These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#41 - 2012-11-02 19:58:39 UTC
Hello Fozzie :) can I make a suggestion for an "ECM" change? I am not talking about the module here, but instead the drones

The jamming duration for the ec-300 600 and 900 should be reduced to 1-5 sec instead of the current or simply break the lock like the ecm burst.

I would say at least the light ec-300 should only break lock and not keep it broken or only last for 1 sec
ec-600 could do the same or last for 5 sec
ec-900 could do 10+ sec jamming (or like I said, it could simply break the lock like with all the others)

At the moment ecm drones are way too useful, specialy compared to the other ewar drones, not because of their chance to jam, but because of the duration a "lucky" jam gets you.

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934

Lili Lu
#42 - 2012-11-02 19:59:50 UTC
Dayam, Marlona and Gavriel, I thought I had a hate of ecm. You guys would remove it from the game, whether in module or drone form.

I recognize a need for such a mechanic though, espcially as a counter to logistic support. It just shouldn't be a 20 second forced time out from the game.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#43 - 2012-11-02 20:00:52 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Dayam, Marlona and Gavriel, I thought I had a hate of ecm. You guys would remove it from the game, whether in module or drone form.

I recognize a need for such a mechanic though, espcially as a counter to logistic support. It just shouldn't be a 20 second forced time out from the game.



I never said remove it.. I just want them to completely redo the mechanic and then make anything that fits ECM drones explode on undock.

Reasonable if you ask me..

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Aglais
Ice-Storm
Trigger Happy.
#44 - 2012-11-02 20:09:18 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
@CCP Fozzie why can't the scorp/all bs be a proper battleship and actually focus on killing stuff instead?


We have a bunch of long term plans for battleships, but in general we are ok with the unsual role the Scorp plays.


So it's fine that Caldari only have two direct combat battleships forever, while everyone else has three? Well, right now, Caldari only have one valid battleship for anything and that's the Rokh. Gallente have Megathron and Dominix, you can fly pretty much any Amarr battleship, and any Minmatar one.

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this decision.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#45 - 2012-11-02 20:09:54 UTC
Aglais wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
@CCP Fozzie why can't the scorp/all bs be a proper battleship and actually focus on killing stuff instead?


We have a bunch of long term plans for battleships, but in general we are ok with the unsual role the Scorp plays.


So it's fine that Caldari only have two direct combat battleships forever, while everyone else has three? Well, right now, Caldari only have one valid battleship for anything and that's the Rokh. Gallente have Megathron and Dominix, you can fly pretty much any Amarr battleship, and any Minmatar one.

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this decision.


At least the Rokh is really cool when you put railguns on it?

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#46 - 2012-11-02 20:11:49 UTC
Aglais wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
@CCP Fozzie why can't the scorp/all bs be a proper battleship and actually focus on killing stuff instead?


We have a bunch of long term plans for battleships, but in general we are ok with the unsual role the Scorp plays.


So it's fine that Caldari only have two direct combat battleships forever, while everyone else has three? Well, right now, Caldari only have one valid battleship for anything and that's the Rokh. Gallente have Megathron and Dominix, you can fly pretty much any Amarr battleship, and any Minmatar one.

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this decision.


mm.. i would like the scorp to be a high dps bs like the drake will be ROF and 5% dmg bonus

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

Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#47 - 2012-11-02 20:11:51 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


We are aware of the effect the new skills will have on probing, and we're going to be keeping our eyes on it and have a few tricks up our sleeve in that regard.



Or you could just delete this fundamentally flawed mechanic and make sensor strength have 100% no bearing on a ships ability to be probed. Tricks are not what's needed here fozzie, non mongoloidish mechanics are.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#48 - 2012-11-02 20:14:49 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Dayam, Marlona and Gavriel, I thought I had a hate of ecm. You guys would remove it from the game, whether in module or drone form.

I recognize a need for such a mechanic though, espcially as a counter to logistic support. It just shouldn't be a 20 second forced time out from the game.

If you want it to be a counter for remote type modules then have ECM affect only those modules. Not the entire ship!

Now I have four new skills to max to level five and I swear on a that is holy, I still will have my Dominix jammed out by a flight of light ECM drones even though I have two ECCM modules fit, overloaded, with max Proteus information bonuses.
Bolow Santosi
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#49 - 2012-11-02 20:16:10 UTC
Harvey James wrote:


mm.. i would like the scorp to be a high dps bs like the drake will be ROF and 5% dmg bonus


Drakes are the polar opposite of high dps. I'd rather see every race get an EWAR battleship rather than having the Scorpion be the next Hyperion.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#50 - 2012-11-02 20:17:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
So scripted TD will be at 40% rather then 50% on unbonused ships?


47.5%. Multiply the effectiveness by 0.95, rather than subtract 5. I'll see if I can clarify the wording.


Is this a joke? Tds are already HUGELY effective, why are they getting buffed? (yes, buffing them on ships that use them is a buff - its like claiming that giving caldari ships a nerf to autocannon damage is a nerf to autocannons)


In addition, in every other place in every post of this sort, 5% actually means 5 percentage points. Look at how you phrased the increase to the scorpions range "Increase it 5% to 25%" You are actually increasing it by 25%, but you mean 20+5, not 20*1.05
Aglais
Ice-Storm
Trigger Happy.
#51 - 2012-11-02 20:19:30 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Aglais wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
@CCP Fozzie why can't the scorp/all bs be a proper battleship and actually focus on killing stuff instead?


We have a bunch of long term plans for battleships, but in general we are ok with the unsual role the Scorp plays.


So it's fine that Caldari only have two direct combat battleships forever, while everyone else has three? Well, right now, Caldari only have one valid battleship for anything and that's the Rokh. Gallente have Megathron and Dominix, you can fly pretty much any Amarr battleship, and any Minmatar one.

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this decision.


At least the Rokh is really cool when you put railguns on it?


Ok, so you have one battleship that performs adequately in one role.

Two other factions have entire T1 battleship lineups that can be used in a vast array of situations.

Even Gallente battleships have niche situations that they're actually regarded as being good in. In terms of direct combat battleships, Caldari only have one. Scorpion isn't built for anything that isn't ECMs and then dying promptly, the Raven is just... Bad. Even torpedo Typhoons are held in higher esteem than the dedicated missile ship that is the Raven.
Bagehi
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#52 - 2012-11-02 20:20:23 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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 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 know it isn't popular to bat for the ECM team, but here's my problem with the range reduction on ECM modules: slots. It is a plural thing. On every other ewar ship, you can fit your ewar module(s) and a tank. A reasonable tank. That is not the case with ECM boats. You can have a tank or you can be effective as ewar. You can really only pick one with the way ECM is currently designed.

Now, I will agree that the ability of ECM to perma jam a ship is a pretty terrible mechanic. However, that is a solo or extremely small gang warfare situation. A situation that would not be impacted, at all, by a range nerf. The range nerf means ecm has to move in closer for pretty much every other situation, which means they are more likely to be shot by something.

ECM would probably be more balanced if the modules had long cycles, and only jammed for part of the cycle (i.e. a cool-down period).
Eternal Error
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2012-11-02 20:25:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternal Error
TD changes: solid, especially if you're considering making TDs affect missiles. You might want to go a bit further.

Damp changes: better than nothing, although I think one of the larger issues with these is that the arazu/lachesis need to be viable armor tankers (can't fit tackle AND damps with a strong shield tank). Not sure if this will make them good though.

ECM: I think you're barking up the wrong tree here for two main reasons:
1.) ECM DRONES are the biggest problem, not the modules.
2.) The modules are already lackluster on unbonused ships; the last thing you need to worry about is making it more specific to bonused ships. Additionally, the tanks on those bonused ships are usually fairly weak (or they don't carry many jammers); bringing them closer/making them easier to kill shouldn't be the priority either. The mechanic as a whole needs looked at, or at least the jamming strength/probabilities.

I'm not opposed to introducing a new skill involving sensor strengths, but I'd probably make it less important, say 3% per level and a rank 1 or 2 skill. 4 new rank 3 skills to train is a bit excessive IMO.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#54 - 2012-11-02 20:26:55 UTC
Bagehi wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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 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 know it isn't popular to bat for the ECM team, but here's my problem with the range reduction on ECM modules: slots. It is a plural thing. On every other ewar ship, you can fit your ewar module(s) and a tank. A reasonable tank. That is not the case with ECM boats. You can have a tank or you can be effective as ewar. You can really only pick one with the way ECM is currently designed.

Now, I will agree that the ability of ECM to perma jam a ship is a pretty terrible mechanic. However, that is a solo or extremely small gang warfare situation. A situation that would not be impacted, at all, by a range nerf. The range nerf means ecm has to move in closer for pretty much every other situation, which means they are more likely to be shot by something.

ECM would probably be more balanced if the modules had long cycles, and only jammed for part of the cycle (i.e. a cool-down period).

Or just remove completely from the game.
Sarmatiko
#55 - 2012-11-02 20:27:02 UTC
CCP Fozzie, is there any plans to re-introduce once again Reverb Target Painter module (TP for high-slot)? Roll
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#56 - 2012-11-02 20:28:49 UTC
As a TD fetishist, I think the nerf to unbonused TDs is okay. I don't think unbonused ewar should be really weak, though, especially since that is essentially what armor tankers are trading damage and speed for. Well, that and sig radius.

As a guy who thinks ECM is a terrible, terrible mechanic, I'm all for the nerf, but I don't think it actually addresses the problem. It just makes ECM worse.

Quote:
On every other ewar ship, you can fit your ewar module(s) and a tank. A reasonable tank. That is not the case with ECM boats. You can have a tank or you can be effective as ewar.

Rooks and Falcons are both capable of fitting an okay shield tank + prop and still have 4 jammers. ECM pilots choose not to tank their ships at present because there isn't much of a reason to.
Escobar Slim III
YOLOSWAGHASHTAGDOLLARBILLZSWIMMINGPOOLICECREAMS
#57 - 2012-11-02 20:29:03 UTC
first.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#58 - 2012-11-02 20:31:58 UTC
Eternal Error wrote:
TD changes: solid, especially if you're considering making TDs affect missiles.


If its actually a 5% change (and not 5 percentage points, like CCP means every other time they say 5% in ship and module stats), then its a negligible change (and overall a buff).

If its 5 percentage points (again, this is what ccp means every other time they say 5% in relation to ships and modules), then yeah, its a decent change.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#59 - 2012-11-02 20:32:19 UTC
Milton Middleson wrote:
As a TD fetishist, I think the nerf to unbonused TDs is okay. I don't think unbonused ewar should be really weak, though, especially since that is essentially what armor tankers are trading damage and speed for. Well, that and sig radius.

As a guy who thinks ECM is a terrible, terrible mechanic, I'm all for the nerf, but I don't think it actually addresses the problem. It just makes ECM worse.

Quote:
On every other ewar ship, you can fit your ewar module(s) and a tank. A reasonable tank. That is not the case with ECM boats. You can have a tank or you can be effective as ewar.

Rooks and Falcons are both capable of fitting an okay shield tank + prop and still have 4 jammers. ECM pilots choose not to tank their ships at present because there isn't much of a reason to.


most people plate falcons or rooks

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

Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2012-11-02 20:33:45 UTC
Damps will still be useless.

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin