EVE General Discussion

I'd remove any ship that requires adv spaceship command and everything associated with them

I'd implement my Star Jump Drive idea

I'd change sovereignty back to a modified version of my Sovereignty 2.0 plan, this time centered on Citadels.

Hrm.... The one issue with that, not a bad issue but still an issue is that while management of resources and heat would make for a more involved put more skill on the logi, I don't think it will end the N+1. It would probably end up (N+1)*2. If I was an FC, logistics doctrine would probably split into teams where the logi FC would split them into two team, Run them with a timer to switch teams to cover cool down. If ammo was excessively oversized, or more likely cap boosters, it is a potential in a longer fight but even then, not a difficult strategy to work.

Either way, anything that promotes more active play on the side of the player is a win if it is a skill and not just a minigame.

On the good news, we know CCP is aware and concerned about N+1 play. We have new logi ships coming, but they also are working with RR mechanics. During the CCP honorable duels the other day, they were discussing that other stuff is being pondered. The most notable is the stuff they said when they introduced the concept of logi capitals which would need to really run in a triage mode to give reps. This means that the logis themselves become vulnerable at least. Problem then is that most combat larger scale will consist of shoot logi only. :-(

1. Rebalance ECM, including cap warfare. The only way to completely take someone out of the fight should be to destroy their ship. ECM doesn't really have a meaningful counter-play. ECCM is ineffective and even if it were, no module should completely prevent your ship from being able to lock at least one other, even if it's chance based.

Neuts are in a similar state. Cap boosters aren't really an effective defense, as they don't provide enough cap to offset the strength of neuts and cap batteries are next to worthless. For cap based tanks, which aren't very strong to begin with without links, any ship with enough neuting power is a hard counter, and bonused hulls spell instant death. Utility highs should be made into a slot which players need to make a choice, and for offensive options, there needs to be an effective defense.

2. Battleship PVP performance needs to be decoupled from neuts, drones, and RHMLs. Part of the problem is power-creep from smaller hulls, which isn't really an issue of buffing battleships. T3 cruisers (and destroyers) are long overdue for another nerf to EHP, and a fresh one to DPS and application. That said, battleships could sorely stand to see a balance pass, and I think that a round of buffs similar to those that CBCs enjoyed to mobility, EHP, and cap, wouldn't be game breaking, especially with links going on grid in the future. Instead of a role bonus to range, a bonus to scan resolution, sensor strength or warp speed would be welcome; a 2.4 au/sec warp speed would be reasonable to offset with a few rigs.

3. More support, ships, modules, and mechanics designed for solo PVP. Solo PVP is the lifeblood of EVE, it's far from dead, even if it isn't as visible as the big fleet battles featured in the trailers. It's accessable, high risk-high reward, and generates content.

I'm a bit apprehensive about the direction that a few of the latest changes could take. 36k+ scrams from HICs, command destroyers, and on grid only links have the potential to buff low skill, low risk, blobby gameplay while functionally adding much less to small scale gameplay. A bigger, more well organized group deserves to have some advantages, but stack the deck in their favor too much, and the game will lose something special; the ability for a player to jump in a ship and get content anytime is vital to the game's health.

It is absolutely not intended to.

Numbers are, in my opinion anyway, by far the most fair force multiplier available. Since this is a flight sim, individual skill will never be a serious factor, which only really leaves us with numbers and pricetag as available options for primary force multipliers in the game.

And we all know that pricetag is absolutely unacceptable. Thus, I accept that numbers are and will remain a primary force multiplier. The onus is on game design to create an interesting environment within the framework we have. But trying to rail against numbers as a force multiplier, trying to attack it or deny the reality of the game is just folly.

Thanks for posts pretty good ideas so far.

I was having a think over the weekend and was thinking to myself how easy it is for Frigates to stop a big ship like a BS from entering warp. It feels wrong somehow that.

No, neuts aren't broken in the same way that ECM is. I'm not trying to argue that aren't some ways of countering neuts, only that neuts are too strong, hard counter too many fits, don't have good highslot alternatives, and don't have enough effective counters. There's basically no reason not to fit them if you can. I'm not interested in a flame war so I'll leave it at that.

Add the removal of off grid boosting and this would be my wet dream patch. Yes, there needs to be more solo oriented modules. Right now soloing is just based on ancil reps, with a few cancer EWAR fits here and there. Soloing by "who can tank the best" is really boring. ECM has always been a really stupid mechanic. "Hahaha, you can no longer play the game except to die!" Who thought up that idea? Every other form of EWAR requires a situational mechanic to be made effective, like transversal for tracking disruptors or range for sensor damps. Jamming simply requires the jam to land. Not to mention ECCM is a wasted module slot if you don't run into jammers, but sensor boosters and tracking computers are never wasted. Battleships suck balls right now. Too big, too slow, too easy to negate DPS, and too easily countered by simple things like neuts. The one and only exception is the one battleship that is relatively small, relatively fast, has a warp speed AND acceleration bonus, uses capless weapons, and uses a weapon type that can be extremely effective at distances where tracking isn't as big of an issue. 3 guesses which one that is.

Reinventing ECM:

ECM should reduce the number of max targets vs. completely shutting down targeting (although if max targets are low it could still have that affect). When it lands the priority of what targets are lost at the time of jamming is based on sig radius or proximity. Perhaps there could be scripts to shift between making target loss priority be smaller sigs vs. larger sigs. One makes it where the sensors strength isn't enough to track smaller ships and the other limits the system buffer so that it has a hard time holding the info on larger ships. This could also be applied to closer ships vs. farther ships if that route was taken instead.

With this mechanic smaller ships would be less effective vs. larger ships with more max targets. Larger ships ECM would be more effective against smaller ships when it lands. Due to this mechanic there would have to be specific ECM modules for different hull sizes.


OR


ECCM (within the current ECM mechanics):

Another concept is that ECCM reduce the effectiveness of ECM, lowering the time the effects of jamming last. So if jam cycle was 20s, an ECCM with 50% resist would reduce that jammed time to 10s. The aggressor would then have to wait out the remaining 10s before the next cycle could land. When resisted all jams are ended. So if you're being jammed by 3 ships they all are resisted no matter where they are in their cycle when 1 of the jams has reaching its time limit.

If Ship One's jam is currently at 2s and Ship Two's at 6s, once Ship Three hits 10s the target ship gains immunity.
Ship 1 loses 18s of jam time.
Ship 2 loses 14s of jam time.
Ship 3 loses 10s of jam time.

During this immunity no jams can be landed. So if you apply jams during the immunity it is an automatic fail. This will give a quantifiable bonus to ECCM and make the fitting of ECCM quantifiably worthwhile. ECM pilots will also have to manage their ECM to ensure they don't waste cap on pointless cycles. Having more than one jam will still give you better odds of landing jams, but there would be no more ECM stacking. So for all intents and purposes only 1 ECM module on 1 ship can jam a given target at one time.

Remove......
Remove local.....
Remove local everywhere forever and ever amen........

1. Have FW be able to conquer null sec and raise its sec to 0.5 over time.
2. Make planets part of the game play of EVE. (RTS)(Content for dust)(hover tanks for EVE)
3. Multi-player Super Capital ships that can't log off.