| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin
494
   |
Posted - 2012.09.11 12:35:00 -
[271] - Quote
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/26553783.jpg
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg |
Capac Amaru
Burning Sword
41
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 14:08:00 -
[272] - Quote
I really like the idea of a defensive signature reduction role for target painters.
I think it is sufficiently different from tracking disruption, in that it targets the aggressee instead of the aggressor.
Saying these would be the same is like saying an afterburner is the same as a webber. |
Kelrift
V.O.I.D.
The Methodical Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 14:39:00 -
[273] - Quote
I had always thought that the Minmatar Primary E-War capability was the Webifier like we see in the huggin/rapier...
Instead of looking at TP Maybe look into Web Bonuses?
I understand that the hybrid pirate Frigs the Cruor and the Daredevil have these bonuses. why not t1 frigs .. and i know most other pilots would say lets look at Warp disruptor on the Malus and Nutes on the crucifier . some people would say that it would make these frigs OP but IMO Calidri's main E-war ECM seems a little OP .. (though a full flight(x5) of small t1 ECM drones are just as effective).
I know this would make the T2 E-war ships useless then But Why does Calidri the only race that has only 1 E-War role ... ie. the Griffin with 15% ECM jam strength and the Kitsune with 20% ECM jam strength. ...
Take a look at the T2 E-war ships in general and make reductions in range and strength and Ta-Da you have the T1 versions
Maybe get rid of the TP in general in the Vigil and use Minmatars main form of E-War the Webifier.
Target Painters are like Tracking Computers and and Sensor Booster NOT necessary but nice to have available as a mid slot assistance...
Otherwise good work .. like the idea's |
Doddy
Excidium.
Executive Outcomes
137
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:31:00 -
[274] - Quote
Del Vikus wrote:Vakr Onzo wrote:So TP doesn't make a target easier to hit for bigger guns? In response, let me quote Arkady: Quote:Target painters do not improve damage all that much in larger engagements. It's not even enough to make annoying interceptors at 100km hitable by large artillery, and that would be a pretty niche role. And contrary to other ewar, it's not useful to spread out, so once you have 3-4 painters in the whole fleet, any others are not only of "little use", but literally useless.
Really what fleet is going to have dozens of vigils anyway? Target painters can have a huge impact in large fleets (especially vs sig tanky things like logis), its just that any beyond the 3rd or 4th is redundancy. But then unless your entire fleet is made up of newbies (in which case the tps probably wont help at all anyway) there isn't likely to be dozens of vigils anyway. |
Rayner Vanguard
EVE University
Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:46:00 -
[275] - Quote
Reading on this thread from page 1, I believe that most people are more concern with the e-war mechanic themselves than the e-war frigs
So, my suggestion is to fix the e-war mechanics first (damp, ecm and tp. Not sure with td, no one is complaining yet) before changing the frigates or other e-war ships |
Tatjana Braun
Vienna Arms and Industrial Gruppe
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 21:34:00 -
[276] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote::Updated with new stats as of August 14th. Details below as well as here:... VIGIL: Frigate skill bonuses: 7.5% Bonus to Target Painter effectiveness per level
10% Bonus to Target Painter optimal range per levelSlot layout: 2 H (-1), 5 M (+2), 2 L (-1), 2 launchers Fittings: 26 PWG (+1), 225 CPU (+15) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 350(+76) / 300(+26) / 300(+42) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 235 (-15)/ 130s (-57.5s)/ 1.8077 (+0.57) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass): 410 (+57) / 3.22 / 1080000 Drones (bandwidth / bay): 5 / 5 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 63.5km (+18.5) / 560 (+105) / 6 Sensor strength: 12 Ladar Signature radius: 34 (-10) Cargo capacity: 250 (+100)
Why Targetpainting and not web as the Standart Minmatar E-War?
|
Kor Kilden
Thukker Tribe Holdings Inc.
Luna Sanguinem
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 06:52:00 -
[277] - Quote
My scout vigil would like to file a formal complaint. Luckily, it'll probably suffer a violent accident before the changes hit, and won't be able to. It's been replaced with a scout slasher anyway, smaller sig. |
Aggeron Fargone
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 14:16:00 -
[278] - Quote
I think I have read enough to know just in this thread how most people agree that Target painters are just not wanted or viewed as ewar, why CCP doesnt see that I have no idea. I know that the scythe currently get s a sensor linking bonus which if it worked right and was useful in countering ecm and sensor damping like it should then to me is fits more in the line of ewar then a tp, and sense you clearly want to save the web bonus for t2 ships it would be a better option to me.
But as of right now ruining the vigil just so it lines up with the bellicose being a carp missile boat with a painter sucks(both the vigil and the bellicose which should become a nice arty boat, but its not). It would just be nice if the target painter idea was scrapped already. It seems to have added another thing to the list of why people who fly and love minnie ships hate the changes you make to them. Bullets, Speed and Rust is what we want, so if you are going to do something other then those with a minnie ship you could at least try and listen to us. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2416
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 17:48:00 -
[279] - Quote
Several of the idea's for Target Painters need to be passed on to the appropriate team. They make sense, and typically painting a target allows target aquisition either possible in the first place or easier/more accurate than it would be without it.
One script to allow the standard boost to the targets sig radius.
One script to allow targetting by ships that are otherwise jammed, out of range due to dampening (note, the ability to target does not necessary mean you can bring your weapons to bear effectively), and possibly help negate tracking disruption effects on ships trying to hit the TP's target.
One one swoop you make Target Painters a valuable broad spectrum anti-EW module... one that would warrant creating completely new tactics to utilize or deal with effectively. At the same time you make ships like the vigil high priority targets that can significantly influence the course of small gang and fleet encounters alike.
The only downside is that you could easily make ECCM modules obsolete, but they are little used as it is due to being to narrow in focus except in situations where you know for certain you will face ECM specifically.
To prevent their use from being too widespread (as would be inevitable) you should restrict their use to ships (like the Vigil) that are specifically bonused to carry them.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors.
If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Zakeus Djinn
Who Called In The Fleet
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 23:05:00 -
[280] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Sui'Djin wrote:
interesting idea. Why shouldn't painters be able to also decrease a targets' signature (via inverter script)? This way they could also have a defensive roll and maybe help logistics. It would make painters more versatile.
This would be support ; though, maybe a script to increase sig res of ennemy turrets ? This was one of the suggestions that came up in internal brainstorming as well, unfortunately it actually has the exact same effect as a tracking disruptor since sig res and tracking are both equal in the tracking formula.
He wasn't saying that reducing the sig radius of your teammates was the same as a tracking disruptor, he was saying that increasing the signature resolution of the enemy's guns was the same as a tracking disruptor, as the second poster suggested. How come not one person realized he was responding to the other poster?
Aside from that, I figured maybe a straight damage bonus on the painted target would work to allow target painting to be useful between ships of equal size, but on reflection it would probably just promote blobs. |
|
|
Lucy Alfrir
The Lost Shadows
Circle of the Shadows
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 12:13:00 -
[281] - Quote
I'm sorry to winge about the vigil, some more, but it looks to me like it's losing the ability to fit turrets.
If this is so, where's my arty platform?
The Breacher's being made into a dedicated missile boat, and TP bonuses are handy for arty too, so why not a tracking bonus for the Vigil?
Make it into a mini-Muninn, which has been sadly made irrelevant with the introduction of the Tornado, but that's another thread.
With space in the mids for tracking computer, TP, point, MWD and web.
Hmm maybe lose one midslot for a low, so 2x Gyro and a DC, but I could cope with 2,5,2 |
MIrple
BSC LEGION
Tactical Narcotics Team
108
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 15:49:00 -
[282] - Quote
I put this in the new T1 logi cruiser thread but I feel this might be a better place for this. Why couldn't these ships have there bonuses change so they could work as offensive or defensive ships. Right now each EWAR except for TP has a Remote Damp and Remote Boost. Why couldn't these ships be able to do either role. So the Griffin could provide ECM for the fleet or ECCM for the fleet. This would give fleets a whole new concept and make ships like this more viable in more situations.
People said that this would make remote sebo's to OP but I feel they need to be changed to be more inline with the way ECM works let the mod give less as a base but buff the bonuses to the selected ships that roles are to fit these. |
Heribeck Weathers
The Executioners
Capital Punishment.
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 18:38:00 -
[283] - Quote
Personaly i like the look of these changes, but i sure hope you fix TP soon so the vigil dosent get left out. Also 5 mids on the Griffen may be a bit much tho i guess 1 of every raical jammer + a prop mod is ok, just getting a tad close to over powered.
I sure look forward to a T2 ewar frig buff soonish, if these buffs are anything to base off of. my sentinal needs another mid |
LtauSTinpoWErs
Mafia Redux
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 23:57:00 -
[284] - Quote
CCP Fozzie,
Is there any work being done in regards to buffing Electronic Attack Ships? Is this something we could hope for in the Winter Expansion release or would it be more logical to see this update take place in between the Winter and Summer expansion? I didn't feel it necessary to create a new thread so thought it would be best to post in here. Thank you and keep up the good work with ship re-balancing.
-LT |
kalbrak Jr
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 11:41:00 -
[285] - Quote
LtauSTinpoWErs wrote:CCP Fozzie,
Is there any work being done in regards to buffing Electronic Attack Ships? Is this something we could hope for in the Winter Expansion release or would it be more logical to see this update take place in between the Winter and Summer expansion? I didn't feel it necessary to create a new thread so thought it would be best to post in here. Thank you and keep up the good work with ship re-balancing.
-LT
"We also realize that these changes will make the current problems with EAFs even more obvious, and we're putting a lot of thought into them as well."
That is from the first page!
|
Belsina
STAHLSTURM
Test Friends Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 17:28:00 -
[286] - Quote
i like the ideas about the E-War T1 Frigs :)
i support it |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned
Happy Endings
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 18:44:00 -
[287] - Quote
With the Celestis getting the option to fit 3 guns or 3 launchers, how about giving the maulus the 2 turret 2 launcher option? |
Andy Landen
Born Crazy
Kadeshians
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 06:34:00 -
[288] - Quote
I must agree with everything that has been said here about the ewar and ewar frig problems.
vigil -> give both web and tp bonuses; same for Minmatar T1 EW cruiser.
EAF -> add Covert Cloak and covert portal jump ability. EAF will be no more powerful than their Force Recon brothers. Compared to Force Recon, EAF dps is much less, EAF ehp is much less, even EAF EW is less, etc.
ECM -> Great idea that has been really butchered over the years thanks to mass whining about the Falcon (anyone heard of ECCM? seriously) and about the standard practice of fitting OP ECM to every spare medium slot of the non-EW ships for great effect. Now ECM is a headache to implement effectively (unless you just deploy the remarkably effective omni-ECM drones). We really need to simplify ECM alot. We need to combine the multis' omni jamming with racial strength, distance, and reduced cap. ECM on an eWar ship should be as effective and simple to implement as any other form of ewar. Convert the hit or miss non-sense to a constant effect. No other ewar is probabilistic and the chance-based mechanic makes this form of ewar UNDEPENDABLE. Every other form of ewar is dependable. Neuts and points don't even stack like the other ewar.
How is a fleet supposed to practically or effectively coordinate ewar on a large scale? Logistics have the broadcast system. How about we let ewar ships see what fleet ewar from the fleet is being applied to each target too. |
Tatjana Braun
Vienna Arms and Industrial Gruppe
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:22:00 -
[289] - Quote
I have a Idear for the TP:
To his Signatur Bonus, give it a Speed Reduction Bonus for The Damagecalculation.
So Guns will hit a Target as if it were x% slower and Missels wil make damage in that way, without a real speedreductin af the Target.
I think on this way TP will make more sense in fights against Ships in the same size. |
Aiifa
My Little Pony - Friendship Force
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:18:00 -
[290] - Quote
I hope these changes are reworked totally before being pushed. They're in the right direction, but they're not quite right. The answer to difficult to fly and flimsy ships isn't to throw more slots and fitting at them. It's to balance everything around them. Including gameplay.
I've already whined about this here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=692924#post692924 |
|
|
Muestereate
Two Geezers in Space
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 20:40:00 -
[291] - Quote
I'd like to see the target painter reduce turret resolution as well as bloom signature. Damage increase from tp is 4 times greater on missles than it is on turrets. Cutting guns resolultion about the same as sig radius blooms almost equalizes the damage a tp brings to the field.
I realize this affects the attacking ships instead of the attacked ships and is harder to program. My original idea was to add a field for each ship in game that determined turret resolution effectiveness. and to add this factor into the tracking/chance to hit formula.
This may not be necessary though as we already have packets carrying damage and ewar effects back and forth and this correction may be able to be incorporated into them in a simpler manner but one that could introduce lag if misused. I lean toward adding a variable to the data structure and modifying the tracking formula to accompanying it though as I see lag and bandwidth as more important than processor loading.
After you balance missles and turret damage increases, balancing the effitveness of the competing ewars will be simpler. Another benefit of the data structure mod approach is that ways to balance armor and shield become available because shield boats sig should be a problem and it is not because sig only affects turrets within relatively narrow constraints at this time. |
Weasel Leblanc
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 04:18:00 -
[292] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The Crucifier and Vigil are being given strong roles towards longer range disruption, and the fact that the Griffin and Maulus are more medium range oriented is intended and part of the overall environment change.
CRUCIFIER:
Frigate skill bonuses:
7.5% Bonus to Tracking Disruptor effectiveness per level
10% Bonus to Tracking Disruptor optimal range per level
Slot layout: 2 H, 4 M (+1), 3 L, 2 turrets
Fittings: 27 PWG (+2), 235 CPU (+20)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 250(-24) / 400(+25) / 350(+21)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 330 (+80)/ 180s (-7.5s)/ 1.8333333 (+0.5)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass): 350 (+68) / 3.35(-1.09) / 1064000
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 15(+10) / 45(+40)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 64km (+16.5) / 540 (+100) / 6
Sensor strength: 14 Radar
Signature radius: 38 (-8)
Cargo capacity: 265 (+100)
MAULUS:
Frigate skill bonuses:
7.5% Bonus to Sensor Damp effectiveness per level
10% reduction in Sensor Damp capacitor use per level
Slot layout: 2 H (-1), 4 M (+1), 3 L (+1), 2 turrets
Fittings: 28 PWG (+3), 230 CPU (+10)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 300(-13) / 350(-1) / 400(+71)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 275 (+25)/ 150s (-37.5s)/ 1.8333333 (+0.5)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass): 375 (+69) / 3.25(-0.626) / 1063000
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 20(+10) / 30(+20)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 64.5km (+14.5) / 520 (+100) / 6
Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric
Signature radius: 40 (-8)
Cargo capacity: 275 (+100)
I can't help but think that making the Maulus more mid-ranged instead of more long-ranged kind of defeats the purpose of the RSD as an ewar module for making enemies less effective at long range. As it stands, it just won't work as well as the rest - reducing the enemy's maximum lock range becomes progressively less useful when you have to get closer to do it.
The Maulus needs a range bonus, badly.
If you really want two mid-ranged EAFs and two long-ranged EAFs, may I suggest making the Crucifier the second mid-ranged EAF instead? After all, tracking disruption multiplies with transversal, and you can get more transversal out of the same speed when you're closer in. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
Dead On Arrival Alliance
1287
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 06:15:00 -
[293] - Quote
Not sure if the range is an issue on that Maulus tbh, should be fairly easy to fit it to damp someone out from 80km, the target ending up with <20km (10?) lock range. Keep in mind the damp bonus is stronger than currently in game.
Principally you are right, damping ships need to have range, but damps have pretty massive falloff and in my experience perform fine in falloff.
Maxing out all my damping skills before Retribution :)
Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
Damu'Khonde
112
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 07:28:00 -
[294] - Quote
The crucifier is going to be OP as all get-out. With a fairly cheap fit (<5 million) and modest skills, you'll be able to nail up to three targets with 65-70% disruption from over 100km. Or completely shut down one poor bastard altogether.
This winter is full of stealth drone buffs. :P |
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs
Exodus.
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 09:10:00 -
[295] - Quote
I'm still not buying the Damp range on the Celestis.
Right now on TQ damps are effective out to 100km. (Hint: watch Exodus.'s Damp Merlins during the AT).
The optimal bonus will push that out to about 120-130Km (ie. Not a Game Changer).
Max skilled Celestis with drones and HMLs will only do damage out to 60km.
So with the proposed Ship you've got 3 choices:
Sit at 100km off the fight, don't do any damage, damp their long range DPS ships and not be primary.
Sit at 50km off the fight, damp something behind the main fleet (logi etc), do about 300DPS and be primaried.
Fly as part of a long range gang (ie Celestis, Caracal) with Inties for points, damp the enemy DPS and concentrate on killing tackle as it burns in.
A better bonus would be similar to the Drone Velocity bonus proposed for the Maulus.
Make it: "10% bonus to Drone Control Range and 5% bonus to Drone MWD Speed per level" as the second bonus.
This, coupled with the 50m3 drone bay gives you:
A set of Valks that go almost 4Kps (ie. enough to catch most frigs)
A set of Hobos that go 5Kps+ or Warriors that go almost 8Kps (ie. enough that they can burn the 90kms about as fast as missiles)
Or, ECM drones that can reach out and **** people of from miles. (@90Km you're outside the lock range or most cruisers, switch a damp to lock time and laugh).
Ie. you can do everything the Fozzie's proposed Celestis does, but actually apply damage in all circumstances.
Re. Drone Veloctiy Bonus vs Tracking:
I get the effect that will have increased drone velocity has on tracking in some cases (pods, shuttles, non-MWDing frigs): this is why I specified Drone MWD boost. Once the drones settle into an orbit around a tackled ship this should not apply.
I also think, in most likely combat situations any damage lost to tracking is made up for by the increased damage you get from the fact your drones get onto the target faster and you can actually use them at the range you want to be fighting at.
T2
The other benefit of doing this is that it scales nicely into T2 ships:
Arazu gets +7.5% Damp Strengh, +10/5% Drone Ctrl Range and MWD Boost, 20% Warp Disruptor Range, and a Covert Cloak.
Lach gets +7.5% Damp Strengh, +10/5% Drone Ctrl Range and MWD Boost, 20% Warp Disruptor Range, and a +10% Drone Damage/Durability Bonus.
Tl;dr: Swap the Celestis' proposed Damp optimal bonus for a +10% Drone Ctrl Range / +5% Drone MWD Speed Bonus. |
Lord Distortion
20th Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 21:36:00 -
[296] - Quote
MAULUS... with sensor damps AND ecm drones? Woo! *dances*  |
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs
Exodus.
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 09:18:00 -
[297] - Quote
Weasel Leblanc wrote:
I can't help but think that making the Maulus more mid-ranged instead of more long-ranged kind of defeats the purpose of the RSD as an ewar module for making enemies less effective at long range. As it stands, it just won't work as well as the rest - reducing the enemy's maximum lock range becomes progressively less useful when you have to get closer to do it.
The Maulus needs a range bonus, badly.
If you really want two mid-ranged EAFs and two long-ranged EAFs, may I suggest making the Crucifier the second mid-ranged EAF instead? After all, tracking disruption multiplies with transversal, and you can get more transversal out of the same speed when you're closer in.
You've never flown damp boats I take it?
Damps work at 100Km without any range bonuses, at level 4 skills. (Well as much as Damps can be said to "work")
AND if you do feel the need for a range bonus a Particle Dispersion Field Projector Rig does +20% / rig.
At present you need 2 Bonused Damps to have an assured effect. 3 will pretty well completely take a ship out. 1 Damp will help, but you have to have a gang designed to make it work. (And guess what, on frigs 1 Damp still leaves more than enough range to scram, web... which is where most frigs do damage) A 7.5% bonused damp won't change that fundamental rule of thumb.
Without a cap-use bonus a damp takes 1.8 Cap/second (that's with decent skills, and best named). Which means MWD, 2xDamps on a Maulus will set you back roughly -7 Gj/s, fitting anything active to that 4th mid would just cap you out in seconds crazy.
The Maulus NEEDS that cap use bonus.
As it is you can fit an approx 100Km Maulus that will work nicely
High: To taste (I like a Drone Link Augmentor, and anything)
Meds: MWD, 3 x Phased Muons
Lows: DCU, Sig Amp + flavour
Rigs: 2 x Particle Dispersion Rigs (60Km Opt, 90 Km Fall-off on Damps), Small Inverted Sig Field Rig
And voila the Maulus is a Long Range EWAR frig.
Although I think I prefer a 60Km 2 x Phased Muon, MSE fit better. |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 15:59:00 -
[298] - Quote
Uris Vitgar wrote:Perhaps instead of regarding target painting as ewar, we should be thinking of it asway to bypass ewar. It's already a counter to tracking speed TDs, although nobody uses it that way. What if painting a target forced it to be lockable, even if it's out of lock range or beyond the max number of targets? Then the vigil's range bonus would be extremely useful. Instead of fitting sensor boosters a sniper fleet might rely on their painters to allow them to lock at long range. An ECCMed up painter might make a good counter to ECM in small gangs
I would like to bring this up again, if balanced right, this could be a grand way to make target painters really neat and worth having.
It even fits the "Minmatar theme" of guns and raw damage over ewar by basically being a "**** this ewar ****" button. |
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs
Exodus.
13
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 11:21:00 -
[299] - Quote
Sheynan wrote:Uris Vitgar wrote:Perhaps instead of regarding target painting as ewar, we should be thinking of it asway to bypass ewar. It's already a counter to tracking speed TDs, although nobody uses it that way. What if painting a target forced it to be lockable, even if it's out of lock range or beyond the max number of targets? Then the vigil's range bonus would be extremely useful. Instead of fitting sensor boosters a sniper fleet might rely on their painters to allow them to lock at long range. An ECCMed up painter might make a good counter to ECM in small gangs I would like to bring this up again, if balanced right, this could be a grand way to make target painters really neat and worth having. It even fits the "Minmatar theme" of guns and raw damage over ewar by basically being a "**** this ewar ****" button.
It's also a massive Nerf to ECM and Sensor Damps.
Which isn't a bad thing: if it's balanced correctly.
Otherwise it becomes the must fit module because it makes any other EWAR irrelevant (and makes ECCM pointless on anything other than the TPing ship and Logis).
All that being said, I like it. It should be easier to balance than a lot of other changes, if only because it doesn't scale well (1-2 TP is a credible idea, but TPs everywhere isn't [outside of niche use ie. the AT]), meaning that ECM/Damps would still work well to take out some ships (ECM means ONLY the primary is target-able, so it still takes out ships that don't target the primary; Damps can still delay lock-time or take Logis out of play).
Although, I also don't think it should be a binary attribute (TP on means I can always target it) rather make it more nuanced: ie. TP increase signature (descreasing the effects of TDs, and Damps "scan res" scripts) and should also act as a high strength ECCM for retaining a lock on that target and as a high strength SEBO for targeting range against that target.... but coding that would depend very much on how ECM is balanced in future, and how EVE calculates lock ranges. |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 17:36:00 -
[300] - Quote
It will depend on the implementation how massive the nerf would be.
You could make the strength of the effect weak on an unbonused hull and strong on the dedicated hulls, similar to ECM.
That would make Vigils/Bellicoses/Rapier/Huginn/Hyena easy to spot primary targets for enemy ECM/damps or dps.
(Imagine that, a ship is called primary because of its target painters  . )
Also, I like the idea of a granular effect of increased sensor power only against the targeted ship, but it sounds really difficult to code. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 .. 11 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |