151 (edited by Tiggus 2011-02-13 18:40:11)

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

I feel like the topic of discussion is shifting to something completely different now, which is the aesthetic look of the bots rather than their functions.  I actually completely agree that some bots should be reskinned to look more humanoid mech like, especially the starter arkhe, I even posted extensively about it in beta

The light ewar bots are akin to fast interceptors in EvE, you don't catch those(even with the warping mechanic) unless they run right over your face or you have interceptors of your own.  This mechanic has always seemed fine since they are balanced by not doing much damage, in fact it has been this way for many years.  A fast scout class adds an element to the game I would hate to see made null and void and I don't see a temporary afterburner being the answer, you're just making the class slightly more annoying to play since it has a longer travel time inbetween places.  They will still travel in groups, they will still kill solo mechs, they will still get to pick their fights and run away, so what would change?

One idea someone mentioned on TS last night was increasing the effectiveness of medium reppers.  This would buff mechs and heavy mechs survivability quite a bit against light bots without making them really OP in big fights where they get focus fired by other mechs.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

No they would have to decide: attack or withdraw if the implementation is right. Thats the point.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Dromsex wrote:

No they would have to decide: attack or withdraw if the implementation is right. Thats the point.

I don't see any details on this so called afterburner that addresses the primary thing roams do:

They will still travel in groups, they will still kill solo mechs, they will still get to pick their fights and run away, so what would change?

If they have the ability to withdraw, they have the ability to withdraw, plain and simple even if they have to run their speed in small bursts.  It still makes them the fastest scout class in the game and nothing other than totally obliterating the bot's role by making it slower than a mech will change that.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Theyd have the ability to boost their speed for some seconds if they didnt use it to intercept - this might give some a chance to get out of fire range, depending on when u used it the last time.

Yes you still could scout - but hide and seek wouldnt be viable anymore. If u use it right before combat or within combat, your interference would be at max and have its effect on you and after its used up your of the same speed as other bots.

This allows for tactical scouting or even tackling - but not for rushing in and out and in and out.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

ewbot > mech, no way can a mech win, just lose or draw(ewbot gtfo's)


hmmm...

There is no autorun. Only autostop. - Weapon X

156

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

The very fact that this thread has become as long as it is already I think demonstrates that there is an issue here. I want to add my two cents as a long-time player, I believe that ewar is slightly op vs mechs in that either the ewar mods themselves are too effective vs the large bots, or in that the large bots cannot shoot the small ones (or both)--not however, in speed. ewar speed is fine, mech speed is fine. I never played eve, but would expect that there is something to prevent a single interceptor (as you have likened ewar too) from being able to completely shut down a titan using ewar modules. I would suggest that the devs consider further reducing the effectiveness of small bot's use of ewar against larger objects--both for the sake of ewar vs mech balance and to increase the significance and usage of ewar mechs. The other option that I think is most viable is to make the ewar's hit size back to where it was pre-nerf (or maybe even slightly larger). IMHO three well-skilled mechs should be able to take on at least 6 ewar easily. ATM those ewar would have a challenge, but could easily bring down the mechs if played correctly, even better if it were 5 ewar 1 light. I think Alf does a great job of keeping the game in balance such that every bot will always have its role. I think a little boost to the effectiveness of the mech-class bots would be very useful across the board and to the successfulness of the game.

One further thought, people need to keep in mind that this game is still very young. Mechs will become the bread-and-butter of most people in engagements. They really don't take very long to use decently, nor are they particularly expensive to make and replace. Balance must be achieved keeping in mind that there will be more--bigger and more time intensive--bots to come in the future. Right now a heavy mech is a 3-4 month investment to utilize well--what does that compare to in eve? Heavies will always be relatively rare because they start to become expensive but they are still replaceable, especially with insurance (if it comes back). The big, hard to get into, rewarding, "i'm a badass" stuff is still to come--heck heavy weapons arn't even implemented yet. All balance discussion ought to keep this in mind.

157

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Actually, I recall reading that a capital ship can't even lock smaller ships at all. They need 'fighter' support or frigates along. But the smaller ships also can't even scratch the capital ship.

Again, Ewar/light bots not being killed by mechs is different than Ewar/light bots killing mechs.

What exactly is the balance issue?

158

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Dont compare capital ships with normal ships as per eve.  We dont have capital bots yet!

159

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Die thread die!!! We have new features to talk about...

160 (edited by Master of Panic 2011-02-18 14:20:16)

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Well I agree that mechs should play a larger role than they do atm.

I'm very new to the game (2 weeks) but  have 12 years of MMORPG's so I guess I know what I like and what I don't.

While most of you grew up with EVE and are perfectly comfortable with EVE's blobing mechanics I hate them. I think a prefect battle is the one that has 1:1.2 ratio.

I also like to have role specific robots (mind you that you can pilot several bots after a coupe months) and EW's should be just that: something that hinders opponents but by themselves aren't able to kill.

On the other hand, I don't think that a mech/heavie should be able to kill a dozen EW's alone, unless they're stupid enough to stick around for long...

The point here is that people (on all sides) should grow 'em, use RP and politics but stop building huge alliances whose sole point is to be able to outnumber the enemy by as much as possible.

Bottom line:
> make mechs/heavies more useful
> remove the lethal capabilities of lights
> somehow prevent blobs from happening (bonus damage factor related to number of participants, etc)
> introduce mechanics that make this a squad based game instead of alliance based
> make territorial claims worth it
> promote consentual PvP everywhere

Some of these are very hard to implement but I'm sure it'll make the game much more intereting and lively instead of an infant clone of EVE.

EVE is all about seniority and amassing ships to go against the lowest number possible. Don't try to follow EVE's footsteps.

I understand the need to balance the offline skilling system (keeps customers paying) agaisnt the entry barriers and I'm sure it's possibe to work out a good compromise that will make the game a success. Without blobs.

EDIT: Correct a double negative that mislead readers. Thank you Glimpse.

161

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

FC's that don't win battles don't get to be FC's for very long, players just stop following them.

Considering that the same FC's that played Eve are now FC'ing in Perp, the chances of drastically changing tactics are Zero unless the game mechanics force it by making them lose when those tactics are employed.

Interference is one such game mechanic play, but from what I have been reading, FC's are more finding ways to work around that limitation and continue with just slightly modified tactics, because they still work.

Once AOE is implemented, that may chance again, or more likely these FC's will again make small adjustments until the basic tactics work again.

At some point an FC will do something radically different and create a new winning tactic that takes advantage of, instead of working around, the new mechanics. At that point the 'eve mold' will be broken.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

FC?

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear

163

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Field commander, squad leader, ect.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Master of Panic wrote:

stop building huge alliances whose sole point is to be able to outnumber the enemy by as much as possible.

... work out a good compromise that will make the game a success. Without blobs.

Perhaps you should share your thoughts with your corp & alliance leaders. Their blob outblobs the next largest blob 2:1

Annihilator said: Walking careless onto hokko without masking is like jumping into a bathtub with the hungry 30cm piranhas (infestation)
GLiMPSE™'s CoolPoints™ Leaderboard

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Master of Panic wrote:

On the other hand, I don't think that a mech/heavie shouldn't be able to kill a dozen EW's alone, unless they're stupid enough to stick around for long...

So double negative imply's that you think 1:12 is a good thing just because 1 person has played longer and has bigger bots?

Lol. It's not good for any game to have something that can solo a group of organized players regardless of what bot their in... that's bad design.

166 (edited by Arga 2011-02-18 00:53:29)

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Well, it takes about 46,000 EP to just to undock a heavy mech. If a new account doesn't do anything else, they can basically undock a heavy mech in about 12 days.

This person is totally worthless because they have no other skills.

Its not the bot you are sitting in that should control your effectiveness, its your skill level; both EP skill and your tactical skill.

When talking about who's going to kill who, you must take into account the Fittings, skills, and PVP skill of all pilots; just generically saying This bot or that bot should beat this bot trivializes the impact those traits have on the outcome of the battle. And Fit,EP, and Skill are not trivial.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

... you mean, it's a L2P issue?

Annihilator said: Walking careless onto hokko without masking is like jumping into a bathtub with the hungry 30cm piranhas (infestation)
GLiMPSE™'s CoolPoints™ Leaderboard

168 (edited by Arga 2011-02-18 01:31:17)

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

In game, its a learn to play issue as well as a mindset change that Light to heavy bot is the designated progression path, when it is not, its a role based progression game.

Here on the forums, the heavy vs. any bot is too generalized to actually have a discussion. Its like saying cheese is better than puppies, the context is just to disparate.


Edit: No puppies were harmed in the creation of this post.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Heckle wrote:
Master of Panic wrote:

stop building huge alliances whose sole point is to be able to outnumber the enemy by as much as possible.

... work out a good compromise that will make the game a success. Without blobs.

Perhaps you should share your thoughts with your corp & alliance leaders. Their blob outblobs the next largest blob 2:1

My mistake, sorry.

By  the way, English is not my native language so don't be too harsh smile

Correcting now.

170

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

how about to just return to all these 10-intakt Joes and Roaming Billy all EP they're "wrongly" spent to mechs/heavy mechs? they can spend it to theyr intakt blobs improvement and roaming around 3-4 weeks more untill new stuff deployed.

however, mechs can get a little more additional HP (more than 5% big_smile)

Have a productive day, Runner

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Line wrote:

how about to just return to all these 10-intakt Joes and Roaming Billy all EP they're "wrongly" spent to mechs/heavy mechs? they can spend it to theyr intakt blobs improvement and roaming around 3-4 weeks more untill new stuff deployed.

however, mechs can get a little more additional HP (more than 5% big_smile)

Sounds good to me... anything to bring more PvP to hokk.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Well - people have trained EW and mechs aswell - tahts not the reason to not use them. Its easy to use them to be efficient - but its a matter of look, game design and style. People simply dont like spiders only in a game where lots of bots are pointless in open pvp.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

We've roamed 3+ times since this topic was created(probably more) with mechs and assaults with no problems.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Redline wrote:

Well - people have trained EW and mechs aswell - tahts not the reason to not use them. Its easy to use them to be efficient - but its a matter of look, game design and style. People simply dont like spiders only in a game where lots of bots are pointless in open pvp.

Who are these people you talk about? Or you presume you speak on behalf of community? What bots are pointless in open PVP?

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Im not talking on behalf the com. - but of course mechs cant compete with light speedwise when it comes to roamings - on point defense sure.

So in order to pressure other lights out you need speed aswell which leads to using lights. And thats boring - at least for some people .P