| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Auron Shadowbane
   |
Posted - 2007.02.15 13:09:00 -
[1]
Hi!
As more and more ppl whine about titans and moms the following came to my mind:
Give every ship a warp strenght value, like it has a rad/lad/mag/grav sensor strenght.
Introduce 5 *2 types of warp disruptors
(light, med, large, x-large, capital) which have adapted values for warp disruption.
skills could also affect warp strenght and disruption strenght.
as usual the short ranges would be twice as strong as the long range ones.
ranges, cap and fittings should also be adapted to the ship clases.
the current warp disruptors would be lights and from there would go the more powerfull ones.
What this would mean:
1) you can remove the scram immunity for super-capitals and assign them a very high warp strenght, which can only be met with fleets of dedicated BS or big gangs of other capitals.
2) With long range warp disruption for BS sniper setups would have to be thought over, as you can not simply warp off, when the target gets too close.
|
Angelus Xenotov
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 16:33:00 -
[2]
And completely unbalance the game.
No.
|
Kharakan
Amarr
Magnificent Beavers
Exquisite Malevolence
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 16:35:00 -
[3]
So what happens to interceptors when they find their small scramblers are too weak to scramble anything larger than a cruiser? =/
this signature space is claimed in the name of eris, haha I got to him first. neeneer
|
Erfnam
Time Cube Syndicate
Daikoku Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 16:48:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Kharakan
So what happens to interceptors when they find their small scramblers are too weak to scramble anything larger than a cruiser? =/
Bring a friend.
TCSyn is recruiting |
Valandril
Caldari
Resurrection
R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 18:35:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Erfnam
Originally by: Kharakan
So what happens to interceptors when they find their small scramblers are too weak to scramble anything larger than a cruiser? =/
Bring a friend.
So point in existance of ceptor class ?
--------
New drone ui
|
Reggie Stoneloader
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 23:00:00 -
[6]
Okay, but freighters get 50000 warp core strength.
This is a bad idea, because it allows larger, more powerful ships to decide when they fight, and makes smaller, nimbler ships totally inconsequential. Not everyone can fly large ships. Smaller ship pilots should be allowed to play the game.
|
Auron Shadowbane
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 23:49:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Kharakan
So what happens to interceptors when they find their small scramblers are too weak to scramble anything larger than a cruiser? =/
fit a 2nd scram?
and tbh a single ceptor cant do sh*t against a ship larger than a cruiser anyways.
but hey ok, we might cancel the idea for "common" ships and only use it for capitals.
something along the line of WS5 for carriers&dreads. WS50 for Moms and WS100 for Titans.
What do you think about bigger scrams with longer ranges (but not more powerfull, if big ships dont get better warp cores)?
Ever dreamed of scrambling the gate sniper and slowly closing in in your tanked to hell and back blaster bs? ^^
|
Allantia
FW Inc
Kith of Venal
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 05:56:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Allantia on 16/02/2007 05:56:27
I think this could be done without ruining PvP.
For starters, completely revamp the available warp scramblers, and add a few new ones:
7.5km scrambler = 4 points
20km scrambler = 3 points
30km scrambler = 2 points
37.5km scrambler = 1 point
In addition, add an optimal & falloff to scramblers, say making the above numbers optimals, and falloff something like 1/4th of optimal. At anything beyond optimal, however, the scrambler would not operate at full warp scramble strength.
This would also allow interceptors a chance to do their job without spending 150 mil on a Domination warp disruptor or being instantly NOS'd to death.
Now, give every ship a built in warp strength:
Frigate/shuttle/pod = 1 point
Cruisers/industrial = 2 points
Battlecruiser = 3 points
Battleship = 4 points
Freighter = 8 points
Carrier/Dread = 10-15 points
Mothership = 15-20 points
Titan = 20-25 points
(perhaps even higher for the last 3)
Then calculate the percent chance of preventing the target from warping with something along the lines of (scramble strength)/(warp strength)*.95
I'm sure it would require a good bit of testing and tweaking, but I think it would end up considerably better than the current system.
|
Neuromandis
EPSILON TEAM
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 15:06:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Neuromandis on 16/02/2007 15:10:26
I think you are taking it just a step further than it needs.
First, EW mid slots have no size-dependency, nor shouldn't they. You have 1 scram, 1 disruptor, 1 web, 1 painter, 4 RACE-dependent jammers (not size dependant), 1 tracking disruptor and so on. That is intentional, and fine.
Second, the smallest ship I would giva a warp core strength of one would be a battleship/command ship. And even then I'm more rather against the idea. For the capital ships though I agree completely. I think they should have a reasonable warp core strength like the transport ship - it really makes A LOT of sense.
Like 2 for a carrier (need three people keeping it down) , 4 for a dread (5 people sounds reasonable here), 10 for a mothership (rather difficult to pull off UNLESS the mothership has no support, which is exactly as it should be), 20 for a titan (same here, "all but impossible UNLESS the titan has no support in which case 20 points is a joke, which is ALSO as it should be) Meaning, basically, that without being immune to it, they need more than a single inty to pin them down, and it takes a lot of commitment and dedicated tackling. It basically means that unless you can take down their support as well you have no chance in hell, but if you can manage the support they're as good as dead. Better than the current "cannot be killed unless they crash in the middle of combat".
I also like the idea of longer-range scramblers a lot, but I also think you're taking it too far. 4 points? Choice of four scramblers? That's a bit too much. Keep the close range as is and make the long range something like 30km's +10 km's falloff - that would be enough I think.
|
Mantiss
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 16:24:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Allantia
Edited by: Allantia on 16/02/2007 05:56:27
I think this could be done without ruining PvP.
For starters, completely revamp the available warp scramblers, and add a few new ones:
7.5km scrambler = 4 points
20km scrambler = 3 points
30km scrambler = 2 points
37.5km scrambler = 1 point
In addition, add an optimal & falloff to scramblers, say making the above numbers optimals, and falloff something like 1/4th of optimal. At anything beyond optimal, however, the scrambler would not operate at full warp scramble strength.
This would also allow interceptors a chance to do their job without spending 150 mil on a Domination warp disruptor or being instantly NOS'd to death.
Now, give every ship a built in warp strength:
Frigate/shuttle/pod = 1 point
Cruisers/industrial = 2 points
Battlecruiser = 3 points
Battleship = 4 points
Freighter = 8 points
Carrier/Dread = 10-15 points
Mothership = 15-20 points
Titan = 20-25 points
(perhaps even higher for the last 3)
Then calculate the percent chance of preventing the target from warping with something along the lines of (scramble strength)/(warp strength)*.95
I'm sure it would require a good bit of testing and tweaking, but I think it would end up considerably better than the current system.
I think the OP has a valid point and the post above is a good solution. I find it absurb that a single inty can warp scram a titan.
|
Allantia
FW Inc
Kith of Venal
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 16:44:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Allantia on 16/02/2007 16:40:27
Quote:
First, EW mid slots have no size-dependency, nor shouldn't they. You have 1 scram, 1 disruptor, 1 web, 1 painter, 4 RACE-dependent jammers (not size dependant), 1 tracking disruptor and so on. That is intentional, and fine.
ECM is in fact size dependant. Compare the sensor strength of a Rokh to that of a Condor, or any other BS to any other frigate. Aside from that, though, you don't want to get me ranting about the ECM system. 
The other modules you mentioned, though, all have a percentage affect on attributes which already vary with ship sizes, so they're reasonably balanced.
Warp scrambling, however, simply isn't. Under the present system, a single one-point warp disruptor will hold any ship except a blockade runner which doesn't nerf itself with stabs. It's just plain rediculous.
|
Auron Shadowbane
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 18:47:00 -
[12]
well a 30+10km scram would be a close range scram in terms of bs combat, but why dont you want them to use proper long range scrams too?
|
Reggie Stoneloader
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 18:50:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Mantiss
I find it absurb that a single inty can warp scram a titan.
Lucky you, they can't.
|
Neuromandis
EPSILON TEAM
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 02:07:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Allantia
ECM is in fact size dependant. Compare the sensor strength of a Rokh to that of a Condor, or any other BS to any other frigate. (et.c.)
I meant as far as fitting goes, not as far as effect goes. On the other hand, making multiple scrams mandatory for "common" fighting ships I find is a very bad idea, or making it mandatory to either have a dedicated tackler or a close range ship to hold a battleship. On the contrary, I believe ships -up to but not including capital ships- should in fact be EASIER to hold hence I propose longer range scrambler.
|
NIkis
Minmatar
Hidden Agenda
Deep Space Engineering
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 03:28:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Neuromandis
Originally by: Allantia
ECM is in fact size dependant. Compare the sensor strength of a Rokh to that of a Condor, or any other BS to any other frigate. (et.c.)
On the contrary, I believe ships -up to but not including capital ships- should in fact be EASIER to hold...
Why is that ? the bigger ships sure got more powerful engines 
I would like to add that if you look it that way, not only ECM is size-dependant, but webbers are size-dependant too (small ships have higher speed -> even if webbed, they got higher speed than a webbed BS for example).
Also since all the sorts of WCS only give 1 bonus to warp strength now (in addition to nerfing the targeting to hell and back), maybe it would be a good idea to include some warp strength bonus to more than just blockade runners.
|
Neuromandis
EPSILON TEAM
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 13:11:00 -
[16]
Originally by: NIkis
On the contrary, I believe ships -up to but not including capital ships- should in fact be EASIER to hold...
Why is that ? the bigger ships sure got more powerful engines
 I think I must dedicate more time to being precise. I meant easier compared to how easy it is now, not compared to the smaller ships. No biggie, it's just a matter of taste, not really important to me. I would just like to see less people (myself included) escaping combat.
|
Kruugore
Minmatar
Vigilant Justice
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 15:59:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Kruugore on 17/02/2007 15:57:30
/signed
I do not believe a single frigate should have the power to stop the warp drive of a battleship.
It doesn't make sense.
A low powered industrial ship? Yeah sure.
A High powered battleship? No. Not really.
Mr. K
VIGILANT JUSTICE
CEO/FOUNDER
EVE Vault, A Great Community |
Kruugore
Minmatar
Vigilant Justice
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 16:00:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Kharakan
So what happens to interceptors when they find their small scramblers are too weak to scramble anything larger than a cruiser? =/
Team work.
Mr. K
VIGILANT JUSTICE
CEO/FOUNDER
EVE Vault, A Great Community |
Nachshon
Caldari
Gradient
Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 23:37:00 -
[19]
However, three intys should be able to do so.
__________________________________________
What I say should not be taken as the position of Gradient or NMTZ. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |