| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hakera
   |
Posted - 2005.01.25 15:33:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Hakera on 25/01/2005 15:33:49
I know these are coming sooner or later and want to start a discussion on possible changes and maintaining balance. A lot of people rely on EW or ECCM to ensure their safety or success of a kill so it is paramount we get this right. Depending on your view, some ew/eccm modules are better than others. One noticible example is sensor dampners or warp core stablisers.
The main changes are to introduce a random factor or indeed a 'wrecking' shot as such into EW so that sometimes it will fail or sometimes it will succeed better than hoped and moves away from the absolute system we have in place now. Since this is a fundamental balance change it which affects everyone, lets get our noggins together and get a good system in place.
From what I can tell the new testing system turns EW modules into a turret type, each module has a optimal & falloff range and tracking speed. There is your random factor, you can miss your target.
Tyring to guess the basis of a random factor perhaps such a system like:
Warp Core Strength:
100 hp
Warp Core Stabliser I:
25% protection against subspace disruption of the warp core field
stacking penalty applied.
(effectively a hardner)
Warp Core Disruptor
Optimal Range: 10,000
Falloff: 10,000
Tracking Speed: 900 rad/sec
Base: 50% chance at optimal of causing 100hp dmg to the warp core and 'stalling it' to a target succesfully hit
warp core must be reduced to zero in order to stall a warp but has a regeneration of say 5-10hp a second so that if not succesfully stalled on the next cycle the warp core starts again. The difference here is mutliple warp disruptors increase the 'damage'
Create specific skills to increase the 'tracking' or the 'damage' done to warp cores as well as a skill to increase warp core strength perhaps.
Similar thing for target jamming, change eccm mods to hardner types, give the ship targeting system so many hp's and make the jammers cause so many hp's.
Have same dmg message informing the ew ship if they are successful or not.
Thats just one idea to introduce random factor, another is simplly to use current figures but introduce a hit or miss chance, ie either you hit an jam for 1 point or you miss and jam for none or you hit perfectly and jam for two Perhaps an easier system but there you go :)
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 15:45:00 -
[2]
If anyone has the link to the loooong thread about the EW changes TomB proposed a while ago, I'd be greatful if it'd get posted here so I can check some stuff in it.
|
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 15:50:00 -
[3]
Warp core stabilizers are fine. You shouldn't be able to just scramble anyone with a single scrambler.
EW should be changed, not only in function, but also in the amounts of slots it requires. It simply stinks that only one race in all of Eve has good EW ships, simply because a good EW setup requires so many slots.
|
starfox2004
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 15:50:00 -
[4]
can someone please shut this idiot up before he gets everyone NERFED again !
|
Hakera
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 15:59:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Noriath
Warp core stabilizers are fine. You shouldn't be able to just scramble anyone with a single scrambler.
EW should be changed, not only in function, but also in the amounts of slots it requires. It simply stinks that only one race in all of Eve has good EW ships, simply because a good EW setup requires so many slots.
thats the whole point of the new system, 1 scrambler has a base chance if it hits of working, two increases that chance, as does adding wcs to counter those.
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 16:02:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Hakera on 25/01/2005 16:04:27
Originally by: starfox2004
can someone please shut this idiot up before he gets everyone NERFED again !
i love intelligent replies like this  Kinda shows the inherant mistrust of humans to change
and what NERFED again? Afaik I am not responsible for getting anything nerfed? And if you must know the introduction of a random factor has been around for nigh on a year now first suggested by TomB in November 03.
Come back when you actually have something to add to the forums.
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 16:06:00 -
[7]
The idea of an interceptor getting away after i warp disrupt him is most repulsive.
I hope changes for scrambling burn.
________________________________________________________
|
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 16:07:00 -
[8]
But a single scrambler shouldn't give you any chance of scrambling someone who has given up all lowslots for stabs, unless you can lock an equal number of scramblers on them.
Warp scrambling is cheap enough as it is, killing ships in Eve is much to easy.
|
Hakera
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 16:08:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Scorpyn
If anyone has the link to the loooong thread about the EW changes TomB proposed a while ago, I'd be greatful if it'd get posted here so I can check some stuff in it.
here
and
here
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 16:11:00 -
[10]
An example.
I engage an interceptor with no WCS, i get him to structure, i have him warp disrupted at 18km, he warps out.
Oh well i guess luck wasn't on my side? Try again? What can i do to make sure he doesn't leave? Go in closer and do something my interceptor is not built for?
Retarded.
This **** can't happen.
________________________________________________________
|
|
|
Hakera
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 16:15:00 -
[11]
whole point is ew is not meant to be absolute, within your optimal range, a warp disruptor should work at 100% efficiency so an interceptor without wcs wont get away as now, in your falloff there would be chance of escape.
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 16:15:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Noriath on 25/01/2005 16:16:45
How about he warps out and you're happy because you won? Nah, if battleships don't blow up all over the place the game isn't interesting...
I think most of all what Eve needs is a permanent damage system, so if you heavily damage a ship and it warps out or destroys you it's not like you didn't do anything to it a minuite later. Something that makes ships maximum HP drop over time as they fight and allows you to only repair them over time at a station, or through Logistics ships.
|
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 16:23:00 -
[13]
The devs have to be very careful with this change. The main problem with introducing a random factor into warp scrambling is that you only need to be able to warp once. So if you have someone scrambled for 3 cycles of your warp scrambler and it fails on the fourth cycle that ship would still get away.
The only way I see it working is that within some range you have next to 100% change to warp scramble someone and if that is the case then the attackers might actually benefit from this.
__________
Capacitor research |
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 16:30:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Noriath
Edited by: Noriath on 25/01/2005 16:16:45
How about he warps out and you're happy because you won?
If my target escapes i have failed. If you think otherwise, you're wrong.
________________________________________________________
|
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 16:31:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Hakera
Similar thing for target jamming, change eccm mods to hardner types, give the ship targeting system so many hp's and make the jammers cause so many hp's.
I like this idea. Just to set out how I understand it working to check I get it properly: Your targetting system has a certain number of hp's, that regenerate over time. Jammers give targetting system damage. eccm modules act as hardeners against the targetting system damage type - and thus increase your effective hp reserves as well as the effective regen rate of your hp. When your targetting system gets to 0hp, you are jammed. In this way, jamming starts to work very much like normal combat.
One thing I would like to see added into that model is a module to increase the HP of your targetting system (without necessarily increasing the regen rate like shield extenders do). That way you could choose to fit eccm "hardeners" to cope with long-term jamming, or fit eccm "extenders" to just buy you a short window.
As far as I can see, there are a few critical statistics that will determine the success or failure of jamming under this system. These are, the DOT of jammers, the individual shot damage of jammers, the hp of targetting systems, resistance of targetting systems and the regen rate of targetting systems.
One important thing to decide in this system is what happens when the jammers get the targetting system to 0 HP. Does any further damage they do push it below 0 HP? If it does, it would allow lucky shots to balance bad shots, so long-term jammer performance would be fairly predictable - the only random element would be how long it took to get the target into a stable jammed state.
If you say that any damage that would push below 0HP is ignored, you introduce a permanent chance that the jam will break temporarily if the jammer has a bad shot. However, you also introduce the problem of timing of events, in this case, the timing of the targetter hp regen vs the timing of the jammer applying it's damage. There will always be a period between when the regen is applied, and when the jammer next does damage, where targetter hp would be positive, and thus the ship would be un-jammed. While a tiny blip of un-jamming on target jamming may be excusable, it would be enough to enable someone to escape a warp jam.
Originally by: Hakera
Have same dmg message informing the ew ship if they are successful or not.
This is something that is really needed, whatever form the new EW takes. The Jammer needs proper feedback on whether they are being successful or not. The victim of the jamming needs feedback as to whether they are jammed or not, what level of jamming is currently being applied to them, and by who. The current notifications don't let you know if you succeed or not, and are too easily lost in the mass of other combat notifications.
