Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2888
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 03:29:38 -
[1] - Quote
While I am aware that OGB will "soon" be removed, I also am aware that "soon" may not be what we hope for. So in the meantime, I thought of a potential solution for the current strength of OGB.
The main tenets are simple, avoid negative impacts for ships on grid and for ships fitting the "proper" amount of links, while not entirely removing the mechanic of OGB as a whole. A stepping stone in the direction, but not a guillotine to the tactic.
Currently all ships use a combination of sig radius and sensor strength to determine difficulty to scan. While some ships and niche fits can do this, the most commonly used ships for this benefit and for boosting, are T3s. Those ships are rarely fit well enough to survive any sort of engagement, so having negative impact for on-field survivability would be a bad trade off imo.
With T3s usually for with extra command processors and ECCM in every nook and cranny, what can be done to make them easier to find?
Firstly, recognizing that both aspects of the scan difficulty formula have inherent combat effects, changing them directly would be bad. So a third factor needs to be added that has little effect on those mechanics, and specifically targets the scanning system. I'll call this factor the "signature modifier" (SM). Every ship will have it set at x1.0 by default. Assuming my algebra is right, no impact on the formula at that value.
The change would come to command processors. Each command processor would decrease (or increase) the SM, making the ship easier to scan. A ship fitting 3 command processors would be much easier to scan than a ship with none.
What this means, is that a T3 fitting 4-5 links would simply bloom in scan signature, and be more vulnerable to probing. While a command ship running 3 links would have no change at all. This also means, any ship fitting 1 link (T3, command destroyer, battlecruiser) would also be unaffected.
This makes a gradual trade-off in the number of links being run vs the signature strength. A single link T3 may still be virtually 'unprobable', but adding more makes it less so.
The specifics of the math may vary depending on my understanding, but overall, it needs the targeted ship setup (multi-link, ECCM T3s), while keeping other setups unaffected. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1494
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 12:00:47 -
[2] - Quote
But with every cp you fit you are already easier to scan...
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2897
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 14:34:38 -
[3] - Quote
This makes on-grid links no stronger and off-grid links no weaker (since they're usually in a POS shield).
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2255
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 15:42:02 -
[4] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:This makes on-grid links no stronger and off-grid links no weaker (since they're usually in a POS shield).
No, they are not in a POS shield (unless they are mining links).
Additionally, this doesn't really make off grid boosters much weaker.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Alundil
Isogen 5
1084
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 16:10:18 -
[5] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:This makes on-grid links no stronger and off-grid links no weaker (since they're usually in a POS shield). Combat links can't be activated while inside a pos shield. It's probable that they are orbiting a friendly pos, but at that point it's still possible to alpha them before they get back in the shield.
I'm right behind you
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2947
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 18:50:42 -
[6] - Quote
This nerfs on grid links heavily, as it makes them take significantly increased damage from missiles and be vastly easier to lock. And only makes a difference to OGB's in the instances when the roaming gang actually has a dedicated probe ship who isn't maxxed anyway. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2896
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 18:53:14 -
[7] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:This nerfs on grid links heavily, as it makes them take significantly increased damage from missiles and be vastly easier to lock. And only makes a difference to OGB's in the instances when the roaming gang actually has a dedicated probe ship who isn't maxxed anyway. The signature radius is unaffected. No increase in application. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2896
|
Posted - 2016.01.31 18:54:04 -
[8] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:But with every cp you fit you are already easier to scan... Assuming the slot had ECCM, but you don't need to fill every slot with ECCM to reach that very difficult to scan value. |
Hopelesshobo
Tactical Nuclear Penguin's
546
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 17:57:53 -
[9] - Quote
You would be better off by suggesting that there should be a -20% penalty to sensor strength with every command processor fitted instead of trying to have a complex system.
Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2546
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:02:05 -
[10] - Quote
Hopelesshobo wrote:You would be better off by suggesting that there should be a -20% penalty to sensor strength with every command processor fitted instead of trying to have a complex system.
That makes on-grid booster vulnerable to ECM but it's probably a lesser problem than having to integrate modifiers in the game if the proposition is supposed to really just be a band-aid. |
|
Estella Osoka
Perkone Caldari State
1018
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:04:56 -
[11] - Quote
People need to stop making "suggestions" on OGB until they see the final outcome CCP will put into effect. |
Hopelesshobo
Tactical Nuclear Penguin's
546
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:26:49 -
[12] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Hopelesshobo wrote:You would be better off by suggesting that there should be a -20% penalty to sensor strength with every command processor fitted instead of trying to have a complex system. That makes on-grid booster vulnerable to ECM but it's probably a lesser problem than having to integrate modifiers in the game if the proposition is supposed to really just be a band-aid.
On grid boosters need to lock things when they have command processors fitted?
Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |