| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Shardrael
Caldari
Titan Industries Technology Team
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
    |
Posted - 2008.10.03 20:06:00 -
[31]
wow so not only does caldari have the strongest current ewar but lets give it another one that will become either the new strongest or second strongest.....
worst idea ever.
falcon is fine and the rook is fine. |
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.10.03 20:11:00 -
[32]
I think it's a bad idea.
First of all, currently the only way to diminish a resistance is to force hardners offline - and this is a job clearly suited to the Neut (which pulls triple duty as an anti-speed module, an anti-tank module and an anti-gank module). Even minor reductions in resistances when used on a non bonused ship means this amounts to a free mid slot gank module.
Second, this idea also steps on the toes of the ONLY offensive ewar out there - the TP. Why use a TP when you can use a longer ranged always useful ECM module to boost your damage on all targets rather than just small or fast targets?
Third, this essentially makes some of the most powerful defensive techniques - the RR/Spider gang concept obscelete. Carriers would be a hell of a lot easier to take down even if they have massive RR support going when you simply apply enough ECM to reduce their resistances to 0% (or, god forbid, below)
Fourth, I can't really concieve of a good reason WHY or HOW the module would work from a SCI-FI justification.
Fifth, this idea means that ECM would not only remain as the most powerful EWAR around, it actually increases it's stature and capability.
And finally, this idea essentially amouts to the assertion that fitting tank modules is useless. EHP tanks are a thing of the past, and all people would have to work with is extenders and plates for any real or substantial EHP boosts. Active tanking is already dead and gone for the most part - why put a stake to the buffer tank too?
In short, kudos for coming up with an out of the box answer, but this solution needs to remain outside of the box. |
Beltantis Torrence
|
Posted - 2008.10.03 20:13:00 -
[33]
Make shield vs plate scripted with a half bonus when there is no script and I'm sold. |
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.10.03 20:18:00 -
[34]
 Originally by: Beltantis Torrence
Make shield vs plate scripted with a half bonus when there is no script and I'm sold.
If you want a compromise (and I don't like the idea of even a compromised version of this) it MUST be an either or. And, it would absolutely HAVE to be built so that there is NO way to reduce resistances BELOW the hull's baseline stats, (i.e. no -70% shield EM resist because you have 4 "jammers" on you).
I dislike the idea in general for a host of reaons but at least the above would make it a bit more palatable (in the way that adding sugar to a concotion of ***** and cough syrup would be more palatable).
|
Malcanis
RuffRyders
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.10.03 20:40:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Derek Sigres
Originally by: Beltantis Torrence
Make shield vs plate scripted with a half bonus when there is no script and I'm sold.
If you want a compromise (and I don't like the idea of even a compromised version of this) it MUST be an either or. And, it would absolutely HAVE to be built so that there is NO way to reduce resistances BELOW the hull's baseline stats, (i.e. no -70% shield EM resist because you have 4 "jammers" on you).
I dislike the idea in general for a host of reaons but at least the above would make it a bit more palatable (in the way that adding sugar to a concotion of ***** and cough syrup would be more palatable).
A modified version of the OP's idea would be to have ECM de-activate modules. So being hit by an ECM doesn't stop you firing, but each of your modules - including hardeners - has to resist being deactivated. |
Dracon Zethera
Gallente
Quantum Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.03 22:54:00 -
[36]
Originally by: BiggestT
Originally by: Zionysus
No. Thats a terrible terrible idea, and ridiculously overpowered to boot.
Give it a tp bonuse
But seriously, thats such a terrible idea I thought you were trolling.
Your a terible idea.
Firstly explain WHY you think its a terrbile idea, as is, YOUR the troll.
I fail to see how its overpowered, as I said it may need tweaking, such as a reduction in range..
Remember the falcon loses its ecm strength bonus, and must get in close to use this ewar, being incredibly flimsy it will be very dangerous to operate at such range making it very NOT overpowered.
This comment right here made me completely lose interest in this even being a possible idea. In no way is it though, from a lore perspective, not to mention how overpowered it is, but from a lore perspective please tell me how you are going to use ewar to nullify the effects of resistance, energized, and armor hardners? Are they just going to pop off when the caldari recon comes to get them? |
Grahv Exitus
Minmatar
Noob Mercs
|
Posted - 2008.10.04 00:30:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Grahv Exitus on 04/10/2008 00:34:53
Edited by: Grahv Exitus on 04/10/2008 00:33:17
Originally by: Derek Sigres
Originally by: Beltantis Torrence
Make shield vs plate scripted with a half bonus when there is no script and I'm sold.
If you want a compromise (and I don't like the idea of even a compromised version of this) it MUST be an either or. And, it would absolutely HAVE to be built so that there is NO way to reduce resistances BELOW the hull's baseline stats, (i.e. no -70% shield EM resist because you have 4 "jammers" on you).
I dislike the idea in general for a host of reaons but at least the above would make it a bit more palatable (in the way that adding sugar to a concotion of ***** and cough syrup would be more palatable).
^^ I respect your opinion, so I decided to aim this at you and other smart people, (Lyria, Merin, etc.)so let me know what you think, as I believe this is a very creative idea and if balanced correctly it could make the game even more varied and interesting. Onto my thoughts....
:DISCLAIMER:
THESE ARE JUST MY THOUGHTS ON THIS MODULE IDEA AND A VERY HALF-HEARTED ATTEMPT AT FLESHING IT OUT AND BALANCING THE MODULE ITSELF. PLEASE TREAT THEM AS SUCH AND IF YOU FEEL THEY ARE INSANE OR TOTALLY USELESS/OVERPOWERED JUST SAY SO WITHOUT RESORTING TO YOUR FLAMETHROWER.
If you made it decrease the resistances by a small percentage that was applied to whatever the resistance happened to be at the time... i.e. You have 78% explosive resists, the Res-Destab reduces that by 5%, and would have to treat your resist as just a number, in this case, 78.
78 x .05 (or 5%) = 3.9
This would bring your explosive resist down to 74.1% Now let's say you were hit with a wrecking shot dealing 250 explosive damage before resists.
250 - 78% = 55 (It negates 195 damage)
Now let's try that same shot dealing 250 explosive-only damage before resists while using the Res-Destab w/ Explosive destab script
250 - 74.1% = 64.75 (Damage was increased by roughly 17.7% for explosive damage only)
Now if you added some sort of stacking penalty onto that to where using more than 3-4 wouldn't show any added benefit then this might be an ALMOST CORRECTLY BALANCED MODULE IDEA (Or in my opinion make it a script for target painters or Nos/Neuts; It's not a useful enough design to be a standalone module yet)
Now as for the stacking penalty... I was thinking around a 25% reduction in effectiveness of the 2nd module , 55% reduction for the third module , 90% reduction for the fourth. The Fifth will be a waste. (THESE MAY NEED TO BE SERIOUSLY TWEAKED AS I DON"T HAVE THE FIRMEST GRASP OF STACKING PENALTIES)
This Stacking penalty would cause the percentage decrease to look something like this...
1st module reduces by 5%
2nd module reduces by 3.75%
3rd module reduces by 2.25%
4th module reduces by 0.5%
If four modules were activated on the same target the total resist decrease would equal 11.5%
Using our numbers from before:
78 - 11.5% = 69.03%
Now lets add the explosive-damage only wrecking shot:
250 - 69.03% = 77.425 damage (Damage was increase by roughly 40.1% for explosive damage only)
Now as I said before, these numbers are only there to show my train of thought, they could be seriously overpowered or totally useless, I don't know. In my humble opinion, I think this is close to where it would need to be in order to be balanced, however, I think that it should be made into a script for the target painter to make it more of an attractive module (Not only does it make them easier to hit but if used in conjunction with the right ammo and script it can cause an increase in damage dealt, not just in the ability to hit.
Now, with that in mind you would also need to increase the fitting requirement of target painters to account for the increased usefulness of the module or maybe change it to the high slot and make it an offensive support module like Nos/Neuts (I really think we need more high slot suppo |
BiggestT
Caldari
Space Oddysey
Pupule 'Ohana
|
Posted - 2008.10.04 03:22:00 -
[38]
Lol, i wish ppl cld read through the WHOLE 2 pages before commenting..
I already said it probably isnt a good idea and should not be implemented on feedback.
Though thankyou for all the constructive posts anyway...
Awesome EVE history
 |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.04 07:33:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 04/10/2008 07:33:09
Look, your idea is just ****ing stupid. The module might have some potential, but giving it to the Falcon is just a crippling nerf that shows your complete lack of understanding of game balancing and ship design. I've already said all there is to say about why it's completely different from the excellent synergy (in design, even if the module stats fail to live up to the concept) of the other three recons, so continuing to argue the same points while you ignore them over and over again is just a waste of my time. If you want to argue for a massive Falcon nerf, at least be honest about it, and don't try to claim that this is somehow a good thing for the ship.
I will, however, mention one new point I didn't think of earlier: guess what happens if you remove the Falcon's ewar strength bonus. We go back to the "good" old days of ECM on every ship in the fleet. The huge ECM strength bonus on specialized ships is there for a reason, it's required to make sure only specialized ships can use ECM effectively. Without it, there's no longer a reason to fit ECM on a Falcon, you can just stick a couple jammers on each ship in the fleet and get just as much ewar without wasting a pilot on a no-dps paper-thin recon.
 |
Strill
|
Posted - 2008.10.04 07:42:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
you can just stick a couple jammers on each ship in the fleet and get just as much ewar without wasting a pilot on a no-dps paper-thin recon.
since people can already do that as things are, why don't they?
|
|
Naomi Knight
Amarr
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.10.04 08:13:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Strill
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
you can just stick a couple jammers on each ship in the fleet and get just as much ewar without wasting a pilot on a no-dps paper-thin recon.
since people can already do that as things are, why don't they?
Maybe because unbonused ecm-s are crap? |
Strill
|
Posted - 2008.10.04 08:15:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Naomi Knight
Originally by: Strill
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
you can just stick a couple jammers on each ship in the fleet and get just as much ewar without wasting a pilot on a no-dps paper-thin recon.
since people can already do that as things are, why don't they?
Maybe because unbonused ecm-s are crap?
read before posting |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.04 08:31:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Strill
Originally by: Naomi Knight
Originally by: Strill
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
you can just stick a couple jammers on each ship in the fleet and get just as much ewar without wasting a pilot on a no-dps paper-thin recon.
since people can already do that as things are, why don't they?
Maybe because unbonused ecm-s are crap?
read before posting
Irony, thy name is Strill.
My response was to a hypothetical scenario about a Falcon with no ECM strength bonus. Without that bonus, ECM on a Falcon is no more effective than ECM on any other random ship, and you might as well just toss a couple jammers on each gank ship. Or bring an ECM Raven, one less jammer, but 1000+ dps.
As things are, the Falcon gets a 20%/level strength bonus to ECM, making ECM on a Falcon vastly more effective than ECM on random non-ewar ships. |
Strill
|
Posted - 2008.10.04 08:37:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
My response was to a hypothetical scenario about a Falcon with no ECM strength bonus. Without that bonus, ECM on a Falcon is no more effective than ECM on any other random ship, and you might as well just toss a couple jammers on each gank ship. Or bring an ECM Raven, one less jammer, but 1000+ dps.
As things are, the Falcon gets a 20%/level strength bonus to ECM, making ECM on a Falcon vastly more effective than ECM on random non-ewar ships.
I know. But if fitting ECM on random non-ewar ships is viable in your hypothetical situation, what's stopping it from being good now? Surely it can't be that "ewar on unbonused ships sucks". After all, you propose that it would be used even in its unbonused form. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.10.04 09:06:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Strill
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
My response was to a hypothetical scenario about a Falcon with no ECM strength bonus. Without that bonus, ECM on a Falcon is no more effective than ECM on any other random ship, and you might as well just toss a couple jammers on each gank ship. Or bring an ECM Raven, one less jammer, but 1000+ dps.
As things are, the Falcon gets a 20%/level strength bonus to ECM, making ECM on a Falcon vastly more effective than ECM on random non-ewar ships.
I know. But if fitting ECM on random non-ewar ships is viable in your hypothetical situation, what's stopping it from being good now? Surely it can't be that "ewar on unbonused ships sucks". After all, you propose that it would be used even in its unbonused form.
(1) Fleet needs ewar
(2) ECM spec ships now don't provide any EW advantage over non-spec ships
(3) Why bring them when you can have more DPS and have 50 poor ECMs rather than 10 poor ones? |
BiggestT
Caldari
Space Oddysey
Pupule 'Ohana
|
Posted - 2008.10.04 13:03:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 04/10/2008 07:33:09
Look, your idea is just ****ing stupid. The module might have some potential, but giving it to the Falcon is just a crippling nerf that shows your complete lack of understanding of game balancing and ship design.
Look, you really need to take some anger management classes.
Ive already said that, due to enlightenment from you and others, that this would not be a good idea.
It is not "****ing stupid" idea as you said, as I did come up with at least some decent arguments, rather than a complete wipe out like your suggesting.
I agree, it should not happen, but the fact that you keep trolling me after ive said nothing but "drop the idea" prooves that you are incredibly immature and just want to stroke your epeen by yelling more even when ive already conceeded.
I never troll you or any other contstructive poster, neither shld you.
Oh and I never wanted the falcon nerfed terribly rather the opposite, i was looking for a niche change. Upon seeing its not a good idea I agree that it wld make the falcon worse. But AS I ALREADY SAID I am fine if it stays the same. Hows that wanting a huge nerf?
|
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |