Cerulean Ice
EVE University
Ivy League
42
   |
Posted - 2013.09.20 05:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
Most EWAR: As long as you are inside the module's optimal range, it is 100% effective at what it does. If you are outside optimal but inside falloff, it has reduced chance of working (very similar to turret falloff).
Additional for ECM: Rather than a percentage based effect, it compares the Jam Strength to the target's Sensor Strength. This creates a chance for the ECM to work, unless the Jam is stronger than the Sensor. ECM also has the falloff range to worry about.
Warp Jammers: These modules have no falloff. They only have an optimal range. This means they will always land within range, and have zero chance of working beyond that range. However, they also have a unique mechanic. Each warp jammer has a warp jamming strength, which is compared to the warp core strength of the target. It's all or nothing with it, meaning you must have more points of warp jamming than the target has warp core strength in order to prevent a warp.
Warp Scramblers: These specific warp jammers also disable microwarpdrives and microjumpdrives. They do this at the cost of range, thus making it a trade off.
Warp Jammer mechanics, oddly enough, are nearly identical to all other EWAR types already. They do a set effect (1 to 3 points of warp jamming, and scramblers also disable micro warp and micro jump), and it always works within their optimal range. ECM is the only ewar that is not guaranteed to work within optimal, since it compares strength for a chance based thing.
The only way I can see warp jammers working as chance based is to actually use the ECM method. If you have more jam than core strength, it is guaranteed to work (ECM is exactly the same; if the jam is stronger than the sensor it has 100% chance to work within optimal range). This would be exactly as it is now, but with one extra thing. Warp jammers would have a chance to prevent a warp even if the jam strength is less than the core strength. Now, it would likely cause issues with stacking points, since ECM doesn't stack with itself either (they're all calculated separately), and of course warp core stabilizers would have to be reworked to accommodate this.
All in all, this just over-complicates an already simple game mechanic. Leave the complicated maths for the turret accuracy calculations. Warp jammers work just fine as they are.
edit:
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:If you will, search your own personal knowledge base. Is there any equivalent to "tackling" anywhere in your memory of history, militarily, technologically, commercially, biologically? A lion cannot webify a gazelle. An F-15 cannot warp scramble a Mig 29. The police do not bubble a bank robber. A pawn cannot warp disrupt the opposing queen to keep it from moving across the board.
I so want to see police bubble a bank robber...
But, none of these are accurate metaphores. This is Internet Spaceships we're talking about. Internet Spaceships aren't lions, F-15s, police, or pawns... well, they can be pawns, but not chess board pawns. Wavy-hand science, the most important kind of science, can let us do anything.  |