| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Meridius
   |
Posted - 2005.02.14 20:28:00 -
[31]
 Quote:
Modules such as Warp Core Stabilizer, ECCM & Sensor Backup Array will only improve the defense resistances of the ship against electronic / propulsion attacks, but they will have a some what higher value than the level of the attack strengths.
Why should it be easier to defend against electronic/propulsion attacks?
It's a lot easier to fit a wcs then a midslot scrambler. Stop making it easier for people to run away, it's already way to easy.
A lot of what i think is posted above by what Jim and others have said so i'm not going to rant further.
These changes to warp scrambling are not needed, do not put them in please 
________________________________________________________
|
Tesk Malloc
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 20:29:00 -
[32]
What is this change going to turn interceptors into?
Can travel really fast to catch a target and then watch it sail away?
To actually be able to destroy a ship (and lets remember the hit point increase there is going to be) is going to take a alot of dedicated scramblers.
This is really, really bad.
Tesk Malloc - Hired Scum, Murderer and Official Lightbulb Screwer
"You can't love life too much. Everybody dies." |
Synthemesc
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 20:31:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Tesk Malloc
What is this change going to turn interceptors into?
Can travel really fast to catch a target and then watch it sail away?
To actually be able to destroy a ship (and lets remember the hit point increase there is going to be) is going to take a alot of dedicated scramblers.
This is really, really bad.
This sums up my thoughts on the changes as well. It really is hard enough to pin someone down with stabs the way things stand.
|
Face Lifter
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 20:32:00 -
[34]
OK, nevermind what I said earlier about Target Painter
It's not meant to reduce lock time for you, but maybe for your buddies (tho they still have to wait for you to finish locking) and its greatest benefit would be to improve gun tracking.
I think that Target Painter module should give a flat increase of sig radius, say +50, instead of some percentage value. This way, you can control its effectiveness better, and it would make sense to use them on very small sig ships and less sense to use them on bs, for example.
|
Grimster
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 20:32:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Grimster on 14/02/2005 20:32:17
Originally by: Tesk Malloc
What is this change going to turn interceptors into?
Can travel really fast to catch a target and then watch it sail away?
To actually be able to destroy a ship (and lets remember the hit point increase there is going to be) is going to take a alot of dedicated scramblers.
This is really, really bad.
I was just about to post the exact same thing. It's difficult enough already getting a stabbed ship to stay put without nerfing the jamming like this.
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 20:39:00 -
[36]
Sounds like great changes to me! 
|
Reatu Krentor
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 20:41:00 -
[37]
Overall, I likes  . But i'm weird like that, maybe i should become a game dev someday  .
------------------------------------------
The ammatar are not the enemy, they are the smoke and mirrors of the amarr. |
MadGaz
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 20:43:00 -
[38]
Absolutely no need for a change to warp scrambling, it's already pitifully easy to counter being warp scrambling. Way to nerf ceptors.
------------------------------------------
|
Deakin Frost
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 20:44:00 -
[39]
Scan probes take 300secs to triangulate things, they're not useful.
My ideas:
- You add like -12% activation time on probes per Covert Ops level.
- Allow Covert Ops to warp to arbitrary spots on the map.
- Or allow them to lock and cargo/ship/whatever-scan other ships with passive targetters.
|
Trinelise
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 20:46:00 -
[40]
WTB target painters :-D
I am a bit worried about giving npc's too much ew goodies. If I have to harden my ship against both EW attacks , propulsion jamming and damage it will restrict my ship options when doing missions. Dunno what is more fun though , flying the same ship over and over against thougher enemies or using lots of different ships against easier enemies.
|
Dianabolic
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 20:50:00 -
[41]
On ECM changes: Seems fine to me, yes it needs tweaking but the general gist seems good.
On scrambling changes: NO! Just, no, TomB, no. Warp scrambling / disrupting SHOULD be 0/1 - you make it difficult enough for us to get our scramblers on the target, then to see it jsut warp away? I oppose this change in particular most strongly.
On skills: Looks good, about time the electronic warfare skill got changed to something useful :p
On covert ops: Please PLEASE make probes undetectable by scanner. Also, give cov ops ships the ability to launch probes while cloaked. If you're feeling REALLY generous please go with the suggestion above - allow covert ops to use passive targetters and cargo / ship scanners while cloaked.
Thanking you please :)
|
Mustafa Wilson
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 20:50:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Tasty
Pvp shouldn't be based on "chance".
Precisely. Since there is no element of chance whatsoever in actual combat, there should be none in PvP.
|
Hellspawn01
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 20:51:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Hellspawn01 on 14/02/2005 20:51:22
Quote:
Old Skill Modifications:
Duration increase or decrease can both be bad; increase means that a destroyed target or a failed attempt will require longer duration until next possible attempt - decrease means cap needs to be minimum at start to allow lesser experienced players on smallers ships to use these modules + succesful attempts will have shorter duration.
Electronic Warfare
-5% cap need for ECM (changed from duration)
Sensor Linking
-5% cap need for Remote Sensor Dampener (changed from duration)
Weapon Disruption:
-5% cap need for Tracking Disruptor (changed from duration)
Propulsion Jamming:
-5% cap need for Warp Scrambler/Disruptor & Stasis Webifier (changed from duration)
These are needed changes Imo. It makes the current modules abit more cap effective.
Quote:
Ships will be getting a racial propulsion defence similar to the electronic defence:
Amarr: Fusion
Caldari: Magpulse
Gallente: Ion
Minmatar: Plasma
And new racial warp scramblers will be added to the game where the current will act as the ôMulti ECMö.
How will an Interceptor, which is made to catch and hold ships, be able to hold a ship effective? You need at least 4x ICs fitted with each race scramblers to hold 1 BS effective.
About testing:
If we, the players, say in one month "we dont like it", will you still implent it?
---------------------------------------------
Eve is not game, it¦s a way of life! |
Mustafa Wilson
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 20:52:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Face Lifter
Another issue: Target Painters, these things gotta be balanced against Sensor Boosters. Cause a Sensor Booster does same thing as Target Painer - it reduces lock time. Since Sensor Booster gives greater targeting range as well as reducing lock time, a Target Painter module should be more effective at reducing lock time, since it doesn't give additional benefit of greater targeting range
If we're going to have modules that increase sig radius, should there also be an ECM module that decreases it?
|
Dianabolic
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 20:53:00 -
[45]
Also, perhaps even more importantly, how will these extra calculations affect server lag and stability? You recently changed the interceptor bonuses because ROF is "bad" for the server.
The "chance" would seem to involve an awful lot more calculations and even further complexity to a server that is just about coping... until you start shooting a station, at any rate, at which point the lag is HORRENDOUS (in the south, anyway).
|
Celticjim
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 20:54:00 -
[46]
1. Range ôwithoutö Limits û modules will be getting Optimal Range & Fall Off which will make them act like ôTurret Accuracyö works (besides the tracking speed and size of target), the module will have 100% of working within Optimal Range but the chance of the module to effect the target decreases if the target is outside that range (this is where the Fall Off range comes into play) û see forum thread with graph to explain the range
From this quote on the blog, I am under the impression it still has a hundred percent chance of working within range. So if you still have the appropriate mods fitted,then you should be able to lock down completely. I don't see how this is different from what is currently being done. However, it appears that in addition to the 100% lockdown, now the EW are given a greater opportunity to lock outside the optimal range. So if someone has warp disruptor on, and is 40 kms away, still has a potential to lock the target.
Wth am I missing that makes the EW boys upset atm?
If you load up the multispecs, which I understand is pretty much done now, and get within range, how is anything different from what is going on now?
Me=confused
CJ
|
Weston McArthur
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 20:55:00 -
[47]
Ugh, jamming NPCs? Well, could you at least limit it to the bship fleets/lvl4 missions?
|
Nomeshta
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 20:58:00 -
[48]
I think I'm going to have to get on the test server and try this out.
My only issue is that ECM/Propulsion Jamming used to sway battles in the favour of a well-organised group when they were out-numbered. These changes, because they are based on percentages, seem to move that advantage back into the favour of the larger force.
Makes blobbing even more appealing.
- Caution: Ninja Fingers
WTB: Implants
|
BuRnEr
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 21:00:00 -
[49]
Edited by: BuRnEr on 15/02/2005 12:39:45
changed my mind...
|
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 21:09:00 -
[50]
P.S. on a less negative note: will the new skills be Memory - Intelligence or Intelligence - Memory?
Currently a memory heavy character as myself has few skills dependent on my strongest attribute (of any PvP use)
--
If TC causes you discomfort that you feel is unwarranted or may be outside TC's current contract - contact me, please. |
Xavier Arron
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 21:09:00 -
[51]
Im open minded about the changes until I get a chance to test them.
The way I understand it from the blog, is that the modules are 100% effective within optimal range and have a random % chance outside which sounds fair to me.
Making jamming have limited range was needed imho.
Target painters is something i have wanted to see, and posted about ages ago.
In particular it would be cool if Covert ops / cloaked ships could use them while still staying cloaked.
Would give these ships an extra role to play, by allowing them to sneak up on targets, and light them up like christmas trees before other ships warped in.
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 21:10:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Ithildin
P.S. on a less negative note: will the new skills be Memory - Intelligence or Intelligence - Memory?
Currently a memory heavy character as myself has few skills dependent on my strongest attribute (of any PvP use)
since Im a Caldari int player, no thy will be int based 
Wanna fly with me?
|
Angry Dan
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 21:11:00 -
[53]
This has the possibility of really opening up the EW field, atm, scorps are king, and interceptors are evil.
My friends and I have often discussed how damn stupid it is for a 500 ton intercptor to hold down a 5,000,000 ton battleship with a webifier. It's more likely that the jumped up frigate will get towed along by the BS, rather than getting pinned in space.
As far as I'd like to go, any chance that you could allow covert op ships to use passive targeters & ship scanners as a combo without dropping out of a cloak (maybe a super T2 cloak, but still possible). This wouldmean that they would have apoint, rather than just sitting at gates counting sheep, errr, enemy pilots on the way to the meat grinder. This would mena we can get vaulable intelligece on enemy fleet composition. And thus let us take down the weaker ships first.
You can hear the cries on team speak now "WE HAVE NO INTELLIGENCE, I REPEAT WE HAVE NO INTELLIGNECE"
Scan probes. There damn near useless when your enemy can see them in the scanner. If they have 2 safespots (hell, 2 moons > 12 au apart) then your enemy is effectively unfindable. You simply can't get a lock onto the position. Please take them out of the basic scanner. However, I can also see the need for countermeasures. So I'd propose a radiation shield module, that reduced detectable emissions for your ship. With the appropriate skill and mod. EG T1 mod, base 30% chacne of hiding, + 10% per skill level vs a target of the enemies astrometic skill and the probes sensor strength, compared to range. IE (defense mod + skill) * range factor / enemy astrometrics skill.
Originally by: Natsuki
Quote:
Remove remote sensor damps
No.
Chance based EW is sort of OK, but chance based warp scrambling is the dumbest thing I've heard of in a long time.
I kinda like that. It means that you should have a chance of scrambling someone, even if your strength is lower than theres. Even if it's only for 5 seconds, that could be the difference maker.
Originally by: Ithildin
Oh great. Thank you TomB.
Another nail in the coffin that is Gallente
Not only does Gallente have notorious low medium slots, but now they'll also have to fit capacitor and CPU heavy modules in order to hit and do damage. Thanks a lot.
Will you please boost Gallente, and Megathron in special, before you even think of implementing this?
I think it's clear to everyone with half an eye open that these changes will benefit long range ships most of all. Gah! I only hope that Gallente Ion thrusters will have the best scrambling defence in game so that we have something going our way in a year period.
Blasterthrons are evil. And the reason you need to fit CPU/grid modsis because you need more training. I only just got past the point I needed them on my scorpion. Incidentally. All you need is one rocket launcher, and some ECM, and my scorp is toast so fast I haven't time to get the butter and a tasty topping. Any chance the caldari could get soem skills to counter defenders, cos they make our heavy weapons near pointless.
++++++++++++++++++++
CEO of the Space Munchkins.
Fear my kneepads of allure!
Huzzah Federation Foreign Minister - Ask about our tasty NAP's - Now in protein delicacy and cow flavour!
|
Celticjim
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 21:11:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Celticjim on 14/02/2005 21:15:53
Originally by: Celticjim
1. Range ôwithoutö Limits û modules will be getting Optimal Range & Fall Off which will make them act like ôTurret Accuracyö works (besides the tracking speed and size of target), the module will have 100% of working within Optimal Range but the chance of the module to effect the target decreases if the target is outside that range (this is where the Fall Off range comes into play) û see forum thread with graph to explain the range
From this quote on the blog, I am under the impression it still has a hundred percent chance of working within range. So if you still have the appropriate mods fitted,then you should be able to lock down completely. I don't see how this is different from what is currently being done. However, it appears that in addition to the 100% lockdown, now the EW are given a greater opportunity to lock outside the optimal range. So if someone has warp disruptor on, and is 40 kms away, still has a potential to lock the target.
Wth am I missing that makes the EW boys upset atm?
If you load up the multispecs, which I understand is pretty much done now, and get within range, how is anything different from what is going on now?
Me=confused
CJ
I just wanted to repost and clarify. I understand the propulsion differences may have issue now, but curious on how this may effect EW changes.
CJ
(Edit) Xaver - another reason I posted again. I put the blog quote on the bottom of pager three, but huge chance to get missed.
I have to say, it always infuriated me to no extent to be completely unable to lock sometimes in excess of 60 kms, then scrambled. Nothing like watching a ship destruction in a few minutes. Stupidity on my part to engage - perhaps. Good planning on attackers part - maybe. All I know it is just plain ole infuriating and now if I am either warp scrambled, or jammed, I may have an opportunity to actually defend myself.
CJ
|
baagpus
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 21:12:00 -
[55]
Sensor jamming i agree could use changes, more skills are always welcome but messing with the current warp scrambling system seems to me like its gonna be the final nail in the piracy coffin.
It is however all speculation till we actually are physically able to test
"About testing:
If we, the players, say in one month "we dont like it", will you still implent it?"
Thats what I'm more interested in knowing
|
Marcus Grisbius
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 21:14:00 -
[56]
Also, remember to look at it from the other side. Now, a frig with a warp scrambler has the possibility of scrambling a bship with more than 4 warp core stabs on. Where as before, a gankageddon with some mega pulses a couple dmg mods and a load of WCS could pretty much be immune from scrambling.
C'mon, you know that it's really ticked you off if you ever tried to scramble a bship with 2 inties and they still manage to warp away. Now there is always a possibility of gettting away, but there is always the possibility of getting scrambled.
With jammers it makes sense that the jamming frequency would get diminished at longer ranges making it less likely to jam the ship (kinda like radio stations start getting static at longer ranges).
All in all the idea doesn't seem like a terrible change, but it will need a good amount of testing to get the correct values in place to make it practical and reasonable. If the values are well thought out then some of the extreme situations that are being mentioned won't be a big deal.
Certainty of death... little chance of success... what are we waiting for? - Gimli, son of Gloinn |
Zen Later
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 21:15:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Zen Later on 14/02/2005 21:23:46
Another 2cents...
The changes to electronic warfare...are pretty decent and a while coming now. Adding optimal ranges to the jammers and dampeners, while an adjustment for many of us, will be a good thing in the long run.
The target painter idea...actually quite kewl.
Propulsion jamming changes...presented as is not very good. As many folks have stated it's already at a balance point right with warp scramblers having a range and a properly equipped ship can not be warp scrambled unless it runs into an extreme circumstance.
If a balance between that measely little frig being able to warp scramble that ill equiped multi-million ISK battleship...why not make the warp scramblers more cap intensive? A frig or interceptor will only have say 45 seconds of warp scrambling ability before it's cap is wiped out? This still leaves a role for the frigs but their infinite warp scrambling ability is gone...it also encourages team work.
**EDIT ADD-ON**
While change is always good, what's up with presenting changes and ships to help in that change process but the ships part of the equation won't be introduced until soon(TM)?
We know you guys can walk and chew gum at the same time, so introducing the changes AND the new ships involved in those proposed changes would be a lot easier for us all to sort out.
|
seeyouauntie
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 21:25:00 -
[58]
I kinda like the ECM ideas. But I really am against the idea of warp scrambling/webbing to go to a 'chance' rather the 'you are or you aren't' way it is now.
Interceptors were just changed to warp faster so they could catch their target. These changes will make intys pretty useless for what they're supposed to do given that they don't have many midslots to cram the different types of disruptors. Are we going to see tackling Scorpions after this change?
Right now it is pretty easy for people to get away. Please don't make it even easier.
----------------------------------
I <3 mining. |
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 21:32:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Angry Dan
Blasterthrons are evil. And the reason you need to fit CPU/grid modsis because you need more training. I only just got past the point I needed them on my scorpion. Incidentally. All you need is one rocket launcher, and some ECM, and my scorp is toast so fast I haven't time to get the butter and a tasty topping. Any chance the caldari could get soem skills to counter defenders, cos they make our heavy weapons near pointless.
You just managed to insult me. I've had Electronics and Engineering 5 for much more than a year now. And you are aware that defenders means the one of the other ships offensive modules are not attacking you? And you're also aware that Cruise Missiles hit frigates way too easy? Oh, and Torps take no less than three defenders to take down, perhaps train for it?
Raven and Scorp are perhaps the most easy ships to fit to an effective level, although the Scorp will not do very much damage, it's still the only ship in the game with more than 6 med slots.
--
If TC causes you discomfort that you feel is unwarranted or may be outside TC's current contract - contact me, please. |
StiZum Hilidii
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 21:35:00 -
[60]
fine change ew but change scrambling and you mess up the game completely. tackler frigs make this game what it is, it makes people use mixed fleets in combat.
a well ballanced fleet has bs and support. cruisers and frigs in the suppot either keep their bs clear of support or go in on the enemy.
i mean its hard enough as it is to get at an enemy bs from a distance with the mwd making your sig huge and peeople hitting you dead on, you need to approach in certain ways to get close. its fine the way it is
STAN
FACTA NON VERBA |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |