Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
General Guardian
The Guardian Knights
95
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 10:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
One of the random ideas I had earlier today was one regarding the warp strength mechanics and stabs. While I don't think there's an immediate issue, I do think it feels a little bit clunky as it's an old mechanic that could perhaps be improved.
What I propose is a complete change to the warp strength itself, from single digit numbers to a number not unlike Sensor Strength, that way stacking penalties and skills could be applied.
We could then add 2 skills. Warp core stability (rank whatever), and Warp core disruption (rank whatever) which give 10% increases per level to the relevant stat.
So for example let's say a t1 cruiser has a base warp core strength of 5.0 and a warp disruptor without a ship bonus or skill bonus will sit at 5.0 also. That would be enough to stop the ship from warping.
If the cruiser were to have trained Warp core stability though to a higher level than the opponent has trained Warp core disruption, then he is able to warp off.
Then a ship bonus can be applied to ships that are naturally tacklers, and base warp core strengths on specialised ships such as black ops or attack class ships so that more effort is required to stop them.
Warp core stabilisation mods could then become rigs that apply a % bonus which also have a stacking effect penalty with the ships base core strength. Then the ship would be able to fit tank, but is less likely to escape a dedicated tackling ship.
Less warping and more fighting.
Warp disruption bonuses would most likely be applied to Recons, Interceptors, Friction extension sub systems, the T1 versions of tackle interceptors, Faction ships (and perhaps additional rigs) Warp core Stability bonuses to Black ops, Faction ships, attack style hulls, Transport ships, Jump Freighters etc
Obviously the balancing is up for discussion.
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1183
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 10:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
General Guardian wrote:
If the cruiser were to have trained Warp core stability though to a higher level than the opponent has trained Warp core disruption, then he is able to warp off.
...base warp core strengths on specialised ships such as black ops or attack class ships so that more effort is required to stop them.
Less warping and more fighting.
Does not compute. |
General Guardian
The Guardian Knights
95
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 10:23:00 -
[3] - Quote
Need to make it simpler?
Instead of people flying around with full racks of stabs, they'll have a proper fit and be able to fight if they get caught. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 10:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
The balancing would need to remain the same as now, so a ship with a rack of 4 WCS would still warpout from to Scram II fit tackles...it is already difficult enough for an industrial player to not be killed whilst flying losec without nerfing the only real defence a hauler has.
However:
I'm not averse to the idea of making warp a scaled function instead of do/don't. Each ship would have a warp core strength, WCS add to the strength, scrams reduce it. Time to enter warp is now a function of warp strength so if enough scram is applied then no warp..some scram applied means slower warp...lots of wcs and no scram means zippy warp... |
General Guardian
The Guardian Knights
96
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 11:02:00 -
[5] - Quote
I think industrial pilots would deserve a little bit of a boost to their industrials, so that an average skilled long point won't stop them, but a highly skilled long point would, or any ship with a bonus such as interceptor or arazu etc. |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Northern Associates.
296
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 11:15:00 -
[6] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:The balancing would need to remain the same as now, so a ship with a rack of 4 WCS would still warpout from to Scram II fit tackles...it is already difficult enough for an industrial player to not be killed whilst flying losec without nerfing the only real defence a hauler has.
However:
I'm not averse to the idea of making warp a scaled function instead of do/don't. Each ship would have a warp core strength, WCS add to the strength, scrams reduce it. Time to enter warp is now a function of warp strength so if enough scram is applied then no warp..some scram applied means slower warp...lots of wcs and no scram means zippy warp... So WCS effecting Warp Acceleration? |
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
156
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 11:17:00 -
[7] - Quote
this does seem reasonable as long as it's properly balanced..... therein lies the problem For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it WILL be. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 11:39:00 -
[8] - Quote
Caldari 5 wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:The balancing would need to remain the same as now, so a ship with a rack of 4 WCS would still warpout from to Scram II fit tackles...it is already difficult enough for an industrial player to not be killed whilst flying losec without nerfing the only real defence a hauler has.
However:
I'm not averse to the idea of making warp a scaled function instead of do/don't. Each ship would have a warp core strength, WCS add to the strength, scrams reduce it. Time to enter warp is now a function of warp strength so if enough scram is applied then no warp..some scram applied means slower warp...lots of wcs and no scram means zippy warp... So WCS effecting Warp Acceleration?
Stronger warp field bends space more and requires a lower speed threshold to jump maybe...there would always be a minimum time due to align, but a combination of align + warp time could be a good mechanism
In this way a single tackle probably wouldn't stop a dedicated transport, but just might slow it down enough for another tackle to arrive and pin it.
on the flipside an industrial with lots of warp strength would hop into warp more rapidly because it has Millenium Falcon class hyperspace drives |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3864
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 15:35:00 -
[9] - Quote
Reasons I dislike this idea:
1.) The proposed changes will result in new player not being able to "hold down" higher skilled characters if their relevant tackle skill isn't high enough.
2.) You seem to think ships that can fight well and then warp away if things look hairy don't deserve the drawbacks of Warp Stabs. Frankly, I find this distasteful! There is a reason stabs have such a steep penalty, and that reason is to limit such cowardly playstyles. (what next? Ships that shoot while cloaked?)
3.) Getting caught means getting caught. I don't care if you are in a badger or a blackops or a carrier. Some ships are easier to catch as part of their design. There is a reason that industrial aligns slowly and is in danger of being caught, and you somehow think that just because they are non-combat they deserve a "let me get by" card. At the end of the day, ships that supply my enemies with weapons are as much a threat to me as the enemy shooting the weapon at me. Death to them all.
|
General Guardian
The Guardian Knights
97
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 17:59:00 -
[10] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Reasons I dislike this idea:
1.) The proposed changes will result in new player not being able to "hold down" higher skilled characters if their relevant tackle skill isn't high enough.
2.) You seem to think ships that can fight well and then warp away if things look hairy don't deserve the drawbacks of Warp Stabs. Frankly, I find this distasteful! There is a reason stabs have such a steep penalty, and that reason is to limit such cowardly playstyles. (what next? Ships that shoot while cloaked?)
3.) Getting caught means getting caught. I don't care if you are in a badger or a blackops or a carrier. Some ships are easier to catch as part of their design. There is a reason that industrial aligns slowly and is in danger of being caught, and you somehow think that just because they are non-combat they deserve a "let me get by" card. At the end of the day, ships that supply my enemies with weapons are as much a threat to me as the enemy shooting the weapon at me. Death to them all.
1.) Someone who has more skill points should have an advantage. 2.) You have no idea what I think. You understand the idea of the stacking penalties? Ships aren't going to be able to have near as much warp core stability as they can have now, meaning more people will get tackled. Who said there won't be a penalty on the rigs? But the ship will at least be able to fit some tank to make up for the fact they can't just fit a whole rack of stabs. 3.) Point 2 nullifies this. Ships will be easier to catch, but to make up for this they can fit tank or speed, meaning more pilots are going to have to learn how to pilot because they're more likely to get caught.
And don't complain that some cheap t1 rubbish won't hold point on something specialised. If your Rupture is being blopsed, you have more to worry about than the fact your meta 4 warp disruptor isn't enough to keep one on field.
|
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
367
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 20:18:00 -
[11] - Quote
Actually I would be against reducing how much WCS ships can have. As I mentioned it is the only defence a hauler has as no tank will stop a gank. The indy can only run. Any change should be balanced around the current possible WCS level.anything is artificially forcing industrialists into being easier targets |
Last Wolf
Umbra Wing
138
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 20:55:00 -
[12] - Quote
How would bubbles and HIC's play into this idea of yours?
I rather like it as a whole. I dislike On/Off switches. Vacuums suck. |
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
184
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 21:10:00 -
[13] - Quote
I'm sitting here scratching my head thinking, "What's wrong with the old system?" I don't see a problem with the current system and this seems overly complex and very exploitable. We already have dedicated warp disruption platforms called interceptors, interdictors, and heavy interdictors(edit: which are very very very good at their present jobs). I personally don't see very many ships outside of meaningless faction warfare plexes fitting stabs, and even then it's a valid fitting tactic with counters and heavy penalties...
TL;DR I think the OP has had one too many T1 frigs run away from him in FW plexes. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3867
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 21:34:00 -
[14] - Quote
Last Wolf wrote:I rather like it as a whole. I dislike On/Off switches.
You either can warp, or you cannot warp. That is an ON / OFF Switch. And guess what, this proposal does NOTHING to change that design aspect.
All this proposal does is complicate the line between On and Off so new players can't warp when older players can do to SP advantages. What is good about this?
There are essentially two parts to this proposal:
Part 1) Having SP alter the warp mechanics so low SP characters cannot hold down higher SP characters, which can still hold down the lower SP characters. This part is a TERRIBLE idea, and nothing but a gigantic kick in the nuts to any new player. An old player experiences plenty of advantages already, so we certainly don't need to add this craptastic idea to the list. How do you possibly justify suggesting this?
Part 2) Adjusting the warp core point system to make it harder to catch certain ships. Now, whether we utilize integers or decimal numbers the result is the same. There is an on / off switch which enables you to warp, or not wap. This talk of percentages and decimals really feels like overcomplicating a simple system, which I don't understand why we need to, as it could be done simply with ship bonuses and attribute changes. For example:
Interceptors: 200% bonus to the effectiveness of warp disruptor systems. Transport Ships: +2 Warp Core Strength.
My main questions: Why should we change the bonuses of the ship classes you mentioned? What is wrong with the current system? What do you gain by complicating the system? And why did you pick the ships you did for special bonuses?
|
General Guardian
The Guardian Knights
98
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 22:22:00 -
[15] - Quote
Last Wolf wrote:How would bubbles and HIC's play into this idea of yours?
I rather like it as a whole. I dislike On/Off switches.
Infinite points remain infinite.
Kaerakh - I don't do faction warfare.
Gizznitt - The ships I chose are just examples, although blackops would be obvious under the circumstances due to hit and run nature. This also doesn't mean a high sp character has a greater advantage over a low sp character. It doesn't take much SP to fly an interceptor or t1 tackle frigate.
The purpose behind the idea is to introduce stacking penalties to the warp strength system, and allow an opening for specialising some ship hulls. and I never said there was a problem with the current system, I just like to add an original idea now and then and discuss it. However the loading low slots with warp core stabs still seems clunky and is a pretty old mechanic.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
369
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 11:55:00 -
[16] - Quote
Last Wolf wrote:How would bubbles and HIC's play into this idea of yours?
I rather like it as a whole. I dislike On/Off switches.
Bubbles and HIC's would apply an AoE reduction in WCS strength
New players would till be able to pin a ship as the balance would be for a standard scram to stop a standard ship. With a scaling method however, then new player would also be able to slow down (but not stop) ships with WCS bonuses or WCS modules. A sliding scale seems more appropriate than the on/off switch we have now. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
713
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 12:01:00 -
[17] - Quote
Isn't this a rather long winded method of dealing with the fact that some players get frustrated by a ship getting away? There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
369
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 13:31:00 -
[18] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Let's let the developers fix the stuff that matters, and not get sidetracked down something that means we are still living with the same broken code in 10 years.
That I would agree with, but I don't like to say I don't like an idea without trying to add something constructive :D |
Egravant Alduin
republic fleet battle support
139
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 14:52:00 -
[19] - Quote
Kaerakh wrote:I'm sitting here scratching my head thinking, "What's wrong with the old system?" I don't see a problem with the current system and this seems overly complex and very exploitable. We already have dedicated warp disruption platforms called interceptors, interdictors, and heavy interdictors(edit: which are very very very good at their present jobs). I personally don't see very many ships outside of meaningless faction warfare plexes fitting stabs, and even then it's a valid fitting tactic with counters and heavy penalties... TL;DR I think the OP has had one too many T1 frigs run away from him in FW plexes.
I agree.The current system is balanced and fine and we have too many things that can stop someone .Maybe we need industrials that can bypass heavy inderdiction ships.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
371
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 15:03:00 -
[20] - Quote
Egravant Alduin wrote:Kaerakh wrote:I'm sitting here scratching my head thinking, "What's wrong with the old system?" I don't see a problem with the current system and this seems overly complex and very exploitable. We already have dedicated warp disruption platforms called interceptors, interdictors, and heavy interdictors(edit: which are very very very good at their present jobs). I personally don't see very many ships outside of meaningless faction warfare plexes fitting stabs, and even then it's a valid fitting tactic with counters and heavy penalties... TL;DR I think the OP has had one too many T1 frigs run away from him in FW plexes. I agree.The current system is balanced and fine and we have too many things that can stop someone .Maybe we need industrials that can bypass heavy inderdiction ships.
Ooooh, a smugglers sloop...now that would be nice :D |
|
Battlingbean
Heaven's Gate
34
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 17:02:00 -
[21] - Quote
Current mechanics are solid. The only problem is warp core stabilizers are still in the game. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3870
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 18:20:00 -
[22] - Quote
Egravant Alduin wrote:Kaerakh wrote:I'm sitting here scratching my head thinking, "What's wrong with the old system?" I don't see a problem with the current system and this seems overly complex and very exploitable. We already have dedicated warp disruption platforms called interceptors, interdictors, and heavy interdictors(edit: which are very very very good at their present jobs). I personally don't see very many ships outside of meaningless faction warfare plexes fitting stabs, and even then it's a valid fitting tactic with counters and heavy penalties... TL;DR I think the OP has had one too many T1 frigs run away from him in FW plexes. I agree.The current system is balanced and fine and we have too many things that can stop someone .Maybe we need industrials that can bypass heavy inderdiction ships.
I don't understand why you think "we have too many things that can stop someone"?
I live in nullsec and regularly have to deal with cloaky sabres, sensor boosted instalock thrashers, gate camps, and more. These are obstacles that are pretty easy to deal with in most circumstances.
When I lived in FW, I regularly dealt with stabbed farmers, instalock t3's and Hictors, and enemy militia gate camps.
None of these experiences gave me the impression that "we have too many things that can stop someone". I just don't understand your sentiment. |
Lyra Gerie
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 23:44:00 -
[23] - Quote
It seems like a decent thing to look at for changes so +1 from me. I would love to see more flavor for individual ships, and this could really expand the T2 line for indy pilots as well as defenses on other ships. Not to mention the variety it could add to disruptors, scrams, bubbles and infinite points which has already started with nullified ships. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |