open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked ECM Ships II - Looking at better defined roles
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : last (20)

Author Topic

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2009.04.02 04:09:00 - [181]
 

Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff
Right. That's optimal with no rigs or modules. Except SDAs will give +10% each, and rigs give +20% each. So +30% in modules, +40% in rigs. Looks like ECM optimal will still be on the very edge of RSD falloff. Wonderful. Still no effective defense against ECM.



Those are stacking against each other so rigged ECM ~85 km optimal and Rigged damps ~70 km optimal. That is not 'optimal at outer edge of falloff'. And things will look even quite good if you take into account that ECM is propability based even in optimal while damps are propability based only in falloff (and start ticking down from 100% vs ECM starting going downwards whatever it's propability happened to be against that target).

Granted - as ECM ships tend to have quite good max lock ranges and also fit sensor boosters damps are not that optimal against them if they would be operating at sub 100 km range.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.04.02 05:19:00 - [182]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 02/04/2009 05:22:18
Confused Not really impressed with these changes. I'd really prefer to see the old Scorp with much stronger ECM and lower range. Also, gimme 6 launcher/hybrid slots and a ROF/damage bonus.

So for instance we'd see:

6x Launcher/Hybrid
8x Mid
4x Low
3x Rig

5% damage bonus, 20% ECM strength

Also, I am really fond of Omarvelous' idea of 1 SDA per ship with stronger bonuses (like damage controls) to make them much less of a required module.

-Liang

Ed: It may also be worth scrapping the official 'random' jamming and moving to making ECM work much like guns do - with a hit percentage and hit quality... and if the total jamming points on you is more than your sensor strength, then you're jammed. Then give ecm a lower optimal and much longer falloff so that we'd see 37.5% jamming strength at optimal + falloff. Then get rid of racial ECM. :)

El Sheme
Posted - 2009.04.02 06:01:00 - [183]
 

so my falcon is now going to have crap range? how am i suppose to break up a gate camp thats bubbled when i cant ecm very well pasted 150kkm, which is where you have to warp to not get sucked into the bubble. i cant bring a scorp in a gang like that its to slow for roaming. yay for gate camping buff

TheLibrarian
Minmatar
Tides Of War
Posted - 2009.04.02 06:18:00 - [184]
 

CCP Chronotis,

I still think that your original logic of ECM was much more role defining.

Having the roles defined by sensor strength and range were great.

You defined the roles as long range having lower jam strength, medium ranged having balanced jam strength, and short range having high jam strength.

This not only defined the roles for the ship, but balanced out ECM in a very good gamestyle way. It allowed corps to use ECM for different roles, they could pick which version or role of ECM they wanted. Long range for fleet warfare or small gangs, middle range for roaming gangs, and close up for remote repping gangs.

In the current state people are going to be fitting SDA's again, which remove the ability to fit tank and fight. The ship styles will still be trying to achieve the longest possible range while not loosing any jam strength.

In the end I like the old post of roles and different ECM ranges better than I like the current changes. The original ideas were more of a change, the current changes are not much of a change. More of a fitting issue on how to get the best range/strength out of your ship. Fitting the right combination of stacking nerfed modules to gain the most benefit will become the optimal fit. Thus leading to the same stale meta game.

Please re-evaluate how much you want to define roles in ECM ships. I think the original rebuttle towards your idea was because they were to drastic. If you had time to think about how to balance the Long Range, Medium Range, and Short range ECM ships. The best way to start would be to pick out which ships should fit which roles then work on balancing them properly.

-TheLibrarian

McEivalley
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.04.02 07:21:00 - [185]
 

Originally by: Antioch Red
Edited by: Antioch Red on 31/03/2009 11:19:47
It's difficult to comment in a meaningful way without some numbers to start us off; any chance of providing some please?

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.


And what is the reasoning behind ecm having this much longer range? It may be chance based but it's effect is comensurately greater in prportion upon success, so why does it need this longer range? Give all the ew comparable ranges and then you begin to achieve balance.


STOP THIS! Why do you care so much about balance?! If you want balance on ewar, then I want a hybrid damage bonus on my rokh so it can blast its way in close range as much as a much cheaper mega can. Or nerf the mega. If you want balance, then I want a 100m3 drone baye on my rokh with at least 75m/bit bandwidth. I want shield boosting cap usage reduced or up the amount of shield boosts. Or significantly lower the shields recharge time on most caldari battleships to allow a more favorable passive/buffer close range tank fits. For the love of ccp, I want to be able to tackle with caldari ships!

You get the drift... if you try to balance so much, everything dims. Everything becomes the same. You don't need to rely on anyone anymore. Social cooperation on that level goes out the door. CCP, please ignore such pleas of reasoning - they will spoil your wonderful game.

Zanquis
Caldari
Universal Exports
Cult of War
Posted - 2009.04.02 07:28:00 - [186]
 

Edited by: Zanquis on 02/04/2009 07:41:35
Here are the current Settings On SISI as of 02/04/2009

Falcon

Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus:

  • 5% Bonus to Heavy and Heavy Assault Missile Launcher Rate of Fire per level

  • 10% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer capacitor use per level



Recon Ships Skill Bonus:

  • 30% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level

  • -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level



Role Bonus: 80% reduction in liquid ozone consumption for cynosural field generation and 50% reduction in cynosural field duration.
Note: can fit covert cynosural field generators

Drone Bay & Bandwith: +25
Turret Hardpoints: +1

Rook
Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus:
  • 5% Bonus to Heavy and Heavy Assault Missile Launcher Rate of Fire per level

  • 10% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer capacitor use per level



Recon Ships Skill Bonus:
  • 30% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level

  • 10% Bonus to Heavy & Heavy Missile velocity per level



Drone Bay & Bandwith: +25
Shields: 1788 (+100)


Scorpion

Caldari Battleship Skill Bonus:
  • 15% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level

  • 10% bonus to ECM Target Jammer optimal and falloff range per level



No Other changes detected to the ships fitting and stats

Racial ECM Jammar's
Strength (Primary): 3.6 (+/- 0)
Strength (other): 1.2 (+/- 0)
Optimal: 32 km (-22 km)
Falloff: 35 km (+8 km)

Multispectral ECM Jammar's
Strength: 2.4 (+/- 0)
Optimal: 21 km (-15 km)
Falloff: 23 km (+5 km)


Signal Distortion Amplifier II
Jammer Optimal Range +10%
Jammer Strength +10%

Zanquis
Caldari
Universal Exports
Cult of War
Posted - 2009.04.02 07:32:00 - [187]
 

Edited by: Zanquis on 02/04/2009 07:45:10
Personal Evaluation


Falcon

Battlefield Summary:
The Falcon seems to have lost its edge with these changes with the only strength of the ship becoming the covert ops cloaking device. However it must operate between 50-90 km to be effective when using all low slots of SDAII’s. The ship is very squishy even after using 3 slots and 2 rigs for tank. This version of the Falcon has been converted with a Turret ship gaining an additional turret slot and being able to fit the new T2 250mm guns easily with the available grid. However the bonus given to the ship is a missile launcher bonus which is peculiar, and likely an error given the changes. With the current bonus weapons are still pointless because they are unable to reach any targets at range, which is the only thing that will protect this ship from certain destruction.

Suggested Changes:
This ship needs to regain the sniper role, and it needs to make the sacrifice of jammer strength in order to accomplish this. To accomplish this the strength bonus should be reduced and changed to a strength and falloff bonus which will allow the Falcon to snipe with a weaker jammer strength using falloff. The missile bonus needs to be changed to a optimal range bonus which should allow the falcon to reach sniper ranges with its rail guns applying very weak damage.

Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus:

  • 5% Bonus to Heavy and Heavy Assault Missile Launcher Rate of Fire per level -> 20% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Optimal Range per level

  • 10% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer capacitor use per level



Recon Ships Skill Bonus:

  • 30% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level --> 20% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Strength and Falloff per level

  • -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level




Rook

Battlefield Summary:
The Rook seems to have a significant boost with this patch turning the boat into a mid ranged brawler which is capable of dealing some decent dps up till around 100km. This ship has been given a new life with these changes likely finding its home in smaller engagements and roaming gangs where its balance of EWAR and DPS will be downright deadly. However it has some significant capacitor problems due to the jammer drain combined with the increased demands placed on the ship to gain mobility and tank. This ship will have no place in a large scale fleet engagements with an insufficient tank, range, or stealth to survive the fight. This is a fair tradeoff however and it is so formidable in small gang warfare that it might be prudent to make some fitting change to limit the number of jammers this ship will fit and encourage a balance of tank and jammers.

Suggested Changes:

  • Small reduction in CPU

  • Small increase to capacitor


Zanquis
Caldari
Universal Exports
Cult of War
Posted - 2009.04.02 07:34:00 - [188]
 

Edited by: Zanquis on 02/04/2009 07:43:39
Edited by: Zanquis on 02/04/2009 07:41:51

Scorpion

Battlefield Summary:
The Scorpion changes where few but drastic turning it into some sort of oddball. It no longer has the range to sit with the sniper fleet, but it doesn’t have the stealth or agility to sneak around and be alone at the 100-130 KM range mark where must can sit now as it will just die alone without support. It stands no chance in a close engagement since it far too large a target with a weak tank of an unpopular type (shield). Its jam strength is sub par which will put increasing demand on the pilot to fit more jammers and SDA’s to make up for the weakness.

Suggested Changes:
This ship needs to fit a role and given its mobility as a battleship this will limit the choices to a close range tank/ewar boat or long range sniper. For the sake of uniqueness I would suggest this ship be modified to be a close range Ewar boat with a heavy shield tank and high jammer strength. This would leave the role of sniper to the Falcon and make this ship a significant pain in close range engagements even when primary target. The lack of a damage bonus will not be a problem for this ship at close range for its secondary use can be as a utility ship in a similar fashion as a Domination using energy nukes, remote rep, or shield transfers in the high slots. The addition of tank would drastically open new opportunities for this ship as a utility boat.

Caldari Battleship Skill Bonus:

  • 15% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -> 25% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Strength per level

  • 10% bonus to ECM Target Jammer optimal and falloff range per level -> 5% Bonus to Shield Resistances per level



Fitting Changes:

  • Increased Shield HP


McEivalley
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.04.02 07:43:00 - [189]
 

Originally by: Zanquis
limit the number of jammers this ship will fit and encourage a balance of tank and jammers.


Unless it's a highly specialized role, please never ever do that again. Think of it like the US constitution or something like that. Please maintain the liberty to fit. If someone is smart enough, don't gimp him. If someone is foolish enough and fail fits, he'll die and might learn from it (or keep dying, which is fine by me).

I liked your report on the falcon. I wouldn't touch the falcon regardless. I would like it to maintain the missiles bonus or get no bonus to weapons range but rather weapons tracking. EWAR should be its main weapons, its range should be its tank, and the rest of the hi mods should employ whatever the pilot deems as a good GTFO counter measures. TBH, I'd kill any boni to weapons on a falcon, and have it keep its role.

Zanquis
Caldari
Universal Exports
Cult of War
Posted - 2009.04.02 07:49:00 - [190]
 

Edited by: Zanquis on 02/04/2009 07:50:09
Originally by: McEivalley
Originally by: Zanquis
limit the number of jammers this ship will fit and encourage a balance of tank and jammers.


Unless it's a highly specialized role, please never ever do that again. Think of it like the US constitution or something like that. Please maintain the liberty to fit. If someone is smart enough, don't gimp him. If someone is foolish enough and fail fits, he'll die and might learn from it (or keep dying, which is fine by me).

I liked your report on the falcon. I wouldn't touch the falcon regardless. I would like it to maintain the missiles bonus or get no bonus to weapons range but rather weapons tracking. EWAR should be its main weapons, its range should be its tank, and the rest of the hi mods should employ whatever the pilot deems as a good GTFO counter measures. TBH, I'd kill any boni to weapons on a falcon, and have it keep its role.


The way I encouraged them to do this was by making a small reduction to the CPU of the ship. Since Jammars are more CPU heavy then tank modules you would simply be more pressed to fit a full rack of jammars and make it a pure jam boat. However this cpu reduction wouldn't stop you from using modules such as a CPU upgrade in order to fit a full rack.

Keep in mind the difference between many tank modules and Jammar modules is only about 10 cpu. So if you reduced the cpu by like 20tf it would have the right effect without placing a hard restriction on the ship.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2009.04.02 08:14:00 - [191]
 

Scorpion is looking better with the latest changes. Not entirely sure about if they are adequate enough to make it keep it's viability as fleet e-war support. So correct me if I'm wrong (not able to get into SiSi atm).

80 km x 1.5 (ship bonuses) + 70 km x 1.5 (ship bonuses) = 120 km optimal + 105 km falloff.
14 points at 120 km ... 10 points at 150 km ... 8 points at 180 km

Unless I missed something. If I did not is seems quite viable platform - slightly better below fleet ranges, approx the same at regular fleet range (150-160 km) and slightly lower at it's usual max engagement range (180 - 190 km) than currently. It would outperform dampener scorpion at those ranges.

Note that those numbers are not based on actually looking at ship in SiSi but on eariler relase of ECM range with max skills and no modules plus that post few lines upwards stating that scorpion now has 15% per level strenght bonus and 10% to both optimal and falloff for ECM per level.

MukkBarovian
Posted - 2009.04.02 08:41:00 - [192]
 

Eckk. Can we please just rethink what ewar does? Like completely disable all highslots? At least then you could hold a point. IDK. I say it now and then but can we fix that-

THE ONLY PLAYER SKILL INVOLVED IS IF YOU FIT AN ECCM OR NOT.

Damp you get closer. Tracking disruptor you reduce transversal. Nuet you micromanage your cap. Scram you can still attempt some manuevering. Same for the web.

And the counters are useful for situations not against that specific type of ewar. Sensor booster, tracking computer, cap booster, afterburner.

Vigaz
Posted - 2009.04.02 08:45:00 - [193]
 

Widow on Sisi
If the role must be short range BS with ECM, I think it is better to check the ECM bonus on the Widow.

Sisi:
Widow has 25% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per BO level -> 125% @ level 5 (rank 10 - 2,1M SP from level 4 to level5)
Rook and Falcon have 30% bonus per Recon level -> 150% @ level5 (rank 6 - 1,2M SP from level 4 to level5).

TQ:
Falcons/Rooks have the same Strength bonus of the Widow (20% per level).

5% more for the Widow ECM bonus (TQ 20% <-> Sisi 25%) it's not enough imo for balancing ECM role. This short range BS needs at least to be in line with Falcons and Rooks (it's a slow fat BS, close range but with less ECM strenght than a 5xtimes cheaper Falcon?)

Perry
Amarr
The X-Trading Company
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.04.02 09:02:00 - [194]
 

Edited by: Perry on 02/04/2009 09:02:52
Originally by: Vigaz
Widow on Sisi
If the role must be short range BS with ECM, I think it is better to check the ECM bonus on the Widow.

Sisi:
Widow has 25% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per BO level -> 125% @ level 5 (rank 10 - 2,1M SP from level 4 to level5)
Rook and Falcon have 30% bonus per Recon level -> 150% @ level5 (rank 6 - 1,2M SP from level 4 to level5).

TQ:
Falcons/Rooks have the same Strength bonus of the Widow (20% per level).


5% more for the Widow ECM bonus (TQ 20% <-> Sisi 25%) it's not enough imo for balancing ECM role. This short range BS needs at least to be in line with Falcons and Rooks (it's a slow fat BS, close range but with less ECM strenght than a 5xtimes cheaper Falcon?)


Widow is a Blackops, its supposed to be crap.

Spartan dax
Posted - 2009.04.02 10:30:00 - [195]
 

Originally by: Carniflex
Scorpion is looking better with the latest changes. Not entirely sure about if they are adequate enough to make it keep it's viability as fleet e-war support. So correct me if I'm wrong (not able to get into SiSi atm).

80 km x 1.5 (ship bonuses) + 70 km x 1.5 (ship bonuses) = 120 km optimal + 105 km falloff.
14 points at 120 km ... 10 points at 150 km ... 8 points at 180 km

Unless I missed something. If I did not is seems quite viable platform - slightly better below fleet ranges, approx the same at regular fleet range (150-160 km) and slightly lower at it's usual max engagement range (180 - 190 km) than currently. It would outperform dampener scorpion at those ranges.




You're missing something.

Base Racial module optimal 32 km * skills 1.5 * bonus 1.5 x 3 SDA's 1,18 = 84,96. Say 85k
Base racial Falloff 35 * skills 1,5 * bonus 1,5 = 78k
Base racial strength 3.6 * skills 1,25 * bonus 1,75 * 3 SDA's 1,18 = 9,3.

On a BS with sensorstrength of 22 in one falloff ( 163km) it'll have 9,3/22=,042 42% chance on the racial if it gets a hit. (50%). Yeah, uhmmm... I'll pass.


It is, in fact, far far inferiour to the damp scorp which you can armourtank and ofc doesn't need racials. Wake up and smell the manure people, chance based mechanics don't mix well with falloff!

Also the shorter cycle time on damps is, when you're in falloff, a huge bonus to have as snipe ships take sometime to lock onto a target.


Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.04.02 11:33:00 - [196]
 

Originally by: McEivalley
Originally by: Antioch Red
Edited by: Antioch Red on 31/03/2009 11:19:47
It's difficult to comment in a meaningful way without some numbers to start us off; any chance of providing some please?

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.


And what is the reasoning behind ecm having this much longer range? It may be chance based but it's effect is comensurately greater in prportion upon success, so why does it need this longer range? Give all the ew comparable ranges and then you begin to achieve balance.


STOP THIS! Why do you care so much about balance?! If you want balance on ewar, then I want a hybrid damage bonus on my rokh so it can blast its way in close range as much as a much cheaper mega can. Or nerf the mega. If you want balance, then I want a 100m3 drone baye on my rokh with at least 75m/bit bandwidth. I want shield boosting cap usage reduced or up the amount of shield boosts. Or significantly lower the shields recharge time on most caldari battleships to allow a more favorable passive/buffer close range tank fits. For the love of ccp, I want to be able to tackle with caldari ships!

You get the drift... if you try to balance so much, everything dims. Everything becomes the same. You don't need to rely on anyone anymore. Social cooperation on that level goes out the door. CCP, please ignore such pleas of reasoning - they will spoil your wonderful game.


that is an ilogical rant.


His concerns are valid. ECM is the strongest Ewar and has longer range.

Now take target painters for example. THe weakest Ewar (COULD BE CORRECTED BY REMOVING STACK NERF FROM THEM). but with range (45km ) too short to be used when it would be most useful ( helping snipers hit smaller ships).

Or do you really think would be overpowered for target painters to have same range as ECM?

TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2009.04.02 11:35:00 - [197]
 

Originally by: Vigaz
Widow on Sisi
If the role must be short range BS with ECM, I think it is better to check the ECM bonus on the Widow.

Sisi:
Widow has 25% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per BO level -> 125% @ level 5 (rank 10 - 2,1M SP from level 4 to level5)
Rook and Falcon have 30% bonus per Recon level -> 150% @ level5 (rank 6 - 1,2M SP from level 4 to level5).

TQ:
Falcons/Rooks have the same Strength bonus of the Widow (20% per level).

5% more for the Widow ECM bonus (TQ 20% <-> Sisi 25%) it's not enough imo for balancing ECM role. This short range BS needs at least to be in line with Falcons and Rooks (it's a slow fat BS, close range but with less ECM strenght than a 5xtimes cheaper Falcon?)



This!!



BoB's Dream
Posted - 2009.04.02 11:43:00 - [198]
 

Quote:
2. Signal Distortion Amplifiers (low slot ECM enhancers) have been changed to provide a bonus to both ECM strength and range and their bonus changed respectively.

Currently, the SDA II will give a 10% ECM optimal range and 10% ECM strength


May be added script for SDA +10% optimal/-10% strength and -10% optimal/+10% strength

It will add flexibility in a configuration of the ships

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.04.02 13:13:00 - [199]
 

Responding generally to some suggestions:

Signal Distortion Amps affect all EWAR

This would be difficult to do with just one single type due to the vastly different impact of the same bonus on different types of EWAR. Range for example is critical in scrambling and webbing and any changes or additional bonuses to this would be extremely powerful moreso than the impact of additional range to jamming due to the nature of the different mechanics.

That said it is something we can look into for the future but no promises of course that we would not find the concept horribly overpowered and resulting in ships that ultra focus too much.


Current Signal Distortion Amps should be scripted or come in two different flavours (range and strength variants)

These two have merit. The changes to these modules are not perfect and it is a difficult balancing decision between allowing specialisation and making that specialisation a necessity above other functions of the ships. Personally I would much more prefer that these modules were less required and ECM pilots could concentrate on not ultra-specialising their setups which is more the case now at least for gang setups and the intention of the range and strength bonus changes we have done.

We are certainly not finished with these yet and more changes may come in the future as we get opportunities to continue to perfect the whole ECM balance which is rightfully a controversial issue where it can swing either way quickly between powerful and useless such is the effect of a binary mechanic.


Close range scorpion was cool, we want that!

It definitely had a role and a place and we liked it however it did leave a big gap in the fleet warfare role combined with the other changes (though perhaps this is indicative of deeper issues with fleet warfare and use of engagement ranges as a whole which rule out many ships from having a place there).

Making a hybrid role scorpion that could do both roles would be too powerful overall and would break the two bonuses for Tech 1 ships rule. This is perhaps something we can address one day with ideas like configuration rigs but that is a drawingboard idea.

New falcon and rook will rule for gang/solo warfare

Quite possibly given the changes and individual scenarios, however now that the ships are in reachable counter-attack distances we think this is a fair compromise.

As with everything, we will see how things play out and continue from there.


TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2009.04.02 13:32:00 - [200]
 

Edited by: TZeer on 02/04/2009 13:32:54
And what about the bonus on the widow?

It is as fragile as the falcon/rook, and suffer just as much when it comes to nerfing the range on the jammers.

And especially when you are flying around in a 600mil coffin I see no reason why this ship should have less bonus then it`s T2 closerange cousins.


Antioch Red
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:02:00 - [201]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Responding generally to some suggestions:

Signal Distortion Amps affect all EWAR

This would be difficult to do with just one single type due to the vastly different impact of the same bonus on different types of EWAR. Range for example is critical in scrambling and webbing and any changes or additional bonuses to this would be extremely powerful moreso than the impact of additional range to jamming due to the nature of the different mechanics.

That said it is something we can look into for the future but no promises of course that we would not find the concept horribly overpowered and resulting in ships that ultra focus too much.



The suggestion for SDA's to affect oter ew DIDN'T include warp disruption or webs, only the dampners, tracking disruptors, target painters, and ecm. This avoids the headache you mention and gives all races a chance to buff their otherwise lacking ew.

SecHaul
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:09:00 - [202]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
That said it is something we can look into for the future but no promises of course that we would not find the concept horribly overpowered and resulting in ships that ultra focus too much.
How ironic when SDA's are resulting in ships that ultra focus too much and are overpowered. Maybe you should consider removing the module entirely to prevent said ship from being ultra focused.

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

Personally I would much more prefer that these modules were less required and ECM pilots could concentrate on not ultra-specialising their setups which is more the case now at least for gang setups and the intention of the range and strength bonus changes we have done.
EVE is largely a min/max game, people won't do something because it's polite; they will usually do the most effective approach. Remove the module and tweak the ships as (if) required. Otherwise give all the recons the same ability to ultra-focus and also become overpowered.

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
We are certainly not finished with these yet and more changes may come in the future as we get opportunities to continue to perfect the whole ECM balance which is rightfully a controversial issue where it can swing either way quickly between powerful and useless such is the effect of a binary mechanic.
This is where you should start. ECM is a stupid mechanic, whoever thought of it didn't think very hard. Crowd control in MMO's is an extremely poor mechanic, and ECM is laughable when you consider that all other EWAR has some pilot available counter (even if they are extremely limited in some circumstances). Sitting jammed for 20 secs + re-lock, and usually perma-jammed anyway, really makes people happy.

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

Quite possibly given the changes and individual scenarios, however now that the ships are in reachable counter-attack distances we think this is a fair compromise.
In solo and small-gang combat the falcon will perma-jam the entire fleet. It doesn't matter if they are at 10 km, you cannot target them to shoot them. And even if they get drone aggro, being jammed for 2-3 cycles completely one-sides the engagement anyway.

And wasn't the point to prevent "horribly overpowered and resulting in ships that ultra focus too much"?

I don't often post or criticize a Dev post, but seriously, you didn't join a few dots above.

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.04.02 14:09:00 - [203]
 

Originally by: TZeer
Edited by: TZeer on 02/04/2009 13:32:54
And what about the bonus on the widow?

It is as fragile as the falcon/rook, and suffer just as much when it comes to nerfing the range on the jammers.

And especially when you are flying around in a 600mil coffin I see no reason why this ship should have less bonus then it`s T2 closerange cousins.




It is fine to increase this more however it would take time we do not have and we think it needs a more focused rethink and look at the black ops ships and all their attributes as a whole really as was noted in the black ops feedback. It did get a small increase this time round and we agree it is far from perfect or fair but better still.

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.04.02 14:12:00 - [204]
 

Originally by: Antioch Red
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Responding generally to some suggestions:

Signal Distortion Amps affect all EWAR

This would be difficult to do with just one single type due to the vastly different impact of the same bonus on different types of EWAR. Range for example is critical in scrambling and webbing and any changes or additional bonuses to this would be extremely powerful moreso than the impact of additional range to jamming due to the nature of the different mechanics.

That said it is something we can look into for the future but no promises of course that we would not find the concept horribly overpowered and resulting in ships that ultra focus too much.



The suggestion for SDA's to affect oter ew DIDN'T include warp disruption or webs, only the dampners, tracking disruptors, target painters, and ecm. This avoids the headache you mention and gives all races a chance to buff their otherwise lacking ew.


I was using the extreme case but the point would still stand, it would still require a large amount of thought and playtetsing before we would be comfortable adding a module that affects all of these. Not disagreeing with the idea however, it does have merit.

TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:13:00 - [205]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: TZeer
Edited by: TZeer on 02/04/2009 13:32:54
And what about the bonus on the widow?

It is as fragile as the falcon/rook, and suffer just as much when it comes to nerfing the range on the jammers.

And especially when you are flying around in a 600mil coffin I see no reason why this ship should have less bonus then it`s T2 closerange cousins.




It is fine to increase this more however it would take time we do not have and we think it needs a more focused rethink and look at the black ops ships and all their attributes as a whole really as was noted in the black ops feedback. It did get a small increase this time round and we agree it is far from perfect or fair but better still.



When is this patch due to hit TQ?

And what prevents the team from changing the bonus from 25% to 30% while CCP are rethinking the black ops ships as a whole?

Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:30:00 - [206]
 

Edited by: Sigras on 02/04/2009 14:36:21
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Signal Distortion Amps affect all EWAR

This would be difficult to do with just one single type due to the vastly different impact of the same bonus on different types of EWAR. Range for example is critical in scrambling and webbing and any changes or additional bonuses to this would be extremely powerful moreso than the impact of additional range to jamming due to the nature of the different mechanics.

. . .

Current Signal Distortion Amps should be scripted or come in two different flavours (range and strength variants)


What about combining these two ideas and scripting the signal distortion amps to effect different e-war differently.

**********
Tracking Disruptor Script
+10% Strength for Tracking Disruptors

Target Painter Script
+15% Falloff for Target Painters

Sensor Dampener Script
+7.5% Optimal Range for Sensor Dampeners
+7.5% Falloff for Sensor Dampeners

ECM Script
+10% Strength for ECM
+10% Optimal Range for ECM

*****
OPTIONAL
(I made these optional as they are the secondary ECM of the race, or in the case of Nos, it could be overpowered)

Web Script
+10% Strength of Stasis Webifiers.

Warp Disruptor Script
-20% Cap Usage for Warp Disruptors and Scramblers

Nos/Neut Script
+5% Range for Nos/Neut
+5% strength for Nos/Neut
**********

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Close range scorpion was cool, we want that!

It definitely had a role and a place and we liked it however it did leave a big gap in the fleet warfare role combined with the other changes (though perhaps this is indicative of deeper issues with fleet warfare and use of engagement ranges as a whole which rule out many ships from having a place there).

Making a hybrid role scorpion that could do both roles would be too powerful overall and would break the two bonuses for Tech 1 ships rule. This is perhaps something we can address one day with ideas like configuration rigs but that is a drawingboard idea.


Why not make the rook the ranged fleet ship? It makes more sense to have a range tank as it basically cannot fit a tank of any other kind; this also would make a distinct difference between the Rook and the Falcon. Additionally, the scorpion is a cheaper ship to loose, and would therefore be more likely to have pilots willing to pit it in harms way.

This would delegate the role of short range brawler to the scorpion which has enough EHP, being a battleship, to take a few licks and keep on ticking.

i propose the following change

**********
Scorpion

Caldari Battleship Skill Bonus:
20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level
5% bonus to Shield Resistance per level


Widow

Caldari Battleship Skill Bonus:
20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level
5% bonus to Shield Resistance per level

Black Ops Skill Bonus:
30% bonus to ECM Burst range and +1 ECM Burst activation per level
multiplies the cloaked velocity by 175% per level
**********

I would also like to see racial scripts for ECM bursts; i think they have potential but as they currently are, theyre basically not worth the minerals they're made of.

I would really like some feedback on these ideas and what you all think . . .

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.04.02 14:35:00 - [207]
 

Originally by: TZeer
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: TZeer
Edited by: TZeer on 02/04/2009 13:32:54
And what about the bonus on the widow?

It is as fragile as the falcon/rook, and suffer just as much when it comes to nerfing the range on the jammers.

And especially when you are flying around in a 600mil coffin I see no reason why this ship should have less bonus then it`s T2 closerange cousins.




It is fine to increase this more however it would take time we do not have and we think it needs a more focused rethink and look at the black ops ships and all their attributes as a whole really as was noted in the black ops feedback. It did get a small increase this time round and we agree it is far from perfect or fair but better still.



When is this patch due to hit TQ?

And what prevents the team from changing the bonus from 25% to 30% while CCP are rethinking the black ops ships as a whole?


Not ruling out the possibility but it may not happen if we feel that the black ops require a deeper look and it is better to wait until that time seeing as the bonus has been increased already.

Watch this space in short. Being so open about the design process and stages does have its drawbacks with effective live updates sometimes but it is a process we find the best when involving the community.

TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:46:00 - [208]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: TZeer
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: TZeer
Edited by: TZeer on 02/04/2009 13:32:54
And what about the bonus on the widow?

It is as fragile as the falcon/rook, and suffer just as much when it comes to nerfing the range on the jammers.

And especially when you are flying around in a 600mil coffin I see no reason why this ship should have less bonus then it`s T2 closerange cousins.




It is fine to increase this more however it would take time we do not have and we think it needs a more focused rethink and look at the black ops ships and all their attributes as a whole really as was noted in the black ops feedback. It did get a small increase this time round and we agree it is far from perfect or fair but better still.



When is this patch due to hit TQ?

And what prevents the team from changing the bonus from 25% to 30% while CCP are rethinking the black ops ships as a whole?


Not ruling out the possibility but it may not happen if we feel that the black ops require a deeper look and it is better to wait until that time seeing as the bonus has been increased already.

Watch this space in short. Being so open about the design process and stages does have its drawbacks with effective live updates sometimes but it is a process we find the best when involving the community.



Ok, I understand.

But it would be sad to see if doesnt get the same bonus.

I can only speak for myself here, but that bonus is tipping the scale of fitting a SDA or not.

And as your goal was to try and make the SDA less of a required module, widow staying at 25% bonus tips it in the wrong direction.

I already have 2 setups ready.

One for 25% boost and one for 30% boost. And the 30% doesnt include SDA...

Just saying.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:50:00 - [209]
 

When I get on Sisi later I'll have a look at the balance between damper-Scorp and ECM Scorp at fleet ranges again. Carnifex seems to think that ECM Scorp is sensible again though.

But my other concern still seems to be valid. What is the motivation to fly a Rook over a Falcon? Both seem to have the same ECM range and strength. As an ECM pilot, your main concern is ECM, not DPS, and so the superior DPS of the Rook is fairly inconsequential, particularly given the immense tactical utility of the covops cloak.

I still can't help but think that the Rook should get ECM that is slightly stronger or longer-ranged than the Falcon to make up for the immensely powerful covops cloak.

Also, sufficient PG for the Rook to fit a rack of HMLs, MWD and 1600 plate would be necessary - otherwise the first thing to go is the HMLs, leaving you with no DPS advantage over the Falcon anyway.

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.04.02 15:19:00 - [210]
 

Somethign I want to say is. Thanks a lot for the level of iteration that CCP is showing on this balance round.

I have not seen anything as good as that since the Tier 2 BC inception discussion.

Continue a good work like this and soon there will be very few things for players to complain :)


Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : last (20)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only