These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Tracking Disruption and Missile changes

Author
Ragnar STS
Arcane Odyssey
Electus Matari
#1 - 2015-10-03 03:30:49 UTC
Was discussing this earlier with another guy that is much smarter than me.

I do not want a new set of modules that do the same thing but to different things. What is next? EM disruption to ward off beams and pulse? Kinetic deflection to ward off blasters?

Why would I take an existing ship and intentionally choose to go half and half with tracking disruptor and missile disruptor? Most people would rather just go for damps, which are guaranteed, rather than risking being wrong 50% of the time. We're going to end up with Jammy ships and dampy ships. Tracking disruption will no longer be a real useful method of operation since it insta-nerfs your effectiveness against the wrong weapon type.

Adding a slot to existing ships to compensate would be dumb and change the meta far too much.

We already have a module that diminishes incoming effectiveness of weapons. We already have this module that can use a pair of scripts. I submit that a much more elegant idea would be two more scripts that target missiles. Every ship rocking TD would just run with a tracking speed script, an optimal range script, as well as a missile accuracy script and missile range script. I do realize that a magical module that instantly makes missiles fly slower is sort of dumb...but we already accept webbing....so I'd name it a missile web script for congruity in eve-physics.

I think since we're not considering fielding special ships for missile disruption, that maintaining the same module and throwing a pair of easily swapped and cheap 9k isk scripts is a much better idea.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#2 - 2015-10-03 05:09:14 UTC
Yeah let's totally just make it so that every single PvP ship can fit just one type of disruption mod to cover all their bases. I don't see what could go wrong there.
Otso Bakarti
Doomheim
#3 - 2015-10-03 05:12:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Otso Bakarti
Problem with missiles is they don't have to actually hit you. They explode in your vicinity - proximity weapons. You'd need mods that fend off the forces of nature themselves. Or, don't fly into the explosions. I can see lasers being reflected (if I wear really DARK shades), and I can see monkeying with an auto cannon turret from range to "make it" miss. However, missiles?

You have to view them more in what they do, than what they are. As I said, view them not as an object, but as an explosion. What I love about my missiles is their range is fluid. Drones can fly into their explosions, too. Closing on a missile boat might help you get your damage on him, but it won't really help you with his damage on you. You can't get "under" a missile's range.

This is all sort of funny since not long ago we were discussing why missile boats aren't welcome in incursion groups. (The missile flight time is too long, or something.) Now, we're talking about "how can I get away from these damned things!" As a missile boat skipper I love this very much.

Big smile

Surrender. That's best. We'll be kind, if not fair.

There just isn't anything that can be said!

Aehren Armitage
#4 - 2015-10-03 06:00:45 UTC

I'm happy that missiles are having a more direct counter introduced, and I hope it makes them a little less common in PvP (as it is, I recently posted a thread where I mentioned that I have NEVER been aggressed by anything other than missile boats- ever). But I think you have a good point in your fundamental assessment of it.


Primary This Rifter wrote:
Yeah let's totally just make it so that every single PvP ship can fit just one type of disruption mod to cover all their bases. I don't see what could go wrong there.



If that was the case, wouldn't current ECM and damps already do this? I'm not being a **** here, I'm legitimately curious and don't know that much about the exact values of TD. I assumed, just like ECM and damps, bonused ships are the only ships that really get anything respectable out of TD unless you sacrificed other important things for PvP engagement.

Our lives are not our own.

From womb to tomb, we are bound to others, past and present.

And by each crime, and every kindness, we birth our future.

Caleb Seremshur
Naked Oiled Bodybuilders
Parasitic Legion.
#5 - 2015-10-03 06:18:47 UTC
Ragnar STS wrote:
Was discussing this earlier with another guy that is much smarter than me.

I do not want a new set of modules that do the same thing but to different things. What is next? EM disruption to ward off beams and pulse? Kinetic deflection to ward off blasters?

Why would I take an existing ship and intentionally choose to go half and half with tracking disruptor and missile disruptor? Most people would rather just go for damps, which are guaranteed, rather than risking being wrong 50% of the time. We're going to end up with Jammy ships and dampy ships. Tracking disruption will no longer be a real useful method of operation since it insta-nerfs your effectiveness against the wrong weapon type.

Adding a slot to existing ships to compensate would be dumb and change the meta far too much.

We already have a module that diminishes incoming effectiveness of weapons. We already have this module that can use a pair of scripts. I submit that a much more elegant idea would be two more scripts that target missiles. Every ship rocking TD would just run with a tracking speed script, an optimal range script, as well as a missile accuracy script and missile range script. I do realize that a magical module that instantly makes missiles fly slower is sort of dumb...but we already accept webbing....so I'd name it a missile web script for congruity in eve-physics.

I think since we're not considering fielding special ships for missile disruption, that maintaining the same module and throwing a pair of easily swapped and cheap 9k isk scripts is a much better idea.


Sure, so long as ECM gets made in to a scripted module too. Then I don't have a 75% chance of having the wrong jams at any time and no recourse to correct it.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#6 - 2015-10-03 12:52:52 UTC
Aehren Armitage wrote:
If that was the case, wouldn't current ECM and damps already do this? I'm not being a **** here, I'm legitimately curious and don't know that much about the exact values of TD. I assumed, just like ECM and damps, bonused ships are the only ships that really get anything respectable out of TD unless you sacrificed other important things for PvP engagement.

ECM is only effective against one sensor type. Omni ECM exists of course but nobody uses it because it's very weak. Scan res dampening isn't really particularly useful in PVP, and range dampening has rather limited effectiveness against ships that engage up close.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#7 - 2015-10-03 12:58:48 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:

ECM is only effective against one sensor type. Omni ECM exists of course but nobody uses it because it's very weak. Scan res dampening isn't really particularly useful in PVP, and range dampening has rather limited effectiveness against ships that engage up close.


I've jammed Ladar ships with Grav jammers.

The wrong type of jammer might not be optimal, but it can still be effective.
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#8 - 2015-10-03 13:45:25 UTC
Ragnar STS wrote:
Was discussing this earlier with another guy that is much smarter than me.




Honestly speaking - and based on your OP - I don't think either of either of you are going to particularly trouble Mensa anytime soon.

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log