EVE Search - {Issue} Defensive ECM Bursts in High-Sec

All Channels

Assembly Hall

{Issue} Defensive ECM Bursts in High-Sec

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Abduakla	Posted - 2010.06.07 16:46:00 - [1] So, 25 battleships try to gank my Providence (freighter). I order my first escort to let off his, then I order my second escort to let off his ECM burst exactly four seconds later (every fraction of a second counts during suicide ganks). The result: My Freighter was saved, as the escorts were not in a fleet with me. Concord arrived and destroyed all of the battleships, my alt had my freighter webbed, so I was able to warp out from the drones not too soon after. The problem: My escorts were also killed by Concord for using ECM bursts. I couldn't give a rat's ass if the pirates lost 25 insured battleships for nothing, I don't know who they are, I'll probably never see them again either. My problem is my corp members dying to DEFEND me from a suicide gank. Since this game tries to mimic reality in many ways (economical, political, etc), it would make sense that Concord would understand the need to use ECM bursts when YOUR UNDER ATTACK BY A SUICIDE BLOB. Proposal: Allow a defending player/fleet use ECM bursts near Gates and stations, without being attacked by Concord.
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.06.07 16:50:00 - [2] Edited by: darius mclever on 07/06/2010 16:51:17 It will be hard for you to define "defending" in a fight. because your ECM bursting ships are effectively attacking aswell. But I have to ask you this ... you have 3 ships with you. (2 ECM bursting ships and your alt with the web) and you jumped through a gate with mostlikely 20+ battleships sitting on the other side before sending in a scout to check the other side? A smart move would have been to dock up/safespot with the freighter and wait for the gate to clear, after your scout reported a BS gang sitting on the other side. so ... not supported. if ECM will be allowed in highsec without concord interference we will see a lot of griefing with it.
James Tritanius	Posted - 2010.06.07 16:52:00 - [3] Please attach a detailed algorithm which determines in which circumstances a ship counts as a defending ship. Then, prepare to get criticized on the impracticality of your algorithm as it will undoubtedly open the door for a multitude of exploits.
Abduakla	Posted - 2010.06.07 17:13:00 - [4] Originally by: James Tritanius Please attach a detailed algorithm which determines in which circumstances a ship counts as a defending ship. Then, prepare to get criticized on the impracticality of your algorithm as it will undoubtedly open the door for a multitude of exploits. When your aggression timer goes up after being attacked? This would only apply at gates and stations as well.
Grarr Dexx Amarr GK inc. Panda Team	Posted - 2010.06.07 17:16:00 - [5] It's because your burst also hits other random people at the gate, the gate itself and possibly the billboard too. You can't configure an ECM burst to hit only 'aggressive' people, you have regular jammers for that.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.06.07 17:22:00 - [6] Originally by: James Tritanius Please attach a detailed algorithm which determines in which circumstances a ship counts as a defending ship. Sure, its actually pretty easy: If any person in range has a lock (or is attempting to get one) but does not have a GCC, then you get a GCC. Not that I support the OP... but what you asked for is pretty easy. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
Abduakla	Posted - 2010.06.07 17:23:00 - [7] Edited by: Abduakla on 07/06/2010 17:27:41 Originally by: Grarr Dexx It's because your burst also hits other random people at the gate, the gate itself and possibly the billboard too. You can't configure an ECM burst to hit only 'aggressive' people, you have regular jammers for that. You know what I'm going to say? Who cares, it's not like its really affecting the random people around you, it can't even DAMAGE anyone, unlike smartbombs. Regular jammers aren't going to stop a 20-30 battleship gang. And to Darius: Do you really think "organized" suicide gankers sit at a gate with 25 people for a scout to see them? Do you have any idea how the suicide gankers work?
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.06.07 17:47:00 - [8] Originally by: Abduakla Edited by: Abduakla on 07/06/2010 17:37:56 Originally by: Grarr Dexx It's because your burst also hits other random people at the gate, the gate itself and possibly the billboard too. You can't configure an ECM burst to hit only 'aggressive' people, you have regular jammers for that. You know what I'm going to say? Who cares, it's not like its really affecting the random people around you (remember this only applies to gates and stations), it can't even DAMAGE anyone, unlike smartbombs. Regular jammers aren't going to stop a 20-30 battleship gang. Again, I'm going to emphasize for the third time, this would only to apply to areas around gates and stations. An ECM burst won't bother anyone not involved in the combat near gates and stations. It doesn't knock you out of warp or prevent you from warping. ECM burst isnt just targetting everyone with an agression flag. it is area of affect. you hit everyone and everything in the radius of the ECM burst. so you deserve to get punished by concord. Quote: And to Darius: Do you really think "organized" suicide gankers sit at a gate with 25 people for a scout to see them? Do you have any idea how the suicide gankers work? yes most of the time they sit on the gate when you jump through. they dont just warp in right after you jumped. because then you would be gone with a webbed freighter. so if you alt/corp mate jumps through, he should see 20-30 BS on the gate and shout "dont jump". you warp your freighter back to a station/planet/safespot and wait. when you need the ECM burst you already failed at hauling and have to use the last resort safety guard. I fly regularly through uedama/sivala, niarja/madirmilire or the deltole pipe. so trust me i know how freighter suicide ganks work.
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2010.06.07 17:54:00 - [9] As long as the ECM bursting character only hits corpmates and people with a GCC, then he won't get Concorded. You just need to be more careful about who is in your AOE.
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.06.07 17:57:00 - [10] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto As long as the ECM bursting character only hits corpmates and people with a GCC, then he won't get Concorded. You just need to be more careful about who is in your AOE. And that is almost impossible to do when you want to break lock from all battleships, which are sitting right at the gate to be in range where ever the freighter appears. So you will hit the gate atleast and get GCC for that.
Tyr Aeron L0pht Systems	Posted - 2010.06.07 18:10:00 - [11] Edited by: Tyr Aeron on 07/06/2010 18:17:16 The issue here is that ECM is a DEFENSIVE measure. It causes no damage and has no effect other than to break the lock one ship has on another, so someone please explain to me how that counts as aggression. Unless you are targeting someone you have no way of knowing that you were even hit with an ECM burst (besides the graphic effects). I think it's perfectly reasonable to allow the use of defensive measures to protect assets. Isn't there a favorite saying of all those who fancy themselves to be real hard-asses something like "CONCORD is there to punish, not protect"? If that's the case, then players should be allowed to take the protection part of the equasion into their own hands and use ECM. In the US military we have our Rules of Engagement, but no matter what the rules are for a given situation, one line remains the same ALWAYS: "The right to self defense will never be denied." To me, punishing people for using ECM is tantamount to being told that if you walk down a dark street and get jumped by 10 armed men you have to sit there and take it because using pepper spray to blind them (see what I did there) is a crime because it could harm someone else or get it all over the sidewalk and buildings. I already know someone is going to come back with "You can use directed ECM already". Yeah, great, that allows you to break the lock on 1 ship in a 10+ fleet and you have to deal with lock time. The gankers also have the option of using ECCM to counter, so don't *** about it being unfair. I will support this with the stipulation that the cycle timers on ECM Bursts** be increased from 30 seconds to 90 seconds or more.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.06.07 18:16:00 - [12] Originally by: Tyr Aeron I will support this with the stipulation that the cycle timers on ECM bursts be increased from 30 seconds to 90 seconds or more. -1, ECM bursts already suck enough outside of some extremely limited use cases. Hell, I'd be +1 to letting you fit as many ECM bursts as you wanted again. I already answered how to make the aggression problem go away.. you only get aggression if you have an attempted negative effect on someone [they have a lock, they don't have GCC => You get wtfpwnt]. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.06.07 18:17:00 - [13] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/06/2010 18:17:25 Sounds reasonable, but people will use it to grief mission runners and stuff / on alts in highsec wars. It might be more reasonable if it didn't provoke concord/sentry gun response but on the other hand did flag the person using the ECM burst to whatever targets they hit and if you couldn't be ecm bursted by 5 ships continously. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.06.07 18:31:00 - [14] I think the solution is not being about to attack or get GCC from gates/billboards. They are the usual culprits. If you set off ECM busts with a bunch of people around, tough luck. You should get GCC for using an AOE on random innocents. This signature is useless, but it is red.
Goose99	Posted - 2010.06.07 18:36:00 - [15] Supported, assuming it can be implemented to nearby gates only. There is no reason for passersby to lock anything at a gate, so it wouldn't affect them and there is no new possibility for grieving opening up. The only side effect would be on wardec highsec gatecamps. But who cares about them.
mkmin	Posted - 2010.06.07 22:41:00 - [16] If the proposal is "AOE weapons versus gates and other NPC structures don't cause a CONCORD response" then yes. ECM affects the outcome of combat so should ALWAYS be considered an offensive act when used against players.
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2010.06.07 23:30:00 - [17] Originally by: darius mclever Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto As long as the ECM bursting character only hits corpmates and people with a GCC, then he won't get Concorded. You just need to be more careful about who is in your AOE. And that is almost impossible to do when you want to break lock from all battleships, which are sitting right at the gate to be in range where ever the freighter appears. So you will hit the gate atleast and get GCC for that. Well that's the whole point, really. If you're randomly hitting neutral people with negative effects in highsec, you're going to get Concorded. If you want to avoid that fate, don't attack random people.
Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.06.07 23:45:00 - [18] Originally by: Bagehi I think the solution is not being about to attack or get GCC from gates/billboards. They are the usual culprits. If you set off ECM busts with a bunch of people around, tough luck. You should get GCC for using an AOE on random innocents. Yeah, that is sensible. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Abduakla	Posted - 2010.06.08 03:17:00 - [19] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: darius mclever Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto As long as the ECM bursting character only hits corpmates and people with a GCC, then he won't get Concorded. You just need to be more careful about who is in your AOE. And that is almost impossible to do when you want to break lock from all battleships, which are sitting right at the gate to be in range where ever the freighter appears. So you will hit the gate atleast and get GCC for that. Well that's the whole point, really. If you're randomly hitting neutral people with negative effects in highsec, you're going to get Concorded. If you want to avoid that fate, don't attack random people. Attacking random people? How does disrupting your target at a STARGATE affect you or any other neutral party? The chances are you don't even have anything targeted. If you read the proposal it clearly says "stargates and stations only." I'm not ATTACKING anybody in that case, I am simply DEFENDING myself. As someone mentioned above, CONCORD is not there to defend you, this means that players are supposed to DEFEND themselves.
SoulTrader LT	Posted - 2010.06.08 03:25:00 - [20] Not supported. It would be heavily abused by faction warfare and alliances/corps in war (not all of the wars are about bad guys ganking carebears), ex. bringing a group of alts to ecm burst the hostile gang, thus potentially involving "third party" into conflict, be it a war between corps, FC or just attacking a player on witch you have kill rights. This was never meant to happen.
Goose99	Posted - 2010.06.08 03:53:00 - [21] Originally by: SoulTrader LT Not supported. It would be heavily abused by faction warfare and alliances/corps in war (not all of the wars are about bad guys ganking carebears), ex. bringing a group of alts to ecm burst the hostile gang, thus potentially involving "third party" into conflict, be it a war between corps, FC or just attacking a player on witch you have kill rights. This was never meant to happen. RR in highsec wars by different corps are abused too. Yet somehow no one have problems with it, and they don't get concorded. So you got hit by ecm burst. It turns out to be abuse and not accident. So shoot the person. You've got kill right, sensor boost or use drones or something. What's the problem?
Abduakla	Posted - 2010.06.08 04:03:00 - [22] Originally by: SoulTrader LT Not supported. It would be heavily abused by faction warfare and alliances/corps in war (not all of the wars are about bad guys ganking carebears), ex. bringing a group of alts to ecm burst the hostile gang, thus potentially involving "third party" into conflict, be it a war between corps, FC or just attacking a player on witch you have kill rights. This was never meant to happen. If you read the original statement (which you didn't) it says only DEFENDING fleets can use it without consequence, thus your fleet needs to be attacked first. It also says "strictly limited to STARGATES and STATIONS." If you can tell me how that can be abused, please do so, or please, do us all a favor and learn to comprehend what you read. "Not all of the wars are about bad guys ganking carebears." This isn't about the carebears (me), this is about the PvP pilots that escort me, far from carebears.
SoulTrader LT	Posted - 2010.06.08 04:45:00 - [23] Edited by: SoulTrader LT on 08/06/2010 04:46:24 Originally by: Abduakla Originally by: SoulTrader LT Not supported. It would be heavily abused by faction warfare and alliances/corps in war (not all of the wars are about bad guys ganking carebears), ex. bringing a group of alts to ecm burst the hostile gang, thus potentially involving "third party" into conflict, be it a war between corps, FC or just attacking a player on witch you have kill rights. This was never meant to happen. If you read the original statement (which you didn't) it says only DEFENDING fleets can use it without consequence, thus your fleet needs to be attacked first. It also says "strictly limited to STARGATES and STATIONS." If you can tell me how that can be abused, please do so, or please, do us all a favor and learn to comprehend what you read. "Not all of the wars are about bad guys ganking carebears." This isn't about the carebears (me), this is about the PvP pilots that escort me, far from carebears. :) you should do YOUR SELF a favor and learn how to comprehend what you read. First of, most of the battles happen on stations and gates in EVE !! Secondly.. so if my fleet is attacked first i then can bring a bunch of alts and fire up ecm bursts without consequences ? how that makes any difference on the matter of "third party" involvement in war. I don't get you dear sir.
mkmin	Posted - 2010.06.08 05:26:00 - [24] If I understand what you're saying is if group A aggro's group B, group B won't get concorded for using ECM bursts against (uninvolved) group C. How is that fair to group C? You say it's okay because "oh they shouldn't have anything locked anyway." If that's your logic then you should give me all your isk and assets because "you shouldn't have any anyway." As proposed, the proposal is fail. However, if it was "group B, regardless of the actions of group A should not get concorded for hitting NPCs and NPC structures with an ECM burst" that is then fair. I think what you really want, which would probably be a pretty good proposal, is a f.o.f. ECM burst. Maybe as a script to a regular ECM burst. Re-write your proposal so that group C doesn't get punished for a fight they have nothing to do with, and you'll likely get some better support.
James Tritanius	Posted - 2010.06.08 05:34:00 - [25] Originally by: Abduakla Originally by: SoulTrader LT Not supported. It would be heavily abused by faction warfare and alliances/corps in war (not all of the wars are about bad guys ganking carebears), ex. bringing a group of alts to ecm burst the hostile gang, thus potentially involving "third party" into conflict, be it a war between corps, FC or just attacking a player on witch you have kill rights. This was never meant to happen. If you read the original statement (which you didn't) it says only DEFENDING fleets can use it without consequence, thus your fleet needs to be attacked first. It also says "strictly limited to STARGATES and STATIONS." If you can tell me how that can be abused, please do so, or please, do us all a favor and learn to comprehend what you read. "Not all of the wars are about bad guys ganking carebears." This isn't about the carebears (me), this is about the PvP pilots that escort me, far from carebears. Exploit example: 1. Get a fleet of neutral ECM burst ships together. 2. Get an alt in an ibis to suicide on a single player in the ECM burst fleet. 3. Proceed to break all of your enemy's locks with your neutral fleet, without consequences.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.06.08 06:10:00 - [26] Originally by: James Tritanius Exploit example: 1. Get a fleet of neutral ECM burst ships together. 2. Get an alt in an ibis to suicide on a single player in the ECM burst fleet. 3. Proceed to break all of your enemy's locks with your neutral fleet, without consequences. As I said, a reasonable solution is only counting people who have a lock or are attempting to obtain one. If you disrupt someone who didn't have gcc or aggression, you get aggression (and almost certainly a GCC). The worst this system could be gamed is having 5 ECM burst ships sitting there for 5 successive lock breaks - not significantly worse than having 5 blackbirds ready to ECM your enemy. I'm also completely content with simply removing NPCs from the aggression/GCC calculation (and for that matter I'm content with the way things are)... -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2010.06.08 06:31:00 - [27] Originally by: Abduakla Attacking random people? How does disrupting your target at a STARGATE affect you or any other neutral party? The chances are you don't even have anything targeted. If you read the proposal it clearly says "stargates and stations only." I'm not ATTACKING anybody in that case, I am simply DEFENDING myself. As someone mentioned above, CONCORD is not there to defend you, this means that players are supposed to DEFEND themselves. So there's no neutral folk on the gate? No faction police officers? No gate guns, billboards, or gates? Must be a pretty special gate. If those things don't exist, you don't get Concorded. If thy do exist, you're attacking neutrals(whether that's your intention or not, it is the result of your actions), which the police dislike. If three dudes jump you in a barfight, you're not allowed to fight back with a flamethrower, no matter how much your intention is to defend yourself or how effective it might be. In an empty field, sure, but not when there's innocents nearby. Find a more appropriate defence.
CEOcat Gallente CAT Corp	Posted - 2010.06.08 08:34:00 - [28] The result of this would be out of corp toons ECM bursting all over the place in empire wars. High sec wars are already terrible enough with the out of corp logistics...
Abduakla	Posted - 2010.06.08 17:45:00 - [29] Edited by: Abduakla on 08/06/2010 17:44:58 Originally by: CEOcat The result of this would be out of corp toons ECM bursting all over the place in empire wars. High sec wars are already terrible enough with the out of corp logistics... Out of corp toons can't ECM burst if they are NOT attacked, my proposal still clearly states that you (or your fleet) needs to be attacked for Concord not to intervene.
James Tritanius	Posted - 2010.06.08 18:00:00 - [30] Originally by: Abduakla Edited by: Abduakla on 08/06/2010 17:44:58 Originally by: CEOcat The result of this would be out of corp toons ECM bursting all over the place in empire wars. High sec wars are already terrible enough with the out of corp logistics... Out of corp toons can't ECM burst if they are NOT attacked, my proposal still clearly states that you (or your fleet) needs to be attacked for Concord not to intervene. Somebody attacks you does not give you the right to ECM burst all the other ships on the Stargate. For example, if this proposal is implemented, I can suicide my alt onto my ship and proceed to break locks on the gate and screw with highsec warfare for a good 15 minutes.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.