These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#361 - 2012-11-06 23:19:56 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
[quote=Sean Parisi]Just the reverse, there should exist a hard limit of what ships can be damped to;say, 25% of the base locking range is always retained no matter how many dampeners are applied. Just a matter of balancing and our ultimate goal, really. EVE needs less one-sided ganks, not more.

So an arty BS can alpha your ship, it's fair, but a celestis shouldn't be able to damp you to death, because it's EWAR ? It's EVE, there's always a ship against the one you are harmless. Nerf ECM too far, and Pilgrim will flourish. It's worse than ECM because TD only work on turrets, but still, fairly usefull. Nerf TD to death then, and no EWAR will be useful. Recon ship will disappear to joy of solo/small gang pvper unable to deal with something different from their vision of the game : a game where piloting is the only thing authorized to differenciate people...

As for your good mechanic of neutralizing : you still need a cap booster to be able to do anything against it. If it's not fitting choice, I don't know what it is. And the curse can neut from 30km. It's not ECM range, but it's far enough to be rather safe. And unless you have cap less weapon (fitting choice again), you are screwed the same way you would be with ECM, or even worse : at least ECM don't shut down your prop mod and still allow you to warp out.

Of course the prayer based mechanic is not good, but they are working on something. My only hope is this something to be as universal as ECM currently are.
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#362 - 2012-11-07 00:01:16 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
[quote=Sean Parisi]Just the reverse, there should exist a hard limit of what ships can be damped to;say, 25% of the base locking range is always retained no matter how many dampeners are applied. Just a matter of balancing and our ultimate goal, really. EVE needs less one-sided ganks, not more.

So an arty BS can alpha your ship, it's fair, but a celestis shouldn't be able to damp you to death, because it's EWAR ? It's EVE, there's always a ship against the one you are harmless. Nerf ECM too far, and Pilgrim will flourish. It's worse than ECM because TD only work on turrets, but still, fairly usefull. Nerf TD to death then, and no EWAR will be useful. Recon ship will disappear to joy of solo/small gang pvper unable to deal with something different from their vision of the game : a game where piloting is the only thing authorized to differenciate people...

As for your good mechanic of neutralizing : you still need a cap booster to be able to do anything against it. If it's not fitting choice, I don't know what it is. And the curse can neut from 30km. It's not ECM range, but it's far enough to be rather safe. And unless you have cap less weapon (fitting choice again), you are screwed the same way you would be with ECM, or even worse : at least ECM don't shut down your prop mod and still allow you to warp out.

Of course the prayer based mechanic is not good, but they are working on something. My only hope is this something to be as universal as ECM currently are.


Hard-capping something is ridiculous. It limits capabilities of modules drastically - just because of a seemingly vendetta against a current play style. ECM Frustrates people, but so do a variety of other counters.

"Balancing" EvE is not about balancing, it is about certain play styles, fittings and ships having a bonus over others. A constant game of rock papers scissors in an attempt to other think the enemy and dispatch them as effectively as possible. Regardless of whether you like it or not, ganks will always exist - they will just exist in a different fashion.

Nerf E-War to death? Find, I will use a sensor dampening Celestis to solo damp the hell out of a target. Nerf that? I will use a logistcs alt to keep my character alive while I burn you. Nerf that? I will bring a Rapier to web you permanently while I kite you to death with tracking disruptors in sniper like fashion. If this game existed of solely "Pew and Logistics" I would quit in a moment. The differences between electronic warfare and their effects keep me interested in finding ways in which to completely devastate and violate my enemy. I find it intriguing to find an interesting way in which to trap and devastate an enemy, to be as effectively as possible with limited resources. As opposed to throwing two combat ships at a target and losing one of them for one reason or another. I prefer to act like a scorpion, inject poison and feast on the rotting body of a paralyzed victim.
Gangname Style
Doomheim
#363 - 2012-11-07 00:20:27 UTC
Sean Parisi wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
[quote=Sean Parisi]Just the reverse, there should exist a hard limit of what ships can be damped to;say, 25% of the base locking range is always retained no matter how many dampeners are applied. Just a matter of balancing and our ultimate goal, really. EVE needs less one-sided ganks, not more.

So an arty BS can alpha your ship, it's fair, but a celestis shouldn't be able to damp you to death, because it's EWAR ? It's EVE, there's always a ship against the one you are harmless. Nerf ECM too far, and Pilgrim will flourish. It's worse than ECM because TD only work on turrets, but still, fairly usefull. Nerf TD to death then, and no EWAR will be useful. Recon ship will disappear to joy of solo/small gang pvper unable to deal with something different from their vision of the game : a game where piloting is the only thing authorized to differenciate people...

As for your good mechanic of neutralizing : you still need a cap booster to be able to do anything against it. If it's not fitting choice, I don't know what it is. And the curse can neut from 30km. It's not ECM range, but it's far enough to be rather safe. And unless you have cap less weapon (fitting choice again), you are screwed the same way you would be with ECM, or even worse : at least ECM don't shut down your prop mod and still allow you to warp out.

Of course the prayer based mechanic is not good, but they are working on something. My only hope is this something to be as universal as ECM currently are.


Hard-capping something is ridiculous. It limits capabilities of modules drastically - just because of a seemingly vendetta against a current play style. ECM Frustrates people, but so do a variety of other counters.

"Balancing" EvE is not about balancing, it is about certain play styles, fittings and ships having a bonus over others. A constant game of rock papers scissors in an attempt to other think the enemy and dispatch them as effectively as possible. Regardless of whether you like it or not, ganks will always exist - they will just exist in a different fashion.

Nerf E-War to death? Find, I will use a sensor dampening Celestis to solo damp the hell out of a target. Nerf that? I will use a logistcs alt to keep my character alive while I burn you. Nerf that? I will bring a Rapier to web you permanently while I kite you to death with tracking disruptors in sniper like fashion. If this game existed of solely "Pew and Logistics" I would quit in a moment. The differences between electronic warfare and their effects keep me interested in finding ways in which to completely devastate and violate my enemy. I find it intriguing to find an interesting way in which to trap and devastate an enemy, to be as effectively as possible with limited resources. As opposed to throwing two combat ships at a target and losing one of them for one reason or another. I prefer to act like a scorpion, inject poison and feast on the rotting body of a paralyzed victim.


game is not all about what you like.
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#364 - 2012-11-07 00:53:28 UTC
Gangname Style wrote:
Sean Parisi wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
[quote=Sean Parisi]Just the reverse, there should exist a hard limit of what ships can be damped to;say, 25% of the base locking range is always retained no matter how many dampeners are applied. Just a matter of balancing and our ultimate goal, really. EVE needs less one-sided ganks, not more.

So an arty BS can alpha your ship, it's fair, but a celestis shouldn't be able to damp you to death, because it's EWAR ? It's EVE, there's always a ship against the one you are harmless. Nerf ECM too far, and Pilgrim will flourish. It's worse than ECM because TD only work on turrets, but still, fairly usefull. Nerf TD to death then, and no EWAR will be useful. Recon ship will disappear to joy of solo/small gang pvper unable to deal with something different from their vision of the game : a game where piloting is the only thing authorized to differenciate people...

As for your good mechanic of neutralizing : you still need a cap booster to be able to do anything against it. If it's not fitting choice, I don't know what it is. And the curse can neut from 30km. It's not ECM range, but it's far enough to be rather safe. And unless you have cap less weapon (fitting choice again), you are screwed the same way you would be with ECM, or even worse : at least ECM don't shut down your prop mod and still allow you to warp out.

Of course the prayer based mechanic is not good, but they are working on something. My only hope is this something to be as universal as ECM currently are.


Hard-capping something is ridiculous. It limits capabilities of modules drastically - just because of a seemingly vendetta against a current play style. ECM Frustrates people, but so do a variety of other counters.

"Balancing" EvE is not about balancing, it is about certain play styles, fittings and ships having a bonus over others. A constant game of rock papers scissors in an attempt to other think the enemy and dispatch them as effectively as possible. Regardless of whether you like it or not, ganks will always exist - they will just exist in a different fashion.

Nerf E-War to death? Find, I will use a sensor dampening Celestis to solo damp the hell out of a target. Nerf that? I will use a logistcs alt to keep my character alive while I burn you. Nerf that? I will bring a Rapier to web you permanently while I kite you to death with tracking disruptors in sniper like fashion. If this game existed of solely "Pew and Logistics" I would quit in a moment. The differences between electronic warfare and their effects keep me interested in finding ways in which to completely devastate and violate my enemy. I find it intriguing to find an interesting way in which to trap and devastate an enemy, to be as effectively as possible with limited resources. As opposed to throwing two combat ships at a target and losing one of them for one reason or another. I prefer to act like a scorpion, inject poison and feast on the rotting body of a paralyzed victim.


game is not all about what you like.


Sure, but the same can be applied to everything else in game. I am just highlighting the mechanics that I enjoy - I do not believe that is wrong as I provide a reason and feed back. Something that is far more productive then ridicule and an attempt to try and make a witty post. Regardless of what happens to ECM there will always be a way of having the same effect, just by using a different mechanic. The exact same phrase can be said to people who hate logistics, who hate E-War or Ganks. Everyone is inclined to provide their opinion, regardless of what it may be - as long as it is productive and forwards feedback.
Judas Lonestar
Stryker Industries
Stryker Group
#365 - 2012-11-07 03:22:21 UTC
So all those hardcore PVP'ers show themselves to be as bad of carebears as miners.


Dont give in to the carebears CCP. Tell'm to fit ewar modules, just like miners should have fit tank instead of yield.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#366 - 2012-11-07 03:37:18 UTC
was hoping the scorp would get the same jam str as a falcon (whether the scorp goes up/falcon goes down or they meet in the middle).

i also like the painter high slot idea. doubt u'd need to buff them then, they'd be great.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#367 - 2012-11-07 05:10:17 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
[quote=Sean Parisi]Just the reverse, there should exist a hard limit of what ships can be damped to;say, 25% of the base locking range is always retained no matter how many dampeners are applied. Just a matter of balancing and our ultimate goal, really. EVE needs less one-sided ganks, not more.

So an arty BS can alpha your ship, it's fair, but a celestis shouldn't be able to damp you to death, because it's EWAR ? It's EVE, there's always a ship against the one you are harmless.

There's a certain difference between physical hits and electronic interaction, I don't see why we should treat both the same way. There's a reason stacking penalty for, say, webs already exists, guaranteeing that no ship can be rendered totally immobile.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#368 - 2012-11-07 07:49:28 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
[quote=Sean Parisi]Just the reverse, there should exist a hard limit of what ships can be damped to;say, 25% of the base locking range is always retained no matter how many dampeners are applied. Just a matter of balancing and our ultimate goal, really. EVE needs less one-sided ganks, not more.

So an arty BS can alpha your ship, it's fair, but a celestis shouldn't be able to damp you to death, because it's EWAR ? It's EVE, there's always a ship against the one you are harmless.

There's a certain difference between physical hits and electronic interaction, I don't see why we should treat both the same way. There's a reason stacking penalty for, say, webs already exists, guaranteeing that no ship can be rendered totally immobile.


Stacking penalties tend to apply to modules you cannot counter/always work. ECM is currently neither of those, unless there's a massive outclassing going on e.g. max skill falcon vs rifter or some crap.

For a stacking penalty to be applied fairly (i.e. as it is elsewhere) first ECM would need to be moved to a 100% chance. I'm not sure that's a good idea looking at the mids on the current ECM birds. You'd also need to penalize ECCM (afaik, it's not currently) which may have unintended side effects.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#369 - 2012-11-07 08:30:10 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
[quote=Sean Parisi]Just the reverse, there should exist a hard limit of what ships can be damped to;say, 25% of the base locking range is always retained no matter how many dampeners are applied. Just a matter of balancing and our ultimate goal, really. EVE needs less one-sided ganks, not more.

So an arty BS can alpha your ship, it's fair, but a celestis shouldn't be able to damp you to death, because it's EWAR ? It's EVE, there's always a ship against the one you are harmless.

There's a certain difference between physical hits and electronic interaction, I don't see why we should treat both the same way. There's a reason stacking penalty for, say, webs already exists, guaranteeing that no ship can be rendered totally immobile.


Stacking penalties tend to apply to modules you cannot counter/always work. ECM is currently neither of those, unless there's a massive outclassing going on e.g. max skill falcon vs rifter or some crap.

For a stacking penalty to be applied fairly (i.e. as it is elsewhere) first ECM would need to be moved to a 100% chance. I'm not sure that's a good idea looking at the mids on the current ECM birds. You'd also need to penalize ECCM (afaik, it's not currently) which may have unintended side effects.

It's not about details, what I'm saying is that instead of being an i-win button for small-scale PvP and mediocre at best at large scale EWAR should have more or less simular applicability at all forms of PvP. And that is non-achievable until CCP addresses many-ewarmods-against-one-ship issue. I don't really understand why anyone would object.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#370 - 2012-11-07 09:18:38 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
It's not about details, what I'm saying is that instead of being an i-win button for small-scale PvP and mediocre at best at large scale EWAR should have more or less simular applicability at all forms of PvP. And that is non-achievable until CCP addresses many-ewarmods-against-one-ship issue. I don't really understand why anyone would object.

It's not an I win button for small scale if you have some counters to EWAR (drones, specific modules, EWAR, support). It's rather easy to force a falcon to warp off, and a falcon showing up is not always worse than a pair of logi or tornados warping in at 70km.

BTW, the EWAR scaling problem is only a target selection problem. The many-ewarmods-against-one-ship "issue" don't have anything to do with EWAR effectiveness in blob. And why does many-to-one EWAR would be a problem whereas many-to-one dps/logi wouldn't ?

EWAR and alpha are the only counter to logi BTW.

What is this fundamental difference between physical hit and electronic interaction ? You can pilot to avoid the first, except if missiles ? We're gone back to piloting as the only allowed counter to everything.

EWAR are defensive mods you don't counter with raw dps. If any, FoF missiles should be fixed and sensor strength/ECCM should be more useful.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#371 - 2012-11-07 09:58:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Bouh Revetoile wrote:

EWAR and alpha are the only counter to logi BTW.

It's quite funny how you managed to combine all the broken stuff - e-war, arties and logistics - into one line. Surely logistic ships are OP as heck, but why do we need to have OP ewar to counter them when it's much more reasonable to adjust logistics themselves?

The fundamental difference between incoming damage and EW-disruption is that EW affects your ship from inside, preventing it from functioning properly, while damage is an outer force. I'm fine with 10 shells hitting me ten times as hard, but I don't see why irradiating my ship from 10 others should result in proportional decrement in performance. EW is an intelligent action, not just physical. For me it's like hiring 10 idiots to accomplish something a genious has failed to do. I beg my pardon for poor wording, though.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#372 - 2012-11-07 10:39:27 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
It's not about details, what I'm saying is that instead of being an i-win button for small-scale PvP and mediocre at best at large scale EWAR should have more or less simular applicability at all forms of PvP. And that is non-achievable until CCP addresses many-ewarmods-against-one-ship issue. I don't really understand why anyone would object.


It's only I-WIN because of outnumbering - that's a pretty much an I-WIN in all circumstance.

If it was a generic I-WIN you'd see solo rooks/falcons tearing the place up but you generally don't.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#373 - 2012-11-07 10:56:36 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:

EWAR and alpha are the only counter to logi BTW.

It's quite funny how you managed to combine all the broken stuff - e-war, arties and logistics - into one line. Surely logistic ships are OP as heck, but why do we need to have OP ewar to counter them when it's much more reasonable to adjust logistics themselves?

The fundamental difference between incoming damage and EW-disruption is that EW affects your ship from inside, preventing it from functioning properly, while damage is an outer force. I'm fine with 10 shells hitting me ten times as hard, but I don't see why irradiating my ship from 10 others should result in proportional decrement in performance. EW is an intelligent action, not just physical. For me it's like hiring 10 idiots to accomplish something a genious has failed to do. I beg my pardon for poor wording, though.

Missiles don't take a genius to apply their damage. Should missiles be nerfed the same way you think EWAR deserve ?

As for EWAR affecting from the inside, you are justing looking the wrong way : I could say EWAR is, according to your own words, irradiations of electronic waves overwelming the electronic of the ship. The more waves you through at the ship, the more troubles it get make everything functionning.

And I stick to this : you are besically asking piloting to rule everything in term of ship superiority ; you are asking for piloting skill to become the only player skill which matter, throwing away tactic, intelligence, preparation and strategy. That also make winmatars even more winmatars BTW.

And again, I'm not saying ECM is a good mecanic, only that a lot of its characteristics are good, and that the problem they cause is caused by problems of its counters : ECCM, FoF and, to a lesser extent, drones (drones are working not so badly).

Reading you again, I may have misunderstood some things : if you want to say that incomming damage is like a timer until the death of your ship whereas EWAR is more an instant death to your ship with the wreck only awaiting to happen, then I need to think to it.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#374 - 2012-11-07 14:50:27 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
It's not about details, what I'm saying is that instead of being an i-win button for small-scale PvP and mediocre at best at large scale EWAR should have more or less simular applicability at all forms of PvP. And that is non-achievable until CCP addresses many-ewarmods-against-one-ship issue. I don't really understand why anyone would object.


It's only I-WIN because of outnumbering - that's a pretty much an I-WIN in all circumstance.
.

No. It's possible to fight 1 vs 10+ (at least for me) and like 4 vs 20, but only as long as you are able to do basic things, that is: lock stuff, shoot it and move around it. You can't do a **** when jammed, immobilized and otherwise disrupted to a state of total misery.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#375 - 2012-11-07 15:00:15 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:

No. It's possible to fight 1 vs 10+ (at least for me)


....

and you think there's a problem with ECM because it stops you doing 1v10........Shocked
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#376 - 2012-11-07 15:16:04 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:

No. It's possible to fight 1 vs 10+ (at least for me)


....

and you think there's a problem with ECM because it stops you doing 1v10........Shocked

For some it's 1 vs 2 or 2 vs 3, digits are not that important in this discussion. What is important is the fact how ewar - combined with superior numbers, that's for sure - easily becomes a perfect ganking tool in small-scale PvP.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#377 - 2012-11-07 15:27:34 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:

No. It's possible to fight 1 vs 10+ (at least for me)


....

and you think there's a problem with ECM because it stops you doing 1v10........Shocked

For some it's 1 vs 2 or 2 vs 3, digits are not that important in this discussion. What is important is the fact how ewar - combined with superior numbers, that's for sure - easily becomes a perfect ganking tool in small-scale PvP.



So does alpha.

So should just about everything, if one assumes even abilities. Indeed, with superior numbers I'd go as far as to say you're doing it wrong (unless MASSIVELY outclassed) if the side with the numbers loses the fight (even if not the isk count).
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#378 - 2012-11-07 16:17:10 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:

No. It's possible to fight 1 vs 10+ (at least for me)


....

and you think there's a problem with ECM because it stops you doing 1v10........Shocked

For some it's 1 vs 2 or 2 vs 3, digits are not that important in this discussion. What is important is the fact how ewar - combined with superior numbers, that's for sure - easily becomes a perfect ganking tool in small-scale PvP.


Nitpicking due to a hatred for E-War. How about the fact that majority of 'Dumb blobbers" tend not to implement E-War and instead opt for the approach of maximizing DPS (Not always the case). But at least from my experience massively superior numbers tend to ignore E-War until they see how effective your own use of it is. Where as smaller gangs implement it. Why? Because it acts as something called a "Force Multiplier". If anything it makes it so individuals can more avidly AVOID being ganked.
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#379 - 2012-11-07 17:26:49 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hello everyone. Another set of changes to get feedback on for Retri.

Here's what we currently have on our plate for Retribution:
[list]
ECM
*Reduce Optimal Range and Falloff of all ECM modules by 10%
*Add to the Optimal Range and Falloff bonus on ECM range bonused ships by 2.5% for the Blackbird, Kitsune and Tengu Obfuscation Manifold (bringing it to 12.5%) and 5% for the Scorpion (bringing it to 25%)
*Add four new racial sensor compensation skills that increase each type of Sensor Strength by 5% per level (Requires Electronics 4, rank 3 skills in the Electronics category)


I only have one concern with this. How will this effect the ECM Burst Mod on Supers. Will its base jam strength need to be increased as with this skill it could most ships have higher then 25 sensor strength.

Mirple
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#380 - 2012-11-07 18:18:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:

No. It's possible to fight 1 vs 10+ (at least for me)


....

and you think there's a problem with ECM because it stops you doing 1v10........Shocked

For some it's 1 vs 2 or 2 vs 3, digits are not that important in this discussion. What is important is the fact how ewar - combined with superior numbers, that's for sure - easily becomes a perfect ganking tool in small-scale PvP.


That is a really dumb statement. If some one brings superior numbers you are screwed no matter if people are using ECM against you or not.

If you are fighting 2v1 and one of the two guys is flying a falcon, there is a "chance" you can win and there is an even better chance if you fit ECCM.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...