EVE Search - If SDAs affected all Primary E-War?

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

If SDAs affected all Primary E-War?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 732	Posted - 2012.08.29 23:33:00 - [1] - Quote A quick thought: What would be the result of making all primary e-war types (Remote Sensor Damps, Tracking Disruptors, Target Painters) affected by Signal Distortion Amps in the same way as ECM is? Would this be a good and fairly low-effort step towards balancing all racial e-war types? Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge **.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006 ~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever.
Omnathious Deninard Extrinsic Operations 67	Posted - 2012.08.29 23:46:00 - [2] - Quote I would say the cost of SDAs would go up.
Nestara Aldent Citimatics 77	Posted - 2012.08.30 00:02:00 - [3] - Quote Scatim Helicon wrote: A quick thought: What would be the result of making all primary e-war types (Remote Sensor Damps, Tracking Disruptors, Target Painters) affected by Signal Distortion Amps in the same way as ECM is? Would this be a good and fairly low-effort step towards balancing all racial e-war types? Stealth nerf to armor tanking! Now to the point, no, as theres no reason not to remove SDA or simply buff SD/TP/TD to be more effective w/o SDA. ECM is by its very design overpowered, because it makes target unable to attack or assist other on success. When TD on logi have the same effect as ECM on logi, we'll have balance (read never). I'd balance it differently, however. If every race could use any EWAR type, there would be no more bitching about Caldari EWAR being overpowered.
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 734	Posted - 2012.08.30 08:37:00 - [4] - Quote Nestara Aldent wrote: Scatim Helicon wrote: A quick thought: What would be the result of making all primary e-war types (Remote Sensor Damps, Tracking Disruptors, Target Painters) affected by Signal Distortion Amps in the same way as ECM is? Would this be a good and fairly low-effort step towards balancing all racial e-war types? Stealth nerf to armor tanking! Now to the point, no, as theres no reason not to remove SDA or simply buff SD/TP/TD to be more effective w/o SDA. ECM is by its very design overpowered, because it makes target unable to attack or assist other on success. When TD on logi have the same effect as ECM on logi, we'll have balance (read never). I'd balance it differently, however. If every race could use any EWAR type, there would be no more bitching about Caldari EWAR being overpowered. I've never seen a suggestion to changing ECM effects which didn't make it utterly useless 99% of the time, so this is an attempt to approach the problem from the opposite direction and bring the other types of e-war up a level. And giving slot options isn't a nerf to anything, stealth or otherwise. You could just as easily argue that its a stealth nerf to shield buffering and tanking because it makes the midslot E-War modules more attractive and encourages players to put something other than extenders and hardeners in there. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge **.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006 ~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever.
Ganthrithor GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 381	Posted - 2012.08.30 08:47:00 - [5] - Quote I dunno, having a bunch of formerly-useless mods become useful would really complicate fitting choices :3 I hadn't really thought about it, but really it's dumb as hell that ECM is the only ewar type that can be boosted through mods.
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 735	Posted - 2012.08.30 18:41:00 - [6] - Quote Ganthrithor wrote: I dunno, having a bunch of formerly-useless mods become useful would really complicate fitting choices :3 I hadn't really thought about it, but really it's dumb as hell that ECM is the only ewar type that can be boosted through mods. Its odd that ECM works completely differently to all the other e-war types, this is one way to move them a little closer together as well as buffing the e-war types other than ECM. Originally I was going to post this as a much deeper change to bring all the e-war onto the same page by making all the Primary e-war types use a comparison of their "e-war strength" (new characteristic) vs the target's sensor strength to modify the strength of the e-war effect, but this way seems a little less radical. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge **.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006 ~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever.
Velicitia Open Designs 1139	Posted - 2012.08.30 19:23:00 - [7] - Quote ECM breaking your locks -- OK ECM keeping you from locking anything -- NOT OK. If they changed ECM to "can't lock anything whilst jammed ... EXCEPT that bastard in the falcon who's jamming you" then it'd be a little better (note, multiple falcons jamming you means they're all valid ... otherwise 2x falcon end up working like it does right now).
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 735	Posted - 2012.08.30 19:31:00 - [8] - Quote Velicitia wrote: ECM breaking your locks -- OK ECM keeping you from locking anything -- NOT OK. If they changed ECM to "can't lock anything whilst jammed ... EXCEPT that bastard in the falcon who's jamming you" then it'd be a little better (note, multiple falcons jamming you means they're all valid ... otherwise 2x falcon end up working like it does right now). That falls into the 'overnerf ECM into utter uselessness' clause I mentioned above. Also, the 'nerf ECM' thread is somewhere else (everywhere else), but thanks for the bump. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge **.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006 ~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever.
Loius Woo PATRIOT KNIGHTS 193	Posted - 2012.08.30 19:38:00 - [9] - Quote Nestara Aldent wrote: If every race could use any EWAR type, there would be no more bitching about Caldari EWAR being overpowered. There is no restriction preventing you from using ECM as a different race.... You just don't have ships that bonus it. Also, its really poor form to use italics and underlines to highlight your entire post. You should use it more sparingly and only for emphasis.
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 472	Posted - 2012.08.30 20:00:00 - [10] - Quote Scatim Helicon wrote: A quick thought: What would be the result of making all primary e-war types (Remote Sensor Damps, Tracking Disruptors, Target Painters) affected by Signal Distortion Amps in the same way as ECM is? Would this be a good and fairly low-effort step towards balancing all racial e-war types? I'm not sure if it would be better for SDA's to affect all ewar mods, or to have new modules like SDA's for each ewar type.... While making the SDA alter all EWAR would be simple, I'm not certain 10% boosts to each ewar type is appropriate...
Ganthrithor GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 382	Posted - 2012.08.30 21:06:00 - [11] - Quote Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Scatim Helicon wrote: A quick thought: What would be the result of making all primary e-war types (Remote Sensor Damps, Tracking Disruptors, Target Painters) affected by Signal Distortion Amps in the same way as ECM is? Would this be a good and fairly low-effort step towards balancing all racial e-war types? I'm not sure if it would be better for SDA's to affect all ewar mods, or to have new modules like SDA's for each ewar type.... While making the SDA alter all EWAR would be simple, I'm not certain 10% boosts to each ewar type is appropriate... This would yield more "Falcon with Turret Destablization Amplifiers" killmails, especially if they could give them all the same icon. Those are always fun.
Nestara Aldent Citimatics 78	Posted - 2012.08.30 21:20:00 - [12] - Quote Scatim Helicon wrote: Ganthrithor wrote: I dunno, having a bunch of formerly-useless mods become useful would really complicate fitting choices :3 I hadn't really thought about it, but really it's dumb as hell that ECM is the only ewar type that can be boosted through mods. Its odd that ECM works completely differently to all the other e-war types, this is one way to move them a little closer together as well as buffing the e-war types other than ECM. Originally I was going to post this as a much deeper change to bring all the e-war onto the same page by making all the Primary e-war types use a comparison of their "e-war strength" (new characteristic) vs the target's sensor strength to modify the strength of the e-war effect, but this way seems a little less radical. How about this: 1. ECM works on logistics primarily. Effect on DPS/EWAR ships will be small. 2. Sensor dampening works mostly on EWAR. 3. TD works only on on DPS (obviously), missile or gun based.
Astroniomix Thorn Project Black Thorne Alliance 164	Posted - 2012.08.31 04:29:00 - [13] - Quote Scatim Helicon wrote: Velicitia wrote: ECM breaking your locks -- OK ECM keeping you from locking anything -- NOT OK. If they changed ECM to "can't lock anything whilst jammed ... EXCEPT that bastard in the falcon who's jamming you" then it'd be a little better (note, multiple falcons jamming you means they're all valid ... otherwise 2x falcon end up working like it does right now). That falls into the 'overnerf ECM into utter uselessness' clause I mentioned above. Also, the 'nerf ECM' thread is somewhere else (everywhere else), but thanks for the bump. I'll actually try to defend this idea for a bit, Falcons like to opperate well outside of the engagement range of the ships they are jamming, thus preventing the jammed ship from simply instablaping the falcon the moment they start getting jammed.
Paikis Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking 139	Posted - 2012.08.31 07:53:00 - [14] - Quote Astroniomix wrote: I'll actually try to defend this idea for a bit, Falcons like to opperate well outside of the engagement range of the ships they are jamming, thus preventing the jammed ship from simply instablaping the falcon the moment they start getting jammed. Inquiring minds want to know how you instablap something when you're jammed?
Gypsio III Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 333	Posted - 2012.08.31 07:57:00 - [15] - Quote Paikis wrote: Astroniomix wrote: I'll actually try to defend this idea for a bit, Falcons like to opperate well outside of the engagement range of the ships they are jamming, thus preventing the jammed ship from simply instablaping the falcon the moment they start getting jammed. Inquiring minds want to know how you instablap something when you're jammed? Autoaggression when you have fifty sentry drones assisting you would do the trick.
Uris Vitgar Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 17	Posted - 2012.08.31 10:34:00 - [16] - Quote The only problem I see with this is, it might make TDs and dampeners even more attractive on hulls not bonused for them. It's bad enough that tracking disruptors are more likely to appear on a condor than on a curse, and damps more common on a hookbill than a lachesis. Target painting is different, but you could argue that speed and versatility are minmatar's true "ewar".

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.