These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123Next page
 

Sensor Redundancy
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#21 - 2014-10-09 17:07:50 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
Supported. We even have certain mechanics that can support this theme. For example; Deep Space Transports have a built-in "immunity" to two warp disruptors or one warp scrambler. A Titan could have +20 warp disruption immunity or somesuch (which would not step on the toes of a HIC).


I'm going to assume this post is about suppers and not capitals in siege/triage. I like the over all idea except they need to keep their warp cor immunity or (yes it will step on the toes of a HIC). lets say its strength is +20 that would mean i only need 3 dedicated frigs with scrams to hold it down and i would much rather through 10-12 cheap scraming frigs over a HIC

Indeed. I am talking about supers and not sieged/triaged capitals.

As for the warp strength I put down... see it as a place holder. It can be +30 or something.

And no, it won't step on the toes of the HIC. The HIC is a single ship that can point any one ship by itself regardless of its warp core strength or how many warp core stabilizers are fitted.
It is (sorta) like the difference between a regular frigate and an Interceptor. Both can do the same thing (intercept and warp disrupt)... but one can do it MUCH better.

How did you Veterans start?
Old Man Parmala
Doomheim
#22 - 2014-10-09 17:25:13 UTC
This is an incredibly well thought out way of doing this...
Vadeim Rizen
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2014-10-09 21:01:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Vadeim Rizen
I like the idea, in fact i stated something similar in a forum post the other day. Though i only stated it for the sake of warp strength. So along those same lines I've always thought BS should have +1 warp strength standard, Carriers/Dreads +3 and Supers +6 or something similar. I've always thought it to be slightly dumb that a t1 frig can perma-hold a carrier. I actually like that you took this a step further and suggested other forms of e-war as well. It would definitely make supers much more vulnerable in low-sec which I think is a positive. As it stands right now, to tackle a super really needs not only 1 hic but atleast another 2 sitting on a titan behind it because hics are so vulnerable to neuts/ecm/drones from a super or any of it's support fleet. IMO it's kind of dumb only one type of ship can hold down a super.

edit: along the same lines i think it would be cool if carriers were given + tackle strength for its own warp disruptors. How is it feasible for 1 or 2 hics to hold down a super but not 5 archons?
Zed Rachalon
The Icarus Factor
#24 - 2014-10-10 16:16:25 UTC
Vadeim Rizen wrote:
I like the idea, in fact i stated something similar in a forum post the other day. Though i only stated it for the sake of warp strength. So along those same lines I've always thought BS should have +1 warp strength standard, Carriers/Dreads +3 and Supers +6 or something similar. I've always thought it to be slightly dumb that a t1 frig can perma-hold a carrier. I actually like that you took this a step further and suggested other forms of e-war as well. It would definitely make supers much more vulnerable in low-sec which I think is a positive. As it stands right now, to tackle a super really needs not only 1 hic but atleast another 2 sitting on a titan behind it because hics are so vulnerable to neuts/ecm/drones from a super or any of it's support fleet. IMO it's kind of dumb only one type of ship can hold down a super.

edit: along the same lines i think it would be cool if carriers were given + tackle strength for its own warp disruptors. How is it feasible for 1 or 2 hics to hold down a super but not 5 archons?


The +1 warp strength for BS makes sense lore-wise, but I do worry about it ruining the paper rock scissors setup that subcapitals have going now.

There's a nice cycle (Frig < Cruiser < BS < Frig) , but it's still possible to build to fight effectively against something out of your size class. Sig tanked frigates have long been one of the best counters to BS class ships, but a BS can drop a gun size and add a web/painter to be effective against frigates but less effective at fighting other battleships. It's a nice case of Perfect Imbalance.
Rahelis
Doomheim
#25 - 2014-10-10 17:36:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Rahelis
Very good idea that would give EVE more depth and ship types more face - love it.

Caps using gates will need some warp core strengh bonus to travel anyhow.

BS in low sec would be more usefull with a warp core strength bonus too.

Finally I love ewar and would appreciate its use in more situations.
Zed Rachalon
The Icarus Factor
#26 - 2014-12-23 19:42:37 UTC
So since we've now had a chance to see how Rhea has affected things, how does the suggestion sit with everyone now?
Aiyshimin
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#27 - 2014-12-23 20:01:38 UTC
So the answer to supers should not be another super, but a blob of boxed alts in T1 ewar?

Great idea indeed
Zed Rachalon
The Icarus Factor
#28 - 2014-12-23 20:10:42 UTC
Seeing as how CCP is now banning for use of ISBoxer, I don't see this being very common. However, if they can alt+tab between 5 to 10 alts and successfuly ewar the super with all of them without buying the farm, more power to them. That kind of skill is worth rewarding.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#29 - 2014-12-23 20:58:38 UTC
Zed Rachalon wrote:
Seeing as how CCP is now banning for use of ISBoxer, I don't see this being very common. However, if they can alt+tab between 5 to 10 alts and successfuly ewar the super with all of them without buying the farm, more power to them. That kind of skill is worth rewarding.



Yeah, i'm gonna agree with this.

I very much like the idea posted in the OP.

If one player that is multi-boxing is capable of accomplishing this, that man deserves a cookie....Seriously..


I would also like to mention that the likelihood of a solo player with multiple characters is out roaming on his lonesome is very slim.

I would also like to mention that the likelihood of that unlikely to exist situation coming across a lone capital with no other support, anywhere near him, is somewhere is the realm of seeing a minotaur riding a unicorn, that's spearing an elf, that's firing arrows at a werewolf, who's trying to chase a cow, which jumped over the moon to escape and smacked into a flying pig, which was somewhere off the edge of the world, which was all lit up by the lights of Eldorado, where its citizens were battling the undead for control of Pandora's box, which was guarded by a Phoenix, which was feasting on the dead corpse of an Eve Pilot...

Basically, it's very unlikely...
Damjan Fox
Fox Industries and Exploration
#30 - 2014-12-23 21:05:37 UTC
+1 for you OP.

(and +1 for the guy above me. Lol)
Quote:
seeing a minotaur riding a unicorn, that's spearing an elf, that's firing arrows at a werewolf, who's trying to chase a cow, which jumped over the moon to escape and smacked into a flying pig, which was somewhere off the edge of the world, which was all lit up by the lights of Eldorado, where its citizens were battling the undead for control of Pandora's box, which was guarded by a Phoenix, which was feasting on the dead corpse of an Eve Pilot...

Basically, it's very unlikely...

Proposal: >>> New Inventory / Item Hangar <<<
Tappits
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#31 - 2014-12-24 01:44:57 UTC
Zed Rachalon wrote:
I propose replacing the outright immunity to ewar with a sensor redundancy score. Each ewar effect successfully applied to the ship would knock a few points off the score, but the ship itself is unaffected. When an ewar effect times out, the points come back. If at any point the score reaches 0, the ship's immunity is removed until the score climbs back up again. With a single value, you can simulate the effects of multiple overlapping systems being knocked offline one by one until the ship as a whole is exposed.

This modification still leaves the capital with a unique niche and advantage, but allows a coordinated group of reasonable size to still present a threat. The counter to A would again be a reasonable amount of B. It makes bringing a contingent of sub-capital escorts to pick off some of the small ships an option worthy of consideration.

This also provides a possible answer for what the SoE ships are actually good at. As science vessels, a certain amount of redundancy in their sensors is to be expected. (Though, admittedly, it would be far less than that of a capital ship.) It gives the Nestor a unique roles as a slightly more robust logistics battleship. It at least makes more sense than a ship maintenance bay.



So if you have N+1 you win?

People that have never been in a real super cap fight should not even think about proposing changes,

If a sub Cap fleet is fighting a solely super-cap fleet then the Supers loose, because after about 5mins all the fighters/bombers will be dead and dps less
If the supers have reasonably large Sub cap fleet as well and there combined power is enough to win the fight you loose.

All you have to do to win Vs supers is win the Subcap fight and keep them bubbled. then you can bump them off one at a time and kill them while the rest of there gang watches while thinking to themselves o **** i hope i am not nest.
Aiyshimin
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#32 - 2014-12-24 12:20:46 UTC
Zed Rachalon wrote:
Seeing as how CCP is now banning for use of ISBoxer, I don't see this being very common. However, if they can alt+tab between 5 to 10 alts and successfuly ewar the super with all of them without buying the farm, more power to them. That kind of skill is worth rewarding.


Yeah but for the fact that they are not banning the use of isbotter, only the broadcasting functionality.

That said, alt-tabbing four-five alts with three scrams each would be trivial

Your idea is bad and strongly favours the blob.

colera deldios
#33 - 2014-12-24 12:31:29 UTC
Man this forum is neverending in posts from incompetent people crying out for CCP to make the game easier for them.

First if you are fighting a supercapital blob with subcapts they are pretty much as good as dead. This is not if or maybe but a proven fact just few weeks ago NC. lost 4-5 /7-8 supers to a 200 man CFC fleet. Kadeshi fielded some 10 Supers and lost 2 to PL/Laserhawks fleet etc..

Supers are currently super underpowered that the only place they have any more value is in really massive fights or here and there being able to assign fighters.

Also people who know jack **** about the topic should really not be making suggestions about the topic.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#34 - 2014-12-24 12:32:01 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
Supported. We even have certain mechanics that can support this theme. For example; Deep Space Transports have a built-in "immunity" to two warp disruptors or one warp scrambler. A Titan could have +20 warp disruption immunity or somesuch (which would not step on the toes of a HIC).


I'm going to assume this post is about suppers and not capitals in siege/triage. I like the over all idea except they need to keep their warp cor immunity or (yes it will step on the toes of a HIC). lets say its strength is +20 that would mean i only need 3 dedicated frigs with scrams to hold it down and i would much rather through 10-12 cheap scraming frigs over a HIC

Indeed. I am talking about supers and not sieged/triaged capitals.

As for the warp strength I put down... see it as a place holder. It can be +30 or something.

And no, it won't step on the toes of the HIC. The HIC is a single ship that can point any one ship by itself regardless of its warp core strength or how many warp core stabilizers are fitted.
It is (sorta) like the difference between a regular frigate and an Interceptor. Both can do the same thing (intercept and warp disrupt)... but one can do it MUCH better.


I still feel like it would since in this case the frigs would be more effective in that its allot easier to kill one HIC than a swarm of frigs and the frigs are also not only easier to get a pilot into but much much cheaper to lose.

not saying this is an overall bad idea just one flaw i say and it may be as simple as the HIC needing some form of a role change to keep it relevant but who knows

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#35 - 2014-12-24 12:43:55 UTC
Nice idea in principle, but the problem is that current game mechanics won't allow it. I am referring to stacking penalties. They apply to offensive modules in the same way they apply to local bonuses.

ECM does not have a stacking penalty because of its unique nature, but all other e-war does have stacking penalties. The first 7 modules have decreasing strength on target, then modules 8+ have no effect at all.

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#36 - 2014-12-24 12:47:23 UTC
Agreed. Never liked the fact super capitals had "Immunity" - making them risk adverse with proper planning. When I was relatively new in the game we had a guy drop a Nyx on our pos, tearing apart everyone. Even though our POS has the massive MASSIVE batteries for warp disruption - he was able to just warp off after obliterating everything. At the end of the day with enough power it should no longer be immune.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#37 - 2014-12-24 12:48:15 UTC
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
Nice idea in principle, but the problem is that current game mechanics won't allow it. I am referring to stacking penalties. They apply to offensive modules in the same way they apply to local bonuses.

ECM does not have a stacking penalty because of its unique nature, but all other e-war does have stacking penalties. The first 7 modules have decreasing strength on target, then modules 8+ have no effect at all.

It's not the first 7 it's in the order of most effective to least effective so if there were enough to break through you would still feel the effect

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Zed Rachalon
The Icarus Factor
#38 - 2014-12-29 22:05:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Zed Rachalon
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
Nice idea in principle, but the problem is that current game mechanics won't allow it. I am referring to stacking penalties. They apply to offensive modules in the same way they apply to local bonuses.

ECM does not have a stacking penalty because of its unique nature, but all other e-war does have stacking penalties. The first 7 modules have decreasing strength on target, then modules 8+ have no effect at all.


I don't really see this being too much of an issue. If a ship is above the threshold for redundancy, it just eats the ewar attempt, drops the redundancy score by the appropriate amount, and doesn't apply the diminishing returns.

In practice, if a ship can eat 7 attempts before becoming vulnerable, the first 7 effects (say sensor damps) deplete the redundancy score, but the 8th one takes effect at no diminishing returns and damps the ship until it either wears off or the score rises above the threshold again.
Incinerator570
Phoibe Enterprises
#39 - 2014-12-30 03:36:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Incinerator570
Overall, I think this is a great idea. Except for one minor problem: ECMs.

The system would be well balanced for all forms of EW except for ECMs, namely because while everything else has a 100% chance of working as long as the target is within range, ECMs only have a percentage chance of working. And that chance is astronomically low against a supercap's sensor strength. Even if one rebalanced their sensor strength to a lower value (or the inverse, giving ECM modules an extra bonus when used against supercaps), you still have the percentage chance.

i.e. if each ECM has a 50% chance of working, and this is a very optimistic value, you would need twice as many ECMs to overcome the EW threshold, on average, as you would sensor damps for example. For 25% you would need four times as many, and so on.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#40 - 2014-12-30 14:37:46 UTC
Incinerator570 wrote:
Overall, I think this is a great idea. Except for one minor problem: ECMs.

The system would be well balanced for all forms of EW except for ECMs, namely because while everything else has a 100% chance of working as long as the target is within range, ECMs only have a percentage chance of working. And that chance is astronomically low against a supercap's sensor strength. Even if one rebalanced their sensor strength to a lower value (or the inverse, giving ECM modules an extra bonus when used against supercaps), you still have the percentage chance.

i.e. if each ECM has a 50% chance of working, and this is a very optimistic value, you would need twice as many ECMs to overcome the EW threshold, on average, as you would sensor damps for example. For 25% you would need four times as many, and so on.


Perhaps ECM and ship sensor strength need to be reworked.


Instead of ECM having a chance hit, it instead will always hit, but will remove a set number of sensor points (sensor strength) from the targeted ship. Certain ships will be bonused to ECM, as usual.
All ships will have their sensor strength rebalanced to factor this in. Weaker ships, of course, having weaker sensors.

Certain ships will have significantly high sensor strength, mostly capitals.
Specialty ships, like Marauders in bastion, will essentially have their sensors set to infinity symbol when in bastion, to show they're completely immune.

Falloff will not longer effect ECm chance to hit, but will instead effect efficiency.
So if your ECM typically removes 5 sensor strength, it would reduce over fall off, but unlike most turrets/modules, max fall off would not be half, it would instead be 1, and anything past fall off would be 0.

Sensor strength would also effect max locked targets, with a certain number of points representing a target lock.
So, if you have 100 point sensor strength, with 10 max targets, if I take away 10 sensor strength, you lose one locked target.
This way, you can have some sort of effect, even if you don't have enough ECM to completely block the target.

ECCM modules would essentially stack on more sensor strength, requiring more ECM to lock you out as a whole, but also more ECM for each individual target lock capability.

This would not only allow ECM to be a bit more useful on non-bonused ships, but you could also be able to tactically reduce ECM to your ship by increasing falloff of the ship ECM'ing you. Thus reducing the amount of effective ECM.

So not only can you negate ECM with ECCM, but you can also negate with pilot Skill.
Previous page123Next page