open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked 
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Paulize Dn'Injer
Posted - 2011.06.02 03:12:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Paulize Dn''Injer on 15/06/2011 02:41:18
THIS IDEA HAS BEEN DEFEATED (Unless you can think of a solid counter-arguemnt to the posts below)

I think we can all agree that ECM is out of tune with the rest of EW. It has been modified, nerfed, etc. so far from its original form that I think this chimera needs to be put down. In the ensuing vacuum, I propose this ill-contrived madness: ďRemote/Directed/Vectored/Projected ( Damage) Shielding/Deflection/Transfer" Module (Name under development). It'll be a scripted (mid?) module which:

Defensive Script: the module raises an additional defense for a ship (one targeted ship per active module) within a certain range (formations?!) in which a percentage of the incoming damage will be directed to the user of the module (to the limits of the module users shields [and/or armor? Somehow?!]) while the rest continues to the attacker's intended victim

Offensive Script: Restricted to a shorter range (20km max skills?), a percent of incoming (shield [and/or armor? Somehow?!) damage taken by the module's user is discharged to targeted ships (one targeted ship per active module) (No additional defensive value)

There would be the usual stacking penalties, and with maxed out skills and multiple modules (two or three; or a limit of one per target?) I'm thinking the transferred damage should be no more than 25%. The moduule's duration would also have to be long enough to discourage quick swapping of scripts. The presence of these two scripts is intended to slightly lower the "Kill it with FIRE" shooting priority currently given to ECM and logistics since there could be consequences while being more fulfilling to utilize

I am worried that it could be a buff for spider tanking... what to do about multiple ships using the module on the same ship (Defensive Script)... rats... is this even a new idea? Please give me your CONSTRUCTIVE thoughts

Tu Ko
Predator's Inc.
Posted - 2011.06.10 03:16:00 - [2]
 

You do understand that because of the effectiveness of logistics fleets are measured by their ability to "alpha" a target before any of the logi can react? If this module exists that threshold will be higher depending on how truly effective the module is. So promoting for bigger blobs?

Paulize Dn'Injer
Posted - 2011.06.11 00:06:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Tu Ko
You do understand that because of the effectiveness of logistics fleets are measured by their ability to "alpha" a target before any of the logi can react? If this module exists that threshold will be higher depending on how truly effective the module is. So promoting for bigger blobs?

I donít mean to be rude, but there are some grammatical errors that are keeping me from completely understanding what you've written. I think you're saying that this module will increase the ability of logistics to respond because it raises survivability from alpha thus making it a boost to blobs.
I do realize this; in fact I mentioned this worry in the op, So what I'd like to gleam from you is this: Do you think this is more or less of an advantage than what ECM currently affords? With the absence of ECM shutting down an enemy logistic, would the ability of the module to transfer damage (received from the rest of the fleet, naturally)to an enemy logistic or the enemy receiving repping be equivalent? And you've prompted a really interesting question, just what development could actually be bad for blobs anyway?

Danika Princip
Minmatar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.06.11 11:44:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Paulize Dn'Injer
Originally by: Tu Ko
You do understand that because of the effectiveness of logistics fleets are measured by their ability to "alpha" a target before any of the logi can react? If this module exists that threshold will be higher depending on how truly effective the module is. So promoting for bigger blobs?

I donít mean to be rude, but there are some grammatical errors that are keeping me from completely understanding what you've written. I think you're saying that this module will increase the ability of logistics to respond because it raises survivability from alpha thus making it a boost to blobs.
I do realize this; in fact I mentioned this worry in the op, So what I'd like to gleam from you is this: Do you think this is more or less of an advantage than what ECM currently affords? With the absence of ECM shutting down an enemy logistic, would the ability of the module to transfer damage (received from the rest of the fleet, naturally)to an enemy logistic or the enemy receiving repping be equivalent? And you've prompted a really interesting question, just what development could actually be bad for blobs anyway?



He's talking about alphafleets, which are designed to use the high alpha of artillery to destroy an enemy ship before logistics get to it. You suggestion would mean more artillery is required to pop a ship in a single volley, and would thus mean that blobs would need to be bigger. ECMing logistics doesn't make a differance.

Paulize Dn'Injer
Posted - 2011.06.12 01:37:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Danika Princip
He's talking about alphafleets, which are designed to use the high alpha of artillery to destroy an enemy ship before logistics get to it. You suggestion would mean more artillery is required to pop a ship in a single volley, and would thus mean that blobs would need to be bigger. ECMing logistics doesn't make a differance.

I consider the motivation of blobbing to be partially independent of high minded virtues such as one volley kills. If there is a surplus of available pilots, odds are they will blob.

But wait, you're saying this is reducing the capability of blobs because they would need to bigger to be equally effective! The increased survivability of brute force tactics, such as an alpha fleet, would create longer lasting combat allowing greater use of tactics and strategy (i.e.: logistics, EW, retreating, etc.). This would (slightly) balance out numbers by allowing a more practiced fleet to handle a larger brute force fleet.

I'm still not convinced

Danika Princip
Minmatar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.06.12 12:27:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Danika Princip on 12/06/2011 12:27:46
Originally by: Paulize Dn'Injer
Originally by: Danika Princip
He's talking about alphafleets, which are designed to use the high alpha of artillery to destroy an enemy ship before logistics get to it. You suggestion would mean more artillery is required to pop a ship in a single volley, and would thus mean that blobs would need to be bigger. ECMing logistics doesn't make a differance.

I consider the motivation of blobbing to be partially independent of high minded virtues such as one volley kills. If there is a surplus of available pilots, odds are they will blob.

But wait, you're saying this is reducing the capability of blobs because they would need to bigger to be equally effective! The increased survivability of brute force tactics, such as an alpha fleet, would create longer lasting combat allowing greater use of tactics and strategy (i.e.: logistics, EW, retreating, etc.). This would (slightly) balance out numbers by allowing a more practiced fleet to handle a larger brute force fleet.

I'm still not convinced


It would also make it even harder to break a decent logistics team. You'd need more ships, or the logistics in your opponent's fleet would have a much easier time of repping the ships hit with split dps than they would if it all hit the same one. On top of that, you'd probably make it impossible to take down caps with subcaps.

Decus Daga
Black Thorne Alliance
Posted - 2011.06.12 12:45:00 - [7]
 

I honestly dont see the problem with ECM atm, their great at allowing smaller fleets to engage larger fleets(to an extent and depending on the enemy's ECM ofc), as their a great force multiplier.

Yes it can be annoying if you come up against a fleet the same size with say 3 times as many ECM as you, but at the same time you can say that about logistics too lol.

- Decus

Paulize Dn'Injer
Posted - 2011.06.12 18:03:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Danika Princip
It would also make it even harder to break a decent logistics team. You'd need more ships, or the logistics in your opponent's fleet would have a much easier time of repping the ships hit with split dps than they would if it all hit the same one. On top of that, you'd probably make it impossible to take down caps with subcaps.

Hmmm, I'm going to have to mull this over a bit. Sure, the easy solution in EVE is always adding more ships, but what I'm more concerned with is how it would balance outside of that variable. I mean, now not only are you diluting your dps with logistics ships but this kind of ship as well (methinks making it a high-slot now might work better). It's the part on subcaps vs caps that I think you got me stuck, especially since I haven't found a way to deal with multiple ships protecting the same ship via 'the module.' I could just abstractly say only one per targetted ship, but there isn't currently an in game mechanic for that, is there? In the case of a single ship, yeah, the combined dps typically focused on a cap ship would easily overwhelm the defensive capabilities of 'this module' in most likely one volley, leaving 'the moduled' ship defenseless.

...beginning to get convinced

Originally by: Decus Daga
I honestly dont see the problem with ECM atm, their great at allowing smaller fleets to engage larger fleets(to an extent and depending on the enemy's ECM ofc), as their a great force multiplier.
Yes it can be annoying if you come up against a fleet the same size with say 3 times as many ECM as you, but at the same time you can say that about logistics too lol.

In no way do you feel ECM is overpowered in comparison to the other EW? In all honesty I do kinda like ECM too, but...


Alright, keep up the criticism!

Kro0k
Gallente
EVE Evacuation
Posted - 2011.06.13 18:33:00 - [9]
 

Why are you comparing ECM to the rest of E-war? they do not all need to be the same

Paulize Dn'Injer
Posted - 2011.06.14 02:45:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Kro0k
Why are you comparing ECM to the rest of E-war? they do not all need to be the same

Hmm, I don't know where you got the idead that I want all EW to be the same, far from it really, but why would I not compare one of something to the rest of the something?
Just like faction weaponry (i.e.: the four common weapons which recieve ship bonuses based on faction lines being Missiles, Hybrids, Projectiles and Lasers -- used to exclude Smartboms and Bombs... er, ignoring stealth bombers) there should be a balance (ECM:EW::Missiles:Faction weaponry). If you want to know why there should be belance in EVE, then... effort

Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.06.15 02:07:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Paulize Dn'Injer
Offensive Script: Restricted to a shorter range (20km max skills?), a percent of incoming (shield [and/or armor? Somehow?!) damage taken by the module's user is discharged to targeted ships (one targeted ship per active module) (No additional defensive value)


I have a problem with this, here's a scenario to illustrate:

Small, fast, hard to hit gang (say AB Armor HACs) is running rings around a bunch of easy to hit big ships with slow tracking (say AlphaBaddons). One highly tanked AlphaBaddon stops and activates the offensively scripted module on a targeted AHAC. It then has a number of its fleet hit it, not so much to kill the Abaddon (large EHP) so it can be repped up fairly easily by the escorting Guardians, but enough to vapourise an AHAC. Now imagine that with something like a carrier group.

This would allow big hard hitting guns/missiles that normally struggle to track/sig small fast ships to bypass that tracking/sig issue and apply large damage onto small ships that would normally be able to get "under the guns", as they should.

Paulize Dn'Injer
Posted - 2011.06.15 02:40:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Imigo Montoya
Originally by: Paulize Dn'Injer
Offensive Script: Restricted to a shorter range (20km max skills?), a percent of incoming (shield [and/or armor? Somehow?!) damage taken by the module's user is discharged to targeted ships (one targeted ship per active module) (No additional defensive value)


I have a problem with this, here's a scenario to illustrate:

Small, fast, hard to hit gang (say AB Armor HACs) is running rings around a bunch of easy to hit big ships with slow tracking (say AlphaBaddons). One highly tanked AlphaBaddon stops and activates the offensively scripted module on a targeted AHAC. It then has a number of its fleet hit it, not so much to kill the Abaddon (large EHP) so it can be repped up fairly easily by the escorting Guardians, but enough to vapourise an AHAC. Now imagine that with something like a carrier group.

This would allow big hard hitting guns/missiles that normally struggle to track/sig small fast ships to bypass that tracking/sig issue and apply large damage onto small ships that would normally be able to get "under the guns", as they should.

And the last nail in the coffin has been struck. Well played everyone!


 

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