These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

should warp disruption have diminishing returns?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#21 - 2013-06-05 17:20:42 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
this is not a stealth 'nerf piracy' thread.

the more i have been thinking about it, the more it bothers me how binary many PvP situations are. for example, 99% of situations where one side is sitting in a hauler or mining vessel will end up in said hauler being destroyed. yes, warp stabs will improve your chances, but only if you choose to use them before you undock. if you choose not to or the enemy has sufficient scramble strength, you may as well go get a coffee, even if you are in a freighter and your attacker is in a frigate.

of course, since being pinned is so crucial to the outcome of the engagement, we do not want to make it completely random. having to watch a juicy target warp out in structure because RNG was not in your favor would be way too frustrating (there's a reason why people complain about ECM all the time).

my proposal would be that warp scramblers/disruptors (NOT bubbles, HICs etc.) are changed to start out with 100% chance to disrupt but over time the chance starts declining. imagine the efficacy of disruption modules slowly change from a flat 100% to a falloff curve, so that after 5 minutes or so, a target that is barely in range has a very good chance to resist your disruption cycle whereas a target that is 500m away is still 99% pinned.

to compensate for targets that get away, we may want to buff the range of affected modules by 20% or so. we can also introduce skills that slow down the chance reduction over time or even have the target warp slower if it 'broke through' your point.

so what do you think, would this make PvP more or less exciting overall?


There are many tools to fight warp disruption:

Stabs (Have more stabs than they have points, and you can warp away).
ECM (If they are jammed, they can't tackle you unless using a bubble)
EC Drones (These are boasted as OP because they have a moderate level of success)
Neuts (They need cap to keep you tackled)
Range Control (power out of their tackle range)

Additionally, the PRIMARY tool players use is simply avoidance. Avoid the tacklers and you don't need any of the above methods. There is an overpowered intel tool (called local) which allows you to identify hostiles very quickly, there are mods that help hide your ship (cloaks), that speed up your ship (mwds), and enable your ship to warp away quickly (Istabs and Nanos).

So, why exactly do we want to make "disruption" RNG based?
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#22 - 2013-06-05 17:23:50 UTC
Solutio Letum wrote:
no these situations are tiny and useless to think of, if you think of it has the warp module failling ya sure.. so what then you pick a low meta module it fails more? maybe, but still could brake the game, btw you dint say anything about how the module should act.

you said 2-5%, but per what? out of 100 times your module will fail 2 - 5 times....? that sounds like its more likely that your target makes a mistake before that happens.or the game it self fails.


i did not give any numbers because pulling numbers out of my ass would be stupid at this point. that's what the test server is for. the 2-5% were a rough estimate of how many fights on average i would expect to not end in the losing side exploding. again, numbers are fine tuning, it's the idea that is important.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#23 - 2013-06-05 17:24:43 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
So, why exactly do we want to make "disruption" RNG based?

please read the thread before responding.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Haulie Berry
#24 - 2013-06-05 17:26:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Haulie Berry
Daniel Plain wrote:

most of the things you pointed out can be easily addressed with numbers games. for example, let's make the chance to fail dependant on sig size, mass, sensor strength or some other distinguishing metric. that way, the chance to get away stays roughly constant across hull sizes.


Uh, no, it really can't. No matter what you do with the numbers, your idea fundamentally favors short range + high damage Vs. long range + low damage. Dicking with the numbers can, at best, reduce the amount they are favored, but there's no escaping the fact that it has a disparate impact on those two playstyles. Now there's a brand new horse **** and completely unnecessary mechanic that everything else needs to be balanced around. Roll

Quote:
as for the first point, I specifically addressed ECM as a BAD example and my goal is to avoid this amount of impact. maybe reducing warp speed is not enough, we could also limit warp range to 100k or make the ship shut down for a minute after exiting warp or something... there are ways to make warping off less of a life saver.


Great ideas, here's an even better one: We just don't do anything you've said so far.
Haulie Berry
#25 - 2013-06-05 17:27:48 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


So, why exactly do we want to make "disruption" RNG based?


Mostly because we want it to be easier to run away, but we're campaigning for it under the guise of making gameplay more "exciting". Lol
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#26 - 2013-06-05 17:36:13 UTC
Haulie Berry wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:

most of the things you pointed out can be easily addressed with numbers games. for example, let's make the chance to fail dependant on sig size, mass, sensor strength or some other distinguishing metric. that way, the chance to get away stays roughly constant across hull sizes.


Uh, no, it really can't. No matter what you do with the numbers, your idea fundamentally favors short range + high damage Vs. long range + low damage. Dicking with the numbers can, at best, reduce the amount they are favored, but there's no escaping the fact that it has a disparate impact on those two playstyles. Now there's a brand new horse **** and completely unnecessary mechanic that everything else needs to be balanced around. Roll

we invert the falloff curve. lowest chance to fail is not at 500m but at the max range of your module. there, i fixed kiting for you (with numbers games). also OMG SHIFTING META THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!11

Quote:

Quote:
as for the first point, I specifically addressed ECM as a BAD example and my goal is to avoid this amount of impact. maybe reducing warp speed is not enough, we could also limit warp range to 100k or make the ship shut down for a minute after exiting warp or something... there are ways to make warping off less of a life saver.


Great ideas, here's an even better one: We just don't do anything you've said so far.

strongly disagree. not doing anything may be the best in some cases but the warp disruption mechanic is not one of them.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#27 - 2013-06-05 17:37:21 UTC
Haulie Berry wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


So, why exactly do we want to make "disruption" RNG based?


Mostly because we want it to be easier to run away, but we're campaigning for it under the guise of making gameplay more "exciting". Lol

double the disruption range and strength of all modules, see if i care.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Haulie Berry
#28 - 2013-06-05 17:44:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Haulie Berry
Quote:
we invert the falloff curve. lowest chance to fail is not at 500m but at the max range of your module. there, i fixed kiting for you (with numbers games). also OMG SHIFTING META THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!11


Well, no, the sky isn't falling, because this is pretty obviously an, "LOL, no," idea that will never see the light of day.

Also, your "fix" doesn't address the DPS disparity, and so doesn't actually "fix" anything. It still also pushes combat to an even more alpha-centric position. It still rewards poor decision making. It's still basically terrible.

Daniel Plain wrote:


double the disruption range and strength of all modules, see if i care.


So basically, you're willing to make any number of changes, regardless of how much it mucks up the rest of the gameplay, to see your ****** idea to allow people to escape via RNG come to fruition.
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2013-06-05 17:57:26 UTC
This is a terrible idea and you should feel bad for posting it. Randomness in PVP combat sucks, this is why people hate ECM so much.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#30 - 2013-06-05 18:03:28 UTC
Haulie Berry wrote:
Quote:
we invert the falloff curve. lowest chance to fail is not at 500m but at the max range of your module. there, i fixed kiting for you (with numbers games). also OMG SHIFTING META THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!11


Well, no, the sky isn't falling, because this is pretty obviously an, "LOL, no," idea that will never see the light of day.

Also, your "fix" doesn't address the DPS disparity, and so doesn't actually "fix" anything. It still also pushes combat to an even more alpha-centric position. It still rewards poor decision making. It's still basically terrible.
ok so if it does not address dps disparity it does not adress anything? are we playing dps disparity online? and how is it rewarding poor decision making? if i am aware of the mechanic, my decision to fly with more EHP to have a chance to get away is anything but stupid. your point about alpha is moot, because nothing would change for you if you get alpha'ed. if you cannot kill a target until it has a chance to get away, your dps were too low, not your alpha.
Quote:

Daniel Plain wrote:


double the disruption range and strength of all modules, see if i care.


So basically, you're willing to make any number of changes, regardless of how much it mucks up the rest of the gameplay, to see your ****** idea to allow people to escape via RNG come to fruition.

no, we are willing make the right amount of changes to turn a binary mechanic into another dimension of pvp gameplay and still keep the game balanced.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#31 - 2013-06-05 18:07:13 UTC
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
This is a terrible idea and you should feel bad for posting it. Randomness in PVP combat sucks, this is why people hate ECM so much.

if your statement were correct, there would not be so many random factors in almost all pvp games (including EVE). what sucks about ECM is that the impact of RNG is too damn high. the whole point of the topic (which you missed) was to see if we could add RNG to warp disruption without overdoing it. so far, no one came even close to proving the contrary, instead they attacked the same straw man you did.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#32 - 2013-06-05 18:10:19 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
So, why exactly do we want to make "disruption" RNG based?

please read the thread before responding.


I did read your thread, and added relevant information that you just ignored with a rather rude reply.

As such, I'll give you direct reasons why making it RNG based is a terrible idea:

1.) It nerfs solo play. I often go out and solo, and especially like taking on fights where the odds are generally stacked against me. I've solo'd Ravens, Drakes, Hurricanes, Rapiers, Cynabals, & Vaga's in frigates, and those fights take quite a bit of time. To win these fights, I have to tackle them, get under their guns, destroy their drones, and manage my cap to maintain tackle. Then I get to destroy their ship, which takes a fair bit of time (2-10 minutes). Given your RNG suggestion, there is NO POINT in even trying to take these fights on because RNG will eventually roll in their favor and they'll simply get to warp off.

2.) It doesn't "add excitement" to a fight. There are generally two types of fights: (a) The cat'n'mouse chase, where the mouse knows he's going to die if he gets caught, and your RNG doesn't change this (especially if they are being chased by multiple ships). and (b) the trap, where one ship purposely "gets caught" only to have backup come in and counter-attack. Here, RNG just helps the to-be-trapped get away, which is not a boon they need nor deserve!

3.) It's unnecessary, as I already pointed out to you there are MANY TOOLS AVAILABLE to fight off tacklers, and to escape, not to mention avoid a fight.

In short, NO
/thread!
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2013-06-05 18:34:08 UTC
Solutio Letum wrote:
Onictus wrote:
Solutio Letum wrote:
Warp disrupters, are the main reason pvp happens, thats the first problem with the thread, then second reason is, i hate pvp by chance, eve is a game about logistics, dont add a random fighting advantage

Although i do agree that there should be some means of "anti-warp disruption" more then on ones ship, like a game where you could liberate a target with a powerful expansive module, that would really only fit special ships like blackops, to save a carrier or something else expensive, although thats just a little idea nothing more.....

Non the less ya, your idea would brake pvp has we know it, because a lonely target without backup Should be dead if captured


Spectrum target breaker......


No, its not made to liberate a target but resist an alpha strike or something of that nature, most likely for battles with more then 100 targets i personally never used it ether then to test it

And again this is fitted on the ship it self, something fitted onto another ship, like i suggested a black ops making them a bit more useful and less laughable, the module i had in mind was something that jams all disruption pointed at the target the module is used on.

Although it could also use something like bombs liberating only targets within it, but the bombs are not cheap and there is still a chance of the bomb being shot maybe, i dont know....

Non in the less Nothing like this exist in the game, although if its not to expansive it could be a good strategy for close range brawlers to be abble to warp out, making these ***** tengu a bit less over powered for every one who ***** about them... or anyhting that can kite making him self invulnerable

This is only an idea..... nothing else.....



Target breaker s stop locks, friendly and enemy.....no lock no point.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#34 - 2013-06-05 18:47:06 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I did read your thread, and added relevant information that you just ignored with a rather rude reply.
if you had read the thread and not just the first post, you would not have written what you wrote. also, this is the first time i am being called rude for using the word 'please'.
Quote:


1.) It nerfs solo play. I often go out and solo, and especially like taking on fights where the odds are generally stacked against me. I've solo'd Ravens, Drakes, Hurricanes, Rapiers, Cynabals, & Vaga's in frigates, and those fights take quite a bit of time. To win these fights, I have to tackle them, get under their guns, destroy their drones, and manage my cap to maintain tackle. Then I get to destroy their ship, which takes a fair bit of time (2-10 minutes). Given your RNG suggestion, there is NO POINT in even trying to take these fights on because RNG will eventually roll in their favor and they'll simply get to warp off.

what if the RNG does not roll in their favor? also, what if they cannot 'just' warp off but receive some form of penalty that allows you to catch up if you are on your toes?

Quote:

2.) It doesn't "add excitement" to a fight. There are generally two types of fights: (a) The cat'n'mouse chase, where the mouse knows he's going to die if he gets caught, and your RNG doesn't change this (especially if they are being chased by multiple ships). and (b) the trap, where one ship purposely "gets caught" only to have backup come in and counter-attack. Here, RNG just helps the to-be-trapped get away, which is not a boon they need nor deserve!

so there are no other kinds of fights? no small scale slug fests, no gate camps, no mutual 1v1s? also ships like procurers, orcas and freighters do not exist?

Quote:

3.) It's unnecessary, as I already pointed out to you there are MANY TOOLS AVAILABLE to fight off tacklers, and to escape, not to mention avoid a fight.

by this logic, you should then remove all the other tools except for one? if there is more than one, where is the difference between having 9 and 10?

I should buy an Ishtar.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#35 - 2013-06-05 19:46:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
Daniel Plain wrote:

1.) It nerfs solo play. I often go out and solo, and especially like taking on fights where the odds are generally stacked against me. I've solo'd Ravens, Drakes, Hurricanes, Rapiers, Cynabals, & Vaga's in frigates, and those fights take quite a bit of time. To win these fights, I have to tackle them, get under their guns, destroy their drones, and manage my cap to maintain tackle. Then I get to destroy their ship, which takes a fair bit of time (2-10 minutes). Given your RNG suggestion, there is NO POINT in even trying to take these fights on because RNG will eventually roll in their favor and they'll simply get to warp off.

  • what if the RNG does not roll in their favor? also, what if they cannot 'just' warp off but receive some form of penalty that allows you to catch up if you are on your toes?


    • That's a lot of "what if"...
    When I'm ganking a Harpy in my Helios, it takes 3-5 minutes.
    WHen I'm holding a Thanatos with an Ares for mates to attack, it takes 5-15 minutes for them to arrive with a fleet setup to kill the Carrier.
    When I'm soloing a Drake/Raven in a Rifter, it takes 10 minutes to eat through the tank!
    A warp disruptor/scrambler II has a 5 second duration, which is 12 cycles a minute. That's 36 "chances" for the Harpy to escape before he dies. That's >100 chances for the Carrier, Drake, Raven to get away. Even if my warp inhibitor had a measly 1% chance of failure, there is about a 66% chance those ships escape because my point fails.

    And what penalty would allow me to catch them if they warp to a Safe, Warp to a POS, or cyno out of system? Have you ever skirmished for a gang before? If they successfully enter warp, it's generally game over, they escape (unless they are morons).

    Daniel Plain wrote:

    2.) It doesn't "add excitement" to a fight. There are generally two types of fights: (a) The cat'n'mouse chase, where the mouse knows he's going to die if he gets caught, and your RNG doesn't change this (especially if they are being chased by multiple ships). and (b) the trap, where one ship purposely "gets caught" only to have backup come in and counter-attack. Here, RNG just helps the to-be-trapped get away, which is not a boon they need nor deserve!

  • so there are no other kinds of fights? no small scale slug fests, no gate camps, no mutual 1v1s? also ships like procurers, orcas and freighters do not exist?


    • Non-combat ships are generally the mouse in PvP situations, and Gate camps are just really, really lazy cats that wait for a mouse to come to them. The "other types" of fights are generally moot to my point: RNG doesn't improve common fights (and hurts 1v1s).

    Daniel Plain wrote:

    3.) It's unnecessary, as I already pointed out to you there are MANY TOOLS AVAILABLE to fight off tacklers, and to escape, not to mention avoid a fight.

  • by this logic, you should then remove all the other tools except for one? if there is more than one, where is the difference between having 9 and 10?


    • Your not asking for a new tool, but instead, your trying to add an RNG based get-out-of-jail-free-card mechanic. Your game mechanic change simply assist the stupid, ignorant, and/or incompetent players that can't be asked to utilize the tools available to them to avoid and/or escape a fight. Do you not understand the difference?

    Let me spell it out for you: Your RNG-based "let me escape" card already exists as a tool for every player to utilize, found in the form of ECM (be it ECM bursts, targeted ECM, or ECM Drones). Your proposal essentially adds one of these modules to every ship as an innate mechanic that benefits everyone, regardless of the choices they make regarding their ship & fit.

    Seriously, why make this an innate part of every ship, rather than leave it as a tool that players can CHOOSE to utilize if they so desire?
    Gizznitt Malikite
    Agony Unleashed
    Agony Empire
    #36 - 2013-06-05 19:55:08 UTC
    Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

    Let me spell it out for you: Your RNG-based "let me escape" card already exists as a tool for every player to utilize, found in the form of ECM (be it ECM bursts, targeted ECM, or ECM Drones). Your proposal essentially adds one of these modules to every ship as an innate mechanic that benefits everyone, regardless of the choices they make regarding their ship & fit.

    Seriously, why make this an innate part of every ship, rather than leave it as a tool that players can CHOOSE to utilize if they so desire?


    You want to add a "choice", simply request a Warp Core Burst Module that has a chance of adding X warp core stability strength to your ship, so might be able to "warp away" when you are tackled. This requires a fitting choice (do you fit that cap recharger or the Burst Module)
    ^^ That would be adding a tool... (not that it's a good idea, this is an off-the-cuff example!)
    Negitave Space
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #37 - 2013-06-05 20:26:49 UTC
    I see a lot of folks stating that RNG sucks, equip warp core stabs. Yet these are the same folk that complain that ECM is OP. HTFU if you dont want to be ECMed. Equip ECCM, and train up your sensor strength.
    Barrogh Habalu
    Imperial Shipment
    Amarr Empire
    #38 - 2013-06-05 20:37:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
    To me, "point" is EVE way to handle what amounts to "PvP flag" in other MMOs, except that instead of arbitrary rules on when character is in combat and when it's not are replaced with this mech (plus some way to go about slot layout differences).

    There is another layer ofc, now with actual timers, but that's just that, another way to fine-tune the way engagements happen. Warp disruption is still the primary factor.

    Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
    Low-key Linx
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #39 - 2013-06-05 20:54:45 UTC
    Riot Girl wrote:
    Daniel Plain wrote:
    your argument implicitly assumes that not using stabs is inherently stupid which is factually wrong in most cases (especially when we are talking combat ships).

    Combat ships already have diminishing returns on points. The more ships you blow up, the less points you have on you.



    Best Post this thread
    Namdor
    #40 - 2013-06-05 21:09:59 UTC
    OP should post with his main; I'm sure it would be very easy to figure out what precipitated this awful idea.

    Seriously, worst thing I've read since the last AFK cloaking thread.
    Previous page123Next page