PVP proposition: Class damage factor against GANK, role of alpha-strike, Citadel's imcoming_damage_limit

(1FORUM ALT) #22

Still larger amount of lesser ships much more effective against a bigger target than a ship of the same size while having summary much less cost than a bigger ship. Why would EVE need bigger ships then? Screw the skills, just bring more guys.

(1FORUM ALT) #23

Citadels magical incoming_damage_limit can be rebalanced for optionally built-in citadel-size warp disruption field generators with optimal range 500-1000 km, making significant area around vulnerable Citadel actual deadzone for every ship involved, not only for 4-6: you got in there - you got one way out alive, this improves viability of Citadels, allowing for more utility modules available and removes drive-bys, making damaging intuitive and natural.

(mkint) #24

You’re just missing everything you’re swinging at in this thread, aren’t you?

(1FORUM ALT) #25

Why would you say so?

(mkint) #26

Because your ideas straddle the line between bad and pointless, and your justifications are outright bad. When asked about your justifications, you babble incoherently. This thread’s going places, I tell you.

(1FORUM ALT) #27

Please feel free to share your specific remarks.

(mkint) #28

Your justification appears to be “small things shouldn’t be able to kill big things.” That’s incredibly dumb.

What this thread feels like is you spent $ on skill injectors and a battleship, did something stupid with it because you don’t understand the game, and lost the ship. It feels that way because you don’t seem to understand what ships are for, how they are balanced, or what stats actually come into play in a size-mismatched fight.

(1FORUM ALT) #29

Thank you for your feedback.

Was never said this way, but “small things shouldn’t be able to kill big things so easily”.

And no, i did not invest, bought, or

with anything that could lead to my butthurt.

It’s actually sad how propositions about things can cause unfounded prejudice, as you’ve said “feelings”. (except if it’s about carebears’ fears of lamps.)

(Nevyn Auscent) #30

To be fair, CCP themselves is on record as saying that Battleships are weak in the meta currently.
However this is not solely because frigates can kill them. It’s also because they die horribly to Dreads & Carriers at the same time.
However a complicated hard to understand & calculate on the fly mechanic is not the answer.

Simply increasing battleships base EHP would achieve the same result, while also addressing all the other issues surrounding battleships dying too easily to other things like dreads & carriers.
And a size locked secondary rack like discussed in one of the other threads would allow them to fight smaller ships effectively without making them overpowered against smaller ships. (Which simply increasing tracking on larger guns would do)

(1FORUM ALT) #31

Do you mind to present the link or actual name of the thread you’ve mentioned into this thread so i could get better understanding of your point?

(mkint) #32

It was just an idea thread. They don’t really get taken seriously anyway. When CCP finally decides that balance matters, they’ll swing around to battleships, and it won’t be threads like these that get referenced when they come up with solutions. It’ll be focus groups, data analysis, surveys, etc. The F&I section of the forum is more a release valve so people can feel like they are having an effect, when really they are just whistling into the wind.

(Nevyn Auscent) #33

To not bother pointlessly resurrecting a dead thread, I’ll search for the link if I see you proving you actually have a decent understanding of this thread and why complicated mechanics are bad when there are already existing mechanics.

(1FORUM ALT) #34

Thank you. I will take this into consideration.

(Jonah Gravenstein) #35

Manpower is a cost, so is the cumulative time known as man hours :roll_eyes:

(system) #36

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.