@Arthur_Aihaken That’s really a great idea, Arthur. All joking aside. You are completely right about leaving the bigger ships parked if a few Corvettes can blow them up fasrer than we can say ‘Oh no!’
Good job presenting what you have in mind for the modules and percentage effects.
Please don’t let the crabby trolls suck that creative energy out of the idea. They always like to pick everything apart as if they’re smarter than you are… they are not.
Good day, my friend.
No, not really. But your own two recent suggestions I don’t see as making it any better. Although I support the way you’re making them and the thought put into them, as well as seeing that something fairly fundamental needs to change.
For instance, here you want to fiddle with combat mechanics, in order to cause more conflict. But it’s not really ‘combat mechanics’ that causes the stagnation, it’s the fact that EVE is basically built around the concept of “Aggressors attack only when they know for virtually certain they can win, and they avoid all combat they can’t win, including just docking up when a threat is in range.”
This leads to the problems with ganking, with wardecs, with FW etc. There’s no point taking on a fight you can’t win, since it will cost you. Your ideas would somewhat change the math calcs on who could win where for a while, until people figure it out, and then we’d be right back in the same place again.
And of course, your list of “I don’t care abouts” is basically your admission up-front that these changes would be bad for the game in many ways and except in a few situations. If I had to put a list of disclaimers like that in front of an idea I had, I’d be heading back to the drawing board.
This is the primary issue, is that EVE has a good core that presents a lot of potential… but CCP doesn’t seem to have the people aboard anymore that can move that potential forward. Or who are even capable of identifying the ‘frustration’ points that need to be changed.
Agreed. EVE has tons of room for improvement, but it won’t happen by trying to slap a patch or a feature change on this aspect or that one. CCP needs to look at sets of changes that interact and support each other to evolve the game forward, even if they can’t all be released in one go.
One key issue I find is that vets tend to think this makes things okay, that “well after you learn how everything works and how to get around it all, then it’s not so bad”.
Except EVE loses 98% of newcomers before that ever happens. So yeah, I’d consider that very “not okay”.
I lost that Cenotaph fair and square (Broadsword interdicted me). Dropping the Hel was probably a bit overkill, but I did take out an Exequror rather easily so they were probably erring on the side of caution.
I made the following minor change:
• All battlecruisers and battleships receive a +1 bonus to Warp Core strength
• All capital ships (including freighters) receive a +2 bonus to Warp Core strength; no changes to supercapitals
So +2 scrams will tackle battlecruisers and battleships, but you still need a+3 scram (or higher) for capitals.
Completely beyond me why you pick that ship in the first place. I mean, no offense but looking at your KB it doesn’t look like you have solid solo/smallscale combat experience. Probably anyone would recommend you begin in cheap and disposable Cruisers and/or small gangs to learn the basics of how to pick fights and how to win fights and not trying to use a blingbling ship that will simply die to the first competent gang around.
I can only hope that this wasn’t the reason for your suggestion, because it would be a pretty bad reason. That loss goes on you 100%, not flawed game mechanics that would need a fix.
As I said, it wasn’t - and I’m not upset about the Cenotaph. I’m not even torn up about the Noctis that got ganked. I made a f**k ton of ISK last year so these losses are of no consequence.
Even with the suggested changes the Cenotaph would’ve died in a flaming wreck.
These suggestions are so bad that they are not even worth discussing.
After multiple threads of the same quality, I have to conclude that it would be a net benefit if OP stopped posting.
Because frigates are fast paced blappy mayhem and fun?
More dynamic than just sitting still in space pressing F1?
Sorry but no. This idea that frigates are some sort of byproduct of low tier alpha accounts is a logical fallacy. Some of the most fun fights I’ve ever had was solo in frigates.
Sad that you fell into the “bigger is better” trap. Hope one day, you’ll get to experience the joy of what frigates can offer.
Because larger ships by design need more support.
Everyone can take themselves out whenever they want to solo. The more people you have the harder that organization is.
BC and BB are still the heat of many large fleet doctrines. That’s their niche. They don’t need to become any more viable in solo/ small gang
I think the mass should impact the subwarp speed, and the webs would instead simply add mass to the target. It’s not the case now, as you can add plate and not lose speed - except for prop mods, more on that later
An idea I had is that ships would add their own mass, multiplied by a factor, to the target, but then that would be a problem if ships start webing each other with 2 or more webs, increasing each other mass from their previously increased mass each cycle ^^.
Of course we could have the mass added based on the user’s capacitor (max or actual), making neuts reduce web effects in a non-threshold way . But that would be a bit too much changes at once.
Or like propmod, with the webifier effect multiplied by a multiplier that goes to 0 if the target mass is too high, and is 1 for target mass 0, so like mult = user mass / (target mass + user mass) . For propmod it’s thrust/(mod mass + user mass) with basically thrust = mod mass×target multiplier.
make them random depending on distance(add falloff), and target mass.
added_points = base_point /log10(target_mass in kT) × 0.5^fallof_entry²
applying 2.35 point has 35% chance to apply 3, 65% to apply 2
add tracking only for lower tier ones
This makes no sense
dual : 2 base damage (being L) ×1.98/4.97 = 0.78
medium : 1 base damage(being M) × 4.17/5.83 = 0.72
dual cost more fit(5 times the PG !), 75% more cap (10.5/4.97 = 2.11 for dual, 7/5.83=1.2 for M) , to gain 11.4% more DPS and have tracking divided by 3???
I want an “I win” button.
All I have to do, is activate it, and I instantly win any pvp and pve engagement I’m in.
I think, to keep it from being abused, it should cost $4.99 paid for by a linked credit card and/or bank account. Per use of the button and should not be usable by PLEX or ISK.
And for those alpha clones, it should cost $6.99 because if you’re Omega paying into the system on a regular basis, you should get a discount.
Free loading should only take you so far.
I don’t have the time in the world to train all these skills and keep up with the best fit meta. I’m too busy working and it’s not fair that people who play this game all day long have an advantage over me.
I think you’re asking more than the coding can accomplish?
While this solves one unintended consequence of webbing (webbing ships into warp), it causes another:
Bump mechanics love mass additions.
Imagine you’re intentionally trying to bump a ship, but now you can double the bumper’s mass by webbing it at the last second while it still has full speed?
I think the current ‘web reduces max velocity of the target’ is a much more simple straightforward implementation.
I don’t see bumping as a real issue.
The sole issue is when it prevents someone from warping in HS without giving a criminal timer.
But you’re right, this should not be done in one cycle, but instead in several cycles like the triglavian rep/gun . Transferring mass is a process that takes some time.
Another possibility is to keep the total energy constant, so mv², meaning if you gain 300% of your mass (multiplied by 4) then your speed is divided by 2 on application.
That’s the definition of a feature. Something that is not present yet.
I think you’re still overcomplicating something that is currently as simple as ‘webifier slows target ship’. I don’t see the point.
You realize you just made things even easier for the bumpers again with this change right?
Let’s say you’re trying to bump a freighter in hs and webs have been changed how you just described. I no longer need to worry that webs decloaked at the same time as the freighter. With this glorious spool mechanic i have plenty of time to burn to the freighter and get my bump.
You’ve now removed the only real counter to bumming as webs can no longer send a freighter into warp as soon as lock is established
I don’t think that being able to web your own ship into warp is a mechanism that actually makes sens.
Actually, I don’t think that speed requirement makes sense to start with. ships should have a base align time, multiplied by you inertia multiplier, and after that time elapses you go to warp even if you have been bumped or webbed.
I think you just need a better understanding of how the game and it’s mechanics work rather than trying to simplify things that get in the way of you complicating things
