These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
kyrieee
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#281 - 2012-11-05 15:05:42 UTC  |  Edited by: kyrieee
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We also believe that providing skills to help defend against things like ewar gives useful tools to players.


If the skills actually did that in a tangible way then I think people would have less objections with them. For example, let's say the skill reduced the duration of a successful jam by 10% per level, then my skill investment would be guaranteed improvement in a fight vs ECM, just like Long Range Targeting would help me vs damps. With their current design however, the skills don't help me at all when I'm actually jammed. They will never enable me to do anything, they will only give me a slightly higher chance to not be disabled and that's fundamentally different.

Most people think the all or nothing dice roll that is ECM is deeply flawed and having to spend a bunch of training time getting a slightly more weighted dice is not a band aid, it's salt in the wounds. It's only going to make people curse your name when their level V sensor strength comp does nothing and they sit permajammed by a dozen EC-600.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#282 - 2012-11-05 15:16:58 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
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.


What if we nerf the Loki booster first? Twisted

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Sentinel zx
#283 - 2012-11-05 15:26:17 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
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.


What if we nerf the Loki booster first? Twisted


Or maybe Target-Painter get more boost to effective counter the skill Big smile

Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Vengeance
Team Amarrica
#284 - 2012-11-05 15:39:05 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
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.


What if we nerf the Loki booster first? Twisted


Just making sure you put the horse in front of the carriage. Blink
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#285 - 2012-11-05 15:56:39 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
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.


What if we nerf the Loki booster first? Twisted

or all off grid booster at once...

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#286 - 2012-11-05 16:03:38 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
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.


What if we nerf the Loki booster first? Twisted


when might you do this?

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

DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#287 - 2012-11-05 16:11:19 UTC
Oof. It's a bad time to be percep/will mapped.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#288 - 2012-11-05 16:12:54 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
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.


What if we nerf the Loki booster first? Twisted


when might you do this?


Before we add any hypothetical skills that reduce sig radius is the only timeline I can commit to in this thread.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#289 - 2012-11-05 16:14:39 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
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.


What if we nerf the Loki booster first? Twisted

or all off grid booster at once...


I think they should seriously consider doing the OGB nerf in much the same manner that they implemented the early FW changes. Except with less warning.

Like none at all.
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
#290 - 2012-11-05 17:00:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Daneel Trevize
"Stay on target!"
Forget about the OGB for this thread.

Fozzie, you're doing great work, maybe you need a little rest, we hope you don't start slipping.
The reason people reject the idea of 4 racial skills for sensor strength and the opportunity cost of training them vs e.g. surgical strike, is that ECM is a terrible mechanic that is no fun, and too likely to result in a player unable to even take down 1 enemy when engineering a situation when they might otherwise have time to. Be that in a drawn out 1v1 or a 1vMany where some are split by aggro/positioning.

You admit ECM is the most broken EWAR and state you intent to significantly change the mechanic, in such a way that would require more work than is deemed reasonable to dedicate to meet a Dec 4th completion date. Thus these 4 racial skills are proposed as a stop-gap measure.

Before you can reasonably offer them to the player base you need to make clear and commit to the fact that:

  • either the skills will really be as useful as any other multi-ship skill of such rank & mapping once the proper ECM fix is produced. this will require the playerbase to trust CCP on such a judgement like almost never before (though you're record's getting better);
  • or state now that SP put into these skills will be reimbursed (or transferred into some other equal game-time reward) should they become a hinderance to the future ECM fix.

If you can't do either of these, then you seriously need to look into merging the skill into 1 while it's a stop-gap measure, or the other suggestions of straight-up reducing ECM strength and/or jam time (effectively giving everyone the effect without the wait for the pvp-mandatory training). And/or just strongly nerf/remove the meta0 tech1 EC drones of utter hatred.

At least you can see if a falcon's following a gang as it jumps gates. You can't know everyone's fitted EC drones until the ball of them pops out or you start trawling out-of-game tools like killboards. And then you can't reposition against the little ******* or do much but try kill them asap. Their chance of jamming you far outweighs their tradeoff in potential dps.

I am of course only restating what many people have already directly said and obviously think.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#291 - 2012-11-05 17:09:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
I feel like I'm missing something with the sensor strength skills and modules... They pretty much have two effects:

a.) It makes you harder to scan down.
-- This only matters if someone is trying to scan you down. Really, the added difficulty to scanners is negligible to most combat ships vs scanners. Furthermore, since their is a cap on your signal strength, unscannable is not achieveable making using mods for this purpose only valuable on specific ships (like boosting t3's).

b.) It makes it harder to jam.
-- This is majorly beneficial when facing ECM, but of very little utility otherwise. In many situations ECM is used ubiquitously (because it is very potent), and a skill to increase your sensor strength is a nice touch.

However...

Why do we have four racial lvl 3 sensor strength skills? That seems out of whack to me.. The utility of these skills, as listed above, are not universally beneficial. In short, I don't care about the individual level of each skill, but the equivalent rank of ALL four skills should be comparable to Signal Dispersion (rank V) or maybe Astronometric Rangefinding (rank 8).

Compare Signal Suppression (rank V) to Long Range Targeting (Rank 2) and Signature Analysis (Rank 1)
Compare Turret Destabilization (Rank V) to Trajectory Analysis (Rank V), Sharpshooter (Rank 2), and Motion Prediction (Rank 2)
There's nothing to compare Signature Focusing too....

Now Compare it to Signal Dispersion (rank V), which provides a skill bonus to ALL ECM jammers no matter the race, to four Racial lvl 3 skills. That's 12 ranks of SP to counter ECM, whereas countering TD's or SD's takes 9 ranks and 3 ranks, respectively. Additionally, of the utility skills that counter TD's and SD's is pretty significant to most situations.

In summary, I really don't care if you have 1 Signal Strength Skill, or four racial ones, but the equivalent rank of them should be inline with the rest of the skill tree. Twelve Ranks is ridiculously EXCESSIVE. Eight ranks is a more equitable number, and truthfully, unless sensor strength starts to play a role beyond jamming probability and signature strength, I think Four ranks would be balanced!!!
fukier
Brave Collective
#292 - 2012-11-05 17:46:51 UTC
Daneel Trevize wrote:
"Stay on target!"
Forget about the OGB for this thread.

Fozzie, you're doing great work, maybe you need a little rest, we hope you don't start slipping.
The reason people reject the idea of 4 racial skills for sensor strength and the opportunity cost of training them vs e.g. surgical strike, is that ECM is a terrible mechanic that is no fun, and too likely to result in a player unable to even take down 1 enemy when engineering a situation when they might otherwise have time to. Be that in a drawn out 1v1 or a 1vMany where some are split by aggro/positioning.

You admit ECM is the most broken EWAR and state you intent to significantly change the mechanic, in such a way that would require more work than is deemed reasonable to dedicate to meet a Dec 4th completion date. Thus these 4 racial skills are proposed as a stop-gap measure.

Before you can reasonably offer them to the player base you need to make clear and commit to the fact that:

  • either the skills will really be as useful as any other multi-ship skill of such rank & mapping once the proper ECM fix is produced. this will require the playerbase to trust CCP on such a judgement like almost never before (though you're record's getting better);
  • or state now that SP put into these skills will be reimbursed (or transferred into some other equal game-time reward) should they become a hinderance to the future ECM fix.

If you can't do either of these, then you seriously need to look into merging the skill into 1 while it's a stop-gap measure, or the other suggestions of straight-up reducing ECM strength and/or jam time (effectively giving everyone the effect without the wait for the pvp-mandatory training). And/or just strongly nerf/remove the meta0 tech1 EC drones of utter hatred.

At least you can see if a falcon's following a gang as it jumps gates. You can't know everyone's fitted EC drones until the ball of them pops out or you start trawling out-of-game tools like killboards. And then you can't reposition against the little ******* or do much but try kill them asap. Their chance of jamming you far outweighs their tradeoff in potential dps.

I am of course only restating what many people have already directly said and obviously think.


HI space friend please read my suggestion for ECM overhaul... this will make ECM a useful and fun mechanic.
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Shin Dari
Covert Brigade
#293 - 2012-11-05 17:58:28 UTC

Dear CCP Fozzie,

One of the biggest problems that I have with EWAR is that they use Mid slots. I think that they should use High slots, because if they used high slots:
- It will discourage non-ewar ships from using ewar.
- Ewar ships from shield races can finally use shields.
- All races will be made to choose between DPS and EWAR. And each situation and ship will have its own balance (fleet/gang/solo).

Moving them to high slot would likely require too many resources for Retribution, but please consider it for the summer expansion.

However I admit that I am not perfect and thus might have missed a really compelling reason for them to use Mid slots. So can you please give me the reason why they should use midslots?

Cornette
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#294 - 2012-11-05 18:02:22 UTC
So let me get this right: damps will still be ****, ecm-drones still be owerpowered unfun thing ever while ccp think that forcing a four new obligatory-must-train-to-5-skills down our throats is the answer to fixing stuff.

Well done fozzie, I can see why you work at ccp.
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#295 - 2012-11-05 19:00:32 UTC
Target Painter
*Set the TP strength bonus on TP bonused ships to 7.5% per level for T1 and 10% per level for T2

why not 10% for both t1 and t2.seems reasonable considering its not the most used ewar module
Eridanii
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#296 - 2012-11-05 19:05:03 UTC
Recoil IV wrote:
Target Painter
*Set the TP strength bonus on TP bonused ships to 7.5% per level for T1 and 10% per level for T2

why not 10% for both t1 and t2.seems reasonable considering its not the most used ewar module


Because T2 should be better.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#297 - 2012-11-05 19:10:45 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:
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.

The situation with T2 armor plates wasn't really fixed. The buff to T2 plates is mitigated by the weight penalty, making Rolled Tungsten still preferable in most cases (the fitting and SP reqs are also lower for Tungsten plates).

However, the real problem with both high and low meta modules isn't the module specs - the problem is the NPC drop rate.

The drop rate for most meta items is currently so high that supply often exceeds demand, making the price for meta modules much lower than T2 and, in many cases, even T1 modules.

Don't know if Fozzie and Co. have time to tweak this for Retribution, but it does need to be looked at sometime soon. T1 modules across the board are just not worth fitting, and thus not worth building.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#298 - 2012-11-05 19:14:23 UTC
Shin Dari wrote:
However I admit that I am not perfect and thus might have missed a really compelling reason for them to use Mid slots. So can you please give me the reason why they should use midslots?

Because they force shield tanked ships to compromise between tank and EW in the mids, just as armor tanked ships are required to compromise between tank and damage mods in the lows.

At least, that is how it was explained to me by CCP devs in the past.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#299 - 2012-11-05 19:34:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Sizeof Void
CCP Fozzie wrote:

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.

I understand the theory, but, in practice, it doesn't work this way.

Older players are much less adverse to spending time to train a skill up to level 5, esp. if they already have everything else trained up to level 4/5. Thus, when you add a new skill, or group of skills, the older players are going to train them up to level 5, without giving it much thought or effort.

For the newer players, you've just added a few more days (or more) of a skill that other players will tell them that they need to get up to at least level 3/4, in order to properly PVP (true or not, doesn't matter - this is how advice tends to work). This means that the new players have to compromise something else - DPS, tank, ability to get into a new ship, etc. - in order to spend those few more days (or more) training up your new sensor compensation skill. They will skill it up to the minimum, before switching back to their original SP plan (or perhaps, will just add it to the end of their current plan).

Thus, after a month or two, the older players will have all of the new skills trained up to level 5, while newer players will most likely have only one of the skills trained up to level 3/4, at best.

Where is the advantage to newer players?

If you want to make newer players more competitive with older players, the goal should be to have *less* skills to train, not more. Adding more skills just makes the situation worse, not better.
Viribus
Furnace
Thermodynamics
#300 - 2012-11-05 19:34:19 UTC
Pretty annoying that targeting range is one skill, damping is one skill, jam strength is one skill, tracking is one skill, etc. etc. but sensor strength is four goddamn rank 3 skills

I think CCP employees are all closeted Falcon sympathizers, its the only explanation