These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

Sensor Redundancy

Author
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#41 - 2014-12-30 15:09:10 UTC
colera deldios wrote:
Man this forum is neverending in posts from incompetent people crying out for CCP to make the game easier for them.

First if you are fighting a supercapital blob with subcapts they are pretty much as good as dead. This is not if or maybe but a proven fact just few weeks ago NC. lost 4-5 /7-8 supers to a 200 man CFC fleet. Kadeshi fielded some 10 Supers and lost 2 to PL/Laserhawks fleet etc..

Supers are currently super underpowered that the only place they have any more value is in really massive fights or here and there being able to assign fighters.

Also people who know jack **** about the topic should really not be making suggestions about the topic.



The PL expert 2 posts above yours said that subcaps will always beat supers. Now you're saying the subcaps are as good as dead (this is not if or maybe but a proven fact.....)

You're both self proclaimed experts.... but you are in direct opposition.... I'm confused.

Is there a 3rd expert that can clear all this up??
Ronny Hugo
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#42 - 2014-12-30 16:01:39 UTC
Hopelesshobo wrote:
I would like to point one thing out, in that if you are trying to EWAR a super carrier, your doing it wrong (Except for neuts). You would be better off taking those 15 EWAR ships, and jamming out it's drones. Bombers already have a tough time hitting anything except a capital or a painted/webbed battleship, just imagine a tracking disruptor on each on.

With all that said, I do like the idea of a +xx strength to it's EWAR immunity instead of being flat EWAR immune. But, I feel that if this change were to be implemented, that new cap modules be introduced that increase that EWAR immunity level. That would only be fair because it would allow the super to choose between awesome tank, or being able to push past the EWAR and actually do something.


+1 to the original post if this above quote is also implemented. But not sure how it would be implemented, maybe its a medium slot module for shield tanking supers and low slot module for armor tanking supers?
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2014-12-30 16:47:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmer Jones
+1 supported. Give the supers/titans awesome capacity, just not outright immunity. capital mods for extra. high numbers look better to me than out right immunity, would like to see the same for "interdiction nullification" on dictor/hictor bubbles. if they have the numbers to throw and need to focus, its better than "one module(ecm) to ruin them all, except these special ships, cause they're special." dogpile jams and you should be able to jam anyone.

could work well with other RNG unfriendly ideas

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.

Zed Rachalon
The Icarus Factor
#44 - 2014-12-30 21:45:07 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:


Perhaps ECM and ship sensor strength need to be reworked.


Instead of ECM having a chance hit, it instead will always hit, but will remove a set number of sensor points (sensor strength) from the targeted ship. Certain ships will be bonused to ECM, as usual.
All ships will have their sensor strength rebalanced to factor this in. Weaker ships, of course, having weaker sensors.

Certain ships will have significantly high sensor strength, mostly capitals.
Specialty ships, like Marauders in bastion, will essentially have their sensors set to infinity symbol when in bastion, to show they're completely immune.

Falloff will not longer effect ECm chance to hit, but will instead effect efficiency.
So if your ECM typically removes 5 sensor strength, it would reduce over fall off, but unlike most turrets/modules, max fall off would not be half, it would instead be 1, and anything past fall off would be 0.

Sensor strength would also effect max locked targets, with a certain number of points representing a target lock.
So, if you have 100 point sensor strength, with 10 max targets, if I take away 10 sensor strength, you lose one locked target.
This way, you can have some sort of effect, even if you don't have enough ECM to completely block the target.

ECCM modules would essentially stack on more sensor strength, requiring more ECM to lock you out as a whole, but also more ECM for each individual target lock capability.

This would not only allow ECM to be a bit more useful on non-bonused ships, but you could also be able to tactically reduce ECM to your ship by increasing falloff of the ship ECM'ing you. Thus reducing the amount of effective ECM.

So not only can you negate ECM with ECCM, but you can also negate with pilot Skill.


I would like a slightly more deterministic function for ECM as well as removing the "fit or die" countermeasure they have going, but I figured, for ease of implementation and not rocking the boat too much, any ECM attempt on a super would count as an ewar attempt and would be blocked and reduce redundancy before it tried calculating success or failure to jam.
Krops Vont
#45 - 2014-12-31 04:40:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Krops Vont
Props for use and well thought counterplay. Roll

Seriously, if a dreadnought's only counter is more dreadnought or a sluggish support fleet... I wonder why its so popular

--==Services==--

Propaganda/Art/Media

Wormhole Finding & Selling

o/ Play for fun

Previous page123