed.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2016-07-24 16:13:13 UTC
Doctor Gallento wrote:
Well.

Quote:

What was / is the role of the small ship?
The role of small ships is supposed to be one of support - tackle, ecm, repping, scouting. Yet we're seeing these ships being the end all and be all of the fleet. Recently an outnumbered group of tactical destroyers defeated a numerically superior force of faction battleships. Why would anyone field a fleet of battleships, those ships designed apparently with the main role of directly fighting an opposing fleet, when a smaller fleet of small support ships can overwhelmingly defeat that superior and vastly more expensive force? Its entirely imbalanced to the point of ludicrousness.


Get good?

Aside from svipuls desperately needing a nerf I'm not sure what your suggestion is. It looks like someone got outplayed - and didn't have enough support with them. If you take the biggest and most expensive ship and expect to win every fight you, sometimes, get sorely disappointed.

Because everything has to be about personal gains / losses and nobody can discuss aspects of the game without having an ulterior motive based on a loss somewhere.

The game is a bit boring when its non-stop fleets of inexpensive ships. Taking the time out to deship a person in a frig is pointless since the effort too deship them is more than the effort for them to reship. Its a consequence free loss and so its boring imo

Playing EvE frigs is somewhat like playing a first person shooter. Dying is not significant and EvE is supposed to be a game where loss or win is significant imo, that's what gives me the hand shakes. Deship someone where the loss hurts them and to potentially lose something worth losing and that i"ll have to recover from if I fail.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Doctor Gallento
Doctor Gallento - the Rock'n'Roll Clown
#8 - 2016-07-24 16:55:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Doctor Gallento
Trust me, the game would be a lot more boring if everyone would only undock in their shiny supercomp because they couldn't afford losing.

Be glad that there are some risk averse people around who are willing to spend their evening getting blown up over and over again.
Memphis Baas
#9 - 2016-07-24 17:15:35 UTC
It's not risk-aversion.

You're imagining that people are flying cheap frigates with cheap fittings, when in fact they're flying either T1 ships (because they offer good performance now) with T2 or officer modules, or straight out T2 / T3 or pirate ships. The cost of an Astero, to just give an example, isn't "cheap".

Battleships aren't flown because they're too slow, and because cruiser-level ships can do the job equally well, while being faster on grid and in warp. The situation with frigates vs. cruisers isn't as glaring as with battleships, but, basically, T2 and pirate frigates can put out serious DPS and thus are used more often than the bigger ships.

People now have the skillpoints to fly the exotic / higher tech levels, and T2 and T3 are all about dishing out the same DPS at smaller sizes.

CCP needs to buff battleships to have higher DPS and more fancy abilities, and we'll fly them again. But then they'll need to buff capitals, to distance them from battleships, which would be ok.
Wimzy Chent-Shi
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2016-07-24 17:29:58 UTC
But I thought carriers can instalock and frigates now. Isn't that a fix?
There is no "fleet gang combat" t2 bs available but Blops are great. Marauders are kinda weird and underperforming outmatched by faction/tengu in even pve. You can always bring webbing loki though... tanks well.

Come get some cancer @ my blog !

"This clash of opinions is like cutting onions. We are creating something here, that's productive, ...and then there is also salt." -Wimzy 2016

Doctor Gallento
Doctor Gallento - the Rock'n'Roll Clown
#11 - 2016-07-24 17:41:10 UTC
Typical battleships easily do two to four times as much dps as the most extreme small ships. This is on top of higher survivability, projection and utility. Depending on the ships and fits used BSes can be very good against small targets as well, even without designated support.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#12 - 2016-07-24 20:04:28 UTC
Doctor Gallento wrote:
Typical battleships easily do two to four times as much dps as the most extreme small ships. This is on top of higher survivability, projection and utility. Depending on the ships and fits used BSes can be very good against small targets as well, even without designated support.

You missed two factors in your assessment which are the two factors which actually matter.
Application, & mobility.

If you can't get the DPS to where it is needed and hitting it's target it doesn't matter how big a number you supposedly do to your targets, it's not a real number till it hits.
Even CCP admitted that BS & BC were doing poorly in the overall Meta after tiericide, tiericide just balanced inside the class itself, not between classes.
Wimzy Chent-Shi
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2016-07-24 20:34:19 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Doctor Gallento wrote:
Typical battleships easily do two to four times as much dps as the most extreme small ships. This is on top of higher survivability, projection and utility. Depending on the ships and fits used BSes can be very good against small targets as well, even without designated support.

You missed two factors in your assessment which are the two factors which actually matter.
Application, & mobility.

If you can't get the DPS to where it is needed and hitting it's target it doesn't matter how big a number you supposedly do to your targets, it's not a real number till it hits.
Even CCP admitted that BS & BC were doing poorly in the overall Meta after tiericide, tieritcide just balanced inside the class itself, not between classes.


Blaster hecate 700 ~ heat 800 dps (class has a heat bonus)? I mean that pretty is extreme (and neat) to me, I heard that a typical battleship (read shiny pimp vindi with drone dmg mods and implants) can "easily" output 2K only for 40 times the price of a hecate? But the web bonus seals the deal. Still 800 * 4 = 3 200, show me where, please I need that.
Projection amounts for chance to hit, which is miserabe, close to zero.
Is "well" meant to be "fair" ? That 1 v 1 with a ship 3 classes below you and quarter the price might end well?
Grappler does level the playfield for non-serpenentis ships at low ranges like these. However, can your large gun track it even at 10% speed, because it also might not.
RHML was a nice idea, but is not all that amazing even with the phoon bonus, but bring a support that can survive the onslaught of BS level dps approaching at destroyer speed with superior manueverability and you can pop a few before you die.

It's not just the problem of destroyers though, if you fly a "usual" T1 fit cruiser you will die to a RLM caracal unless you can tank the clip and kill it before the reload. Meta is just so strong it forces out alternatives.

Come get some cancer @ my blog !

"This clash of opinions is like cutting onions. We are creating something here, that's productive, ...and then there is also salt." -Wimzy 2016

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2016-07-24 21:55:28 UTC
Memphis Baas wrote:


*snip*

CCP needs to buff battleships to have higher DPS and more fancy abilities, and we'll fly them again. But then they'll need to buff capitals, to distance them from battleships, which would be ok.

I don't think adding damage is the answer that would just leave to ping ponging to a new meta. I think something along the lines of this might work though:

[frigates]
------------> frigate destroyer [100% damage]
------------> cruiser [75% damage]
------------> battlecruiser [50% damage]
------------> battleship [25% damage]
------------> capital [10% damage]

[cruiser]

-----------> frigate, destroyer, cruiser [100% damage]
-----------> battlecruiser [75% damage]
-----------> battleship [50% damage]
-----------> capital [25% damage]

* percentages are just placeholders for whatever would work best.
* simulates heavy armor penetration in the same way damage reduces vs sig and speed

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Wimzy Chent-Shi
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2016-07-25 06:51:48 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Memphis Baas wrote:


*snip*

CCP needs to buff battleships to have higher DPS and more fancy abilities, and we'll fly them again. But then they'll need to buff capitals, to distance them from battleships, which would be ok.

I don't think adding damage is the answer that would just leave to ping ponging to a new meta. I think something along the lines of this might work though:

[frigates]
------------> frigate destroyer [100% damage]
------------> cruiser [75% damage]
------------> battlecruiser [50% damage]
------------> battleship [25% damage]
------------> capital [10% damage]

[cruiser]

-----------> frigate, destroyer, cruiser [100% damage]
-----------> battlecruiser [75% damage]
-----------> battleship [50% damage]
-----------> capital [25% damage]

* percentages are just placeholders for whatever would work best.
* simulates heavy armor penetration in the same way damage reduces vs sig and speed


While I agree with the problem I don't think a flat damage reduction is a good fit, for that more slots and better resistance profile available to larger size should work alone.
I am a strong advocate for 200 rifters taking down a titan being possibe. From my point of view we miss a strong T2 resist profile battleship, but that's tough to balance.

Come get some cancer @ my blog !

"This clash of opinions is like cutting onions. We are creating something here, that's productive, ...and then there is also salt." -Wimzy 2016

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#16 - 2016-07-25 11:02:00 UTC
The best thing would be to increase the building cost of battleships by 6000% and call it a day, miners rejoice and all battleships are better now since they cost more.

The End.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#17 - 2016-07-25 11:27:12 UTC
Wimzy Chent-Shi wrote:


While I agree with the problem I don't think a flat damage reduction is a good fit, for that more slots and better resistance profile available to larger size should work alone.
I am a strong advocate for 200 rifters taking down a titan being possible. From my point of view we miss a strong T2 resist profile battleship, but that's tough to balance.

The idea behind the damage reduction is to somewhat replicate the effective damage reduction small ships have against larger ships. The problem is that currently the meta works one way only, small ships can damage big ships really well, but big ships can't hurt small ships. Unless you are dealing in huge fleets large enough at least some people get good tracking, this puts the meta squarely on the side of the small ships. And that is why we have ended up with our current cruisers online.
Memphis Baas
#18 - 2016-07-25 14:49:55 UTC
Small ships can apply 100% of their damage to big ships, but 100% of frigate guns damage is easily tankable by battleship-sized repair modules. So in effect small ships get a damage "reduction" by virtue of having small guns. Meanwhile, big ships can one-shot small ships, so CCP introduced artificial reductions to how well the damage you see in EFT is actually applied to the small ship.

As I said, everybody flies T2 / T3 cruisers because that's the current sweet spot of DPS vs. mobility and usefulness. Frigates are fine, they have even more mobility and usefulness, but quite a bit less DPS, but battleships don't have enough DPS to balance their lack of mobility and usefulness (gimmicks).

People do fly battleships; it's just that they only fly the "better" ones: Vindicator, Machariel, Bhaalgorn, Rattlesnake, and various "Navy Issue" ones. Only these seem to be worth bringing out, because they are really good compared to the rest of the battleships, and compared to the smaller ships. This is why I think increasing the DPS of battleships as a class would make them a lot more desirable (that, or adding gimmicks in the form of built-in abilities that only certain battleships have).
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#19 - 2016-07-25 15:05:29 UTC
Memphis Baas wrote:
Small ships can apply 100% of their damage to big ships, but 100% of frigate guns damage is easily tankable by battleship-sized repair modules. So in effect small ships get a damage "reduction" by virtue of having small guns. Meanwhile, big ships can one-shot small ships, so CCP introduced artificial reductions to how well the damage you see in EFT is actually applied to the small ship.

As I said, everybody flies T2 / T3 cruisers because that's the current sweet spot of DPS vs. mobility and usefulness. Frigates are fine, they have even more mobility and usefulness, but quite a bit less DPS, but battleships don't have enough DPS to balance their lack of mobility and usefulness (gimmicks).

People do fly battleships; it's just that they only fly the "better" ones: Vindicator, Machariel, Bhaalgorn, Rattlesnake, and various "Navy Issue" ones. Only these seem to be worth bringing out, because they are really good compared to the rest of the battleships, and compared to the smaller ships. This is why I think increasing the DPS of battleships as a class would make them a lot more desirable (that, or adding gimmicks in the form of built-in abilities that only certain battleships have).


*gasp* you for the dream-ship!!!

Nightmare (True Sansha = master race)

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2016-07-25 21:57:39 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Wimzy Chent-Shi wrote:


While I agree with the problem I don't think a flat damage reduction is a good fit, for that more slots and better resistance profile available to larger size should work alone.
I am a strong advocate for 200 rifters taking down a titan being possible. From my point of view we miss a strong T2 resist profile battleship, but that's tough to balance.

The idea behind the damage reduction is to somewhat replicate the effective damage reduction small ships have against larger ships. The problem is that currently the meta works one way only, small ships can damage big ships really well, but big ships can't hurt small ships. Unless you are dealing in huge fleets large enough at least some people get good tracking, this puts the meta squarely on the side of the small ships. And that is why we have ended up with our current cruisers online.

Its also how damage works in real life in all combat. A smaller calibre round will have reduced damage reduction against a more fortified (usually bigger target), this applies to everything from throwing rocks at things (rock vs car, rock vs tank) to nuclear weapons (nuke vs house, nuke vs heavily fortified underground bunker).

I understand people saying well frig guns hit for 100% against big targets but the gun is smaller so the target can tank it however the frig meta is about xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx v X, not x v X. In inverse is that a frig can usually indefinitely tank a large ship since the ship will not be able to hit the frig with large guns (unless the frig seriously fekked up) which means in a frigs tank is just as powerful.

Tank = how many shots you can take AND mitigate before you lose all hp.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

12Next page