These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

ECM Burst Needs To Be More Realistic
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#21 - 2017-03-20 18:11:26 UTC
It's a simple matter of changing what qualifies you for the security status hit.

For example, one could alter it so that you don't take a standings hit unless the pod gets popped by a player (and you're on the killmail). Yes they could smartbomb their own pods, but then their alt takes a huge sec hit too which messes up their griefer. They'd probably just set up an alpha toon bank for it though.

I agree in principle that a hostile action alone should not generate a sec status hit. It should absolutely invoke concord as per current concord protocol, but sec status hit should be the result of a kill not the actual aggression.
1Lt Aldo Raine
Doomheim
#22 - 2017-03-20 19:24:49 UTC
Jason Kusion wrote:
So then I put them all in Herons. Your move.


perfect!

Proud member of the High Sec Militia, the combat arm of the Anti-Ganking movement.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#23 - 2017-03-20 19:52:52 UTC
1Lt Aldo Raine wrote:
Jason Kusion wrote:
So then I put them all in Herons. Your move.


perfect!


So you still want your change after it has been proven it is countered by putting the pods in extremely cheap unfitted ships?
Astevon
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#24 - 2017-03-20 20:21:34 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
1Lt Aldo Raine wrote:
Jason Kusion wrote:
So then I put them all in Herons. Your move.


perfect!


So you still want your change after it has been proven it is countered by putting the pods in extremely cheap unfitted ships?

So you don't realize how much this changes the math?

The issue is all about the magnitude of the sec status hit. Without knowing the exact math, I believe hitting 8 ships will only lead to up to almost -1.0 total hit, compared to almost -10.0 from hitting 8 pods. That's like a whopping ~90% reduction in costs of buying security tags.

Previous Main: Astecus | Creator of the Anti-ganking channel, Anti-ganking.net and AstralServices.net
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#25 - 2017-03-20 20:28:07 UTC
You want an area of effect weapon to be more 'realistic' by not affecting everything within its area of effect?

I love that word 'realistic'. It's a synonym for 'whatever I think it should be'

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Moonlit Raid
Doomheim
#26 - 2017-03-20 23:32:40 UTC
1Lt Aldo Raine wrote:

But some people (Jason) have found a work around to counter this, landing a group of 8 or so pods on grid right before the gank fleet lands. Because the pods are aggroed the security status drops a lot. I mean down to near -10.

Smartbomb dessy to clear the field.

If brute force isn't working, you're just not using enough.

Please Note: Any advice given comes with the caveat that nothing will be suitable for every situation.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2017-03-21 02:41:40 UTC
Old Pervert wrote:
I agree in principle that a hostile action alone should not generate a sec status hit. It should absolutely invoke concord as per current concord protocol, but sec status hit should be the result of a kill not the actual aggression.

I disagree, however it is already partly like this. If you damage a capsule, you have an immediate sec status hit. If it warps off and someone else kills it a few minutes later, you get a second sec status hit due to sharing in the kill. I found that out the hard way once.



Astevon wrote:
So you don't realize how much this changes the math?

The issue is all about the magnitude of the sec status hit. Without knowing the exact math, I believe hitting 8 ships will only lead to up to almost -1.0 total hit, compared to almost -10.0 from hitting 8 pods. That's like a whopping ~90% reduction in costs of buying security tags.

I believe it's much less than that for hitting ships.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Astevon
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#28 - 2017-03-21 15:45:54 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I believe it's much less than that for hitting ships.

I just tested on SiSi with 2 toons going criminal, both had 5.0 sec status:
Shooting ship: -2.2465% change and 4.66 status afterwards
Shooting pod: -22.4642% change and 1.63 status afterwards

Looks like shooting a pod is pretty much exactly 10 times as much as shooting a ship, and so the 90% reduction I mentioned was actually spot on.

Previous Main: Astecus | Creator of the Anti-ganking channel, Anti-ganking.net and AstralServices.net
Jason Kusion
KUSION SPECIAL TEAM
Goonswarm Federation
#29 - 2017-03-21 22:51:11 UTC
If you don't like the consequences of AoE weapons, then don't use them. There are plenty of single target ECM modules for you to choose from and you won't get a sec status hit for using them. AoE anything in this game is incredibly OP and broken, there is a good reason why you can't burst jam in highsec and I can't bomb the jita undock. Realism has never come before game balance and it would be foolish to think that is going to change anytime soon.

The problem here is you were desperately hoping that burst jamming was the golden solution that would allow you to counter an entire fleet of gankers with a single character. Now that I've found an appropriate response to the tactic, here we are begging CCP to tip the scale yet again. Get creative and figure out a new approach, it worked for me.
gold for you
insinsinsinsinsinsinsinsinsinsinsinsinsinsinsins
#30 - 2017-03-21 22:56:17 UTC
in which anti-gankers ask for even more buffs after receiving a ~40% buff to all freighter EHP less than a year ago.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2017-03-22 02:52:30 UTC
gold for you wrote:
in which anti-gankers ask for even more buffs after receiving a ~40% buff to all freighter EHP less than a year ago.

Fittings. Fittings was the buff. The buff was choices. Not the potential increase in EHP if you fit the freighter for tank.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Tarn Kugisa
Kugisa Dynamics
#32 - 2017-03-22 04:09:30 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I agree, capsules should not give out security hits for ECM, weapon disruption, or sensor dampening.


Why not? If you warp scramble a ship with WCS fitted and it warps off immediately you still take the sec status hit. If you tracking disrupt a ship with no turrets fitted you still take the sec status hit. If you fire at a ship that is well out of range and impossible to hit you still take the sec status hit. Failure to make an effective attack does not change the fact that you used an aggressive module against a target that you do not have permission to engage.


there's a difference between affecting a ship's system that doesn't exist, and affecting a ship's system that doesn't impair it

Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to troll everyone you meet - KuroVolt
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#33 - 2017-03-22 04:30:24 UTC
Tarn Kugisa wrote:
there's a difference between affecting a ship's system that doesn't exist, and affecting a ship's system that doesn't impair it


A tracking disruptor activated against a ship with no turrets is affecting a system that doesn't exist, and yet you still take the sec status penalty for it if you try to tracking disrupt a Drake that you can't legally attack. The tracking disruptor, like ECM bursts, is classified as an aggressive module and all that matters is whether or not the ship you activate it against is a legal target for you.

The only reason anyone thinks the rules need to change is this bizarre idea that gankers are "bad" and anti-gankers are "good", and so the white knights shouldn't have to pay the same penalties as the rest of us as long as their choice of target is a "bad" player.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#34 - 2017-03-22 15:20:49 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
gold for you wrote:
in which anti-gankers ask for even more buffs after receiving a ~40% buff to all freighter EHP less than a year ago.

Fittings. Fittings was the buff. The buff was choices. Not the potential increase in EHP if you fit the freighter for tank.


They installed a ghetto damage control on all freighter for free recently. That was a direct EHP boost no?
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2017-03-23 03:54:43 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
gold for you wrote:
in which anti-gankers ask for even more buffs after receiving a ~40% buff to all freighter EHP less than a year ago.

Fittings. Fittings was the buff. The buff was choices. Not the potential increase in EHP if you fit the freighter for tank.


They installed a ghetto damage control on all freighter for free recently. That was a direct EHP boost no?

You're right, I forgot about that one.

Two buffs, one was fitting.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Previous page12