| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Blackguard Coalition
   |
Posted - 2009.03.12 03:17:00 -
[1]
Instead of boosting damps (which seems to be a lost cause), why don't we simply lower ship targeting ranges? I'm aware of the effects this would have on sniping, ranged combat, and missioning.
The effect I'm going for here is that damps *almost*, but not quite, are worth the effort to fit. Changing the base targeting range allows them to not make a change that really screws over things like frigs (which frequently don't have enough targeting range *anyway*) and simply eliminates something that *most* people don't use on their cruisers/BC's/BS's anyway.
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
arbiter reformed
Minmatar
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 03:24:00 -
[2]
it wouldnt work, think about it.
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Blackguard Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 03:28:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: arbiter reformed
it wouldnt work, think about it.
I did, actually. It would let damps actually have an effect on close range combat while not really removing anything people *actually use* or endangering balance by boosting damps. It lets CCP (literally) balance the effect damps have on a ship-by-ship basis.
If you think it won't work... why don't you post a reason why? I'm always open to logical responses. :)
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
vostok
Minmatar
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 03:33:00 -
[4]
this would just make sniping harder imo, you already need to give up a fair few mids on some ships for sensor boosters.
TBH the what was it, 75% nerf to damps combined with the nerf to the warfare link affecting them was just way too heavy handed. IMO a single damp should be able to reduce target range by 70 to 80% or at least make it so they don't stack nerf.
- Adaptation is not an excuse for lack of ballance! -
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Blackguard Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 03:39:00 -
[5]
Originally by: vostok
this would just make sniping harder imo, you already need to give up a fair few mids on some ships for sensor boosters.
TBH the what was it, 75% nerf to damps combined with the nerf to the warfare link affecting them was just way too heavy handed. IMO a single damp should be able to reduce target range by 70 to 80% or at least make it so they don't stack nerf.
The problem with *that* solution is that suddenly it's impossible for damps to affect any battleship... at all. Base targeting range of 100km and they're still locking well beyond scram range.
And as I said - I knew it would make sniping harder when I made the suggestion. It's still worth pursuing.
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
vostok
Minmatar
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 03:48:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
The problem with *that* solution is that suddenly it's impossible for damps to affect any battleship... at all. Base targeting range of 100km and they're still locking well beyond scram range.
And as I said - I knew it would make sniping harder when I made the suggestion. It's still worth pursuing.
-Liang
I'm just not certain that reducing target range would make that much of a difference unless it was fairly sever.
Its generally easier to fix one small aspect of a game mechanic than rethink the whole thing.
And after the speed nerf, I think the dev team may give up at life if they had to redo targeting lol
- Adaptation is not an excuse for lack of ballance! -
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Blackguard Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 03:54:00 -
[7]
Originally by: vostok
I'm just not certain that reducing target range would make that much of a difference unless it was fairly sever.
Its generally easier to fix one small aspect of a game mechanic than rethink the whole thing.
And after the speed nerf, I think the dev team may give up at life if they had to redo targeting lol
 It's true, they just might. At any rate, the problem with fixing one 'small' aspect of the game (damps) is that they presumably don't *want* to fix it. People have queried CCP many times, and CCP is *on the record* saying damps are fine and will not be balanced. I would *rather* see the damp bonus boosted on bonused ships (1.5-2x as much bonus would be about right).
I see this as a work around with interesting implications for the range game.
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
Zhilia Mann
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 05:08:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Zhilia Mann on 12/03/2009 05:08:53
Originally by: Liang Nuren
It's true, they just might. At any rate, the problem with fixing one 'small' aspect of the game (damps) is that they presumably don't *want* to fix it. People have queried CCP many times, and CCP is *on the record* saying damps are fine and will not be balanced. I would *rather* see the damp bonus boosted on bonused ships (1.5-2x as much bonus would be about right).
