Just an idea to cut down on the ganking

All other Ewar is, your damps don't always land.

What I mean is what if we make scram chance be a skill based thing, and also depend on modules installed and meta of the modules.

For example:

-Different metas have higher chance
-low slot modules to increase chance

So:

This makes a gank boat the opposite of a warp stabbed care bear ship. where the person who wants to not be ganked has to sacrifice targeting AND low slot tank, a ganker would have to at least sacrifice some tank

I mean heck, so frigs can still work give all frigates a bonus to warp scram and disrupt chance so they can still fit a good tank

Just an idea to cut down on the ganking, make it a little more skill based to go tackle somebody rather then just fly close lock and click

points are such an important part of pvp that i would probably stop playing as soon they work like ECM. There is no room for random in a competitive environment.

wow I poked a beehive on this one...nice discussion of flame here

so much for rational discourse

adhominim away!

You posted something exceptionally stupid and expected people to not come out of the woodworks to call you out on it?

Then they would have to be 100% effective, not offer degradation like they do now.

The reason ECM is chance-based is because it only has two states: either you can lock or you can't. So to create different degrees of effect, they employ chance and statistics GÇö you are only locked out x% of the time, rather than having your locking ability be reduced by x%.

Compare this to other ewar: TPs makes you a certain percentage easier to hit, not a guaranteed hit for a certain percentage of the time; TDs reduces your guns' hit chance and range by a certain percentage, rather than simply make a percentage of your shots misses, no matter what the circumstances are.

Or, to use a more closely related module, if you wanted webs to be chance based, they would have to instantly reduce your speed to 0 for a percentage of the time, rather than reduce the speed by some percentage all the time. So by the same token, scrams and disruptors would have to apply infinite scram strength a percentage of the time, rather than just reduce your warp stability by a point or three all the time.

Of course, since degraded performance is a far better mechanism than a binary one with only statistic gradation, the module you are trying to use as a template is actually the one that should be changed so it works like all other typesGǪ


In short, hell no.

Then they would have to be 100% effective, not offer degradation like they do now.

The reason ECM is chance-based is because it only has two states: either you can lock or you can't. So to create different degrees of effect, they employ chance and statistics GÇö you are only locked out x% of the time, rather than having your locking ability be reduced by x%.

Compare this to other ewar: TPs makes you a certain percentage easier to hit, not a guaranteed hit for a certain percentage of the time; TDs reduces your guns' hit chance and range by a certain percentage, rather than simply make a percentage of your shots misses, no matter what the circumstances are.

Or, to use a more closely related module, if you wanted webs to be chance based, they would have to instantly reduce your speed to 0 for a percentage of the time, rather than reduce the speed by some percentage all the time. So by the same token, scrams and disruptors would have to apply infinite scram strength a percentage of the time, rather than just reduce your warp stability by a point or three all the time.

Of course, since degraded performance is a far better mechanism than a binary one with only statistic gradation, the module you are trying to use as a template is actually the one that should be changed so it works like all other typesGǪ


In short, hell no.

I don't think it's stupid really. to me i makes sense. everything else has a skill attached to it for hit chance, so why not this?

how about something like:
80% chance to point. If pointed then good done....If not...reroll until pointed
have skills and modules increase this. lower cycle time for rerolls to balance accordingly

wow I poked a beehive on this one...nice discussion of flame here

so much for rational discourse

adhominim away!

Because nothing else has a skill attached to it for hit chance with the exception of ECM, so really, it's ECM that should be brought into the fold rather than have its horrible mechanics spread to other modules.

How about something like this:
100% chance to point.
Have skills and modules that let you apply this chance farther out, like with all other ewar (except that one type that is horribly designed).

thats not bad, lower the range a bit and allow modules.

No. Just add falloff on top of the range, like with everything else. So 24km optimal, 25km falloff for a T2 disruptor. 10+12 for a T2 scram.

Can't wait to fly my Lachesis, applying 3-point scrambling out to 85km.


GǪor just leave it because there's no real reason to change it to begin with.

All other Ewar is, your damps don't always land.

What I mean is what if we make scram chance be a skill based thing, and also depend on modules installed and meta of the modules.

For example:

-Different metas have higher chance
-low slot modules to increase chance

wow I poked a beehive on this one...nice discussion of flame here

so much for rational discourse

adhominim away!

falloff would be interesting...yeah but I would more mean something like:

20KM falloff for a disrupt (maybe 25+ for a TechII)
10KM 100% chance optimal

points are such an important part of pvp that i would probably stop playing as soon they work like ECM. There is no room for random in a competitive environment.

What if? Well, it'd be a f*** awful idea.

What if mining laser yields were chance based?

What if mission rewards were chance based?

What if getting the actual finished product after an industry job cycle was chanced based?

What if getting the listed bounty on the juicy rat in null was chance based?

What if receiving the item you just bought from the market was chance based?

I mean, invention stuff is chance based, so it makes sense right?

You sure don't sound like a Brave Newbie, I hope they kick you for posting this drivel.

Cut down on the ganking? That sounds brave.

I don't gank often, but when I do, I don't even need a disruptor or scrambler

You posted something exceptionally stupid and expected people to not come out of the woodworks to call you out on it?

thats not bad, lower the range a bit and allow modules.

It's a thought yeah

The OP wasn't exceptionally stupid. It was exceptionally threatening to the way you currently play the game. There is a huge difference between those two things and knowing and accepting the difference is one of the key differences between being a child and being an adult.
He said something you didn't like so you're throwing a tantrum. He's not stupid.

...

On topic: without interdiction, how would people with more skillpoints/"friends" be able to hold your spaceship down, beat you up, and take all your stuff? And, if they couldn't hold you down, beat you up, and take your stuff, then what point would there be to playing EVE Online?

So what If warp scram and warp disruption was chance based?

I'm talking skill based not random here.

If a Rapier jumps in on them...well you can't always say toodles because A. It's likely faster than you B. It's got waaay more DPS than you and C: he's got more skills and snakes in his head. So it goes blap blap easy kill for the vet with little risk

so it suits YOUR PvP, but everyone elses has to suffer?

small scale PvP exists. it is very tactical, which means pilot skill is a very big deal. this proposal takes away from that. and no, small scale PvP does not just mean a skilled player ganking a noob or indy pilot. Small scale PvP can happen in a variety of ways, consensual and un-consensual.

in this very example ur talkin about a player with a lot of skills attacking someone with fewer skills. but have somehow missed that under ur propsal this high skilled player will have an overwhelmingly better chance of holding point over the lesser skilled player. so the newer player has even LESS of a chance to fight back and the older player has even LESS risk because even when the newer player tries to tackle him, he still has a better chance of escaping than the noob.

all ur idea hopes to achieve is to allow ppl who dnt want to fight to escape more easily. and ur pushing this despite the obvious flaws of:

1) giving even more power to vets
2) ruining noob tackling
3) lessening the power of good tactical play.

if u really want ur attackers point to work by chance, use ECM drones...

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.

wow I poked a beehive on this one...nice discussion of flame here

so much for rational discourse

adhominim away!

Most successful gankers bring overwhelming force to an engagement. A new player can't just decline to fight that attack, or many times have a very good chance to escape.

how about something like:
80% chance to point. If pointed then good done....If not...reroll until pointed
have skills and modules increase this. lower cycle time for rerolls to balance accordingly

The best way to defend against getting warp scrambled/disrupted is being smart about how you fly your ship and be awake.

Did you mean to say "so it suits YOUR PVP, but I have to suffer?"?

How does targeting -> activating interdiction module equate to skill? And, what do you mean by "tactical"? There are many different tactics even for the same exact ship, letalone entire fleets.

1)How does a new player having to sit there and tank damage FOREVER empower them? You seem to be painting a picture of some new Golden Boy player running up on a savvy low sec pirate and holding him down while barely managing to whittle down his tank and avoid the pirate's fleet/corp/alliance mates, and that's a cool story, but maybe you should log in and play the game to see how that ACTUALLY plays out. Then you might change your opinion.
2)Noobs don't make good tacklers, not even with the current mechanics. They're cannon fodder, very useful cannon fodder performing an invaluable function, but . . . I don't see how they would fare any worse than they do now. The only difference would be that their extra warp disrupt cycles might actually matter and losing them might actually turn the tide of a fight. As it is now, they tend to run up and tackle something for long enough to allow other players to get onto grid. Then they usually explode inconsequentially. If interdiction were chance based, teaching/helping them to stay alive might become an actual priority, because it would increase the odds of maintaining points on the target.
3)"Tactical" play involves using tactics. If every "tactic" involves warp scrambling/disrupting/interdicting your opponent, that might be an indication that interdiction is very heavily weighted in the game, some might even say imbalanced.

If someone wants to fly their internet spaceship around, why shouldn't they be able to just because you say so? Why should they have to carry around such specialized equipment as ECM drones to do that? (Not every ship has a drone bay and not every noob can use ECM drones.) Shouldn't the burden be on the person trying to stop them? And, how much of a burden should stopping someone be? Have you ever tried to stop someone from running away? How about someone bigger? How about a horse? A truck? A freight train?

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 think that somewhere in MMO history, some dev got pissed off that he couldn't catch and pwn some frisky player and decided he would put in a snare mechanic so that he didn't have to. And now it is standard for every MMO to put mechanics in place to make players "fight honorably" by not moving/running away.

[quote=Daichi Yamato]

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 think that somewhere in MMO history, some dev got pissed off that he couldn't catch and pwn some frisky player and decided he would put in a snare mechanic so that he didn't have to. And now it is standard for every MMO to put mechanics in place to make players "fight honorably" by not moving/running away.

The Op was referring to one type of PvP, fleet fights. The vast majority of other PvP uses points, and that is what i was referring to. u fall so short of making a decent retort.

pilot skill is a thing,

if there was no point, anyone could warp away the second they feel like they are losing. it is essential to prevent someones escape if u cannot alpha them in an instant.

the burden IS on the attacker, he must fit a point . . . the defender can fit warp core stabs to counter it.

I just re-read the original post and it doesn't seem to be specifically referring to large fleet engagements.
Also, the "vast majority" of other PVP is probably overstating it. I've been 1-shotted enough times to know that a point isn't ALWAYS necessary. The only question is: How often is it necessary? I don't think the answer to that question is "the vast majority of times", but I concede it may very well be a majority.

Pilot skill is definitely a "thing", but skillpoints are also a thing. Luck is also a thing. Numbers are also a thing. Equipment is also a thing. I am reminded of the verse in Ecclesiastes: "I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

"player skill" is a great, feel-good narrative for people to tell themselves every time they get a kill. However, unless CCP has made a supernaturally fair and well balanced, perfect game, the "player skill" narrative is not an entirely accurate representation of why engagements are won or lost. Sorry.

So? Are you familiar with the term "guerilla warfare"? In guerilla warfare, you don't even wait to start losing. You just sneak up on them. Hit them as hard as you possibly can. Then, you **** off. With things like cruise missiles and sniper rifles and artillery and land mines, you don't even need to get away, because you are so far away to begin with when the strike is delivered, that you are essentially pre-gone.

This idea that your opponent should be forced by game mechanics to stand there and duke it out with you is bewildering to me, honestly, and I think it stems from people's sense of entitlement to being in a "fair" circumstance.
So, but, WHY should a gazelle have to stand and fight a lion? WHY should a Mig 29 have to dogfight an F-15? WHY should that bank robber have to take on a city's entire police force? WHY should that pawn be able to disable the queen? And, how easily?