Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Benefactor
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 21:54:00 -
[1]
Anyone read the EVE chronicles story called "Loser?" One of the lines, near the second to bottom paragraph, reads:
The anti-scrambler still needed 20 seconds to complete the de-scrambling and it was eating into VictorĘs remaining power supply.
Hey, that's it! What if WCS weren't absolute blockers against scrambling, but rather, undid scrambling at a faster rate than the warp drive normally entailed? Perhaps with a small "grace period" of a few seconds before the next scramble?
Scrambled ships would still have a few seconds of vulnerability, so hit and runs with WCS ships would be less effective.
Good idea? Needs work? Or flame on?
A wise man knows everything. A cunning man knows everybody. |
Ediz Daxx
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 21:56:00 -
[2]
Elaborate please.
|
Arkanor
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 21:58:00 -
[3]
Surprise! You can fit another jammer ________________________________________________
\_/ <-- My care cup, LOOK it's empty! |
Benefactor
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 21:59:00 -
[4]
Okay, I will.
If you read the EVE Chronicles, the "anti-scrambling device" seems to have a countdown to it. Instead of having either 100% immunity or no protection against scrambling, would it work better if WCS speeded up the de-scrambling timer that is already built into each ship that is scrambled?
A wise man knows everything. A cunning man knows everybody. |
Ichabod Crane
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 22:00:00 -
[5]
He's saying that he wants wcs to "charge" before they allow someone to warp off. Considering the average ship at a hostile gate camp is dead within 10-30 seconds of it jumping/warping in this idea is pretty pointless.
Still, its better thought out than the usual "nerf wcs" thread.
|
Benefactor
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 22:00:00 -
[6]
Well, maybe this change would make it moot to fit another jammer... and maybe also make it moot to overload a ship with WCS, except to shave off a few more seconds scrambling time.
A wise man knows everything. A cunning man knows everybody. |
Benefactor
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 22:03:00 -
[7]
Adds suspense and tension to WCS, doesn't it? They still work (and pirates get a few licks in), without the absurdity of being absolutely immune to scrambling.
On the plus side for haulers, it also removes the absurdity of four WCS STILL not being enough.
A new, scary way to escape scrambling, needing less WCS and less scramblers. Neat idea?
A wise man knows everything. A cunning man knows everybody. |
Berak FalCheran
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 22:03:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Benefactor Anyone read the EVE chronicles story called "Loser?" One of the lines, near the second to bottom paragraph, reads:
The anti-scrambler still needed 20 seconds to complete the de-scrambling and it was eating into VictorĘs remaining power supply.
Hey, that's it! What if WCS weren't absolute blockers against scrambling, but rather, undid scrambling at a faster rate than the warp drive normally entailed? Perhaps with a small "grace period" of a few seconds before the next scramble?
Scrambled ships would still have a few seconds of vulnerability, so hit and runs with WCS ships would be less effective.
Good idea? Needs work? Or flame on?
That's...
...
a really good idea I like it.
How I imagine it:
2 pt scram on ship with 1 WCS -- either scrammed as normal or a tiny eensy weensy chance of breaking the scram.
1 pt scram on ship with 1 WCS -- high (75%+) chance of breaking the scram after x seconds.
1 pt scram on ship with 2 WCS -- instant or nearly instant breaking of scram.
etc.
NEW: ALL SIGS WITH EVE RELATED CONTENT
|
Jin Weifan
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 22:03:00 -
[9]
What about just having a few hundred accounts, all flying Manticores, with FOF Cruise Missiles and a multitap keyboard with a big PWN button to launch em all?
"Try dodging this!"
|
Arkanor
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 22:07:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Benefactor Adds suspense and tension to WCS, doesn't it? They still work (and pirates get a few licks in), without the absurdity of being absolutely immune to scrambling.
On the plus side for haulers, it also removes the absurdity of four WCS STILL not being enough.
A new, scary way to escape scrambling, needing less WCS and less scramblers. Neat idea?
People hated the chance-based ECM, I doubt most would look disapprovingly on the same thing applied to scramblers. ________________________________________________
\_/ <-- My care cup, LOOK it's empty! |
|
Gorion Wassenar
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 22:15:00 -
[11]
Hmmm. It'b be like jamming with the time bar that when the bar is empty you can warp away. Haveing stabs would either shorten the lenght of time jammed or cancel it our compleatly. Or like locing onto a target then using a Sensor booster to make it got faster... ------------------
CEO of TKI
|
Tsual
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 22:16:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Ichabod Crane Considering the average ship at a hostile gate camp is dead within 10-30 seconds of it jumping/warping in this idea is pretty pointless.
Which is realistic.
Too bad realism makes most people fight/survive with not so honorable means.
So nerf insta, nerf wcs and all that things are nice requests, but without stretching combat to holywood like unrealistical length - and allowing everyone to be a heroic captain - bringing them into the game would only gank interest in pvp for the not so brave/rich/powerfull. ******************** Those without a tribe can only keep their word.
|
Benefactor
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 22:18:00 -
[13]
I see how EW was borked with a "chance" system (I believe it could be alleviated if there were more diminished returns for EW stacking), but for scrambling and de-scrambling, even the fiction suggests that WCS isn't an all-or-nothing device.
I can see how pirates would like this, how cargo runners might like this (if they dont pack enough WCS, they still got a chance).
In fact, the only people I can see hating this are hit-and-run PVPers who want it both ways. All I can say about them is to hell with them!
A wise man knows everything. A cunning man knows everybody. |
Pika Eadesso
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 22:38:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Pika Eadesso on 25/05/2006 22:45:11 Edited by: Pika Eadesso on 25/05/2006 22:41:46 Edited by: Pika Eadesso on 25/05/2006 22:39:58 No thats not so good. If you put chance into it, you need to put a chance for the scramble failing. Seems fair.
But then I feel its balanced the way it is now:
I mean, lets take ship X it has 1 WC Scrambler (midslot). Now ship Y needs TWO WC Stabalisers (Low slot. Right? Or am I horribly off?) That in itself balances out if you ask me.
If ship Y now needs to sit there and twiddle his thumbs while ship X hammers him, hoping to god his tank holds while he waits for the timer... thats not balanced, thats giving yet MORE cards (and more module slots) for ship X to play with.
I mean the way I see it, if you can stop the targets chances of survival\escape with the push of a single button, without gimping yourself, the target should be able to somewhat gimp themselves for the abillity to run without worry.
My personal view is that if you remove Stabilisers you remove scramblers. Strengthen tablisers you strengthen scramblers and Vice Versa. I think its balanced as it is.
Thats my opinion anyways :)
--Edit-- Edits to make sense ¼.¼
|
Benefactor
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 22:43:00 -
[15]
You may be right, for the most part. It's not "broken" as it is.
Still, my suggestion was to give a point for fitting just one WCS, instead of flooding your bay with them. And as a consequence, giving a use to a single scrambler, rather than having to flood medium slots with them.
A little uncertainty to stir the pot, so to speak, because having eight WCS would no longer be an "I escape" button to anything except 4+ scramblers.
A wise man knows everything. A cunning man knows everybody. |
Pika Eadesso
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 22:48:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Benefactor You may be right, for the most part. It's not "broken" as it is.
Still, my suggestion was to give a point for fitting just one WCS, instead of flooding your bay with them. And as a consequence, giving a use to a single scrambler, rather than having to flood medium slots with them.
A little uncertainty to stir the pot, so to speak, because having eight WCS would no longer be an "I escape" button to anything except 4+ scramblers.
In that case it may work. If its one WC stabliser to beat all scrambling from one ship (regardless of stacking) that could work. So 1 WCStab per SHIP, so then pirates would only need 1WCScram too... A guranteed scramble with the chance of escape, I could live with IF it was just one slot, and as long as the WC Stab can try again.
But then does that make it too far the other way? I can see where you're coming from though, and with a little work that could work.
|
Exavier Macbeth
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 22:51:00 -
[17]
You know if you need a stat to base the chance off you can always make use of the "Propulsion" Attribute EVERY ship was given in what i think was going to be a change to scramblers that never made it through development some 2 years ago. :P
Might as well put that stat to good use as it really doesn't do anything right now. I personally would like to see chance based scramblers myself. And i like the chance based ECM system its just that its a little bugged on the actual roll chances... which is whats making it jam everything :P
|
Sovy Kurosei
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 22:58:00 -
[18]
There isn't anything wrong with warp core stabilizers and scramblers now, contrary to all the people complaining. It is pretty balanced. So leave this poor horse alone. ___________________
|
MysticNZ
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 23:00:00 -
[19]
Maybe wcs should work like EW, stabs give warp core points to your ship while scrams have a chance to disrupt your ships warp core...
Makes sense no? -=====-
|
ragewind
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 23:20:00 -
[20]
Edited by: ragewind on 25/05/2006 23:20:15 the only problem with WCs is that T1 frigs can scrambel any ship from a frig to a carrier this needs to change scramblers need to change to be class sized and intersepters need to loses there bonus to damage ROF ect and get the ability to fit scramblers that are oversized for a frig ------------------------------------ fix eves industrial sector!
advanced industrial ship |
|
Flash Landsraad
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 23:21:00 -
[21]
Judging by how the ECM chance based system works at the moment this would mean that haulers can be immune to scrambling wihlst still fitting loads of cargo expanders meaning you can have a travel and massive haul setup all in one...
or...
You can fit 1 stab on your pvp setup if you're that way inclined and still have a big chance of getting away when you decide you can't win.
In my opinion a bad idea. You should be able to either stab to get away or not stab for an effective setup, not fit 1 mod that gives a chance to get away.
Those that get scrambled whilst fitting 4+ stabs are at a dissadvantage you might say in return? MMOs are massively multiplayer online games. The whole point is to play with other people, not solo everywhere.
My 2 pence.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 00:02:00 -
[22]
Originally by: ragewind Edited by: ragewind on 25/05/2006 23:20:15 the only problem with WCs is that T1 frigs can scrambel any ship from a frig to a carrier this needs to change scramblers need to change to be class sized and intersepters need to loses there bonus to damage ROF ect and get the ability to fit scramblers that are oversized for a frig
Yes, because Inties need to be in the same position to T1 frigs that Destroyers put AF's into now - simply overpriced for their comparative effect in PvP.
|
Benefactor
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 07:40:00 -
[23]
No no, you got it wrong.
I didn't propose a "chance" system like the one that screwed up EW. What I proposed initially was a reduction to the scramble time, depending on how many WCS are activated (yes, activated. Maybe a minimal cost, kind of like Damage Control.)
A wise man knows everything. A cunning man knows everybody. |
spurious signal
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 11:15:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Benefactor No no, you got it wrong.
I didn't propose a "chance" system like the one that screwed up EW. What I proposed initially was a reduction to the scramble time, depending on how many WCS are activated (yes, activated. Maybe a minimal cost, kind of like Damage Control.)
So eventually, even if your target had no WCS fitted, the scrambling would "expire"?
Wouldn't that completely destroy the pirating profession entirely?
|
Bland Inquisitor
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 11:23:00 -
[25]
No no and no and elt me explain why
So sally girl sit down and let me tell you
WCS are there for a reason. Not just for pvpers to act like kiddies and do cowardly hit nad run tactics and here comes the crunch lizzy. WCS are here to be used, and omg my head just mite explode from stupidty atatck if i see another thread like this
Now imagine a alt blocking thread timer, now oh my gosh would that be fun *stands up and dances lots and lots and claps hand* now would that be a marvolous idea!
WTS Clue
Alliances Pwn All
|
MysticNZ
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 11:25:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Flash Landsraad Judging by how the ECM chance based system works at the moment this would mean that haulers can be immune to scrambling wihlst still fitting loads of cargo expanders meaning you can have a travel and massive haul setup all in one...
or...
You can fit 1 stab on your pvp setup if you're that way inclined and still have a big chance of getting away when you decide you can't win.
In my opinion a bad idea. You should be able to either stab to get away or not stab for an effective setup, not fit 1 mod that gives a chance to get away.
Those that get scrambled whilst fitting 4+ stabs are at a dissadvantage you might say in return? MMOs are massively multiplayer online games. The whole point is to play with other people, not solo everywhere.
My 2 pence.
Ok, say you are right. They have a big chance to get away. That sounds ok to me if the CPU for the stabs is huge, or require cap... IE: they have to be activated and use large amounts of cap. -=====-
|
000Hunter000
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 11:26:00 -
[27]
Hmm... allthough i'm not a big fan of 'nerfing' the stabbies, that might be an actual good idea imo.
make it so 1 module would be all u needed and it would always unscramble u but it would take longer depending on: a. ur skills (there should be an unscrambling skill) b. how many scramblers ur opponent has fitted and unleashed on u.
for instance: a +1 scrambler, with ur unscramble mod it will take u 10 sec to unscramble and warp, +2 = 20 sec, +3 = 30 sec and so on (time periods can be altered i just used it as an example) skills will influence that timeperiod as well (for both u and ur opponent)
anyways just a thought, i don't care if stabbies stay just the way they are really.
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 11:38:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Benefactor
In fact, the only people I can see hating this are hit-and-run PVPers who want it both ways. All I can say about them is to hell with them!
Your suggestion is good, but this is wrong. A good solution makes sure that one group of players doesnt get totally screwed over. I can also solve the wcs problem by ignoring the needs of certain playergroups...
Many of us doesnt like sitting still, tanking and firing missiles. Guerilla hit & run tactics is pvp in fun mode. Your wcs idea is good, but needs some work.
--- The Eve Wiki Project |
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 11:44:00 -
[29]
A idea with potential that's for sure, but I for one ain't completely convinced yet. ~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~ A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
Marcus Aurelius
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 11:55:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Marcus Aurelius on 26/05/2006 11:56:48 Cycle or time-based WCS, fine, but not chance based please.
I don't mind chance based ECM< but chance based scrambling would make for example solo cap injector setups rather useless. You need to force a situation in which committing to a fight means just that, no last chance warpouts because you got lucky on your WCS.
Time based is fine with me. Charging em would be useless since few ships alst logner then 10-20 secs in most situations. But giving WCS a short cycling time coupled with a longer reactivation delay would mean that you either hit em all and warp right away, or choose to for example hit half now, and half after the cycle of the first bunch ends. That leads you to take the chance of not having enough to warp out at a later time when you actually need to. This would at least solve the issue of the multiple wcs hit&run tactics.
Adding cap use should be nice as well, but not before we get some changes to nosferatus.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |