These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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] Ewar Tweaks for Retribution

First post First post
Author
Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#261 - 2012-11-05 11:15:27 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone, thanks for the feedback so far.

One change to report at this time, we're extending the range boost to the Kitsune as well.

I'd also like to address the questions about why we've chosen skills as the route to increase sensor strength. Compared to just nerfing the base values of ECM or increasing the sensor strength of all ships, using skills provides new choices that players can make about priorities. Decisions like whether to train your sensor compensation skill to 4 or get and extra level of surgical strike, whether you should train another race's sensor corp or focus on your favorite race in order to specialize, are the kind of choices the skill system is designed to create.

We also believe that providing skills to help defend against things like ewar gives useful tools to players. With the introduction of these sensor comp skills there will be skills that mitigate every form of ewar except target painters. As we move forward I would not be averse to adding a sig radius reducing skill as well, as part of a general movement towards making signature radius more noticeable to everyday pilots.

As for the choice to make four skills instead of one, a basic premise of the eve skill system has always been that a newer player can overtake an older player in ability through specialization. Instead of making older players unbeatable the skill system is intended to use generalization and increased options as the benefits for older players, while giving newer player the option to be just about as good as anyone else at specific roles and specific sets of ships while they work towards adding more options for themselves. The four skills allow a newer player who focuses on one race first to get the same resistance to ECM as a much older player while only investing 1/4 the SP. Players are also welcome to broaden their scope, and training the first few levels of each skill will be a very quick affair, while getting them to level 5 for the last 5% bonus would require significant investment.

To answer one other question we're getting about unprobable ships, these skills will not make any ships unprobable since becoming unprobable was made impossible a little over a year ago. They will however make probing ships more difficult and some ships may require higher skill levels and better equipment to catch.


What about the ECM drone suggestion of making them only break lock instead of jamming for 20 sec,this would bring them in line with the other ewar drones, they will be used less but that's a good thing if you ask me

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#262 - 2012-11-05 11:28:50 UTC
Bubanni wrote:
What about the ECM drone suggestion of making them only break lock instead of jamming for 20 sec,this would bring them in line with the other ewar drones, they will be used less but that's a good thing if you ask me


I'm not averse to that idea at all, but due to the resources required it won't be possible for Retribution.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#263 - 2012-11-05 11:34:20 UTC
got another though of ecm why not one skills but the skill is also connected to the actualy ship i.e

you have sensor compensation at 5 but only a ship at 3 then the skill should only be effective of lvl 3

you have the skills at 3 and the ship at 5 then you should only have the skill effective at 3

you have both compensation and ship at 5 then you get the skill fully effective at 5


just my thoughts.
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#264 - 2012-11-05 11:34:22 UTC
The SD buff is weaksauce. One ECm is still better at knocking an enemy out of the fight than 3 damps.

The TD nerf, assuming they will get to missiles, is weaksauce. I wont repeat the maths, but really, we will be seeing dual-XLASB Cyclones with TD's blotting out the sun.

The TP buff is not enough, also weaksauce. Baby steps are good, but until 10% TP strength directly translates into 10% DPS buff (which it doesn't and can't in all situations) no one will forego webs on T2 minnie hulls for TPs.

The ECm nerf is also weaksauce, as it doesn't address the chance mechanic, which is most perverse with drones. This also goes for the skills, which buff your sensor strength, and hence your percentages change, but you're still liable to be jammed by EC-300's.

THe skills...well, as one who flies all 4 races subcap, it is clear you train Caldari 3, Amarr and Gallente 4, and Minmatar to 5. That will level the sensor strength stupidities inherent in the racial milieux and allocate your training time where it is best used.
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#265 - 2012-11-05 11:39:03 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone, thanks for the feedback so far.

One change to report at this time, we're extending the range boost to the Kitsune as well.

I'd also like to address the questions about why we've chosen skills as the route to increase sensor strength. Compared to just nerfing the base values of ECM or increasing the sensor strength of all ships, using skills provides new choices that players can make about priorities. Decisions like whether to train your sensor compensation skill to 4 or get and extra level of surgical strike, whether you should train another race's sensor corp or focus on your favorite race in order to specialize, are the kind of choices the skill system is designed to create.

We also believe that providing skills to help defend against things like ewar gives useful tools to players. With the introduction of these sensor comp skills there will be skills that mitigate every form of ewar except target painters. As we move forward I would not be averse to adding a sig radius reducing skill as well, as part of a general movement towards making signature radius more noticeable to everyday pilots.

As for the choice to make four skills instead of one, a basic premise of the eve skill system has always been that a newer player can overtake an older player in ability through specialization. Instead of making older players unbeatable the skill system is intended to use generalization and increased options as the benefits for older players, while giving newer player the option to be just about as good as anyone else at specific roles and specific sets of ships while they work towards adding more options for themselves. The four skills allow a newer player who focuses on one race first to get the same resistance to ECM as a much older player while only investing 1/4 the SP. Players are also welcome to broaden their scope, and training the first few levels of each skill will be a very quick affair, while getting them to level 5 for the last 5% bonus would require significant investment.

To answer one other question we're getting about unprobable ships, these skills will not make any ships unprobable since becoming unprobable was made impossible a little over a year ago. They will however make probing ships more difficult and some ships may require higher skill levels and better equipment to catch.


you do know giving a skill to reduce signature radius would have been an easy way to balance missles i hope if you do decide to introduce this skill then missles will infact get a smaller explosive radius or it will make missles less effective than they ever were.
Denuo Secus
#266 - 2012-11-05 11:41:12 UTC
@CCP Fozzie: any hint or sneak preview what you have in mind as a 'final solution' for ECM? As ECM pilot myself I'm not really happy with the current dice-mechanic. Other ewar forms are more plannable. The binary nature of ECM makes it quite frustrating sometimes. And I say this not from the receiving end of ECM ^^

Also (off-topic, since I don't find another dedicated thread for this in F&I): same for the armor tanking tweak you mentioned earlier. I'm really curious what you have in mind to make armor tanking more usable on medium and large sized ships. Sorry for beeing off-topic here...I'd love to see a new thread 'armor tanking tweaks' Cool
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
Goonswarm Federation
#267 - 2012-11-05 12:20:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Smoking Blunts
why are meta 4 jammers better than t2?

surely the extra cap useage (not to mention fitting requirments)of the t2 mod should make them slightly better than there meta 4 counter part. much in the same way t2 armor plates were recently adjusted isnt it about time you fix t2 jammers while your fixing EWAR.

OMG when can i get a pic here

Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#268 - 2012-11-05 12:21:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Bouh Revetoile
To the "nerf td" crowd : how effective TD should be to be "balanced" ?

IMO, EWAR is binary thing, and is either very effective or not at all.

Neutralizing is as cripling as ECM, though it's not chance based, and the answer is "fit a cap booster". Though a cap booster does NOT immune you against neutra. Infact, cap booster allow you to run your gun and tackle while neuted, though if you had an active tank, forget it. That's why there's so many projectiles/missiles in the the first place : neut immunity.

Damp, they were so good they were nerfed to death, and now even specialized ships don't use them (or they very rarely do), though it is binary thing too : you are either damped to inability to lock or not. Just because is more often not than damped, noone care about damp.

TP are not defensive EWAR.

TD : the only working EWAR on unbonused hull. You are either TD so you cannot hit your target or not. If you can hit your target, TD is rather ineffective. If you can't, people will scream "OP".

Web is not really a defensive EWAR, though when a Rapier double web you, you are screwed.

And for the "because of a falcon", most of the time the problem is the addition of a utility ship providing the victory. Logistic ships are almost as powerful than ECM in fact.

In fact, I sometimes feel that everything breaking the speed/gank/tank paradigm (minmatar doctrine basicaly) is seen as overpowered.

PS : TD affecting missiles is not planed for this winter, and that may never hit TQ in fact ; they choose to nerf/buff missiles the hard way and see what happen before going to the TD/TC/TE solution. This is how I understood the missiles rebalance, and if the rebalance is enough, then they will consider TD/TC/TE.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#269 - 2012-11-05 12:38:33 UTC
serras bang wrote:

you do know giving a skill to reduce signature radius would have been an easy way to balance missles i hope if you do decide to introduce this skill then missles will infact get a smaller explosive radius or it will make missles less effective than they ever were.


To be fair... Nothing should reduce a ships signature radius... It's the size of the ship. How some magical links or implants have an effect on the size of your ship is ******** enough, introducing a skill as well would be beyond silly.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#270 - 2012-11-05 12:47:48 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
serras bang wrote:

you do know giving a skill to reduce signature radius would have been an easy way to balance missles i hope if you do decide to introduce this skill then missles will infact get a smaller explosive radius or it will make missles less effective than they ever were.


To be fair... Nothing should reduce a ships signature radius... It's the size of the ship. How some magical links or implants have an effect on the size of your ship is ******** enough, introducing a skill as well would be beyond silly.


It's the size of the sensor signature your ship gives to others. Just as how a stealth bomber uses special materials and unique shapes to look smaller on radar than it actually is, in the world of Eve there are high tech methods to reduce the signature radius of a ship without reducing its physical size.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#271 - 2012-11-05 12:51:16 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
serras bang wrote:

you do know giving a skill to reduce signature radius would have been an easy way to balance missles i hope if you do decide to introduce this skill then missles will infact get a smaller explosive radius or it will make missles less effective than they ever were.


To be fair... Nothing should reduce a ships signature radius... It's the size of the ship. How some magical links or implants have an effect on the size of your ship is ******** enough, introducing a skill as well would be beyond silly.



signature is not the same thing as size.


EM signature of an airplane is somewhat bigger than the airplane itself (transmitting radio waves, reflecting radio waves and all that).

if we transpose it to EVE, the shields a ship have makes the ship look bigger on tracking and radar instruments than it actually is.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right

Berfdod
Pwncakes and Rofls
#272 - 2012-11-05 13:13:25 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
using skills provides new choices that players can make about priorities. Decisions like whether to train your sensor compensation skill to 4 or get and extra level of surgical strike, whether you should train another race's sensor corp or focus on your favorite race in order to specialize, are the kind of choices the skill system is designed to create.

We also believe that providing skills to help defend against things like ewar gives useful tools to players. With the introduction of these sensor comp skills there will be skills that mitigate every form of ewar except target painters. As we move forward I would not be averse to adding a sig radius reducing skill as well, as part of a general movement towards making signature radius more noticeable to everyday pilots.

As for the choice to make four skills instead of one, a basic premise of the eve skill system has always been that a newer player can overtake an older player in ability through specialization. Instead of making older players unbeatable the skill system is intended to use generalization and increased options as the benefits for older players, while giving newer player the option to be just about as good as anyone else at specific roles and specific sets of ships while they work towards adding more options for themselves. The four skills allow a newer player who focuses on one race first to get the same resistance to ECM as a much older player while only investing 1/4 the SP. Players are also welcome to broaden their scope, and training the first few levels of each skill will be a very quick affair, while getting them to level 5 for the last 5% bonus would require significant investment.



having been a new player at one point, this game is awfully long to even be able to play, to be at such a huge disadvantage for so long, to feel that there is little point to playing if you make the grind to be an acceptable pilot its not worth playing. you might want to look that all your new subs are all old peoples alts that know the game this wont be an attractive game to a new player if tehy cannot fly a ship for 3 years. just creating buffers so those of us (me included) that are nearing 10 years old keep huge advantages are silly. balance should come, not leave people that have played for ever some "edge" especially in a pvp based environment. there should be some point that its a level playing feild. that said its imposible to over come old players with specialization since there are limits of only 5 in skills. why drag out more skills to max to be competitive. :(
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#273 - 2012-11-05 13:26:50 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone, thanks for the feedback so far.

One change to report at this time, we're extending the range boost to the Kitsune as well.

I'd also like to address the questions about why we've chosen skills as the route to increase sensor strength. Compared to just nerfing the base values of ECM or increasing the sensor strength of all ships, using skills provides new choices that players can make about priorities. Decisions like whether to train your sensor compensation skill to 4 or get and extra level of surgical strike, whether you should train another race's sensor corp or focus on your favorite race in order to specialize, are the kind of choices the skill system is designed to create.

We also believe that providing skills to help defend against things like ewar gives useful tools to players. With the introduction of these sensor comp skills there will be skills that mitigate every form of ewar except target painters. As we move forward I would not be averse to adding a sig radius reducing skill as well, as part of a general movement towards making signature radius more noticeable to everyday pilots.

As for the choice to make four skills instead of one, a basic premise of the eve skill system has always been that a newer player can overtake an older player in ability through specialization. Instead of making older players unbeatable the skill system is intended to use generalization and increased options as the benefits for older players, while giving newer player the option to be just about as good as anyone else at specific roles and specific sets of ships while they work towards adding more options for themselves. The four skills allow a newer player who focuses on one race first to get the same resistance to ECM as a much older player while only investing 1/4 the SP. Players are also welcome to broaden their scope, and training the first few levels of each skill will be a very quick affair, while getting them to level 5 for the last 5% bonus would require significant investment.

To answer one other question we're getting about unprobable ships, these skills will not make any ships unprobable since becoming unprobable was made impossible a little over a year ago. They will however make probing ships more difficult and some ships may require higher skill levels and better equipment to catch.


can the kitsune even target far enough for this new bonus which is 12.5% optimal range and falloff?

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#274 - 2012-11-05 13:40:49 UTC
For the uninitiated.

Electronic Signature of a F-18 Super Hornet is about the size of a large seagull.

Electronic Signature of a F-35 Thunder II is about the size of a US quater.

Electronic Signature =/= Phsyical Size.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#275 - 2012-11-05 13:46:11 UTC
Nova Fox wrote:
For the uninitiated.

Electronic Signature of a F-18 Super Hornet is about the size of a large seagull.

Electronic Signature of a F-35 Thunder II is about the size of a US quater.

Electronic Signature =/= Phsyical Size.


It is understandable that ships with huge shield fields around the vessel would have signature that scales with the size of the ship.

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us

serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#276 - 2012-11-05 13:52:38 UTC  |  Edited by: serras bang
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
serras bang wrote:

you do know giving a skill to reduce signature radius would have been an easy way to balance missles i hope if you do decide to introduce this skill then missles will infact get a smaller explosive radius or it will make missles less effective than they ever were.


To be fair... Nothing should reduce a ships signature radius... It's the size of the ship. How some magical links or implants have an effect on the size of your ship is ******** enough, introducing a skill as well would be beyond silly.


It's the size of the sensor signature your ship gives to others. Just as how a stealth bomber uses special materials and unique shapes to look smaller on radar than it actually is, in the world of Eve there are high tech methods to reduce the signature radius of a ship without reducing its physical size.


so a smaller sig radius will not affect a missle capability to lay dmg on the target ? as most of us know signature radius and explosive radius has always been linked small signature radius vs large explosive radius means dmg is lost becuase the target is so small please consider this.
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#277 - 2012-11-05 13:56:12 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
serras bang wrote:

you do know giving a skill to reduce signature radius would have been an easy way to balance missles i hope if you do decide to introduce this skill then missles will infact get a smaller explosive radius or it will make missles less effective than they ever were.


To be fair... Nothing should reduce a ships signature radius... It's the size of the ship. How some magical links or implants have an effect on the size of your ship is ******** enough, introducing a skill as well would be beyond silly.


also to be fair it is possible that in a space game that character would also have the ability to better hide there ship from sensors and even bing the shield closer to the hull itself to reduce size of shield around the ship and it is even possible that characters could by having a tighter shield to the ship actively have a stronger shield.
fukier
Brave Collective
#278 - 2012-11-05 14:11:33 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Bubanni wrote:
What about the ECM drone suggestion of making them only break lock instead of jamming for 20 sec,this would bring them in line with the other ewar drones, they will be used less but that's a good thing if you ask me


I'm not averse to that idea at all, but due to the resources required it won't be possible for Retribution.


do you think it could make it into verions 1.1 or 1.2 or is there already a plan for those releases...
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Siberian Squads
#279 - 2012-11-05 14:53:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Bubanni wrote:
What about the ECM drone suggestion of making them only break lock instead of jamming for 20 sec,this would bring them in line with the other ewar drones, they will be used less but that's a good thing if you ask me


I'm not averse to that idea at all, but due to the resources required it won't be possible for Retribution.

What's wrong with ecm drones acting like... ecm jammers?

If you think current ec-300s are way too good for their pricetag (lol), then nothing prevents CCP from nerfing them directly and introducing drones of higher meta-levels to match current strength. Really. At the moment ecm drones are pretty much the only option to escape some fail-proof ganks.

Yet again: what needs addressing is stacking craploads of ecm drone packs at one single target. Sending just one pack against overtanked proteuses or small pesky frigs is not gamebreaking at all!

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Vengeance
Team Amarrica
#280 - 2012-11-05 14:53:17 UTC
I have a HG Halo implant clone. When coupled with a Loki booster it has the following impact on some ships' signature radii:

Wolf - 33m to 16m
Thrasher - 56m to 28m
SFI - 96m to 48m

And we want to add a skill to further lower sig radius? Tell me more of this 'I win' button.