Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
85
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 20:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
I have been playing with and promoting the idea of incapacity state for ships for many years, but I would like to ask a variation on the theme.
Would it benefit the overall economy in EVE if we could shift more destruction of assets onto installed equipment and less on actual ships?
My idea would be that Shield protect high slot, Armor Mid slots, and Structure Low slots.
The risk of getting modules destroyed during combat would shift combat mechanics a lot, and maybe make them less blob oriented. With the changes to availability of installed equipment the whole games logistics and industrial activity would shift. The lower bulk of materials of war would make it more interesting for smaller and newer players to get more integrated into null, and they would play a more important role?
The battlefield would also have more LIMPING OUT happening. Also the Titans Super caps and caps would be more "unknown" on the field since they would last long, but their output and activity level could change a lot from fight to fight?
I also suspect something like this could push gameplay to have more ejection and abandoned battlefields with derelict ships, that needed a lot of repairs and expensive installations to get operational again. Thus creating an actual boost to salvage professions?
I know this sound like a way too huge change to EVE, but would it not still be the same "fundmanetals" just shifting economy from bulky ships to more light weight equipment?
One thing is sure it would make loot drops a lot more interesting, since capacity on building would be straned enough to make drops more valuable, and less likely to get insta-recycled.
I am not sure but would something like this also make more teeth feeling combat relevant, and thus boost smaller gangs value as a strength probing?
|
Death ToU
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
25
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 22:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
I believe you would see less fights as people would wait until they had enough people to ensure victory, and not risk the chance of losing.. I guess much the same as now :) |
Angelique Duchemin
Serenity Prime Kraken.
379
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 22:23:00 -
[3] - Quote
The insurance feature is the balance to this.
And yes insurance is just a game feature and not a business. To tweak down the actual financial loss of having your ship blown up.
Practically all major conflicts in this game is won through attrition.
The price of materials would drop, reduced demand for the parts that are no longer being destroyed... Mining would get slightly less profitable.
I guess it would create a new field to fight on where you balance salvaging your own and the enemy's ships as opposed to just blowing up the wrecks so the enemy can't recover them.
I believe that the outcome would be the same. Attackers destroy wrecks when they win. Defenders salvage wrecks when they win since they have the nearby base. Defenders would receive an advantage in that a winning fight could mean they actually salvage more ships than they lost. Attackers would be at an even larger disadvantage than they are now.
I can't ever see my fleet bringing industrials to salvage wrecks 20-30 jumps through null.
Sort of a battle of the undead where the losing side is resurrected and the winning side made stronger despite losses. We miss you Saede. |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
85
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 22:45:00 -
[4] - Quote
The insurance aspect is interesting.
Much debate about whether insurance is a good or a bad thing.
With a shift like this equipment prices would take over the "value" of fights.
Thus there would be a lot of invisible aspect to the wars and general combat, because kill mails would only show actual "sunken" ships.
Thus Insurance would not be such a huge impact, or it would at least be softened up a bit.
The really good weapons, and the faction epiczors would become the true bling, and opting to use cheaper fits would make sense for the more kamikaze oriented combat.
I also think if equipment took over more of the combat economy the shift to a less risk averse gameplay would develop.
Especially the derelict ships aspect might be really fun addition.
To compare to Real Life a tank is just a tank, the difference is the armor, the weapon tech and the crew. I know that might be simplifying things a bit, but gameplay wise I think it makes sense.
The Titan and Supercap inflation does seem to frustrate a lot of null players. I think just from the CSM interviews more than 50% mentioned that they would like to see more small gang gameplay. I think something like this might make that more likely and viable?
|
Kara Books
Deal with IT.
475
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 23:05:00 -
[5] - Quote
I can definitely see adding a wildcard to the game would surly make combat on the extremes that much better, but perhaps smaller steps to test how the population reacts.
Overheating and nanopaste seems to have worked out quite well so far and said Idea in theory is good.
I don't know, but the change would be a bit to much to adapt to emediatly, people would be less willing to fight if cost of acquiring ship and chance of losing it, or seriously costly repairs begin to outweigh the benefits forcing fighting to decrease.
This also serves to make the poor poorer (the hungry do not understand the fed and the fed don't understand the hungry-old Russian saying), it sounds bad but this would be the reality without very careful planning atleast start off slow and naturally testing every phase, like with T1 module before introducing T2 remember- ancillary shields..
If all fails there must also be a planned route to go back to the current system to increase the chances of popular support and CCP acceptance. |
Elizabeth Norn
Tax Evasion Haven New Eden Research.
23
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 23:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
The only good thing I can see coming out of this is that drake blobs would make a comeback...oh wait..uhm...nobody would armour tank anything ever again.
Imagine you're doing Sansha/Blood Blockade in an armour tanked Marauder, the first volley half your shields are gone, the second you're into armour and you turn your armour repairer on, third volley and you lose a gun (25% of your DPS), the fourth volley scores several wrecking shots and all of your guns are destroyed. .
|
Callduron
190
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 01:41:00 -
[7] - Quote
I'd like to see one change which would encourage ship destruction: Hics being repairable while infini-pointing.
What this would do is make it much easier to keep titans on field. I don't think anyone, not even most titan pilots, actually likes it that titans can usually slip away from a losing fight and far too few titans are lost. In Pandemic Legion's 2012 financials just 1 titan was reimbursed.
Subcaps die by the hundred, don't think there's an issue. And post-combat looting is a fun minigame itself with opportunistic pvpers picking off some of the ragpickers. |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
86
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 02:15:00 -
[8] - Quote
Elizabeth Norn wrote:The only good thing I can see coming out of this is that drake blobs would make a comeback...oh wait..uhm...nobody would armour tank anything ever again.
Imagine you're doing Sansha/Blood Blockade in an armour tanked Marauder, the first volley half your shields are gone, the second you're into armour and you turn your armour repairer on, third volley and you lose a gun (25% of your DPS), the fourth volley scores several wrecking shots and all of your guns are destroyed.
Personally I think the chance of loosing equipment to pve should be rather low, if not almost non existent.
The idea should be mainly focused on improving PVP gameplay.
Overheating and paste have introduced similar mechanics, so it should not be hard for ccp to further progress the code down a direction like this.
On the topic of Titans, I think there is a need to look at their vulnerability in general. I think making them highly sensitive to close range would be a good direction of balancing. So the damage received goes up the closer the source. Or at least as related to the original post idea, make them really easy to incapacitate when getting very close. RP wise the surgical strike effects and strategic targeting becomes very easy up close to something that size.
I am sure experienced pilots of Titans and supers will have some ideas how such things can be improved. The novelty of Titans must have died out enough for most null players to consider going "backwards" to a time before Titans where as easy to field and replace as Battleships back in the ancient past. Seeing the inflation numbers in the QEN just really point to potential reasons for a lot of the meh attitude of EVE players?
Just trying to present some ideas for how things could improve, without the solution being BIGGER higher Tiers and similar wow like level solutions. Traditionally EVE solves these things by adding complexity and player to player interaction. Well at least up till around 2008-2009?
|
Samroski
Games Inc.
177
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 14:17:00 -
[9] - Quote
There could be a skill, like tactical shield manipulation, that limits the damage getting through to the modules.
There should probably be a chance of damage getting through to any of the high, mid or low slot modules. Possibly the damage type could effect a certain class of modules. For example kinetic damage getting through to missile modules :) Happiness is a warm gun, mama. |
March rabbit
No Name No Pain
603
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 14:38:00 -
[10] - Quote
Caleb Ayrania wrote:My idea would be that Shield protect high slot, Armor Mid slots, and Structure Low slots. i thought about this. The problem is: armor tank. In your system armor tanker will lose it's weapons even before his tank starts to work.
Maybe some race/ship bonuses can balance this problem anyhow. Anyway: shield tanks will get one more HUGE benefit over armor/structure tanks. And it's not that shield tank needs more benefits than it has already.
|
|
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
87
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 16:32:00 -
[11] - Quote
The details of the mechanics is ofc an issue, and it would need to be balanced right.
I think it should be a bit like mentioned in the above comment. That its random chance based maybe on critical hits, and that you can reduce the chance with skills, boosters, and equipment type. The argument for the Shield, Armor and hull concept is to somehow add special advantages and disadvantages to ship and equipment types. So some loose guns before the propulsion, and some loose propulsion before longevity.
The paste and overheating mechanics would also play well into this by reducing and increasing the chance of equipment loss.
I believe it was a correct comment about introducing something like this in stages and relatively slow. Especially focusing on the smaller ships first, so they get a bit more longevity in current battles by adding more hull HP and maybe boosting their resistances towards damage. Then these mechanics would initially play a part of the smaller ships versus similar types battles. This would effectively be a boost mechanic for smaller gang activity. If it shows promise and works well it would be introduced to the bigger ships over time!?
|
Elizabeth Norn
Tax Evasion Haven New Eden Research.
27
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 16:58:00 -
[12] - Quote
Caleb Ayrania wrote:Elizabeth Norn wrote:The only good thing I can see coming out of this is that drake blobs would make a comeback...oh wait..uhm...nobody would armour tank anything ever again.
Imagine you're doing Sansha/Blood Blockade in an armour tanked Marauder, the first volley half your shields are gone, the second you're into armour and you turn your armour repairer on, third volley and you lose a gun (25% of your DPS), the fourth volley scores several wrecking shots and all of your guns are destroyed. Personally I think the chance of loosing equipment to pve should be rather low, if not almost non existent. The idea should be mainly focused on improving PVP gameplay.
I was exaggerating on losing all your guns in a few volleys of course, but why would anyone fly an armour ship if the chance was there, no matter how small, unless they were vastly superior in some other way? I think it'd be impossible to balance, and wouldn't provide any more fun.
If the chance was so small that you probably wouldn't see it in a fight, what's the point? I don't see what we would gain from ships not being destroyed and in their place few guns in a fleet fight being destroyed.
Samroski wrote:There could be a skill, like tactical shield manipulation, that limits the damage getting through to the modules.
There should probably be a chance of damage getting through to any of the high, mid or low slot modules. Possibly the damage type could effect a certain class of modules. For example kinetic damage getting through to missile modules :)
More skills for armour tankers? :P .
|
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
87
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 17:28:00 -
[13] - Quote
The key point is adding an aspect that helps the risk averse and creates more content for the risk seekers.
Defeat and humiliation is a lot easier to deal with than "death"..
My main issue is that the trend towards insta-POP is becoming a lot like a frag fest in FPS.
To be really blunt. I think now that we have DUST if players want insta fast adrenalin they should go planet side, if they want strategic planning Fleet wars, positional strategy, hide and seek ambushing etc they should get into a Pod and play EVE.
To me it makes a lot of sense to increase the difference in gameplay intention from a game developer point of view.
Yes I know that combat is not that instant, but the either or aspect is.
Down the pipeline this would also integrate a lot better into industry and economy aspects. Making ships more costly to build. Tweaking Insurance (including a player driven mechanic) Diversifying ammo damage effects. (buffs and debuffs) Used ship contracts would increase Ship history. (Ship ID, Ship Names, Ship Flags) Player affiliation mechanics (Corp jumping, uniform mechanics, real and fake ID activity) Captains Quarters (Invites and multiple player access, RP private meeting visuals, DUST strategic room etc.)
EVE is here to stay and will most likely get 10 more years. The ambition level needs to get back to max, with players and with devs. If we want improvements we need to look beyond status quo. More years of blobbing and SOV seesaw just really seems a bit boring to me.
|
Jerry T Pepridge
Meta Game Analysis and Investment INC.
