Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 14 post(s) |
fukier
Flatline.
92
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 18:38:00 -
[181] - Quote
How about a skill that reduces the time you cannot lock atarget when you are ecmed?
something like 10% per level so that at lev V you can only jammed for 10 seconds each jam? that and increase the cycle time of ecm. At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
43
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 18:49:00 -
[182] - Quote
There was nothing wrong with *any* of the EWAR to begin with except for the whining noobs on the receiving end who couldn't HTFU and make their fleet dynamic enough to overcome the mechanics. CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty...
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
148
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 19:00:00 -
[183] - Quote
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:Because fitting a LR ship to kite SR ships doesn't immediately gimp me against every other possible gang comp out there. Fitting an ECCM gimps me against everything that is not ECM. This is why people are happier with damps / TDS: naturally, people fit modules to maximise the stats these types of EWAR affect.
The second reason is that there is only one place to counter ECM: before you undock. Every other type of EWAR can be countered in space (stay outside of Point / Web / Neut range, burn close to your target against damps, fly to optimise your tracking / range against TDs). The only thing you can do against ECM is blap it, which isn't really a counter because you can't do it if it's affecting you. Indeed, thouth I took this for the screwed mechanic.
When you fit a TD ship and you encounter a missiles/drones ship, you are screwed too, and that's from the fitting screen. Basicaly, any time you fit a situational module, your fit is screwed for all the other situations. Some fits can counter some other fits, always.
IMO, the problem is more about the counter, ECCM, to be only useful for countering ECM. Either sensor strength should be useful for more than just ECM and probing or ECCM should something more than only rising your sensor strength.
Maybe ECCM could buff scan resolution or signature radius, or both, and maybe have scripts for all these. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
148
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 19:05:00 -
[184] - Quote
Some more thought about an ECCM module with added bonus to scan resolution and signature radius : doing this, ECCM would provide advantages other than just countering ECM, but other EWAR can counter these sides effect, then we would have some paper/rock/scissors scheme, with ECM countering standard/EWAR ships, ECCM countering ECM, and standard/EWAR countering ECCM.
IMO, that's the direction where to look, instead of killing universal EWAR idea. |
fukier
Flatline.
92
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 19:05:00 -
[185] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Maybe ECCM could buff scan resolution .
see sensor booster At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Eridanii
Firebird Squadron Terra-Incognita
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 19:16:00 -
[186] - Quote
fukier wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: Maybe ECCM could buff scan resolution .
see sensor booster
What he's saying is that ECCM provides ZERO boost if there's no jamming on the field, while a SeBo does provide benefit in addition to countering one of the other types of ewar. Changes to ECCM could provide additional benefits outside of just being the rock-paper-scissors against jamming. |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 19:42:00 -
[187] - Quote
So what happens to the Griffin/Kitsune/Falcon? Those aren't listed as getting the new hull bonus..
Also.. What about the skills? You're taking away about a month worth of training overnight by nerfing the optimal and falloff. While giving all other races that free month of training basically since they now get the equivalent of 2 skill ranks.
What makes CCP think ECM needed a nerf anyways? I'd like to hear the reasoning behind it. Because so far. it seems like Caldari is on your hitlist. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1765
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 20:39:00 -
[188] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:So what happens to the Griffin/Kitsune/Falcon? Those aren't listed as getting the new hull bonus..
Also.. What about the skills? You're taking away about a month worth of training overnight by nerfing the optimal and falloff. While giving all other races that free month of training basically since they now get the equivalent of 2 skill ranks.
What makes CCP think ECM needed a nerf anyways? I'd like to hear the reasoning behind it. Because so far. it seems like Caldari is on your hitlist. 0/10
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers Intrepid Crossing
144
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 21:06:00 -
[189] - Quote
interesting changes, i do feel however we have come full circle and nerfed all the races E-war at this point now... first it was NOS, then it was ECM with ECM strength nerf then it was TD and Damps with scripts then neuts with the cap battery changes and now it is TD's again, honestly i felt that TD's were perfectly balanced the way they are now, and this change was un-nessesary, the buff for damps is very much welcome though and the TP buff was welcome also. |
fukier
Flatline.
92
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 21:12:00 -
[190] - Quote
Eridanii wrote:fukier wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: Maybe ECCM could buff scan resolution .
see sensor booster What he's saying is that ECCM provides ZERO boost if there's no jamming on the field, while a SeBo does provide benefit in addition to countering one of the other types of ewar. Changes to ECCM could provide additional benefits outside of just being the rock-paper-scissors against jamming.
ok so how about eccm lowers your sig radius too?
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1765
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 21:16:00 -
[191] - Quote
Another thing to consider is every race, with the exception of Caldari, has two forms of EW. One primary and one secondary. I know some of you will scream Caldari should have all of its EW bonuses piled onto one type of EW, but perhaps having their bonuses split between a primary and secondary will be healthy for the game. Then it would open up the door to moving away from an 'all or nothing' mechanic and move towards something more fluid and consistent type of EW.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
fukier
Flatline.
92
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 21:37:00 -
[192] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Another thing to consider is every race, with the exception of Caldari, has two forms of EW. One primary and one secondary. I know some of you will scream Caldari should have all of its EW bonuses piled onto one type of EW, but perhaps having their bonuses split between a primary and secondary will be healthy for the game. Then it would open up the door to moving away from an 'all or nothing' mechanic and move towards something more fluid and consistent type of EW.
so what gimp ecm and add what?
gal = rsd and long range points
min = tp and long range webs
amarr = td and nuets/nos
is there a remaining ewar that could fit in for caldari?
or invent some new one? and if so what would it be that is missing? a remote resistance inhibitor? a mod that reduces the effectiveness of remote repair mods? At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Wacktopia
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
281
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 21:58:00 -
[193] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:*Add four new racial sensor compensation skills that increase each type of Sensor Strength by 5% per level (Requires Electronics 4, rank 3 skills in the Electronics category)
Four new skills that will impede new players and put them at a disadvantage until they know to train them and find the time in their skill plan to do it.
Why did you just not plan to buff the sensor strength of all ships by 20% and have done with it? At the very least just have one skill instead of four? The bottom line is that now I have one of those annoying signatures. |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
118
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 22:13:00 -
[194] - Quote
So golem gets 10% per level ? 50% at level 5 ?
That should bring it in line with other marauders like for example paladin that has 10% to webing bonus. |
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
9
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 22:17:00 -
[195] - Quote
Good thing my pvp main has a mem/int mapping right now. It will come in handy for those new skills.
/me looks at wiki for my main's alliance for the TP bonused ships, finds only the huginn being used, and that without any TP.
I imagine someone will theorycraft a TP build for the huginn or rapier that might prove to be useful in certain situations.
I realize that this is a quick, small change to ewar, both because there isn't time for a more comprehensive change and because it will allow people to adjust to these small changes before more substantial changes (if any) are made. I can't say I have too much hope for TP regardless, but I've never been called an optimist. |
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
26
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 04:28:00 -
[196] - Quote
fukier wrote:Gneeznow wrote:Mortimer Civeri wrote:Damps will still be useless. Damps are good now, they'll be even better after the ship changes and damp changes. A celestis can shut down two snipers like tier 3 battlecruisers at 100km with good skills each damp is -51% locking range, how is that useless? on grid probing is the problem to take full effect of the mod... as you said 100km but snipping used to mean around 180km which will result in you getting probed and interdicted and die to close range ahacs... so damps are great they just need to fix on grid probing...
Damps suck at ranges > 150Km; that range is Opt+Falloff. Moreover, any gang designed to work at that range is better generally served by more DPS than a dampener. On grid probing has nothing to do with why Damps are bad*.
The range Damps work best at is 80-120Km, which is right where current 'LR' meta is at. With the changes to Damps+Celestis' post Dec this won't change. A one SigAmp Celestis only locks out to 122Km; anything more than that and you have to lose a Damp or gimp your tank. 81 is the new optimal and 120Km is Opt+1/2 Fallof (roughly): Damps will still work best between 80-120Km.
* Well, worse than they should be.
Irregessa wrote:/me looks at wiki for my main's alliance for the TP bonused ships, finds only the huginn being used, and that without any TP.
I imagine someone will theorycraft a TP build for the huginn or rapier that might prove to be useful in certain situations.
Your main's alliance doesn't run Tier 3 gangs often?
TP Rapier fits are already used ( http://exodus.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=14957647 ). TP Huginn ( http://exodus.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=15067709 ) fits are sometimes used; but 2 x Webs and Tank, MWD is usually preferrable. |
Muggle Shuffler
Wormhole Exploration Limited
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 05:03:00 -
[197] - Quote
Drones are way more a problem than falcons and such. Pissy little EC-300's seldom miss getting a jam sometime during a 30+ second engagement, even with an eccm'd sensor strength of 40+. It's a bit much.
A falcon being a dedicated ECM ship means a small gang has one less DPS ship also - they're one ship down to bring that utility to the fight. If a gang has one or more of their ships jammed out because of this then so be it.
If you're a solo ship and you get owned because another gang has more than one ship then welp. |
Zyella Stormborn
Alpha Strategy In Umbra Mortis
174
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 05:12:00 -
[198] - Quote
Muggle Shuffler wrote:Drones are way more a problem than falcons and such. Pissy little EC-300's seldom miss getting a jam sometime during a 30+ second engagement, even with an eccm'd sensor strength of 40+. It's a bit much.
A falcon being a dedicated ECM ship means a small gang has one less DPS ship also - they're one ship down to bring that utility to the fight. If a gang has one or more of their ships jammed out because of this then so be it.
If you're a solo ship and you get owned because another gang has more than one ship then welp.
That falcon can completely shut down 3-4 ships. It can perma-jamb 1 or 2 ships. Most ecm needs tweaking, but ECM's are just a bit over the top atm. |
Ager Agemo
Saturn Reaper
120
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 05:13:00 -
[199] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone. Another set of changes to get feedback on for Retri. Here's what we currently have on our plate for Retribution: ECM *Reduce Optimal Range and Falloff of all ECM modules by 10% *Add to the Optimal Range and Falloff bonus on ECM range bonused ships by 2.5% for the Blackbird and Tengu Obfuscation Manifold (bringing it to 12.5%) and 5% for the Scorpion (bringing it to 25%) *Add four new racial sensor compensation skills that increase each type of Sensor Strength by 5% per level (Requires Electronics 4, rank 3 skills in the Electronics category)
Target Painter *Set the TP strength bonus on TP bonused ships to 7.5% per level for T1 and 10% per level for T2
This and this! my GOLEM LOVES YOU ALL SO ******* MUCH!! this both will help marauders and the target painting might actually help with the insane TP juggling you need to do in a golem to be able to use Torps specially with the guided missile change, if you just fix torps range golem might actually be a really good ship instead of an overpriced raven. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
808
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 05:48:00 -
[200] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Why the hell anyone still insists on making fights determined at the fitting screen? May be because unstopable ship is bad concept ? What I don't understand is that people don't mind having kiting ship hard countering brawlers but hate EWAR even though EWAR can be countered the same way Lr fit counter SR fit. Of course, ECM is a bit screwed mecanic, but the concept of fitting to protect against some threat should stay. The difference is kiting requires efforts; simply fitting a ship for LR means pretty much nothing. EWAR takes no skill whatsoever, and btw neither does ECCM and all other so called 'counters'. It's lametardedly simplistic and that's why it's so effective in case of ewar and so ineffective in case of 'counters'. 14 |
|
Sard Caid
Gunpoint Diplomacy
66
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 06:11:00 -
[201] - Quote
As a pilot that uses all races of ships equally, I'm not looking forward to ~60 days of skill training to gain some resistance against ECM. Please consider reducing the rank on these skills to 2, which is much more in line with other ship attribute skills, which tend to be on the rank 1-2 level.
|
Valleria Darkmoon
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
30
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 06:15:00 -
[202] - Quote
Read and approved, in addition to being a de facto boost to ECCM modules it will also give damps something to do. For a long time now people have talked about how dampening is useless. So if you can only jam say an ECCM Hurricane for 8 seconds or whatever the math was I don't remember at this point suddenly there is a lot more value in also destroying it's scan resolution so that when the jam breaks it won't be able to lock again before the ECM module cycles again.
In this way you could still ensure that you don't have to worry about return fire it would just take some effort and co-ordination, you know ability. The only people who really need to cry here are those who "solo" with their falcon on standby should the tables turn.
I heartily approve this message. |
Valleria Darkmoon
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
30
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 06:47:00 -
[203] - Quote
Those new compensation skills would probably do better rolled into a single generic sensor strength skill that applies to every ship you ever fly if it's going to be left at rank 3 (consistent at least with energy/shield management skills).
If not this then make them rank 2 like the other compensation skills where you have to train four of them. Four rank 3 skills to help stop ECM is punitive and punishes the people on the wrong side of the problem. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
522
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 07:08:00 -
[204] - Quote
Valleria Darkmoon wrote:Four rank 3 skills to help stop ECM is punitive and punishes the people on the wrong side of the problem.
ECM: cause of hate even when it's being nerfed.
But yea, long term goal should be to change ECM so that it's no longer 20 seconds of being unable to do anything rather than cementing the current mechanics via new skills that play into them. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1385
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 08:00:00 -
[205] - Quote
How can anyone call introducing a skill that makes your ship perform better in two ways a punishment :D same arguments posted here could be used to complain about every skill in EVE. I mean why are we punished by forcing us to train 4 racial carrier Vs? Why not combine them and make them rank 2.
It helps if you are able to separate your own wants from your needs and external pressures.
I'll take that +25% sensor strength, thank you. Combined with ECCM and Info links, that will make my ships very resistant to jamming. If you like your ships more jammable, don't train it, don't use ECCM and laugh at info links. Simple.
Also, I +1 this:
Quote:ECM drone suggestion- halve their strength, and extend ship-based drone damage bonus to cover all EWAR drone effects, and change their jamming times:
EC-300: 0.5 / 5s EC-600: 0.75 / 10s EC-900: 1 / 20s
Shiva Furnace - recruiting again! |
Cerulean Ice
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
35
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 08:05:00 -
[206] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:ECM *Reduce Optimal Range and Falloff of all ECM modules by 10% *Add to the Optimal Range and Falloff bonus on ECM range bonused ships by 2.5% for the Blackbird and Tengu Obfuscation Manifold (bringing it to 12.5%) and 5% for the Scorpion (bringing it to 25%) *Add four new racial sensor compensation skills that increase each type of Sensor Strength by 5% per level (Requires Electronics 4, rank 3 skills in the Electronics category) Can you clarify this a bit more? Are you changing the blackbird and tengu to have 2.5% more per level compared with their current bonuses, or 2.5% more total compared to their current bonuses? Same with the scorpion, will it be 5% more per level, or 5% more total? |
Mirei Jun
Right to Rule Test Friends Please Ignore
42
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 08:40:00 -
[207] - Quote
These changes are not a big deal for most skilled ECM pilots. In fact, overall the changes in Retribution actually hurt new ECM pilots the most. I expect to see less "bro birds" and more Celestis from new players in fleets (someone will come up with a good name for them).
The issues as I see them:
1) This does not address ECM scaling problems. Frigates and Destroyers are still completely nullified by ECM, while medium and large ships are inherently stronger to them (although skill get jammed more often then not).
2) Why have 4 separate sensor strength skills? There is a skill for targeting range, a skill for scan res, and a skill for tracking. Why require players to train four individual skills just for ECM? This is silly and an obvious attempt to just give older players more crap to train.
Overall I think these changes don't really solve anything. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
53
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 09:06:00 -
[208] - Quote
Having thought some more about the changes can you just increase the sensor str of all ships by 20-25% instead?
As a few others have pointed out the new skills are going to be almost on the level of Learning Skills in being a mandatory requirement for anyone in PVP. You can make the argument that they're not mandatory (like learning skills) but really they're going to be so important for almost all PVPs to have "Don't count on others for help. In the end each of us is in this alone. The survivors are those who know how to look out for themselves." |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
289
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 09:23:00 -
[209] - Quote
A few thoughts:
1. I believe that the proposed sensor compensation skills will cause more balancing problems in the future, inasmuch as they affect separate game mechanics - ie. ECM and ship scanning.
Balancing ECM by just tweaking ECM strength on modules is a cleaner and better approach.
2. I'm not in favor of nerfing EW modules and compensating by buffing dedicated EW ships. Fitting EW modules on non-bonused ships should always be a viable option, rather than considered solely as part of a fail fit.
Dedicated EW ships, if any, should have a slight advantage over non-bonused ships, but not so much that they can completely overwhelm any ship which is not specifically fit to counter it. Bonuses to strength need to be (re)considered carefully - it doesn't take much to be too much. It might even be better to opt for range or cap usage bonuses rather than strength bonuses.
3. How about a tweak for FOF (sorry, I meant auto-targeting) missiles? In practice, they should be a counter to both ECM and damps. Reducing the time required to switch from regular missiles to FOF missiles would help, and a slight buff to damage and/or explosion velocity/radius would be welcome, as well. |
Raukhur
Black Watch Guard
9
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 09:48:00 -
[210] - Quote
Please also make some tweaks to ewar drones so that they at least are worth thinking about (ECM drones might be nerfed by the racial sensor strength skills now) .
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |