|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Spartan dax
   |
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:17:00 -
[1]
I'm telling you right now, having SDA's give a range bonus is bad enough but a strength bonus as well?
This will do nothing but weaken the ships and make them stock up more jammers to capitalize on their low slot sacrifice. You will still have hyper specialized ECM ships with 5-6 jammers ****ing people off and making them go cry on the forums. I know I know, that was the direction CCP chose to go almost 3 years ago but it's high time it changed.
It all comes down to fitting strategies, if you give up lows you're going to make sure you get the best use out of them. That, coupled with the fact that the minimum amount of jammers is 4 due to racials and you will always have ECM modules in absurdum fitted to ECM ships. Stop this! Less jammers = less whining.
End ECM ships low slot Sacrifice NOW! |
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 23:24:00 -
[2]
Looked up the numbers and yeah, damps will be the Ewar module for fleets if the currents stats won't change. Not only do they have better hit chance, they work on all races as well. And you'll be able to armourtank as well. A no brainer IOTW.
Get rid of the SDA's and balance from there. If the verdict from ccp is that ECM were to powerfull they need to nerf that. The ships themselves always sucked and is in dire need of love. Getting rid of SDA's will do that to a huge extent.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 10:02:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: The Alchemyst
Change ECM function :
Instead of reducing targets number to 0, each succesfull ECM module cycle unlock 2 targets .......and more stuff
Something along these lines then. Lock disrupting mechanic
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 10:11:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Carniflex
So at first glance the proposed changes seemed not too bad, but after thinking about it - I think those changes will still kill the fleet scorpion role. If that is all that can be reached then I would take that short range brawler instead. It at least might be able to do something elsewhere .. perhaps ... and I could always fit Damps if I want to do fleet stuff. Or bring better ship.
Yeah well, if CCP developers decides to make a ship better with unbonused ewar than it's supposed bonused ewar.... Well, I doubt that's gonna happen tbh. They're probably thinking up something else right now. The current situation is just too hilarious and it'll never hit TQ. (only talking scorpion and fleets here)
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 10:30:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Carniflex
Scorpion is looking better with the latest changes. Not entirely sure about if they are adequate enough to make it keep it's viability as fleet e-war support. So correct me if I'm wrong (not able to get into SiSi atm).
80 km x 1.5 (ship bonuses) + 70 km x 1.5 (ship bonuses) = 120 km optimal + 105 km falloff.
14 points at 120 km ... 10 points at 150 km ... 8 points at 180 km
Unless I missed something. If I did not is seems quite viable platform - slightly better below fleet ranges, approx the same at regular fleet range (150-160 km) and slightly lower at it's usual max engagement range (180 - 190 km) than currently. It would outperform dampener scorpion at those ranges.
You're missing something.
Base Racial module optimal 32 km * skills 1.5 * bonus 1.5 x 3 SDA's 1,18 = 84,96. Say 85k
Base racial Falloff 35 * skills 1,5 * bonus 1,5 = 78k
Base racial strength 3.6 * skills 1,25 * bonus 1,75 * 3 SDA's 1,18 = 9,3.
On a BS with sensorstrength of 22 in one falloff ( 163km) it'll have 9,3/22=,042 42% chance on the racial if it gets a hit. (50%). Yeah, uhmmm... I'll pass.
It is, in fact, far far inferiour to the damp scorp which you can armourtank and ofc doesn't need racials. Wake up and smell the manure people, chance based mechanics don't mix well with falloff!
Also the shorter cycle time on damps is, when you're in falloff, a huge bonus to have as snipe ships take sometime to lock onto a target.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 16:15:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Fish Mittens
At 92km a typical falcon fit will have a 78% chance of jamming a Vagabond per racial jammer.
No it won't. The module will have a 75% chance to work at half falloff. Then you do the Jammer roll.
There is no strength reduction of the module itself meaning, fighting in falloff hurts the ECM ships real bad. It would be better if it worked like you described but it doesn't.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 20:15:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Spartan dax on 04/04/2009 20:19:35
Originally by: Fish Mittens
Either way however, I accept that trying to jam at the lowend of falloff x2 would be be bad, but my point was that it is a curve, not a sudden drop off, and the implication given by other posts here that EW are only effective inside optimal is misleading.
From Optimal to 0.5 x Falloff you are still being very effective at jamming, particularly on any Sub-BS ship.
That's not particulary correct either though. Basically what happens is in 0.5 falloff instead of 4 fitted ECM modules of each race rolling the dice vs your target(s) you have 3. In one falloff you have two etc etc. And then you realize that this is racial jammers meaning, well, your jamming chance on a single target, if your in one falloff, will be utter poo since racials tend to suck quite bad against wrong targets. So a drop off is actually precisely what it is.
Make no mistake, fighting in falloff, with a chancebased mechanic, with racial modules..... It's a very heavyhanded nerf. It wouldn't be so bad if racials weren't around and Multispecs had slightly higher strength but as it stands now it is indeed a very tough nerf.
Not that I care too much though, haven't flown a caldari recon in ages since they were so damb boring so I'm cheering on the recon changes for all I'm worth. All that's needed in the recon department atm on Sisi is slightly more speed and PG on the Rook and that will be one sweet cruiser. ATM it's way too slow, with puny cap and no PG to fit tank and a cap booster. ECM was great on these ships but the ships themselves were awfull so they need a few more tweaks on SISI before they're good to go.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 20:22:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Theron Gyrow
Originally by: Spartan dax
Originally by: Fish Mittens
At 92km a typical falcon fit will have a 78% chance of jamming a Vagabond per racial jammer.
No it won't. The module will have a 75% chance to work at half falloff. Then you do the Jammer roll.
84% (0.5^((range_over_optimal/falloff)^2), in this case 0.5^(0.5^2) = 0.5^0.25), but otherwise correct.
Thanks, I don't keep the falloff numbers in my head so I just took his numbers and ran with it. (Couldn't find the turret tracking guide either, WTH did that go?)
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 10:18:00 -
[9]
Originally by: DelboyTrotter
No other ship that can warp cloaked can effect a fight to the extent a falcon can at such extreme ranges. All other covert recons operate at 20-40 km, and then they will effect only 1-2 targets with their EWAR. A skilled falcon pilot is capable of completely removing 5 ships from a fight.
Even IF CCP properly balance the falcon and reduce it range far more that the current proposed changes, to around 20-40 KM, it will still be more powerful than any other recon, and just like all the other recons, it will remain paper thin and primary, taking skill to fly effectively.
Take your ECM whines somewhere else and keep your comments to the SISI changes. No Falcon on SISI will ever jam 5 targets unless it's in optimal, and in optimal there are even plenty of frigs that can shoot it now.
SISI falcon jamming from 100k.... It's a joke and an utter failure. Which was the intention all along obviously.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 19:57:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Gypsio III
ECM Scorp uses twice the mods to get slightly inferior performance. I appreciate that RSDing an opposing BS doesn't necessarily stop it RRing or shooting stuff closer, but I don't have the experience to interpret the significance of this in the context of a fleet battle.
Those numbers wouldn't be so bad if you take ECM greater utility in account. However, The damp fit gets to:
1. Fit a full armourtank. (SDA's)
2. Not have racially handicapped EWAR. (Racial jammer)
Just removing one of these two points would make the ECM scorp the obvious choice. But as it stands right now it won't be. And with BS 4 they're not even close.
|
|
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 20:08:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Gut Punch
Simply changing the range from 200km to 100km doesn't take away the overpoweredness of it. That and the traditional rigs and SDAs still give a ratial strength of +10 which is still a guarenteed hit. Hack it down more please.
Heh, halving the jamming distance AND the amount of working modules on you isn't enough? Methinks you expect a bit too much.
Also, WTB "Guaranteed to hit" 10 strength jammer.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 21:24:00 -
[12]
@ CCP Chronotis
Regarding the Rooks and Falcons 10% Cap use bonus.
This bonus made a lot of sense when these ships where standoffish ships and could (had to) stock up on tons of jammers. However the Sisi Rooks and Falcons won't be able to do that. Definetly not the Rook anyway thus having a cap usage bonus is wasted.
Things to look at instead:
1. Cap bonus. These ships have puny cap, it got better with the speed nerf but it's still puny.
2. Speed/agility. They have none compared to the other recons.
3. Hitpoints/resistances. They're going to remain bullet magnets mostly because of how the ECM mechanic works and not the actual threatlevel.
4. Locktime. Caldari ships are always the slowest lockers, a bonus aimed to alleviate this would be cool and far more usefull then the cap reduction bonus. It sort of makes sense for recon ships to have enhanced sensors right?
Also the Rook needs a sliver more PG (25) and could stand an equally small reduction in CPU.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 21:13:00 -
[13]
I'm agreeing with Isdisco3 actually. There's no longer any point for the Rook and Falcon to have dual bonuses (or triplebonuses as on TQ). Cap use bonus can be replaced with something else.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.10 10:09:00 -
[14]
The module strength on all out ECM fits will be basically the same as before. No change there.
The optimal range will be crap though and when you get into falloff the amount of jammers will be reduced resulting in fairly inefficient use of the ship while still remaining in weaponsrange of tons of ships. The change really does nothing for you in a gank scenario but for smallish gangs this change will require entirely different piloting of the Caldari recons (A good thingÖ).
TBH I don't see either the Rook or Falcon being able to fit more than 3 jammers in the future as they will need 2-3 slot tank and a MWD leaving you with multispecs which drops your jamming strength significantly. Overall reduction of ECM ingame accomplished.
The scorp is where the real problem is, atm it doesn't do anything particulary well.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.11 22:24:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Spartan dax on 11/04/2009 22:27:44
I still can't understand why CCP thinks using falloff is a good way to reduce long range jamming effectiveness. Having SDA's increase optimal and reduce strength would yield a similar but far more predictable (IE better for the user) result.
Numbers pulled out of My proverbial sphincter. Max skills fitted Scorpion; Strength and optimal bonused.
Before SDA's
ECM racial module 100k optimal Strength 10.
1 SDA + 20% optimal - 10% Strength
After 3 SDA's
ECM Racial module 147k optimal 7.7 strength
Easy to balance, easy to predict results. Makes ECM ships fit for the occasion even further than just choosing racials. No ******ed (mentally challenged) falloff with an already chance based Ewar system. Pure win.
Obviously optimal rigs would get a good nerfbatting.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.12 22:41:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Perry
Soon the chance to Jam even a Zealot with meager 13 Sensor Strength will be less then 30% in Falloff. Thats a joke.
That's not how fallof works. It would be better if the ECM modules strength dropped as it went further into falloff but it doesn't work like that. If you have 6 ECM's only 3 will typically work while in one falloff and they will do so at full strength.
So while in falloff you will be dually Chancebased. This is fubared for a number of reasons, racial jammers being one. A much better alternative would be to just lower the strength the further out you get, as per my suggestion a few posts up, to make sure you always get to do that diceroll vs sensorstrength.
And there's nothing to stop us from having a Strength SDA's as well that Lowers optimal so that ECM ships by default don't have high sensorstrength within Disruptor range.
This whole falloff business is just a sham and poor gamedesign.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.13 12:16:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Spartan dax
That's not how fallof works. It would be better if the ECM modules strength dropped as it went further into falloff but it doesn't work like that. If you have 6 ECM's only 3 will typically work while in one falloff and they will do so at full strength.
Heh. And what, exactly would the difference be? (Hint: none.)
Gypsio you surprise me. OFC there would be a difference with a strength reduction falloff instead of module reduction. Different jamming priorities for starters, more support less BS. The support would have better chances of not getting jammed etc etc.
Your supposition holds true if we assume Scorps will continue with their current behavior of jamming BS's though. But that's an assumption I'm not willing to make or concede to.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.13 12:46:00 -
[18]
No you understood that part perfectly. I'm just saying that it would create a different behaviour in jamming priorities to keep the successrate high on the ECM modules. IE instead of choosing a SS 20 ship you'd go after a SS 13 ship. Would make life easier for friendly support I'd wager when they drop into the hostile blob.
|
|
|
| |
|