Semkhet
   |
Posted - 2005.06.03 18:03:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Semkhet on 03/06/2005 18:04:54
I can't find any logic nor pertinence behind the concept of the proposed changes to ECM.
EVE is a futuristic space based game. Therefore, some aspects of the game like warping, mwd and shields may be implemented using the dev's fantasy because there is no real alternative. But for other things, let's face it, out of EVE, there's the real world. And in the real world, you already have all the knowledge related to ECM/ECCM systems. By no means should EVE faithfully implement those, but respecting basic scientific principles isn't too much asking.
And what are these principles ? That the performance of ECM/ECCM systems is based on deterministic physical electronic properties of emitters/receivers working with electromagnetic radiations. Nothing more, nothing less, and except solar storms or electronically charged particle clouds, no randomness whatsoever.
1) Against an unprotected target (= no sensor backup), or a target who doesen't have the correct ECCM at disposal, you only miss your ECM if your device blows up at activation. Now, where did u ever see a device functioning 25% of the time ? Not to speak about the utility to rely on something who will fail you 75% of the time).
For those who do mickey mouse statistics, when using 4 devices, 4x 25% = 4 SEPARATE occurrences where you have 75% chances to miss. In other words, even if the success is fairly distributed, you will still fail 3/4 of the time per single device activation. Now who tells you that chances are fairly distributed ? Not even the dev's can if they use a well designed pseudo-random number generator. And if they can, this means that the generator is more pseudo than random. Nothing may prevent you to fail even when loading 4 jammers, whose icon btw should be replaced by a dice pic if we want to remain coherent...
2) When a succesfull interaction on the same wavelength between ECM and ECCM takes place, it is the strongest device that wins. The signal strength is related to emission power, and causes a linear power drain. There is no need to relate the efficiency of the electronics to the size of the ship, but a relation to the powergrid, the cpu and cap consumption certainly should be established.
Going further, randomness in EVE should be limited to the fact that you don't know the setup of your opponent's ship nor its amount of accumulated skill points, and technically the turrets tracking limitations and maybe missiles who should'n hit all the time. That's already enough, and very realistic. Why ? Because EVE pretends to attract intelligent players. Now intelligent players don't like to depend of randomness, except maybe when playing strip-poker.
So, if you devs want to systematically turn EVE into a dice game, well, after all, it's your product. But don't forget that the reason why EVE is still around is because the game makes enough money. Now I sincerely doubt that an increasingly random game will attract or retain faithful players who look for complex entertainment.
Finally, do you analyse the pragmatic impact these nerfes cause to players ? Like it or not, because EVE is supposedly based on skills development, each time a player decides to learn a given skill, you are making money because it lengthens the game life-span from the player's perspective. Some skills may take many weeks to reach a decent level. I know you don't like to hear it, but 4 weeks = 1 month subscription also...
Therefore by downgrading ALREADY ADQUIRED skills, and introducing new ones to get the same previous efficiency in a given aspect of the game, are you aware that this means that you show no respect for the time and money players have spent on that matter ?
Now, this maybe is of little meaning for kiddies playing this game, but giving to mature players the impression they are simply wasting their real life ressources is certainly not the best way to assure a bright future to your business.
|