EVE Search - New warp scramblers

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

New warp scramblers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Elaine Threepwood	Posted - 2005.03.07 22:19:00 - [1] OK, I know I'm a bit late on testing these out but hey... Been testing the new scramblers out tonight against battleships after getting fed up with how many people seemed to be warping away from me while scrambled on the test server. I had 20 tries, against an apoc a geddon and a raven, none of them had WCS fitted, i was using a short range (high strength) warp scrambler, orbitting at 2.5km. The longest I managed to hold any of them was for 4 full cycles of the scrambler - that's 150 seconds (2m30). Average was 1.55 cycles. I'm not much of a statistician so I won't try to convert these into percentages for you . So, I guess the new scrambler physics are totally in place now on SiSi? If so... what do people think of this change now we have some numbers? If anybody is interested, the raw data was: number of succesful cycles before a failure (number of times out of 20 tries it happened) 0 (7) 1 (2) 2 (7) 3 (1) 4 (3)
Shayla Sh'inlux	Posted - 2005.03.07 22:25:00 - [2] If that's the data, warp scramblers will be pretty much useless... I can only imagine what happens when they DID have a Stabiliser fitted. One failure is enough to allow a warp-out. I still don't get what's wrong with webbers and scramblers in the first place... ------------------------------------------------------- "Do you really think that's air you're breathing?"
Nybbas	Posted - 2005.03.07 22:26:00 - [3] Yeah me neither, why change webbers and scramblers : / i mean at LEAST make them 100% effective within their optimal range : /
Eyeshadow	Posted - 2005.03.07 22:43:00 - [4] ew changes = yes propulsion changes = HELL NO please dont make holding someone based on chance. The current propulsion jamming works well and it needs to stay at 100% or not imo Forums: Sharks - MC
Slarty Bardfast	Posted - 2005.03.07 22:48:00 - [5] I cannot for the life of me find any reason for these changes. From my own testing on Singularity, ships with no warp core stabs happily warp away around half the time, when scrambled with a short range scrambler. And since this is with Singularity skills, 15 million in electronics and completely maxed out in relation to new propulsion changes, it's quite frankly bull****.
MrFu	Posted - 2005.03.07 23:02:00 - [6] Quote: I cannot for the life of me find any reason for these changes. Me neither,as if warp cores werent enough I dont get it,why not fix the current stuff instead of complicating the actual,because its just fine as it is atm.
Meridius	Posted - 2005.03.07 23:03:00 - [7] New 18km wonder webs with 9km falloff = The end of blasterthrons and pretty much the wrecker of pvp as it is. ________________________________________________________
Dust Puppy	Posted - 2005.03.08 00:07:00 - [8] Edited by: Dust Puppy on 08/03/2005 00:07:36 Originally by: Elaine Threepwood OK, I know I'm a bit late on testing these out but hey... Been testing the new scramblers out tonight against battleships after getting fed up with how many people seemed to be warping away from me while scrambled on the test server. I had 20 tries, against an apoc a geddon and a raven, none of them had WCS fitted, i was using a short range (high strength) warp scrambler, orbitting at 2.5km. The longest I managed to hold any of them was for 4 full cycles of the scrambler - that's 150 seconds (2m30). Average was 1.55 cycles. I'm not much of a statistician so I won't try to convert these into percentages for you . So, I guess the new scrambler physics are totally in place now on SiSi? If so... what do people think of this change now we have some numbers? If anybody is interested, the raw data was: number of succesful cycles before a failure (number of times out of 20 tries it happened) 0 (7) 1 (2) 2 (7) 3 (1) 4 (3) 1.55 cycles is not very much admittedly especially considering you have the strongest scramblers in game. Then there is the question should you be able to hold down a battleships with one scrambler? How long is that cycle btw? If you held one for four cycles then it would suggest that you have a 37.5 second cycle time. So two successfull scrambles would scramble for over one minute which I think is pretty decent for one scrambler. __________ Capacitor research
Grut	Posted - 2005.03.08 00:20:00 - [9] Originally by: Meridius New 18km wonder webs with 9km falloff = The end of blasterthrons and pretty much the wrecker of pvp as it is. kills frigs and closerange setups scares me that the devs would even think of trying it out Mostly harmless
DrunkenOne	Posted - 2005.03.08 00:25:00 - [10] Probably the worst changes the devs have ever come up with. This doesn't just nerf a race, or a ship class, it basically completely changes every single ship in the game. Was ANYONE asking for these changes? People asked for EW changes, not propulsion. Scrambs/webs ARE NOT the same as damps.

Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.08 00:33:00 - [11] as far as I know, TomB agrees that warp scramblers and webs shouldn't become any less effective.. at least that's the impression I got tho then why did he nerf from 75 to 50%.. anyway, if scramblers aren't working well against ships that doesn't even carry warp core stabs, I'm sure the devs will fix it. Lets just hope this bug won't be one of the many that make it into the final patch
Hast	Posted - 2005.03.08 00:35:00 - [12] I got the answer to all this changes, and sadly it is ganking... just lay as much firepower on a ship before it warps away good change? I dont think so, but I'll let you make up your own minds...
RollinDutchMasters	Posted - 2005.03.08 00:37:00 - [13] Originally by: Meridius New 18km wonder webs with 9km falloff = The end of blasterthrons and pretty much the wrecker of pvp as it is. Blasterthrons have had one foot in the grave for months anyway. If these changes work as people have been telling me (I havent tested them on SiSi), then they just shot blasterthrons in the head and buried them under 6 feet of lime. Originally by: Sochin CCP has provided you with the tools you need to avoid crime. You're just too lazy/stupid to use them.
Parallax Error	Posted - 2005.03.08 00:40:00 - [14] I could have sworn that warp jammers were supposed to be 100% effective inside the optimal range.......
Meridius	Posted - 2005.03.08 00:42:00 - [15] Originally by: RollinDutchMasters Originally by: Meridius New 18km wonder webs with 9km falloff = The end of blasterthrons and pretty much the wrecker of pvp as it is. Blasterthrons have had one foot in the grave for months anyway. If these changes work as people have been telling me (I havent tested them on SiSi), then they just shot blasterthrons in the head and buried them under 6 feet of lime. I killed a blasterthron at 16km with a tachpoc. Laugh? These web changes are ******* ridiculous. ________________________________________________________
Zanthiuse	Posted - 2005.03.08 01:02:00 - [16] alright, i'm agreeing that this is ridiculous. EW, yes, propulsion, no. Here is a list of things that are nerfed/ruined by the propulsion changes that were just fine or already nerfed... -Blasters -Autocannons -Frigates (vs everything) -Cruisers (vs battleship) -Drones. So, yeah, you can use em from far away, but you pritty much need to be close in. -Solo pvp -Gang pvp (fleet pvp is pritty much unchanged except to make it not a possibility to use certain ships rather than just stupid to use them) -Belt piracy. I love pirating in belts. I do NOT want to buy a bs and gank at gates. EVER! Here is what it buffs... -Long range ships (weren't they already just freaking fine?) -Anybody who wants to avoid pvp -1337 h@x0rz (omg! yu cant ccatch me dumb n00bl@r!!!1111 i am t3h w1n!!!111) -Cruisers (vs frigs) -Battleships (vs everything) So, look at those lists, i'm sure i've left stuff out on both sides, but i think you all get the point. Another main concern is that this is the end of ransom piracy. There is no question about that. This pushes us even FURTHER towards ganking. I don't want to gank. I think it's stupid. But soon i will have to chose between it and....mining... Please ccp, i will support your descisions, but this just goes against all logic. You are compleatly changing how fighting works. Either don't make the propulsion changes, or overhaul the entire system. Does anybody actually want these changes? I have yet to see anybody say they want these changes. ____________________________ Waiting to cut out the deadwood. Waiting to clean up the city. Waiting to follow the worms.
Weirda	Posted - 2005.03.08 01:23:00 - [17] Weirda don't mind being Webbed/Scrambled (under the current rules) at all... IWHO all that was necessary was the ability for us to have a chance not to be completely target jammed (without hope)... Hopefully they rethink the propultion stuff... Or at least do the EW changes in 2 stages, leaving propultion for second, then never getting around to it! Sheesh... Agreeing with Merdius and Pirates all in the same post... this may spell the end of Weirda! -- Thread Killer <END TRANSMISSION>
Cummilla	Posted - 2005.03.08 01:29:00 - [18] Originally by: Shayla Sh'inlux If that's the data, warp scramblers will be pretty much useless... I can only imagine what happens when they DID have a Stabiliser fitted. One failure is enough to allow a warp-out. I still don't get what's wrong with webbers and scramblers in the first place... Amen. Tomb can't answer basic questions like these. It's the "if it aint broken" deal and that logic is evading CCP atm.
RollinDutchMasters	Posted - 2005.03.08 01:46:00 - [19] The new warp scrambler mechanics would work fine if once you got a hit, the target was held for X amount of time, modified perhaps by WCS. Say something like 2-3 minutes. As it is, all someone has to do is ctrl+q and they'll either be out for sure at 2 minutes or they'll probably get out after the first cycle or two. Yeah, new game mechanics that encourage logging even more are fun for the whole family, assuming theyre all in comas. Originally by: Sochin CCP has provided you with the tools you need to avoid crime. You're just too lazy/stupid to use them.
Altai Saker	Posted - 2005.03.08 01:49:00 - [20] The web changes make it impossible to tackle in a frig... you start approaching a bs at an angle, it locks you, webs you you know are going about 500ms wiht the sig radius of a cruisers, guns hit you, you die instantly. Inty Combat: Crow webs you at 25km and orbits you outside your lock range, kills you... unless you are fast, in which case the web doesnt slow you enough for the crows missiles to hit you. Taranis with dual webs, and ions rapes any other inty before it knows exactly whats going on, which is neat... Crusader also, can't stay out of web range on a taranis, and has to get close anyways, so the taranis closes the short gap, and ownes the crusader... Crow just stays out of guns range. Amarr frigs are now irrellevant in pvp, the taranis is the ultimate killer ceptor, and the stilletto is still the best tackler... asfrig get a good boost though, no more smartass inty orbiting you out of web range, web him, hit him with some volleys, inty down ;p

Zanthiuse	Posted - 2005.03.08 01:59:00 - [21] hmm, thinking about it, this helps pulse lasers users in cruisers and bs quite alot. Since they are med range. The new webs will be perfect for keeping people at op, so this will reverse the pulse laser op range nerf. ____________________________ Waiting to cut out the deadwood. Waiting to clean up the city. Waiting to follow the worms.
Mikelangelo	Posted - 2005.03.08 02:26:00 - [22] Sadly, from a purely statistical point of view, you are better off going with multiple, weaker strength scramblers then only one higher strength one. That way, you generate more "scrambling rolls", one for each scrambler. Better yet, go with one high strength generic, and one race specific one (for example). Let's face it, new features are just an opportunity for new bugs, as far as pure programming is concerned. And, CCP's implementation of "new features without bugs" has been more of the "bugs with features" type, rather than the other way around.
Ukiah	Posted - 2005.03.08 04:21:00 - [23] Heh. It's so comforting to know I'm not alone. I've only been pvp'ing a year and 99% of that time has been spent in a tackle frigate. At first, because it was what was needed by my corp and because it's a cheap way to learn pvp. Somewhere along the way, it dawned on me that I got off tackling ships. I now beg my corpmates to let me tackle. It's caused consternation sometimes, because with my total skillpoints, I should be in a BS from their point of view. But tackling is FUN. Anyway, yeah, just when I think I've seen the most assinine change possible, the devs turn right around and surprise me. They'll say that the increased hp change they want to put in will counteract close range setups and tacklers. All that will do is one of two things: A) prolong the inevitable or B) as someone else mentioned, this change is a primer for more logoffs mid fight. But it's interesting. Things are coming full circle. They nerfed the **** outta the 1400s so everyone mothballed their Tempests and bought Apocs. This change is going to reverse that trend. I'm actually contemplating training up the minmatar ship line and projectile weapons. Can anyone say massed fire from a fleet of tempests for teh win?
Dr Derek	Posted - 2005.03.08 04:35:00 - [24] leave scrambler and web alone, maybe a little cap use increase but nothing else please! "if you can't beat em, join em"
Zanthiuse	Posted - 2005.03.08 05:37:00 - [25] wait, they are still considering those hp changes, along with all this? gags...uhhg, where'd i put that rat poison.... ____________________________ Waiting to cut out the deadwood. Waiting to clean up the city. Waiting to follow the worms.
slip66	Posted - 2005.03.08 05:52:00 - [26] none of these changes were really necessary is whats the most anoying part. I think the EW changes are more of a excuse to implement new pvp skills. So pvpers have something to train and new find new "tricks" to EW & propulsion jamming
Elaine Threepwood	Posted - 2005.03.08 05:53:00 - [27] Originally by: Dust Puppy 1.55 cycles is not very much admittedly especially considering you have the strongest scramblers in game. Then there is the question should you be able to hold down a battleships with one scrambler? How long is that cycle btw? If you held one for four cycles then it would suggest that you have a 37.5 second cycle time. So two successfull scrambles would scramble for over one minute which I think is pretty decent for one scrambler. As for should one scrambler hold a bs... I don't know, I guess that depends what the devs want? I'd like that it can since you are giving up a slot to hold that bs, would be nice if they have to give up a slot too to defend against it, but if this is what they really want I'll just adapt to it. Guess I can't effectively tackle in a Rifter anymore though. Yes you are right, it's a 37.5 second cycle, however 1 minute isn't long enough to kill a tanked battleship alone in anything I fly, means I'll probably have to start fitting 2 scramblers... oh well I didn't need that cap anyway Also as somebody else mentioned, this is the final nail in the coffin of ransoming, I know with this chance system I'll never bother to open a dialogue again. Not that I mind so much, blowing up ships is fun
Altai Saker	Posted - 2005.03.08 07:19:00 - [28] That brings us to another point... The fact that small ships wont deal enough dmg to take down a bs before it can warp out encourages large blobs and gank setup bs...
Gierling	Posted - 2005.03.08 07:30:00 - [29] Realistically if it takes all your lows to get away from scrambling (thus gimping your setup) It should take all of your mids to Force someone to stay and fight (Thus gimping your setup). Bastards we are lest Bastards we become.
Zanthiuse	Posted - 2005.03.08 07:36:00 - [30] Originally by: Gierling Realistically if it takes all your lows to get away from scrambling (thus gimping your setup) It should take all of your mids to Force someone to stay and fight (Thus gimping your setup). That would be true, if you needed all your lows, but you only need one or two. Also, saying that this isn't true because stabs only do +1 and scrams have a strength of two doesn't work because on average ships have more low slots. Also, scrams have limited range and take cap. ____________________________ Waiting to cut out the deadwood. Waiting to clean up the city. Waiting to follow the worms.



Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.