These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

increase scan res to larger ships
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1 - 2013-07-24 13:40:21 UTC
Ive always felt that locking times are too slow on larger ships, esp BC (and even more so blackops with their cloak)

They have a fraction of the hitpoints of caps yet not all that far behind, while frigs and caps are fairly balanced with their locking times.

No, im not asking for instalocking BS etc.

Just increase all scan res from say dessys up to BS by a percent that raises with the size.

perhaps *pure guess*
5% dessy
10% cruiser
15% BC
20% BS

possibly more!

The pain of a slow lock is MASSIVELY effected by EW both damps and ecm, for example a BS thats being jammed, a cycle drops and it starts to lock, by the time its got a lock its jammed =/

Dont rage at me about wanting this or that, i fly all sizes of ships and i have to say eveytime i fly a BC or BS im always left taping my fingers on the desk. Carriers even get round a slow lock with triage, so somthings obviously up.

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
TehCloud
Guardians of the Dodixie
#2 - 2013-07-24 13:44:52 UTC
Well, that's exactly how it should be. If you're locking too slow, try a SeBo.

My Condor costs less than that module!
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3 - 2013-07-24 13:52:38 UTC
TehCloud wrote:
Well, that's exactly how it should be. If you're locking too slow, try a SeBo.




most BS do not function very well after fitting the must have 1-2 sebos/signal amps.

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
suid0
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#4 - 2013-07-24 13:52:47 UTC
TehCloud wrote:
Well, that's exactly how it should be. If you're locking too slow, try a SeBo.




Pretty much this... if you don't like the lock speed there are low, med and rig slot mods that all improve it.

the entire enemy support fleet is dead except for one interdictor a titan could easily finish off with drones  - Commander Ted
Whitehound
#5 - 2013-07-24 13:59:12 UTC
Locking speed is important to balance "front loaded" modules like shield transfers and neuts. Same with high-alpha weapons such as artilleries. Too short lock times and these modules become more powerful than is good.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6 - 2013-07-24 14:05:03 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Locking speed is important to balance "front loaded" modules like shield transfers and neuts. Same with high-alpha weapons such as artilleries. Too short lock times and these modules become more powerful than is good.


thats why we would never put BS weapon on anything smaller, like artys on a BC LOL op?

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Whitehound
#7 - 2013-07-24 14:30:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Muad 'dib wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Locking speed is important to balance "front loaded" modules like shield transfers and neuts. Same with high-alpha weapons such as artilleries. Too short lock times and these modules become more powerful than is good.


thats why we would never put BS weapon on anything smaller, like artys on a BC LOL op?

You do not get it. An Arty Thrasher can deal up to 1800 damage in one volley and needs about 3 seconds to lock onto a frigate. This is equivalent to 600 DPS. It needs a whole 6 seconds before it can fire a second shot and the DPS drops to 400 DPS. The longer it takes the more its actual DPS approaches (drops to) the theoretical value shown by EFT.

Giving a destroyer 5% faster locks is not going to be that much of a deal. But 15% more to a Tornado is a major buff, don't you think?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#8 - 2013-07-24 14:49:59 UTC
Muad 'dib wrote:

The pain of a slow lock is MASSIVELY effected by EW both damps and ecm, for example a BS thats being jammed, a cycle drops and it starts to lock, by the time its got a lock its jammed =/


SeBos and ECCM. Not to mention that the larger ships have a higher sensor strength, so they have a lower chance to get jammed. When people equip damps and ECM, they are giving up mid slots that they could be using for other things, they made the choice to weaken their ship in other ways to make you less combat effective. You made the choice to not equip the modules to counter what he placed on his ship.

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#9 - 2013-07-24 15:09:20 UTC
Hopelesshobo wrote:
Muad 'dib wrote:

The pain of a slow lock is MASSIVELY effected by EW both damps and ecm, for example a BS thats being jammed, a cycle drops and it starts to lock, by the time its got a lock its jammed =/


SeBos and ECCM. Not to mention that the larger ships have a higher sensor strength, so they have a lower chance to get jammed. When people equip damps and ECM, they are giving up mid slots that they could be using for other things, they made the choice to weaken their ship in other ways to make you less combat effective. You made the choice to not equip the modules to counter what he placed on his ship.


I fully expect to have to use counters to these but they are unaffected module to module, one sensor booster on a BS does not counter one damp (esp not from a damp bonused ship).

I find locking can be a bit slow on cruisers but not really worth a change, however if the BC and BS got a little increase they could use a little.

So if increasing BC by my random figure of 15% is insane buff, how is 20% to a boat that uses the exact same weapon and the same bonuses (nado vs mael)

The locking time on a blackops with the cloak is quite insane, carriers actually lock faster out of triage and they are massive repping ships......

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Whitehound
#10 - 2013-07-24 16:01:29 UTC
I do not think I fully understand you.

Why do you want to change scan res when your goal is to address ECM and sensor damps?

You can just ask for more sensor strength and lock range without watering down the lock times. Seems just like a silly detour.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Doddy
Excidium.
#11 - 2013-07-24 16:11:12 UTC
Remove black ops scan res penalty as being dumb as hell absolutely. General scan res buff for big ships not really needed tbh.
Doddy
Excidium.
#12 - 2013-07-24 16:14:42 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
I do not think I fully understand you.

Why do you want to change scan res when your goal is to address ECM and sensor damps?

You can just ask for more sensor strength and lock range without watering down the lock times. Seems just like a silly detour.


Because it is scan res damps that nerf the hell out of big ships, especially when combined with ecm. Personally I think this is just good use of ewar (and its not used much anyway so obv isn't a problem) but i do see where the op is coming from. i used to hunt ratting bs with solo bomber and a pair of damps would give me 2 mins to kill them before they could even lock me. Combined with some ecm that bs is never gonna lock. CCP nerfed solo ratter hunting bombers when they changed agression mechanics sadly.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#13 - 2013-07-24 16:17:07 UTC
No this is not about EW that effects locking in anyway - but it deserves a mention only.

Almost all BS fit a SB where as none of the other sizes do unless its for a deliberate fast tackle.

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Doddy
Excidium.
#14 - 2013-07-24 16:24:59 UTC
Cant remember a common bs fit that had a sebo since maelstroms were the rage and that was for locking range.
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#15 - 2013-07-24 16:27:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Hopelesshobo
Muad 'dib wrote:


I fully expect to have to use counters to these but they are unaffected module to module, one sensor booster on a BS does not counter one damp (esp not from a damp bonused ship).



All ships that have bonuses to damps and ECM hit as hard as a wet noodle and pop much easier then ships that get bonuses to the standard combat stats. So even though your combat effectiveness has been reduced, but so has theirs by the fact they are flying an EW ship.

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Doddy
Excidium.
#16 - 2013-07-24 16:34:14 UTC
Hopelesshobo wrote:


So basically what your saying is 1 damp bonused ship and 1 ecm bonused ship, can kill your ship. I would like to officially apologize and I will immediately petition CCP to make Eve like every other game out there, so 2 people can't kill you when you are operating on your own, just because you are in a big ship because bigger=better.



Nice trolling, maybe you should go back and read the bit where i said "i see this as good use of ewar" before you go into idiot sprege mode. I was merely using an example of the effect damps can have on bs and how ecm would magnify it. No one said anything about 2 ships anyway, 1 unbonused multispec has a good chance of getting a jam against most ships in 2 minutes, and that creates a perma jam with 3 med slots. I don't have a problem with this as it is only even works to that extent when the other ship is a frig with no mwd, but i was answering someone who didn't seem to understand that scan res is indeed an ewar issue.
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#17 - 2013-07-24 16:37:28 UTC
Doddy wrote:
Hopelesshobo wrote:


So basically what your saying is 1 damp bonused ship and 1 ecm bonused ship, can kill your ship. I would like to officially apologize and I will immediately petition CCP to make Eve like every other game out there, so 2 people can't kill you when you are operating on your own, just because you are in a big ship because bigger=better.



Nice trolling, maybe you should go back and read the bit where i said "i see this as good use of ewar" before you go into idiot sprege mode. I was merely using an example of the effect damps can have on bs and how ecm would magnify it. No one said anything about 2 ships anyway, 1 unbonused multispec has a good chance of getting a jam against most ships in 2 minutes, and that creates a perma jam with 3 med slots. I don't have a problem with this as it is only even works to that extent when the other ship is a frig with no mwd, but i was answering someone who didn't seem to understand that scan res is indeed an ewar issue.


Took that out cuz I reread your post, was distracted when I first read it.

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#18 - 2013-07-24 17:32:08 UTC
Bigger = more eccm strength, more ehp, , high cost, further lock range and.... less scan res.

as pointed out this makes sense for volly/dps/ehp reasons.

but if a BC can fit the same or more alpha than BS and comparative EHP why should a BS have a scan res almost 3 TIMES longer....

A carrier, is almost the same as a BS (about 20-30% averagely lower) not 3 times lower.

do you see what im getting at here?

Im not asking for instalocking battle ships, im asking for this overlooked attribute to be re-looked at because it seems out of balance.

When im sitting there waiting 10 seconds to lock a BC with a BS that has a sebo, while the not so behind BC in every other stat, had me locked in 4 without one (do not quote i cant test an exact number right now).

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#19 - 2013-07-24 18:27:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Hopelesshobo
Muad 'dib wrote:


but if a BC can fit the same or more alpha than BS and comparative EHP why should a BS have a scan res almost 3 TIMES longer....


These stats are with max skills, without implants.
All ships were equipped either either 1400 or 720 arties.
All low slots were filled with gyros except for the Tornado and Hurricane which required a Reactor Control II which was required to keep the fit without using implants.
No tank was placed on each ship.
All ammo used was Domination EMP.
All ships had 2x collision accelerators I on.

Maelstrom
Max alpha - 12256
EHP - 36,432
Sensor Strength - 25.2
Scan Res - 112.5
Med Slots - 6

Tornado
Max alpha - 12293
EHP - 8,842
Sensor Strength - 20.4
Scan Res - 287.5
Med Slot - 5

Hurricane
Max alpha - 4308
EHP - 20,036
Sensor Strength 19.2
Scan Res - 275
Med Slot - 4

From these stats we can say that the Nado and the Maelstrom both have a comparable alpha, while the hurricane has about 1/3 of what the other ships have.

EHP wise the Maelstrom dominates the field, by having about 4x the EHP the Nado does. Even the Hurricane has significantly more health then the Nado does. On top of all this the Maelstrom has the most mid slots to support a tank. Although to fit any shield tank on all of these ships, low slots would have to be dedicated for more power grid, however the maelstrom has more low slots then a Nado.

The Maelstrom has about 25% more sensor strength then both the nado and the Hurricane.

I fail to see how a BC has not only the same alpha as a battleship, but the comparable EHP as well. Unless of course you can pilot a special hurricane that is capable of fielding a full rack of 1400s.

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.