EVE Search - What if warp disrupters worked this way?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

What if warp disrupters worked this way?

» 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)
omiNATION Gallente Vanguard of the Ouroboros Nation	Posted - 2008.01.03 16:55:00 - [1] Instead of instantaneous warps, in addition to alignment, there was actually a cool down period in between jumps. Depending on the ship and modules it could be as quick as 15 seconds to 2 minutes. When you're hit with a warp disrupt scrambler, what it does is not prevent warp but delays it, perhaps a base of 30 seconds when hit (or something like that) times some modifier increasing that by several minutes. the higher the scramble points, the longer the scramble. I forgot why i thought this was a good idea... I'm gonna stop drinking now. [sig] EVE, basically an MMORPG with prison rules. [/sig]
Jimer Lins Gallente Pod Six Research	Posted - 2008.01.03 16:59:00 - [2] That's actually a really interesting idea. Warp Core Stabs become Warp Core Boosters, decreasing time to warp. Focused disruption scripts still prevent warp totally, as would bubbles. But scramblers and disruptors would affect your ability to build the warp field, not just turn it off. I kind of like it. I'm sure there's a ton of implications to it, but neat idea. Need a covops or scout? Recruit me!
Winterblink Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2008.01.03 17:01:00 - [3] Never stop drinking. The idea of a cooldown period has been suggested before. I actually think that's a good idea, kind of like how Galactica has a "spin-up" period before they can do a jump. Your idea basically makes it so you can't necessarily trap someone indefinitely, merely adds a delay. Needs a bit more development though. For instance does hitting someone with two add 60 seconds, or suffer a stack penalty of some kind? And would getting scrambled my multiple people just essentially be the same effect of perma jamming someone, or would it suffer penalties? warp drive active \| nature vraie
Skyr ECP Rogues The Reckoning.	Posted - 2008.01.03 17:02:00 - [4] That would change nothing, really... you will get you behind bumped off alignment/gate by fast ships anyway.
Hannobaal Gallente Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.01.03 17:05:00 - [5] This would effectively make frigates as easy, if not easier, to catch as battleships. It would also force people to bring large numbers of high dps ships to be able to kill heavier ships before they get away.
Micheal Dietrich Caldari The Delta Source	Posted - 2008.01.03 17:06:00 - [6] On the flip side stabs can decrease alignment time wether or not your being stabbed. This way regardless of what one does or doesn't have they may still have a snowballs chance in hell of getting out if they're lucky. If the ship is blown up the warp out time is reset instead of just carrying over to the pod so people trying to ransom can say "pay 30 mil in 30 seconds or die" alignment time for a hauler is around 12 seconds. With a few stabs this could be decrease to maybe 5 seconds mininum. Now if your jams add 30 seconds you put 25seconds on a stab (again with a 5 second mininum). If 3 people stab you thats 180 seconds added to your 12 seconds warp alignment but if you carry 2 stabs then you minus 50 seconds so you would have 142 seconds of taking a beating trying to get out of there. I see where your going with that.
Jimer Lins Gallente Pod Six Research	Posted - 2008.01.03 17:08:00 - [7] Originally by: Winterblink Never stop drinking. The idea of a cooldown period has been suggested before. I actually think that's a good idea, kind of like how Galactica has a "spin-up" period before they can do a jump. Your idea basically makes it so you can't necessarily trap someone indefinitely, merely adds a delay. Needs a bit more development though. For instance does hitting someone with two add 60 seconds, or suffer a stack penalty of some kind? And would getting scrambled my multiple people just essentially be the same effect of perma jamming someone, or would it suffer penalties? My first reaction is that a stacking penalty would be appropriate. For perma-jamming you've got focused scripts. You'd still gain advantage with multiple sources because if your target breaks one lock you've got others to take up the slack and hold the warp field down. Need a covops or scout? Recruit me!
Seeing EyeDog	Posted - 2008.01.03 17:08:00 - [8] Originally by: omiNATION I forgot why i thought this was a good idea... If you forgot why you thought it was a good idea, then OMG it probably WASNT a good idea to begin with, and next time you feel the need to post ideas YOU dont even think are good, please refrain from clicking "submit" _____________________ Originally by: Locus Bey Intelligence isn't a prequisite for being a Goon, in fact its a deficit.
Angel DeMorphis Gallente	Posted - 2008.01.03 17:08:00 - [9] Yeah, unfortunately I don't see it changing anything, as you can just hit them again with the disruptor after the 30 seconds, or just keep it on them as you do now. Unless you limit the disruptor to only being able to hit a ship once within x number of minutes, it changes nothing. (And as noted, just gives a ship with an MWD, as they have one anyways, time to come bump you and prevent warp still.) -- My sig taken from this site, so thoroughly explains the people I speak with on the forums.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2008.01.03 17:18:00 - [10] while I don't believe this is the best idea I agree with the above more or ess. don't stop drinking! that's how the devs get all their great ideas :P pink supporter! Future art director at CCP! or texture guy, either or :P http://www.digipen.edu/main/Gallery_Games_2004#Narbacular_Drop Was in class with these folks :P
Jimer Lins Gallente Pod Six Research	Posted - 2008.01.03 17:19:00 - [11] OK, here's a variation on the idea: Ships have to build a "warp field" in order to enter warp. The size of the field required varies from ship to ship (say 25 for frigates, 40 for destroyers, 100 for cruisers, 125 for indys, 250 for bcs, 500 for BS- just as a starting point). The field is generated at a specific rate by each ship type (modified by skills and your fitted modules) Once the field reaches the required size, you warp. Warp disruptors/scramblers reduce the build rate for the warp field. Multiples reduce it further, but there's a stacking penalty that prevents you from stopping it totally. Focused Warp Disruption Scripts stop you from building the field entirely, but don't eliminate any "charge" you've built. Bubbles stop you from building the field AND set the charge to 0. Warp Core Stabs increase the "charge rate" of your warp field, but are stacking penalized, and suffer the same penalties to lock time and so on they do now. Maybe new "warp charge" modules can be added that allow you to assist someone getting into warp by overcoming scrambling- would make rescue of large ships possible? I like the concept a lot. Not sure if they'll look into it or not, but the idea is pretty sound and provides some very interesting tactical options. Need a covops or scout? Recruit me!
Tortun Nahme Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.01.03 17:22:00 - [12] le sigh, the only form of disruption that actually affects the warp bubble itself is a bubble, regular forms scramble the nav computer, and changing that would alter something so basic to eve that it would be ridiculous Originally by: Cecil Montague They should change that warning on entering low sec to: "Go read Crime and Punishment for a few days then come back."
Blind Man Cosmic Fusion When Fat Kids Attack	Posted - 2008.01.03 17:25:00 - [13] yeah I like the idea but there is way too many ways to escape from pvp.. I'd like to see some fixes to low sec pvp and pvp in general before any more changes to game mechaniks
Kweel Nakashyn Minmatar Aeden Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.01.03 17:36:00 - [14] /triple signed, really. At least it gives a chance to tank until warping out, the warpcore stabs are not the "omg I'm invincible with them on a t1 freg" AND it gives funnier things to do while in a fleet (no more automatic insta "primary/1 pts/stase/kaboom" if the ships are aligned right.) In a fleet, the general direction for two sniping fleets (aka transversal speed) means A LOT since the script nerf, so if the fleets must align to something to be safe warping out, but minimize their speed for the transversal effect, take care of the general direction the fleet goes mean A LOT MORE tactical skills for the fc than now. What should he cares for his fleet : - shot accuracy ? - speed tanking ? - safe spot aligning ? how does this interfere with the shot accuracy and the speed tanking element ? should the fc cares for more safety, should he cares about damage dealing, should he cares for less damage ? - distance from the ennemy at start and the end of the battle ? - where do the ennemy fleet escapes ? It's a brillant idea. CCP read this !! 2isk
Andrest Disch Amarr	Posted - 2008.01.03 17:37:00 - [15] Originally by: Jimer Lins OK, here's a variation on the idea: Ships have to build a "warp field" in order to enter warp. The size of the field required varies from ship to ship (say 25 for frigates, 40 for destroyers, 100 for cruisers, 125 for indys, 250 for bcs, 500 for BS- just as a starting point). The field is generated at a specific rate by each ship type (modified by skills and your fitted modules) Once the field reaches the required size, you warp. Warp disruptors/scramblers reduce the build rate for the warp field. Multiples reduce it further, but there's a stacking penalty that prevents you from stopping it totally. Focused Warp Disruption Scripts stop you from building the field entirely, but don't eliminate any "charge" you've built. Bubbles stop you from building the field AND set the charge to 0. Warp Core Stabs increase the "charge rate" of your warp field, but are stacking penalized, and suffer the same penalties to lock time and so on they do now. Maybe new "warp charge" modules can be added that allow you to assist someone getting into warp by overcoming scrambling- would make rescue of large ships possible? I like the concept a lot. Not sure if they'll look into it or not, but the idea is pretty sound and provides some very interesting tactical options. So, you want it so that entering warp in anything larger than a destroyer should take a few minutes?
Jimer Lins Gallente Pod Six Research	Posted - 2008.01.03 17:48:00 - [16] Edited by: Jimer Lins on 03/01/2008 17:50:39 Originally by: Andrest Disch Originally by: Jimer Lins OK, here's a variation on the idea: Ships have to build a "warp field" in order to enter warp. The size of the field required varies from ship to ship (say 25 for frigates, 40 for destroyers, 100 for cruisers, 125 for indys, 250 for bcs, 500 for BS- just as a starting point). The field is generated at a specific rate by each ship type (modified by skills and your fitted modules) Once the field reaches the required size, you warp. Warp disruptors/scramblers reduce the build rate for the warp field. Multiples reduce it further, but there's a stacking penalty that prevents you from stopping it totally. Focused Warp Disruption Scripts stop you from building the field entirely, but don't eliminate any "charge" you've built. Bubbles stop you from building the field AND set the charge to 0. Warp Core Stabs increase the "charge rate" of your warp field, but are stacking penalized, and suffer the same penalties to lock time and so on they do now. Maybe new "warp charge" modules can be added that allow you to assist someone getting into warp by overcoming scrambling- would make rescue of large ships possible? I like the concept a lot. Not sure if they'll look into it or not, but the idea is pretty sound and provides some very interesting tactical options. So, you want it so that entering warp in anything larger than a destroyer should take a few minutes? Wait, what? Under this concept, build rate would vary from class to class, and even from specific type to type. Just for some numbers: Frigates would tend to be around 25. Covert ops would be 20. The "warp charge rate", unmodified, would be, say- 10. That's 2.5 seconds to build the charge, but you still have to align (so stabs and nanofibers still serve a purpose). Larger ships would have a higher charge required (they're bigger, they need more power to sling themselves into warp speed). But they have bigger engines so the charge accrues more quickly. But the "charge rate" doesn't go up as fast as you increase ship classes/types as the "charge size" does. So a ship in the battleship class with a warp charge required of 500 would have a charge rate of, say- 75 per second. That's about 6.7 seconds to build the charge. Keep in mind these numbers are just to demonstrate the concept, not be specific suggestions for how long it should take. I'm unfamiliar with the actual time it takes to get a battleship into warp, because I don't fly the things. ;) My thinking is that warp disruptors and scramblers would affect the charge rate as a percentage- warp scramblers with their short range reduce charge rate by 90%, while disruptors with their longer range do so by 50% (once again, just spitballing numbers, don't take issue with the specific times I'm positing, they're just for discussion of the concept). Multiple scramblers/disruptors would be stacking penalized, making it impossible to totally eliminate the ability to charge a warp field, but making it practically impossible by reducing your charge rate to the point where it takes several minutes to actually charge a warp field. HICs would totally stop charge from building but wouldn't eliminate already-built charge. Bubbles would stop charging and eliminate any built charge. I kind of like the idea, as it opens up some new tactical options- "Remote Warp Field Chargers" would be very, very useful in some situations, allowing you to build warp charge and transfer it to a target, as an example. Edit: typos. Need a covops or scout? Recruit me!
Zilkin Murder-Death-Kill	Posted - 2008.01.03 17:48:00 - [17] I fail to see any real benefits to this idea. I do see nerf to small ships in form of having better chance to escape the bigger ship you're flying and nerf to solo/small gang as it would be necessary to bring as much dps as possible to take down targets before the timer was up.
Jimer Lins Gallente Pod Six Research	Posted - 2008.01.03 17:57:00 - [18] Another thought- "Warp Nos". :) Need a covops or scout? Recruit me!
N1fty Amarr Galactic Shipyards Inc HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2008.01.03 18:05:00 - [19] General Discussion renamed Features And Ideas Discussion? Might get some constructive ideas in there instead of enticing the General Discussion trolls. --
Wu Jiun	Posted - 2008.01.03 18:14:00 - [20] Why? There are enough ways to evade getting caught. Even if you have somebody scrambled with more points than he has wcs or a hic you can still be jammed. The way i see it there is not enough nonconsensual pvp in eve atm. Its too easy to get away if you know what you are doing. No need to expand that and break something that has worked for years. Also this would just lead to more blobbing. I mean solo and small gang actions are on retreat anyway and with that change i have to make sure i can kill everything in 10seconds(i.e. bring 30bs). Even if you make it so that say a bs will need quite some time to warp out you need to kill a whole enemy gang in the time until the first bs warps. Because at that time all the others (which have no or less scramblers on them than the primary target) will be warping too or have already left the battlefield. Sorry, but i think this idea is very, very bad for the game. I admit the concept of it sounds nice but at the end of the day a pvper just wants a nice fight. Anything that makes it even harder to catch people is a step in the wrong direction imo.
Jimer Lins Gallente Pod Six Research	Posted - 2008.01.03 18:16:00 - [21] None of this means it'd be harder to catch people. It means more tactical options for both aggressor and aggressee, which is good for EVE. Nonconsensual cuts both ways; it's not your right to demand that it become easier for you to gank people. Need a covops or scout? Recruit me!
Alz Shado Ever Flow Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2008.01.03 19:41:00 - [22] Warp Jamming is just a kludge that says "There's not enough places to get you, so you stay here." Unfortunately, the idea of an Eve "System" actually being about 10 interesting points on a map with a lot of empty space between is quite deeply engineered in the game's design. There are very few tactically interesting places to camp because all travel between source and destination is done perfectly safe and in a straight line. While I understand this is all based on a game designed five years ago, the next phase of EVE's design really should be to add tactically important local zones where combat can occur that doesn't involve Camping a gate, Camping a station, or Hunting through belts. For example: dust clouds that slow warp and engine speed to 50%, with special "Condensor" bubbles that act like interdictor bubbles in lowsec. Warping through these zones can still happen on autopilot, but you'll just go slower until you're out of the region. There's also the chance of being pulled out of warp by pirates, so triangulating a path around this roadblock means warping to a planet and then to the next gate. It might be faster, but a smart pirate camp will camp the most popular warp-to planets and have more opportunity to intercept traffic. Another idea is to implement in-warp combat. Interceptors in particular would be good for this role, as with their high AU warp speed they can chase down and bubble a fleeing target mid-warp then call in a support gang to warp to them. Or Drones that continue after an off-grid opponent, like fighters do now. This would also make ships such as Blockade Runners much more useful, as they have a much higher AU warp speed than regular haulers. Rather than locking the predator/prey dichotomy into one strategy, I prefer the idea of adding more points of conflict that a fight can range over. Fleeing a damaged battleship into a dust cloud, for example, might actually be a viable strategy as it would impact the speed of interceptors and other small craft so that it's guns can be brought to bear. As it stands, the design that requires warp disruptors for any kind of non-fleet PvP in the first place needs to be examined.
Wu Jiun	Posted - 2008.01.03 20:08:00 - [23] Edited by: Wu Jiun on 03/01/2008 20:14:05 Edited by: Wu Jiun on 03/01/2008 20:11:40 I'll assume this is meant for me. Originally by: Jimer Lins None of this means it'd be harder to catch people. Yes it does. And its blatantly obvious. If you don't know why you probably never pvped. No offense meant but saying this is just laughable. Originally by: Jimer Lins Nonconsensual cuts both ways; it's not your right to demand that it become easier for you to gank people. What? Are you on medication or just an uninformed troll? Where did i ask for someone to make it easier to gank people? Please point that out to me or try to make a point thats not an ad hominem attack. Actually you are the one asking here to make it harder to "gank" people as you put it. Who gave you the right to demand this in contrast to me humble mortal? Oh sorry i forgot you are making the rules here. All hail Slimer lins.
Micheal Dietrich Caldari The Delta Source	Posted - 2008.01.03 20:18:00 - [24] No it wouldn't be harder to gank someone. I'll use your model. A group warps in and you coordinate on one target and scramble him. He can't leave but his friends can and may if they're pansies. you still get one ship who has no hope of leaving. New way: A group warps in and you coordinate on one target and scramble him. He can leave but it will take far longer than expected. In the mean time his pansy friends still leave him behind. If he doesn't have warp stabs then he better hope that his tank is awesome to hold against a small man group until he can go. Even if he does have stabs he just has to try to find a way to pin down a couple ships until he goes. He may or may not warp depending on damages. And true trolls throw in personal attacks like 'are you taking medication'
Jimer Lins Gallente Pod Six Research	Posted - 2008.01.03 20:29:00 - [25] Edited by: Jimer Lins on 03/01/2008 20:29:45 Originally by: Wu Jiun Edited by: Wu Jiun on 03/01/2008 20:14:05 Edited by: Wu Jiun on 03/01/2008 20:11:40 I'll assume this is meant for me. Originally by: Jimer Lins None of this means it'd be harder to catch people. Yes it does. And its blatantly obvious. If you don't know why you probably never pvped. No offense meant but saying this is just laughable. Originally by: Jimer Lins Nonconsensual cuts both ways; it's not your right to demand that it become easier for you to gank people. What? Are you on medication or just an uninformed troll? Where did i ask for someone to make it easier to gank people? Please point that out to me or try to make a point thats not an ad hominem attack. Actually you are the one asking here to make it harder to "gank" people as you put it. Who gave you the right to demand this in contrast to me humble mortal? Oh sorry i forgot you are making the rules here. All hail Slimer lins. Slimer? That's pretty funny. Now I need some Ghostbusters-themed sigs (btw, it's not an "eye" sound, it's an "ih" sound. Like the i in "him", not the one in "fine"). I'm sorry if you feel I was attacking you personally. I posted an opinion, you essentially said "You're wrong and you suck" and I responded that I didn't agree. The result is above. Your initial post and your reaction to my opinion indicate that you're not really interested in a rational discussion but merely finding reasons to scream at people, so you'll forgive me if I don't elaborate on my opinions to you. Protip: If you want to be taken seriously, I'd suggest not accusing someone of an ad hominem and then proceed with a spittle-flecked rant that involves making amusing pejoratives out of their name. Need a covops or scout? Recruit me!
Rejecta	Posted - 2008.01.03 20:34:00 - [26] Originally by: Seeing EyeDog Originally by: omiNATION I forgot why i thought this was a good idea... If you forgot why you thought it was a good idea, then OMG it probably WASNT a good idea to begin with, and next time you feel the need to post ideas YOU dont even think are good, please refrain from clicking "submit" Take 1 jacket. Put said jacket on. Locate door for exiting house (Normally located upstairs out of your parents basement at the front of the abode) Exit through said door. Life.
Jimer Lins Gallente Pod Six Research	Posted - 2008.01.03 20:37:00 - [27] To elaborate further- if you can get a lock on someone and put some "warp dampeners" (for lack of a better term) and massively increase their warp time, you don't need to perma-jam them. Using the 90% idea, and the numbers above, it'd take a frigate over 30 seconds to enter warp; more than enough time to destroy them. I don't see it as reducing options for nonconsensual PVP; I see it as increasing tactical options for both the aggressor and the defender. Any halfway decent gatecamp would still be able to completely annihilate any ship that came through. Need a covops or scout? Recruit me!
Wu Jiun	Posted - 2008.01.03 20:40:00 - [28] Edited by: Wu Jiun on 03/01/2008 20:42:05 Originally by: Micheal Dietrich A group warps in and you coordinate on one target and scramble him. He can't leave but his friends can and may if they're pansies. you still get one ship who has no hope of leaving. We use to spread the scrambler in small gang fights as much as possible. This is possible because we know one scram will hold them down for the whole fight. Genereally speaking - even if they are pansies as you put is (which frankly is silly) and want to retreat and cap their losses once they realize they are losing - we still get at least 2-3 of the prime targets. Of course if they really fit wcs on combat ships this is different but then its their choice to gimp their setups for this tactical maneuver. Originally by: Micheal Dietrich New way: A group warps in and you coordinate on one target and scramble him. He can leave but it will take far longer than expected. In the mean time his pansy friends still leave him behind. The new way would mean you can only scramble someone for a certain time. So you need to make sure this time is bigger than the time you need to make the kill. This would be a matter of experience and seeing the proposals here in most cases you'd be urged to put as much scrams on someone as possible. This cuts down on the scrams available for secondary and tertiary targets. Please note i never said it wouldn't be able to catch people at all. I said its getting harder and you need more concentrated firepower and arguably more scrams. Which leads to more blobbing. Simple imo. Originally by: Micheal Dietrich If he doesn't have warp stabs then he better hope that his tank is awesome to hold against a small man group until he can go. Yep. No disussion here. And you still think it doesn't get harder to catch people in a small gang? Well, then read that sentence again and focus on the bolded part. Drake? Hyperion? Nighthawk, Vulture, Abaddon, the hics and i could go on the whole day. These all can have insane tanks and it can and will be a problem to kill them in time with a small gang. Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Even if he does have stabs he just has to try to find a way to pin down a couple ships until he goes. Mhh? I don't quite get that. Originally by: Micheal Dietrich He may or may not warp depending on damages. While before he wouldn't warp. So are you still trying to refute my point that it will be harder to catch people or are you just going on for the sake of it? Originally by: Micheal Dietrich And true trolls throw in personal attacks like 'are you taking medication' 1. What does this have to do with you unless thats your alt? 2. He didn't refute one of my points. He didn't even try. He just said i was wrong and then told me something about the rights i have here (who the hell is he?) and that i want to gank people easy mode without knowing anything about me. To me thats trolling if you find it ok that says a lot about you imo. 3. I backtrolled his post because unlike him i have trolling 5 and not 1. I see no problem here?
Jimer Lins Gallente Pod Six Research	Posted - 2008.01.03 20:43:00 - [29] Just out of curiousity, why should you be able to destroy a large ship with a small gang? Need a covops or scout? Recruit me!
Boomershoot Caldari Insurgent New Eden Tribe Deus Ex.	Posted - 2008.01.03 20:43:00 - [30] think about roaming gang anyone? cmon, you can't pretend to add more time to warp of ships (BS primary)? 1 minute to warp is ok with most industrial-transport-freighters, but WHAT THE HELL i cannot wait 1 more minute for each warp i do :\| to make 15 jump, it will take 15 more minutes, to travel to a battlefield 20 jumps off, it would take almost half an hour plus the current time...simply unbelivable :\| no thank, i'm fine, don't wanna turn game into a snail race :\|

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.