At the very least, some flashing icons on the HUD to indicate being target/warp jammed would be nice.
|
Archimus Zorn
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 16:36:00 -
[16]
This is definitely the way to go, cause right now a Scorpion can cycle through targets, jamming them, and effectively disabling them. This is not how EW really works. The moment you turn that module off or onto someone else the lock should be re-established, and you get pwnz0r3ed like the cheap little bastard that you are ;-)
This should also be based on skill. If you have propulsion jamming 4, and I only have "Try desperately to get the hell out of dodge" lvl 2, then I'm going to get thumped cause I'm a poor scrambled bastard.
|
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 16:36:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Dust Puppy
The devs have to be very careful with this change. The main problem with introducing a random factor into warp scrambling is that you only need to be able to warp once. So if you have someone scrambled for 3 cycles of your warp scrambler and it fails on the fourth cycle that ship would still get away.
The only way I see it working is that within some range you have next to 100% change to warp scramble someone and if that is the case then the attackers might actually benefit from this.
Indeed, which could be applied by holding warp disruptor "damage" inside a very tight variance range, while allowing target jammer "damage" a wider variance as it's not so critical if it fails for one cycle (just take the current practice of cycle-jamming for why this is the case).
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 16:36:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Hakera
whole point is ew is not meant to be absolute, within your optimal range, a warp disruptor should work at 100% efficiency so an interceptor without wcs wont get away as now, in your falloff there would be chance of escape.
Ok, if my warp disruptor has a 20km optimal and anything within that range with no WCS will get scrambled, it's all good.
________________________________________________________
|
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 16:44:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Archimus Zorn
This is not how EW really works. The moment you turn that module off or onto someone else the lock should be re-established, and you get pwnz0r3ed like the cheap little bastard that you are ;-)
That's another option I'd certainly welcome - alongside the "auto return lock for X targets" option, have one to automatically re-establish lock if lost, so as soon as your targetting system comes out of jam, it tries to re-establish lock on all the targets it had before it was jammed.
|
The Cosmopolite
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 16:45:00 -
[20]
Personally, I do fear a half-baked nerf across the board.
However, I will try to answer sensibly.
First - optimal range and falloff idea is OK, IMO. Please by all that is holy CCP do not also add tracking into the mix. If there is a percentage chance that the jam will not work, for there also to be a chance of 'missing' will cripple EW.
I also believe optimal should be high by turret standards and falloff similarly. If there has to be tracking (possibly for implementation reasons) please make it very high by turret standards.
Second - a percentage chance to jam based on a defending sensor strength/attackin jam strength equation is a good idea. It allows for a sensible stacking penalty and also means that EW frigs and cruisers of all kinds will become pretty useful. Only BB and Scorp pilots need fear this. (Of which more later.)
Modules
Sensor dampers - these are actually already in line with the suggestions of all those months ago as they operate with a stacking penalty (unlike most EW modules). All they need is an optimal range and falloff. Any other fiddling with these would tend to nerfage in my view.
Multispectrals - a strong module in numbers which prolly does, in objective honesty, merit a stack penalty. I would assume an optimal/falloff (I'm going to assume this for all EW mods from now on).
Racial Jammers - again, clearly these would be a stack penalty if they were already akin to harderners, wep upgrades, etc. So it seems fine. Notably this may make multispec + several differing racial jammers a nicer option depending on the numbers.
ECCM of all kinds... ECCM broadcaster in fairness would require optimal and falloff effects also. Personal ECCM could be left entirely as is.
Turret disruption - makes sense it should work in a similar fashion to turrets with optimal and falloff effects.
The controversial one: warp disruptors and warp core stabs.
There is a strong argument for saying propulsion jamming/counter-measures are a different thing to lock-jamming EW and should be left alone. I personally lean towards this. Otherwise... you stack disruptors and get a penalty... fine, then you stack stabs and get a penalty.
Final comment: EW overhaul that only touches mods and not EW ships (of which there are actually quite a few) would be the every definition of half-baked.
If CCP truly do want to overhaul this aspect of the game, they should be prepared to look at ships in some detail. I will take the inevitable wails from Scorp and BB pilots with a pinch of salt... but they do actually deserve a proper look at all factors in EW. To ignore existing ship design and not even consider changing ship stats would be rather silly.
The Cosmopolite
The Star Fraction - Executor CEO: Jade Constantine |
|
|
Xelios
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 16:45:00 -
[21]
The biggest problem with propulsion jamming right now that I can think of is the fact that once you get scrambled or webbed by anything the effect lasts for the duration of the module, regardless of range. The instant you leave the effective range the module's effects should stop, and re-start when you re-enter range.
|
Sapater
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 16:46:00 -
[22]
Would just like to remind all the whiners here (not many really) that ALL EM is going to get reworked. ECM, sensor disruptors, warp scrambling, the whole enchilada.
|
Damo Pendragon
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 16:52:00 -
[23]
Do we really want another turret style system?
The current system is not prefect by any means, but adding another set of statistics to track on every ship, ie. warp corp stabilisation and also targeting stabilisation (anti ecm?) is going to be a very heavy hit on all the servers
I really cant see it being done this way?
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 17:02:00 -
[24]
Make ECM/ECCM hi-slot.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Jane Vladmir
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 17:10:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Noriath
Warp core stabilizers are fine. You shouldn't be able to just scramble anyone with a single scrambler.
EW should be changed, not only in function, but also in the amounts of slots it requires. It simply stinks that only one race in all of Eve has good EW ships, simply because a good EW setup requires so many slots.
Idiot/Newbie know-nothing reply,
Don't mind him ccp.
|
Dust Puppy
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 17:15:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
Make ECM/ECCM hi-slot.
agreed
__________
Capacitor research |
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 17:18:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Damo Pendragon
Do we really want another turret style system?
The current system is not prefect by any means, but adding another set of statistics to track on every ship, ie. warp corp stabilisation and also targeting stabilisation (anti ecm?) is going to be a very heavy hit on all the servers
I really cant see it being done this way?
Well, they still have to keep track of whether you're warp-jammed, target jammed, webbed etc and the effects on your ship stats of all the various modules connected with that. So it won't really be all that big a hit.
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 17:34:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Hakera
Originally by: Scorpyn
If anyone has the link to the loooong thread about the EW changes TomB proposed a while ago, I'd be greatful if it'd get posted here so I can check some stuff in it.
here
and
here
Thanks. Wasn't really what I was looking for though - I was referring to a thread in this section of the forum, it's some stuff at the end of it I want to get a recap on.
Gonna study those links aswell though 
|
Vardemis
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 17:50:00 -
[29]
The question is, is there really a need for a change?
Many will say that only Caldari ships can use EW properly.
The point is many people see only jamming or dampening as EW, but Warpdisruptor, Tracking Disruptor, Webifier, all those count into that as well. And on the other side the items that have a positive effect on yourself count as electronic warfare as well, like Sensor Boster, Remote Sensor Booster, ECCM, Warpcore Stabilizer.
And not only Caldari ships are using these items. Basicly every frigate in pvp uses at least one of them, more likely two.
At the moment I think it is pretty balanced and when the tech II ECM is out more will use it. Not only Caldari, even now Stiletto and Dominix are decent EW ships as well.
And what is the point anyway with the ships? I mean when you want to use it just train the best ship class for it. When you want to mine efficently you train mining barge and don't start whining why you can't outmine a barge in a cruiser, don't you?
I for myself like it more when I know what will happen to me, if scrambled/jammed or when I decide to do the same. The same goes for ECCM modules, why fitting them when you don't know if you get jammed even with them. Or Remote Sensor Booster and WCS that only work from time to time. Adding a chance will basicly ruin ECM imho. But when you nerf, please nerf both sides (positive and negative effects).
The only thing that is maybe needed is to apply a range to the modules that doesn't have any at the moment, otherwise I think it is more balanced then many other stuff.(For example Missiles, Beams vs Hybrids, Projectiles will get acceptable again with the next patch, hopefully :))
|
Vardemis
|
Posted - 2005.01.25 17:54:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Xelios
The biggest problem with propulsion jamming right now that I can think of is the fact that once you get scrambled or webbed by anything the effect lasts for the duration of the module, regardless of range. The instant you leave the effective range the module's effects should stop, and re-start when you re-enter range.
I agree
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |