Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
iwannadig
LUX AETERNA INT RUST415
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 10:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
Algorithm Make warp disruption probability-based, i.e.
- Every scrambled ship will have base chance to avoid scrambling (0% for most ships, 75% for deep transports and so on)
- Every warp scrambler/disruptor will act as EWAR module, so it will have a chance to warp scramble/disrupt hostile ship during activation cycle.
- Warp core stabilizers will increase chance to avoid disruption.
- More advanced versions of warp scramblers/disruptors will have more chance to scramble/disrupt hostile ship.
- Ships can have bonuses to disruption chance (mostly interceptors) and disruption avoid chance (mostly transports and different kinds of spec ops)
- To prevent warp by spamming warp button there can be only one warp attempt per fixed amount of time (warp core needs recalibration time, because it is complex procedure). Say, 1 warp attempt per 5 seconds. Server will ignore any warp attempt during cooldown from that client. This time can be affected by skills, implants, boosters and modules (maybe warp core stabilizer itself, maybe new item).
- If several ships try to warp disrupt target, victim checks every warp avoidance chance from every enemy. If any warp disruption succeeds warp is prevented.
Examples
Example 1 Interceptor has warp disruptor with efficient disruption chance of 95%. Hostile ship has 0% chance to avoid disruption. We divide (1 - 0.95) / (1 - 0) = 0.05 * 100% = 5% chance to avoid warp disruption in current cycle.
Example 2 Interceptor has warp disruptor with efficient disruption chance of 95%. Hostile ship has 50% chance to avoid disruption. We divide (1 - 0.95) / (1 - 0.5) = 0.1 * 100% = 10% chance to avoid warp disruption in current cycle.
Example 3 Interceptor has warp disruptor with efficient disruption chance of 90%. Hostile ship has 75% chance to avoid disruption. We divide (1 - 0.9) / (1 - 0.75) = 0.1 * 100% = 40% chance to avoid warp disruption in current cycle.
Reasons
- Warp disruption mechanics is not intuitive. I cannot understand why EWAR module has only two probabilities to warp scramble/disrupt: 0 or 100%
- Warp Core Stabilizer II offers no more defence than T1 versions, so why use them? I always hope to see "Warp Scramble Strength -2", but my dreams fail.
- As I said before, warp disrupt mechanics seems to be pure EWAR, so targets will always have a chance to escape. So disrupting ship/gang will have two options - increase their DPS to finish off their victim until it escapes or increase disrupt strength. Right now if you were caught by a gang and they all warp disrupt you, you have no chance to escape. I think this is unfair as there is no physical interaction with you warp engine.
|
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks The Volition Cult
687
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 11:10:00 -
[2] - Quote
iwannadig wrote:
- Warp disruption mechanics is not intuitive. I cannot understand why EWAR module has only two probabilities to warp scramble/disrupt: 0 or 100%
Seems pretty intuitive to me. Are you sure you've got the right word there, fella? The reasons it has two possibilities is a) because it either turns off your warp engine or it doesn't & b) for game balance
iwannadig wrote:
- Warp Core Stabilizer II offers no more defence than T1 versions, so why use them? I always hope to see "Warp Scramble Strength -2", but my dreams fail.
Why use them? Because the downsides are less than the T1 version. Whether you care or not is immaterial. There are situations where the tech II variant is preferable. Having warp scramble strength -2 on a module that only costs what the T2 version costs would be silly. The levels of warp core stability you could get ships to would be unbalancing.
iwannadig wrote:- As I said before, warp disrupt mechanics seems to be pure EWAR, so targets will always have a chance to escape. So disrupting ship/gang will have two options - increase their DPS to finish off their victim until it escapes or increase disrupt strength. Right now if you were caught by a gang and they all warp disrupt you, you have no chance to escape. I think this is unfair as there is no physical interaction with you warp engine.
Or... you could stop being butthurt and either fit to fight or fit for flight. You already have plenty of options in the game. There's no need to alter the warp core stabs from what they are now. |
Julius Rigel
132
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 11:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
Why in the world would you want to remove skill and agency from the game?! If anything, do the opposite; change the chance-based things we already have to some factor other than chance. For example, make ECM break target lock (make you untarget anything you are targeting) upon activation, and then do nothing for the duration of the cycle. That way you have to choose when to "spend" your ECM, and then wait for it to "reload" before you could break target again.
You didn't explain very well the problem you are trying to solve with this change, and I think there's nothing wrong with the fundamental way warp scrambling works currently. Do YOU like to undock? |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1109
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 11:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
Can anyone think of an idea worse than chance-based tackling? |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
934
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 11:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
Yay! More clickfest on the warp button on the select item window for a stabbed ship What an amazing gameplay that clickfest is!
... Or not. Signature Tanking - Best Tanking. |
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
417
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 11:48:00 -
[6] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Can anyone think of an idea worse than chance-based tackling?
This is worse.
As to chance based tackling, no thanks.
NBSI shall be the whole of the Law |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks The Volition Cult
687
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 11:57:00 -
[7] - Quote
Samillian wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Can anyone think of an idea worse than chance-based tackling? This is worse.As to chance based tackling, no thanks.
Yep. That is worse. That is one breathtakingly stupid idea. |
iwannadig
LUX AETERNA INT RUST415
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 14:33:00 -
[8] - Quote
Julius Rigel wrote:You didn't explain very well the problem you are trying to solve with this change, and I think there's nothing wrong with the fundamental way warp scrambling works currently. I am still curious why warp scramblers/disruptors have 100% effect within N km from the ship without touching it. This can be logically explained only by sabotage. If attacker wants to disrupt warp core, then he need to emit some kind of signal, like sensor disruption. But he directly stops warp core from functioning (or not). In the beginning of Eve warp strength as integer was good, simple and cheap approximation of warp mechanics. But now it is obvious, that this thing needs to be revisited. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
356
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 14:46:00 -
[9] - Quote
The proposal does nothing to solve it's stated problem, that of either being tackled or not being tackled with no middle ground.
I would suggest a different approach. I agree that infinite duration hard tackle is an issue. I would like to see a warp timer that counts down, with each ship having a set time to warp. Scramblers and Disruptors would slow this clock, stabs would speed it up.
No more instawarping when aligned and at speed, but no more holding tackle infinitely either. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1171
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 15:00:00 -
[10] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Can anyone think of an idea worse than chance-based tackling?
Chance based tackling could be well made. But would need to be far different. Would need to be something like. 1 point start at 200% tackled. Every seconds the tackling chance is reduced 1%. Everyt time you try to warp it check.. if succeed you warp. If fails... resets to 200% Warp core stabs and extra poitns would further change values.. like 50% per warp core stab.
Would be an interesting mechanic, specially because you would be able to tackle WCS ships.. more easily than now. But then you would need to kill them bfore they would be able to escape. And the ship tackled could keep runnign or tanking until it think its safe enough to try to warp.
Would be an interestign gameplay that ADDS depth. Make WCS less frustrating to hunters.... while at same time opens space to someoen that want to try to survive a bit, struggling.. to get a chance to escape. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
365
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 15:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
iwannadig wrote:Julius Rigel wrote:You didn't explain very well the problem you are trying to solve with this change, and I think there's nothing wrong with the fundamental way warp scrambling works currently. I am still curious why warp scramblers/disruptors have 100% effect within N km from the ship without touching it. This can be logically explained only by sabotage. If attacker wants to disrupt warp core, then he need to emit some kind of signal, like sensor disruption. But he directly stops warp core from functioning (or not). In the beginning of Eve warp strength as integer was good, simple and cheap approximation of warp mechanics. But now it is obvious, that this thing needs to be revisited.
warp and scram don't touch the core, they disrupt the navigational computer that controls it iirc.
And this is already chance based kind of. Look up the fw whine threads about stabbed plex runners. More stabs they fit, less likely they will be tackled. |
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
450
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 15:32:00 -
[12] - Quote
"Make warp disruption probability based" hahahahah.. No. Fleet Bookmarks New Gravimetric Sites Med Clones 2.0 |
Julius Rigel
132
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 17:54:00 -
[13] - Quote
iwannadig wrote:I am still curious why warp scramblers/disruptors have 100% effect within N km from the ship without touching it. If you're confused about the absence of a linear fall-off in effect, you'll have heaps of fun reading about the properties of whatever, and how it just about spontaneously changes state from solid to liquid, liquid to gas, at specific temperatures, no warning, no gradual progression.
If you're confused about how a device can affect another device without touching it... wifi? Radios? Loudspeakers? Any of this ring a bell?
Heck, it wouldn't be much of a stretch simply to say the required transfer of energy takes a form similar to a voltaic arc, momentarily turning the jell-o space between the offending and defending ships into plasma.
So there you have it. If this is the great question that keeps you up at night, the answer is that the ability of a warp core to warp space around your ship is a Boolean state because warp scramblers shoot electricity through the super-heated jam that surrounds you. Happy? Do YOU like to undock? |
iwannadig
RUSTARFLEET
1
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:07:00 -
[14] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:The proposal does nothing to solve it's stated problem, that of either being tackled or not being tackled with no middle ground.
I would suggest a different approach. I agree that infinite duration hard tackle is an issue. I would like to see a warp timer that counts down, with each ship having a set time to warp. Scramblers and Disruptors would slow this clock, stabs would speed it up.
No more instawarping when aligned and at speed, but no more holding tackle infinitely either. Yeah, this is better than current approach too, so this is an option. |
iwannadig
RUSTARFLEET
1
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:36:00 -
[15] - Quote
Julius Rigel wrote:iwannadig wrote:I am still curious why warp scramblers/disruptors have 100% effect within N km from the ship without touching it. If you're confused about the absence of a linear fall-off in effect, you'll have heaps of fun reading about the properties of whatever, and how it just about spontaneously changes state from solid to liquid, liquid to gas, at specific temperatures, no warning, no gradual progression. If you're confused about how a device can affect another device without touching it... wifi? Radios? Loudspeakers? Any of this ring a bell? Heck, it wouldn't be much of a stretch simply to say the required transfer of energy takes a form similar to a voltaic arc, momentarily turning the jell-o space between the offending and defending ships into plasma. So there you have it. If this is the great question that keeps you up at night, the answer is that the ability of a warp core to warp space around your ship is a Boolean state because warp scramblers shoot electricity through the super-heated jam that surrounds you. Happy? Ok. Someone shoots electricity through the super-heated jam that surrounds me and disrupts my navigational computer. I place warp core between him and my computer. He cannot warp disrupt me as I fully negate it effect. Another enemy applies warp disruptor. I cannot warp again. The question is - if warp disruptor does not send material particles to my ship which can be bounced off with layered warp core stabilizers (I believe there are no particles, as particle weapon can miss, look at the lasers) then it sends some kind of wave. As you know, radiation can be absorbed with materia, so according to Buger's law doubling amount of radiosity form warp disruptors does not implies it will reach needed amount of energy to disrupt navigational computer. |
stoicfaux
4113
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:52:00 -
[16] - Quote
If you absolutely must go with chance based tackling, then just replace the optimal range on scrams/disrupters with a short optimal + falloff instead. When it comes to warp core strength, then make it chance based as per ECM, e.g. one point of WCS plus two points of scram = 2/3 chance to scram.
WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
|
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
391
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 20:38:00 -
[17] - Quote
iwannadig wrote: I am still curious why warp scramblers/disruptors have 100% effect within N km from the ship without touching it.
Because it makes for good gameplay. - Mission Overhaul - Bridging the PVP / PVE Gap - -áIf the game stops teaching people to fear lowsec, maybe people will start going there? |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
4888
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 20:42:00 -
[18] - Quote
This idea would make solo combat frustratingly hard and encourage blobbing and ganking tactics. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |