51 (edited by Rage Blackout 2014-05-29 02:40:27)

Re: Detector/EW changes

its not the modules, its the players

ive seen enemy fleets neuting walls and just possibly the worst target calling and battlefield direction ever

these are the same people crying about this mod is this and this mod is that


You dont hear the good players pissing about it.  other than Merkle

DEV Zoom - "If you mean the NPC aggro, that's been like that for months already."

52 (edited by Lemon 2014-05-29 03:48:02)

Re: Detector/EW changes

DEV Zoom wrote:
1. Signal detector balance

We don't think it should be removed from the game as some of you propose, but we agree they need some finetuning. We plan to reduce the detection boost, and also introduce a masking debuff effect that lasts as long as the detection effect. Ie. if you use a detector, you become more visible for others too.

Signal detection modification changes:
T1 30% -> 20%
T2 30% -> 20%
T3 40% -> 27.5%
T4 50% -> 35%

Equal penalties to signal masking added to the module effect:
T1 -20%
T2 -20%
T3 -27.5%
T4 -35%

I would be interested to see how this plays out.

As population expands the detectors will transition from being the all seeing eye in to being a radar for your group again.

DEV Zoom wrote:
2. ECM/Suppressor vs ECCM

We feel ECCM is a little underpowered and ECM tuning stacking is also an issue, so we propose 2 changes here:
- New extension that gives 2% sensor strength per level. (Stacks with the ECCM's sensor strength modifier.)
- Change the ECM tunings' EW strength modifier from a percentage multiplier to a fixed amount that simply adds to the base value.
Note: Suppressor tunings have a similar stacking issue and we're planning a change, but we don't have a solution for that just yet.

ps. DEV Alf is back from the dead, you can expect more ner... balancing changes in the near future smile

Hai Alf,

I think there is far to much going on for how simple the e-war relation ship is. Lets start with some focused changes if they are even necessary. I feel most people have forgotten everything that goes in to e-war. (Scrap the extension)

After reviewing the numbers for all class's of robots and how effective pure and half fit e-war bots can be, also with none to full extensions I came to some easy conclusions.



TL:DR
E-war is balanced maybe evaluate tuners and their effect. If you include lock time in your equation of e-war balance things are quite easy(Lock time with Nexus).

I can equip 1 sensor amp and 1 ECCM to just a Heavy Mech with only 80 default sensor strength. This makes it near impossible for the Vagabond mk 2 to consistently prevent me from firing.  ( I would also fire and lock-718m beyond the ECM range)

I just used two modules to negate a entire dedicated e-war robots head-slot row from being effective in combat. Most other bots are better off than the above scenario due to their higher default sensor strength.

Undefeated 2013
"Even alone you probably are one of the best" - Khader Khan
"Lemon the 1 man army .... also know as: THE TERMINATOR!" - Obi Wan
"There are people who are just better then you at doing many things at one time, some are far better then myself, far better." -Merkle

Re: Detector/EW changes

So how many ECM players does it take to perma-jam one enemy?

That's taking multiple players to negate one opposing player.  That's ignoring what more than one ECCM will do, which is increase the amount of players who need to focus one enemy target to jam them out.  Don't forget ECM range vs fire range of DPS, and lock times.

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth

Re: Detector/EW changes

Analogy:


10 Guys with the nails, saws, wood, etc can build a little house.


10 Monkeys with the same stuff just gets you piles of poop and a bit of a mess.



The End

DEV Zoom - "If you mean the NPC aggro, that's been like that for months already."

Re: Detector/EW changes

Are we again fixing things that aren't broken??  Really??

Where is our Gamma islands?  Aren't there more important things to focus on at this juncture in Nian history?


My opinion and responses to the agenda items:

#1: No changes are needed here.  The RF balances are quite adequate.  The changes suggested will only force detection units to utilize alternate techniques to achieve the same objectives.

#2: ECM tunings and ECCMs are reasonably balanced.   My only suggestion is that you limit the tuners to one being equipped on the bot at a time; like evasion modules and ERPs.  The values are currently balanced.

Some people play checkers, some play chess...  Once in a while you can find a guy playing GO.  The former is prey, the secondary is a teacher, and the latter is a general.

56 (edited by Mongolia Jones 2014-05-29 03:56:20)

Re: Detector/EW changes

I would change the formula of ECM success...

Chance of ecm success = ( ECM of attacker / (ECCM of defender + ECM of attacker) )

1. The above formula NEVER allows for 100% success of ECM.
2. I would tweak the ECM & ECCM values of mechs and modules for balance.

"...we will take undefended gammas and stations."  -Cassius of STC

Re: Detector/EW changes

Mongolia Jones wrote:

I would change the formula of ECM success...

Chance of ecm success = ( ECM of attacker / (ECCM of defender + ECM of attacker) )

1. The above formula NEVER allows for 100% success of ECM.
2. I would tweak the ECM & ECCM values of mechs and modules for balance.


+1  A great start, If I understand you correctly.

The Gifter
Top  Killer 2013  - 01: 334 -- 17 -- 317  : Merkle
Top  Killer 2012  - 01: 027 -- 472 -- 445 : Merkle

Scarab Kill Count - 13

Re: Detector/EW changes

Ville wrote:
Syndic wrote:

- Perhaps ECM/Supp tunings could be made a unique module like ERP/LWF to avoid ridiculous stacking? You can tune down the existing ECM/Supp modules from 35% to 25% and achieve the same goal.

+1


+1

[16:03:43] <Mara Gossep> syndic.....and get your *** spy out of our corp

Re: Detector/EW changes

Main difference between ECM and Demob - is that just 2 demobs are effective on a target, while there is unlimited ECM can be applied.

So doesn't really matter how low the chances are if you can throw as many coins as you have - you will still get your heads and tails.

Maybe that's where we can balance something? Let's say, everything will be as it is but just 2 ECM per target? That would make ECCM more useful,

Have a productive day, runner!
R.I.P. Chenoa, you'll never be forgotten.
DEV Zoom: Line, sorry, I was away for christmas.
http://perp-kill.net/?m=view&id=252086

Re: Detector/EW changes

Also adding in Racial ECMs would help out greatly on the balancing front.  You have to choose your Jams that you want, its not just a blanket ECM's

The Gifter
Top  Killer 2013  - 01: 334 -- 17 -- 317  : Merkle
Top  Killer 2012  - 01: 027 -- 472 -- 445 : Merkle

Scarab Kill Count - 13

Re: Detector/EW changes

++  Works well in EVE, should be good here.

Merkle wrote:

Also adding in Racial ECMs would help out greatly on the balancing front.  You have to choose your Jams that you want, its not just a blanket ECM's

DEV Zoom - "If you mean the NPC aggro, that's been like that for months already."

Re: Detector/EW changes

Merkle wrote:

Also adding in Racial ECMs would help out greatly on the balancing front.  You have to choose your Jams that you want, its not just a blanket ECM's

So true, would make fleet coordination of jam types a must and very interesting

Re: Detector/EW changes

1 Amp 1 Eccm Heavy  (One Extender - 561 Lock (Laser))

4.86 Lock  160 Strength

Vaga, 4 Ecm   -  604 Range
72 Strength 

45 Percent Chance to Jam.

Real World Application.    You will jam 1.5 Jams out of the 4.  Heavy will lose lock, and waste second on re-lock, do to server, pilot ect.

Also Vaga is behind a hill, and is faster then you as well.

All Vaga must do is either Run, or get LOS.

In the real world game.  One Vaga would lock down two of those heavy's.  In a quite successful manor.  Three would be pushing it, but It would still create the same effect. 

I will just assume you ran some numbers on Grohpo.  Sure its locking time is lower.  But reality would be Not so much.

The Gifter
Top  Killer 2013  - 01: 334 -- 17 -- 317  : Merkle
Top  Killer 2012  - 01: 027 -- 472 -- 445 : Merkle

Scarab Kill Count - 13

Re: Detector/EW changes

Tund Bungler wrote:
Burial wrote:

Not fast enough.

15kph isnt enough to catch up? There is no pleasing you people!

That's little over 4 meters per second. As I said it's not fast enough.

Re: Detector/EW changes

Back in my days we were faster by 2kph and we were happy with that!

<GargajCNS> we maim to please

Re: Detector/EW changes

Burial wrote:
Syndic wrote:

Fast detectors pay the price for their speed by having 500hp. I have piloted one for a very long time, and I lose them all the time.

Is there a lot of difference if it has 500 or 5000 armor if it goes 130kmph? Islands are small. Masked max speed Cameleon MK2 closes in on that Castel only ~1.66 m/s.

LOL. I don't know what type of clown-car, smoky exhaust pipe, oval-wheeled, squeezy-horned, low risk pvp fit you're running but I can tell you from personal experience that these detector bots are not difficult to catch at all.

If any player reading this plans to run tackle then you have to accept that it's a guts & glory vs steaming pile of Bantha poodoo role , all depending on your level of concentration, your motivation and various other bot fitting factors which I won't discuss in this thread.

Give us gamma islands of a size that require 30+ active current detector bots to give coverage rather than 2 and there will be no need for detector nerfs.

At present, Nia is a very small place and as a result there is nowhere to hide. This is not the fault of the guys who have invested heavily into the detection extensions and I don't feel they should be punished for the lack of available landmass.

There has been an awakening... Have you felt it?

67 (edited by Burial 2014-05-29 09:35:14)

Re: Detector/EW changes

Detector, Velo Nexus, Frame.

All relevant skills at 10. 130km/h. GL.

Re: Detector/EW changes

Burial wrote:

Detector, Velo Nexus, Frame.

All relevant skills at 10. 130km/h. GL.

Thank you for this clarification.

Perhaps I should have been clearer as I was referring to the tackle you run rather than the detector which, as was fore-mentioned, is easy enough to catch.

There has been an awakening... Have you felt it?

Re: Detector/EW changes

Line wrote:

Main difference between ECM and Demob - is that just 2 demobs are effective on a target, while there is unlimited ECM can be applied.

So doesn't really matter how low the chances are if you can throw as many coins as you have - you will still get your heads and tails.

Maybe that's where we can balance something? Let's say, everything will be as it is but just 2 ECM per target? That would make ECCM more useful,

You can apply the same argument to shooting targets - Unlimited number of people can be shooting at you. What if only 2 people could be shooting at you at the same time?

TL;DR

Its theorycraft-logic.

Merkle wrote:

1 Amp 1 Eccm Heavy  (One Extender - 561 Lock (Laser))

4.86 Lock  160 Strength

Vaga, 4 Ecm   -  604 Range
72 Strength 

45 Percent Chance to Jam.

Real World Application.    You will jam 1.5 Jams out of the 4.  Heavy will lose lock, and waste second on re-lock, do to server, pilot ect.

Also Vaga is behind a hill, and is faster then you as well.

All Vaga must do is either Run, or get LOS.

In the real world game.  One Vaga would lock down two of those heavy's.  In a quite successful manor.  Three would be pushing it, but It would still create the same effect. 

I will just assume you ran some numbers on Grohpo.  Sure its locking time is lower.  But reality would be Not so much.

2 amps, 1 ECCM. - 45% to jam
2 amps, 2 ECCM. - ???

With 45% to jam, that means taking 1-Amp locktime into equation 5 ECM's must be applied and they must all succeed every time to lock up a heavy. Meaning in theorycrafting, 10 ECM's must be applied to take down a single Heavy. 10 ECM's = 2 Vaga/Vaga Mk2.

Even if you throw in supression on top of that, that's still 2-3 people actively working together to neutralize 1 person. That's perfectly balanced.

Alf you should take note, Heavies in the current game iteration have choices to make in their fitting:
- Do they sacrifice range for DPS
- Do they sacrifice DPS for sensor-strength
- Do they sacrifice tank for speed

In either situation there is a marked CHOICE with it's up-sides and down-sides.

This game cannot be balanced around player-numbers. If A brings 20 people and B brings 5 people, B will die or be lucky to escape 99% of the time.

In all these theoretical mock-ups people are pitting an EW mech versus a Heavy mech and making an argument the EW Mech shouldn't be able to jam a Heavy.

If EW doesn't counter heavies, and force them to compromise their DPS/Tank, what does? Who has more heavies on field? Who has more RR on field? Who has more Ictus on field?

Let's try a different scenario however!

TEAM A
- 1 Heavy (2 S.Amps, 2 ECCMs)
- 1 EW Mech (whatever you want)

TEAM B
- 2 EW Mechs

Who wins? smile

TL;DR

You cannot balance the game around player-numbers. Teamwork cannot be nerfed, because teamwork is the only thing that even remotely lets the smaller guy fight the disorganized bigger guy.

Burial wrote:

Detector, Velo Nexus, Frame.

All relevant skills at 10. 130km/h. GL.

My tackle catches it and it dies.

Let's talk about the other Castel favorite though;

Detector, Demob, Small Shield, Medium Auxilliary, Frame.

All relevant skills at 10. Balanced? smile

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

Re: Detector/EW changes

Merkle wrote:

1 Amp 1 Eccm Heavy  (One Extender - 561 Lock (Laser))

4.86 Lock  160 Strength

Vaga, 4 Ecm   -  604 Range
72 Strength 

45 Percent Chance to Jam.

Real World Application.    You will jam 1.5 Jams out of the 4.  Heavy will lose lock, and waste second on re-lock, do to server, pilot ect.

Also Vaga is behind a hill, and is faster then you as well.

All Vaga must do is either Run, or get LOS.

In the real world game.  One Vaga would lock down two of those heavy's.  In a quite successful manor.  Three would be pushing it, but It would still create the same effect. 

I will just assume you ran some numbers on Grohpo.  Sure its locking time is lower.  But reality would be Not so much.

Lets break this down a bit here.

A e-war bot will always out run and manage to LoS a Heavy Mech and if fit properly will always out range it.
^This is known

I used a Mesmer, but  can you explain how your managing to lock down multiple heavy mech's with 4 ECM's. I tested with  the above fit and found it to be nearly impossible to keep a perma jam on one HM let alone two or 3 of them.

Undefeated 2013
"Even alone you probably are one of the best" - Khader Khan
"Lemon the 1 man army .... also know as: THE TERMINATOR!" - Obi Wan
"There are people who are just better then you at doing many things at one time, some are far better then myself, far better." -Merkle

71

Re: Detector/EW changes

This is all in regards to the ECM suggestions so far.

First off, some numbers. Feel free to play around with the input fields.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ … 1789247887

In combat, most bots aren't going to use more than two ecms per target. How would dedicated ECM people feel about having this number formalised as the max amount of ECMs a bot can be affected by?

In addition, the current formula is a bit of an issue because it over-emphasizes ECM strength vs equipped ECCMs. This is reflected by a bot with 2 ECCMs still having more than a 50% chance of getting jammed at least once when it's targeted by 2 ECMs. This issue isn't massively game-breaking or unbalanced because it only limits the usefulness of eccms, but a mechanical change would be nice, still. This could be addressed in a number of ways, and i think mongolia's formula change could be interesting (how would you incorporate the defender's base SS though?).

Re: Detector/EW changes

Ozy wrote:

In combat, most bots aren't going to use more than two ecms per target. How would dedicated ECM people feel about having this number formalised as the max amount of ECMs a bot can be affected by?

If I it would create an icon like demob gets right now?
You would cry, cry and cry even more. Why?
Because this is the last thing that stops us from being 100% effective with out ECMs - in big battles you don't usually have time or possibility to shout the specific ECM target you are on.

And as for the limit, you wouldn't use more that 2 on a hmech, I would think, but we don't fight ONLY hmechs, so I am on the fence with this one.

<GargajCNS> we maim to please

73

Re: Detector/EW changes

Norrdec wrote:
Ozy wrote:

In combat, most bots aren't going to use more than two ecms per target. How would dedicated ECM people feel about having this number formalised as the max amount of ECMs a bot can be affected by?

If I it would create an icon like demob gets right now?
You would cry, cry and cry even more. Why?
Because this is the last thing that stops us from being 100% effective with out ECMs - in big battles you don't usually have time or possibility to shout the specific ECM target you are on.

And as for the limit, you wouldn't use more that 2 on a hmech, I would think, but we don't fight ONLY hmechs, so I am on the fence with this one.

Yes, it's not all against heavies ... but as soon as you apply more than two ecms, your chance to take your target out is pretty high, regardless of whether it's using ECCMs. So, the question kind of is whether limiting bots to being affected by two ecms would improve the mechanic of ewar in combat atm. As you mention, it would probably get easier to distribute ECMs across targets, but ECCM efficacy would also be increased. Double-edged sword here.

--
Another thought: RNG kind of sucks. Path of Exile is using an entropy system to avoid it in certain scenarios. I'll copy paste. It'd only be a minor change, but maybe it would improve quality of life a bit.

Each entity in the world contains an 'evasion entropy' value, between 1 and 100. The higher this value is, the more likely they are to be hit by the next attack. The initial value is random.
Every time something attacks you, they calculate their chance to hit as a percentage. That value is added to your evasion entropy. If the result exceeds 100, you're hit, and 100 is subtracted from the value. If the value hasn't reached 100, you're not hit.

Re: Detector/EW changes

Simple answer is not to change anything as problem is not mechanics its peoples poor decision making when it comes to fitting a fleet.

75 (edited by Syndic 2014-05-29 14:47:44)

Re: Detector/EW changes

Ozy wrote:

This is all in regards to the ECM suggestions so far.

First off, some numbers. Feel free to play around with the input fields.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ … 1789247887

In combat, most bots aren't going to use more than two ecms per target. How would dedicated ECM people feel about having this number formalised as the max amount of ECMs a bot can be affected by?

In addition, the current formula is a bit of an issue because it over-emphasizes ECM strength vs equipped ECCMs. This is reflected by a bot with 2 ECCMs still having more than a 50% chance of getting jammed at least once when it's targeted by 2 ECMs. This issue isn't massively game-breaking or unbalanced because it only limits the usefulness of eccms, but a mechanical change would be nice, still. This could be addressed in a number of ways, and i think mongolia's formula change could be interesting (how would you incorporate the defender's base SS though?).

What you are ignoring is lock time.

What is heavy lock time with 2 sensor amplifiers?

How many ECM's do you need to break 2 ECCM's?

Lockbooster nexus?

Farlock nexus?

You can say that you sacrifice DPS - that is the point. You can't have the cake and the pie at the same time, otherwise everyone can just roll in heavies and RR's and we can compete in who has more RR.

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice