Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Salpad
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 16:20:00 -
[1]
I remember vaguely last year when scripts came out, I had to choose which of two scripts to load into my Sensor Booster: Boosting range, or boosting lock time.
Has anything more happened since then? Is CCP planning to add more types of scripts for a wider range of modules?
An obvious candiate is the Ballistics Control System, which gives a bonus to two things. The tech 2 verion gives a +10% bonus to launcher RoF and a +10% bonus to launcher damage.
So why not offer 3 scripts? One gives a +20% bonus to the RoF bonus and a -50% penalty to the damage bonus. The other gives a +20% bonus to the demage bonus and a -50% bonus to the RoF bonus. And the third gives no modifiers, letting the BCS works as it does now.
That way, players get to choose whether to optimize for damage (at a hefty penalty to RoF) or for RoF (at a hefty penalty to damage), or continue as usual.
(Anyone replying to these, please look at the actual numbers I've posted. Please notice that I'm not saying +20% RoF bonus and -20% damage bonus, and so forth. Read what I've actually written, before commenting.)
-- Salpad |
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 16:59:00 -
[2]
when do we get:
-t2 interdiction launcher & spheres -t2 gang mods & more tech two implants -t1 smartbomb upgrades ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Liang Nuren
Black Sea Industries Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 17:05:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Salpad An obvious candiate is the Ballistics Control System
I'm personally of the opinion that it'd be silly to have damage mods be split out (even neglecting the fact that damage mods are passive mods).
Also, note that TE's and such also only affect one attribute.
Personally, my next set of scripts would be: - Faction and T2 scripts of all existing scripts. - Sensor Booster [ECCM script] - ECM [Racial scripts, unscripted = Multispec, for the purpose of balancing the above ECCM change]
-Liang
-- Naturally, I do not in any way speak for my corp or alliance. |
Helkar Antonov
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 17:08:00 -
[4]
Both suggested scripts nerfs damage output. Also, only active modules got scripts.
|
padraig animal
Minmatar MisFunk Inc. Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 18:03:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Erotic Irony when do we get:
-t2 interdiction launcher & spheres -t2 gang mods & more tech two implants -t1 smartbomb upgrades
Hmm i like the idea of tii gang mods ... altho i doubt they will come
|
Crazy Tasty
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 19:59:00 -
[6]
The fewer scripts we have the better. Its already a pain in the ass to swap them out on a sniper (and have all that random crap in cargo), would be even worse on a ECM ship with 6+ mids.
Only script I'd like to see is a Falloff for TDs. ------
Originally by: Garmon people using warp core stabilizers are generally more skilled than people not using warp corer stabilizers
|
Radcjk
Caldari Dark Star LTD Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 20:14:00 -
[7]
Scripting ecms would be bad. In ten second the pilot just went from having No racial ecm for your fleet to having exactly the best combination he can manage between 5 to 7 ecm modules for the encounter. The ten seconds he and his fleet lost are easily won back by jamming everything in sight.
|
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 22:03:00 -
[8]
Don't forget tech two ewar drones~~ ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Corstaad
Minmatar Vardr ok Lidskjalv
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 22:19:00 -
[9]
The best part to scripts is realizing you forgot to bring them after hauling all your junk out there.
|
Wardeneo
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 22:54:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Corstaad The best part to scripts is realizing you forgot to bring them after hauling all your junk out there.
lol ive done that b4, and it wud funny 2 see some 1 who forgot 2 bring a warp field generator script as the fc calls "**** scram that MOM" LOL, and **** replies "o crap forgots script" LOL
wardeneo
If brute force doesn't work..... your not using enough :) |
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 23:26:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Salpad An obvious candiate is the Ballistics Control System
I'm personally of the opinion that it'd be silly to have damage mods be split out (even neglecting the fact that damage mods are passive mods).
Also, note that TE's and such also only affect one attribute.
Personally, my next set of scripts would be: - Faction and T2 scripts of all existing scripts. - Sensor Booster [ECCM script] - ECM [Racial scripts, unscripted = Multispec, for the purpose of balancing the above ECCM change]
-Liang
I think this is a decent idea. If ALL jammers were made multispec and could be swapped on the fly as the situation dicates, its perfectly reasonable to lower the base jammer strength a bit since you have greater flexiblity.
The downside to lowering the Jamming strength further is that it further reinforces the simple fact that it's only worth carrying a jammer in a specialized ship.
|
TimMc
Gallente Genos Occidere
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 23:33:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Derek Sigres
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Salpad An obvious candiate is the Ballistics Control System
I'm personally of the opinion that it'd be silly to have damage mods be split out (even neglecting the fact that damage mods are passive mods).
Also, note that TE's and such also only affect one attribute.
Personally, my next set of scripts would be: - Faction and T2 scripts of all existing scripts. - Sensor Booster [ECCM script] - ECM [Racial scripts, unscripted = Multispec, for the purpose of balancing the above ECCM change]
-Liang
I think this is a decent idea. If ALL jammers were made multispec and could be swapped on the fly as the situation dicates, its perfectly reasonable to lower the base jammer strength a bit since you have greater flexiblity.
The downside to lowering the Jamming strength further is that it further reinforces the simple fact that it's only worth carrying a jammer in a specialized ship.
Yes lets make ECM even more annoying and overpowered than it already is. Unless it took a minute to swap scripts for ECM, it would be overpowered.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 23:38:00 -
[13]
Which was the reason I said it would be reasonable to lower the base jam strength.
Afterall, if you can essentially swap jammers in space you don't need to achieve a jam strength of 14 - 10 would be fine.
|
Liang Nuren
Black Sea Industries Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 02:06:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Derek Sigres Which was the reason I said it would be reasonable to lower the base jam strength.
Afterall, if you can essentially swap jammers in space you don't need to achieve a jam strength of 14 - 10 would be fine.
Do you even understand how much of a nerf that would be?
-Liang -- Naturally, I do not in any way speak for my corp or alliance. |
Liang Nuren
Black Sea Industries Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 02:27:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Derek Sigres
Originally by: Liang Nuren
- Sensor Booster [ECCM script] - ECM [Racial scripts, unscripted = Multispec, for the purpose of balancing the above ECCM change]
I think this is a decent idea. If ALL jammers were made multispec and could be swapped on the fly as the situation dicates, its perfectly reasonable to lower the base jammer strength a bit since you have greater flexiblity.
The downside to lowering the Jamming strength further is that it further reinforces the simple fact that it's only worth carrying a jammer in a specialized ship.
Ok, maybe you missed the idea of adding an ECCM script to the sensor booster. God forbid that it would make sense for a sensor booster to raise sensor strength.
Trust me, adding an ECCM strength to the sensor booster would plenty nerf ECM, without having to resort to cutting off huge swaths of ECM ability (the difference between Cruiser 4, Sig 4 and Cruiser 5, Sig 5 - 20%+!). Simply put, sensor boosters are damn sure not a "useless" module like people claim ECCM is.
So the idea was to give virtually everyone the ability to fit a "free" ECCM at any time. To compensate, ECM would need to be essentially swapable on the fly.
Jeeze, way to take a fairly reasonable idea and turn it into "Ok, we'll nerf it that way, and then nerf it another 20% just for fun!"
-Liang -- Naturally, I do not in any way speak for my corp or alliance. |
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 04:11:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Derek Sigres
Originally by: Liang Nuren
- Sensor Booster [ECCM script] - ECM [Racial scripts, unscripted = Multispec, for the purpose of balancing the above ECCM change]
I think this is a decent idea. If ALL jammers were made multispec and could be swapped on the fly as the situation dicates, its perfectly reasonable to lower the base jammer strength a bit since you have greater flexiblity.
The downside to lowering the Jamming strength further is that it further reinforces the simple fact that it's only worth carrying a jammer in a specialized ship.
Ok, maybe you missed the idea of adding an ECCM script to the sensor booster. God forbid that it would make sense for a sensor booster to raise sensor strength.
Trust me, adding an ECCM strength to the sensor booster would plenty nerf ECM, without having to resort to cutting off huge swaths of ECM ability (the difference between Cruiser 4, Sig 4 and Cruiser 5, Sig 5 - 20%+!). Simply put, sensor boosters are damn sure not a "useless" module like people claim ECCM is.
So the idea was to give virtually everyone the ability to fit a "free" ECCM at any time. To compensate, ECM would need to be essentially swapable on the fly.
Jeeze, way to take a fairly reasonable idea and turn it into "Ok, we'll nerf it that way, and then nerf it another 20% just for fun!"
-Liang
The basic line of thinking I am using, and feel free to disagree, is since you can make any number of your jammers a specific racial it means you no longer have to worry about not having enough jammers of a particular race, and as such your ECM ship's jamming ability would in fact RAISE immensely. Switching jammers to a script method such as this would inheritly BOOST the falcon's alraedy amazing jamming ability.
Having ECCM as a sensor booster script is a fantastic idea. But let's face it - the irritation with ECCM is not fundamentally that it does only one function in spite of what people say. It's taht the function it provides is not universally useful. Afterall, one can ALWAYS use another tank module or gank module but one does not always need ECCM, or better lock times and range. The irritaion at ECM seems to me to be nothing more than an irritation at the things that I think makes eve great - that is firepower and durability are only paths to victory, and they can every so easily be derailed by other factors.
Of course, as a Falcon pilot myself I would be FINE with super flexible ECM with no downsides, it just seems to me that the switch would be such an immense boost to ECM that reducing jammer strength may be warrented. Perhaps an alternate possibility would require ECM scripts to take a fair amount of time to load - say 30 - 60 seconds. Thus you maintain your flexible utility but can't just switch them instantly as the need arises. Or perhaps my theory is entirely incorrect and you wouldn't increase the falcon's capabilities at all.
|
Liang Nuren
Black Sea Industries Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 04:33:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Derek Sigres
Switching jammers to a script method such as this would inheritly BOOST the falcon's alraedy amazing jamming ability.
This would be true, if it weren't for the next point:
Quote:
But let's face it - the irritation with ECCM is not fundamentally that it does only one function in spite of what people say.
Well, this is the crux of the matter. Merging ECCM into a script for sensor boosters effectively makes Sensor Boosters "The anti-ECM" module. Sensor boosters are not the one-function-module... and that's kindof the point.
It would allow people to have a single module such that: - If you're locking pods/frigs/drones: scan res - If you're sniping/being damped: targeting range - If you're being ECM'ed: sensor strength
This would be a direct nerf to the Falcon/Rook already, because sensor boosters are extremely likely to be fit on PVP ships.
There is no need for an additional nerf to the Falcon/Rook. Hell, they just boosted them from uselessness... and I doubt any actual nerfs to them would be recieved well by the ewar community.
-Liang
Of course, as a Falcon pilot myself I would be FINE with super flexible ECM with no downsides, it just seems to me that the switch would be such an immense boost to ECM that reducing jammer strength may be warrented. Perhaps an alternate possibility would require ECM scripts to take a fair amount of time to load - say 30 - 60 seconds. Thus you maintain your flexible utility but can't just switch them instantly as the need arises. Or perhaps my theory is entirely incorrect and you wouldn't increase the falcon's capabilities at all.
-- Naturally, I do not in any way speak for my corp or alliance. |
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 04:55:00 -
[18]
I'll grant that fleet ships will probably have sensor boosters, and speciality ships (like a pod sniping harpy) but by and large I rarely see pvp setups that include sensor boosters. Perhaps if sensor boosters became the ani-ewar module they would become a standard issue item like MWD, Web and Warp jammers in PvP.
Don't get me wrong, I like your idea, I just think that increasing the flexability of the Falcon once it's in space can easily lead to the ship becoming overpowered. Perhaps be better answer is forcing the falcon to spend a long period of time swapping scripts.
And let's not forget that if you boost the EWAR protection module by placing it in a universal fitting, the less useful forms of ewar (damps for example) become even less viable because more ships will carry the counter.
If there were going to be a change to EWAR overall, I'd like to see:
Damps boosted so that their attributes for a single scripted effect (range or lock time) is equal to their pre nerf equivalent. If this proves to still be an insufficient boost I'd also be willing to accept a scripted damp maintaining a slight (say 20% of pre nerf) power on the unscripted attribute (So if your scripted for range yould have 100% of the pre nerf range debuf and 25% of the pre nerf lock time debuff)
Tracking Disruptors changed to an omni "targeting disruptor" These would be scripted items and could either screw with tracking or cause a debuff to missile precision (e.g. they would hit targets for less damage). This would essentially replace the almsot unused defender option for dealing with missiles and would be better suited to a new, more flexible form of EWAR.
ECM's would be changed per Liang's suggestion, with balacing to be done after the player base gets an idea for how well it works.
ECCM would be rolled into Sensor Boosters per Liang's suggestion, maintaing the current levels of functionality.
In order to counter Targeting Disruptors, the tracking enhancers would become targeting computers. Targeting computers would operate the same as tracking enhancers but have an additional script option of increasing missile precision. This also allows missiles, especially precision lights, to become even more useful against Nano ships.
While I suspect my ideas would be met with outrage and terror, I'm also fairly certain a dev will never pay attention to the ramblins for a random person on the board. . . right?
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |