Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 14 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2116
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 18:17:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hello everyone. Another set of changes to get feedback on for Retri. Since we're adjusting so many ewar ships between the disruption frigates and disruption cruisers, we saw the need to make some moderate adjustments to the modules as well as to other ewar ships to keep them competitive.
The reason these are being revealed near the end of our feature announcements is that we were investigating options for a more comprehensive ECM rebalance, however that will not be able to make it into Retribution. These changes are not the final solution for ewar by a long shot, they are incremental changes that will build towards the more complete changes we would like to make to the mechanics.
Here's what we currently have on our plate for Retribution:
ECM *Reduce Optimal Range and Falloff of all ECM modules by 10% *Add to the Optimal Range and Falloff bonus on ECM range bonused ships by 2.5% for the Blackbird and Tengu Obfuscation Manifold (bringing it to 12.5%) and 5% for the Scorpion (bringing it to 25%) *Add four new racial sensor compensation skills that increase each type of Sensor Strength by 5% per level (Requires Electronics 4, rank 3 skills in the Electronics category)
Damps *Increase Optimal Range of all Remote Sensor Dampeners by 20% *Set the Damp strength bonus on Damp bonused ships to 7.5% per level
Tracking Disruptors *Reduce TD base module effectiveness by 5% *Set the TD strength bonus on all TD bonused ships to 7.5% per level
Target Painter *Set the TP strength bonus on TP bonused ships to 7.5% per level for T1 and 10% per level for T2
We are aware of the effect the new skills will have on probing, and we're going to be keeping our eyes on it and have a few tricks up our sleeve in that regard.
We also want to reiterate that we are not looking at these ecm changes as a complete solution to the problems with that mechanic. It's a moderate change that we can make with the resources available for this expansion and that won't get in the way of our more comprehensive changes down the road. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
177
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 18:23:00 -
[2] - Quote
FIRST
Confirming good!
I like how a scorp will still be badass despite the range nerfs on unbonused ECM. I really appreciate that because scorps are such awesome ships to look at and should always be great at ECMing.
Also like the new rank 3 skills for sensor strength, they will be oh-so great for solo work.
(The scorp should always stay at the level its currently at, if not get better, because it's quite a commitment to be flying a scorp, and it can't just appear out of nowhere and screw up solo fights as easily as other boats. It's a great ship and really oriented to fleet stuff so I hope it won't become bad with the ECM changes.) |
Goldensaver
Vorbild Industries Inc.
79
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 18:28:00 -
[3] - Quote
YES!
Nerfing TD's!
Also, I like the thought of being able to skill up to be more resilient against ECM. That's going to be nice. The range nerfs also aren't bad, that'll be nice to force them to be a little closer.
I like that Damps are getting fixed... but they can be really farking annoying. Unlike ECM, they almost never miss.
The TP's are nice. Still not as useful as other Ewars in most situations, but when they do get used, they'll actually get used to better effect now. No complaints there. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1004
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 18:30:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:These changes are not the final solution for ewar by a long shot. An interesting choice of words :xd:
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. |
Jon Joringer
Zero-K
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 18:34:00 -
[5] - Quote
I'll be honest and say I'm not too familiar with how greatly these percentages will change the in-game effectiveness of these modules, but the changes certainly seem to be on the right track. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1004
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 18:42:00 -
[6] - Quote
Dropping the range of ECM and increasing the range of damps is an interesting thematic tweak and I think it has merit - Gallente ships get a counter to the sniping focus of their traditional Caldari foes, whilst ECM becomes more about countering the short ranged gankwagons that represent the archetypical Gallente vessel, rather than countering everything.
If anything you might want to take this further - drop ECM optimal significantly and leave the falloff untouched, so that ECM is more focused against point-blank gankwagons and of diminishing value against even mid-ranged targets. Of course, you might also need to look at further incentivising those point-blank gankwagons in the first place...
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. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
696
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 18:43:00 -
[7] - Quote
So scripted TD will be at 40% rather then 50% on unbonused ships? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2116
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 18:48:00 -
[8] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:So scripted TD will be at 40% rather then 50% on unbonused ships?
47.5%. Multiply the effectiveness by 0.95, rather than subtract 5. I'll see if I can clarify the wording. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
89
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 18:51:00 -
[9] - Quote
@CCP Fozzie why can't the scorp/all bs be a proper battleship and actually focus on killing stuff instead? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2116
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 18:52:00 -
[10] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:@CCP Fozzie why can't the scorp/all bs be a proper battleship and actually focus on killing stuff instead?
We have a bunch of long term plans for battleships, but in general we are ok with the unsual role the Scorp plays. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
Lili Lu
575
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 18:56:00 -
[11] - Quote
Thanks for these changes Fozzie. ANd as you say the whole thing is a work in progress. Also, I'd like to think I was the originator of the sensor integrity skills idea, but I honestly can't remember if I promoted the idea after reading someone else's suggestion for it way back when. Regardless, this addition evens the situation accross ewars. The only thing that would be missing at this point would be a skill for decreasing one's own signature radius, which could also only be effective if one is painted. But painting is still the weakest ewar so not a significant issue.
Goldensaver wrote:YES!
Nerfing TD's!
Also, I like the thought of being able to skill up to be more resilient against ECM. That's going to be nice. The range nerfs also aren't bad, that'll be nice to force them to be a little closer.
I like that Damps are getting fixed... but they can be really farking annoying. Unlike ECM, they almost never miss.
The TP's are nice. Still not as useful as other Ewars in most situations, but when they do get used, they'll actually get used to better effect now. No complaints there.
Agreed with TDs. Not sure if the 5% reduction is enough to stem the recent heavy use of unbonused TDs on ships with plentiful midslots. But at least it is something.
As for damps, and I have an alt that specs in it, I'm somewhat surprised by the optimal bonus. I almost figured a falloff range bonus would be more apprpriate, but I'll take the optimal bonus. The extensive falloff on damps operates as their chance component. But the current max skill ranges for a damp II are 45km opt and 90km falloff. How exactly is that 20% optimal buff going to affect that? will it be 54km optimal now?
edit - and ditto for wondering how the 5% TD reduction will exactly operate. Will it be the actual reduction in the percent of optimal or taracking disruption? or is it the percent change to be applied as a multiplier of the current strength? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
89
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 18:57:00 -
[12] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:@CCP Fozzie why can't the scorp/all bs be a proper battleship and actually focus on killing stuff instead? We have a bunch of long term plans for battleships, but in general we are ok with the unsual role the Scorp plays.
You don't think its range and tank are too much for a e-war ship?
|
Gripen
1101
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 18:58:00 -
[13] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, It would be great if you could comment on why are you doing changes and what you're trying to archieve with them because without such explanations changes may look like nonsense to some people. You know, like some other game companies do when announcing balance changes. |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates Nyanpire
188
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 18:59:00 -
[14] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: *Add four new racial sensor compensation skills that increase each type of Sensor Strength by 5% per level (Requires Electronics 4, rank 3 skills in the Electronics category)
Oh Hell yes.
|
Bizmarhk
Mafia Redux
36
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 19:01:00 -
[15] - Quote
This is great to read, and nice first step in the right direction of fixing the unbalanced thing that is ECM. Even though you wanted to do more, I think it's good to take incremental steps in addressing this issue, and many other issues within EVE. I'm excited to see how the field changes, more namely small gang PVP with the proposed changes.
Great work CCP Fozzie |
Arydanika
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 19:01:00 -
[16] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone. Another set of changes to get feedback on for Retri.
CCP Fozzie wrote:These changes are not the final solution for ewar by a long shot, they are incremental changes that will build towards the more complete changes we would like to make to the mechanics.
CCP Fozzie wrote:It's a moderate change that we can make with the resources available for this expansion and that won't get in the way of our more comprehensive changes down the road.
It's great to see developers moving towards small, incremental iterations rather than dipping an entire mechanic in acid and watching it crumbled to dust. This is a great few steps towards the balance of ECM and I'm looking forward to the moderate approach being continued. When can players expect these changes to be loaded to Buckingham for testing?
Gripen wrote:CCP Fozzie, It would be great if you could comment on why are you doing changes and what you're trying to archieve with them because without such explanations changes may look like nonsense to some people. You know, like some other game companies do when announcing balance changes. I agree. Knowing the game plan and goals for a balance change can increase the relevancy of feedback. Voices from the Void; a bi-weekly podcast and weekly news vlog featuring current events of the MMORPG Eve Online. Check out other Eve Online podcasts by visiting the Eve Online Pod Pack. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
696
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 19:03:00 -
[17] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: *Add four new racial sensor compensation skills that increase each type of Sensor Strength by 5% per level (Requires Electronics 4, rank 3 skills in the Electronics category)
Oh Hell yes.
It would be cooler if a ship's sensor strength played into more then just ECM. |
fukier
Flatline.
92
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 19:07:00 -
[18] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:So scripted TD will be at 40% rather then 50% on unbonused ships? 47.5%. Multiply the effectiveness by 0.95, rather than subtract 5. I'll see if I can clarify the wording.
Still seems too high... I would prefer scripts to be only useable on bonused ships..
Make it a role bonus to use scripts. At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Azula Kishtar
Lonely among the Stars
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 19:09:00 -
[19] - Quote
Changes look ok at first glance. I like the added skills. More stuff to train for towards perfection is welcomed.
I highly doubt that the nerf to TDs will change much though. Alas, i remain confident that this first small increment is the first step to better balanced E-War. |
Goldensaver
Vorbild Industries Inc.
79
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 19:10:00 -
[20] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Thanks for these changes Fozzie. ANd as you say the whole thing is a work in progress. Also, I'd like to think I was the originator of the sensor integrity skills idea, but I honestly can't remember if I promoted the idea after reading someone else's suggestion for it way back when. Regardless, this addition evens the situation accross ewars. The only thing that would be missing at this point would be a skill for decreasing one's own signature radius, which could also only be effective if one is painted. But painting is still the weakest ewar so not a significant issue. Goldensaver wrote:YES!
Nerfing TD's!
Also, I like the thought of being able to skill up to be more resilient against ECM. That's going to be nice. The range nerfs also aren't bad, that'll be nice to force them to be a little closer.
I like that Damps are getting fixed... but they can be really farking annoying. Unlike ECM, they almost never miss.
The TP's are nice. Still not as useful as other Ewars in most situations, but when they do get used, they'll actually get used to better effect now. No complaints there. Agreed with TDs. Not sure if the 5% reduction is enough to stem the recent heavy use of unbonused TDs on ships with plentiful midslots. But at least it is something. As for damps, and I have an alt that specs in it, I'm somewhat surprised by the optimal bonus. I almost figured a falloff range bonus would be more apprpriate, but I'll take the optimal bonus. The extensive falloff on damps operates as their chance component. But the current max skill ranges for a damp II are 45km opt and 90km falloff. How exactly is that 20% optimal buff going to affect that? will it be 54km optimal now? edit - and ditto for wondering how the 5% TD reduction will exactly operate. Will it be the actual reduction in the percent of optimal or taracking disruption? or is it the percent change to be applied as a multiplier of the current strength?
Yeah, it's nice to see painting get a buff. It'll be effective in the situations where it actually gets fielded over the other EWar's now.
But I'm not sure if the TD nerf was enough either. I'd like to see it go the way of the dodo on unbonused ships, perhaps more base effectiveness nerfs, and more bonus buffs. You know, a la ECM?
It is strange that they decided to buff damp optimal, yeah. They've got great falloff, and I'd rather have seen them work with that. Of course, guaranteed damps are better, I guess. I do know that Damps are going to frustrate me a lot though. They're less chance based then ECM (assuming you have sufficient sensor strength to not get jammed 100% of the time), and it'll be frustrating to see my range cut down below my preferred engagement range. Of course, that is why they exist, so I shouldn't be complaining. But with the stacking penalties of locking range boosters, you can't even effectively counter damps after the first couple range scripted sebo's. Of course, it isn't a huge buff, so I'm probably over-reacting...
The ECM counter skills are a great idea if you ask me. I love the fact that you can skill up to counter ECM now. Not much more to say on that, now we'll see less permajams. Of course, ships with inherently low sensor strength are still going to suffer from almost-perma jams, regardless. |
|
Goldensaver
Vorbild Industries Inc.
79
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 19:11:00 -
[21] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:@CCP Fozzie why can't the scorp/all bs be a proper battleship and actually focus on killing stuff instead? We have a bunch of long term plans for battleships, but in general we are ok with the unsual role the Scorp plays. You don't think its range and tank are too much for a e-war ship? They did just nerf its range, you know.
Besides, tiericide man, it's going to change ALL the things. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
177
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 19:11:00 -
[22] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:@CCP Fozzie why can't the scorp/all bs be a proper battleship and actually focus on killing stuff instead? We have a bunch of long term plans for battleships, but in general we are ok with the unsual role the Scorp plays. You don't think its range and tank are too much for a e-war ship?
as a battleship and a pretty big commitment to a fight,
1. its tank is pretty horrible, nothing to write home about when armor tanked 2. its range is reasonable considering its horrid ability to stay at that range |
fukier
Flatline.
92
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 19:13:00 -
[23] - Quote
So does this mean unscanable tech iii is back? At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Goldensaver
Vorbild Industries Inc.
79
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 19:19:00 -
[24] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: *Add four new racial sensor compensation skills that increase each type of Sensor Strength by 5% per level (Requires Electronics 4, rank 3 skills in the Electronics category)
Oh Hell yes. It would be cooler if a ship's sensor strength played into more then just ECM.
Just saw this. I think it would be interesting to see sensor strength as a counter to the effectiveness of Sensor Damps. You could up the base power of Damps, and implement a formula that adjusts their strength downward in proportion to Sensor Strength. Thus, you can counter Sensor Damps by implementing a mix of ECCM and SeBo's into your build, but you have to have a lot of spare mids, or supporting logis to make a large effect on the strength of them.
I dunno. I just don't like how the only counter to Damps is a module that suffers heavy stacking penalties. |
Lili Lu
575
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 19:19:00 -
[25] - Quote
fukier wrote:So does this mean unscanable tech iii is back? Possibly at least for the first patch of Retribution. I suppose the followup patch may have changes to make those ships probe-able again. Or the long awaited off-grid booster mechanic abolition. Then the unprobability problem will matter much less. |
Tarsas Phage
Freight Club Touch Fiberoptic
104
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 19:22:00 -
[26] - Quote
ECM is currently the only EWAR (excluding neuts, nos) which does not have a stacking penalty associated with it. Damps, TPs, and TDs all get a stacking penalty applied against their net effect on a target.
Is or was a stacking penalty being applied to them ever under consideration in addition to the changes you outlined? And if so, would it also apply to ECM drones? |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3289
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 19:24:00 -
[27] - Quote
Stat tweaks are great, but I urge you to keep looking at the core ECM mechanic itself, rather than simply its application. I still love reducing jam length with sensor strength, bringing ECM into more of a lock-breaker role that can be combined with Scan resolution dampening to create a synergistic permajam effect that relies on player skill, not slot machine probability to be effective.
Making ECM drones break locks only would be a great place to start, as they'd be a nuisance at the 1 vs 1 level but not completely imbalance a fight, and could scale up to a fleet level where a CLOUD of drones can create the permajam effect, but not a simple wing of EC-300's.
I'd also look at the sensor damp drones at this time too, there might be a tweak or two there that can make them more viable and dovetail well with the rest of the iterations you're working on here.
Also, as we've discussed internally, you really need to address the scannability factor in conjunction with increasing sensor strength through skills, if thats the way you go. Having a penalty built into command links would be a great place to start, but command ships are by no means the only ships that people want to hide from probes, so please consider this if you must go with a skill buff so we're not fixing one problem only to create another. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1004
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 19:25:00 -
[28] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:It would be cooler if a ship's sensor strength played into more then just ECM.
I've had a concept floating around in my head for ages now for adapting the "jam strength vs sensor strength" mechanic that ECM uses and applying it to the other forms of primary racial e-war but never quite got to a stage where I could write it up properly.
Also, a link while we're on the subject of e-war: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1863090 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. |
HVAC Repairman
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
248
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 19:26:00 -
[29] - Quote
YOU'RE KILLING THE GAME FOZZIE Follow me on twitter |
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
99
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 19:38:00 -
[30] - Quote
I know you guys are scared shitless of implementing anything that will actually change the metagame, but c'mon
It takes years to get to this point? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |