These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

Ship design process sucks - more creativity please
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Beast of Revelations
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#41 - 2017-04-05 18:25:49 UTC
Quote:

Trust me, you don't want more realistic settings. Though it would be amusing seeing players grapple with celestial mechanics.
Every time "more realism" crops up, the proposer seems to be picking and choosing which parts are to be more realistic.


And

Quote:
I'm sorry your "space submarines that fly faster than light" game isn't realistic enough for you


This is just so dumb. I mean people will bicker and latch onto and argue about the dumbest things. No, I'm not saying I want some 100% simulation of reality. Or even a 50% one. Nobody wants that. I'm saying that when there's no good reason NOT to make something more realistic along the lines of how things are in real life, and when there's no good reason to in fact make things opposite of how they are in real life, then why do it?

If we have a choice to make lasers delayed-damage, or instant damage, and there's no reason to NOT make them instant damage, which way would you rather have lasers? If I say 'instant damage' then I get a flood of ignoramuses spewing their nonsense about my expecting that pixels in a video game mirror real life. So lasers should be opposite what you'd expect just because if they somewhat line up with reality, I'm gonna get the "space submarines flying faster than light" nonsense quoted above?

Fine, make everything opposite of what one would expect then, for absolutely no good reason whatsoever. Make up go down, and down go up. Make things opposite of reality in every way, just because we are on some anti-realism jihad.
Cade Windstalker
#42 - 2017-04-05 18:47:10 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
I don't personally attack, at least not first. It was a joke.


Pretty poor joke, especially considering you decided to repeat it twice. I suggest, in the future, you consider that text does not convey tone well and that insulting jokes don't tend to go well with polite and informed discourse.

Beast of Revelations wrote:
Plenty of trade offs are available. Instant damage is preferred. Delayed damage is a disadvantage. All other things being equal, one would always want instant damage over delayed damage. To want delayed damage, you'd want to be compensated, if possible.

We already have a delayed damage weapon system, but it isn't the correct one. Bullets should be most delayed, but instead it is missiles. Lasers should be instant, but currently everything but missiles is. I simply think it would be more interesting if things were adjusted to more realistic settings rather than more unrealistic ones (again - delayed damage mechanic is already exists in the game).

There are higher priorities, and ultimately if such a change is never made, nobody is gonna cry, including me. It was simply an idea, a suggestion, nothing more. I have a million of them. So does everyone else.

Suggestions are like buttholes. Everybody has one.


Let me elaborate a little here.

Just delaying damage doesn't offer any kind of interesting trade-off. People talk about missiles not being used because of delayed damage, but that's generally just shorthand for them not being ideal for a given PvP situation. The last five years have proven without a shadow of a doubt that if they're on a good hull and have other good characteristics people will use missiles, delayed damage or not. Most of the time delayed damage doesn't actually matter *that* much.

If you were to buff Artillery or Hybrid weapons in exchange for "delayed damage" of some kind the result would likely be an OP weapons system, because as I said most of the time damage delay doesn't actually matter much. It would feel a lot worse though, because now you've got shells moving, if we go by your scale, slower than a Frigate that can still hit him, never mind that at 50km a frigate could be 20km off course by the time a 10km/s projectile hits him.

Most of the argument you're presenting here is about "realism" which isn't a valid reason to make a change that is purely a balance concern.

My goal here isn't just to shoot down ideas for ****s and giggles, it's in the hope that explaining why I don't think an idea is good will result in better ideas going forward and a greater degree of more intelligent discourse.


Also, personally, I disagree with your logic here. Even ignoring Eve's weird speed-limit physics a projectile has a better theoretical short range speed than a missile. The missile can accelerate longer, but it's limited to a lower acceleration due to being larger and more complex. It also doesn't gain very much from being outside an atmosphere. The projectile on the other hand no longer has to compress air in the barrel when it's fired, it doesn't have to deal with air resistance, and at the level of tech Eve has you can put an absolutely monstrous propellant charge behind it.

For example a Minmatar projectile contains a nuclear warhead. Given that most modern explosive projectiles contain a smaller explosive than is used to fire them that means that a 1400mm howitzer probably has something roughly equivalent to a small atom bomb going off in the chamber every time it fires. Considering what a sub-1kton yield warhead did to manhole cover in atmosphere it's perfectly plausible that Eve weapons have sufficient kick behind them to get a projectile going at 250km/s in a near-vacuum.
Beast of Revelations
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#43 - 2017-04-05 19:19:54 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Just delaying damage doesn't offer any kind of interesting trade-off.


I'll say it again. We already have delayed damage mechanic in-game. So... do we want this delayed-damage mechanic, or not? If we want it, let's make it 'make more sense' and apply it to all the weapons that should have some form of delayed damage, and give whatever trade-offs we need to give as compensation. If we don't want it, then remove the mechanic period (so missiles will hit instantly).

I'll also say this again. It's just a suggestion. In the big scheme of things, a very minor one. In the big scheme of things, a low priority one. In the big scheme of things, nobody is gonna cry if it never happens, including me. It's just one of a list of a thousand things I can list off the top of my head of 'things that could, and potentially should, be considered to improve the game.'

I'll also say this again: suggestions and ideas are like buttholes. Everybody has one.

Now, go ahead and bicker and argue more, and let's go around in circles more.

Quote:
If you were to buff Artillery or Hybrid weapons in exchange for "delayed damage" of some kind the result would likely be an OP weapons system...


Pure nonsense. You are saying a weapon system or systems can't be balanced. That's nonsense on the face of it. There's a collection of numbers in a database. Adjust the numbers until balance is achieved.

Quote:
Even ignoring Eve's weird speed-limit physics a projectile has a better theoretical short range speed than a missile.


From statistics I've seen, missiles travel way faster than bullets. Having said that, if I'm wrong about that, fine, then make the missile slower than the bullet. Problem solved. Again, you seem to be more interested in bickering and nitpicking than anything else.
Keno Skir
#44 - 2017-04-05 19:26:02 UTC
Lightning gun?

Seriously... Roll

Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.-

250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Something Really Pretentious
#45 - 2017-04-05 21:49:26 UTC
You forgot the Mining Permit dispenser, the salt harvester, the body fluids sucker and the shitpost destroyer

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist
Cade Windstalker
#46 - 2017-04-06 00:01:51 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
I'll say it again. We already have delayed damage mechanic in-game. So... do we want this delayed-damage mechanic, or not? If we want it, let's make it 'make more sense' and apply it to all the weapons that should have some form of delayed damage, and give whatever trade-offs we need to give as compensation. If we don't want it, then remove the mechanic period (so missiles will hit instantly).

I'll also say this again. It's just a suggestion. In the big scheme of things, a very minor one. In the big scheme of things, a low priority one. In the big scheme of things, nobody is gonna cry if it never happens, including me. It's just one of a list of a thousand things I can list off the top of my head of 'things that could, and potentially should, be considered to improve the game.'

I'll also say this again: suggestions and ideas are like buttholes. Everybody has one.

Now, go ahead and bicker and argue more, and let's go around in circles more.


You're missing my point, the delayed damage on missiles is neither the only nor the most significant trade-off made with missiles vs a turreted weapon system.

Just because one weapon has delayed damage doesn't mean *every* weapon should have delayed damage. That doesn't make a lick of sense. It's just based on your idea of how the lore should work, in an at best moderately hard sci-fi game.

Also no one here cares about your butthole. Stop bringing it up, it's not relevant.

Beast of Revelations wrote:
Pure nonsense. You are saying a weapon system or systems can't be balanced. That's nonsense on the face of it. There's a collection of numbers in a database. Adjust the numbers until balance is achieved.


No, I'm saying that adding delayed damage to these weapons would be such a minor change in most circumstances that anything that might reasonably offset adding delayed damage in those few circumstances would be a flat buff in others. Since this is a minor change and adds nothing meaningful there's no point in making it.

Beast of Revelations wrote:
From statistics I've seen, missiles travel way faster than bullets. Having said that, if I'm wrong about that, fine, then make the missile slower than the bullet. Problem solved. Again, you seem to be more interested in bickering and nitpicking than anything else.


I am pointing out ways in which your idea does not make sense and is not good. That is not nitpicking. If you have issues with people picking out details from your suggestion and then using those details to explain why your suggestion may or may not be a good idea you may not wish to continue posting on these forums. You are of course free to do whatever you like, but you're unlikely to see people not criticizing your idea here.
Previous page123