Ships & Modules

this is not a stealth 'nerf piracy' thread.

the more i have been thinking about it, the more it bothers me how binary many PvP situations are. for example, 99% of situations where one side is sitting in a hauler or mining vessel will end up in said hauler being destroyed. yes, warp stabs will improve your chances, but only if you choose to use them before you undock. if you choose not to or the enemy has sufficient scramble strength, you may as well go get a coffee, even if you are in a freighter and your attacker is in a frigate.

of course, since being pinned is so crucial to the outcome of the engagement, we do not want to make it completely random. having to watch a juicy target warp out in structure because RNG was not in your favor would be way too frustrating (there's a reason why people complain about ECM all the time).

my proposal would be that warp scramblers/disruptors (NOT bubbles, HICs etc.) are changed to start out with 100% chance to disrupt but over time the chance starts declining. imagine the efficacy of disruption modules slowly change from a flat 100% to a falloff curve, so that after 5 minutes or so, a target that is barely in range has a very good chance to resist your disruption cycle whereas a target that is 500m away is still 99% pinned.

to compensate for targets that get away, we may want to buff the range of affected modules by 20% or so. we can also introduce skills that slow down the chance reduction over time or even have the target warp slower if it 'broke through' your point.

so what do you think, would this make PvP more or less exciting overall?

It doesn't appeal to me. Stabs are available, it's the player's choice not to use them. He shouldn't be given a free chance to compensate for his own stupidity. I don't like the idea of adding falloff to points either.

Someone lost a hauler in low sec/war dec tonight huh?

the last time i lost a hauler was 2011. please read the first and last sentence again then try to roll up your epeen and think about game design.

point taken. but since we are already here, could you try and elaborate on why this idea is ***stars***?

Then you don't get enough game design.

The reason why EVE Online is as successful as it is, and its subs are going up rather than being in constant expansion flux like other games that make constant use of RNG, is because EVE Online is entirely unique. Do some games do some things EVE does? Sure. Does EVE do some things other games have done? Yes. But there isn't a single game out there that does ALL of the things EVE Online does.

In EVE, fights are simple: EVE is a game of counters. If the fight is fair, then both sides failed to prepare appropriately.

Diminishing returns on Warp Disruption is a bad idea, because it has counters: Neuts, Warp Stabs, and breaking your lock. Alternatively, blow up the target scramming you.

Diminshing returns doesn't make combat more exciting, it makes combat more frustrating, because you can no longer rely on your tools. Instead of losing a target because of your own failings or being beaten by your target, you'd lose because you lost an invisible dice roll. That's not compelling, that's infuriating.

Combat in EVE is already exciting for both parties. It just might also be terrifying for the prey, rather than the predator.

notice how with the numbers i gave, this will still be the case in most situations. the real world chance for the losing side to get away will probably rise from 1% to an average 2-5% or so. it will be higher in extreme cases of low dps and high buffer (and attackers that are incapable of bumping).

but in exchange for that, both sides now have to account for the possibility of the point failing. for example let's say you're in a close fight and the opponent's point fails. do you use the chance to get out? do you stay and go all in? will you be able to align until the next cycle starts?

or if you are sitting in a kiting ship and you notice your opponent aligning. do you close in for a tighter orbit? do you go all in and try to bump him?

these are the kind of situations i was shooting for...

I kind of feel like it should be obvious, but I'll play along anyway.

1. Using a chance-based mechanic for a fairly "macro" level qualitative effect is ****** gameplay. We already have one such mechanic - ECM - and it's been a notorious balancing pain in the ass, as unlike (for instance) weapon fall off (which mostly has quantitative impact that averages out over time), it basically amounts to, "Heads I win, Tails you win."

2. It skews balance even further in favor of the already dominant alpha. In addition to all of the other advantages of alpha, now you need to kill them before they get a lucky magical-scram-breaking roll of the dice.

3. It completely ***** the balance of big ships Vs. little ships, by virtue of the fact that the big, slow ship will now have a substantial chance of escaping a small, fast ship merely by virtue of its EHP and an RNG.

4. It completely ***** kiters, which generally have comparatively low DPS and engage from long range, relative to brawlers, that do a lot of damage from up close.

5. It's basically a "something for nothing" mechanic that says, "Hey, guess what? Even though you, as a player, have been completely outplayed and can't actually do anything about your current situation, you get a cookie because RNG. Yeah, don't even worry about making better decisions next time - I've got this." This goes against the nature of the game. Which brings me to....

6. With a little bit of planning, it's possible to get this effect in many different ways. ECM. ECM drones. Neuts. Stabs. If someone hasn't taken steps to give themselves an out, the game doing it on their behalf is patently idiotic.

There's basically nothing good about it, at all.

No, its not made to liberate a target but resist an alpha strike or something of that nature, most likely for battles with more then 100 targets i personally never used it ether then to test it

And again this is fitted on the ship it self, something fitted onto another ship, like i suggested a black ops making them a bit more useful and less laughable, the module i had in mind was something that jams all disruption pointed at the target the module is used on.

Although it could also use something like bombs liberating only targets within it, but the bombs are not cheap and there is still a chance of the bomb being shot maybe, i dont know....

Non in the less Nothing like this exist in the game, although if its not to expansive it could be a good strategy for close range brawlers to be abble to warp out, making these ***** tengu a bit less over powered for every one who ***** about them... or anyhting that can kite making him self invulnerable

This is only an idea..... nothing else.....

no these situations are tiny and useless to think of, if you think of it has the warp module failling ya sure.. so what then you pick a low meta module it fails more? maybe, but still could brake the game, btw you dint say anything about how the module should act.

you said 2-5%, but per what? out of 100 times your module will fail 2 - 5 times....? that sounds like its more likely that your target makes a mistake before that happens.or the game it self fails.