These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Change the Ewar-Immunity attribute

Author
Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#1 - 2013-01-17 14:45:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Bubanni
I think the entire ewar immunity needs to be changed... as to not prevent ewar, but simply drasticly decrease the effect of ewar vs the ship, call it an inbuilt stacking penality

where the ewar is less than 10% effective from first module... lets say an arazu used a remote sensor dampener II with targeting range vs an Avatar, the targeting range from the remote damp is 58.44% with lvl 5 skills, 10% of 58.44% is 5.844% decrease in targeting range, next remote damp applied would have the normal stacking penalties applied and thus it would be even smaller and smaller, leaving the total range dampend to be very very little even with multiple damps on the target

this general principal could apply to all ewar, even points/scrams, and giving ewar immune supercapitals (not carriers and dreads) a higher warp core strenght, so say it has 2-10 warp core strenght, and ewar only being 10% of normal, it would take 20-100 points worth (or hic/dic bubble or infinite point) to hold an ewar immune ship... in the example of a triage/siege ship, the moment the siege/triage ends, a single point would be enough, and since it can't jump while in this mode, the point can be applied before it exists the mode...

what about ECM? well... thats an entirely different story, either disallow it to be used completly vs ewar immune ships, or simply use same principal of 10% effectiveness... again using the avatar as example, it has 240 Radar strenght as base, it you use a falcon with overloaded radar jammer, (13.5 points without any other bonuses or links) that would be only 1.35 strenght... or about 0.5% chance to jam (about!)... just consider this... 34x of these ECM modules would result in less than 18-20% chance to jam the avatar... I consider that fairly balanced... don't you? (based on EFT numbers) it would take a lot of ecm to jam mulitple ewar immune ships... but this is certainly better than not being able to use the modules at all vs these ships... it would make supcaps much more effective vs lone supercaps, it would allow a fleet of 20 hurricanes with a warp disruptor on each, to hold down a single supercap without the help of a hic/dic, if the warp core strenght of 2 was chosen, or require 100 hurricanes to hold the supercap if 10 warp core strenght was chosen.... an ironic suggestion from a PL member I know...

Of course the 10% reduction in effectiveness could be even lower, or higher depending on the kind of balance your aiming for... 1-20% depending on how much you want to "nerf" them...

The fact is this is a nerf to supercaps, and a nerf to triage carriers and siege dreads... but I think for the sake balance

I hope CCP I open to the idea at least :D that Ewar immunity was changed to a 10% effectiveness of ewar vs the target.

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

Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#2 - 2013-01-17 14:47:24 UTC
What do you guys think?
Is this suggestion and outrage?
What do you think the % should be if it was changed to work this way?

Do you disagree or agree that this is a good idea to change ewar immunity? and why?

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

Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#3 - 2013-01-17 17:12:30 UTC
Your suggestion doesn't completely gut supers. I'm only half outraged, so I'll sleep on this idea before I comment on it further.

But lets consider the following alternative:

Give Capital ships Super e-war modules to lock down and hurt supers at a 1:1 ratio. E-war immunity stays intact against sub caps, but is tossed out the window vs cap ships.

Now you create a scenario where Supers (who can't engage sub caps) are vulnerable to capital formations, who are in turn vulnerable to sub-cap formations (Who should, in all honesty, not have the ability to engage supers as their jobs are to support and protect capital formations if there are any on field)

This creates the sought after "dependency chain" in terms sub cap - capital - super cap class warfare where every ship counts. More over, within this chain, supers cant touch sub caps and vice versa, so blobbing subs or dropping supers on small gangs won't mean a thing, while at the same time making supers vulnerable to lesser ships...

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#4 - 2013-01-17 17:43:04 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
Your suggestion doesn't completely gut supers. I'm only half outraged, so I'll sleep on this idea before I comment on it further.

But lets consider the following alternative:

Give Capital ships Super e-war modules to lock down and hurt supers at a 1:1 ratio. E-war immunity stays intact against sub caps, but is tossed out the window vs cap ships.

Now you create a scenario where Supers (who can't engage sub caps) are vulnerable to capital formations, who are in turn vulnerable to sub-cap formations (Who should, in all honesty, not have the ability to engage supers as their jobs are to support and protect capital formations if there are any on field)

This creates the sought after "dependency chain" in terms sub cap - capital - super cap class warfare where every ship counts. More over, within this chain, supers cant touch sub caps and vice versa, so blobbing subs or dropping supers on small gangs won't mean a thing, while at the same time making supers vulnerable to lesser ships...


Or even a Capital E-War ship dununununununun.
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#5 - 2013-01-17 18:25:28 UTC
Sean Parisi wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
Your suggestion doesn't completely gut supers. I'm only half outraged, so I'll sleep on this idea before I comment on it further.

But lets consider the following alternative:

Give Capital ships Super e-war modules to lock down and hurt supers at a 1:1 ratio. E-war immunity stays intact against sub caps, but is tossed out the window vs cap ships.

Now you create a scenario where Supers (who can't engage sub caps) are vulnerable to capital formations, who are in turn vulnerable to sub-cap formations (Who should, in all honesty, not have the ability to engage supers as their jobs are to support and protect capital formations if there are any on field)

This creates the sought after "dependency chain" in terms sub cap - capital - super cap class warfare where every ship counts. More over, within this chain, supers cant touch sub caps and vice versa, so blobbing subs or dropping supers on small gangs won't mean a thing, while at the same time making supers vulnerable to lesser ships...


Or even a Capital E-War ship dununununununun.



I would vote Capital Interdictors, T2 capital e-war assault dreads, T2 Shieldnoughts, T2 Anti-sub cap turret carriers with t2 fighters, few more Battleship fitting-styled Dreadnought hulls for anti-cap warfare....

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
#6 - 2013-01-18 06:56:42 UTC
Sean Parisi wrote:
Or even a Capital E-War ship dununununununun.



this could actually make phoenix useful.....