These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Increasing Warp Strength
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2015-02-25 23:30:33 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
And just like that you kill the hero tackle frigate.

Fit multiple Scram/Point.

The Hero Tackle Frigate Newbie lives.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#22 - 2015-02-25 23:33:36 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
And just like that you kill the hero tackle frigate.


This is why the OP's idea is not good.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#23 - 2015-02-25 23:35:46 UTC
Ravasta Helugo wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
And just like that you kill the hero tackle frigate.

Fit multiple Scram/Point.

The Hero Tackle Frigate Newbie lives.


So, T1 frigates will now get 8 mids? The idea is bad and undermines some fundamental parts of Eve:

1. That everyone can contribute to the sandbox from the very beginning.
2. That having a bigger ship does not guarantee victory.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2015-02-25 23:42:30 UTC
Ravasta Helugo wrote:
God's Apples wrote:
Are you ******** how does this improve solo pvp? I don't see too many solo pvp ships with 3 ******* points fit to them so how do you realistically expect to kill anyone who isn't asleep in their chair or mentally inept?

The point is that frigates shouldn't be killing Battleships. Chase off, sure. Destroy with a small gang, yep. Kill solo? Easily? No.

But they do. A lot. One of the myriad of reasons that Battleships are nearly obsolete in their current form.

frigates kill battleships because the battleship pilot was a moron

Ive known MANY battleship pilots, mostly on the other end of the fight, whove killed or chased off entire gangs of frigates

heck, I remember this one time, was fighting a Hyperion, I was flying a full neut racked Sentinel, with support from 2 interceptors, and 2 assault frigs, we were chasing that dude in circles for 15 minutes before he got soem lucky shots off and left most of us in armor or hull (so we bugged). couldnt do alot of damage to him due to local reps and ALOT of boosters and resists. dude was skilled, we made some ballsy/foolish calls, end of the day battleship still won that fight.
Kabark
Schilden
#25 - 2015-02-25 23:48:33 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Kabark wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
And just like that you kill the hero tackle frigate.

This. Congratulations OP for proposing an idea that totally removes the only real contribution a week old newbie can make to a PvP fleet.

I don't think you even read the OP. A cruiser would have a warp strength of 2 which incase you don't know, it what a scram does. So yes, a month old new bro can still hero tackle cruisers and smaller. BCs and BSs would have a 3 and 4 strength so it would promote more frig gangs to tackle. This is a great idea to bring battleships back into low and null. However one thing he didn't cover was how bubbles would still affect ships.


yes a frig can still tackle a cruiser but what this does is put those disco battleships farming a gate at even less risk.


you can already add more points and stabs to a larger ship than a frigate

Lol sounds like you got trolled by someone in a battleship. Seriously though, how many battleships do you see flying around low and null? And if you say "oh I see them all the time," you must not go to low/null very often or you are using your corp with sov as a comparison which in both cases negates any arguement you have. Battleships are expensive, slow, and can barely hit cruisers. That is why no one flies them outside of highsec. But if you think battleships are fine the way they "disco camp," come to Teshkat in any battleship you want and prove me wrong.
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2015-02-26 00:03:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Ravasta Helugo
FT Diomedes wrote:
Ravasta Helugo wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
And just like that you kill the hero tackle frigate.

Fit multiple Scram/Point.

The Hero Tackle Frigate Newbie lives.


So, T1 frigates will now get 8 mids? The idea is bad and undermines some fundamental parts of Eve:

1. That everyone can contribute to the sandbox from the very beginning.
2. That having a bigger ship does not guarantee victory.

2-3 mids and you can still contribute. Or you can scout. Or add some DPS. Web.

This does nothing but require an extra low slot to serve the exact same purpose against battleships or higher. One mid is still all that's required to stop a BC or a Cruiser (in my modified version of the OP's idea, anyway).
Reina Xyaer
Tha Lench Mob
#27 - 2015-02-26 00:31:31 UTC
God's Apples wrote:
Are you ******** how does this improve solo pvp? I don't see too many solo pvp ships with 3 ******* points fit to them so how do you realistically expect to kill anyone who isn't asleep in their chair or mentally inept?



I considered that obviously, that's why I did the X(ship base) for disruptors.

A solo ship in this system could tackle anything in it's own class or lower, with just one of either type of point. Anything bigger than it, needs either a scram, or a friend.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#28 - 2015-02-26 00:42:46 UTC
they were slowed down so that smaller ships could catch them and that they couldn't catch smaller ships that was the point of the warp speed change this undermines that

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Reina Xyaer
Tha Lench Mob
#29 - 2015-02-26 00:53:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Reina Xyaer
Ravasta Helugo wrote:
I've given this a lot of thought, and I think the following proposal is a better place to start:

  • Frigate Class has 1 Warp Strength
  • Cruiser Class (Including BC) has 2 Warp Strength
  • Battleship Class has 3 Warp Strength

    • All current modifiers to base warp strength remain unchanged. Warp Disruptors still have 1 strength and Scramblers still have 2 regardless of the ship using them.

    One change to mechanics: Now, in order to stop the MWD or MJD of a Strength 3 or higher warp ship, it must be pointed with enough scram+disrupt to prevent warp. Any less, and the MWD/MJD module effect is lessened, but not disabled.

    This change is still very disruptive to current gameplay, and a significant buff to large hulls, but it is less dramatic than the OP. It would also give a slight boost to Non-Attack BCs, who will hopefully die to frigates less.


    Wait am I missing something? In this system, no single pilot could tackle a BS yes? Except in specialized tackle ships with a bonus to Point points, or a HIC.

    At first I liked this, I saw it as a simpler, maybe less radical version of mine, but now that I realized this, I don't like it.

    A solo BS would not be able to point another solo BS, I think it should.

    Edit: except a solo ship with two scrams, which is not something I want to see happening
    Lugh Crow-Slave
    #30 - 2015-02-26 01:01:21 UTC
    Reina Xyaer wrote:


    Wait am I missing something? In this system, no single pilot could tackle a BS yes? Except in specialized tackle ships with a bonus to Point points, or a HIC.

    At first I liked this, I saw it as a simpler, maybe less radical version of mine, but now that I realized this, I don't like it.

    A solo BS would not be able to point another solo BS, I think it should.

    Edit: except a solo ship with two scrams, which is not something I want to see happening



    I think i have found the flaw in your thinking.


    A battle ship should not be solo it is a fleet ship it is there to add extra support/firepower to a fleet not run around on its own.

    this is why larger ships are made so vulnerable to small ones when on their own

    BLOPS Hauler
    The 16.8km Bubble
    ShahFluffers
    Ice Fire Warriors
    #31 - 2015-02-26 01:15:20 UTC
    Also going to have to say "no" to this idea.

    Small ships can tackle a ship much larger than them... but that is no guarantee they will succeed in holding them. Large ships have MANY options to effectively swat off smaller ships (drones, neuts, webs, more fitting slots, more CPU/PG, etc). Those that can't and die to smaller ships were simply ill prepared or piloted badly.

    The problem that large ships have merely comes from their inability to pick and choose their engagements... which necessitates them being prepared and/or supported in advance. I do not see a problem with this. In fact... I think this is a rather healthy dynamic.

    That said... I do think Battleships should be given something a little "more" to make their use more appealing (either a nerf to bombs or a buff to battlecruisers and battleships). But making it easier for them to run away is not it.

    How did you Veterans start?
    Kabark
    Schilden
    #32 - 2015-02-26 01:31:00 UTC
    ShahFluffers wrote:
    Also going to have to say "no" to this idea.

    Small ships can tackle a ship much larger than them... but that is no guarantee they will succeed in holding them. Large ships have MANY options to effectively swat off smaller ships (drones, neuts, webs, more fitting slots, more CPU/PG, etc). Those that can't and die to smaller ships were simply ill prepared or piloted badly.

    The problem that large ships have merely comes from their inability to pick and choose their engagements... which necessitates them being prepared and/or supported in advance. I do not see a problem with this. In fact... I think this is a rather healthy dynamic.

    That said... I do think Battleships should be given something a little "more" to make their use more appealing (either a nerf to bombs or a buff to battlecruisers and battleships). But making it easier for them to run away is not it.

    Then what do you suggest be done about this? Currently battleships exist almost entirely in highsec space except for flying support for T3 and cruisers gangs and blops drops. This is a type of power creep, where large and powerful corps spam supers and smaller corps spam cruisers and frigs. This leaves a gapping hole for the BC and BS. This power creep is also the reason jump fatigue was implemented. People are so scared of loosing their expensive internet space ships that they don't fly them and just keep piling more and more into their assets until you get groups like PL with hundreds of supers that simply can't be opposed by conventional means. There needs to be destruction to have proliferation. Let's not even get into the price split where a frog costs 1m, a destroyer costs 2m, cruiser costs 10m, a BC costs 30m and a battleship costs 200m. They aren't being destroyed, so they aren't being built. Give people more security to bring out expensive ships and they will come out and they will be destroyed a whole lot more than they are now with the random newbie bring a mega into low.
    Reina Xyaer
    Tha Lench Mob
    #33 - 2015-02-26 01:38:17 UTC
    Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:


    I think i have found the flaw in your thinking.


    A battle ship should not be solo it is a fleet ship it is there to add extra support/firepower to a fleet not run around on its own.

    this is why larger ships are made so vulnerable to small ones when on their own



    ShahFluffers wrote:
    Also going to have to say "no" to this idea.

    Small ships can tackle a ship much larger than them... but that is no guarantee they will succeed in holding them. Large ships have MANY options to effectively swat off smaller ships (drones, neuts, webs, more fitting slots, more CPU/PG, etc). Those that can't and die to smaller ships were simply ill prepared or piloted badly.

    The problem that large ships have merely comes from their inability to pick and choose their engagements... which necessitates them being prepared and/or supported in advance. I do not see a problem with this. In fact... I think this is a rather healthy dynamic.

    That said... I do think Battleships should be given something a little "more" to make their use more appealing (either a nerf to bombs or a buff to battlecruisers and battleships). But making it easier for them to run away is not it.



    I see the logic in both of these arguments, in fact I remember just thinking that when reading one of the aforementioned threads about Battleships not being viable. Many people were saying the exact same thing

    A BS needs support, shouldn't be solo, etc...

    But I think I've changed my mind about that. Why shouldn't a BS be a viable solo ship? I think every subcap ship (or at least ship class, maybe not ever single hull by itself) should be doable, possible, to solo with.

    I'm sorry but the more I think about my own idea, the more I like it. I wish CCP would do insane things like implement this for a month and see what it's like. I could be wrong, it could be awful, but currently, imagining the gameplay... I really like it.
    Lienzo
    Amanuensis
    #34 - 2015-02-26 05:02:44 UTC
    I like the idea of warp disruptors having falloff. To do that, it would need to have a strength of, say, six points at optimal.

    Ergo, if a ship has 6 points of warp core strength, and you only do 5.9, it can get away. Ideally, there would be some requirement to get to 99% of max velocity instead of the current percentage, but let's not get swept off downstream.

    I really dislike being locked into the current I/O spheres, which are only perturbed by the introduction of purple modules. I'd like to see ships be able to engage at artillery range, especially in conflicts with other combat ships.

    Ideally, a frigate should be able to tackle a battleship if it is flying in its correct role and position for that task, ie under the guns. Beyond that, not as effective. Ships with tackle bonuses should be able to achieve crazy long warp disruption effects.

    I also like the idea of having a spectrum of warp core strength. Combat specialized ships should compromise on their warp core strength, as should nimble, lighter hulls.

    If we expanded that old-school tackling functionality, we could also look into making dictor bubbles a little more situational, or circumstance tailored. In fact, we could even look at more common modules to counter interdiction in circumstances where it is warranted. The long term advantage of this is rewarding the fleet roles of more novitiate pilots, which is usually some form of tackling.
    Drez Arthie
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #35 - 2015-02-26 05:10:17 UTC
    In real life, a 120 lb skinny dude cannot tackle a 200 lb linebacker, so it kinda makes sense
    Whittorical Quandary
    Amarrian Infinity
    #36 - 2015-02-26 05:13:35 UTC
    Details to be worked out, but i like this. Bigger ships more viable in smallscale pvp would be nice.

    "The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you never know if they are genuine."

    — Abraham Lincoln
    Reina Xyaer
    Tha Lench Mob
    #37 - 2015-02-26 05:19:56 UTC
    Lienzo wrote:
    I like the idea of warp disruptors having falloff. To do that, it would need to have a strength of, say, six points at optimal.

    Ergo, if a ship has 6 points of warp core strength, and you only do 5.9, it can get away. Ideally, there would be some requirement to get to 99% of max velocity instead of the current percentage, but let's not get swept off downstream.

    I really dislike being locked into the current I/O spheres, which are only perturbed by the introduction of purple modules. I'd like to see ships be able to engage at artillery range, especially in conflicts with other combat ships.

    Ideally, a frigate should be able to tackle a battleship if it is flying in its correct role and position for that task, ie under the guns. Beyond that, not as effective. Ships with tackle bonuses should be able to achieve crazy long warp disruption effects.

    I also like the idea of having a spectrum of warp core strength. Combat specialized ships should compromise on their warp core strength, as should nimble, lighter hulls.

    If we expanded that old-school tackling functionality, we could also look into making dictor bubbles a little more situational, or circumstance tailored. In fact, we could even look at more common modules to counter interdiction in circumstances where it is warranted. The long term advantage of this is rewarding the fleet roles of more novitiate pilots, which is usually some form of tackling.


    Updating OP
    Zepheros Naeonis
    TinklePee
    #38 - 2015-02-26 05:25:18 UTC
    Whittorical Quandary wrote:
    Details to be worked out, but i like this. Bigger ships more viable in smallscale pvp would be nice.


    Agreed. Details need to be ironed out, but the idea is solid and has potential.
    Reina Xyaer
    Tha Lench Mob
    #39 - 2015-02-26 06:06:04 UTC
    What about this....

    Warp Drive/Warp Disruption is completely revamped into the same type of system that ECM, damps, and target painters(?).

    Instead of every ship having +1 warp core strength like now...
    And instead of each class going up in increments of 1 like my first idea...

    What if every ship has a "Warp Core Strength" of some value, exactly like sensor strength. Warp Disruptors would then have a power value, exactly like ECM sensor strength. When I say exactly, I don't mean the values, or anything to do with success/failure chance. I just mean the concept.

    Disruptors would have an optimal range, a fall-off, and a % chance to land per cycle, based on the jamming strength of the disruptor, range to the target, and Warp Core Strength of the target. Lets say...

    Warp Disruptor I
    Optimal Range: 19.89 km
    'Disruptor Strength'(?): 1.2
    Accuracy Falloff: 32.08
    Activation/Duration: 30.0s

    Warp Scrambler I
    Optimal Range: 7500 m
    Disruptor Strength: 3.5
    Accuracy Falloff: 2000 m
    Activation/Duration: 30.0s

    However... I think it should be much more consistent in success/failure than ECM is. i.e... either you can perma-scram a particular ship+pilot+fitting+implants, or you can't. (for the most part? would we want "random", tiny (~0.21) % chances of landing tackle for a cycle, on a ship that you normally could never scram scram? so, 'always a chance' ? )

    Or would anyone want it to be like ECM? More random and hit-or-miss when it comes to success/failure? Only bonused ships like the Falcon can "perma-scram" things? Normal T1 vs T1 would be crap shoots? "Am I tackled?!" "Is he tackled?!"
    "Oh YES, lucky tackle didn't land this cycle! Should I use this chance to escape? Or do I think I can stay and win?"

    So again, every ship has a base Warp Core Strength...

    But my question to myself now is, should each ship have a bonus/modifier for warp disruption strength/range/both? Same number (so more strenth always = more range+falloff)? or two different values so some ships have short/strong points, some strong/long range points, some short/weak points, some long weak points, etc and etc, every hull have varying values of strenth/range/falloff. Could be influenced by all new skills, modules, and implants, or just use some of the ones we already have. Warp Drive Operation, Propulsion Jamming?

    New Skills?:

    Warp Core Operation + X% warp core strength
    Core Manipulation + X% disruptor strength
    Disruption Projection (HORRIBLE name): + X% range and falloff of warp disruptors per skill level

    OR, would people want the strengths/ranges to almost all be the same? Again, except for the certain specialized hulls that have a bonus to strength or range/falloff of disruptors/scramblers?

    Thoughts? Has this really never been suggested in this way before?

    I just wrote all that without thinking of what this will change in the game, that's what I need feedback for. Pick one of the above types of tackle dynamics, imagine EVE is like that, and tell me how things would be. Better or worse? Fun? Or just New? Do we need it? Even want it?

    Updated OP with same post, just wanted it here for subscribers. If that's a double post against the rules, I'll delete, don't just lock my thread please.
    Steppa Musana
    Doomheim
    #40 - 2015-02-26 10:05:25 UTC
    +1 might need to look at the details but the basic idea is solid.

    FT Diomedes wrote:
    Ravasta Helugo wrote:
    baltec1 wrote:
    And just like that you kill the hero tackle frigate.

    Fit multiple Scram/Point.

    The Hero Tackle Frigate Newbie lives.


    So, T1 frigates will now get 8 mids? The idea is bad and undermines some fundamental parts of Eve:

    1. That everyone can contribute to the sandbox from the very beginning.
    2. That having a bigger ship does not guarantee victory.

    1. Scouts, jammers, dampers, webbers, painters, and tacklers can still point T3s HACs HICs etc.
    2. You're right, it doesn't, even with this idea.