33
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 00:32:00 -
[14] - Quote
You) want to PVP?
me) sure, just let me get my Orca, so i can change the guns as you shoot them.
you) hey can i use the orca too?
me) no |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
1298
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 02:14:00 -
[15] - Quote
Can you think of any really popular games with limb based combat? Yeah, me neither. With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
|
Tesal
256
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 02:49:00 -
[16] - Quote
Angelique Duchemin wrote:...Practically all major conflicts in this game is won through attrition...
Most major conflicts these days aren't won by attrition. Usually one side presents an overwhelming force and the other side docks up or evacs to safety. They still have plenty of ships but find it pointless to lose them all. They don't even try to fight beyond the first few engagements which set the template for the war. Then the victor grinds structures.
In the old days people would POS spam, fight when they could, take advantage of time zone coverage and try to hang on to Sov as long as possible. There were some really great wars. People don't try to hang on like that much any more.
|
Arronicus
Shadows of Vorlon The Marmite Collective
494
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 03:17:00 -
[17] - Quote
Caleb Ayrania wrote: My idea would be that Shield protect high slot, Armor Mid slots, and Structure Low slots.
You would, in one fell swoop, eliminate armor tanking from the game, homogenize all the shiptypes, and completely mess with resistance profiles, and ammunition. |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
106
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 05:30:00 -
[18] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:Caleb Ayrania wrote: My idea would be that Shield protect high slot, Armor Mid slots, and Structure Low slots.
You would, in one fell swoop, eliminate armor tanking from the game, homogenize all the shiptypes, and completely mess with resistance profiles, and ammunition.
Ok I have a hard time understanding how adding a modifier to the critical hits chance of damaging modules homogenizes anything? If anything it should diversify thing a LOT. Since most ships are very different in this aspect, and would thus start having chaotic secondary effects on the battlefield.
Predicting battles would only be possible to a certain degree. Current EFT warrior pre-simulation would become a lot less possible. I could be wrong, but I get the feeling that fittings and predicting battles is down to a science now, and not a lot is left to chance.. of this fact is reduced a lot as skill of FC and general experience in the pilots go up, but generally I think its a fair assessment of the current situation. |
Thur Barbek
Republic University Minmatar Republic
106
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 08:38:00 -
[19] - Quote
Caleb Ayrania wrote:Arronicus wrote:Caleb Ayrania wrote: My idea would be that Shield protect high slot, Armor Mid slots, and Structure Low slots.
You would, in one fell swoop, eliminate armor tanking from the game, homogenize all the shiptypes, and completely mess with resistance profiles, and ammunition. Ok I have a hard time understanding how adding a modifier to the critical hits chance of damaging modules homogenizes anything? If anything it should diversify thing a LOT. Since most ships are very different in this aspect, and would thus start having chaotic secondary effects on the battlefield.
Read what he quoted. Realize you didn't read what he quoted before. Realize that he is right.
Also, if you think eft fits pre-determine battle outcomes you might want to actually go try pvp. |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
109
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 08:57:00 -
[20] - Quote
Thur Barbek wrote:[
Read what he quoted. Realize you didn't read what he quoted before. Realize that he is right.
Also, if you think eft fits pre-determine battle outcomes you might want to actually go try pvp.
If he had read the title of the thread it said discussion. That means there is most likely content in the whole thread that needs to be read. Since in post #11 I actually point out that it needs tweaking and balancing, and gradual introduction.
OFC blanket protecting any specific slot type would be game breaking, and cause the issues he state, but that was not what was suggested. (edited top post for clarification)
|
|
Zappity
Kurved Space
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 10:59:00 -
[21] - Quote
But...I like being blown up when I lose. Anything else would be so anticlimactic. This is EVE after all.
Death is already just a slap on the wrist. This sounds like a PvEr's dream of PvP. Hooray, I'm l33t! -á(Kil2: "The higher their ship losses...the better they're going to be.") |
Rhivre
TarNec
41
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 11:16:00 -
[22] - Quote
Zappity wrote:But...I like being blown up when I lose. Anything else would be so anticlimactic. This is EVE after all.
Death is already just a slap on the wrist. This sounds like a PvEr's dream of PvP.
I like being blown up, I just find it weird that all my weapons etc function perfectly until the point when I am in my pod. |
Zappity
Kurved Space
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 20:18:00 -
[23] - Quote
Rhivre wrote:Zappity wrote:But...I like being blown up when I lose. Anything else would be so anticlimactic. This is EVE after all.
Death is already just a slap on the wrist. This sounds like a PvEr's dream of PvP. I like being blown up, I just find it weird that all my weapons etc function perfectly until the point when I am in my pod.
Well that's a fair point. I never understood why heat damage doesn't reduce module efficiency - seems a logical thing to do. Also the damage modules receive in hull damage. Hooray, I'm l33t! -á(Kil2: "The higher their ship losses...the better they're going to be.") |
Sante Ixnay
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 07:56:00 -
[24] - Quote
On the general subject, it would be splendid for industry if fewer modules survived ship destruction. Particularly player-created modules. i.e., T1 and T2. Probably this should also come along with an increase in salvage, and perhaps modest amounts of other raw materials. (Hah, it occurs to me now that drone poo would suit the purpose pretty well.)
-Ideally- another check would significantly increase the chance of destruction if an NPC was involved in the ship kill.
|
Danari
Viziam Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 08:34:00 -
[25] - Quote
This has nothing to do with MD, and has a lot to do with new features discussion. |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
115
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 09:42:00 -
[26] - Quote
Danari wrote:This has nothing to do with MD, and has a lot to do with new features discussion.
Since it potentially turns the industry and its economic aspects quite upside down I wanted to ask about these aspects here.
Right now the stacks of items on the market are getting pretty big. I suspect there is an oversupply of equipment and unless we considered something like this, overstocking would become a problem.
A topic like this might get flamed or flooded away in F&I because its impact on general economy is not considered first.
The gameplay aspects are ofc important and interesting to discuss and balance, but the first and foremost question was regarding it impact on markets and industrial competition and labor market.
Since our current production is quite click heavy, it could be a bit too much of a strain, but the current overstocking tend to show its not.
The logistics of moving these around might increase the value of freighter loads quite a lot, which would mean new incentives to ganking.
So these are the questions I believe are needed first. Later the same concept can be presented, and in fuller format in F&I..
|
Samroski
Games Inc.
180
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 18:18:00 -
[27] - Quote
It appears, from reading this discussion, that with the current game mechanics it is not feasible for modules to sustain damage with shield or armor depletion. Thus my suggestion:
Hull damage should cause module damage. A ship that escapes with 10% structure should have about 90% of modules severely damaged or destroyed. As suggested earlier, the class of modules more effected/damaged may be related to the type of incoming damage.
To be honest, I am not entirely in favour of this suggestion. As a trader, I can envision an increase in sales, anything from 2-10%. So I suppose it would be good for traders and industrialists and the alleged stockpiles, but the average Joe would probably hate the idea. Happiness is a warm gun, mama. |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
117
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 20:41:00 -
[28] - Quote
Well to be quite honest if I got my say I would make all current hulls 10 times or more what they are and let a ship with only hull left be dead in the water. A total incapacitated state.. Shooting at a ship like this should just destroy modules until only the hull remained. Then at last go pop..
Repairs would make it able to regain mobility.
Eject would always be possible, if ship pops with you not ejecting the pod dies..
Then that have been discussed in many variations on the forums, but the majority wants the joy of seeing ships vaporaize like fireworks, more then they want "realistic" fleet battles.
|
Zappity
Kurved Space
23
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 03:15:00 -
[29] - Quote
Samroski wrote:Hull damage should cause module damage.
Hull damage does result in a chance of module damage now. Hooray, I'm l33t! -á(Kil2: "The higher their ship losses...the better they're going to be.") |
Dan Carter Murray
401
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 03:53:00 -
[30] - Quote
i'd like to see higher % chance of destruction for modules on ships destroyed IF YOU DON'T FLY AMARR THEN YOU DON'T LIKE A CHALLENGE SO GET ******
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |