Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I'm roughly guessing somebody may have started a discussion like this one in similar fashion a long while ago. Nonetheless, since this is somewhere tied to the thought of how a seperate EVE type of gameplay could be with a similar damage model.


This discussion however is a bit more of a talkround type of subject, so expect some walls of text. Thus, it is not for the tl;dr population. But I hope to get some viable talk around how EVE (or a seperate EVE game) could actually florish from this type of model - or not - that is the point of the discussion :).

Out of the box thinking is likely required.


This is also not about Logistics Ship hate or whatever. Nothing but just bland talk about World of Tanks' dmg model and how a similar setup for a (different) EVE game could be.


Being it the right word or not, I think the definition of "Damage Model" goes by how the gameplay handles the essence of "inflicting dmg". There are key differences between EVE and general MMORPGs vs a game like World of Tanks.


There is a portion of people who like the type of "permanent damage model" (I'll just call it that for now); be it your Star Trek type of dmg model featuring subsystems and decks that can get damaged/destroyed - unlike in Eve where Shields/Armor/Structure is just a generalization of a HUGE hp bar. There is of course more to it, but being blunt, it is just a huge HP bar. Also, it is common in EVE to be tanking forever - Some of which who can really tank FOREVER unless you have a HUGE FLEET to catch the specific person off guard sometime. Note that this is just a dramatization.



In short, EVE and games like (today's) StarTrekOnline go by HARD AND FAST -
as opposed to the maybe more tactical
SOFT AND SLOW -- though I think Hard and Slow is more like it, as for World of Tanks.

Some facts I learned so far on World of Tanks (YMMV by the way) :
What makes WoT fun in many cases is that even the Light Tanks can still deal damage -- not just that "10dmg" that really is just for the lulz like a frigate would do to, say, a Command Ship. Yes, EVE frigates are there to tackle, but let's face it, nobody is afraid of that little bit of damage. Yes, a flock of frigates could kill a Command Ship or whatever, but this is not about 1vs1 or 182936vs1 discussions.


Here's the thing about WoT...

And I'm aware about the specific game engines, too, but let's keep it loose.

Making side/rear hits is one way to cause critical dmg. This might not work on EVE since, well, "Spaceships", but in terms of WoT and damage, there are ways of tanking damage without these "magical mending heals". I understand that MMOGs and EVE has lived on the "Tank/Heal/Gank" trinity of the past decade, but let's say that trinity were to drop out a bit on the WoW-paladin tanking forever thanks to having a mass of heals.

However, things should not just be about Small Ships making more considerable damage to larger ones.

It is also very often that we keep seeing the same problem around balancing weapons. This is an MMORPG and "there is no balance" but we keep having the same problem showing up again. A damage model involving subsystems-HP/damage and other features would allow the lacking weapons to actual do some other "special feature damage" - rather than having to hear the same old argument (I'm sure you'll regard it as whines) on this weapon doing more than that, cap this, missiles that - yadda yadda.

So here are a few things to talk about:




Another side-tracking idea;
Hit and run operations would actually HURT if repping would require some bit of TIME and/or the actual costs for repping would actually require materials instead of just going to your 0.0 station and hitting Repair Shop. Industrialists could maybe apply their Ship Construction skill to conduct reps at stations even faster.
In WoT, this is why loosing hurts sometimes. You have to "pay" for your reps (of course, EVE lives from killing the ship and losing the expensive mods).
Nonetheless, one is not immediately dead in WoT versus higher tier Tank classes.


To keep things safe and sound, please keep in mind that:
- WoT and EVE are of course two different kinds of games.

- This is just a discussion. There is no requirement for saying "Just play World of Tanks then".

- yes, in EVE, it is always smarter to manually fly rather than auto-orbit, as it is in WoT for Autoaim (manually aiming is always better).

- I'm entirely neutral, neither turning down EVE or WoT. I'm just curious around this other damage model, as that is something what has made games like Star Trek Command/Bridge Commander and the Silent Hunter series so awesome (hell, I'd even toss in Subwar2050 if anybody knew it).

- Personally, I've been always exploring the idea of a slightly more complex damage model for EVE. Just a bit, not extremely.

from what i recall of WoT is its pay2win and CCP will lose ALOT of the player base if they even think of going that route let alone actually implementing it. soo all im gonna say is FLAME-ON! and you better get the preparation H ready people gonna get rough ;p

I still trying to figure out what exactly do you want.... Your post is all over the place, there no clear thought process on it, instead of attempting to throwing out a bunch of loose threads and telling use to knit the sweater, how about you knit if for us so we know exactly what we are looking at.

First off, I'll answer your question you asked at the end: I think EVE would suffer greatly, even at the mention of destructable subsystems. The large HP bar represents your shield, and armor integrity, seperate from your hull integrity, and "Subsystems" would only suffer damage, when you were taking structure blows, so changing it wouldn't even have any tangibe effect on the game aside from further complications, server load, and a lot of upset players. The point of targetting subsystems in a game like STO, (which is actually done through seperate crew skills usually, via your crew/tactical officers), is to weaken the ship, so that you can get through the enemies shield repairing abilities (Yes, ships in STO can repair just like they can in EVE, I've played STO since beta), disable their weapons, etc. In EVE, there is no such thing as bridge officers, the closest thing to bridge officer abilities, is modules, and these already provide what you are asking for. Stasis webifiers, energy neutralizers, ECM, and more, all provide similar abilities to STO, including how some subsystem attacks affect your ship in STO.

Essentially, we already have "Subsystem damaging abilities" via EWAR modules.

A little less on point, but I have to correct you on some errors you threw out in your post. You claim that small tanks can ping away at larger tanks, but this is only true to within a couple tiers, and then sometimes even only with HE shells. A tier 5 light, vs say a tier 7 heavy, will be lucky to do more than a fraction of their damage vs the frontal armor, unless they have a particularly vulnerable weakspot, whereas something like a t1 frig will still do it's FULL damage versus a tech 2 battleship, command ship, etc. There's no bouncing, only mitigation through resists, but the same overall EHP damage is done.

Next, you said that in WOT you can shoot tanks from the sides, and rear, to do critical damage. Once again, this is incorrect. Critical hits occur most commonly, when the shells fire into and explode within specific sections and compartments of the tank. Considering the amount of the tank that a shell travels through on a successful penetration, you are far more likely to get a critical hit from the front of a tank, versus the side. Many, if not most tanks have weak points on the lower glacis of the hull, not to mention being particularly vulnerable to engine fires from the lower front hull (See: Most german tanks, the KV line of russian tanks, and many american tanks). If you want to get a critical hit, aim for the gun barrel. Aim for the gap between the turret, and the hull (turret ring). Aim for the crew hatch. Aim for the front and rear lower hull. Aim for the direct side of the turret, if the turret does not have significant slope like the IS line of tanks. There are some on the side, that you can aim for, yes, but just as many, if not often more, including viewports, are available on the front of the tank, as opposed to the side. Now, if you can get a rear shot on an enemy, by all means, go for it. There are a number of tanks too, where you are much better off shooting the front of the tank, as opposed to the side, not just for criticals, but penetrations. These are mostly high tier tanks, but still valid: IS-4, IS-6, Maus (lower front hull, lower rear hull), E-100 (lower front hull, either side of the gun on the turret).

I appreciate that you would like to draw comparisons between the three games, but it's hard to take your post very seriously, when there are numerous misconceptions about the games you are referencing...

There are some misinterpetations which I am happy to clear out.
There were of course some words I used that were inappropiate.

Please note that most of this is a generalization and not 100%ly 1:1. I think some think I am insisting to "have WoT be bluntly projected on EVE". That is not the case, despite the notions the OP may give. The point of the discussion is loosely going where I'd like it though which is also -> Finding the flaws in that permanant damage model of WoT.

That's the point of the debate.

Also, we know Gold Ammo is bad. I am not asking for that either, so I must say that some are missing the point (even if in WoT you will make most damage with HEAT ammo). Let's not forget that we already have t2/faction ammo in EVE too. Let's not see it too narrow in that case. The only reason why it is called gold ammo is because of the relation with real currency and dealing massive damage.

That is not my intention, but it will neither be solved just saying "Raise xdmg modifier of all turrets by a massive %".




Others understood well enough, minus misinterpretations and on myside the wrong words used - And I think most are smart enough to come up with thoughts on the sweater, which has happened. But I will reiterate the instructions a bit. If you did not read the out of the box thinking part, /shrug.


Most points of what I want to talk is actually stated at the beginning. I avoided being all too specific though since it is more of a general topic. Nonetheless, I think it is more than clear enough about the current EVE Online damage model opposed to the WoT type of permanent damage model gameplay - with light examples stated.

It is clear that the damage model we know in EVE today is here to stay, hence my comment about this being more for a seperate imaginable EVE-related game.
(We're talking something like a lighter version of DUST514).

I did not go deeper into that specific topic of the seperate game as I want to explore and discuss the aspects of the specific "dmg models" FIRST before suggesting stuff wildly. Especially for the fact that a notable bunch of people may or may not want to see something new.



I am well aware about the goid ammo part. And guys, I'm well aware how CCP wanted to bring all that gold ammo stuff some year or two ago - f*** gold ammo ;)!

Most of my examples are general assumptions and examples - even if WoT has that particular gold ammo factor, one can play without it.

Also - and that is one thing I missed out myself on - the medium tier (say 5 to 7) in WoT is somewhere the field I'd be focusing on. Usually there is the most fun to be had because not everybody is god. I like that field of play because even if you are using a chubby Tier7 Heavy Tank, you are still vulnerable in many cases.

Now that is one thing I like.

Note by the way that in other games like Dark Age of Camelot or even WoW -- the "low/medium tier battegrounds" were a lot more fun and balanced than the endgame tier fights. Just an observation.

The general point of what I said was more about actually applying damage in similar fashion of WoT. I am aware that EVE's current form is too precious for everybody and anybody to change - which is why I mentioned this to be for a seperate EVE-related game. I did not go further in to that subject as I am interested in a generalized discussion around the two damage models. We can agree that a WW2 game vs a Scifi Space game is of course dull. Again, this is more about general talking about the damage models.

People's viewpoints are always accepted - just asking to not make random assumptions :).


The point I stated around "Small Stuff hurting big stuff" does not essentially have to be gold rounds. There's always a possibility to cause damage in a way, even if it just a mark.

My point was just that a huge high-tier target can still take some damage in anyway due to subsystems (which would include damaging tracks). Of course EVE's EWAR crowd control may be something like this. But my other point also was that you can't just try shooting a specifc large targets either as they will just heal it away - and it is much easier to "tank a lot" in EVE. Yes, if you are rolling around in a big TOG or the real big-boy tier areas, then life is of course not easy.
However, we do also get to see for instance SPG/Artillery that can still cause notable damage.

Again, this is just about some thought around a damage model were specific weapon types could do more.



It's not "better balancing" and I did not say that (if I did post that, then I need to correct it - but don't put pizza in my oven if that is not the case). - The "fun" comes of course in that related tier 4 to 7 ish bracket. And I stated the better examples of Star Trek Bridge Commander and Command (3, for now).

That sort of technology is far too advanced for CCP to implement. Having fully destroyable interiors would require far more computer resources than our poor machines can muster.

Nothing in his post mentioned anything about pay to win mechanics. I don't thin you read the post. I think you just saw the words World of Tanks and assumed he was going the pay to win route.

Thanks, that was what I was looking for indirectly :).

I'm not all too fancy with Star-Trek shields, but that has nothing to do with this topic particularly.

As for this armor stuff. Of course it would too complicated for the current game engine to incorporate from which angle a projectile or blow is coming from.

But yeah, the post is what I was looking for. Playing around with tthe idea or subject.

Of course, if a small ship is shooting at a titan with his little artillery cannons, it should not deal extreme dmg so of course one has to keep things real.

Again, I do not have a hate for logistics/healers in EVE, but I've seen endless "non-confrontations" because the opposing force either has too many logistics or just simply fielding a much larger blob. Of course now that there T1 logis, this even things out.
Nonetheless, aside to EWAR that is not always reliable, there is not really much of a possibility to destroy specific targets as we'd have a, say, Wolrd of Warcraft setup where you have no chance to kill the targets because they just heal up endlessly. There is no "wound poison" to counter the healing effect either (at least not EWAR wise).
I do not want to go to deep into that discussion as I know one has to bring more counter-tactics (like neuts, jammers/damps etc).

Permanent damage model could at least be a way so that a ship could not just magically tank everything all day long. Please note that this is just about player vs player damage; rat/PvE damage would not cause this effect.
What I mean with permanent dmg is that some fraction or percentage of that damage takes away hp from the total HP pool as well, so the more damage you receive, the less it can be healed.

Some time ago, I had the idea that small ships could be the ones that are likely to do "overheat dmg" at random to cruisers and larger. This would raise the necessity of nanite paste and it would be an additional way for smaller ships to annoy big ones.

Subsystems of course are more complex -if not too complex. But I will sit and think something up, since this is theoretical stuff anyhow.

This is just playing with one idea. It is not the best, of course.




Thanks.
The other poster did have a slight point though. Gold ammo in WoT of course has more punch hence why most are able to do such. Nonetheless, yeah, gold ammo for EVE is/was totally NOT my intention.

Just the flat idea of subsystems damage etc. Since it is obvious that such would not work for this game, maybe a seperate EVE could handle that. Of course, that needs some thinking, and that is somewhat the reason why I started this thread.

But I want to leave some holes open rather than monologizing a study up.

2nd paragraph.


Not for you apparently so sucks to be you, so die :). The subject is only for those who can read beyond that point.
And you and what army?

Could have put that up front couldn't you.

And your writing still sucks. I tried to read it, but Christ on a crutch it was like reading something that looked like english, but just didn't make any sense at all.