Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Ellaine TashMurkon
Em Pack HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2006.07.17 10:48:00 -
[1]
Currently, we have Sensor Booster that increases lock range and lock time at the same moment, wich makes it a universal super solution for sniping and ganking fitting, with all pluses and no drawbacks. Why not imply some choice and add more tactics to ganking and sniping warfare? :)
Directly nerfing this module wuld not be good, as it destroys existing fittings and their tactical function. Adding something new to counter is much better.
So, there is partial cloak! Partial cloak is a module using cloaking technology but only to a limited degree. It makes the ship less visible, that is, harder to lock, by enemy sensor systems. It culd also affect visual reperesentation of ship (making it semi transparent or transparent in some areas), but not nercesary.
Partial cloak: midle slot module moderate cpu, low grid fitting about 2-5 million cost (unless splited in sizes, then more for bigger ships)
effect one; partialy negates effect of sensor boosters based on sensor strenght of targeting ship and signature of targeted (targeted is the one with partial cloaking device). The better sensor strenght of targeting ship, the lesser effect of partial cloak. The smaller targeted ship, the better effect of partial cloak. attempt to make a formula: (400/<targeted signature>)+5 = <parial cloak strenght> (6 for standard BS, 16 for standard frigate) <sensor booster bonus> * 1-(<partial cloak strenght>/<sensor strenght>) = <new sensor booster bonus>. so, for a BS with 2*SB II's, SB bonus is (+156%). This BS has sensor strenght of 20. It's locking a frigate, of signature 40, having partial cloak strenght of 16 effectively. So, he will have his sensor booster bonus lowered to 1-(16/20)=20% of its normal value, so its now +32% (to range and lock time). Now, BS with lock range of base 50km, had it boosted to 128km. But against that partially cloaked frigate, it has now only 66km, and locking time only a bit lower. Poor BS.
effect two; decreases base locking range and increases locking time (numbers after calculationg negated sensor boosters) by 15%.
It shuld be possible to use several partial cloaking devices with notmal stacking penalty.
-------------
Now, how to counter this evil thingy? use ECCM.
or one of two modules added along with partial cloak;
Shielded long range sensor booster 60% range bonus and built in serious ECCM bonus.
Shielded fast riot warfare sensor booster 60% lock time bonus and built in serious ECCM bonus.
Those wuld be not only good against partial cloak, but also against ECM.
-------------
What do we gat with this thingy?
More tactical options against sniper fleets. Sniper fleets now do not instapop everything. They pop everything after about standard locking time. More reason to use other EW ships and modules then BB/scorp with ECM, because of more popular ECCM bonus. More choice when arming a sniper/gank BS. More things You can do with smaller, mid range ships in fleet warfare. More survivability of tacklers aproaching sniper fleet, so more work for sniper fleet support tackler killers. Generally, sniping nerfed, but not nerfed to death at all. |
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears Whips and Chains
|
Posted - 2006.07.17 12:56:00 -
[2]
Right,
Firstly how are you proposing only to affect the bonus?
Second, you're making a mistake - scan resoloution, NOT sensor strenght is the measure of how fast you lock a ship. Sensor strenght is purely defensive.
Third, you have a situation where you can lock some targets and not others and you gave NO idea which is which. Ugh.
Basically, you're splitting the sensor boosters and FORCING everyone in a BS to sue them or they're worthless in combat, and also incidentally making jammers far FAR less effective (and hence gank gameplay more attractive).
A better approach is to make sensor boosters LOWER the sensor strenght of the ship (by say 10%). And to fix T2 amo. And to slash the boost sensor booster by a third. And so on - small chanegs, large effect.
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
Em Pack HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2006.07.17 13:36:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Maya Rkell Right, Firstly how are you proposing only to affect the bonus?
In what sense how am I proposing that? Software architecture? Scientific/logic bacground explanation?
Quote:
Second, you're making a mistake - scan resoloution, NOT sensor strenght is the measure of how fast you lock a ship. Sensor strenght is purely defensive.
I'm not making mistakes. I know what is sensor strnght and resolution. Sensor strenght is a not so randomly chosen parameter that makes it easier to partially-cloak against a frigate than against a BS, and easier against low tech minmatar shiop and harder against high tech caldari ship (with stronger sensors). Sensor strnght represents, as I understand, how many "sensing" particles/waves are sent around, how stable the signal is. More stable, stronger signal can be less affected by partial cloak, its quite logical.
