These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Game of Ults

Author
Arden Elenduil
Unlimited Bear Works
#21 - 2017-04-10 15:56:27 UTC
I rate this as a decent troll, seeing as to how many people fell for it. 6.5/10
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#22 - 2017-04-10 21:14:04 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Rain6637 wrote:
Make ships with good disruptor strength bonuses


So they become complete "must have"?

Like ships with command bonuss if you want boosts yes.

A lot of gameplay is maybe four or five events that are spaced thirty seconds apart that you can't do anything about. A lot of times you seal your fate when you enter warp. There's very few meaningful choices to make compared to other games and you end up just sitting there at least understanding what's going on if you're lucky.

For the sake of discussion in the features and ideas section I'm under the assumption that EVE gameplay sucks. I'd be impressed if the idea was mulled over in terms of how it might be a little more this or somewhat less that, practical terms. Rather than emotional terms like good or bad, and certainly not reductive or exaggerated like you're trying to do.

This isn't a troll. I make those funny and obvious. This is a serious topic to me, and I mostly make these threads believing it is at least skimmed by devs. I don't know why I bother coming back to closed-minded people in a features and ideas section that is about how things could be different.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#23 - 2017-04-10 21:23:35 UTC
Tackle is apparently an attribute that is deemed important enough to provide some variety to ships. Loki, Proteus, Hics, Dics, Mordus ships, interceptors, Serpentis. When you make bonused ships sound so horrible you're talking about the ability to tackle -up- in ship class. That's pretty powerful and tackle could be distributed a bit better with this type of change.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#24 - 2017-04-10 21:34:32 UTC
At no point have you explained why punching up is a bad thing.

Please tell the class why solo should be taken behind the barn, once and for all.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#25 - 2017-04-10 22:09:06 UTC
it should be achieved through module stats or ship bonuses, and not a binary mechanic on any subcap. I have gone over it.

I'm not saying I'm right, I just see a lot of white knighting in an ideas section.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#26 - 2017-04-10 22:27:55 UTC
I like EVE too, and I just resubbed an annual and six month plan over Fanfest weekend. I just wish discussions in F&I were more productive by going like

I see what you're getting at and I think it's worthwhile for the benefit of A and B
The drawbacks I see are C and D and E
I think it would be reasonable to stick with A by doing ___ and I think a lot of people are attached to C
Maybe it could be improved by doing F

and then you get some ideas to evolve.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#27 - 2017-04-10 22:33:00 UTC
There is no benefit here. You want to remove solo pvp, remove newbie tackle, remove the ability of a fleet to punch upwards, and force everyone into an incredibly narrow range of ships if they are determined enough to want to do these things, for a proposed benefit of making it a lot easier to **** on smaller classes of ship.

Right now if I take a solo frigate out into faction warfare, I can fight anything I can land a point on. Under your proposal, anything bigger than me will just warp away with no effort or consequence. Please explain why nerfing my ability to fight a bigger ship in my choice of smaller ship, as opposed to a tackle ship which will undoubtedly have considerably less in the way of combat ability, is a good thing.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#28 - 2017-04-10 22:53:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
You're making a lot of assumptions about nerfs when this type of thing doesn't necessarily warrant any and might actually warrant buffs.

And wouldn't it make solo better if tackle wasn't a given from a smaller ship? Like if a battleship sticks around through d-scan because the only way you'd be able to tackle it with your ship is two scrams and there's no way you'd have that. In their mind anyway.

You could also make a solo tackle pvp ship and give it d-scan invisibility. That's already a bone they're willing to toss.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#29 - 2017-04-10 23:07:11 UTC
It's not hard to assume that running around in a solo comet means I will no longer be able to fight battleships when your entire proposal is centred around preventing my solo comet from fighting battleships.

Where is the buff if I cannot tackle an overconfident battleship pilot with a frigate? Where is the buff if I am forced to bring a very specific class of ship if I want to punch upwards? Or if my fleet of alphas in frigates is utterly incapable of killing a dreadnaught simply because his ship is bigger than ours? Or if skirmishing in a jackdaw fleet becomes impossible once the other side jumps into their caracals and simply warps away from every engagement?

How can I hunt ratting VNIs in an astero if I can't tackle them? How can my stratios explode dumb battleships if they can just warp out and dock up every time?


Absolutely nothing I have mentioned here is a stretch when your proposal is to stop solo or even small gangs of small ships from tackling bigger ones, unless you bring the equivalent of a recon or an EAF with you. Making every attempt to punch upwards into a race to see if you can pop them before they can pop all your incredibly specialised tackle ships is not a good idea.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#30 - 2017-04-10 23:18:29 UTC
Say you give frigates a value like 50. Destroyers a value of 75. Cruisers 125, and battleships 400. Battlecruisers maybe 200-225 range. And then whether you get full point depends on a multiplier of your ship's value and your tackle modules against the other ship's value. Give a slight effectiveness bonus to a frigate and with two scrams you can tackle a battleship. Maybe one or two T2 or faction frigates will have a good multiplier that allows them to tackle a battleship with one scram.

Meanwhile, one normal scram on a normal frigate can tackle another frigate through cruiser. A normal cruiser would only need a scram and a long point to hit battleship threshold.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#31 - 2017-04-10 23:35:10 UTC
A lot of game mechanics are stacked against fighting down, which you seem to enjoy. It's hard to apply damage downward and it's kind of one of the reasons why Battlecruisers and Battleships are sucky.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#32 - 2017-04-11 03:09:27 UTC
If you give bonuses to tackle strength and it's easy to fit multiple scrams then what is the point of your proposal? All you've done is make the existing system more complicated for nothing in return.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#33 - 2017-04-11 03:47:48 UTC
it's so that every single character in space can't slow you down to a crawl and there is a possibility that a ship can slip a tackle instead of it being always. If tackle modules affect a ship in more gradual ways there can still be effects that make combat more interesting instead of binary. So there actually is something in return. And it's not more complicated than how 95% of every module in EVE works based on ship stats.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#34 - 2017-04-11 03:48:36 UTC
That was one of the main premises of this idea how do you just erase that from your active memory.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#35 - 2017-04-11 03:53:26 UTC
Tackle is ALWAYS going to be binary because warping is binary. You're either warping (and almost always on your way to a station where you'll dock and be completely invulnerable) or you aren't warping. There's no middle ground where you're warping slower or whatever, you're still invulnerable the moment your ship enters warp. So tackle is either 100% effective and keeps you from warping, or 0% effective and you warp. All your idiotic proposal does is move more instances of tackle into the 0% category, encouraging people to blob with enough extra ships that escape becomes impossible again.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#36 - 2017-04-11 04:03:39 UTC
You can alter the velocity threshold for warp from 75% to 101%. You can make it require more cap. You can reduce agility. Reduce max speed of MWD instead of shutting it completely off.

There are also other reasons for engaging other ships like objectives where you're not keeping them from warping as much as you want to reduce their speed. All these OFF/ON modules are just too blunt.

If you enter warp to complete safety then the lead-up should be a little more nuanced instead of only yes or only no don't you think.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#37 - 2017-04-11 04:04:31 UTC
It's better to let the tackled ship keep its MWD on anyway for the sig bloom. Turning it off helps them.
Salah ad-Din al-Jawahiri
Dreamweb Industries
Novus Ordo.
#38 - 2017-04-11 06:13:04 UTC
Arden Elenduil wrote:
I rate this as a decent troll, seeing as to how many people fell for it. 6.5/10


I dunno, it's almst a textbook example of trolling:
1. Post some dumb crap in F&I;
2. Call everyone who's responded trolls, "it's a n idea for CCP, not for you", etc.;
3. Collect food.

Agent of the New Order

Live by the Code - die by the Code.

The Voice of Highsec

Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#39 - 2017-04-11 13:48:11 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
You can alter the velocity threshold for warp from 75% to 101%. You can make it require more cap. You can reduce agility. Reduce max speed of MWD instead of shutting it completely off.

There are also other reasons for engaging other ships like objectives where you're not keeping them from warping as much as you want to reduce their speed. All these OFF/ON modules are just too blunt.

If you enter warp to complete safety then the lead-up should be a little more nuanced instead of only yes or only no don't you think.


Your speed modification mean that depending on how it's coded, I either can't warp at all or I need to trick the speed by shutting off a prop mod or get bumped hard.

Requiring more caps is useless since I wold still have warped away.

Reducing my MWD speed will be meaningless since I will still warp away from you.

Reducing my agility mean my align takes a bit longer but I can still warp off.

Can't wait for fleet where me and my fleet mate land multiple form of mobility EWAR on an enemy just for him to still warp away under you idea of a fun game.
Previous page12