Pretty much in agreement about the "ideal" fix. But while your proposal is potentially interesting, it's also ridiculously loaded. There are already ships -- well, ok, the Rokh -- that have issues operating within existing maximum range. Reducing standard ranges would wreak havoc on many ships (and I would include in this things like sniper HACs) and create fascinating -- and I'm confident given CCP's track record, undesired -- consequences. Like a viable damp-based small gang sniper Ishtar suddenly looking like a better alternative than either a Cerb or an Eagle. (Not that I wouldn't personally benefit from that; in fact it would be awesome. But I don't think it does anything positive to the game as a whole.)
Originally by: Liang Nuren
I see this as a work around with interesting implications for the range game.
-Liang
Meh. I see it as taking a working system and breaking it in order to make a currently broken, much smaller system work. Yeah, the devs don't seem to be on Occam's side here, but that doesn't give reason to stop advocating it.
Edit: Oh, and welcome back. I'll admit to being among those who never believed you'd be able to stay away.
|
EFT Warrior
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 05:11:00 -
[9]
I was under the impression that scripts were meant to compensate for damps being hit hard, with targeting range bringing down the lock range of ships and being less effective as the size of the ship went up, and vice versa for scan resolution (a carrier with a 40 second lock time on a battleships means the battleship dies, for example).
I do like the idea, but if you do that you may have to increase the effectiveness of sensor boosters to compensate.
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Blackguard Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 05:24:00 -
[10]
Originally by: EFT Warrior
I was under the impression that scripts were meant to compensate for damps being hit hard, with targeting range bringing down the lock range of ships and being less effective as the size of the ship went up, and vice versa for scan resolution (a carrier with a 40 second lock time on a battleships means the battleship dies, for example).
I do like the idea, but if you do that you may have to increase the effectiveness of sensor boosters to compensate.
I believe you are mistaken. Scripts were a way for the module to effectively be split in half. It's a neat idea, and I'm not entirely against it.... but what it *also* did was nerf the overall effectiveness of damps because it changed the way the formula was calculated.
There has never any sort of 'scaling with target size' effect from damps.
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Blackguard Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 05:32:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Zhilia Mann
Pretty much in agreement about the "ideal" fix. But while your proposal is potentially interesting, it's also ridiculously loaded. There are already ships -- well, ok, the Rokh -- that have issues operating within existing maximum range. Reducing standard ranges would wreak havoc on many ships (and I would include in this things like sniper HACs) and create fascinating -- and I'm confident given CCP's track record, undesired -- consequences. Like a viable damp-based small gang sniper Ishtar suddenly looking like a better alternative than either a Cerb or an Eagle. (Not that I wouldn't personally benefit from that; in fact it would be awesome. But I don't think it does anything positive to the game as a whole.)
I knew it was loaded when I suggested it. It was *WHY* I suggested it. It'd shake things up a bit but, by and large, most ships above destroyer don't actually use most of the locking range they already have. Exceptions such as sniper HACs are very well justified in not having their lock range significantly lowered.
I wouldn't be too terribly concerned about damps being used on unbonused ships simply because they are so ineffective and I wouldn't be really in favor of a dramatic change in locking range. The idea is to push locking ranges just low enough that you can see a similar max lock range as before the change. So what - a 15% aggregate decrease in locking range or something? I'll do the math when I get home to be sure.
Quote:
Meh. I see it as taking a working system and breaking it in order to make a currently broken, much smaller system work. Yeah, the devs don't seem to be on Occam's side here, but that doesn't give reason to stop advocating it.
Edit: Oh, and welcome back. I'll admit to being among those who never believed you'd be able to stay away.
It's a working system, but most of the system is unused in the majority of cases. It's this slack that I'm suggesting removing. While it's not the *simplest* thing that could be done, it's certainly not necessarily a bad thing for the game. :)
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
EFT Warrior
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 05:35:00 -
[12]
Scan resolution scales down and Targeting range generally scales up with ship size (T2 variants have more scan and targeting range naturally); there was never any "scaling" in the damps themselves, only in the ships. As it is, battleships are at their limit for sniping range right now, so just reducing targeting range across the board for ships (or selectivly) is a good idea, but to keep sniper ships at sniping ranges, I propose a boost to sensor boosters to compensate (at least targeting range-wise).
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Blackguard Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 05:39:00 -
[13]
Originally by: EFT Warrior
Scan resolution scales down and Targeting range generally scales up with ship size (T2 variants have more scan and targeting range naturally); there was never any "scaling" in the damps themselves, only in the ships. As it is, battleships are at their limit for sniping range right now, so just reducing targeting range across the board for ships (or selectivly) is a good idea, but to keep sniper ships at sniping ranges, I propose a boost to sensor boosters to compensate (at least targeting range-wise).
I see what you're saying. The problem with boosting sensor boosters is that sensor damps are their 'counter'. Boosting one implies a boost to the other. I think we'd be better off simply assuming a lower general sniping range.
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
Zhilia Mann
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 05:54:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
I knew it was loaded when I suggested it. It was *WHY* I suggested it. It'd shake things up a bit but, by and large, most ships above destroyer don't actually use most of the locking range they already have. Exceptions such as sniper HACs are very well justified in not having their lock range significantly lowered.
Fair enough. My faith in CCP, though, is a little low at the moment w/r/t balance. I don't quite subscribe to the theory that of intentional rotational imbalance, but I also don't consider it all that paranoid anymore either. Enabling one more tool in that set just seems.... Well, imbalanced, but in an entirely different (metagame) way. This is going to come off as needlessly condescending -- and isn't intended to be that way, but I'm tired and rephrasing takes effort -- but how many players can/want to hold all of the variables in their head and make that metagame judgment?
I think precious few. And I also think that they're extremely overrepresented on the forums. So the solution of raising the importance of another variable in the metagame does indeed seem flawed to me.
(Not that you couldn't do cool 5417 with it, mind. But that's true of all the other variables already in play as well.)
Originally by: Liang Nuren
I wouldn't be too terribly concerned about damps being used on unbonused ships simply because they are so ineffective and I wouldn't be really in favor of a dramatic change in locking range. The idea is to push locking ranges just low enough that you can see a similar max lock range as before the change. So what - a 15% aggregate decrease in locking range or something? I'll do the math when I get home to be sure.
I'll be curious to look at the actual numbers. The only ships I see being immediately and dramatically affected are sniper HACs, as noted, but I wonder if it couldn't be tweaked in an interesting way to balance other recons *cough cough*.
Originally by: Liang Nuren
It's a working system, but most of the system is unused in the majority of cases. It's this slack that I'm suggesting removing. While it's not the *simplest* thing that could be done, it's certainly not necessarily a bad thing for the game. :)
See above statements about complicating the metagame. And again, I'm not opposing for my own sake. I happen to like complication. I'm not sure it's the best thing for the long term existence of EVE. And I'm quite convinced that doubling (or so) the bonus on bonused ships is both easier and just as appealing. I'm not as sure why it hasn't happened yet....
|
Leyvan
Stand Vyritza
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 06:55:00 -
[15]
What is the problem with damps? They're far from bad considering how effectively they were used on the alliance tournament.
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Blackguard Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 07:24:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Zhilia Mann
Fair enough. My faith in CCP, though, is a little low at the moment w/r/t balance. I don't quite subscribe to the theory that of intentional rotational imbalance, but I also don't consider it all that paranoid anymore either. Enabling one more tool in that set just seems.... Well, imbalanced, but in an entirely different (metagame) way. This is going to come off as needlessly condescending -- and isn't intended to be that way, but I'm tired and rephrasing takes effort -- but how many players can/want to hold all of the variables in their head and make that metagame judgment?
I don't blame you about having low faith - I know I certainly do/did. They've screwed the pooch a few times now... but they do manage to keep the game moving along. And moving along, I *DO* actually subscribe to the theory of intentional rotating imbalance. I don't *REALLY* believe the devs are stupid. Well, not *REALLY* stupid anyway. ;-)
As to your 'condescending' question (it wasn't offensive so don't be worried): I would be surprised if many do that don't exist on the forums. Fortunately, I wouldn't really expect them to since it would roughly become a statement like: "Damps work great against everything but sniper ships and recons".
Quote:
I think precious few. And I also think that they're extremely overrepresented on the forums. So the solution of raising the importance of another variable in the metagame does indeed seem flawed to me.
(Not that you couldn't do cool 5417 with it, mind. But that's true of all the other variables already in play as well.)
That's my point: it isn't raising the importance of the variable because it isn't really used right now. ;-)
Quote:
I'll be curious to look at the actual numbers. The only ships I see being immediately and dramatically affected are sniper HACs, as noted, but I wonder if it couldn't be tweaked in an interesting way to balance other recons *cough cough*.
Haha. Yeah, lemme see here (all of this is with long range targeting 5 - which all of my characters have). I'll use these as object examples: Stiletto, Manticore, Raven, Muninn, Zealot, Ishtar, Thorax. The arazu in question will have max skills, use 3/4 damps (13.5%/11.3% of max targeting range), and be T1 rigged.
The Stiletto has a pretty pitiful locking range already: 31.25km. I recommend not changing it, and thus it would be unaffected by this change.
The Manticore locks at 87.5km, shoots 168km, and is able to be able to be locked down to 11.85/9.89km locking range. With a 15% drop it would target 74.5km and be damped to 8.8/8.4km.
The Raven locks at 93.75km and shoots 250km. With a 15% drop it would target 79.75km and be able to be locked down to 12.65/10.5km.
The Muninn and Zealot both lock at 68.75km and I recommend increasing this by 15% to 80km regardless of what happens with this suggestion.
The Ishtar locks at 75km which I recommend reducing by 15% to 63.75km. I am aware of its drone range bonus, and what that means for it. In order to use it effectively you already have to fit a sensor booster so it becomes a net change of 120km to 102km. I am also aware of what this means for the 'Ishtar Sniper'. The base Ishtar would be damped down to 8.6/7.2km.
Thorax, 68.75->58.5 damped to 7.9/6.6.
Sniperpest, 190 -> 161 (still sniping range.. barely), damped to 22/18km.
Quote:
See above statements about complicating the metagame. And again, I'm not opposing for my own sake. I happen to like complication. I'm not sure it's the best thing for the long term existence of EVE. And I'm quite convinced that doubling (or so) the bonus on bonused ships is both easier and just as appealing. I'm not as sure why it hasn't happened yet....
I can't say any *good* reasons that it hasn't happened yet. Just that it hasn't and won't because CCP says that they're 'fine'.
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Blackguard Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 07:29:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Leyvan
What is the problem with damps? They're far from bad considering how effectively they were used on the alliance tournament.
Alliance tournaments don't reflect 'real PVP'. For instance, your target is seeking to engage you, not run away. And can't run away.
You know what would happen if a fleet of damping caracals warped in at 70km and started damping you? You'd warp away. What happens in an alliance tournament? You die.
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
Leyvan
Stand Vyritza
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 08:03:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
You know what would happen if a fleet of damping caracals warped in at 70km and started damping you? You'd warp away. What happens in an alliance tournament? You die.
-Liang
This part still doesnt make sense to me.
So what would be different after your proposed changes? The situation would still be as you mentioned above.
|
Naomi Knight
Amarr
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 08:15:00 -
[19]
Ah Liang is back so do his stupid ideas. When you already need 2 sensor boosters just to reach your optimal then this idea is realy stupid.
-Liang Nuren, who mastered WAR online and brings back the knowledge to you.
|
TimMc
Gallente
The Black Rabbits
The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 08:40:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Naomi Knight
Ah Liang is back so do his stupid ideas. When you already need 2 sensor boosters just to reach your optimal then this idea is realy stupid.
-Liang Nuren, who mastered WAR online and brings back the knowledge to you.
This. Sniper BS are fragile enough without having to use more mids for sensor boosters.
|
vostok
Minmatar
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 09:16:00 -
[21]
I guess for snipers, T2 long range ammo could affect targeting range.
Would kill off all of those T1 fitted rokh pilots though.
- Adaptation is not an excuse for lack of ballance! -
|
Ig Neus
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 09:44:00 -
[22]
I think that Dampeners are "fine" as they are. Their usefulness depends on the type of gangs fighting and especially their range. Recons generally shine on relatively small gang fights.
If we are talking about a Blaster vs Blaster fight at the undock point of a station, then they are useless. On the other hand, if we are talking at ships fighting at almost their targeting range then a single Arazu can remove from the fight (by reducing their targeting range by 58.57 using a single Dampener) 3 enemies. Even in less perfect situations, removing one Battleship from the fight is usually easy.
Generally, the reason people consider Dampeners not worth the effort to fit them is the current strength of ECM. Currently the main reason not to fly an Arazu is that you can fly a Falcon instead. When this gets nerfed to a point where people consider Rapier, Pilgrim, Arazu and Falcon to be equally viable for small gang all will be fine.
|
H Lecter
Gallente
The Black Rabbits
The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 10:01:00 -
[23]
Please stop reinventing the wheel when all you need to do is fixing one loose screw.
Just give damps a better optimal, or maybe just a bonus on optimal for Arazu and Lachesis.
Originally by: Rells
First of all, I wouldn't give you the sweat off my balls.
|
Karl Luckner
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 10:28:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Karl Luckner on 12/03/2009 10:28:46
The targetting range of same tackle frigs is already pretty poor. They don't have the room for sensor enhancements. In short: no, I don't think that idea of yours is all that great.
|
vostok
Minmatar
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 10:35:00 -
[25]
Originally by: H Lecter
Please stop reinventing the wheel when all you need to do is fixing one loose screw.
Just give damps a better optimal, or maybe just a bonus on optimal for Arazu and Lachesis.
Giving them a longer optimal wont fix the arazu or lachesis since it mitigates the point of its bonus to warp scram range.
As it stands they are just slightly more survivable tacklers, but IMO a hic would be better in >90% of situations
- Adaptation is not an excuse for lack of ballance! -
|
daisy dook
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 10:39:00 -
[26]
Originally by: H Lecter
Please stop reinventing the wheel when all you need to do is fixing one loose screw.
Just give damps a better optimal, or maybe just a bonus on optimal for Arazu and Lachesis.
Better optimal, these bad boys have a 60km falloff...
Isn't chance based ewar acceptable to anyone?
|
NoNah
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 11:33:00 -
[27]
Originally by: vostok
Originally by: H Lecter
Please stop reinventing the wheel when all you need to do is fixing one loose screw.
Just give damps a better optimal, or maybe just a bonus on optimal for Arazu and Lachesis.
Giving them a longer optimal wont fix the arazu or lachesis since it mitigates the point of its bonus to warp scram range.
As it stands they are just slightly more survivable tacklers, but IMO a hic would be better in >90% of situations
Actually no, on both concerns. They're less survivable due to their likelyhood of gettinr primaried, inability to avoid taking damage from anything but a single target and general bulkiness. For raw tackling I'd take a ares over an lachesis any day.
And actually it would fix it. It would work in two ways, defensively by negating damage output of snipers and offensively by forcing them to get within disrupt range if they actually want to deal damage still.
Parrots, commence!
Postcount: 111004
|
Zhilia Mann
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 11:36:00 -
[28]
Quote:
I don't blame you about having low faith - I know I certainly do/did. They've screwed the pooch a few times now... but they do manage to keep the game moving along. And moving along, I *DO* actually subscribe to the theory of intentional rotating imbalance. I don't *REALLY* believe the devs are stupid. Well, not *REALLY* stupid anyway. ;-)
Fair enough. And frankly, it may be the easiest explanation.
Quote:
I'll use these as object examples: Stiletto, Manticore, Raven, Muninn, Zealot, Ishtar, Thorax.
I'd be interested to see how things would look for a Falcon, but I'm sure I could run the numbers myself if I cared that much.
Quote:
The Stiletto has a pretty pitiful locking range already: 31.25km. I recommend not changing it, and thus it would be unaffected by this change.
Problem is true of lots of frigs. So in that sense, what you're proposing is a boost to small ships/tacklers in general. Not a bad things, but it represents a significant shift.
Quote:
The Raven locks at 93.75km and shoots 250km. With a 15% drop it would target 79.75km and be able to be locked down to 12.65/10.5km.
Which is interesting as it makes a 'zu a potentially much better mission runner hunter.
Quote:
The Muninn and Zealot both lock at 68.75km and I recommend increasing this by 15% to 80km regardless of what happens with this suggestion.
The Ishtar locks at 75km which I recommend reducing by 15% to 63.75km. I am aware of its drone range bonus, and what that means for it. In order to use it effectively you already have to fit a sensor booster so it becomes a net change of 120km to 102km. I am also aware of what this means for the 'Ishtar Sniper'. The base Ishtar would be damped down to 8.6/7.2km.
We could go back and forth on the Ishtar in this mix. I think it should go the other way, but that could easily be a huge balance issue. At some point "versatility" does have to step in and become something that needs to be examined. Which is why, I suppose, the Domi is still the powerhouse it is despite having gone through so many fotm changes.
Quote:
Thorax, 68.75->58.5 damped to 7.9/6.6.
Sniperpest, 190 -> 161 (still sniping range.. barely), damped to 22/18km.
The 'pest seems to be the worst hit out of all of the examples. Why not keep it where it is and make it the clear choice for minnie snipers?
Quote:
I can't say any *good* reasons that it hasn't happened yet. Just that it hasn't and won't because CCP says that they're 'fine'.
Which, for the record -- and to anyone else in this thread -- they aren't.
The idea is slowly growing on me. What would this do to the overall role of the Arazu/Lachesis though? You know, other than give them one....
|
Pac SubCom
A.W.M
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 12:03:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Pac SubCom on 12/03/2009 12:03:21
What about damp falloff on a optimal rigged (optionally warfare linked) Lachesis? The damp probabilites at ranges beyond 150km are considerable, easily on par with ECM chances against ECCM'd ships. Combine with
a. multiple damps on the ship(s) - four is a good number.
b. only one hit is needed to "jam" a ship at long range - the chances go down, but the effect in case of a single hit is more likely to end up in the neutralization of the target.
c. Moving closer only 10 or 20 km enhances damp chances massively.
---------------
∞ TQFE
|
daisy dook
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 12:32:00 -
[30]
Originally by: NoNah
Originally by: daisy dook
Originally by: H Lecter
Please stop reinventing the wheel when all you need to do is fixing one loose screw.
Just give damps a better optimal, or maybe just a bonus on optimal for Arazu and Lachesis.
Better optimal, these bad boys have a 60km falloff...
Isn't chance based ewar acceptable to anyone?
No it's not, that's why we're all screaming the falcon is underpowered and needs to be static 100%. Point is ECM and damps do the same thing, they delay targeting and break locks. The difference is ECM is so horribly much more efficient at it. And as it stands it also gets better chances to apply their superior effect.
Early on I kept suggesting ECM and Damps should have their optimals switched over. This would basically mean that Damps was easier to apply but less efficient, in a way scaling so the targeting range scripts were less useful at short range and then scaling up and becoming more and more useful at longer ranges. ECM the other way around 100% accurasy at 0-88km and then diminishing. Sad news is, this would in fact make ECM a tad to weak in general. You sort of need to be able to jam at over 150km to be of any real good. So my current suggestion is similar to the first, but it entirely revolves around increasing the damp range to be able to with a better likelyhood than a falcon remove another falcon from play. This would put the optimal at around 3 times what it currently is, around 135 km iirc.
The main reason not to change effectiveness is what you have already pointed out - small ships. if you removed 80% locking from a frig it would have to get a tad to close. And you don't really want the scenario where a single damp takes out nearly any ship there is, when it hits. It's simply to close to ECM with more effectiveness and no extra range.
Let me add my assumption and why I beleive the 'low' optimal and high fall off has been implemented.
Each ship will try and operate at is maximum effective range unless it is specifically trying to increase its traversal.
So I believe that forcing a ship closer than its maximum effective range is a method of controlling the battlefield and ensuring that your opponent are not fighting the battle they want.
Given that numerous ships must make fitting sacrifices to gain that maximum effective range (the greater the range, the greater the sacrifice) then the RSD effect is more powerful the further your opponent is out hence it being balanced by the chance effect of fall off.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |