Player Features and Ideas Discussion

So comes again that I have another idea about how I'd reshape the universe if I were God. (CCP God, in this case) Some of this is just the ramblings of a bored wormhole dweller, but some ideas might stick so might as well get them on a server somewhere.

I've come to think about the strategic impact of things such as ECM, Sensor Dampeners, Stasis Webbifiers, Tracking Disruptors, and Target Painters in fleet battle.

Currently these ships are high priority targets, some more than others, for their effectiveness and force multiplication ability.

For something such as an ECM boat, the effectiveness is immediate and unavoidable; A ship safely out of the line of close-range fire can dismantle logistics and negate entire ships' worth of damage.

My proposal is this -- Balance EWAR with Risk and Reward.

In the case of a high-priority target, assume that Risk = Range + Time.

Range is already considered, as the innumerable range and bonus changes have already shown. So I'll leave that off the table, but honestly I think every ewar module should have a 1km optimal and the rest falloff. That's neither here nor there. Ignore range.

But Time, that's another object.

Imagine, ECM modules that will gain in strength the longer they are on a single target.

After a module completes a Jam, it resets to a lower, perhaps not lowest, jam strength.

This would result in interesting situations, where 'Permajamming' is no longer a reasonable goal, but breaking the locks of multiple targets temporarily would have more complex implications in fleet battles.

The same effect could come into play on target painters; the longer a target is 'painted', the bigger and bigger the signature becomes as the effect builds up. At some point, it's irrelevant how big the thing is when every gun could hit it, so that's a bit of a limited use.. anyway, I digress.

Stasis Webbifiers have this effect already, but by accident. When a ship is webbed, it doesn't immediately slow to its new max velocity, but it gradually decelerates.



So I'm no game designer, and I haven't put enough effort into this to make any sensible numbers up, but I think the idea of EWAR gaining effectiveness the longer a module is on a target would add a strategic element to the game.

Thanks for reading,

Galileo Black.

\o/ woo bring it on.

But seriously, I do fit projected ECCM on my loki, as it's required.

And I've flown falcons and rooks for years.

Chance-based ECM needs to die. Chance-based tackling is a seriously bad idea, even for this forum.

Chance-based webbing bolded for your convenience.

Wow, you really don't see it eh? When your target is at optimal plus half falloff, it gets webbed for half the amount listed on the webifier. I didn't think I had to point that out, as that is how all EWAR with falloff works. It scales with range, and is NOT chance-based.

Also, bolded and underlined the part where I already explained this and you missed it.

Yet ECM has been pretty much the only EWAR ships ever used in combat ever, ever ever, ever ever ever, for as long as EWAR has been the way it is.

A griffin is quite effective with a shield extender, MWD, point, and 1 jammer. It'll be one of the more popular frigates in the fleet. People fit more jammers not because they have to, but because they can. They realize the risks. They know it screws their tank over. They know the enemy will shoot at them first. So they strike like a bee--they give it all they've got and die, hoping they hurt the enemy worse.

Oh not this nonsense again. In falloff, all ewar is chance-based, it either hits for 100% effect or misses. It does not scale, you have it entirely the wrong way round.

Tell you what, why don't you test it yourself and report back here?

Whether you're right or wrong is neither here nor there. My proposal was based around a gradual falloff of effect, and I believe all EWAR should work that way, except maybe ECM.

I haven't actually tested this myself, but I can't recall ever seeing a target painter miss, and I've darn well used them outside their optimal a lot. That was one of the things I noticed, actually. After target painting enough mission frigates at 60-100km, I started noticing a trend, that I always got the effect. At first I suspected it was just because the falloff is really long, but then I started thinking it was a gradual falloff of effect amount. I don't know and don't claim to know what's really happening, but I LKE the gradual falloff of effect better. It's kinda like how turret damage works. Though you can definitely completely miss with turrets, it's not entirely hit or miss. There is a wide range of effect with damage vs. hit type. You can get as much as 50% more damage, or as little as around 10%. The amounts may vary even further, that's just what I know I've seen.

No, your proposal was for webs to get falloff, an hilariously bad idea. Now you're just trying to backtrack gracelessly.

Anyway, why would you want ECM would be a special case? Don't you realise that the effects of ECM in falloff are indistinguishable whether chance-based falloff or strength-based falloff is being used?



You should use more ewar. Tracking disruptors have always been extremely powerful too and are viable on unbonused ships. They're very effective and common on Caldari frigates like the Hookbill. Only last week I flew an SML Hawk with three TDs fitted. The quintuple-TD armour-Drake can also be an entertaining ship.



*facepalm*



It's because the falloff is really long - 90 km on painters and RSDs. Don't look for the hit/miss effect for ewar in falloff, look for mitigation of ewar strength. If falloff does weaken ewar strength, you'll see a lesser effect being applied to you. You won't, when it hits it'll be for full strength.

Turrets appear to be different because their cycle time and number fitted tend to be much higher.

Gypsio, you're just hunting for a flame war. Still, I'd like to hear why you think giving webifiers a falloff is a bad idea.