Quote:
Third, you have a situation where you can lock some targets and not others and you gave NO idea which is which. Ugh.
People have about 6 or so active locks. Its not that much of a problem to try it out on many ships simultenously and get combat info like "unable to lock ship XYZ because its using partial cloak, Your locking range against this ship is ABC."
Quote: Basically, you're splitting the sensor boosters and FORCING everyone in a BS to sue them or they're worthless in combat, and also incidentally making jammers far FAR less effective (and hence gank gameplay more attractive).
Basically, I am splitting sensor boosters, yes, because I think its a good solution. Partial cloak wuld be something to motivate people to use splitted SBs, not force. As not every ship will use partial cloak, it does not make people not using partial cloak countermeasures, useless in battle. Its just some alternative to simply nerfing sensor booster. Jammers are anyways the 90% of EW in battle. They can live with a little nerf.
Quote:
A better approach is to make sensor boosters LOWER the sensor strenght of the ship (by say 10%). And to fix T2 amo. And to slash the boost sensor booster by a third. And so on - small chanegs, large effect.
Lowering sensor strenght by sensor boosters is ok. But spliting boosters is good too, it gives choices.
T2 ammo is fun, people are happy with T2 ammo, T2 makes moon product market work better and makes people train more skills. You cannot remove T2 ammo and nerfing it will anger a lot of people.
|
Zarch AlDain
The Blackwater Brigade HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2006.07.17 14:18:00 -
[4]
I am not happy with T2 ammo.
Something that boosts both damage and range without any penalty of significence is not balanced.
Zarch AlDain The Blackwater Brigade Huzzah Federation
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
Em Pack HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2006.07.17 14:56:00 -
[5]
It costs more. It needs more skills. Why shuld be no better?
Compare cruisers to HACs. HACs are better in all aspects. There is no problem with that.
|
Zarch AlDain
The Blackwater Brigade HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2006.07.17 16:36:00 -
[6]
Because currently the only counter to a T2 sniping BS fleet is another T2 sniping BS fleet.
There are no choices, variations or options.
The T2 snipers are out of range for everything except another T2 sniper.
Fleets are heading rapidly towards a very boring set of 3 or 4 different types of T2 fitted battleships, 2 interdictors, 2 covert ops and maybe a couple of HACs for anti support.
Zarch AlDain The Blackwater Brigade Huzzah Federation
|
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.17 17:15:00 -
[7]
No.
The locking ability of a ship is determined soly by its scan resoloution. Sensor strenght has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
And yes people might have "6 or so active locks" - on a BS - but given the pace of combat and the way the overview shifts, it's fiddly and unfun not to to be able to target certain ships. Moreover, when all sorts of messages are flashing up, that range message will last less than 1/10 of s second, and you won't get to read it.
Splitting boosters is NOT a good situation. You haven't actually nerfed the dedicated sniper with 2 and 2 in any way whatsoever. Slashing the bonus by a third drastically decreases the maximum softcap, as splitting them does not.
Partial cloak FORCES every long range BS to carry 2-3 modules, drastically reducing the choice and varyability of BS, not to mention making it very hard to use some in fleet AT ALL!
T2 amo is broken and unfun. T2 amo is opposed by a lot of people. T2 amo is a marginal market item.
You're only speaking for yourself on T2 amo, it's a REAL problem and the sooner it's removed and replaced with a version which has T1 stats and a small special bonus, the better!
Yes, a bonus. A SMALL bonus. People will use T2 guns anyway!
|
Mihail d'Amour
|
Posted - 2006.07.17 18:40:00 -
[8]
I've never understood why targeting time doesn't go up with range increase. If the size of the ship's 'footprint' in space is what determines how long it takes to lock it (scan resolution versus signature) then as a ship gets farther away it's relative signature should be decreasing. Given that our tools for locking a ship are reflective tranmissions, such as RADAR and LASER, the time for these reflections to occur and the strength of return wave would be longer and weaker respectively the farther away the target is. A further abstraction on this would suggest that a radar with a given scan resolution (the aperature of the scanning mechanism at a specified distance) would get 100% of its signal returned from a ship of the same signature radius if it was sitting at the 'standard distance'. The same ship at a greater distance would be returning less of the signal, because at a greater distance the cone is larger and some of the outgoing signal is now passing around the signature of the target ship. It is conceivable that at certain distances almost none of the outgoing signal is returned.
As for the partial cloak, what I think might work better is a passive ECM. Some kind of mid-slot module that absorbs either specific or multi-spectrum signals and has a very large reducing factor of the target ship's relative signature. Obviously, this would not impact weapons fired at the vessel, as its true signature would remain unchanged, but it would have a significant impact on the ability of another ship to obtain a target lock. I think that this kind of module has merit with or without making target locking speed vary based on range.
---------------------------------------------- In nomine Domine, quod erat malum |
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.17 23:39:00 -
[9]
I guess one possible move could be to decrease the bonuses or one bonus on sensor boosters, like halfing range or resolution, and additionally increase signature radius by a significant amount. Think about it, you can lock onto enemy radar emission, and using a sensor booster (or even multiple) a target should be radiating like a Christmas tree. Hm, might be not enough still, as a BS signature is already very large, but after all, better than it's now.
|
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 01:00:00 -
[10]
Mihail d'Amour, quite simply because long range combat is a viable option. Ignoring the psudo-physics, if locktime rises by any significant factor, then outside of large combat it becomes basically unviable to use long range ships.
Additionally, what defines "long range"? If it's the end of a ships locking range, one set of problems (ships with shorter base ranges get hurt). If it's absolute range, then there are both consistancy problems and it hurts BS in a way which they simply don't need to be.
A signature radius reduction module is problematic, and would HAVE to be cruiser+... you DON'T want easy invulnraceptors. And you're talking some nasty codework there, or an entirely new attribute..
Tarron Sarek, suggested slashing a third off sensor boosters and making sensor boosters lower your sensor strenght (making you more jamable) by 10% before...
|
|
Mihail d'Amour
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 01:12:00 -
[11]
Maya.. one of the largest complaints I've seen tossed out.. and often by yourself, has been the predominance of the sniping setup. This makes sense, since there is no drawback to going long range but BS are the only ships that get to play in this arena, since they already can outrange another ship's sensor range AND can sensor dampen before the enemy gets in range, giving them an even longer head-start. The advantage of making target locks affected by range, is that while sniping is still viable, it has a trade-off. It reduces the viability of gate-sniping (which is a very good thing, since that is the ultimate 0-risk sport) but it doesn't make long-range combat unviable, just a little less pleasant. I'd suggest a basic formula, presuming an 'optimal' targetting range of 1/3 the ship's maximum, anything under that is unaffected, anything over that the lock time increases in a straight line to 300% of normal at max range. The only thing that might get hairy is how to handle that ships are moving around. but this is solvable and the outcome would be desirable, as it adds a dimension to combat, reduces the all ships must be battleships rule, and makes sniping less predominant while still being an available tactic.
---------------------------------------------- In nomine Domine, quod erat malum |
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 01:21:00 -
[12]
Yes, and I have what I think are appropriate adjustments suggesred for it. The sort of fundermental rules revision you're suggesting...is afaik far too radical, I believe it's possible to alter the existing mechanisms somewhat* to establish a better balance for snipers.
Especially if my flare/partial jam ECM and recon frigs able to follow in warp get in..
(*Yes, killing T2 amo in its current form might be considered radical by some, but I call it common sense)
Your change leaves sniping - and even moderate range combat - as completely unviable, as far as I can see. One third the range is about the range of the CLOSE range weapons, for most ships, with middle-damage amo. BS don't currently rule, except in fleet, and fleet wouldn't be much affected by the idea anyway.
|
Mihail d'Amour
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 01:30:00 -
[13]
I agree it is radical, while I disagree on it's making all mid-range combat unviable. It's an even playing field, all ships will face the same new challenges. Less radical is the idea of defensive modules. The sensor chaffe module I had suggested or some kind of defensive ECM that makes a ship harder to target but isn't considered hostile.
---------------------------------------------- In nomine Domine, quod erat malum |
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 01:54:00 -
[14]
Except some ships are designed for longer range combat and get it in the face... others short range and arn't really affected.. and again which sort, relative or absolute range? (Plus you realise what you can do at ultra long ranges with NPC's and a missile ship, right?)
|
Elfaen Ethenwe
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 09:23:00 -
[15]
silly idea.
but you could split sensor boosters into 2 types which would be fun.
1 for range 1 for locking speed :) <x><x><x><x><x><x><x><x><x><x><x><x><x><x> http://www.contraband-inc.com <x><x><x><x><x><x><x><x><x><x><x><x><x><x>
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 14:26:00 -
[16]
Originally by: El**** Ethenwe silly idea.
but you could split sensor boosters into 2 types which would be fun.
1 for range 1 for locking speed :)
Ockhams Razor to the rescue. Stop dreaming up silly ideas when this is what needs to be done.
Remind me about The Maze.
I'm Danton Marcellus and I approve of this message. |
Ellaine TashMurkon
Em Pack HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 14:33:00 -
[17]
My primary point was to split sensor booster.
My example way of motivating people to use splitted ones was partial cloak. For me its a logical use of existing technology.
Btw, how does the cloaking device work?
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 14:36:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon My primary point was to split sensor booster.
My example way of motivating people to use splitted ones was partial cloak. For me its a logical use of existing technology.
Btw, how does the cloaking device work?
There's no need for suggarcoating the nerf, just split the modules and be done with it.
Remind me about The Maze.
I'm Danton Marcellus and I approve of this message. |
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 17:23:00 -
[19]
Yea, sorry, some of us would like to actually HURT the bonus you can get from them. Splitting them..won't do that to a dedicated sniper. The only way to do that is for there to be a lower soft cap on the bonus they can give. That means slashing thr bonuses they give, I'd suggest by a third.
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 17:40:00 -
[20]
Splitting it in two would be a great first step, then said dedicated sniper at least would have one less midslot to field a counter against whoever is coming for him.
Remind me about The Maze.
I'm Danton Marcellus and I approve of this message. |
|
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 17:56:00 -
[21]
OH NO! ONE LESS MID! But he'd STILL have the range. He'd STILL have the locktime. He'd STILL be able to do precisely what he does today.
OR, you can slash the bonus by a third, and have him unable to get the same range and locktime he would with those modules by imposing a lower softcap on them. Which WOULD inhibit the sniper.
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
Em Pack HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 18:02:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Maya Rkell OH NO! ONE LESS MID! But he'd STILL have the range. He'd STILL have the locktime. He'd STILL be able to do precisely what he does today.
OR, you can slash the bonus by a third, and have him unable to get the same range and locktime he would with those modules by imposing a lower softcap on them. Which WOULD inhibit the sniper.
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 18:30:00 -
[23]
Would the sensor booster remain a viable module being mutilated that much or will it go the way of ECCM?
Remind me about The Maze.
I'm Danton Marcellus and I approve of this message. |
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 19:07:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 18/07/2006 19:08:08 By a third? Sure it would, it remains the only really viable option for long range. Two will still give you a deacent boost*, adding over 75% to lockrange and speed.
(*you might have to raise a few - no more than 4 - Minmatar ships base lock range by a few km, afaik)
The really long range locking ships, the Caldari, are a missile-using race with delayed damage, the delay being significant over longer ranges.
|
Mihail d'Amour
|
Posted - 2006.07.19 13:44:00 -
[25]
What if instead of a percentage it used a flat km amount, the same way the drone module does? This would make them still very viable on cruisers, and bring them more inline on battleships.
---------------------------------------------- In nomine Domine, quod erat malum |
Ellaine TashMurkon
Em Pack HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2006.07.19 15:04:00 -
[26]
Ships for 5 millions do not really need to be brought in line with ships for 100 millions.
Cutting bonus a bit as maya says, and splitting SBs will provide both some choice and some nerf to sniping, and yet, will absolutely not kill it. Another good, logical and simple thing is to make locking time dependent on range.
|
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.19 17:59:00 -
[27]
No, Ellaine, cutting is the better option to splitting. Mixing them is too harsh a nerf, and not my intention.
|
Mihail d'Amour
|
Posted - 2006.07.19 18:09:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon Ships for 5 millions do not really need to be brought in line with ships for 100 millions.
Where the sam hill did I say that? I said it would bring sniping more in line (meaning make absurd range sniping a thing of the past). I also said it would less affect smaller ships because you aren't using a percentage, so the nerf would hit snipers without making the module mostly useless on cruisers. I never said the two ships should be made the same.
---------------------------------------------- In nomine Domine, quod erat malum |
Maya Rkell
Corsets and Carebears
|
Posted - 2006.07.19 18:18:00 -
[29]
You're not talking about sniping. You're trying to nerf ANY long range combat. (You STILL haven't answered relative or absolute range!)
|
Deakin Frost
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.19 20:36:00 -
[30]
There are stealth modules to be found hidden in the database, their purpose was to reduce your signature radius, making it harder to lock on. The devs toyed with the idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |