| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pelagiad
   |
Posted - 2006.06.09 17:44:00 -
[1]
There are alot of complaints about NOS, Webifiers, Warp Scramblers, Warp Core Stabs, ect. and I got to thinking why does this stuff work 100% of the time, shouldn't it be like ECM and have a % chance of failure?
Ships have a propulstion strength value, can't this value be used against a scramble to determine susccess or failure. So for instance your in ship X and it has a propulsion strenth of 5 and ship y uses a warp scrambler of strengh 1, the he has a 1 in 5 chance of scrambling you. This would reduce the number of WCS used I believe as they would not be so much a guarentee that you would not be able to be scrabled and would instead jut add to your propulsion strenght so ship x with 1 stab would have 1 in 6 chance against ship y instead of 1 in 5 without it.
Same with NOS, give the ships a cap recharge strength or someting to use as a value against the NOS. This way there could be skills/modules to counter or strenghten your chance to be sucessfull.
What do you think? Like it? NO? Tell me Why.
Pel.
[email protected] |
Shandling
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 17:46:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Shandling on 09/06/2006 17:45:42
 Originally by: Pelagiad
What do you think? Like it?
NO!
Originally by: Pelagiad
NO? Tell me Why.
Cause the developers balanced it this way.
|
Pelagiad
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 17:48:00 -
[3]
Your not getting away that easy, explain how its balanced if I use a NOS on you what are you gonna do? Use a NOS back? that's not balance, and skill does not play into NOS at all. or Webifier, or Warp Scrabmler, or WCS for that matter.
Pel.
[email protected] |
Elve Sorrow
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 17:59:00 -
[4]
Regarding Scramblers, look at it this way. Say, youre a pirate, going after some guy. You got him scrambled.
For the pirate to kill him, you will need to keep him scrambled 100% of the time. The victim only needs one failed cycle to get away.
Now, for some interesting maths. Say, you need one minute to kill your target. And our new chance-based warp scrambler has a 95% chance of working (And thus 5% of failing). Warp Scramblers/Disruptors have a cycle time of 5.00 seconds. You will need 12 consecutive succesfull cycles. The chance for that to happen is 0.95^12 = 0.54 Thats 54%!
And frankly, one minute is quite a conservative estimate. Unless you got a gankfleet next door, you will need longer. Hell, even with the gankfleet next door, it's likely the Scrambler is going to fail before they get there.
|
Pelagiad
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 18:02:00 -
[5]
So make the recycle time 20 sec. And the person being scambled would have to keep trying to warp away during the entire fight. After the 20 sec is up they would have to try again to know whether they were still scrabled or not. just like ECM. You have to keep retrying to get a lock.
Pel.
[email protected] |
Shandling
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 18:06:00 -
[6]
If you don't like getting scrambled, fit stabs.
NOS? The only counter is another NOS, or possibly a neutralizer if you're on a very low cap usage setup. But saying that's bad is kinda like saying...
"That's no fair, he's using weapons. If I want to kill him, I have to use weapons too!"
"That's no fair, he's tanked. If I want to kill him, I have to use some sort of tank too!"
As for webbers, well, I don't know what the problem with that is. :P You can counter that with speed mods.
|
Elve Sorrow
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 18:07:00 -
[7]
The maths was merely an example to show why it wont work. Let me quote the important bit again:
Originally by: Elve Sorrow
For the pirate to kill him, you will need to keep him scrambled 100% of the time. The victim only needs one failed cycle to get away.
|
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 18:16:00 -
[8]
Chance based scrambling is the worst idea ever. Elve is explaining well enough, so I don't need to.
|
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 18:22:00 -
[9]
This was attempted on the test server. It failed miserably. Thus it was not implemented.
--Proud member of the [23]--
-WTB Platinum Technite, WTS Nanotransistors, Heavy Electron II, 100mn AB II-
|
Pelagiad
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 18:22:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Pelagiad on 09/06/2006 18:22:49
So you would rather have 0% chance at scrambling some one with 2 WCS against a scrambler?
Your argument is only looking at the time of the scrambler, the timer can be lengthend or sortened as a way to balance it. Right now its stupid beyond words how its "balanced". The time could be as long as a few minutes or more with skills whatever it would take to get it balanced. What I'm saying now is that its all or nothing right now, its not skill based, and so it makes it not a very good design for a skill based game.
I think skill should play a much bigger part of the game. Especially in the propulsion jamming area, where there is no skill required at all, just fit the modules and you scramble them or they fit more modules than you did and they get away.
Pel.
[email protected] |
|
|
Pelagiad
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 18:24:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Pelagiad on 09/06/2006 18:25:45
Then there should never be another wine about WCS, I'm trying to elimiate the I fit more modules of one type than you did so I win, and bring skill into the game.
Pel.
[email protected] |
inSpirAcy
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 18:30:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Pelagiad
Then there should never be another wine about WCS, I'm trying to elimiate the I fit more modules of one type than you did so I win, and bring skill into the game.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but where does the skill come in? If modules are failing randomly, it's not there. It's not in the fitting because we're back to 'I fit more modules than you, so I have a higher chance of success'. Is it in the choice of ship one brings into a fight (bigger == better?)?
Or is it in the frantic mashing of the warp button to escape during a failed scramble cycle?
|
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 18:31:00 -
[13]
You are saying we should base it on pure chance and make it impossible to ever get a kill, and you call it SKILL?
Is that short for "stop kill" or is there something I'm missing?
|
Pelagiad
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 18:37:00 -
[14]
No actuall I think it would result in more scrambles, not less.
Skills could be used to increase the duration of the scramblers active time and also to increase the strength of the scrambler. Also I would like to see WCS also have to be activated and use cap just as the scramblers do. This way a very skilled pilot could use 1 scrambler to scramble someone with multiple WCS while the WCS pilot would also have to loose cap while trying to get away, which would cut into their tanking ability.
I'm going for balance here, I hate it when I try to scramble someone and they just warp out cause they are full of wcs, and when I'm traveling with wcs the only thing that can stop me is a bubble...it gets kind boring on both ends.
Pel.
[email protected] |
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 18:41:00 -
[15]
As opposed to pure luck, and without fitting anything, if you survive long enough, you get away?
No, thank you very much.
|
dantes inferno
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 18:47:00 -
[16]
Quote:
Skills could be used to increase the duration of the scramblers active time and also to increase the strength of the scrambler. Also I would like to see WCS also have to be activated and use cap just as the scramblers do. This way a very skilled pilot could use 1 scrambler to scramble someone with multiple WCS while the WCS pilot would also have to loose cap while trying to get away, which would cut into their tanking ability.
ok let me get this straight
1) you want scrams to be % based?
2) you want to keep WCS in game
and you say that you want to make it easier to scrambel?? holy mother of god.......ok problem 1 - by keeping WCS in game you keep the i have more mods than you scenario you claim to dislike. Problem 2 - by having a % scrambling method...even if you have enough scrams to hold him down...chances are hell escape before popping.
All this will do is increase "blob" warfare as people will bring more and more tacklers or dmg dealers to ensure a kill. TBH though you claim you want to make it easier to scramble people...this sounds a lot more like you want to escape been scrambled yourself.
the best way to balance WCS is to have a massive combat penelty which will keep indies safe...but prevent combat ships using stabs.
_____
They were monsters. They rode across the world we knew and brough terror, and death. Where they were, life ceased. They were without mercy. They were without fear - They were MASS |
Pelagiad
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 18:55:00 -
[17]
1st make it skill base yes there is a % that a scramble would fail but to balance that scramblers should have a much longer duration than 5 sec, I would say it needs to start at 120 seconds.
2nd WCS would only add 1 to your propulsion strength lets say, so if my propulsion strengh is 5 before WCS its only 6 afteword.
If you scramble me with a strength 2 scrambler I have 2 in 6 chance of geting away. But add to that I would have to turn on the WCS and have it use alot of cap.
is that a better explination?
Pel
[email protected] |
Shandling
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 18:57:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Pelagiad
Edited by: Pelagiad on 09/06/2006 18:25:45
Then there should never be another wine about WCS, I'm trying to elimiate the I fit more modules of one type than you did so I win, and bring skill into the game.
Pel.
I think that deciding on your fittings (sacrificing damage/tank/cap for WCS) takes more planning ahead and 'skill' than just waiting for a cycle to *randomly* fail.
|
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 19:33:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Elve Sorrow
The maths was merely an example to show why it wont work. Let me quote the important bit again:
Originally by: Elve Sorrow
For the pirate to kill him, you will need to keep him scrambled 100% of the time. The victim only needs one failed cycle to get away.
I'd like chance based scrambling. One important premise, though:
Chance = totalScrambling / warpCoreStrength
NOT how ECM does it (Chance = moduleStreng / sensorStrength).
'course module strengths and core strengths would need to be tweaked, but generally I wouldn't like to see a ship escaping two tacklers (NO! A Crusader is NOT a tackler, dimwits  ) unless he blows at least one of them up.
New sig coming soonÖ
In the next (content) patch Information Warfare will be nerfed. How sad, it wasn't even useful to begin with. |
Pelagiad
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 19:49:00 -
[20]
doing it module strength verus module strenght is an interesting idea also, would need some work tho to stop the whole WCS spam thing as would my ship strength original idea.
Pel.
[email protected] |
|
|
Shandling
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 19:55:00 -
[21]
One option for making it a little different w/ scrambling is to move it from a '1' strength system to a '10' strength system.
A non named WCS would be +10 strength, a non named scrambler +20, and a non named disruptor +10.
Named ones could add a few points, so there are actual benefits to using named ones besides slightly easier fitting reqs.
Say the best named WCS could be +14, in line w/ the best named scrambler being +28 and disruptor +14.
Just a little variation... :P but besides that I wouldn't say change anything.
|
Elve Sorrow
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 20:04:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Ithildin
Originally by: Elve Sorrow
The maths was merely an example to show why it wont work. Let me quote the important bit again:
Originally by: Elve Sorrow
For the pirate to kill him, you will need to keep him scrambled 100% of the time. The victim only needs one failed cycle to get away.
I'd like chance based scrambling. One important premise, though:
Chance = totalScrambling / warpCoreStrength
NOT how ECM does it (Chance = moduleStreng / sensorStrength).
'course module strengths and core strengths would need to be tweaked, but generally I wouldn't like to see a ship escaping two tacklers (NO! A Crusader is NOT a tackler, dimwits ) unless he blows at least one of them up.
I dont, for two reasons:
1) It nerfs solo ships with few medslots even more.
2) It promotes ganking.
|
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 20:10:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Ithildin
I'd like chance based scrambling. One important premise, though:
Chance = totalScrambling / warpCoreStrength
I quite like that, assuming 1 base core strength and each WCS is +1
|
smallgreenblur
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 20:23:00 -
[24]
Can we bury this idea back in its hole please?
sgb
C6 is recruiting ... visit www.c6-eve.com or join channel c-6 for details. |
rapert
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 20:58:00 -
[25]
if this was ever to be implemented id surely stop playing, its a game breaking idea
fit stabs if you dont like being scrambled
|
Masu'di
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 21:18:00 -
[26]
why don't projectiles, beams and hybrids work like missiles?
why don't hull and armour work like shields?
maybe because they are different. |
Karash Amerius
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 21:28:00 -
[27]
Pel, most people would not want PVP to become any harder, or use updated tactics and ship configurations. They like to have easy ship fittings and not have to worry if their scram is going to lose their prey. To many cry babies for that.
|
Conwright
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 21:32:00 -
[28]
It's actually a good idea for scramblers, except propulsion strength should be associated with webifiers not scramblers as the OP suggested.
For example:
Your standard ship has a warp strength of 1. Warp core stabilizers increase this warp core strength by 1 for each WCS fitted. Scramblers have a stregth of 2 and disruptors have a stregth of 1.
So, for a ship with no wcs, a disruptor will have a chance of 1/1 or 100% to prevent the ship from warping. If the ship fits a WCS, then the chance will be 1/2 or 50%, etc.
Not sure how well it would work for webs/nos, but in theory you could use the propulsion strength of a ship to modify the web amount (e.g. a web with a strength of 9 and a reduction of 90% would effect a ships current velocity by (9/propulsion strength*90%)). That might work out ok but I haven't really given it much though.
|
Cohkka
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 21:45:00 -
[29]
OMG, I thought the day people would ask for more randomnes in the game (such as the ECM system) is the day the world ends. Now it happened...
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
Kadreal
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 21:51:00 -
[30]
Originally by: HippoKing
Originally by: Ithildin
I'd like chance based scrambling. One important premise, though:
Chance = totalScrambling / warpCoreStrength
I quite like that, assuming 1 base core strength and each WCS is +1
This is indeed a good idea, it's actually a buff to scramblers if you think about it. Here's some examples.
No wcs vs 20km scram = 1str/1basestr = 100% chance to jam - no differnt then before
1wcs vs 1str = 1str/(1+1) = 50% chance to jam - better then current
2 wcs vs 1str = 1/(1+2) = 33% chance to jam - not so bad 'eh?
1 WCs vs 2str = 2/(1+1) = 100% chance to jam - wow same as before
2WCs vs 2str = 2/(1+2) = 66% chance to jam
As you can see this method is an actual BUFF to scramblers. While they might still get away without 100% chance to jam, it might buy ya an extra 10 or 20 seconds.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |