(133 replies, posted in Balancing)

From the test server using no math other then hit chance.  Which is easy enough to do.


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

Why would you scrap something that can be save so easy.

That system re works and balances everything perfectly.

Nothing magical about it just some simple math.
It may even  result in a minor buff in the lower tiers of ECM.


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

Did even more thinking on the topic. 

With Armor resits you see a point system in place.  Where you add points to the specific (active hardeners), or non specific (Uni Hardener) and then your percent resist goes up.  However you can never reach 100 Percent.

I think if you would employ the same system with ECM Hw you would get excellent results.  Some values would need to be changed.  So skills would boost your overall point value in Hw, and you would then get your hit chance.

Tuners would add in a set amount of points, pushing you tward that increased hit chance. 

This balances not only ECM but Tuners as well.  This same system could be done with suppression just as well.


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

I would rather not remove content if at all possible, and in this case I think its more then possible to bring them into balance.

Start with ECM's themselves and bring tuners more into line of where they should be.


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

There is really no need to get all emotional about it, emotions tend to cloud your judgement which is never a good thing, in my humble opinion.


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

Well people are freaking out for no good reason.

ECM needs balanced not nerfed.  Moving to 15 second cycle from a 10 second cycle seems like be best move to me personally.

I would then increase the acc amount in proportion to that as well.


(113 replies, posted in Testing server)

Rex Amelius wrote:
Syndic wrote:

I think it would be pretty cool if masker moved your robot into a "stealth mode" where your accumulator depletes, your speed is significantly decreased to 20-30kph to simulate "sneaking" and after decloaking you couldn't target anything for 15-20 seconds.

Fresh idea. We need more of these as opposed to simply "nerf all"

Do it.  Have a Class that has no locking penalty after un masked.


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

After doing some heavy thinking, the best thing to start out with would be to increase the cycle times of ECM's themselves.

From 10 seconds.

To 15 Seconds.


Decrease the base Hw from 35 (T4)


Base Hw to 30 (T4)


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

There is a difference between running the numbers, say a 4 second lock time, and getting jammed every 10 seconds.

In the real server, you have lag, INcreasing the potential re locking time greatly.

This 4 second lock time, more looks like 4.5 to 5 seconds, up to 6 seconds re-lock.  We all know this, and experience it all the time. 

Make no mistake, I do no argue to do anything about this, its rather its a natural buff to all ewar in general.


(133 replies, posted in Balancing)

Interestingly enought, a few posts up, first we claim that Ewar Tuners are uesless and should never be used.

Then a few post down, the opposite is put forth.

Then claims of "we never use them so It doesn't matter" is put forth, sadly, this type of redirection is nothing more then a false truth. 

As per my numbers those were base figures.  I was unaware that I needed to say anything other then what was in the "(   )".  That quite clear and shows how I pulled my base numbers.  All of these were server numbers, with zero calculation done, other then hit chance, which is quite simple.


(7 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Make it so.


(133 replies, posted in Balancing)

Hit Chance, Light, Ewar, Assault, Mech, Mech Ewar, Heavy.     

Base Value of 35 Hw (T4 For Referance)Hit Chance, 29% , 35%,    35%,   29%,   28%  ,     41%

Base Value of 56 Hw Skilled on (Light, Mech, Heavy,LvL 10 Skill)  46%, 56%, 56%, 46%, 44.8%, 65.8%

Base Value of 74 Hw  on (Light Ewar, Mech Ewar, Mk2 W/ LvL 10 Skill) 61%, 74%, 74%, 61%, 59.2%, 87%

Base Value of 99 Hw on (Light Ewar, Mech Ewar Mk2 W/ Lvl 10, 1 Tuner) 82.5%, 99%. 99%, 82.5%, 79.2%, 100%

Base Value of 134 Hw on (Light Ewar,Mech Ewar Mk2 W/ Lvl10, 2 Tuner) 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%

Yellow - Kinda Ok Somewhat *** up.

Red - Really *** Up.


(133 replies, posted in Balancing)

The counter to Ewar is to bring more Ewar, who knew?


(133 replies, posted in Balancing)

Going a step farther.

All Racial Base would be what is Base now.

Add in multi Racail with 50% of base. 

Change all bots to have Racial Sensor Strength.

Adding in your buffing Stacking Thingy, Ehhh, Not so sure about this...seems gimmicky.


(133 replies, posted in Balancing)

I gathering this is TOO much like EVE, and wondering if Copywrite is coming into play.

Really, this would balance everything out nicely and eliminate the problem all together.

Start with ECM and then see if Suppressors need this, I dont think they do personally.


(133 replies, posted in Balancing)

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.


(133 replies, posted in Balancing)

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


(133 replies, posted in Balancing)

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.


(133 replies, posted in Balancing)

Or increase ECCM strength by 15% and see where that goes.


(133 replies, posted in Balancing)

If you wish to give us a skill that boosts sensor strength to each bot, instead, just reduce ECM strength by 10% across the board.

Does the same thing.


(14 replies, posted in Balancing)



(133 replies, posted in Balancing)

I dont see this going places......

I wouldn't introduce a new nav skill, unless you can actually fix ECM.  You can start by making it impossible or really hard to reach 100% However with your system this would be basically Impossible as well.

For the players who have EP banked it doesn't matter, for the new guys it will, would rather not screw them over....


(8 replies, posted in Q & A)

Or buy all the stock on the market and manipulate the price point.

This would require checking price all the time and buying up all said stock as soon as you could.


(14 replies, posted in Balancing)

Annihilator wrote:

its called fast reload extension

5 second or so reload on any module.

can you read that "the T4 gauss does one and a half times the damage of the T3 variant, with a faster cyclet time"
which translates into that thing has the power to one-shot mechs with the right combination.

It has only two penalties for that firepower - a smaller magazine and a very short range - the magazine is not an issue since you only need a few rounds to finish your target and then you can reload so fast that you lose i bit of one or two cycles.

This is something anni only reads about, has no field experience in....


(58 replies, posted in Balancing)

Too much attention to balancing?

It takes a few moments to change a few values.

It takes months to add in new content and get it correctly balanced.

Its not the size of the overall map that is issue, Altho I believe more and more people are simply wanting more land mass, but rather the size of the individual islands themselves.

This is much less of a factor on gammas, but on betas internals make scouting a island quite simple, and speedy.

Not to mention the bots that detectors are going on, are overall extreamly speedy themselves.   

So many ways to balance them, them the heavyer, harder to fit CPU or Power wise, longer cycles, increased acc consumption, and more I haven't thought of yet.