These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Random McNally
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#441 - 2012-11-15 17:28:20 UTC
I wonder how those ol' ECM ships will reprocess after the fallout.

Once everyone has those bonus skills to bump up their Sensor strengths and ECM is nerfed to uselessness, there will be a lot of dust gathering Griffins, Kitsunes, Blackbirds, Falcons and Rooks out there.

We will have Retributions new line of mining vessels.

Host of High Drag Podcast. http://highdrag.wordpress.com/

Space music http://minddivided.com

I G Channel HighDragChat

Broadcast4Reps

Giribaldi
State War Academy
Caldari State
#442 - 2012-11-15 19:55:21 UTC
Random McNally wrote:
I wonder how those ol' ECM ships will reprocess after the fallout.

Once everyone has those bonus skills to bump up their Sensor strengths and ECM is nerfed to uselessness, there will be a lot of dust gathering Griffins, Kitsunes, Blackbirds, Falcons and Rooks out there.

We will have Retributions new line of mining vessels.


Dont u know... Thats ccp fozie's intent.... Deeerrr
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#443 - 2012-11-15 21:37:44 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
Why is the 5% mentioned in
"*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%)"

not the same kind of 5% mentioned in

"*Reduce TD base module effectiveness by 5%"

Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#444 - 2012-11-16 00:56:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
How about if the strength of the ecm ships were increased but CCP removes jamming timer you get after a successful jam?

For example, ecm breaks a lock better but the jam cycle only lasts for a second before the person can lock again...
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#445 - 2012-11-16 08:15:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Wow have I just stunned you all into silence with the ECM fix we've been waiting for? Shocked
Julius Foederatus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#446 - 2012-11-16 08:57:41 UTC
Hoarr wrote:
Soooooooooooo.... I've been playing around w/ the new E-war, and I'm sorry but these changes are game breakingly bad. The new T1 cruiser E-WAR is hilariously OP. Numbers you say? Why yes, I have them right here:

*note* All numbers following are in what the ship has after the Ewar has been applied. For instance, after 4 damps, the Huginn has a new locking range of 15.31 kms.

Assuming all Vs on both sides, the Huginn has a targeting range of 156.25km. Here is how that changes with the new damps with targeting range scripts:

1 Damp - 60.30 km lock range
2 Damps - 28.18 km lock range
3 Damps - 18.31 km lock range
4 Damps - 15.31 km lock range



How is using 4 of your slots to not even push a ship into overheated web range OP? Compare that to ECM, which needs 1 slot to shut out that Huginn, 2 if it wants to be sure. Also those damp numbers are not far off what we have now. So what you're essentially saying is that damps are roughly 6% more OP than they are now. Hooray.
Kesi Raae
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#447 - 2012-11-16 11:26:24 UTC
A question for the balance team, have you considered replacing ECM with an entirely different type of Ewar(s)?

I understand such a change would require a lot of work but I feel replacing ECM with a non-random based mechanic would better suit EVE.

How about anti-Ewar and anti-Logistics modules instead of ECM? They would better suit the Caldari's description as the electronic superiority race and allow the Caldari Recons to have an impact on large engagements while retaining their ability to control small gang fights, with clever piloting.

For example you'd have the Anti-Logistics module which reduces the range and strength of the targets Shield Transporter, Remote Armour Repairer and Energy Transfer Array modules. Scriptable to favour range or strength reduction.

And the Anti-Ewar module which reduces the range and strength of the targets Remote Sensor Dampeners, Warp Disruptors and Scramblers, Energy Neutralizers and Nosferatus, Tracking Disruptors, Target Painters and Stasis Webifiers. Also scriptable to favour range or strength reduction.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#448 - 2012-11-16 11:33:44 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The reason these are being revealed near the end of our feature announcements is that we were investigating options for a more comprehensive ECM rebalance, however that will not be able to make it into Retribution. These changes are not the final solution for ewar by a long shot, they are incremental changes that will build towards the more complete changes we would like to make to the mechanics.

[...]

We also want to reiterate that we are not looking at these ecm changes as a complete solution to the problems with that mechanic. It's a moderate change that we can make with the resources available for this expansion and that won't get in the way of our more comprehensive changes down the road.

If only people were able to, at least, read ONE post in a thread that would be great...
Kesi Raae
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#449 - 2012-11-16 11:55:00 UTC
Fair enough, I'm an idiot who can't read.

What do you think of the anti-Ewar/Logistics idea?
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#450 - 2012-11-16 11:58:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Lin-Young Borovskova
Julius Foederatus wrote:
Hoarr wrote:
Soooooooooooo.... I've been playing around w/ the new E-war, and I'm sorry but these changes are game breakingly bad. The new T1 cruiser E-WAR is hilariously OP. Numbers you say? Why yes, I have them right here:

*note* All numbers following are in what the ship has after the Ewar has been applied. For instance, after 4 damps, the Huginn has a new locking range of 15.31 kms.

Assuming all Vs on both sides, the Huginn has a targeting range of 156.25km. Here is how that changes with the new damps with targeting range scripts:

1 Damp - 60.30 km lock range
2 Damps - 28.18 km lock range
3 Damps - 18.31 km lock range
4 Damps - 15.31 km lock range



How is using 4 of your slots to not even push a ship into overheated web range OP? Compare that to ECM, which needs 1 slot to shut out that Huginn, 2 if it wants to be sure. Also those damp numbers are not far off what we have now. So what you're essentially saying is that damps are roughly 6% more OP than they are now. Hooray.


Damps will get slightly better on specialised hulls but it still lacking targeting range reduction bonus. As you pointed out, even after everyone and his cat have trained his racial "ECCM" (I'm fecked, have to train them all), ECM will still be able to remove completely out of the equation one or several players. This little change to ECM is a nice step to see how it will affect the game and then adjust it or change it completely.

Now I read some guys afraid ECM will not be the OP EWAR as it is right now and are already crying their mom's about it. This is stupid, ECM is clearly OP and needs changes to the mechanic it self or the ships/modules to get some bonus nerf stick.
They can say whatever they want but none of all other EWAR systems can take out of the field one or several ships just by clicking F"x" (whatever number), reduce abilities yes, witch is the case for every other EWAR. Remove ships from the battlefield with the magic button, no. It's plain wrong and a bad mechanic.

brb

Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#451 - 2012-11-16 12:21:40 UTC
Kesi Raae wrote:
Fair enough, I'm an idiot who can't read.

What do you think of the anti-Ewar/Logistics idea?

It wasn't personal, there's 15 pages of people who didn't read these lines.

About your idea, I think this kind of EWAR is too specific. I already said I think there should be an EWAR module able to *hurt* *all* ships.

I once proposed an idea for EWAR mod which multiply your target : if you target one ship and have this mod activated on you, there is then 2 targets of the same ship, but only one is the right one and will take damage when you shoot it.

Then make the real ship swap between the two targets every few seconds, and the difference in sensor strength between the two ships being a modifier for the frequency of swaps or the chance for the effect to apply, or both.

It wasn't exactly this idea, but this one is more refined in fact.
Kesi Raae
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#452 - 2012-11-16 12:39:17 UTC
That sounds better than the current mechanic, but it's still chance based.

I'm just about okay with ECM being chance based, it's just I'd prefer something more solid and predictable and not as powerful as it is now.
OT Smithers
A Farewell To Kings...
Dock Workers
#453 - 2012-11-17 08:45:50 UTC
I would like to see CCP think outside the box with Caldari EWAR.

The problem with ECM is that, when it works, it prevents other players from actually playing the game. That's always a bad idea from an entertainment perspective. The ideal is for EWAR to have a significant impact on the enemy ship rather than the player. ECM does the opposite.

For example:

How about Defensive Systems Destabilizers. These targetted mods would debuff shield and armor resistance to select damage types. So, for example, a Falcon might be able to reduce the target's shield and armor thermal resistance to zero. The target player can continue doing his thing, he's not frustrated in the least, but when the missiles hit he's gonna be in trouble.

Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#454 - 2012-11-17 11:08:35 UTC
OT Smithers wrote:

The problem with ECM is that, when it works, it prevents other players from actually playing the game.


No, it prevents you from targeting other ships, like sensor damps do.
fr0gout
#455 - 2012-11-17 12:50:11 UTC
Giribaldi wrote:
Random McNally wrote:
I wonder how those ol' ECM ships will reprocess after the fallout.

Once everyone has those bonus skills to bump up their Sensor strengths and ECM is nerfed to uselessness, there will be a lot of dust gathering Griffins, Kitsunes, Blackbirds, Falcons and Rooks out there.

We will have Retributions new line of mining vessels.


Dont u know... Thats ccp fozie's intent.... Deeerrr


Whaddup Giribaldi. Still making threads with your alt bigging yourself up and then making a complete and total ass of yourself?

http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1495332
http://www.eve-search.com/thread/1380822


Get this falcon apologist out of here
Lili Lu
#456 - 2012-11-17 16:34:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Rek Seven wrote:
OT Smithers wrote:

The problem with ECM is that, when it works, it prevents other players from actually playing the game.


No, it prevents you from targeting other ships, like sensor damps do.


Yes, at any range you ******.Roll Additionally you have to wait 20 seconds, and can't seek to reaquire the targeting ability by moving closer. You basically can't do **** but leave if you are able. They are not the same and you know it. Everyone knows it. OT is correct.

Your sig is worth quoting - "They see me trolling, they hating..." Consider this response some hating.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#457 - 2012-11-17 18:40:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Lili Lu wrote:

Yes, at any range you ******.Roll Additionally you have to wait 20 seconds, and can't seek to reaquire the targeting ability by moving closer. You basically can't do **** but leave if you are able. They are not the same and you know it. Everyone knows it. OT is correct.

Your sig is worth quoting - "They see me trolling, they hating..." Consider this response some hating.


A very well written post. Congratulations, you almost sound like an adult. Blink

OT Smithers wrote:

The problem with ECM is that, when it works, it prevents other players from actually playing the game.



Are you telling me that this statement is correct? ...Because i'm pretty sure i can still "play" the game even though someone is using ECM on me.
Mariner6
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#458 - 2012-11-17 23:46:50 UTC
I'd say that ECM drones are getting nerfed, indirectly sure, but nerfed none the less. By training these new sensor skills then you have just greatly increased your resistance to them. Not immune, and frankly probably one more reason not to bother with drone boats. I'd have no problem nerfing drones in general if drone boats would give their bonuses to all aspects of drones, ie EWAR ability, logi drone rep amount, neuting etc etc etc. Info links increase ewar capabiliies, but not the ewar capabilities in drones. But either way, your much stronger sensor strength will render light ecm drones probably near pointless, especially against larger ships. Which is probably the idea.
OT Smithers
A Farewell To Kings...
Dock Workers
#459 - 2012-11-18 07:21:44 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Lili Lu wrote:

Yes, at any range you ******.Roll Additionally you have to wait 20 seconds, and can't seek to reaquire the targeting ability by moving closer. You basically can't do **** but leave if you are able. They are not the same and you know it. Everyone knows it. OT is correct.

Your sig is worth quoting - "They see me trolling, they hating..." Consider this response some hating.


A very well written post. Congratulations, you are almost speaking like an adult. Blink

OT Smithers wrote:

The problem with ECM is that, when it works, it prevents other players from actually playing the game.



Are you telling me that this statement is correct? ...Because i'm pretty sure i can still "play" the game even though someone is using ECM on me.


You want to argue semantics? Yes, you are still "playing the game" in the sense that you are currently logged on. To use a sports analogy: you are on the team, the game is going on, but your friends are on the field making plays while you are sitting on the bench. Huzzah for you.

In any case, you missed the bigger point. In an IDEAL world EWAR impacts the ship and not the player. ECM impacts the PLAYER.

Right now CCP is trying to find an imaginary perfect point at which ECM pilots feel like they are doing something meaningful, but at which no one else is actually bothered or impacted by ECM jamming. If this sounds impossible, that's because it is. None the less, that's apparently what they are going to try and do. Myself, I would rather see them abandon the quest and instead develop an entirely new form of EWAR for the Caldari. Something that CCP can comfortably allow to work as well as it should.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#460 - 2012-11-18 12:51:45 UTC
OT Smithers wrote:
Right now CCP is trying to find an imaginary perfect point at which ECM pilots feel like they are doing something meaningful, but at which no one else is actually bothered or impacted by ECM jamming. If this sounds impossible, that's because it is. None the less, that's apparently what they are going to try and do. Myself, I would rather see them abandon the quest and instead develop an entirely new form of EWAR for the Caldari. Something that CCP can comfortably allow to work as well as it should.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
The reason these are being revealed near the end of our feature announcements is that we were investigating options for a more comprehensive ECM rebalance, however that will not be able to make it into Retribution. These changes are not the final solution for ewar by a long shot, they are incremental changes that will build towards the more complete changes we would like to make to the mechanics.

[...]

We also want to reiterate that we are not looking at these ecm changes as a complete solution to the problems with that mechanic. It's a moderate change that we can make with the resources available for this expansion and that won't get in the way of our more comprehensive changes down the road.

What CCP is trying to do IMO is to stop the crying.

I don't think people at CCP are as stupid as you are implying... Though, such an overall take time, a lot of time, and they may not have the resources to do it now.

As for your suggestion, it's an offensive module you are proposing. The difference with a defensive module is that it scale *extremely* well with gang size (like TP : you need one for a thousand size F1 hiting gang).