These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Increasing Warp Strength
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Anthar Thebess
#41 - 2015-02-26 10:26:49 UTC
Interesting idea.
I like it , but this needs to be somewhat balanced.
Without this how you can capture a ratting battleship or carrier?
Time required for jumping in , dcscaning and warping to it is minimal.

This change , as it is grate in the concept , have its flaw that some ships could become easily ultimate ratting ships, as in order to tackle one you will need like 10 frigates.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
stubbsie Panala
State War Academy
Caldari State
#42 - 2015-02-26 11:01:57 UTC
Love these idea's, the second idea almost makes more logical sense where as the first one seems more fitting for eve.

Small change for Ship Maintenance Arrays
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#43 - 2015-02-26 11:11:24 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Reina Xyaer wrote:


Wait am I missing something? In this system, no single pilot could tackle a BS yes? Except in specialized tackle ships with a bonus to Point points, or a HIC.

At first I liked this, I saw it as a simpler, maybe less radical version of mine, but now that I realized this, I don't like it.

A solo BS would not be able to point another solo BS, I think it should.

Edit: except a solo ship with two scrams, which is not something I want to see happening



I think i have found the flaw in your thinking.


A battle ship should not be solo it is a fleet ship it is there to add extra support/firepower to a fleet not run around on its own.

this is why larger ships are made so vulnerable to small ones when on their own


I have solo battleship fits, lots of them. This would make it impossible for just about anything to go solo and catch things. Give me a reason as to why this should be impossible to tackle in an intercepter.
Anthar Thebess
#44 - 2015-02-26 11:31:34 UTC
I don't state that this is 100% good idea.
Interesting one for sure.

We could do something like :
Frigates:
- (one) t1 frigate hull that will have +2 to specific point strength ( 3 disruptor strength , 4 scrambler strength )
- interceptor hull that will have +4 to specific point strength ( 5 disruptor strength , 6 scrambler strength )

Destroyers:
- T1 / T3 no bonus
- T2 similar to interceptor +4 bonus


Cruisers:
- here bit different , race specific bonus to one of the galenite cruisers.
- T2 the same , so galenite cruiser bonus , except for hictors , that will gain additional +6 to normal disruptor and scrambler
- T3 - link it to some subsystem, but still galente will be having biggest bonus


This way ships of all races will have good bonuses , but galente cruisers will be most important just for tackle.
You will always find a place for T1 newbie frigate tacklers.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Amak Boma
Dragon Factory
xX SERENITY Xx
#45 - 2015-02-26 11:38:00 UTC
other way is

deadspace warp core stabilisers that give 2 and 3 strenght
officer warp core stabiliser 4, 5 strenght

they could wreck your scan resolution by 90%
they could wreck maximum targetting range by 45%
they could decrease your warp speed by 25%

Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#46 - 2015-02-26 12:33:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
Absolutely not, -1.

I can see no reason why a frigate should not be able to tackle a battleship. There are plenty of ways for a battleship pilot to counter a single frigate tackle if they are willing to make the tradeoffs with regards to fitting, and they can always bring anti-tackle support. Giving them a free "get away from tackle" card because they're too lacking in forsight to bring along some method of dealing with this problem is just plain silly.

Would be an awful change for newer players and for solo pvp.
Reina Xyaer
Tha Lench Mob
#47 - 2015-02-26 13:01:10 UTC
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:
Absolutely not, -1.

I can see no reason why a frigate should not be able to tackle a battleship. There are plenty of ways for a battleship pilot to counter a single frigate tackle if they are willing to make the tradeoffs with regards to fitting, and they can always bring anti-tackle support. Giving them a free "get away from tackle" card because they're too lacking in forsight to bring along some method of dealing with this problem is just plain silly.

Would be an awful change for newer players and for solo pvp.


While it sounds like you're still referring to the first idea, where hulls have warp strengths of 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on... response applies to the new idea as well.

Can you explain why either of these ideas would be bad for new players or solo pvp? You made a sound point about Battleships, but I still think either one of these systems could be better than our current mechanics.

But, how would these ideas be bad for solo? How would they be detrimental to new players?
Anthar Thebess
#48 - 2015-02-26 13:14:08 UTC
Reina Xyaer wrote:
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:
Absolutely not, -1.

I can see no reason why a frigate should not be able to tackle a battleship. There are plenty of ways for a battleship pilot to counter a single frigate tackle if they are willing to make the tradeoffs with regards to fitting, and they can always bring anti-tackle support. Giving them a free "get away from tackle" card because they're too lacking in forsight to bring along some method of dealing with this problem is just plain silly.

Would be an awful change for newer players and for solo pvp.


While it sounds like you're still referring to the first idea, where hulls have warp strengths of 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on... response applies to the new idea as well.

Can you explain why either of these ideas would be bad for new players or solo pvp? You made a sound point about Battleships, but I still think either one of these systems could be better than our current mechanics.

But, how would these ideas be bad for solo? How would they be detrimental to new players?


Based just on your idea how single bomber can catch and kill battleship?
Eve is far away from "lone wolf" but it happens sometimes.

Based just on your ideas tackling any thing will be very hard.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#49 - 2015-02-26 14:04:50 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Reina Xyaer wrote:
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:
Absolutely not, -1.

I can see no reason why a frigate should not be able to tackle a battleship. There are plenty of ways for a battleship pilot to counter a single frigate tackle if they are willing to make the tradeoffs with regards to fitting, and they can always bring anti-tackle support. Giving them a free "get away from tackle" card because they're too lacking in forsight to bring along some method of dealing with this problem is just plain silly.

Would be an awful change for newer players and for solo pvp.


While it sounds like you're still referring to the first idea, where hulls have warp strengths of 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on... response applies to the new idea as well.

Can you explain why either of these ideas would be bad for new players or solo pvp? You made a sound point about Battleships, but I still think either one of these systems could be better than our current mechanics.

But, how would these ideas be bad for solo? How would they be detrimental to new players?


Based just on your idea how single bomber can catch and kill battleship?
Eve is far away from "lone wolf" but it happens sometimes.

Based just on your ideas tackling any thing will be very hard.


Tackling larger ships SHOULD be hard. It should require sacrifice in fitting or multiple ships. That's the entire point.

This is how you can make battleships relevant without destroying tiericides balancing.
Komodo Askold
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#50 - 2015-02-26 14:17:04 UTC
Ravasta Helugo wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Reina Xyaer wrote:
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:
Absolutely not, -1.

I can see no reason why a frigate should not be able to tackle a battleship. There are plenty of ways for a battleship pilot to counter a single frigate tackle if they are willing to make the tradeoffs with regards to fitting, and they can always bring anti-tackle support. Giving them a free "get away from tackle" card because they're too lacking in forsight to bring along some method of dealing with this problem is just plain silly.

Would be an awful change for newer players and for solo pvp.


While it sounds like you're still referring to the first idea, where hulls have warp strengths of 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on... response applies to the new idea as well.

Can you explain why either of these ideas would be bad for new players or solo pvp? You made a sound point about Battleships, but I still think either one of these systems could be better than our current mechanics.

But, how would these ideas be bad for solo? How would they be detrimental to new players?


Based just on your idea how single bomber can catch and kill battleship?
Eve is far away from "lone wolf" but it happens sometimes.

Based just on your ideas tackling any thing will be very hard.


Tackling larger ships SHOULD be hard. It should require sacrifice in fitting or multiple ships. That's the entire point.

This is how you can make battleships relevant without destroying tiericides balancing.
This. Large ships would not be impossible to tackle, you could still do it with multiple cheap ships, a single ship with more than one warp jamming module... or another large ship. In fact, this would encourage the use of large ships for hunting large ships. It makes sense that large ships should be more difficult to be held in place by smaller ships, while those being able to overcome this by bringing more ships, or more advanced/better fitted ones.

Battleships are in need of more reasons to fly them. This idea would allow it without blowing up the tiericide.
Reina Xyaer
Tha Lench Mob
#51 - 2015-02-26 14:24:32 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:


Based just on your idea how single bomber can catch and kill battleship?
Eve is far away from "lone wolf" but it happens sometimes.

Based just on your ideas tackling any thing will be very hard.



I think with the second idea, where Disruption acts like current ECM, stats could be tweaked in any direction needed, for any hull. Even under the first system, as I said before, any hull with just a single Disruptor could tackle any other hull of the same class, or any class "below" it.

But in the new idea, some ships could have higher WCS (warp core strength), making them very slippery/hard to tackle, while other ships could have "regular" WCS and be just as easy to tackle as every ship is now. Some ships would have bonuses to Disruptor strength, making them specialized tacklers.

Under the new system, however, I would still design it so that as a general rule, outside of specialized hulls/bonuses, ship WCS would go up with hull size.

Generally...
Cruisers would have a higher WCS than Frigs
Battlecruisers higher than cruisers
Battleships higher than Battlcruisers, you get the idea

So let's say the math is worked out so that...

A T1 Frig (example, Incursus) has a WCS and Disruptor strength (with T1 Disruptor and no WCS mods) that allows it to reliably and consistently tackle most other T1 frigs (unless we decide to pick certain T1 frig hulls to have extra WCS).
90% chance to tackle?

Same Incursus trying to tackle a T1 cruiser (with 'normal' T1 cruiser WCS), and let's say it has an 80% chance of tackle succeeding.

On a Battlecruiser (with normal BC WCS), and maybe it has a 70% chance of tackle succeeding.

And then on a big ol' Battleship, a lowly T1 frig could have a 50% (?) chance of tackle succeeding.

Let's say that is all with max 'Disruption' skills assumed for the tackler, and max WCS skills assumed for the target, but with no implants or modules for changing WCS or Disruption strength.

Then stats would build from there, with bigger hulls having better Disruptor strength, as well as Warp Core Strength. So it still generally works like:

Unbonused T1 Frig can tackle unbonused T1 frig consistently
T1 Cruiser can tackle T1 Cruiser consistently
T1 BC can tackle T1 BC consistently

And then the special bonused tackling/escaping role hulls would have increased stats in the corresponding category.
chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#52 - 2015-02-26 14:27:56 UTC
+1 definitely an interesting idea.
Anthar Thebess
#53 - 2015-02-26 14:42:34 UTC
Now imagine yourself to tackle ratting carrier.
The moment when something jumps into the system carrier owner press warp , if he is aligned , he will be gone before something arrives - this happens 90% of times.
10% other you see on KB , because they :
- scoped their drones
- where not fully aligned
- went afk "just for second "
- did something stupid
and those few seconds where enough for a tackling ceptor to land firs point before other ceptors arrived to keep carrier on place until main forces arrive.

Way you kill a lone carrier / marauder / battleship is very simple.

1. You check the map / intell , and see where people are doing something ( ratting , shooting poco / tower / or some other structure)
2. Group of skilled interceptors and dictor pilots are designated , and start to burn into the designated system, at the same time main fleet follow them.
3. Interceptors arrive to system, and start to look for a target , they have usually <15 seconds to locate and catch enemy ship.
4. While ceptors try to keep target tackled, slower dictors finally catch up , and jump to system just to help initial tackle without dying.
5. After 3-4 minutes main fleet arrives , to take over the tackle and kill the target.

I always like the idea about making ships different, and useful in fleets.
But you need to remember that bigger ships are very slow in warp and while burning on the MWD to the gate , because someone anchored 40 Large Warp Distributors on every gate .

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#54 - 2015-02-26 14:45:50 UTC
Like the idea in principle, no idea how balancing it would work out though....
Reina Xyaer
Tha Lench Mob
#55 - 2015-02-26 14:49:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Reina Xyaer
Komodo Askold wrote:

This. Large ships would not be impossible to tackle, you could still do it with multiple cheap ships, a single ship with more than one warp jamming module... or another large ship. In fact, this would encourage the use of large ships for hunting large ships. It makes sense that large ships should be more difficult to be held in place by smaller ships, while those being able to overcome this by bringing more ships, or more advanced/better fitted ones.

Battleships are in need of more reasons to fly them. This idea would allow it without blowing up the tiericide.


Also let's not forget that even large ships should be easily tackled by specialized/bonused tackler hulls, such as Interceptors, and possibly their T1 couterparts. Maybe 1 "tackler" roll hull in each races cruiser group? i.e. Atron & Celestis has high Disruptor strength bonus, among other ships of course. Certain T2 (electronic attack frigs, recons), I would even say that T2 ships in general should get a higher base WCS and Disruptor strength.
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2015-02-26 15:43:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmer Jones
Reina Xyaer wrote:
What about this....

Warp Drive/Warp Disruption is completely revamped into the same type of system that ECM, damps, and target painters(?).

Instead of every ship having +1 warp core strength like now...
And instead of each class going up in increments of 1 like my first idea...

What if every ship has a "Warp Core Strength" of some value, exactly like sensor strength. Warp Disruptors would then have a power value, exactly like ECM sensor strength. When I say exactly, I don't mean the values, or anything to do with success/failure chance. I just mean the concept.

Disruptors would have an optimal range, a fall-off, and a % chance to land per cycle, based on the jamming strength of the disruptor, range to the target, and Warp Core Strength of the target. Lets say...

Warp Disruptor I
Optimal Range: 19.89 km
'Disruptor Strength'(?): 1.2
Accuracy Falloff: 32.08
Activation/Duration: 30.0s

Warp Scrambler I
Optimal Range: 7500 m
Disruptor Strength: 3.5
Accuracy Falloff: 2000 m
Activation/Duration: 30.0s

However... I think it should be much more consistent in success/failure than ECM is. i.e... either you can perma-scram a particular ship+pilot+fitting+implants, or you can't. (for the most part? would we want "random", tiny (~0.21) % chances of landing tackle for a cycle, on a ship that you normally could never scram scram? so, 'always a chance' ? )

Or would anyone want it to be like ECM? More random and hit-or-miss when it comes to success/failure? Only bonused ships like the Falcon can "perma-scram" things? Normal T1 vs T1 would be crap shoots? "Am I tackled?!" "Is he tackled?!"
"Oh YES, lucky tackle didn't land this cycle! Should I use this chance to escape? Or do I think I can stay and win?"

So again, every ship has a base Warp Core Strength...

But my question to myself now is, should each ship have a bonus/modifier for warp disruption strength/range/both? Same number (so more strenth always = more range+falloff)? or two different values so some ships have short/strong points, some strong/long range points, some short/weak points, some long weak points, etc and etc, every hull have varying values of strenth/range/falloff. Could be influenced by all new skills, modules, and implants, or just use some of the ones we already have. Warp Drive Operation, Propulsion Jamming?

New Skills?:

Warp Core Operation + X% warp core strength
Core Manipulation + X% disruptor strength
Disruption Projection (HORRIBLE name): + X% range and falloff of warp disruptors per skill level

OR, would people want the strengths/ranges to almost all be the same? Again, except for the certain specialized hulls that have a bonus to strength or range/falloff of disruptors/scramblers?

Thoughts? Has this really never been suggested in this way before?

I just wrote all that without thinking of what this will change in the game, that's what I need feedback for. Pick one of the above types of tackle dynamics, imagine EVE is like that, and tell me how things would be. Better or worse? Fun? Or just New? Do we need it? Even want it?

Updated OP with same post, just wanted it here for subscribers. If that's a double post against the rules, I'll delete, don't just lock my thread please.


Please no to the ECM style tie in, and not touching the RNG tackle or requiring mre skills for what should be a simple job

Your idea started off nicely simple, but has gotten overly complex. Another reason hero tackle is important is that it is simple, and lets noobs take simple steps. "go tackle that. how you ask? (insert instructions on orbiting) then press ( shortcut) and stay within (distance) because you'll be going at ( speed) which means( explaination).

simple steps and not overwhelming: go there press butan, pay attention.

I hate using the "think of the newbies" excuse, but since it is a black and white/ on or off type of effect it is the easiet job for a newbro to have an effect in a fleet, and having a noticeable effect in a battle means alot to a new person: they have a job, its important, they matter.

now, another thing: quick scenario with originalish numbers ( max +4, haven't kept up). hero tackle vs. toothless ship with mwd and only a +4 warp bonus.

hero tackle burns toward target and orbits, unchallenged while the enemy is MWDing away to try the align-mwd-warp method.

Herotackle hits scram first, mwd is knocked out, ship hits warp early.
in order to tackle the +4 ship, herotackle would need to warp disrupt without effect while closing to scram range, just to avoid the web-warp effect. Herotackle has to then think of points in a 1+1+2 way to tackle a BS, and has to prioritize their use. minimum of 3 points for a BS with +4.

A scram should always halt an unbonused ship without warp stabs.

tl;dr: some ship hull classes should get a strength of 2, with bonuses to 3( some ships should need skill/finesse to tackle solo, like DST's), and a firm "unsupported" for ECM style tackling, even if theres no RNG involved.

edits: early in the morning, no coffee yet

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
Reina Xyaer
Tha Lench Mob
#57 - 2015-02-26 15:58:46 UTC
Zimmer Jones wrote:


Please no to the ECM style tie in, and not touching the RNG tackle or requiring mre skills for what should be a simple job

Your idea started off nicely simple, but has gotten overly complex. Another reason hero tackle is important is that it is simple, and lets noobs take simple steps. "go tackle that. how you ask? (insert instructions on orbiting) then press ( shortcut) and stay within (distance) because you'll be going at ( speed) which means( explaination).

simple steps and not overwhelming: go there press butan, pay attention.

I hate using the "think of the newbies" excuse, but since it is a black and white/ on or off type of effect it is the easiet job for a newbro to have an effect in a fleet, and having a noticeable effect in a battle means alot to a new person: they have a job, its important, they matter.

now, another thing: quick scenario with originalish numbers ( max +4, haven't kept up). hero tackle vs. toothless ship with mwd and only a +4 warp bonus.

hero tackle burns toward target and orbits, unchallenged while the enemy is MWDing away to try the align-mwd-warp method.

Herotackle hits scram first, mwd is knocked out, ship hits warp early.
in order to tackle the +4 ship, herotackle would need to warp disrupt without effect while closing to scram range, just to avoid the web-warp effect. Herotackle has to then think of points in a 1+1+2 way to tackle a BS, and has to prioritize their use. minimum of 3 points for a BS with +4.

A scram should always halt an unbonused ship without warp stabs.

tl;dr: some ship hull classes should get a strength of 2, with bonuses to 3( some ships should need skill/finesse to tackle solo, like DST's), and a firm "unsupported" for ECM style tackling, even if theres no RNG involved.

edits: early in the morning, no coffee yet


Maybe I'm just being dumb, but what is RNG that you're referring to?

I still like the variable ECM version of tackling that I'm coming up with, over my first idea of +1, +2, +3 stats.

I just don't think it removes the newbie "hero" tackle. Sure it makes it less likely, "harder" to achieve, but doesn't remove it. I think it makes tackle a much more interesting and dynamic role, making it more fun, even if less "successful" for newbies.

I don't think a week old, no-tackling skilled newbie should be able to scram a Battleship, let alone a Pirate BS or Carrier, in a noobship with a single Warp Disruptor I.

In my system, newbros could still tackle things near their own level quite well, and even have a chance of tackling Pirate Battleships, but a small chance, maybe with certain high WCS hulls... no chance.
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2015-02-26 16:04:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmer Jones
oh sorry, Random Number Generators, or RNG's are a pet peeve of mine. They're responsible for the randomness of ECM. RNG's for guns, yes, but not Ewar, and not tackle. As for sensor strength, ECCM already provides a buffer against probing, another stat would probably have made me less vehement.

edit, post was about webbing, still food for thought:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5424225#post5424225

Tie the scram to something else, even transverse velocity. make the scarms "anti ship tractors" and your mass and speed jerk the ship out of alignment. get your direction of travel wrong, and it would be less effective? bring just a bit of piloting skill into it, but not enough that stacked points would be less effective than scram + awesome piloting. your active target anchor would need less points because you are focusing on him, and other points could be spread around as targets of opportunity.

not a counter proposal, just more food.

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
Kabark
Schilden
#59 - 2015-02-26 16:11:36 UTC
I'm in agreement with Reina. As I have said earlier this would not keep new bros from being hero tackle. If anything, it would make tackle on both side more interesting. Right now, any point on a non stabbed ship means complete lockdown until they destroy the tackler. Webs, disrupts and screams are the only PVP ewar module that does not have a chance to fail. Don't think that I am against ganking, I am a pirate after all. But I would like some bigger beefier ships to come into our systems and if they felt like they have a better chance to survive, they would bring them.
Reina Xyaer
Tha Lench Mob
#60 - 2015-02-26 16:13:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Reina Xyaer
Zimmer Jones wrote:
oh sorry, Random Number Generators, or RNG's are a pet peeve of mine.



Ah! Yes, I kind of agree. That's why I made a point to say I think maybe tackling, even under the ECM-like system, should be much more yes/no than ECM is.

Either your ships Disruptor Strength overcomes their WCS and they are tackled,

Or your disruption isn't strong enough and they're almost impossible for you to tackle.

But, should there be small chances to succeed/fail no matter what?

Or, for instance, if the Disruptor Strength of your ship and the WCS of the target ship fall in just the right values, close enough to each other, it could be an inconsistent crap-shoot of random chance each cycle.