Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 20:07:00 -
[1]
As the title says. I think that this will solve the problems associated with ECM.
**In my opinion** ECM is overpowered (I use it often, with silly overpowered results) and is too effective, and from too great a range. Each ECM module applied to a target is just as effective as the first one, and I think that this results in the modules being too effective.
Damps have a huge stacking penalty for each additional module applied, and I think that this will work for ECM as well. One racial ECM from a max skilled Falcon applied to a Tier3 BS has a pretty reasonable chance to jam the target. If the target has one ECCM fit (unlikely), the chance is reduced a bit (25-30% or so), but it's still common to get a jam, even with a single ECM.
The problem arises when you can put 2-3 ECM on just about anything and get a jam, because each ECM is just as effective as the first. I propose that ECM receive the same type of stacking penalties that damps do, so that by the time you're adding in a 4th ECM to a single target, it's all but useless.
This would promote ECM pilots spreading their ECM out across more targets, and while ECM would remain extremely powerful, as very few ships in the game have as high a sensor strength as a tier3 BS, it would help reduce the overwhelming jam capability of multiple ECM applied to the same target.
Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Death of Virtue is Recruiting
|
Bronson Hughes
ADVANCED Combat and Engineering
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 20:20:00 -
[2]
I'm generally not in favor of nerfing ECM due to its chance based nature and available counters, but this actually seems to be a very solid idea. Say what you will about ECM being overpowered or not, the fact that multiple modules acting on the same ship don't get a stacking penalty seems a bit out of line with other types of EWar. -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne |
Tzar'rim
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 20:30:00 -
[3]
My 3 mil SP BB alt (who can also fly a covert, so most of his SP is elsewhere) kept a drake jammed for well over 20 minutes as I had to get more firepower
Only missed 1 cycle :P
|
prodalt
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 20:32:00 -
[4]
1. There is not a problem with ECM
2. It is already stacking penalized, much more so than Damps are. Simply due to the natural workings of percentile systems.
3. There is a problem with falcons, but that is more because falcons have the same ECM stats as Rooks, but can also cloak and warp cloaked.
4. It is actually impossible to produce a stacking penalty on ECM that would produce the intended results. Since effect is a chance, and since that chance is cut on a static number, you would be decreasing your final effect many times over even on the second module.
5. It is likely impossible to produce a stacking penalty on ECM, since ECM does not operate as a modifier on the target ship, but much more like damage.
6. There is a problem with ECM effectiveness on small ships, but this is not effected by any stacking penalties since they are perma-jammed by a single module anyway.
|
Trellish
Ten Ton Hammer Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 20:32:00 -
[5]
Heh Heh.... I beat you to the punch by just a couple of mins :P
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=933505
Guess great minds think alike
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 20:33:00 -
[6]
Good lord, this is the second time this has Happened. prodalt is me
|
Krystal Demishy
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 20:33:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Bronson Hughes not in favor of nerfing ECM due to its chance based nature and available counters
Are you joking, right? Chance based is an euphemism, you have a chance to MISS a cycle! And about the available counters..... they don't work: too many times i've wasted my time fitting 3 eccm t2.
|
prodalt
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 20:34:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Trellish Heh Heh.... I beat you to the punch by just a couple of mins :P
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=933505
Guess great minds think alike
So do fools.
|
eyesoftheworld
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 20:35:00 -
[9]
A much better idea would be to add scripts to ECM. Range script, strength script. They did it to RSD's when they were overpowered. Horza's banned :( |
Tzar'rim
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 20:37:00 -
[10]
Originally by: prodalt 1. There is not a problem with ECM
2. It is already stacking penalized, much more so than Damps are. Simply due to the natural workings of percentile systems.
3. There is a problem with falcons, but that is more because falcons have the same ECM stats as Rooks, but can also cloak and warp cloaked.
4. It is actually impossible to produce a stacking penalty on ECM that would produce the intended results. Since effect is a chance, and since that chance is cut on a static number, you would be decreasing your final effect many times over even on the second module.
5. It is likely impossible to produce a stacking penalty on ECM, since ECM does not operate as a modifier on the target ship, but much more like damage.
6. There is a problem with ECM effectiveness on small ships, but this is not effected by any stacking penalties since they are perma-jammed by a single module anyway.
Do what they did with the Pilgrim. Lower base range on ECM putting BB's and Falcons more into the fight and lowering the idiotic range on Rooks. That would mean that BB's/Falcons would have to think more about defense, tanking or whatever meaning they have to make more choices regarding safety or jamming efficiency.
|
|
Dasalt Istgut
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 20:43:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus As the title says. I think that this will solve the problems associated with ECM.
