Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Most EWAR: As long as you are inside the module's optimal range, it is 100% effective at what it does. If you are outside optimal but inside falloff, it has reduced chance of working (very similar to turret falloff).

Additional for ECM: Rather than a percentage based effect, it compares the Jam Strength to the target's Sensor Strength. This creates a chance for the ECM to work, unless the Jam is stronger than the Sensor. ECM also has the falloff range to worry about.

Warp Jammers: These modules have no falloff. They only have an optimal range. This means they will always land within range, and have zero chance of working beyond that range. However, they also have a unique mechanic. Each warp jammer has a warp jamming strength, which is compared to the warp core strength of the target. It's all or nothing with it, meaning you must have more points of warp jamming than the target has warp core strength in order to prevent a warp.

Warp Scramblers: These specific warp jammers also disable microwarpdrives and microjumpdrives. They do this at the cost of range, thus making it a trade off.

Warp Jammer mechanics, oddly enough, are nearly identical to all other EWAR types already. They do a set effect (1 to 3 points of warp jamming, and scramblers also disable micro warp and micro jump), and it always works within their optimal range. ECM is the only ewar that is not guaranteed to work within optimal, since it compares strength for a chance based thing.

The only way I can see warp jammers working as chance based is to actually use the ECM method. If you have more jam than core strength, it is guaranteed to work (ECM is exactly the same; if the jam is stronger than the sensor it has 100% chance to work within optimal range). This would be exactly as it is now, but with one extra thing. Warp jammers would have a chance to prevent a warp even if the jam strength is less than the core strength. Now, it would likely cause issues with stacking points, since ECM doesn't stack with itself either (they're all calculated separately), and of course warp core stabilizers would have to be reworked to accommodate this.

All in all, this just over-complicates an already simple game mechanic. Leave the complicated maths for the turret accuracy calculations. Warp jammers work just fine as they are.

edit:

I so want to see police bubble a bank robber...

But, none of these are accurate metaphores. This is Internet Spaceships we're talking about. Internet Spaceships aren't lions, F-15s, police, or pawns... well, they can be pawns, but not chess board pawns. Wavy-hand science, the most important kind of science, can let us do anything.

i got a better idea, how about we remove the warp disrupt/scram modules all together and instead make it impossible to warp or use a jump gate while in combat?

Do you remember the time (back in the day) shortly before the release of Bethesda's "The Elder Scrolls IV - Oblivion" game?

How everyone would hype it to the skies, and then suddenly there was this one post in the forum (not this one) which said "the games performance on the XboX360 is not optimal" and suddenly all the flames of the internet came and devoured the thread?

Do you??

Well the thing is, this forum does not contain ALL the flames of the internet, but we sure can make it look like it did.

Hardly anyone could consider fun or accettable in EVE to have a PVP engagment outcome entirely (whould be so) dependent on a single dice roll.

So, if you want to call for more limits to ganking or non-consnesual PvP I sugegst to try something less direct and more sneaky, like:

"updating local to remove cloacking AFK influences and improving PvP"
"increasing locking time for a better PvP esxperience"

and so on

it ain't broken dude.

At first, this sounded like an okay idea.
Then, I think about how many kills I've lost to ewar/neuts/burning away/station games/etc.

It's easy enough to get away already.
Unless tacklers get a new tool to make up for it, this would seriously cripple the amount of kills occurring universe-wide, and therefore hurt the economy.

Range based with falloffs are going to change kiting.

I'm still with chance based even though range was my first idea too. I overall like the idea of reducing the risk, still think the game would be more fun with it

I like the the 80% chance, no reason it has to be 50/50 or anywhere near there. Whatever increases the odds of survival.

Floating point disruption mechanics seem ok, , with warp disrupter upgrades for the lows and a few new skills, or even conversion of the old one to chance instead of capacitor they would work like a lot of other systems

How about converting it to a high slot? I always feel like I been hit with a gun more-so than any turret ever made me feel:)

Mayhaw, u silly.



The Op was referring to one type of PvP, fleet fights. The vast majority of other PvP uses points, and that is what i was referring to. u fall so short of making a decent retort.




u must be the type of player that just presses 'approach' and then activates all his modules. thats if u PvP at all.

tactical is micro managing. range control, cap control, traversal control, the timing of mods. Basically individual gameplay all comes under tactical gameplay. its what u get a lot of in small scale fights, where as fleet fights are much less tactical, where u turn up and press F1 at whatever ur FC tells u to target. its not so individual gameplay.

one example of pilot skill and maintaining point being important isa kiting ship engaging a close brawler. the kiter tries to keep his opponent at maximum point range to keep his range advantage. However, this carries the risk that the other player may just stop chasing and turn around. If u dnt notice him change course, u can run urself out of point range and let him free before u make the kill. it takes good PILOT skill to maintain this, it is not something u can train in game. Overheating allows some margin of error, but u cant overheat forever. its something else u must micro manage.

Another example may be, when under neuting pressure, timing the activation of a cap charge moments before the point timer expires. thus ensuring u have some cap, even when heavily neuted, to keep the point running.

pilot skill is a thing, and it exists.




1) its a difficult spot to be in, and theres not much u can do. The vet rapier is always going to have more control than some noob 1v1. so instead of wandering around alone, why doesn't he work with his friends, tackle the rapier (or at least try) and turn the tables.

2) just holding something on grid until a meatier ship can arrive is very useful. after that the tackler has done his job and will be praised. if he dies, we replace his ship and he still gets on the KB of something more expensive than him. if he doesnt die, great. if warp disruption chance becomes skill based, then noob tacklers will have the worst possible chance, making many of their efforts futile. it will not increase their survivability seeing as they will be ordered to keep trying to tackle until the big guns arrive or they die. noob tacklers are not put into inexpensive ships for nothing.

3) disrupting warp is imbalanced? i dnt even know where to begin. if there was no point, anyone could warp away the second they feel like they are losing. it is essential to prevent someones escape if u cannot alpha them in an instant. if ur THAT afraid of point, fit warp core stabs in all ur ships. failing that, stay away from all other players. this game doesnt seem to be for u at all

how's about making damps, remote sensor boosters, warp disrupters/scramblers and webs actually have a falloff, as opposed to just having a range then nothing. this way, a certain meta item would have an optimal where 100% of it's effect would BE in effect, and of course it would have less effect out to the edge of its' falloff (progressively worse as range increases).

nevermind... I just saw that it had been mentioned elsewhere in the thread.

I just re-read the original post and it doesn't seem to be specifically referring to large fleet engagements.
Also, the "vast majority" of other PVP is probably overstating it. I've been 1-shotted enough times to know that a point isn't ALWAYS necessary. The only question is: How often is it necessary? I don't think the answer to that question is "the vast majority of times", but I concede it may very well be a majority.



Pilot skill is definitely a "thing", but skillpoints are also a thing. Luck is also a thing. Numbers are also a thing. Equipment is also a thing. I am reminded of the verse in Ecclesiastes: "I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

"player skill" is a great, feel-good narrative for people to tell themselves every time they get a kill. However, unless CCP has made a supernaturally fair and well balanced, perfect game, the "player skill" narrative is not an entirely accurate representation of why engagements are won or lost. Sorry.



So? Are you familiar with the term "guerilla warfare"? In guerilla warfare, you don't even wait to start losing. You just sneak up on them. Hit them as hard as you possibly can. Then, you **** off. With things like cruise missiles and sniper rifles and artillery and land mines, you don't even need to get away, because you are so far away to begin with when the strike is delivered, that you are essentially pre-gone. This idea that your opponent should be forced by game mechanics to stand there and duke it out with you is bewildering to me, honestly, and I think it stems from people's sense of entitlement to being in a "fair" circumstance.
So, but, WHY should a gazelle have to stand and fight a lion? WHY should a Mig 29 have to dogfight an F-15? WHY should that bank robber have to take on a city's entire police force? WHY should that pawn be able to disable the queen? And, how easily?



Maybe you should compare those two modules. They're not really on par with one another. Maybe if they WERE equally useful . . .