open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Random factors in combat.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Grey Area
Caldari
Posted - 2006.08.02 08:49:00 - [1]
 

I see a lot of conversation (largely about ECM, but also about other aspects) regarding random factors in combat. My question is, should it be regarded as a good thing or a bad thing?

My opinion is that combat should start out with a high variability in potential outcome, which both sides attempt to control with their skills and modules (i.e. throwing both time and ISK at it to influence the outcome). However, I do not think that the application of massive amounts of either should EVER reduce the random factor to zero.

Why? Because the frequent complaint on the forums is that certain things are an "I Win" button. I don't see the difference between this and an "I win" character or an "I win" ship setup.

If EVE were an old fashioned table top game, it would probably be dice based...and in that case it should never get to a situation where one player doesn't have to roll the dice because he knows at the outset that he's already won the combat.

Or (seeing as the launch is imminent) a collectible card game...having the best cards in your deck is no guarantee that they are shuffled in the right order, and you shouldn't be allowed to just riffle through your deck and put the cards you want directly into play.

Random is fun. Random is what sets your pulse racing as you fly into combat. Random makes a hero of the guy who took out the Death Star in a single seat fighter.

People who don't like random are a little too tightly wrapped in my opinion - control freaks who want to win all the time, every time.

Well, they can be the Emperor if they want. I'll choose Luke every time.

Pichemanu
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2006.08.02 08:59:00 - [2]
 

Originally by: Grey Area
I see a lot of conversation (largely about ECM, but also about other aspects) regarding random factors in combat. My question is, should it be regarded as a good thing or a bad thing?

My opinion is that combat should start out with a high variability in potential outcome, which both sides attempt to control with their skills and modules (i.e. throwing both time and ISK at it to influence the outcome). However, I do not think that the application of massive amounts of either should EVER reduce the random factor to zero.

Why? Because the frequent complaint on the forums is that certain things are an "I Win" button. I don't see the difference between this and an "I win" character or an "I win" ship setup.

If EVE were an old fashioned table top game, it would probably be dice based...and in that case it should never get to a situation where one player doesn't have to roll the dice because he knows at the outset that he's already won the combat.

Or (seeing as the launch is imminent) a collectible card game...having the best cards in your deck is no guarantee that they are shuffled in the right order, and you shouldn't be allowed to just riffle through your deck and put the cards you want directly into play.

Random is fun. Random is what sets your pulse racing as you fly into combat. Random makes a hero of the guy who took out the Death Star in a single seat fighter.

People who don't like random are a little too tightly wrapped in my opinion - control freaks who want to win all the time, every time.

Well, they can be the Emperor if they want. I'll choose Luke every time.


Very nicely put, and very true.

Samirol
Love is Hate
Posted - 2006.08.02 09:01:00 - [3]
 

the only problem is when a ship can be completely disabled by complete chance. I like the randomness, but ECM is overpowered in the sense that it completely crushes your opponent's offensive abilities for 20 seconds

Masempa
Posted - 2006.08.02 09:03:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Samirol
the only problem is when a ship can be completely disabled by complete chance. I like the randomness, but ECM is overpowered in the sense that it completely crushes your opponent's offensive abilities for 20 seconds

The problem with ECM isn't randomness , it's the strength of the effect.

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2006.08.02 09:06:00 - [5]
 

hi Grey :-)

Random is great but only so far.

You have to have some controlling effects on the random number generation. Even the dice roll games do it like 3d4, so there is a guaranteed minimum in this case.

Take ECM vs turret hits.

ECM formula has no constraint and depends only on one number (jammer/sensor). There is no limit to lows and highs or how far each can occur.

Turret hits OTOH are a nice contrained scenario, with reasonable guaranteed minimums and maximums in determinable ways. You can guess average damage and hits based on all the affecting variables with prety much good accuracy.

Now if we mix missiles as a complete static system, you know the EXACT outcome given all the variables.

The turret system is nice and ballanced. You notice the effect of skills and player decisions during actual combat very well.

So random is good, but it has to have reasonable contraints.

Hydrogen
Enterprise Estonia
Session Changes
Posted - 2006.08.02 09:06:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Samirol
the only problem is when a ship can be completely disabled by complete chance...


*sigh* which game do you play? There is nothing to completly disable a ship. In regards to ECM not even remotely. I guess this is the EvE parrot factor with another of its victims.

Just for you and the others who got no clue:
1. you can still fight if jammed
2. you can still make decent damage when jammed
3. you can still disrupt enemies when jammed
4. you can still fly away when jammed
5. you can still use drones when jammed (thats a lil bit tough ok ;) )
6. you can still.... so much more

Thats not even remotely somethign like "completly disabled".

Testicular Testes
Posted - 2006.08.02 09:12:00 - [7]
 

There is plenty of variability and randomness that influence can be had over in the fact you never know what someone is fitting and where his backup might be. There is absolutely no reason to have a random system where a limited number of dicerolls decide the outcome without much room for interaction.

Theres no need to have 3 rolls of 6/18 be the random factor. The main random factor should by all means be player skill and intelligence - as to show these off (or the lack thereof) is one of the main reasons people enjoying gaming in competition with others. If we didn't, we could just subscribe to Dicerolls Online instead of EvE and be done with it.

Also, since it's pretty obvious where you're going with this - ECM is ridicously overpowered and your apologist for every major imbalance are getting old faster than ytmnd.

Wild Rho
Amarr
Silent Core
Posted - 2006.08.02 09:19:00 - [8]
 

There is a difference between the random factor of ECM and of player ability, ship setup, ship type(s) in a battle.

ECM is pure chance based and the player has the most minimal control (the best they can achieve is to take steps to increase their odds of success - i.e. racial ecms, EW orientated ships etc).

The other random factors are all controlled by the players directly as they choose what ships, setups and tactics to employ in a given battle.
They are random in that you cannot really determine what the enemy has and is going to do but you can make logical guesses and attempt to account for those giving you a greater sense of control.

Eve combat should not really come down to a "roll of the dice" form of chance but should be based on the odds of a player making the correct decisions to counter an enemies choices.

Well that's my view of it, hope that made sense.

Grey Area
Caldari
Posted - 2006.08.02 09:25:00 - [9]
 

I really didn't want this to turn into an ECM discussion. I'd prefer to take up Hugh's point on turrets vs missiles.

He's right that missiles have a lower randomness than turrets. This is one of my eternal bugbears, because that absence of randomness comes from a lack of CHOICE for missile setups. There are less launchers, less modules and less implants for missiles than there are for turrets. That means that when you encounter a missile ship, it is running one out of a possible ten setups instead of one out of a possible hundred setups that exist for turrets.

And the other bugbear is of course Warp Core Stabs and scrambling. Scramblers want to be 100% effective every time, and Stabbers want to be 100% effective every time. The best situation would be of course that neither is true...there should ALWAYS be a small chance that the stabbed ship should get away...and equally a small chance that a well stabbed ship gets pinned down by a single tech 1 frigate with a normal scrambler. I'm fine that say, 90% of the time the outcome goes with the numbers (and skills - I really do think that skills should be required to use stabs and scramblers, and that they should have a direct effect on their effectiveness, rather than just reducing fitting costs or increasing range), but that for the other 10% (or less, in the case of extremely skilled pilots with high tech modules vs Rookies in an Ibis) a "surprising" result SHOULD be allowed.

And as for ECM...personally I'm happier with the chance based system as it is now, as opposed to the only time I became a victim of it, where it was a 100% guaranteed effect for the attacker, meaning I couldn't target, so couldn't do ANYTHING to defend myself. If I'd been able to get a few shots off, do some damage, or even thought i had even the SLIGHTEST chance of simply running away, I would have felt a lot less "cheated" than I eventually did. (not implying that my attackers were anything less than honourable - they simply took advantage of a system that was in my opinion, flawed).

To the guy who listed all the things you can still do while jammed - how? the only things I know that can damage an opponent if he's not targetted are FoFs and smart bombs - both of which are so horribly gimped that you wouldn't knowingly CHOOSE to use them unless you knew you would face ECM - at which point you'd choose to fit ECM yourself instead.

Grey Area
Caldari
Posted - 2006.08.02 09:30:00 - [10]
 

If people keep referring to rolling 3D6 then this conversation is going to go nowhere.

3D6 gives you a result of 3 to 18. Eve is more varied than that, so lets assume it's more like a D100, with results from 0 through 99.

A new player's to hit score would be 80. Roll more than that, he hits. As his skills get better, the number goes down.

But there's one rule that most games that use the percentile system always apply;

0 is ALWAYS a fumble
99 is ALWAYS a critical hit

That is really all I am asking for, as a counter to those people who still want to chop the other guy's head off, even if they dropped their sword on the ground.

Ithildin
Gallente
The Corporation
Cruel Intentions
Posted - 2006.08.02 09:30:00 - [11]
 

Randomness is good, it's fine, and it's fun. But it needs to be a controlled form of random.

Simply put, you can't have random chance dictating the outcome of a battle. All it should do is have an effect, maybe even a deciding effect if the battle is tight. However, in the long run it is not fun with decisive randomness since it never, ever, comes down to actual skills if you win or not. You were just lucky and the next number in the computer's "random" number list happened to favour you.

Then there's the different statistical rules and all. In some cases this needs to be controlled and moderated. There are several ways of doing this. Both to increase reliability for the one who is using the item and to increase stability of the one who is getting attacked by it.
What needs to end in EVE is for one single module to be decisive in so many battles. A single multispectral has a bit more than 12% chance of jamming a scorpion (strongest sensor strength battleship). It has 51% chance per minute of keeping the Scorpion jammed and useless for at least 20 seconds plus lock time. This is the math of a single module and it is reliable (more than 50% chance!) in that it will deal an extremely decisive effect on any opposition and it is available to anyone with a mid slot. This is an archetypical example of when random chance gets out of hand and is allowed a too decisive role in game play.

So in conclusion, it is fun becoming the unlikely hero, but when the unlikely hero has a high probability of occuring it becomes expected. An expected unlikely hero is not celebrated. An uncelebrated unlikely hero will have gained nothing *fun* from the occurence. Thus high probability decisive events are bad for game play.

Samirol
Love is Hate
Posted - 2006.08.02 09:35:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Samirol on 02/08/2006 09:36:28
Originally by: Hydrogen
Originally by: Samirol
the only problem is when a ship can be completely disabled by complete chance...


*sigh* which game do you play? There is nothing to completly disable a ship. In regards to ECM not even remotely. I guess this is the EvE parrot factor with another of its victims.

Just for you and the others who got no clue:
1. you can still fight if jammed
2. you can still make decent damage when jammed
3. you can still disrupt enemies when jammed
4. you can still fly away when jammed
5. you can still use drones when jammed (thats a lil bit tough ok ;) )
6. you can still.... so much more

Thats not even remotely somethign like "completly disabled".
if you read my ****ing post it says offensive capabilities

Originally by: Masempa
The problem with ECM isn't randomness , it's the strength of the effect.


i said that the strength of it is overpowered, it disables your offensive capabilities of most ships

Grey Area
Caldari
Posted - 2006.08.02 09:35:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Testicular Testes
Also, since it's pretty obvious where you're going with this - ECM is ridicously overpowered and your apologist for every major imbalance are getting old faster than ytmnd.
Your perception attribute ain't as high as you think it is. "Where I'm going with this" has nothing to do with ECM, although that is part of it. I'm not qualified to give an opinion on ECM as I don't use it. However, I DO feel qualified to give an opinion counter to those who say they either want an ECM that work 100% of the time, OR a defence against it that works 100% of the time. Both sides are equally wrong.

For the record: This thread is NOT about the validity of balancing or not balancing ECM.

Masempa
Posted - 2006.08.02 09:38:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Samirol

Originally by: Masempa
The problem with ECM isn't randomness , it's the strength of the effect.


i said that the strength of it is overpowered, it disables your offensive capabilities of most ships

And i was aggreeing with you.

Grey Area
Caldari
Posted - 2006.08.02 09:41:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Ithildin
Thus high probability decisive events are bad for game play.


Work with me on this one...

...high probablity decisive event...

How high a probability? You're complaining about 50% - heads/tails outcome, and for me, that should be about the starting point of just fitting the basic module, barely having the skills to use it.

But if take the probability to 100%, then that's exactly the sort of thing I'm complaining about. If Luke destroys the Death Star EVERY time, he starts to get a bit blasé about it, turns into a bit of a ****er ("Oh, ANOTHER Death Star...*yawn*...yeah, yeah, use the force Luke...yadda, yadda") and no-one likes him anymore.

To cut a long post short, we're arguing for the same thing Ith...CONTROLLED randomness, but NOT it's elimination from combat, no matter HOW skilled you are, or HOW many multi-billion ISK modules you fit.

Samirol
Love is Hate
Posted - 2006.08.02 09:41:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Masempa
Originally by: Samirol

Originally by: Masempa
The problem with ECM isn't randomness , it's the strength of the effect.


i said that the strength of it is overpowered, it disables your offensive capabilities of most ships

And i was aggreeing with you.
alright, sorry about the rudeness Smile

was ****ed that the other guy didn't include my entire quote and butchered what i was trying to say

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2006.08.02 10:04:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Hydrogen
Just for you and the others who got no clue:

1. you can still fight if jammed
2. you can still make decent damage when jammed
3. you can still disrupt enemies when jammed
4. you can still fly away when jammed
5. you can still use drones when jammed (thats a lil bit tough ok ;) )
6. you can still.... so much more


1. Yeah right. Please show me how a jammed Apoc still fights. 5 med drones? Great!
2. Yeah, IF you are a Dominix... Or do you consider FoF Cruise missiles expending themselves on enemy drones decent damage? Rolling Eyes
3. Pray tell how you disrupt a target you cannot target?
4. Wow that is SUCH a great boon in a battleship... You one of those guys who only flies inties and is oblivious to the rest of the world?
5. The drones continue shooting their current target. You cannot properly USE them anymore.
6. Like, taking a dump during battle without increasing danger to your ship?

Oh great master of clue, please enlighten us more.

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2006.08.02 10:08:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar
1. Yeah right. Please show me how a jammed Apoc still fights. 5 med drones? Great!
2. Yeah, IF you are a Dominix... Or do you consider FoF Cruise missiles expending themselves on enemy drones decent damage? Rolling Eyes
3. Pray tell how you disrupt a target you cannot target?
4. Wow that is SUCH a great boon in a battleship... You one of those guys who only flies inties and is oblivious to the rest of the world?
5. The drones continue shooting their current target. You cannot properly USE them anymore.
6. Like, taking a dump during battle without increasing danger to your ship?

Oh great master of clue, please enlighten us more.

/signed... mainly for jokes though.

ecm burst sucks, and would have been the valid way of distrupting your targets targeting..
If you had managed to get your ecm drones to aggro, those might have worked also.

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2006.08.02 10:22:00 - [19]
 

Grey, basicaly you are right about the dice rolls, the 3D6 example is a starting one, and with skills it goes 3D6+1 (+2 etc.), also with defensive attributes, you limit the dice rolls against you. It is ok IF you can limit/enhance the dice roll outcome with player decisions and skills to a more predictable outcome.

To those ****ing about ECM, the current system works well, but it depends on statistic rules. And we all know statistic rules apply ONLY for a large set of occurences. Actual gameplay does not offer the luxury of 500-1000 ECM cycles per battle. Thus we need to create constraints that limit the completely random system to something working in limited set scenarios.

I like the ECM effect of completely disabling targeting ability. It's the same overpowering effect as with a bank neutron mega. You realise that your tank does not help you any bit and you have no time to escape. What I want to say is, I want to change the implementation behind ECM to make it more acceptable, rather than change the ECM effect.


Kldraina
Posted - 2006.08.02 10:29:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Kldraina on 02/08/2006 10:31:21
Thinking about randomness in combat, I came up with This idea.

Basically, adding a form of critical hit that can have significant impact on a battle. In general, the idea I described will weaken peoples tanks more than it will weaken ganks.

Kanuo Ashkeron
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2006.08.02 11:11:00 - [21]
 

I think the problem is the introduction of randomness through rolling dices. As some already stated, randomness is not only introduced through dices, but also by the hostiles and so on.

A example: When a battle starts you can easily decompose 3 levels of randomness:

1) How many hostiles?
2) What ships?
3) What setups?

Of course the number of hostiles should be known. The types of ships the hostiles use, is also easy to scout, but it happens often that you don´t know it before the engagement. Knowing the setup of the hostile ships is almost never known at the time of thefirst engagement.

My point is, randomness will be introduced through your enviroment and you can adapt to it. And the difference between two fighting groups is the ability to adapt better and faster.

In EVE the factors of randomness introduced through the enviroment are more less equal to zero. The only important thing are your hostiles. All other things are static and static all over the universe. In real life you have a quite complex enviroment which surprises you every day, in eve we only have different background images in the systems.

Maybe it would be nice to introduce something like eve-weather (aka enviroments). This should change continuously should affect the whole system and is different for all systems. Eve-weather should affect different attributes of ships modules and drones/missiles.

So if you hunt a hauler through various systems in your ceptor, in one system he cannot activate his cloak, on the other hand the warp scramble range is also reduced by 50%. In the next system you are not able to use your microwarpdrive and he is able to run away again, but in the third system you are lucky because warp-alignment needs twice as many time as normal.

I think such effects should have following attributes:
- There are infinite numbers of weathers (i mean not only weather1, weather2 ...)
- The weather changes continuously with respect to the attributes
- It changes slowly over time
- It is different for every system

The idea is to introduce randomness through the enviroment and not at the modules. Because with this proposal the same tactic gives the same result. If you introduce randomness at module level the same tactic yield two different results (e.g. the blackbird of the hostile fleet jams your scorp, but your blackbird doesn´t jam the hostile sorp). Furthermore you can adapt to this randomness with different tactics.

Kanuo

McTaggart
Gallente
Posted - 2006.08.02 11:38:00 - [22]
 

A better ship with fittings that are better suited to counter the opponent should simply always win unless the better ship makes a mistake. Mistake, not rolls a bad dice. Combat does start out with a variety of possible outcomes. Before you engage, anything can happen. Some are more likely and others less but you don't know for sure. Once you engage, however, the variables become fixed and it's up to you and your opponent to make the most of the situation by the action you choose to take. If you win or lose, it's because of you and your opponent, not because you rolled a 3 and they rolled 20.

In other games where the death penalty is soft and there are things like pvp level difference limits sure, have all the random you want. It doesn't matter because nothing is really at stake. In eve there is a lot at stake and not everyone is a gambler.

Sorja
11th Division
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2006.08.02 12:14:00 - [23]
 

Random sucks.

Random is good for PvE games, namely pen & paper, for it provides some 'excitment', but it sucks for PvP games for it nullifies players' skills.

In a PvP game, either you did everything right and you can be proud no matter the outcome, either the game decides on a dice roll if you win/lose and win/loss is irrelevant since you have nothing to do with it.

Eve had already enough randomness with ship types, numbers, fleet compositions, all those things you can't knwo beforehand when jumping through a gate, but adding randomness in combat tactics plain sucks.

Cheyenne Shadowborn
Caldari
Noob Much Inc.
Posted - 2006.08.02 12:50:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Grey Area
If EVE were an old fashioned table top game, it would probably be dice based...


Sorry to disappoint you: Eve is an old fashioned Trading Card Game these days. No dice involved Very Happy

Grey Area
Caldari
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:16:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: McTaggart
A better ship with fittings that are better suited to counter the opponent should simply always win unless the better ship makes a mistake. Mistake, not rolls a bad dice.
The trouble is, EVE isn't a high adrenaline, excitement fuelled hand/eye co-ordination kind of game. It's kind of hard to "make a mistake" pressing F1 through F8...and the fallibilities of the weapons systems (turrets missing, missiles with explosion radii) are designed purely to simulate the fact that you are PRETENDING to be a guy in a ship, but operating through a fairly artificial user interface (don't whine, I love this game but it's still true).

Plus, here's a challenge...define "better"...
Originally by: Sorja
Random sucks.

Random is good for PvE games, namely pen & paper, for it provides some 'excitment', but it sucks for PvP games for it nullifies players' skills.

In a PvP game, either you did everything right and you can be proud no matter the outcome, either the game decides on a dice roll if you win/lose and win/loss is irrelevant since you have nothing to do with it.
See, the problem I have is that Quake, Doom etc are all PVP games. But finding the BFG9000 FIRST does NOT guarantee you will win - and I'm not talking about the fact that you are up against some 100% caffeine fuelled teenage game junky...occasionally, JUST occasionally, the 40 year old dweeb with the pistol will panic when he sees you in such a way that he does just enough to drop you before you warmo up the BFG. You then proceed to frag him 1,000 consecutive times. But it doesn't matter, 'cos he'll go to sleep that night dreaming about how he dropped the guy with the BFG.

Cheyenne, read the WHOLE post...I went on to make a CCG comparison.

Valea Silpha
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:34:00 - [26]
 

More randomness in eve would be pretty cool... wormholes, occasionaly jove attacks, alien mind control, concord occasionally attacking the wrong guy etc. Would add flavour. And then add a 4% chance for warp core stabs to turn your genitals into a miniture jazz singer, and you got yourself some real fun.

Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:35:00 - [27]
 

nice post... I agree

Ithildin
Gallente
The Corporation
Cruel Intentions
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:42:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Grey Area
Originally by: Ithildin
Thus high probability decisive events are bad for game play.


Work with me on this one...

...high probablity decisive event...

How high a probability? You're complaining about 50% - heads/tails outcome, and for me, that should be about the starting point of just fitting the basic module, barely having the skills to use it.

But if take the probability to 100%, then that's exactly the sort of thing I'm complaining about. If Luke destroys the Death Star EVERY time, he starts to get a bit blasé about it, turns into a bit of a ****er ("Oh, ANOTHER Death Star...*yawn*...yeah, yeah, use the force Luke...yadda, yadda") and no-one likes him anymore.

To cut a long post short, we're arguing for the same thing Ith...CONTROLLED randomness, but NOT it's elimination from combat, no matter HOW skilled you are, or HOW many multi-billion ISK modules you fit.

Of course, however (and there is always an however, isn't it?), I do think that we disagree when randomness becomes harmful and where it is benificial.

Let me explain what I'd like to see with ECM in particular, using arbitrary values. There's two basic problems, each opposing each other. One is that a single module must not have much impact, especially in the hands of someone that hasn't put an effort into it (skillpoint-wise). The other is that those who have put both skillpoints and dedicatory effort into it must be allowed a very good chance.
Or in other words, a Retribution shouldn't be able to jam anyone unless he's really lucky (<5%) while a Scorpion with 8 jammers should be able to jam just about any non-capital ship more or less guaranteed (>80%) even if it's multispectrals.
But those two does not work together, do they? Not with the current system.

Now, I'll be the first to agree that the old system was like a good old gun. Reliable, charming, and attractive hanging there over the mantle. However, what one forget is that it was rather dumb. Not to mention that a ship with just one or two backup array tended to be invulnerable to jammers (believe me, tried and tested) because no one fitted more jammers than was necessary (why, you'd miss out on all those neat other modules!).

What I'd really like to see is a system that rewards the use of multiple modules on a single ship. A single multispectral shouldn't dictate the outcome of an engagement. And why would a single jammer be so devastating when it takes three dampeners or tracking disruptors to really make a dent?
What I mean with "controlled randomness" is where skills, dedication, and redundancy means an increased chance of jamming per jammer. The way probability works, each successive jammer actually results in a net decrease in probability per module. So to speak. (20% chance spread on three foes is more efficient than 3x 20% chance put on a single foe)
Simply put, each jammer should do old-fashioned jammer damage as well as have a probability of jamming. Each successive jammer means you are more likely to jam someone. A 5% chance suddenly becomes 2 chances of 10%, which then becomes 3 chances of... say... 15% (Oh, and from a Scorp, this'd look even better, of course)

Grey Area
Caldari
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:58:00 - [29]
 

Ith, you're getting into specific ECM talk which I wanted to avoid. However, your suggestion looks sensible, and I'd only add (or maybe emphasise) two rules;

The chance to jam should NEVER be 100%, even against an unprepared ship
Defences against jamming should NEVER reduce the chance of being jammed to 0%, even against a ship with only one module fitted and with a barely skilled pilot.

At either end of the spectrum, I would say a 2% "window" of randomness would probably be enough...how skills would "open" that window in either direction is a matter for a separate dedicated thread I feel.

Callistus
Reikoku
IT Alliance
Posted - 2006.08.02 22:02:00 - [30]
 

Love your sig.


Pages: [1] 2

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