Player Features and Ideas Discussion

-1/10

In the long line of bad ideas I've had the misfortune of hearing, this is one of the worst.

I love how the justification is to, "make it more skill based", because we all know how skill based RNG is right?

No. Just add falloff on top of the range, like with everything else. So 24km optimal, 25km falloff for a T2 disruptor. 10+12 for a T2 scram.

Can't wait to fly my Lachesis, applying 3-point scrambling out to 85km.


…or just leave it because there's no real reason to change it to begin with.

Your premise is flawed; only ECM is chance based. All other ewar works when it is on.

Your idea is bad; chance based tackling would just ensure larger gangs blobbing for tackles or multiple points on ships and help kill smaller gang and solo pvp.

People bad at the game would randomly escape when tackled sometimes, but I don't see that as any kind of positive impact, merely a random one. If you randomly pat your dog on the head and scratch behind his ears when he ***** on the carpet, and scold him at other times, he's only going to learn slower than if his actions had predictable consequences.

That's cause what you said is kinda like a blasphemy :)

chance based factors in an open pvp envinroment with fill loot hardly will be accepted by the players and balanced properly. ECM already are problematic for the same reason.
Go figure modules crucial for PVP engagment like scramblers and disruptors...

I like how the OP displays his cluelessness in such a serious manner.

Chance is inherent in risk. Risk itself implies a range of probabilities. by considering such a proposal your actually talking about managing risk.

Now why would a gaming company like EVE want to manage risk when its all supposed to be about danger? All gaming companies make their livelihoods of of creating fun. fun is not the same as danger though, Can fun be dangerous, of course. What a game sells us is actually a sliding scale, at the one extreme we could call it entertainment, the other end lets call it excitement. Entertainment is more like watching a movie, our attention is only partially required and there's very little risk. Were killing time, relatively relaxed. What separates the two? I'd say its up for discussion but if it was a mathematical formula, I'd put forward that the terms are engagement and risk.

EVE has High amounts of both. That adrenaline we feel nowhere else is actually engagement by the large amounts of ourselves time and aspirations invested in a symbol we call our ship. We can limit our own engagement. Commonly we fly less expensive ships to do this. Or more expensive to increase it.

Now what are we trying to do when we plan fleet doctrines, fittings, FOTM, battles or any activities at all or even mining? All of us in some way are trying to manage risk by decreasing the probability that an enemy will take away whats responsible for our our engagement. We don't want to lose our source of engagement if we can help it at all. If we are not engaged, we are not excited and we are having very little fun.

so excitement = engagement/risk lets say risk of loss is between 0 and 1, like a percentage and engagement level 1is equal to 10 million isk, 100 million isk is 10 etc. In truth the engagement scale is not a straight slope, more likely exponential or logarithmic but you get the drift for illustration.

I jump a BC though a gate, its worth a hundred million, my engagement is 10. I know I'm probably jumping into a superiority engaged bubbled gate-camp. The probability that I will be relieved of what is causing me engagement is very high. In my case 95% or .95.

excitement = 10/.95 = 10.5.

Now lets put a 50% chance of losing a ship due to chance based scram mechanics.

excitement = 10/.47 = 21.27.

My fun just doubled because my fate was not sealed.

This would have negative effects? How much more traffic into low sec and null would result if going there was twice as much fun as it is now? This would drastically alter the balance of the game in both positive and negative ways turning simple wants into needs of whats usually held by an opposing side and increasing conflict.

but people quite happily offer this system as a change to the other binary ewar system in the game ECM

why is it so good a proposal for ecm, but bad for prop disruption ...

What if mining laser yields were chance based?

What if mission rewards were chance based?

What if getting the actual finished product after an industry job cycle was chanced based?

What if getting the listed bounty on the juicy rat in null was chance based?

What if receiving the item you just bought from the market was chance based?

I mean, invention stuff is chance based, so it makes sense right?

your prolly the guy camping stations in the tornado

I get it. and even if it was chance based I'd still throw away hero tackle ships for sure. Nothing would change. just because you want tacking to have a different mechanic dosen't mean "your not brave"

don't confuse that with cowardice.

Why are you trying to fix possibly one of the most UN-broken mechanics in the game?