|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Cletus Graeme
Caldari
Duty.
   |
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:33:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 25/03/2009 00:34:15
 Originally by: CCP Chronotis
ECM Range
This is a great idea as long as it is applied correctly to right the ships. Please also don't forget that ECM ships currently have minimal tank and dps so if you nerf their ECM ability then you must boost something else to balance this. If ECM is overpowered and needs nerfing a little that's fine but don't make ECM ships useless to fly when you do that.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Signal Distortion Amplifiers
Another great idea.
These mods were originally added to prevent NON ECM ships from being able to jam effectively unless they sacrficed low slots to fit them. It was felt that ECM ships could afford to use the low slots to do this. As a result they are only used by ECM ships but take up slots that could be usefully used for something else E.g. tank, damage, mobility, eccm (via backup arrays), scan res (via sensor amps) etc etc
Completely removing these mods and moving the bonuses they provided into the ECM ship bonuses will keep these ships effective while still preventing ECM from being useful on other ships (as orignially intended) and als free up lowslots for use.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Ship Changes
Modifying the ships so that they provide diversifed roles is a superb idea. Starting with long vs short range ECM is a good initial approach but don't forget to compare each ship individually with the others. There should be something unique that each ship offers, different from the others, that makes it worth flying. IMO, this should be true for ALL ships in EvE.
E.g one might excel at jam strength, another at range, another at number of jammers (i.e more midslots) etc
Obviously, there's a limit on how varied ECM can be between ships so other ship attributes can also enter the balancing equation (damage/tank/mobility etc)
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Falcon & Rook
Personally, I think you have these ship changes the wrong way around. Falcons have minimal dps/tank and rely on their cloak to survive so making them into close range ships seems silly.
You can't directly compare the Falcon with the Pilgrim because unlike the Falcon, the Pilgrim has offensive capability (via nos/neuts and drones) which makes it worthwhile getting close to a target. To make them comparable you'd have to also give the Falcon some offensive capability which would probably make it overpowered.
It would make more sense to allow the Falcon to maintain range as it's tank but give the Rook some bonuses that would allow it to engage at close range without instapopping. The fact that missiles take time to reach their target and are better of used at close range is another reason to support making the Rook the close range ECM ship. Until now, it's kinetic missile bonus has only been useful in a defensive role as it can jam well outside it's own missile range.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
The Scorpion
I like the suggested changes as they bring the Scorp closer to the Raven as a close range missile boat and we all know (see above) that long range missiles suck in PvP. TBH, any changes to this ship are worth considering as it is very seldom used anymore which is sad.
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari
Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 03:16:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Thercon Jair
A Rapier has not more tank than a falcon, and the range on the webs is with 40km also only half the range of the "new" jammers. Additionally, painters have quite a short optimal range.I'd say this is pretty much ballanced.
The Rapier is NOTHING like the Falcon although it's tru they both getting primaried a lot - the same way that ANY Force Recon does - cos they have weak tanks but provide good e-war,
Rapier has multiple offensive capabilities:
(1) Guns with a Damage bonus
(2) Drones
(3) E-war which is designed to increase the damage to the target
Falcon's have unbonused missiles (i.e. totally crap DPS) and ECM which is a defensive capability.
Rapiers (like most Matari ships) are designed to tackle well which requires you get in close.
ECM ships are designed to prevent damage and range is a very good way to avoid taking damage.
If CCP want to make ECM ships more effective at close range then they definitely need a significant defensive boost to compensate for giving up the safety provided by their long range advantage - especially if they intend to nerf ECM itself at the same time.
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari
Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:47:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 26/03/2009 15:58:18
Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 26/03/2009 15:52:27
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
We are looking at putting the scorpion into the short range brawler role. To that end we are looking at removing its ECM Optimal range bonus, increasing the ECM strength bonus a little and adding a cruise/siege launcher rate of fire bonus so it can get close and personal.
Summary Scorpion Changes
- removed the ECM optimal range bonus
- increased the ECM strength bonus to 20% per level
- added a 5% RoF bonus to cruise & siege missile launchers per level
These changes are a bad idea.
(1) The Caldari already have a short range brawler - the Raven. A Scorp with 4 launchers and a damage/ROF bonus is not comparable in either tank or gank to a Raven and shouldn't be anyway. These are Caldari ships and as such they should be specialised for specific roles with little (if any) overlap. As an ECM ship the scorp's role is to provides e-war support.
(2) This is the only e-war battleship in the game and is also an ECM ship which will make it the primary in pretty much any fight it is used. Consequently, this ship needs defenses much more than than it needs offenses. A shield resist bonues would be better than any kind of damage bonus.
(3) As the only e-war battleship it should be able to provide ECM support at BOTH long and short ranges. It should be useful in long range sniping fleets (i.e. able to jam at 150-200km) and close range RR gangs (i.e. able to tank and remote repair at close range) but it should be worse than the Falcon and the Rook at each of these roles so that they have a niche role at which they excel.
I therefore suggest the following initial changes to the Scorpion (subject to testing):
- decrease the ECM strength bonus to 5% per level (or remove it completely)
- leave the ECM range bonus at 20% per level
Optionally:
- add a 5% shield resist bonus per level
OR
- adjust the current slot layout and/or grid/cpu to allow the ship to be effectively armor tanked
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari
Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 01:26:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 29/03/2009 01:33:57
Originally by: TheLibrarian
Have you actually done the math on a scorp with 4 siedge launchers, max drone skills and a target painter. Your looking at 600-650 dps depending on the torps and your implants. With no gank mods. Add the armor tank to it and trimarks and some good implants and your looking at 140-150K EHP on a scorpion with 3-4 jammers and good dps.
A T2 torp Raven puts out about 1000 DPS although I admit the Scorp can fit a meaner tank. However, you're correct that the changes do make it a very nice all-rounder. The problem is that providing it with decent DPS puts it directly into competition with the Raven, which is bad.
The Raven is already worse than it used to be with the changes to torps as it needs to use a TP (or TP drones). It also armor tanks badly. If the Scorp becomes a viable RR armor tanker with decent damage using torps in addition to being able to jam with ECM then why on earth would you ever fly a Raven?
The proposed changes boost the Scorp at the expense of the Raven. I think this is a bad idea.
Originally by: TheLibrarian
So? Just because your primary every time doesn't mean you instantly need a resist bonus.
My point was that if you're going to give the Scorp a new bonus then a resist bonus is better than a damage bonus because it helps the ship fulfil it's role as e-war support.
A resist bonus helps the Scorp survive longer in a long range fleet fight. It also helps it survive longer in a close range gang fight. In both cases it's likely to be primaried and will struggle to survive. In the former it can at least try to warp out but in the latter it will probably be warp scrambled and the best it can hope for is to be able to station-dock/gate-jump. Anything that helps it's ability to tank is obviously useful.
Originally by: TheLibrarian
Why? Why? Why? That doesn't even make sense why it should be required to be good at everything.
It's not good at everything now and it wouldn't be even after my suggested changes. It would do crap damage and still have to sacrifice tank to fit ECM,. The only thing it needs to do well is provide e-war support.
The Scorp is currently only seen in large fleet fights as it provides a cheap, albeit vulnerable, ECM platform which can jam at sniper BS ranges. However, the Falcon does this better and can cloak so sadly, you don't see Scorpions a lot, even in the role they're designed for.
By modifying the Scorpion so it can also be used in close range RR BS gangs you make it versatile enough to be worth flying over a Falcon/Rook.
The Recons are intended to be super-specialised but Battleships should be more versatile. I see nothing wrong with tweaking the Scorpion (it only needs a few small changes) to make it more versatile if this would mean that it was flown more often because it provided something uniquely different from the other ECM ships.
Originally by: TheLibrarian
So your suggestions are to leave the ship the same as it is?
If it's not broken, don't fix it. Rather than making drastic changes the idea is to examine the ship's intended role and see what needs tweaking. The ECM strength and range bonuses make it a viable long range jammer so why remove them?
Any changes to the ship need to be seen in the context of the broader changes to ECM overall. E.g. If SDAs are removed and/or ECM jammer strengths are nerfed then there is no need to change these bonuses as the chance to jam a target will be reduced for all ECM ships anyway.
Anyhow, my suggested changes are less important than the reasoning behind them. The ship bonuses can't be finalised until they've been thoroughly tested and only CCP is in a position to use the feedback of that testing to decide what they should be.
It's more important for players to point CCP in the right direction by suggesting how they'd like to use the ship rather than proposing untested ship bonuses.
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari
Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 17:04:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Lord Eremet
CCP: I think you not going far enough with the falcon changes, nerf it more pls. No 15% falloff to ECM range and lower the strength to only 15%. Then when all falcon alts stopped crying and stopped flying it you can after 6-9 months "boost" it again to 20%, if thats really needed.
Dumbest. Idea. Ever.
Yeah, let's nerf it so much that nobody uses it anymore so that we have to boost it again later on!
All this does is create the see-saw effect that we already see when ships/modules are over-nerfed. This isn't balancing the ships at all, it's further imbalancing them!
Carefully considered changes which modify the ships role without killing it are required. If anything, under-nerfing it is better than over-nerfing it since this is still an improvement over the current situation.
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari
Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 17:44:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff
Cletus, you are an idiot. Not surprising as you are also a complete Falcon w***e.
Learn to argue your point without resorting to personal attacks.
You fail at discussions.
Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff
These proposed changes do NOTHING to limit the strength of the Falcon. [...]
This is the most non-nerf nerf ever.
Range bonus should be changed to 10%/level and keep the 20% ECM. Or give 15% range and 15% ECM.
Yet another person who proposes numbers that they claim (with 100% certainty) will solve the problem without bothering to explain why.
Infact, you're so sure of your proposed bonuses that you felt the need to provide alternative bonuses (also without any explanation)!
You fail at making a case.
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari
Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 19:59:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 29/03/2009 20:01:17
I think what's clear from these discussions is that there are multiple factors at play when it comes to ECM.
- ECCM strengths and bonuses
- ECM jammer strengths - incl. racials vs multispec
- ECM ship bonuses
- Signal Distortion Amps
- ECM rigs (and the possibility of ECCM rigs)
- FoF missiles
All these factors contribute to the effectiveness of ECM in combat so if you make isolated changes to one of them while ignoring the rest you're likely to just perpetuate any imbalances.
Some interesting ideas have been put forward:
- Combining the ECCM bonus with a bonus to scan res / lock range, possibly using scripts to choose between them
- Completely removing SDAs to reduce the effective jam strength of ALL ECM ships while freeing up lowslots
(or alternatively changing their bonuses so that they affect ALL forms of e-war equally - this is hard!)
- Modifying the actual ship bonuses to reduce the effective range of ECM; possibly by swapping to a falloff bonus
- Modifying ECM jammers so that they have to choose between range or strength; possibly via scripts
- Fixing FoFs so that they're a useful counter to being jammed (as this only affects missiles it's a relatively low priority issue)
All the above suggestions are effectively 'tweaks' to the existing system that don't require major changes to how ECM actually works. As such I think they're all worthy of further investigation and testing.
More radical proposals, such as introducing a stacking penalty to jammers or only allowing partial jamming, fundamentally change how ECM itself works. Such changes could imbalance things further (either way) so they'd need to be considered very carefully and cautiously indeed.
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari
Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 11:18:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff
What were in those ellipses Cletus? Oh that's right! The facts of what the proposed changes would do. Good job completely ignoring them.
I'm well aware that you included CCP's proposed changes in your original post. What you didn't bother to include was an explanation of why you thought they were wrong.
Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff
Proposed changes gives optimal of 100km with max skills and rigs. Proposed changes keep Falcon ECM strength exactly the same. There is no real change to the Falcon. Ergo, these changes are not a nerf and the Falcon will remain OP'd.
Here you've finally at least attempted an explanation of why the proposed changes are wrong but you've still failed to explain why your own suggested changes would better balance the ship.
I think it's pretty clear who is the idiot here 
|
|
|
| |
|