open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Unscannable ship fix
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
Posted - 2011.05.23 08:53:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 23/05/2011 09:43:48
The problem: Number of ships invulnerable to scan has been steadily increasing lately. I find ship being able to do anything useful with efficiency close to the scannable setups while staying invulnerable to scan bad practice. Unscannable ships are commonly used for safe PvE or gang boosting; although there may be other usages, they're neglectable.

I'm not going to argue if current state of unscannable ships is good or bad; if you do not agree with problem, pass by. Posts claiming that current power given to unscannable ships is ok will be ignored. Thanks.

PvE: just due to being unscannable, these ships may operate in hostile environments in lowsecs. Due to having interdiction nullifier + being unscannable t3 ship can operate in hostile 0.0 space (+ cloak is required for jumping). Lowsec PvE ships like tengu just lose some tank for fitting ECCMs; damage stays pretty much the same, while keeping enough tank for absolute majority of l4 missions and even several l5 missions.

Fleet boosting: t3 offers multiple features to make it powerful and easy: 1) stronger bonus to links ship is specialized on (3% -> 5%) 2) ability to make ship unscannable 3) ability to fit interdiction nullifier 4) ability to fit covops cloak 5) smaller features like ability to fit combat probe launcher, with optional bonus from electronic subsystem. Sure, they're thinner than conventional t2 commands, but why one would need hp if he's hanging in midst of space being invulnerable to scan, still boosting fleet? Easier logistics (and the world's top safety you're getting even when passing thru gatecamps), easier skill training, better bonuses - all of these pointы secure t3's right to be the only fleet boosting class (given that you can load grid after jumping into the system and have no one-shot spies in your fleet, so this may be less applicable to 0.0 blobfests).

Main idea: do not remove unscannable ships, but make them less powerful, so that unscannable ship won't be able to even compete with conventional fleet boosting command ships and t3 ships won't be able to closely compete with pure pve-fitted ships while doing lowsec/zerosec lvl 4 and lvl 5 missions. Make nearly unscannable ships still usable in PvE, and unscannable ships - nearly unusable for both fleet boosting and PvE. Also, make sure there's some use for the virtue set - if possible. Leave areas not related to the scan process (namely, combat) untouched.

To understand idea of the fix, you've got to understand how unscannable ships are fit and how scan works.
Proposed fix: change the way how player's ship scan size is determined. Currently, it's plain R/S (where S stands for scan strength, R for signature radius). Proposed fomula is:

(R*Rc)/(S*Sc)

Where:
Rc - signature radius correction factor, equal to logarithm from the ship's unmodified signature radius with base equal to modified signature radius
Sc - sensor strength correction factor, equal to logarithm from the ship's unmodified sensor strength with base equal to modified sensor strength

Unmodified value - is base value of sensor strength/signature radius of ship or directly assigned from t3's subsystem
Modified value - unmodified value with all modificators applied (dissolution sequencer bonus, eccm set bonus, fleet bonus, etc)

Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
Posted - 2011.05.23 08:58:00 - [2]
 

How it will impact unscannable setups? See table below:

Setup - current setup's scan size - setup's scan size with proposed formula
Tengu without dissolution bonus (150, 20): 7.5 - 7.5
Tengu + dissolution bonus (150, 35): 4.29 - 5.08
Tengu + dissolution + 1 eccm (150, 68.6): 2.19 - 3.09
Tengu + dissolution + 2 eccm (150, 126): 1.19 - 1.92
Tengu + dissolution + 3 eccm (150, 195): 0.77 - 1.35
Tengu + dissolution + 4 eccm (150, 248): 0.6 - 1.11
Tengu + dissolution + 3 eccm + hg halo (119, 195): 0.61 - 1.126
Tengu + dissolution + 4 eccm + hg halo (119, 248): 0.48 - 0.92
Tengu + dissolution + 3 eccm + hg talon (150, 342): 0.439 - 0.854
Tengu + dissolution + 4 eccm + hg talon (150, 435): 0.345 - 0.7

Ship becomes unscannable when scan size drops below 1.08.

The table above explained:
1) You will be able to stay immune to conventional covops with just 3 eccms.
2) If specialized ship has perfect skills and virtue set, it will be barely able to scan you with 4 eccms (= you will have tons of time to warp away)
3) To protect from pimped scanning ship, you will need to pimp yourself - get a talon and still fit 3 eccms. If you want to be slightly less vulnerable to undock camps and get halo, you will need 4 eccms for full invulnerability to scan.

It still makes protection from scanners viable (or, at least, most of them), it now makes sense to invest into HG eccm/scan sets if you want to bring defense/offence to the next level, it makes purely unscannable setups slightly less powerful (-1 med slot in case of tengu). More interaction between players, more activity, more fun for everyone!

The only possible drawback i'm aware of is that all ships and subs will need to have duplicate signature size and scan strength attributes (if there's no way to access unmodified attribute directly), one of which will be modified by external factors and the other one is kept for this formula.

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Posted - 2011.05.23 09:54:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: ShahFluffers on 23/05/2011 10:00:35
Originally by: Kadesh Priestess

I'm not going to argue if current state of unscannable ships is good or bad; if you do not agree with problem, pass by. Posts claiming that current power given to unscannable ships is ok will be ignored. Thanks.


Soooooooooo... you will blatantly disregard any and all disagreements with the premise of your idea? Riiiiight... because the best way to get support for and idea/change to dismiss the critics.

(hint: when you want support for your idea you want to convince people your idea is a good one, or modify it such that people will like it... not say "I'm right and here's how I think it should be done")


To the meat of your idea...

I don't like the whole unscannable booster thing but I don't dislike it either. A better way to go about this is to make it such that gang boosts do not work unless they are on grid with the receiving gang/fleet, thus putting itself in danger. A MUCH simpler and VASTLY less complex way about going about this.
As far as unscannable PvE ships... leave the carebears be. They found a novel way of countering probes and should reap the rewards (or what rewards they can get with their gimped anti-probing ships) of doing do. If you want to gank that shiny T3, catch it on the gate with a scripted, sebo'ed HIC.

Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
Posted - 2011.05.23 10:08:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 23/05/2011 10:12:32
Originally by: ShahFluffers
I don't like the whole unscannable booster thing but I don't dislike it either. A better way to go about this is to make it such that gang boosts do not work unless they are on grid with the receiving gang/fleet, thus putting itself in danger. A MUCH simpler and VASTLY less complex way about going about this.
While i wholeheartly agree with this solution to fleet boosting part, it completely ignores safe PvE part. Bringing fleet commands to battlefield will make t2 CS' hp buffer valuable again.

Originally by: ShahFluffers
ISoooooooooo... you will blatantly disregard any and all disagreements with the premise of your idea? Riiiiight... because the best way to get support for and idea/change to dismiss the critics.
Because i know all the arguments which can be used against this idea by safe PvE lovers from low and nullsec (this topic was already discussed for some time on other forums, and surprisingly, nobody likes unscannable t3 fleet boosters) :P besides, i'm not asking for support of getting unscannable ships nerfed; i'm asking if this is viable solution to do this and checking if there're better ways to do it.

If ccp staff agrees with the problem - they will fix it; if ccp disagrees - it will never get a fix. This topic just brings it into their attention one more time and proposes solution (which is the best one we've came up to). I honestly don't think that yet another flame war will incline their opinion towards any side.

Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
Posted - 2011.05.23 13:58:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 23/05/2011 14:00:51
Originally by: Kadesh Priestess
While i wholeheartly agree with this solution to fleet boosting part, it completely ignores safe PvE part. Bringing fleet commands to battlefield will make t2 CS' hp buffer valuable again.
I found missing piece to this puzzle: moving CS' to battlefield and making missions scannable (yet another place where virtue can find its use, depending on mission's signature scan size) will solve both parts of problem.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.05.23 14:06:00 - [6]
 

unscanable ships sacrifice a lot for that bit of security. Its fine as it is. You shouldnt be able to kill/find everyone you like.

Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
Posted - 2011.05.23 14:09:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 23/05/2011 14:09:08
Originally by: Robert Caldera
unscanable ships sacrifice a lot for that bit of security. Its fine as it is. You shouldnt be able to kill/find everyone you like.
I don't really think it's sacrificing a lot, lol.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.05.23 14:13:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Kadesh Priestess
Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 23/05/2011 14:09:08
Originally by: Robert Caldera
unscanable ships sacrifice a lot for that bit of security. Its fine as it is. You shouldnt be able to kill/find everyone you like.
I don't really think it's sacrificing a lot, lol.


sure he does - a lot of med slots, which could be used better on a tank allowing damage rigs/+1 BCS in the low for more kill speed and hence better ISK/h. Instead of that, you require a deadspace booster + cap rigs because your meds are occupied with ECCM mods.

Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
Posted - 2011.05.23 14:19:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 23/05/2011 14:21:30
Read the first post, dude. Shield+signature tank is still enough to keep tengu alive on lvl 4 missions, this deadspace booster is cheap, damage loss is neglectable and may be compensated by using rigors/additional BCS instead of CCCs/DC if you can live with non-nonstop setup, easily.

ps Completely forgot about my promise, enough babbling :X

Xorth Adimus
Caldari
Blackwater USA Inc.
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2011.05.31 13:55:00 - [10]
 


The problem I see is unscannable ships is basicly a broken form of stacking.

Stacking should be penalised so that you cannot achieve 100%.

In this case 'unprobable'.

In this case a sig radius that cannot be scanned, ever, is incorrect and counter to the whole point of eve being balanced, it should be hard but not impossible.

Other fixes of penalising other affects or dealing with the symptoms of this are just pointless.

At this point despite any PVP uses which requires (little) skill not to die this is just broken at this point. In the end it just gives another way for people that exploit / macro / whatever to exploit this with no real skill involved and with no risk of the general population able to directly find them and kill them.

In addition I don't see why ECCM should reduce signature radius, ECCM is to prevent jamming by INCREASING local sensor strength not dampening sig radius (which should be another specific module imo).






taque
Posted - 2011.08.26 11:14:00 - [11]
 

i do realise i may 'necro' this topic a bit but want to know if those ships are really are unable to scan by probes. after incarna has been released this has been patched and unscannble t3s should be something from the past. now some players in my corp do claim their command tengu/loki IS unscannable with probes and implants and maxxed skills.

my point is not really they shouldn't be or not be unscannable. it's just one ship. but what about the command ships? they missing their purpose since command t3's have taken over that role?

i do support the idea that the boost should be on grid. however, an orca is a great mining booster which you may not want to leave on grid. (null sec, low sec, w-space).

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2011.08.26 11:50:00 - [12]
 

yes, fleetbonus ships should be on grid uncloaked always.

Herping yourDerp
Posted - 2011.08.27 09:26:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera
yes, fleetbonus ships should be on grid uncloaked always.

i say this, or something like only 10% if off grid.



 

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