not suggesting changes to target painters, i am howeer suggesting out right design changes to weapon disruptors, to “turn off” weapons, sorta like how ecm stops you from using weapons by stopping you from targeting, except in this case, weapon disruptors would stop you from using weapons.
So both weapon disruptors and ECM will stop you from shooting a target, making them rather similar. As of right now, weapon disruptors either reduce your turret optimal and falloff range or your turret tracking and ECM makes it so you can only target whatever is jamming you. The change that you are proposing seems to limit the amount of “unique builds” there could be because the function of the weapon disruptor and ECM would become extremely similar in effect.
Extra range on jammers helps keep them from just dying while trying to do their job, so that’s good
Disabling weapons is too much, you may wish to unify the disruption mods, then have scripts focus on either guns or missiles. Unscripted does both
No purposed changes for sensor damps
Engine disruption range increase would likely need to give brawler weapons some bonus against this, otherwise brawlers become even more useless
A complete rework doesn’t seem necessary, but some tweaks could go a long way
If anything, I’d like some more ewar options for high slots
1 Like
I’d actually love to be able to switch between missile disruption and turret disruption with a script versus having to change modules, but that seems like a rather powerful buff that should probably be tied with a buff to other EWAR
As long as ships can target the ECM ship there is no point in any balance pass, if the devs cannot “figure it out” then we sure don’t want them messing with the code more.
3 Likes
If you think EWAR is in a good place, Go on a solo roam in a Rook and try using ECM during 1v1 fight
Good thing the game is not and should not be balanced around solo.
The EVE is a sandbox game and all play styles should be included
Systems that are modified to exclude an existing style of game play in a sandbox are a BAD application of game theory.
Included. Not catered to.
As much as the new ecm sucks, solo playstyles should not be the focus of design decisions. I say that as a mostly solo pvp player now.
2 Likes
All play styles should be included.
But that doesn’t mean that they should all be viable.
You don’t run across too many Laser Thoraxes or solo Scimitars, but that doesn’t mean that CCP needs to change lasers, Thoraxes, or Scimitars to make them more viable. They’re just bad choices. Right now, a solo Rook is in that same category.
Having said that, I do acknowledge that solo Rooks used to be a viable choice and CCP did take that away in the name of overall ECM balance. Was that the best choice? I’m not convinced yet, but I’d much rather have ECM in gangs and fleets be balanced than solo ECM be viable.
They are not catered at all as they have been excluded
Also the solo Griffin, Griffin Navy, Kitsune, blackbird - in fact all the ecm ships solo are no longer viable.
Being bad choices Eve players adapt and now ECM is out DAMPS are in …
Remember when CCP said that pilots didn’t like feeling of not being able to do anything whilst jammed, of them not having agency - SO CCP - When are we going to hear that *DAMPS make pilots feel bad and having something to do on the field despite being DAMPENED would be a necessary change to make a good DAMP balance"
Apply this Logically - if you are damped they should not effect you with regard to the ship dampening you - for example your HAML Orthrus has a full targettng range against the Kiting-Dampening ship but only 5K targeting range against ships that have no damps on you.
1 Like
Solo ecm may have been excluded, but that’s one tiny subset of a small niche of game play.
Tell me with a straight face that all solo play has been excluded by the ecm change.
Didn’t think so. Stop whining.
Like I said, I’m not sold on the ECM change. Did it do what CCP wanted it to do? Yes. Did it have some collateral damage? Also yes.
And I hear you about the inconsistency regarding ECM vs damps. It’s a totally different behavior for ECM, but ECM behaves differently than damps in the first place. So at least from the standpoint of “But it’s different than other EWar!” I’m okay with it.
The counter to damps is the same as the counter to ECM: fit sensor boosters. It works differently because ECM and damps are different, but it still works.
50km for target painter. And 176 falloff. L4 skills in painting - numbers from tornado.
I kind of disagree with you on that you use sensor boosters to counter RSD’s. You fit SB’s to decrease your lock time or increase your targeting range to be able to do a specific role. The scan resolution and targeting range scripts are not designed to be a countermeasure to RSD effects. It’s really just a happy little accident that it helps. The relationship between tracking computers and weapon disruptors is exactly the same.
Personally, I think EWAR does need a little rework but most of the rework should be in the counter-countermeasures which should simply give a resistance to the effects. We already have batteries doing this against neuts very effectively (capacitor boosters aren’t really the counter measure to neuts either, they’re just a module that kind of helps).
I would like to see SB’s and Tracking Computers given an additional script which is RSD Countermeasure and TD Counter measure respectively. I would also like to see these modules given a fairly long reload time (say 30 seconds) so that swapping out the scripts isn’t trivial. These scripts would give the bonus of simple resistance to the EWAR. If the ECCM script was also a resistance to the EWAR we could see ECM being changed into a “draining effect” of your sensor strength. As your sensor strength drains the number of targets you can lock will drop until you reach zero.
The ECCM script for an SB would give you resistance to this.
I will probably start a thread with all the details into why I think this would be the best way to do this.
Using sensor damps (on a max skilled Celestis) and sensor boosters as an example: A T2 RSD gives a scripted penalty of 52.5%, whereas a T2 SeBo gives a scripted boost of 60%. In a 1v1 scenario, the traditionally scripted SeBo completely counteracts the RSD, and then some (assuming the scripts match). In order to make a resistance script worth using over just straight up boosting on average, it would have to have a resistance of over 50%. That’s kind of a leap for a module that can easily be fit onto virtually any ship considering that Titans and Supers start off with a base 80% EWar resist.
(EDIT: Wait, what about long range fits that actually need the sensor boosted range to begin with? Well, in those situations, using your resist scripts would already require the user to have two sensor boosters equipped: one for the range necessary, and one for the resist. And in that situation, it’s still better to just use two traditionally scripted SeBos. It’s not until you get into crazy fits where you need 3 or more SeBos just for the range necessary for the fit that a resist scripted SeBo starts making sense.)
Once you get into Nv1 scenarios, things change a bit. Unlike incoming damage, EWar effects are stacking penalized. A second RSD will only hit you for about 45%, and the third for only about 25%, and then down from there. (I’m grossly estimating the stacking penalty math here.) So, assuming again a resist on the order of 50%, if you’re getting hit with four or RSDs and resist two of them, you still feel the majority of the impact in spite of your resistance. You’d be far better off just straight up boosting the attribute they’re assailing.
With stacking penalties applying to EWar, resistance to it only really works against one or two modules unless the base resistance is ridiculously high.
Your idea is interesting, but I think the math shows that in order for it to be of any use it would have to be grossly overpowered.
Three things to note:
-
I wrote this post assuming that EWar resistance was a % chance of any particular EWar attack not landing, like using it in falloff. If you’re thinking of just straight debuffing all EWar effects by x%, the math is different, but the conclusions are still the same. Since the first two or three that hit you are all that really matter, boosting through the EWar will usually be better than resisting the EWar unless you can resist it at insane levels.
-
There is a stronger case for using your resistance scripts with weapon disruptors because they are considerably more powerful than their corresponding boosting modules. Even a 30% or 40% resist would potentially be beneficial in those situations. But it seems weird to have one resist script give different benefits than another, and having RSD resist scripts only provide a 30% or 40% resist makes them worthless.
-
What about Target Painters, Webs/Grapplers, etc.? Once you go throwing around EWar resistance, you have to look at doing it for all EWar, and aside from ECM I don’t think there’s too much of a consensus that EWar really needs that kind of fixing… cough breaking cough…
I admire your creativity, and I think this may be something to continue looking at, but with what you have right now it’s unworkable on basic principles.
I agree with everything you’re saying except one thing… All of it 
Just kidding. You’re making good points. However, we need to look at the larger picture and the current system is designed that a scenario would always have multiple EWAR modules vs a single countermeasure. The counter measure must be very strong to make it appealing to use as there are so many other modules that are just plainly a better choice.
With regards to applying this to all EWAR I think that would be a good idea (except warp disruptors / scramblers as they work perfectly right now)
Also, if ECM was to work like energy neuts do vs capacitor (drain over time) the exact same concept can be applied to RSD’s and TD’s. Instead of just instant completely crippling effects they could get more powerful cycle after cycle. The code for this already exists with Trigga weapons. Balance can easily be found in optimal and fall off ranges and cycle times.
With regards to webs I agree that there should be a counter to webs. Currently there isn’t (AB’s do not counter webs). If an Afterburner had a Web resistance attribute AB’s would become incredibly useful module to fit. Also, potentially, low slot modules like overdrive injectors could also have smaller passive web resistances making them a really good choice for a low slot module.
Target painters… well what can we say about them. They work in their current form but as you say, there is no counter to them (which is odd). So I would suggest a passive low slot option that would provide a small decrease in base sig radius and a resistance to the effects of TP’s. Maybe even a mid slot active module that does the same but higher bonuses as it’s active. Call them Passive and active stealth coatings.
Edit - Also, I think TP’s should be moved to high slot position to make room for them
I’ll hit you with the effects math later when I can but I calculated that a resistance effect is better than a stat bonus.
I’m really curious to see your math and the assumptions behind it. My previous post was admittedly back of the envelope, but I was drawing from a previous discussion where I did a more rigorous job. (A bit lazy, I know, but I was just about to start work.)
It really all boils down to EWar effects (and buffing those attributes as counters) being stacking penalized. With damage, resists will almost always win because they are just as effective against all damage, not just some of it.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.