**In my opinion** ECM is overpowered (I use it often, with silly overpowered results) and is too effective, and from too great a range. Each ECM module applied to a target is just as effective as the first one, and I think that this results in the modules being too effective.
Damps have a huge stacking penalty for each additional module applied, and I think that this will work for ECM as well. One racial ECM from a max skilled Falcon applied to a Tier3 BS has a pretty reasonable chance to jam the target. If the target has one ECCM fit (unlikely), the chance is reduced a bit (25-30% or so), but it's still common to get a jam, even with a single ECM.
The problem arises when you can put 2-3 ECM on just about anything and get a jam, because each ECM is just as effective as the first. I propose that ECM receive the same type of stacking penalties that damps do, so that by the time you're adding in a 4th ECM to a single target, it's all but useless.
This would promote ECM pilots spreading their ECM out across more targets, and while ECM would remain extremely powerful, as very few ships in the game have as high a sensor strength as a tier3 BS, it would help reduce the overwhelming jam capability of multiple ECM applied to the same target.
We should do that once we have weapons stacking nerf. Its unfair that firing all 8 of my turrets does as much damage individually as firing one does.
ECM is the weapon of the ECM ships. If you were to change it like above, you'd actually have to give them a tank and gank.
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 20:45:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
The problem arises when you can put 2-3 ECM on just about anything and get a jam, because each ECM is just as effective as the first. I propose that ECM receive the same type of stacking penalties that damps do, so that by the time you're adding in a 4th ECM to a single target, it's all but useless.
Damps work 100% of the time and would have a culminative effect without stacking penalties, that is why they have stacking penalties.
ECM is chance based so if as you say they focus all their ecm modules on one ship to guarantee a jam cycle then they can hardly be considered overpowered as they are only effecting one ship.
POST NERF PVP SKILLS: "shall we engage?" "hmmm how many ships do they have?" "more than us" "lets not bother then" "WOW great job FC!!!!" "................. |
Endless Subversion
The Accursed
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 20:53:00 -
[13]
From april:
FALCONS ARE SO COOL, +25 DKP for each player who brings a falcon!
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 21:06:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Tzar'rim
Originally by: prodalt 1. There is not a problem with ECM
2. It is already stacking penalized, much more so than Damps are. Simply due to the natural workings of percentile systems.
3. There is a problem with falcons, but that is more because falcons have the same ECM stats as Rooks, but can also cloak and warp cloaked.
4. It is actually impossible to produce a stacking penalty on ECM that would produce the intended results. Since effect is a chance, and since that chance is cut on a static number, you would be decreasing your final effect many times over even on the second module.
5. It is likely impossible to produce a stacking penalty on ECM, since ECM does not operate as a modifier on the target ship, but much more like damage.
6. There is a problem with ECM effectiveness on small ships, but this is not effected by any stacking penalties since they are perma-jammed by a single module anyway.
Do what they did with the Pilgrim. Lower base range on ECM putting BB's and Falcons more into the fight and lowering the idiotic range on Rooks. That would mean that BB's/Falcons would have to think more about defense, tanking or whatever meaning they have to make more choices regarding safety or jamming efficiency.
Lowering the range of Falcons and other ECM ships while retaining their strength only nerfs pirates, as they won't be able to use them outside of sentry range, while all others will have access to powerful ECM ships to use against them while operating inside sentry range.
Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Death of Virtue is Recruiting
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 21:14:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Trellish Heh Heh.... I beat you to the punch by just a couple of mins :P
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=933505
Guess great minds think alike
Similar, but not the same. In that you're referring to every module in the game? I'm just talking about ECM.
To Goum et al-
In addition to stacking penalties, I think that the Falcon needs to be reduced in strength to that of a Blackbird, as far as peak jam strength goes. There was nothing wrong with it (Falcons) before it was buffed, and people used Rooks and Scorps far more often than they do now.
If Falcons were nerfed and the stacking penalty imposed, I'm sure you'd see far more fights instead of 'oh, they have n+1 more Falcons/Rooks/Scorpions than we do, let's just dock.'
Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Death of Virtue is Recruiting
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 21:15:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Endless Subversion Edited by: Endless Subversion on 25/11/2008 21:06:15 From april:
FALCONS ARE SO COOL, +25 DKP for each player who brings a falcon!
Potential jamming balance changes were addressed at length. General thread consensus was that I'm bad at pvp, falcons are fine and I need to learn to play.
I can only imagine you'll get the same treatment bellum.
Dang Endless. I knew the idea was too good to be original. You get full credit.
Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Death of Virtue is Recruiting
|
Endless Subversion
The Accursed
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 21:20:00 -
[17]
I don't want credit, not even sure it was mine to begin with.
I just want some balance in ECM. Take this thread and run with it. If you want to steal, quote or otherwise use anything said in the thread I started, grab it it.
If you want any numerical support for this thread, just ask, I've got about a half dozen bookmarked jamming threads relating to jam drones, falcons and ECM ships in general and the numbers are absurd. Just let me know, this is broken and needs fixing!
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 21:29:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
To Goum et al-
In addition to stacking penalties,
And what do you say about the fact that the stacking penalties are dumb and won't work?
|
chrisss0r
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 21:31:00 -
[19]
"chance based" is the new v e r t i c a l
|
Malcanis
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 21:32:00 -
[20]
I can't be arsed arguing this stupid crap any more. Go ahead - ruin another ship/module class. I can fly Curses now, so **** you. Please give me a coupe of weeks notice that you're going to wine for nerfs of those.
God forbid that we should propose sensible considered modifications to countermeasures. No, instead let's just cry that something actually fulfills it's intended function.
|
|
Orion GUardian
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 21:41:00 -
[21]
Erm....you know that ECM is useless on ANYTHING but an ECM ship? So if you enrf ECM it will be even MORE useless not to use Falcon/rook/Scorpion/BB for it....
Anyway....I am of the opinion it is not overpowered....they gimp their own setups to use them and can neither ift tank nor gank anyway....The only thing that may bother me is their Range...they could twink the bonus a little.
To the idea: YOu cannot stack nerf modules that give neither bonus nor malus.... A missed cycle does nothing to the target so it is rather impossible to determine if the target is effected by the module.
Although i would favor the idea to give a jammed ship some resistance against consecutive jams [I mean like....the pilot works out the Jammers specs and gets some defense against it after analysing etc. would be even a roleplaying reason]
|
Endless Subversion
The Accursed
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 21:41:00 -
[22]
@Guom
1) Neither you nor I can speak to the coding limits on applying an ECM stacking nerf, so until I hear one way or the other on it I'm going to ignore it.
2) A combination of changing ECCM bonus to a flat amount, an ecm stacking penalty and possibly a look at the actual sensor stengths of smaller ships might make jamming them be a bit more balanced. Maybe something sig related.
3) Currently if a target resists a jam, and you have extra jammers there is no penalty to adding more and more jammers until he doesn't resist a jam. That's not true of any other ewar system. Let's bring that in line, it's a way of helping to balance jamming vs small gangs without ruining it for larger fleets.
|
Rivqua
Caldari Omega Wing R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 21:50:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Rivqua on 25/11/2008 21:51:19 The problem with how ecm is coded, you can't have it both chance based and stacking nerfed. Because, it's only the one that takes effect, there is no stacking to nerf, there is only on and off, you can't lower the propability of the stacking chance on a target.
So its a choice, make it do something that has a lasting effect (like damps) and be stacking nerfed, or have it as a chance based, but not have it stacking nerfed.
I am not saying ecm should stay as it is, I am just pointing out the fact you can't really keep them chance based while wanting to make them stacking nerfed, if ccp is not asked to recode alot of the mechanics around it, and it would take alot of work. Probably way more then anyone realizes.
EDIT(just adding short explanation): To make it stacking nerfed, you would have to do something like, so that every ecm mod that fails its jamming attempt, leaves a token on the target ship, so that the next mod that attempts the jam cycle, knows that there has been an attempt, and abides by the stacking penalty and lowers its chance to succeed appropriately.
/Riv
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 21:59:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Endless Subversion
3) Currently if a target resists a jam, and you have extra jammers there is no penalty to adding more and more jammers until he doesn't resist a jam. That's not true of any other ewar system. Let's bring that in line, it's a way of helping to balance jamming vs small gangs without ruining it for larger fleets.
Look, no its not there is always a penalty to add extra jammers.
Off racial jammers
Q.E.D.
|
Endless Subversion
The Accursed
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 22:08:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Endless Subversion on 25/11/2008 22:08:58
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Endless Subversion
3) Currently if a target resists a jam, and you have extra jammers there is no penalty to adding more and more jammers until he doesn't resist a jam. That's not true of any other ewar system. Let's bring that in line, it's a way of helping to balance jamming vs small gangs without ruining it for larger fleets.
Look, no its not there is always a penalty to add extra jammers.
Off racial jammers
Q.E.D.
Only in that you don't have that jammer somewhere else.
Each jammer has the same independent chance to jam a ship, regardless of how many other jammers are being used. No other ewar system works this way
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 22:13:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Endless Subversion
Only in that you don't have that jammer somewhere else.
Each jammer has the same independent chance to jam a ship, regardless of how many other jammers are being used. No other ewar system works this way
No, because you use the racial jammer first and not second... It has the highest strength and so could not ever be penalized. At least according to current stacking doctrine... oh wait stacking this stuff is impossible because of how time interacts with the system. Wooo!
But really what you are saying is that there is no stacking penalty if you are an idiot and purposefully gimp yourself and/or take a 1/4 chance that you won't have the right jammers for your targets.
Got ya. Clearly the lack of stacking for gimped ships is hurting the game.
|
Wardo21
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 22:26:00 -
[27]
Chance based, when the chances are good needs some sort of stacking penalty.
I'm too lazy to lookup the equation to see what the chances are based on some example fit vs some target ship, so I'm going to start with an easy example. Say there is a 75% chance of success, which means a 25% chance of failure. For each iteration of the attempt, raise the chance of failure to that exponent. so two chances is 25% squared, three chances is cubed etc. If the chance of failure is small enough, it will rapidly approach zero when the exponent increases above one.
Two chances at 25% failure means an overall (.25 * .25 = .0625) 6.25% chance of failure for both instances. Three tries is (.25 * .25 * .25 = 0.015625) call it 1.5% chance to fail.
If it's 50% chance to fail (real easy math): .5^2 = 0.25, .5^3 = 0.125, .5^4 = 0.0625. Heaven forbid it's only 10% failure chance, that goes from 90% win to 99% win with the second active module... 99.9% on third...
Adjust the math to suit the actual figures in any given situation. Either way it massively improves the chances not to fail when multiple mods are used on the same target.
|
Endless Subversion
The Accursed
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 22:28:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Goumindong
No, because you use the racial jammer first and not second... It has the highest strength and so could not ever be penalized. At least according to current stacking doctrine... oh wait stacking this stuff is impossible because of how time interacts with the system. Wooo!
But really what you are saying is that there is no stacking penalty if you are an idiot and purposefully gimp yourself and/or take a 1/4 chance that you won't have the right jammers for your targets.
Got ya. Clearly the lack of stacking for gimped ships is hurting the game.
Forget how the specific jam ship is fit. As it stands the 4th, the 8th or the 15th same-type jammer applied to a ship has the same chance to jam it as the first.
Need a ship jammed? Just apply more and more jammers until this happends, regardless of how many ECCMs they fit(which, incidentally, ARE stacking nerfed).
It's broken Guom, dancing around the issue tossing out 'got ya' and implying opportunity cost is the same thing as a stacking penalty isn't helping much.
Also, I don't think nerfing racials to only work against their race is enough. That totally ignores the problem of people just putting more and more jammers on you until you're SOL...
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 22:37:00 -
[29]
The entire chance-based mechanic is "meh". ECM, turret hit chance and damage amounts, invention chances, exploration and other scanning, even NPC loot drops... just "meh".
If anything, I'd like to see anything in EVE that works on a pure RNG basis be converted to as much non-RNG as possible. Too bad ECM jamming doesn't quite qualify for such a rework, not in a form that would be similar to what ECM is right now.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 22:38:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Goumindong on 25/11/2008 22:43:05 Edited by: Goumindong on 25/11/2008 22:42:48
Originally by: Endless Subversion
Forget how the specific jam ship is fit.
As it stands the 4th, the 8th or the 15th same-type jammer applied to a ship has the same chance to jam it as the first.
And that matters because?
A: it only matters if you're using all the same type of jammers in which case you're gimped against everything else.
B: it still doesn't matter because the chance of you not being jammed at that point is irrelevant
C: it still doesn't work because jamming is an instantaneous effect and not an ongoing effect. Its determined by a single instance of time at activation and all stacking mechanics break when under such situations[since you cannot determine whether or not something should be penalized if a higher jam is applied after it is]
Its not broken, there are problems with ECM, but its not this
edit:
D: And it still doesn't work because stacking penalties on modules which has an unbound chance based system produces wildly different final results when used on people with different skills
E.G.
here and here
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |