EVE Search - focus fire efectiveness and some useless ships on fleets.

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

focus fire efectiveness and some useless ships on fleets.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Martosh Toma Gallente Fraction Investment	Posted - 2006.09.10 07:50:00 - [31] Maybe the module should just transfer damage (say 50% or something).. (not sure I could explain the physics acceptebly) but then the attack is resolved vs the target of choise. this would stamp out some of the abuse..
sr blackout Minmatar	Posted - 2006.09.10 09:00:00 - [32] I got an ideaà make this module to work with signature strengthà meaning you can not redirect a lock if your signature is not greater then the locking ships signatureà This is perfect IMOà and makes a lot of senseà because from a EW pointà it fits right inà so this meansà then.. you either use eccm to boost your own shipsà signature strength so that you have a good chance of transferring the lock. Now the other attacking side if they know that the enemy is using these modules could boost there eccm as wellà now you have these useless modules that were hardly ever used, critical depending on the enemiesà also this fits very well with the ship sizes meaning that smaller ships would have hard time transferring locks and would not succeed at all vs say a BS, also you could make a falloff so that you could have a chance to do soà but signature must be equal or greater for successful transfer, would be a good start IMO Small ships would still be good because they could easily redirect fire or the lock and save a gang member, at the cost say of losing there own ship, this will be a nice strategy instead of having wcs
sr blackout Minmatar	Posted - 2006.09.10 09:07:00 - [33] just think... you could have capital ships on front line now... because though they could give up there high slots for this... they would be good tanks, and or supporting each other... you can still get pass them but you would need to have great sig str, to do so. I wonder if dreads should have this option? and what about POS warfare? this could be intresting with such a module... would give a new meaning though dont know how pos would work and what signature str the guns or modules have O_o
Apertotes Nuevos Horizontes	Posted - 2006.09.10 18:06:00 - [34] Originally by: Martosh Toma Maybe the module should just transfer damage (say 50% or something).. (not sure I could explain the physics acceptebly) but then the attack is resolved vs the target of choise. this would stamp out some of the abuse.. mmm... that is interesting. that would help with focus fire, although wouldn't be useful as a bodyguard module. i like stealing targets more, since in my opinion it gives more options, but sharing damage is also a interesting idea. but sharing damage has some dificulties, like resistances. for example, target number 1 is attacked with 200 dps of pure EM damage and a 50% resistance to it. target number 2 is using a "sharing damage module" on target 1, so it gets half damage. but, how much damage does target 2 receive? 100 dps (half of the damage that the attacker is doing), or 50 dps (that is, half of the damage that target 1 is receiving)? Apertotes, the Guybrush Threepwood of New Eve
Apertotes Nuevos Horizontes	Posted - 2006.09.10 18:10:00 - [35] Edited by: Apertotes on 10/09/2006 18:14:41 double post FTW Apertotes, the Guybrush Threepwood of New Eve
Apertotes Nuevos Horizontes	Posted - 2006.09.10 18:13:00 - [36] Originally by: sr blackout I got an idea… make this module to work with signature strength… meaning you can not redirect a lock if your signature is not greater then the locking ships signature… This is perfect IMO… and makes a lot of sense… because from a EW point… it fits right in… so this means… then.. you either use eccm to boost your own ships… signature strength so that you have a good chance of transferring the lock. Now the other attacking side if they know that the enemy is using these modules could boost there eccm as well… now you have these useless modules that were hardly ever used, critical depending on the enemies… also this fits very well with the ship sizes meaning that smaller ships would have hard time transferring locks and would not succeed at all vs say a BS, also you could make a falloff so that you could have a chance to do so… but signature must be equal or greater for successful transfer, would be a good start IMO Small ships would still be good because they could easily redirect fire or the lock and save a gang member, at the cost say of losing there own ship, this will be a nice strategy instead of having wcs i think it could make it even more deep an interesting. also, signature strenth is only used for ECCM, so it could be a good thing to give it more uses. what i dont know is your last paragraph. i mean, usually small ships have a low signature strenth. so how could they be used to protect bigger ships? Apertotes, the Guybrush Threepwood of New Eve
Cygnet Lythanea Ninjitsu Heavy Industries Black Sun Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.10 18:21:00 - [37] "nos the tanker to hell and back" = not very effective against certain passive tanks. And yes, I've seen passive tanks over 95%. If they know what they're doing, they can time thier cap booster activations to just load thier reppers. LOS is not as lag inducing as a lot of people seem to think it is. All they really have to do is a simple check of objects relitive positions on the grid, which is ALLREADY DONE by the game. It's just not used to calculate damage because this would require turret fireing arcs to keep from hitting your own ship, which means that a lot of the combat system would have to be changed. Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomine Tuo Da Na Glorium
sr blackout Minmatar	Posted - 2006.09.11 22:01:00 - [38] Edited by: sr blackout on 11/09/2006 22:03:55 Originally by: Apertotes Originally by: sr blackout I got an ideaà make this module to work with signature strengthà meaning you can not redirect a lock if your signature is not greater then the locking ships signatureà This is perfect IMOà and makes a lot of senseà because from a EW pointà it fits right inà so this meansà then.. you either use eccm to boost your own shipsà signature strength so that you have a good chance of transferring the lock. Now the other attacking side if they know that the enemy is using these modules could boost there eccm as wellà now you have these useless modules that were hardly ever used, critical depending on the enemiesà also this fits very well with the ship sizes meaning that smaller ships would have hard time transferring locks and would not succeed at all vs say a BS, also you could make a falloff so that you could have a chance to do soà but signature must be equal or greater for successful transfer, would be a good start IMO Small ships would still be good because they could easily redirect fire or the lock and save a gang member, at the cost say of losing there own ship, this will be a nice strategy instead of having wcs i think it could make it even more deep an interesting. also, signature strenth is only used for ECCM, so it could be a good thing to give it more uses. what i dont know is your last paragraph. i mean, usually small ships have a low signature strenth. so how could they be used to protect bigger ships? i think i meant was sensor strength not signature strength... thats what makes sense... as in the small ships have small sensor strength... but they could redirect lock from small ships, kind of like stealing agro... the falloff could be 50% that is if your ship has sensor strength of 10 then if a ship locks that is 15 sensor str you will have then 50% chance to redirect lock.. and so on... then putting eccm to boost your sensor str will be of great adv (also updated my reply, as it was late and i got the 2 mixed up, i wrote it when i got the idea, and not all came out as i had planed)
sr blackout Minmatar	Posted - 2006.09.16 05:00:00 - [39] anyone have any thoughts on my addition? I thought we were going pretty well in the discussion
Apertotes Nuevos Horizontes	Posted - 2006.09.18 00:52:00 - [40] Originally by: sr blackout anyone have any thoughts on my addition? I thought we were going pretty well in the discussion hiya blackout. yes, discussion was nice until maya stept in. anyway, i've been doing exams so my forum time was very limited. i hope we can keep going the discussion on a helpful way. now i gotta go to sleep, but i will think about all thats been said until now and come up with something. Apertotes, the Guybrush Threepwood of New Eve

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.