That’s fine. They weren’t cut out for EVE anyway. Nor are they the type of people who CCP should listen to anyway. Also applies to you.
If new players came in expecting to play a MOBA, does that mean CCP needs to alter the entire course of the game and change EVE to a MOBA? No.
This depends how the fight is slowed down.
TTK is an important factor they design any game around usually, and EVE does have a very bad balance of this.
the OP is right that having 20 seconds to panic and scream does help in both the satisfaction department as they get to actually do things like shoot back, and in the learning department as they get to actually see what is going on. (Or 40 seconds or whatever right).
There are ways this can be achieved despite the massively different levels of damage and uneven fleet sizes if CCP want to, they are used in a bunch of games out there on the market already.
Fight is nearly instant for you because you miss start of fight and panic most of fight.
For this case.
Battle already started at road planning step. Ingame map allows to evade most hellcamps by looking at stats.
When you jump into camp you have a minute of safe time. Active part of battle is started. Don’t act without a plan. Don’t panic (hard to do first 10 times ). Make a plan. Play accordingly.
When your plan will fail - ask other players what you’ve done wrong. Video recording helps a lot.
PS frigates really die fast. Not much can be done to fix this.
Play what? A strategy and society simulator (EvE) or a dog fight flight simulator (like E:D). I tried E:D and already stopped playing half-way through the tutorial, will probably never touch again. I played X3 before, and EvE is the pinnacle of gaming experience for me.
There are different types of players, you seem to be not in the bag for EvE.
On the one hand, real fights with small numbers of combatants are usually over in seconds. The odds of that increases with the firepower involved. Taking hits in a small but protracted battles and duels is a relatively rare thing. To give an example, in WWII a German Tiger tank was lost and rolling at max speed down a narrow tree lined road. Off the road and unseen to the Germans were a few Allied tanks. After the Germans passed, a single tank much lighter than the Tiger rolled onto the road and chased the Tiger down. When the Germans saw the light tank coming they started turning their turret back. The allied tank did not shoot as it was decided to not be in effective range. When it was though, they opened fire and destroyed that Tiger with one hit to the rear. The Tiger had its turret between its 4 and 5 o’clock position when it was taken out.
I like realism in my games.
On the other hand, long protracted battles and duels are the stuff of fictional plays and movies with a few exceptions (The Duellists (1977) comes to mind). This is because people love the drama and tension and games can take advantage of that.
And I do like the idea that you have some time to think and try stuff while under fire. In another nod to realism battles are not so much a matter of going from peaceful strolling to BANG you’re dead. There is often if not usually some shooting going on before moves are made and individuals truly join battle. Its at that point that death in seconds usually happens, or so my studies would seem to indicate.
Dude…small battles and duels are generally fought among like size vessels.
And there are not any real world comparisons to a fleet of tiny ships taking down a giant ship. Closest would be something like the exploits of Thomas Cochrane and the HMS Speedy (which were mostly quick battles of deception and 1 on 1) or even the Battle of Gravelines (drawn out because the English in smaller shiops stayed out of range until the Spanish used all their gunpowder).
Vessel speeds alone make this all very comparable to tank fights. Other aspects make it comparble to submarine battles. Modules add dynamics more comparable to hand to hand or melee weapon combat.
I would not make any claims off the cuff about the number of closest parallels. There is too much to consider.
You can choose exactly how slow you want your combat to be.
It’s called ship size.
Quick high intensity combat where if you make one turn wrong you’re dead? Frigate.
Slow strategic combat where you make choices whether you want to risk pinning yourself down for the next 5 minutes or not? Capitals.
Something in between? Many ship sizes in between caps and frigs.
None of which prevents your ship going from full health to instant dead in a second.
Which is an issue and always will be an issue, which is why many games have measures in place to address this so as to avoid instant death.
With an enemy fleet big enough, true, you may only live a couple seconds no matter your ship.
Only damage caps (structures) or temporary invulnerability (rorquals) can let you survive more minutes then. But I don’t think damage caps or invulnerability should be a more widespread thing to slow down combat.
We do have other methods to slow down dying, assault damage control. You could still die in seconds against a fleet large enough, but for smaller engagements it gives you a good extra chance of survival while it is active.