These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Combine scram and disrupt

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#21 - 2014-08-13 23:18:54 UTC
Current setup is fine.

You packed a scram, they packed an AB...way it goes sometimes. If tackling was 100% effective and perfectly matched to the situation every time it wouldn't be much of a game. But that's me...both sides of the pvp encounter should have their pro's and con's to make things interesting.

Christopher Mabata
Northern Accounts and Systems
#22 - 2014-08-13 23:26:52 UTC
Nope.

Scrams are scrams
Points are points
Don't cross the streams

Just because i put a hat on my potato doesn't make it a gardener
Or some other sensible analogy like that

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#23 - 2014-08-13 23:28:29 UTC
General Guardian wrote:
That is why there was a penalty.

There is no penalty.

You either run solo with one mod for tackle, then un-disrupt for 15 seconds for a switch to a scram, which is absolutely stupid.

Or you fit two point modules or just do not fly alone, in which case there is no penalty, because you can off-cycle yourself or in conjunction with your mate, negating the 'penalty' while turning 2 mods into 4.

So your suggestion is either stupid or and exploit - my bet is on both.

Actually, I could have underlined everything ... but if I have to actually explain it ... *sigh* ... the second option of my first post does not only becomes somehow inevitable, it enforces the first one too.
Jur Tissant
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2014-08-13 23:33:42 UTC
I dunno, the capacity to both choke out your target's warp core or hit them from a distance should require two modules, even if the mode switch takes a little while. It's not exactly the same as getting a little bit better range or a little more tracking speed for which scripts are currently used.
Langbard Vafud
Rhoxolani
#25 - 2014-08-14 01:00:11 UTC
I know of some fittings that you can put a scram on, but not have the CPU to fit a point.

I can see combining the two possibly breaking fittings on very resource tight ships like interceptors.

Also, what happens when you have no script? A shorter version of a point? Nuh thinks.
Jessica Danikov
Network Danikov
#26 - 2014-08-14 04:05:25 UTC
It's not a totally bad idea, it's just a case of balancing it.

The obvious and less differences between Disruptor and Scam are (using T2 versions):

Warp Disruptor II has a range of 24km, a strength of 1 point, 44 CPU to fit and costs 25 GJ per activation.
Warp Scrambler II has a range of 9km, a strength of 2 points, 35 CPU to fit and costs 5 GJ per activation. It also disables MWDs/MJDs,

Given that the disruptor is the 'higher' of the two (in terms of various stats), we should also consider it's meta variants that minimise these differences:

Faint Warp Disruptor I has a range of 20km and a strength of 1 point, 32 CPU to fit and costs 21 GJ per activation.
Fleeting Warp Disruptor I has a range of 20km and a strength of 1 point, 36 CPU to fit and costs 20 GJ per activation.

These modules are both well differentiated, so if we were to have a script that made each act more like the other, we'd want to do so in a way that doesn't compete.

Making a disruptor more like a scram begs the question- are you after the propmod disruption or the strength? For the sakes of argument, let's have a Strength Multiplier script and a Scramble script. Given we're only getting half the effect, maybe we'll allow the same range as the Scrambler, and add a little (25%) cap to make things fair. So:

Warp Disruptor II + Strength Multiplier has a range of 9km, a strength of 2 points, 44 CPU to fit and costs 31 GJ per activation.
Warp Disruptor II + Scramble script has a range of 9km, a strength of 1 point, 44 CPU to fit and costs 31 GJ per activation. It also disables MWDs/MJDs.
Warp Scrambler II has a range of 9km, a strength of 2 points, 35 CPU to fit and costs 5 GJ per activation. It also disables MWDs/MJDs.

Truth be told, the scramble script may be a popular option, but you are trading off that extra point, an extra 9 CPU and 26 GJ more cap per cycle upgrading from a Scram to a Disruptor.

Ok, how about the Scrambler? Allowing the Strength script would be very dangerous- more than 2 points from a single module is very rare. The Scramble script doesn't make sense on the Scrambler either. The really difficult part is if we boost the range to make it more like a disruptor, we can inadvertently make it a better Disruptor than the meta Disruptors, by virtue of the low cap use and lower CPU to fit. Let's try adding 25% its range, quadruple its cap use, strip off its strength bonus and prop jamming effects, see how it compares:

Warp Scrambler II + Disruptor script has a range 15km, a strength of 1 point, 35 CPU to fit and costs 20 GJ per activation.
Faint Warp Disruptor I has a range of 20km and a strength of 1 point, 32 CPU to fit and costs 21 GJ per activation.
Fleeting Warp Disruptor I has a range of 20km and a strength of 1 point, 36 CPU to fit and costs 20 GJ per activation.

Starting to push the boundaries of getting a warp disruptor for free, but the 5km isn't nothing to sniff at (especially with bonused hulls, but that's another whole barrel of worms).

The other way is to offer something unique- what if you lost the strength entirely and only got the propmod inhibitor effect? Consider-

Warp Scrambler II + Drive Disrupt script has a range 15km, a strength of 0 points, 35 CPU to fit and costs 20 GJ per activation. It also disables MWDs/MJDs.

Now we have something fairly unique that gangs or ships that have the space to fit may seriously consider using, without stepping directly on the toes of existing modules.

I have no idea how sensible or outlandish these figures may be- it'd require some experimentation and tweaking (especially considering ships mounting multiple point modules and the aforementioned ships with bonuses to point modules) if there was any intention to develop anything like it, but going by the quick brainstorm I did here, I think there's is room for something in the area.
Previous page12