EVE Search - ECM Ship II - Looking at better defined roles

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

ECM Ship II - Looking at better defined roles

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 10 post(s)
Cletus Graeme Caldari Duty.	Posted - 2009.03.31 20:08:00 - [1] Originally by: Vigaz Rook: Rook doesn't need missile velocity bonus ! please consider to add 5 % resistances per level. EDIT: a max skilled Rook pilot can use heavy from 88km in TQ atm (without rig/imp), adding a velocity bonus this value will increase up to 120km - 130km -> much more than required; also considering the new drone bay (max range 60/70km?) it sounds wrong to me. I think the missile velocity bonus has less to do with giving the Rook longer range (which it doesn't need) and more to do with making the missiles reach their target faster (i.e. decreasing the delay in dealing damage). However, I'm not sure exactly how much this will really help if the Rook is already at close/medium range (i.e. 50km or less). Giving it a shield resist bonus instead would definitely be useful.
Cletus Graeme Caldari Duty.	Posted - 2009.03.31 20:27:00 - [2] Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 31/03/2009 20:33:42 Originally by: Ephemeron A more interesting SDA change would be to split the module into 2 groups: 1) +20% ECM strength, -20% optimal range 2) +20% optimal range, no ECM strength bonus [..] It's certainly more interesting solution than simply having +10 ECM strength and range SDA. Exact numbers could be tweaked for balance. Options are always good I agree that the SDA changes need more consideration if CCP wants more variation in setups. Giving them a range bonus as well as a strength bonus makes it even better to fit them in your lowslots over anything else. The actual bonuses offered by SDA should complement the changes to the ECM ship bonuses. A possible solution would be to swap the current strength bonus to a range bonus thus forcing pilots to choose to use their lowslots for either better ECM range or better armor tank. Alternatively, introducing two variations of SDA as you suggested would also increase the choices available and result in more variation in setups. I'd prefer to split the proposed bonuses out into two separate modules but with no penalties, so we must choose between either range or strength. This would complement the current ECM rigs. i.e. Something like this: Signal Distortion Amplifier: +10% ECM jam strength Signal Distortion Projector: +10% ECM optimal range
Cletus Graeme Caldari Duty.	Posted - 2009.03.31 20:32:00 - [3] Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 31/03/2009 20:31:49 Originally by: Sidus Isaacs A velocity bonus do help HAM's tho. Very good point! If HAMs also become viable to use then that's a major DPS boost right there. However, I don't think the Rook currently has enough grid to fit them and a tank so that would need to be looked at too.
Cletus Graeme Caldari Duty.	Posted - 2009.03.31 20:41:00 - [4] Originally by: CCP Chronotis 4. The scorpion will be kept in the role of long range ECM platform useful in the longer range fleet fights. I'm glad that the long range fleet Scorpion is not being nerfed but why not make it also useable in close range fights? BS should be versatile. A Rokh can be fit with either Blasters or Rails. A Raven can be fit with either Cruise or Torps. Both ships operate usefully with either setup. The same is true for most other battleships which can be fit for either close or long range. Also, the Caldari lack an effective close range RR BS as both the Rokh and Raven shield tank well but armor tank badly. I'm not sure exaclty what bonuses or slot changes (if any) the Scorp needs to also be useful in close range pvp but I do think it's something that CCP should look at.
Cletus Graeme Caldari Duty.	Posted - 2009.03.31 22:40:00 - [5] Originally by: Ephemeron Quote: Signal Distortion Amplifier: +10% ECM jam strength Signal Distortion Projector: +10% ECM optimal range My problem with that idea is that the nerf becomes to severe - as you reduce all dedicated ECM ship strengths by about 20% AND reduce their optimal operating ranges I also agree that CCP should be very careful not to over-nerf the Falcon but I don't follow your reasoning here. Afaik the Falcon jam strength is remaining unchanged (20% per level) as only it's range is being nerfed. The Rook is getting a slight bonus to it's jam strength (from 20% to 25%) to compensate for it's lack of cloak so it's worth flying again. If the SDA bonus also remains at 10% (as I'm suggesting) then where is the nerf to jam strength?
Cletus Graeme Caldari Duty.	Posted - 2009.04.02 17:12:00 - [6] Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 02/04/2009 17:13:55 Originally by: Vigaz It's not clear if there is a plan to keep the idea of Rook @ 40-60km. If not, I think CCP should remove the drone bay (it's a long range Caldari cruiser!) and add a kin damage/RoF to the missile system. Otherwise just change the missile velocity bonus to something more useful @ 40-60Km. For HAMs, Rook needs better PG (MWD and buffed tank) as stated by Gypsio (HAMs not HMLs typing error I guess). The curent Sisi Rook already has a ROF missile bonus (but no kinetic damage bonus). I think the 25m3 drone bay which allows for a 5 light drones is a very useful defence against interceptors and enemy drones (aswell as adding 75-100 DPS) and shouldn't be underestimated. Without any PG improvements to the Rook, with lvl 4 skills, I can fit 5 HML an LSE and an MWD if I fit a single PDS. Alternatively, I can fit 5 HAML, an LSE and an MWD if I fit a single RCU. Losing a lowslot to a fitting mod means one less SDA but as these have both an ECM strength and an ECM range bonus they now stack with ECM rigs so fitting two of them is fine if you are fitting ECM rigs aswell. You can have tank, DPS and ECM and while none of them are individually impressive, the combination of all three is. However, if you want to maximise it's performance in one of these roles then you must still choose between them. The Sisi Falcon currently has the same ECM capabilities as the Sisi Rook. The Falcon always had more PG then the Rook so it's easier to fit a tank and the covops cloak compensates for the lack of DPS. The real question is whether it can operate effectively in falloff yet still remain far enough away to avoid being tackled.(i.e. 50-100km)
Cletus Graeme Caldari Duty.	Posted - 2009.04.02 18:00:00 - [7] Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 02/04/2009 18:02:26 Originally by: Alex Harumichi The current version seems to give neither a useful fleet ECM ship, nor a useful small-gang ship. Everyone loses. I agree with this but for slightly different reasons. Let's examine the fleet Scorpion. On Sisi racials have had their optimal range reduced from 54km to 32km and their falloff increased from 27km to 35km. The Sisi Scorpion has a reduced optimal range bonus of 15% instead of 20% per level but now also gets a fallof bonus of 25% per level. This means that a pilot with with max skills and 3 ECM range rigs fitted has an ECM optimal+fallof of 128+80. In order to operate at fleet distances (i.e. 150-200km) the pilot must reduce his chance of jamming by upto 50% by operating within falloff. The Scorpion can fit upto 4 SDAs to compensate for this by boosting it's ECM strength to pref nerf levels (i.e approx 10). The problem is that this setup requires maxed skills (BS 5, Long Range Jam 5, Freq Mod 5) and 3 ECM range rigs and 3/4 SDAs to work. This seems a bit extreme!
Cletus Graeme Caldari Duty.	Posted - 2009.04.10 15:12:00 - [8] Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 10/04/2009 15:24:17 Originally by: Omara Otawan As it stands, the current strength of a single racial on TQ is enough to permanently jam any HAC without ECCM fitted (even a blackbird does that pretty well actually). This is a misrepresentation of the facts. HACs have the following sensor strengths: Cerb (16), Eagle (18), Ishtar (16), Deimos (15), Zealot (13) Sac (15), Vaga(14) , Muninn (13) The maximum possible jam strength of a racial ECM fitted on a Falcon/Rook with 3 SDAs, T2 jam strength rigs and used by a pilot with maxed ECM skills is approx 15. So only a max skilled ECM pilot can permajam a HAC. Also Recons, BC and BS all have higher sensor strengths than HACs so they're less likely to be permajammed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why am I bothering with all this? Let me first say that I think the current proposed changes are well thought out and look promising. However, as many people have already mentioned they don't address the main issue with ECM. I don't think that ECM jam strength is the problem. I also don't agree with CCP that ECM jam range is the problem. *The problem is that jammers can be stacked onto the same target without penalty,* Allow me to explain. When using ECM you must make a choice. You can either (1) spread your jammers over several targets and try to jam them each for only a few cycles or (2) concetrate them all on one or two targets in the hope of permajamming them. ECM is fine in long range fleet fights. Tactic (1) is more commonly used in fleet fights because there are large numbers on both sides so targets die fast and ECM ships are quickly primaried so you rarely get a chance to permajam anyone. Indeed, even if (2) succeeds it still doesn't imbalance the fight since you've used your ship to take out another ship (or at most two). This is annoying for the pilots who are permajammed but can be considered a fair trade as they have the option to warp out of the fight and when they return you attention will hopefully be elsewhere. ECM is overpowered in close range small gang fights In such fights pilots can still choose between either (1) or (2), but usually opt for (2). This is because each ship in a small gang is vital to the success of the fight. so being able to disable one or two of them for the duration of the engagement gives one side a huge advantage. Additionally, these fights usually occur at close range so the jammed targets may also be tackled and thus unable to warp out. The Falcon compounds the above imbalance because it can also (A) jam from far away (B) cloak. (A) means that in a close range fight it remains safely at distance, effectively untouchable. (B) means that it can choose if/when to join the fight while remaining completely invulnerable until it does so. ECM as a whole isn't broken and neither are most of the ECM ships. However, certain ships such as the Falcon become overpowered in certain pvp situations. Any changes should aim to re-balance them in these special circumstances without nerfing their abilities overall. The crux of the problem is that it's currently worth using mulitiple jammers (see above) to attempt to permajam a target. However, if jammers were stacking penalised then it would only be worth placing one or two (or at most 3) on a single target and permajamming would decrease significantly. A stacking penalty does not affect situation (1) above. It only affects (2) which is the cause of the current ECM problems.
Cletus Graeme Caldari Duty.	Posted - 2009.04.10 18:06:00 - [9] Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 10/04/2009 18:07:30 Originally by: CCP Chronotis Scorpion we changed the bonus back to 20% ECM optimal range per level. Still means a range reduction due to the base jammer stat changes but will give you more ECM accuracy at longer range. Awesome. I will check the resulting numbers when this change hits the test server but hopefully it should mean the Scorp is still viable as a fleet ECM platform (150-200km range) even if it must now operate within falloff. It will be difficult to test its effectiveness on Sisi without staging an actual fleet fight but people can warp in at range into the FFAs and see how it performs. Thanks!
Cletus Graeme Caldari Duty.	Posted - 2009.04.11 19:06:00 - [10] Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 11/04/2009 19:17:04 Originally by: Omara Otawan Dont try and teach me about how ecm works, I've flown them excessively for 2.5 years now and do know pretty well how they work. Then don't make sweeping generalisations without properly qualifying what you're saying. Originally by: Omara Otawan I've also flown HACs for quite some time, and while its true that you get maybe one cycle unjammed against a properly skilled ecm ship in a regular fight, its safe to say you are jammed 95% of the time. This is correct, but only if you have a max skilled ECM pilot in a Recon fitted specifically to maximise jam strength, which is a pretty big assumption to make. You chose HACs because they suited your argument while ignoring other ship clases such as HICs, Recons, CS and BS. If HACs are perma -jammed too easily then, instead of nerfing ECM, perhaps they need a boost? Originally by: Omara Otawan If we're looking at a max skilled ecm pilot (most of them actually are if they are serious about it) No, they aren't. Many pilots can't afford to spend the time to max their ECM skills as it restrcits them to flying nothing but ECM ships for several months. I am one such pilot. Infact, the long train time and specialised nature of these ships is what has led players to train Falcon alts. Originally by: Omara Otawan And just to correct you here, both 'jamming strategies' you have listed are what only inexperienced pilots would use, the proper way to do it is what we call 'cycle jamming', i.e. use your jammers one by one and only use a 2nd one if you failed to get a cycle in. Neither of the strategies I listed exclude the use of cycle jamming which is a technique that every competent ECM pilot uses. I was talking about a choice which must be made i.e which targets the ECM pilot attempts to jam. Cycle jamming describes how the ECM pilot attempts to jam a target. They are two separate things. However, it is true that (2) benefits from cycle jamming much more than (1). Racial jammers are generally favoured over multispecs but as there are 4 types an ECM pilot can only fit 1-2 of each unless he has intel on the enemy gang composition. In a fleet fight or a situation where there is no intel available it makes sense to bring a mix of all types which lends itself to a strategy where jammers are used to jam multiple targets. In a small gang fight where the enemy ship composition is known the ECM pilot can fit to disable specific ships. Even without any intel he will typically still concentrate on attempting to only jam the most dangerous targets. Cycle jamming is used in all the above situations. Originally by: Omara Otawan They do not stack because their effect is not reliable, i.e. chance based. Originally by: Omara Otawan Besides, if you know how the math behind the success calculation for multiple jammers works, you'd realize that ECM modules do indeed stack First you claim that they don't stack and then you claim they do. Make your mind up! Jammers do not stack. They work using independent probability. This means that the chance for each jammer to succeed is independent of how many are used. However, using multiple jammers on a single target does increase your overall chance of getting a jam. What would adding a stacking penalty mean? If the ECM pilot was cycle jamming a single target and the first jammer failed then he'd continue to use jammers on the same target until one of them succeeded. Normally each jammer would have an equal chance to succeed. However, with the addition of a stacking penalty the second and any successive jammers used will have their chance to jam further reduced. In other words, the chance to jam is no longer independent as it now also depends on how many (failed) jammers have already been used. This further reduces the overall chance to jam but [i]only in the cases where multiple

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.