EVE Search - Warp Disruption Rebalance

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Warp Disruption Rebalance

» 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)
Alia Ravenswing DARK HAT 19	Posted - 2014.12.29 05:44:35 - [1] - Quote EWAR modules have a chance of success associated to them at the start of each cycle. You have a CHANCE to jam somebody for that one cycle. Warp Disruption on the other hand is not chancy. If you are in range and you activate it, there is no chance of them warping off unless they already are stronger than that. I suggest this should be based on chance. A cycle timer for the disruptors and scramblers, and similar modules. You could potentially fail to jam, at which time they will have to align their ship, and activate and get to warp before you as an attacker can re-establish that disruption. This means not every ship could be a tackler. It would take dedicated ships to do it reliably as they would need multiple disruptors, overlaping, and plenty of cap and CPU for them. Opinions?
Barrogh Habalu Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire 835	Posted - 2014.12.29 05:52:18 - [2] - Quote No EWAR mod besides ECM is chance-based unless you're in falloff, and to be honest, I don't feel EVE needs more RNG stuff than it already has. Also, as I've said in the similar thread already, warp disruption in EVE is what "in combat" flag in other games is, just more involved. I definitely don't see how it's a good idea to demand from every single gang with no exception to bring specialized ship just to make proper combat happen, not to mention smaller gangs and soloists who don't have manpower to spare.
Adrie Atticus Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion 787	Posted - 2014.12.29 07:54:02 - [3] - Quote Let's do it the other way: warp core stabs increase your chance of not getting disrupted by 30% per module, stacking penalized.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 1939	Posted - 2014.12.29 08:05:31 - [4] - Quote Alia Ravenswing wrote: Guys I want to run away more, please make it easier to run away. No.
Samillian Angry Mustellid The Periphery 675	Posted - 2014.12.29 11:26:10 - [5] - Quote Barrogh Habalu wrote: No EWAR mod besides ECM is chance-based unless you're in falloff, and to be honest, I don't feel EVE needs more RNG stuff than it already has. Also, as I've said in the similar thread already, warp disruption in EVE is what "in combat" flag in other games is, just more involved. I definitely don't see how it's a good idea to demand every single gang with no exception to bring specialized ship just to make proper combat happen, not to mention smaller gangs and soloists who don't have manpower to spare. Sums it up pretty well, if you don't want to be tackled don't undock. Not supported. NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3101	Posted - 2014.12.29 12:29:07 - [6] - Quote Alia Ravenswing wrote: EWAR modules have a chance of success associated to them at the start of each cycle. You have a CHANCE to jam somebody for that one cycle. Warp Disruption on the other hand is not chancy. If you are in range and you activate it, there is no chance of them warping off unless they already are stronger than that. I suggest this should be based on chance. A cycle timer for the disruptors and scramblers, and similar modules. You could potentially fail to jam, at which time they will have to align their ship, and activate and get to warp before you as an attacker can re-establish that disruption. This means not every ship could be a tackler. It would take dedicated ships to do it reliably as they would need multiple disruptors, overlaping, and plenty of cap and CPU for them. Opinions? The idea of a newbie in a T1 frigate tackling a ship a thousand times more expensive than their own is pretty much a central theme of every out of game recruitment advert I've ever seen. Why do you want that entire concept removed?
Alia Ravenswing DARK HAT 26	Posted - 2014.12.30 11:09:44 - [7] - Quote I don't want it REMOVED, I want it to be more chancy. I like the idea of warp core stabs making it that way.
Lugh Crow-Slave 368	Posted - 2014.12.30 11:48:55 - [8] - Quote EWAR and ECM are not interchangeable
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2148	Posted - 2014.12.30 12:11:07 - [9] - Quote I don't like chance-based, but it would be nice if it weren't so binary. I had the idea to make partial warp scrambling increase the ship's align time by shrinking their warp velocity margin. If your warp strength is 2x the scramble strength used against you or higher, there is no penalty. From 1x to less than 2x you can warp but with penalty. Example: someone uses a warp scrambler on a Venture with no warp stabs: net warp strength: 3 net jam strength: 2 minimum warp velocity: 87.5% minimum deviation from align target: -50% Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Daide Vondrichnov SnaiLs aNd FroGs 5	Posted - 2014.12.30 14:21:42 - [10] - Quote How about no ... ? Srly
DaeHan Minhyok Multiplex Gaming The Bastion 44	Posted - 2014.12.30 15:54:10 - [11] - Quote What ab webs? Don't think your idea is good, in eve the name of the game is hold them down, if an anemy can run away you probably wont catch them. If points were chance based there would be less pvp, less destruction, and less fun.
Alia Ravenswing DARK HAT 28	Posted - 2014.12.30 22:24:11 - [12] - Quote DaeHan Minhyok wrote: What ab webs? Don't think your idea is good, in eve the name of the game is hold them down, if an anemy can run away you probably wont catch them. If points were chance based there would be less pvp, less destruction, and less fun. You can still hold them; you would just need to work a little harder at it.
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3111	Posted - 2014.12.30 22:47:30 - [13] - Quote Alia Ravenswing wrote: I don't want it REMOVED, I want it to be more chancy. I like the idea of warp core stabs making it that way. And given the hate the current chance based mechanics generate, what makes you think that taking every single fight down to a simple coin toss is a good idea?
Hopelesshobo Tactical Nuclear Penguin's 384	Posted - 2014.12.30 22:53:50 - [14] - Quote What could be interesting would be to give points and scrams an actual usable falloff. It could allow people that are trying to kite for instance, the decision to potentially let their prey go, but if they open up the distance another couple km, they will take less damage from the brawler they are trying to kill. On the flip side, it could allow a brawler to shut off the kiters MWD for a portion of it's cycle since the next cycle could miss. The only part of the design I don't like about points and scrams is how binary it is. You are either in range, or you are not. Even when you overheat, you are either in range, or you are not. I feel the same about webs as well. Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Krops Vont Genii Federation 30	Posted - 2014.12.31 00:45:36 - [15] - Quote You have so many wonderful ideas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRBcjsOt0_g Watch this before you post any more. Stop smoking that dark matter. As with any human, we must map out everything for the sake of living. So what happens when you put the same aspect in a game with random events? They go nuts trying to figure out how to predict and map out everything.
Lienzo Amanuensis 7	Posted - 2014.12.31 01:21:26 - [16] - Quote I'd rather see disruptors increased to two points, scramblers increased to three points, and interdiction bubbles only be worth a single point. It would be reasonable to have a single WCS defeat a bubble. Anchored bubbles could have two points perhaps. The easiness of dictor bubbling has made people really lazy, to the point that many players seem to have forgotten the old-fashioned skill of getting points on people. They are also rather large, and have a big effect for a small price. Nowadays, fast tackle is all about defeating mwd+cloak maneuvers, which is a dumb artifact resulting from CCP allowing for spawn in zones to be the primary venue for conflict between players. Tackling is an important role, and needs to be treated as such. In a perfect world, warping or cynoing wouldn't use capacitor, but another depleteable reservoir that recharges slowly over time. Area of effect weapons or even (I wish) sub-targeting (think FreeSpace 1&2 from the late 90s) could deplete that reservoir. Big ships and industrial ships could have deeper reservoirs, and recharge faster over time. Pared down ships like interceptors are naturally interdiction immune, but might have to wait longer between warps like other frigates. This would give other fast ships more time to catch up with them. (Yes, this is aimed square at slippery petes and all those ships hanging out at 300km from the gate.)
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2152	Posted - 2014.12.31 01:28:12 - [17] - Quote I like the idea of bubbles having a scramble strength of only one. They should also make people take longer to enter warp. Or maybe only increase time to warp. Then they're just buying time for the fleet to land points. There should be warp scramblers and disruptors with a longer range that cost a few hundred MW of powergrid so that battleships and the occasional cruiser will fit them, thereby giving ships with a slower lock time and slower max velocity a longer disrupt range. If HIC bubbles didn't have infinite scramble strength, there might actually be a purpose for them to carry around the infini-point script even when they aren't hunting supercaps. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Altirius Saldiaro Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 256	Posted - 2014.12.31 06:47:20 - [18] - Quote Alia Ravenswing wrote: EWAR modules have a chance of success associated to them at the start of each cycle. You have a CHANCE to jam somebody for that one cycle. Warp Disruption on the other hand is not chancy. If you are in range and you activate it, there is no chance of them warping off unless they already are stronger than that. I suggest this should be based on chance. A cycle timer for the disruptors and scramblers, and similar modules. You could potentially fail to jam, at which time they will have to align their ship, and activate and get to warp before you as an attacker can re-establish that disruption. This means not every ship could be a tackler. It would take dedicated ships to do it reliably as they would need multiple disruptors, overlaping, and plenty of cap and CPU for them. Opinions? I look forward to the day they remove a lot of these 1 trick pony modules and give us the ability to target different parts of a ship. Like target the engines to slow them down. Target their warp drive to prevent them from warping. Target their weapons. Target their sensors. Stuff like that. Instead of 1 target lock and multiple modules to do different things. Have to choose what I want to shoot on the ship. Imagine going into a 1v1 fight. What would you shoot at first on their ship? Weapons, propulsion, warp drive, sensors? Maybe that would give reason to ungroup weapons. Guns 1 and 2 fire on their sensors. Guns 3 and 4 target their engines. Guns 5, 6, 7 and 8 target their weapons. I saw or heard a dev mention it not long ago.
Lugh Crow-Slave 374	Posted - 2014.12.31 07:09:53 - [19] - Quote Altirius Saldiaro wrote: I look forward to the day they remove a lot of these 1 trick pony modules and give us the ability to target different parts of a ship. Like target the engines to slow them down. Target their warp drive to prevent them from warping. Target their weapons. Target their sensors. Stuff like that. Instead of 1 target lock and multiple modules to do different things. Have to choose what I want to shoot on the ship. Imagine going into a 1v1 fight. What would you shoot at first on their ship? Weapons, propulsion, warp drive, sensors? Maybe that would give reason to ungroup weapons. Guns 1 and 2 fire on their sensors. Guns 3 and 4 target their engines. Guns 5, 6, 7 and 8 target their weapons. I saw or heard a dev mention it not long ago. Imagine going into a 1200v1200 what would crash first your PC or the server
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3112	Posted - 2014.12.31 08:28:49 - [20] - Quote Altirius Saldiaro wrote: Alia Ravenswing wrote: EWAR modules have a chance of success associated to them at the start of each cycle. You have a CHANCE to jam somebody for that one cycle. Warp Disruption on the other hand is not chancy. If you are in range and you activate it, there is no chance of them warping off unless they already are stronger than that. I suggest this should be based on chance. A cycle timer for the disruptors and scramblers, and similar modules. You could potentially fail to jam, at which time they will have to align their ship, and activate and get to warp before you as an attacker can re-establish that disruption. This means not every ship could be a tackler. It would take dedicated ships to do it reliably as they would need multiple disruptors, overlaping, and plenty of cap and CPU for them. Opinions? I look forward to the day they remove a lot of these 1 trick pony modules and give us the ability to target different parts of a ship. Like target the engines to slow them down. Target their warp drive to prevent them from warping. Target their weapons. Target their sensors. Stuff like that. Instead of 1 target lock and multiple modules to do different things. Have to choose what I want to shoot on the ship. Imagine going into a 1v1 fight. What would you shoot at first on their ship? Weapons, propulsion, warp drive, sensors? Maybe that would give reason to ungroup weapons. Guns 1 and 2 fire on their sensors. Guns 3 and 4 target their engines. Guns 5, 6, 7 and 8 target their weapons. I saw or heard a dev mention it not long ago. How are you going to shoot up my warp core through shields, armour and hull that can survive a doomsday?
Alia Ravenswing DARK HAT 31	Posted - 2015.01.03 12:54:45 - [21] - Quote Krops Vont wrote: You have so many wonderful ideas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRBcjsOt0_g Watch this before you post any more. Stop smoking that dark matter. I watched the video. From an attacker point of view, I would be challenged by my allies and my target, to fit more modules dedicated to tackling. My ship would have to specialize in it, instead of being just another ship with a warp disruptor. That would mean I now have an essential role and would have to get good at that skill. From a defender point of view, I could try to maneuver my ship in such a way to increase my chance of breaking free, or fit modules to make it easier, or shoot at the dedicated tackler(s). This adds excitement because I know there is a chance I can get away if I keep my wits. Instead of the usual, 2 out of the 5 drakes attacking me has a point, and so I have no chance, which I find boring.
HiddenPorpoise Under Dark Sins of our Fathers 307	Posted - 2015.01.03 13:14:17 - [22] - Quote From a balance point of view however, only an idiot would shield tank.
Gabriel Karade Noir. Suddenly Spaceships. 215	Posted - 2015.01.03 13:17:19 - [23] - Quote Alia Ravenswing wrote: EWAR modules have a chance of success associated to them at the start of each cycle. You have a CHANCE to jam somebody for that one cycle. Warp Disruption on the other hand is not chancy. If you are in range and you activate it, there is no chance of them warping off unless they already are stronger than that. I suggest this should be based on chance. A cycle timer for the disruptors and scramblers, and similar modules. You could potentially fail to jam, at which time they will have to align their ship, and activate and get to warp before you as an attacker can re-establish that disruption. This means not every ship could be a tackler. It would take dedicated ships to do it reliably as they would need multiple disruptors, overlaping, and plenty of cap and CPU for them. Opinions? They tried it about 10 years ago, TomB was leading on the change from what I recall.,,, ,,,,Absolute disaster, never made it off the test server. War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 712	Posted - 2015.01.03 19:02:53 - [24] - Quote I agree that we shouldn't have more RNG. I would prefer that: Pods can move 1000m/s to maybe escape bubbles We can set a default spawn distance from a gate 15-50 (further you are away more difficult it is to crash back to the gate) Interceptors lose their nullified bonus. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 760	Posted - 2015.01.03 22:42:14 - [25] - Quote We should make everything chance based. Level the whole playing field. Every time any module cycles, it should have a chance to not work. High slot modules could lose lock if they fail their %chance - afk minining would be solved Cloaks - the ship would just uncloak until the module is re-activeated - afk cloaking would be solved Shield and armor hardeners and damage controls - failing their %chance means they turn off - this would make pve exciting again Prop mods could have a chance to just go off-line - this would just make the game..... better! You could even have actions like entering warp be chanced based - you could end up at a random gate/station/moon Undocking - not now, try back in 15 minutes. Heck, let's put a random fail chance on logging into the game. Let's just randomized everything!!
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2166	Posted - 2015.01.03 23:47:33 - [26] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I agree that we shouldn't have more RNG. I would prefer that: Pods can move 1000m/s to maybe escape bubbles We can set a default spawn distance from a gate 15-50 (further you are away more difficult it is to crash back to the gate) Interceptors lose their nullified bonus. I'd like to see pods get a very limited fitting potential, but their base stats should be minimal. Their tiny sig radius is their saving grace, they should be slow. They already align like a dog flea. Perhaps 1 low slot. You can fit: 1.) a warp stabilizer, which would provide bubble immunity if bubbles were set to 1 scramble strength 2.) an overdrive injector, so you can move faster 3.) a new low slot module added for capsules -- reduces your sig radius by like 5m, can fit to any ship but capsules and interceptors will like it best. (call it a Signature Absorption Sink maybe) T3 Strategic Shuttle \| T3 Flexible Battleship
Alia Ravenswing DARK HAT 31	Posted - 2015.01.11 11:12:16 - [27] - Quote There is no fittings, but you CAN get a different POD that will allow you to target stuff.
Lloyd Roses 788	Posted - 2015.01.11 11:13:31 - [28] - Quote Say yes to chance-based warpcore stabs! "I honestly thought I was in lowsec" Proud member of exactly one player-made chat channel.
Ralph King-Griffin Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 8406	Posted - 2015.01.11 15:17:18 - [29] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: We should make everything chance based. Level the whole playing field. Every time any module cycles, it should have a chance to not work. High slot modules could lose lock if they fail their %chance - afk minining would be solved Cloaks - the ship would just uncloak until the module is re-activeated - afk cloaking would be solved Shield and armor hardeners and damage controls - failing their %chance means they turn off - this would make pve exciting again Prop mods could have a chance to just go off-line - this would just make the game..... better! You could even have actions like entering warp be chanced based - you could end up at a random gate/station/moon Undocking - not now, try back in 15 minutes. Heck, let's put a random fail chance on logging into the game. Let's just randomized everything!! if i wanted that i would be minmatar pilot "I'm also quite confident that you are laughing and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers." =]I[=
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2201	Posted - 2015.01.12 19:10:06 - [30] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: Say yes to chance-based warpcore stabs! The predators who want chance-based warp core stabs are those who frequently fail to bring enough points. The prey who want chance-based warp core stabs are those who frequently fail to bring enough stabs. I'm not saying anything is good or bad here, simply stating a trend. T3 Strategic Shuttle \| T3 Flexible Battleship

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

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,05s, ref 20250923/2256
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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.