These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Winter] EW Frigate Rebalance

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
#221 - 2012-08-20 19:13:16 UTC
I've been trying to think of why the races have the ewar they do, given their racial enemies. Gallente damp the traditional sniper Caldari, Caldari jam drones or gallente ships when they are up close, Amarr rightfully use TD on projectile-using Minmatar, and Minmatar.... er... I can't really see a reason to be using TP on Amarr. Missiles are a secondary weapon system for the Minmatar, so the benefit to torp phoons just doesn't justify it for me. It should be something that allows the Minmatar to counter the primary weapon system of the Amarr. The problem is, the best thing to use again the Amarr is really their own ewar.
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club
#222 - 2012-08-21 01:10:42 UTC
For a T1 frigates I believe 7.5% is sufficient for a maulus.

I do hope the bonuses are stronger for Cruiser and Tech 2 variants.

10-12.5% bonus to sensor damps for the higher class ships would make sensor damps fantastic.

Like Liang Nuren stated, sensor damps got severely nerfed a while ago, the current sensor damps are only 25% as effective as the old sensor damps.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#223 - 2012-08-21 02:01:37 UTC
Irregessa wrote:
I've been trying to think of why the races have the ewar they do, given their racial enemies. Gallente damp the traditional sniper Caldari, Caldari jam drones or gallente ships when they are up close, Amarr rightfully use TD on projectile-using Minmatar, and Minmatar.... er... I can't really see a reason to be using TP on Amarr. Missiles are a secondary weapon system for the Minmatar, so the benefit to torp phoons just doesn't justify it for me. It should be something that allows the Minmatar to counter the primary weapon system of the Amarr. The problem is, the best thing to use again the Amarr is really their own ewar.


Target painters are basically tracking computers that also work for missiles. With target painters, combined with the tracking bonus that's common on minny ships, minmatar can always go fast enough to be faster than their opponent's tracking, while still being able to hit their opponent pretty accurately themselves. Just think of it as the opposite of a tracking disruptor: instead of making your enemy's tracking worse, it makes your whole fleet's tracking better.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#224 - 2012-08-21 03:18:59 UTC
Irregessa wrote:
It should be something that allows the Minmatar to counter the primary weapon system of the Amarr. The problem is, the best thing to use again the Amarr is really their own ewar.


I'm sure there would be howling from all corners if CCP swapped cap warfare over to the Minmatar (neuts are already a common fitting on Matari ships), and webs over to the Amarr, but if you think about them in terms of countering their opponents' strengths, it makes a lot more sense.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#225 - 2012-08-21 07:06:13 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Sui'Djin wrote:

interesting idea. Why shouldn't painters be able to also decrease a targets' signature (via inverter script)? This way they could also have a defensive roll and maybe help logistics. It would make painters more versatile.

This would be support ; though, maybe a script to increase sig res of ennemy turrets ?


This was one of the suggestions that came up in internal brainstorming as well, unfortunately it actually has the exact same effect as a tracking disruptor since sig res and tracking are both equal in the tracking formula.
Just to be clear, you're talking here about increasing sig res, not defensive target painting? Though increasing sig res would create an interesting "stacking" mechanic where two different effects would be more effective than a single effect.

Brainstorming other E-War effects on damage projection.

We already have:
- breaking locks / reducing # of locks
- restricting locking ability (range / time)
- negating gunnery stats (range / tracking)

Other possibilities:
- reducing base damage
- increasing weapon cycle time
- a "skip" chance where a weapon will simply not fire one cycle (and might or might not consume ammo)


On EW vs caps:

ECM: one mechanism is to give them very high sensor strength, but that still leaves them vulnerable to a sufficiently large fleet of ECM drones or griffins. An option might be an ECM threshold, or perhaps ECM penalty. Reducing the strength of all inbound ECM by 1 would grant immunity to EC-300. Reducing it by 3 would grant immunity to all ECM drones, and make it near impossible to get a jam with off-racials in a griffin or blackbird.

Other: a simple 50% (or whatever) reduction on the strength of inbound EW would be relatively effective, given that the inbound effects are bounded by stacking penalties.

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
#226 - 2012-08-21 17:08:26 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Irregessa wrote:
It should be something that allows the Minmatar to counter the primary weapon system of the Amarr. The problem is, the best thing to use again the Amarr is really their own ewar.


I'm sure there would be howling from all corners if CCP swapped cap warfare over to the Minmatar (neuts are already a common fitting on Matari ships), and webs over to the Amarr, but if you think about them in terms of countering their opponents' strengths, it makes a lot more sense.


Possibly why the Paladin has a web velocity bonus.
Deena Amaj
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#227 - 2012-08-21 17:37:18 UTC
Minmatar was always about "borrowing" from others

confirthisposmed

I'm probably typing on a Tablet too, which means the auto-correct is silly and fixing typos is a pain. I ain't fixing them.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#228 - 2012-08-22 03:03:02 UTC
Irregessa wrote:
Minmatar, and Minmatar.... er... I can't really see a reason to be using TP on Amarr.
so they can hit them. Minmatar turrets have poor tracking compared to the other race's turrets.
Suitonia
Order of the Red Kestrel
#229 - 2012-08-22 04:04:43 UTC
Pink Marshmellow wrote:
For a T1 frigates I believe 7.5% is sufficient for a maulus.

I do hope the bonuses are stronger for Cruiser and Tech 2 variants.

10-12.5% bonus to sensor damps for the higher class ships would make sensor damps fantastic.

Like Liang Nuren stated, sensor damps got severely nerfed a while ago, the current sensor damps are only 25% as effective as the old sensor damps.


Need to be very careful with damp bonuses though, because unfortunately when CCP nerfed Damps by 2/3s, halfed the rig effectiveness, and scripted them they also changed the damp formula to be inverse % thus making damps much stronger at higher pecentages, although weaker at lower ones. If we increased them beyond 7.5% to say 10-12.5%, then Mindlinked Proteus damps could achieve 90%+ damps (edge abuse case I know). which would be pretty ********. Although proteus links instead of loki links could be a refreshing change.

Prehaps a better solution would be to increase Sensor Damp rig strength. I never understood why CCP nerfed the damp rigs in the first place because non-spec damps is what they were aiming at nerfing, and damp rigs are specialising.

Another alternative would be Falloff bonus rigs, or an additional falloff bonus for sensor damps on spec ships. Would increase damps effective range allowing damp fits to hang back at a bit of a safer distance, 45km optimal on damps with everything V currently is a bit too close to common mid-range DPS ships. Although this range kind of works for Arazu/Lachesis. Having Celestis become more of a long range damp boat could make it more interesting for fleet combat.

Contributer to Eve is Easy:  https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos

Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#230 - 2012-08-22 04:06:57 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Irregessa wrote:
Minmatar, and Minmatar.... er... I can't really see a reason to be using TP on Amarr.
so they can hit them. Minmatar turrets have poor tracking compared to the other race's turrets.


Er ... autocannons have the second best tracking in the game. Combined with ships that tend to get nifty tracking bonuses, at close-medium range, minmatar tracking is already second to none.

Artillery, though ... yeah ... comparatively major tracking issues. At range, a target painter is really the only thing that would allow the minmatar to keep up with the relatively excellent tracking of beam lasers.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#231 - 2012-08-22 10:56:07 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Sui'Djin wrote:

interesting idea. Why shouldn't painters be able to also decrease a targets' signature (via inverter script)? This way they could also have a defensive roll and maybe help logistics. It would make painters more versatile.

This would be support ; though, maybe a script to increase sig res of ennemy turrets ?


This was one of the suggestions that came up in internal brainstorming as well, unfortunately it actually has the exact same effect as a tracking disruptor since sig res and tracking are both equal in the tracking formula.



However this form of EWAR would be diametrically (dunno if that is the correct term but it sounds good Blink) opposed to tracking disruptors in that this ship improves the defenses of friendlies instead of reducing the offensive capabilities of enemies.

A ship using TD's is also defending itself from the enemy. A ship using inverted TP's is only defending it's squad mates leaving itself vulnerable. This vulnerability is balanced out by the fact that inverted TP's would do something TD's can't. Which is effect missile ability to apply damage.

It's an interesting mechanic that I think should be explored and can easily be achieved by simply adding an "Offensive" or "Positive" sript and a "Defensive" or "Negative" script.
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
#232 - 2012-08-22 23:12:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Kuehnelt
So... except for some other uses of the Vigil which have been thoroughly replied to by CCP, and except for EWAR revamps that CCP have declared to be beyond the scope of this rebalance, and except for a criticism of the Maulus which has been incorporated into the rebalance, these changes aren't controversial at all.

So, how about a patch?

Seriously, who do I have to bribe to be able to fly this Crucifier next week?

We'll pick a low-activity system, I'll go there with the goods in my cargo and then die to rats at a celestial beacon, and you can come in your Polaris or whatever and scoop it up. Nobody will ever know. I bet you don't get many Succubus blueprints in Jove space, hmm?
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#233 - 2012-08-23 00:39:25 UTC  |  Edited by: MJ Incognito
You do realize that's going to put a bonus Crucifier up to nearly 92.24% range for tracking reduction with a bonus Proteus and something like 150 optimal...

You can easily get the targeting range, and a prop mod, and 2 TD's at that range.

On a 425 rail rokh, you're taking it down to something like 20km optimal at best with just 1 TD.
On a normal fit AC Hurricane, you're 1 TD takes it down to .31 optimal + 2.4 falloff

That could be pretty OP for a 100% success rate e-war mod.


IM ALSO INCREDIBLY CONCERNED ABOUT the fact that 4 of these targeted on one ship will create a statistical 0 which could result in once again breaking the tracking formula like we saw with the wormhole exploit of old. I'm not positive, but I'd guess that at some level your software or hardware tends to round which would cause a major break in the game.

On an unsieged nag with 3 TD's and bonuses, you can get the tracking with this power down to ~ .0000013, and down to 1 ten millionth of a radian with 4 TD's.
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
#234 - 2012-08-23 01:52:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Kuehnelt
MJ Incognito wrote:
You do realize that's going to put a bonus Crucifier up to nearly 92.24% range or tracking reduction with a bonus Proteus and something like 150 optimal...


Quote:
[New Crucifier]

Damage Control II
400mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Micro Auxiliary Power Core II

Limited 1MN Microwarpdrive I
Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Optimal Range Disruption Script
Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Optimal Range Disruption Script
Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Optimal Range Disruption Script

125mm Gatling AutoCannon II
[empty]

Small Ionic Field Projector I
Small Ionic Field Projector I
Small Ionic Field Projector I

Warrior II x4
[25m3 space free]


139km targeting range. 100km TD optimal + 30km falloff. 69% disruption strength with max skills. But then, every laser boat I've ever flown, except possibly the ones with battleship-sized guns, would be completely shut down by 1x unbonused scripted TD. That's because fighting at mid range isn't a choice with lasers when they're out-DPSed by everything else at close range -- and fighting at close range with long-range T1/faction crystals (a move to counteract the TD some) is just asking to gently polish the enemy's armor instead of destroying it. And T3+anything is ridiculous. So it seems like you're mainly continuing the off-topic EWAR discussion. Why don't you want me to be able to fly the Crucifier next week? :-( What did I ever do to you? **** it. Want a Slave implant? Recant immediately, and if the patch comes through I'll deliver one to you when I don't get caught by Sabres in KKH and die with it. You can trust me.

Anyway, a Crucifier sitting at 70-90km with these 100km TDs is within the falloff of an unbonused scripted Damp, which when it hits will reduce the Crucifier's 130km targeting range to a 60km range. So one unbonused Damp can remove as many as three TDs from the field. And Crucifiers with Drone Durability and fitting and cap rigs instead of targeting rigs will suffer more.

So, stealth Damp buff? "Someone bring a Maulus, ******* Kuehnelt always tries to TD at range." ?

It already happens on TQ. It happened to my 70km 3xTD Arbitrator. I tried to keep away from a blob while TDing a guy that was all over a corpie in a Gila, and one of the blob damped my TDs off. I was shocked -- I had to remember what a damp even was.
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#235 - 2012-08-23 01:57:21 UTC  |  Edited by: MJ Incognito
Kuehnelt wrote:
.


you're fit isn't exactly what I was talking about. 2 td rigs, proteus bonus, SB mid, SA low, prop mod is what i'm talking about.

currently that fit provides 83.84% TD. after the change, it's 92.24% at 144 optimal with a lock range of 194

Not to mention you got a frig going 4,000 + m/s speed.


Understand that mechanics get broken by players who aim to exploit them, not by average players with average every day fits.

If I truly wanted to take this too far, i can get the optimal and lock range out to 190+ optimal and 250 lock range using implants.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#236 - 2012-08-23 07:30:09 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Sui'Djin wrote:

interesting idea. Why shouldn't painters be able to also decrease a targets' signature (via inverter script)? This way they could also have a defensive roll and maybe help logistics. It would make painters more versatile.

This would be support ; though, maybe a script to increase sig res of ennemy turrets ?


This was one of the suggestions that came up in internal brainstorming as well, unfortunately it actually has the exact same effect as a tracking disruptor since sig res and tracking are both equal in the tracking formula.

You could say target painters can increase the blast radius of missiles on target ship. (The missile targeting systems are blinded brightness of the target painter on the ship). You get your "missile tracking disruptor" and improve Minmatar e-war at same time. Then give them a script "offensive, painter", "defensive, missile disruption". Minmatar get their disruption e-war module. Missiles get a counter measure. Tracking disruptors are not OP. I can put a painter on my Comet and actually compete with a hookbill. We all win!
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#237 - 2012-08-23 08:38:46 UTC
We already have a counter for missiles. Defender missiles. They just don't work.

We either need defender missiles to be fixed or to be replaced with something that does work. What if instead of shooting intercept missiles defenders became chaff and flare launchers? They would reduce your signature radius and would lower the effective damage application of missiles. The drawback would be that whilst this was active your sensors would negatively effected. Say whilst chaff & flare launcher is active you get a -25% signature radius but a -50% sensor strength, scan resolution and targeting range.
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#238 - 2012-08-23 09:15:16 UTC  |  Edited by: MJ Incognito
CCP Fozzie wrote:

This was one of the suggestions that came up in internal brainstorming as well, unfortunately it actually has the exact same effect as a tracking disruptor since sig res and tracking are both equal in the tracking formula.



Signature and tracking are not the same. The developers seem to just not understand this for some god awful reason. Signature is a multiplier on tracking. Signature does **** all to a target at 0 speed. If what you said was correct.... signature should affect ability to hit when a target is stationary. Same is true if your tracking is exceeded by ship speed.... no matter how big the target is, it's signature has 0 impact on your chance to hit.

I really wish you devs would learn your own frickin mechanics.

The only way your statement would be true is if tracking accounted for a maximum 50% chance to hit and was added to signature which accounted for the other 50% of a chance to hit for a total opportunity of up to 100%. That is not what your formula does.

NOTICE THAT + thing i just mentioned.... your formula doesn't have that. It has 2 fractions multiplied together. Tracking being the dominant factor in the formula because of the way the ratios are set up. Signature play's such a **** ant role in this game currently because you can't manipulate it like you can tracking from an offensive standpoint.

Calling it the same is why we have such ******** tracking mechanics that get heavily exploited in this game. Hence tracking dreads blapping ******* frigates and cruiser more easily post patch b/c Greyscale didn't have a clue what he was doing.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#239 - 2012-08-23 09:26:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
MJ Incognito wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

This was one of the suggestions that came up in internal brainstorming as well, unfortunately it actually has the exact same effect as a tracking disruptor since sig res and tracking are both equal in the tracking formula.



Signature and tracking are not the same. The developers seem to just not understand this for some god awful reason. Signature is a multiplier on tracking. Signature does **** all to a target at 0 speed. If what you said was correct.... signature should affect ability to hit when a target is stationary. Same is true if your tracking is exceeded by ship speed.... no matter how big the target is, it's signature has 0 impact on your chance to hit.


You don't seem to understand the tracking formula yourself.

You seem to be unaware the transversal velocity is what matters. It's calculated from your own ship's vector and the target's ship vector. Even if the target is stationary, if you're moving in a way that is not either directly towards or directly away from the target, the target's transversal speed will be greater than 0. At 0 transversal, both signature and tracking are irrelevant. At values greater than 0 signature radius makes it proportionally easier or harder to track a target in the same way as tracking.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#240 - 2012-08-23 10:28:43 UTC
Not sure how accurate this is but it explains the tracking formula and references signature radius a little. The way I see it is if a weapons signature radius is larger than the ships signature radius is there a "Chance to miss" even if the target is stationary?

Looking through that link to me it seems that that even if you're within your optimal, have zero tranversal velocity your shot could still potentially miss cause the "Hit Area" is larger than the ship.

It seems to be like firing a rifle at a target that is stationary. Your group at 50 meters is 50mm in diameter but if the target is smaller than that, say 45mm in diameter, 10% of your shots would miss.

The tracking formula can be misleading. Any chance anyone can clarify if I'm getting this right?