EVE Search - EW is ruined (or I don't get it).

All Channels

Ships and Modules

EW is ruined (or I don't get it).

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2005.02.16 07:22:00 - [1] Okay so I'm on the test server trying out the new EW changes. I dust off my trusty Raven and fly into battle with Alowishus' Tempest. Short range fight, me with torpedoes and him with autocannons. His Tempest is not rigged for ECCM at all, standard 800mm autocannon/armor tank setup.. My Raven is packing 2 medium blasters, 6 siege launchers, 5 multispectral ecm, a warp jammer, and ballistics.. max damage + EW. Fight starts, we start ripping each other apart very very quickly obviously, it ends in a near draw (i crashed at the very end). My Raven blows up and he's left with 29 HP of structure. Problem? My multispectrals did NOTHING, they simply didn't work. What am I not understanding here? Five slots dedicated to jamming and nothing to show for it? I didn't jam him once, I didn't break his lock once, they were useless. This is really really stupid. So am I using these modules incorrectly or what? I would think 5 multispectral would do something. I know it's very early to tell how this will be when it winds up on tranquility but first impression is pretty bad on these changes right now.. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Selim	Posted - 2005.02.16 07:29:00 - [2] Edited by: Selim on 16/02/2005 07:31:08 So you're upset because you lost? The problem was (and is) that fitting jammers made you automatically win in a fight. Because you can't do anything when you are jammed except just... sit there. Although its that way on the test server too (unless there is something broken), because with multiple jammers the chance is so high to jam someone for pretty much 100% of the time if you stagger your jammers, that its pretty much the same way. I am suprised that 5 jammers don't do anything, maybe you just got REALLY unlucky. Since 5 multispecs have such a high chance of jamming someone they might as well just be 100% each. I'm hoping that it is alot less common to get jammed by a jammer, since even getting jammed once you are pretty much screwed. As it is now, especially with a short cycle time as multispecs have (or do they still have that, logging onto test server now), its inevitable that you'll jam someone and they wont be unjammed for more than 10 seconds. At least that is what I calculated probability wise from what oveur posted, as I said I'm logging on now.
Shamis Orzoz	Posted - 2005.02.16 07:31:00 - [3] Jim, I guess you didn't hear that CCP has decided that whoever has the most gunnery skillpoints wins...there will be no manuevering, and there will be no jamming. Shamis
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.02.16 07:34:00 - [4] since EW changes are fresh on the test server, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the modules are badly bugged. Ranting here about it is bad style.. go in patch forum and try more calmly. Remember.. it's in testing, it's new
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2005.02.16 07:38:00 - [5] Originally by: Selim Edited by: Selim on 16/02/2005 07:31:08 So you're upset because you lost? Yes I am upset that I fitted my ship to jam another ship and the ship which had zero ECCM was not effected by my jammers what so ever. Quote: The problem was (and is) that fitting jammers made you automatically win in a fight. Because you can't do anything when you are jammed except just... sit there. Although its that way on the test server too (unless there is something broken), because with multiple jammers the chance is so high to jam someone for pretty much 100% of the time if you stagger your jammers, that its pretty much the same way. Translation: Hope you get lucky and manage to jam a ship or just go be smart and set your ship up for maximum tanking and/or damage and ignore EW entirely because you don't even need ECCM to avoid it.. congrats EVE now officially sucks. Quote: I am suprised that 5 jammers don't do anything, maybe you just got REALLY unlucky. Since 5 multispecs have such a high chance of jamming someone they might as well just be 100% each. Yes they did nothing, it was nothing more than a battle of his armor tanking with 800mm scouts pounding me to death while I pounded him to death with torpedoes while running useless EW modules that did not do a god damn thing. Please tell me EW is not working correctly because if this is how CCP wants it you might as well go recycle your Scorpion right now folks. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2005.02.16 07:40:00 - [6] Originally by: Face Lifter since EW changes are fresh on the test server, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the modules are badly bugged. Ranting here about it is bad style.. go in patch forum and try more calmly. Remember.. it's in testing, it's new I'm not ranting I just found my intial results with the EW changes very disturbing, the modules could be broken or something for all I know. Still I can't help but wonder if EW has been nerfed to uselessness, as most players in EVE flying around in their gankageddons would want. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Selim	Posted - 2005.02.16 07:45:00 - [7] Well its probably broken, did you try it a second time? (on another ship I mean) It should be noted however that they don't want it to work every time, but with the stats they changed it should still work pretty much nonstop with 5 multispecs. So yeah, probably broken. But I dont think its should work every time considering how easy they are to use
Shin Ra	Posted - 2005.02.16 07:46:00 - [8] Raven with 1 t2 seonsor booster and 5 dampners needs to within 27k (depends on type of dampners used) to actiavte the dampners and if your fighting say a gankageddon with 2 sensor boosters, this will not break its lock. So yes the test server unofficial rules, best tank/damage wins the fight will be heading to tranquility soon. You are effectivly going to need to EW gank someone in order to jam/break their lock. Why would you bother when you can just set up a couple of gankageddons to do the same but damage them instead. ----------------------------------------- Heinky> Dont mix eve with rl it can be bad for your health
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2005.02.16 07:50:00 - [9] Originally by: Selim Well its probably broken, did you try it a second time? (on another ship I mean) It should be noted however that they don't want it to work every time, but with the stats they changed it should still work pretty much nonstop with 5 multispecs. So yeah, probably broken. But I dont think its should work every time considering how easy they are to use Just tried 5 multispec on another Tempest and it did nothing, no fighting or anything I just sat 24KM away with 5 on him and waiting let them cycle a few times, the lock was never broken, not once. Must be broken or severely gimped.. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Selim	Posted - 2005.02.16 08:06:00 - [10] Okay I just tried it with racials against a scorp. It seems like they don't kill an existing lock, but they do prevent one from forming. Even just one prevented him from locking at all, but all 5 of them didn't kill his lock at all. So basically they don't to crap against someone who already has a lock, but work all the time on preventing a lock.
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2005.02.16 08:11:00 - [11] Originally by: Selim Okay I just tried it with racials against a scorp. It seems like they don't kill an existing lock, but they do prevent one from forming. Even just one prevented him from locking at all, but all 5 of them didn't kill his lock at all. So basically they don't to crap against someone who already has a lock, but work all the time on preventing a lock. Considering the lock times of Caldari ships, the Scorpion in particular, we can all agree ECM modules are now garbage. Hooray! \o\ ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Juan Andalusian	Posted - 2005.02.16 08:17:00 - [12] Originally by: Selim I am suprised that 5 jammers don't do anything, maybe you just got REALLY unlucky You should go work for CCP, missions, agents and research department specifically... they are the only ones that could have given such an #$%@$ responce. Pain is meant to be felt
siim	Posted - 2005.02.16 08:40:00 - [13] He Alow owned you PWNED
mahhy	Posted - 2005.02.16 08:43:00 - [14] Originally by: Selim Okay I just tried it with racials against a scorp. It seems like they don't kill an existing lock, but they do prevent one from forming. Even just one prevented him from locking at all, but all 5 of them didn't kill his lock at all. So basically they don't to crap against someone who already has a lock, but work all the time on preventing a lock. Thats no good at all. There needs to be the "break lock" feature. Why would anyone ever both with EW if you can't break a few targets lock (in a fleet battle as an example), or if you're a solo player and you use EW defensively? I like the ideas behind what CCP is doing, but so far the implementation needs to be rethought it seems...
Matthew	Posted - 2005.02.16 08:50:00 - [15] Originally by: mahhy I like the ideas behind what CCP is doing, but so far the implementation needs to be rethought it seems... Or maybe, just maybe, the implementation on the test server is still a bit buggy, and this isn't the intended effect at all?
fras	Posted - 2005.02.16 08:54:00 - [16] there must be something wrong with the coding cuz this sucks. Even if 5 multi's do break lock say 1 in 5 wont that mean the enemy will be able to re-lock almost straight away when the next cycle goes through and fails? Or am i missing something?
Selim	Posted - 2005.02.16 08:57:00 - [17] Originally by: Matthew Originally by: mahhy I like the ideas behind what CCP is doing, but so far the implementation needs to be rethought it seems... Or maybe, just maybe, the implementation on the test server is still a bit buggy, and this isn't the intended effect at all? What he said...
Mr Wales	Posted - 2005.02.16 09:01:00 - [18] Originally by: Jim Raynor Considering the lock times of Caldari ships, the Scorpion in particular, we can all agree ECM modules are now garbage. Hooray! \o\ ffs don't be such a kid Jim! tomb clearly stated that these changes would be tested for atleast a month and a half before getting ported to tranq. I know your a good pilot so instead of pulling a fit like some little girl give some constructive feedback and help ccp with this new change...there are a lot of hard working people at ccp that don't deserve your crap. They are only human and more than likely short on manpower.
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.02.16 09:01:00 - [19] Jim, you know as well as I do that that is a bug, not how its meant to be. 5 multi's should at least end up jamming one eccm-less BS for about 100% of the time or two both for about 50% of the time If I was to make a rough guess at how effective they should be on the test server with the stats TomB threw at us. So if 5 didnt do diddly squat and alowishus didnt screw around with his setup , it can only be a bug. Some things ccp does don't seem too smart occasionally. But I've yet to see them do something so obviously stupid as bringing in a whole specialisation tree and new mod stats and mechanics for something thats not going to do anything. Wait, report the ****, and see. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
mahhy	Posted - 2005.02.16 09:02:00 - [20] Originally by: Selim Originally by: Matthew Originally by: mahhy I like the ideas behind what CCP is doing, but so far the implementation needs to be rethought it seems... Or maybe, just maybe, the implementation on the test server is still a bit buggy, and this isn't the intended effect at all? What he said... Like I said "but so far..." implying that the implementation being talked about (the one on the test server) is no good. Yet. I.e. could be fixed. Got it guys?
Matthew	Posted - 2005.02.16 09:38:00 - [21] Originally by: mahhy Like I said "but so far..." implying that the implementation being talked about (the one on the test server) is no good. Yet. I.e. could be fixed. Got it guys? Well, if the test server is currently performing as described here, it is not performing according to the specs of the implementation TomB etc are talking about. So, does test need fixing? Yes. Do current problems with test invalidate the proposed ideas? No.
Gaius Kador	Posted - 2005.02.16 09:46:00 - [22] I was on Singularity trying out some of the EW changes earlier, and well... I hope something is borked atm, for example the falloff range does not seem to matter at all. I guess trying to test it on the FFA arena in gank-club wasnt the brightest of ideas either, but at least I got confirmed its crap ;) ----------------------------------------------
mahhy	Posted - 2005.02.16 10:45:00 - [23] Originally by: Matthew Originally by: mahhy Like I said "but so far..." implying that the implementation being talked about (the one on the test server) is no good. Yet. I.e. could be fixed. Got it guys? Well, if the test server is currently performing as described here, it is not performing according to the specs of the implementation TomB etc are talking about. So, does test need fixing? Yes. Do current problems with test invalidate the proposed ideas? No. Never said the the problems invalidated the ideas proposed. I said the implementation seems screwy.
j0rz	Posted - 2005.02.16 11:36:00 - [24] I'm not being funney but if u need more gunnery skill pionts to jam some one that kinda makes it useless for new players and whats more its even worse is the fact that u dont train gunnery on scorpions and ravens and scorpions are mainly for EW how i see it they made ECCM useless also If you dont want to be jammed you should have a ECCM Full stop "." they should make ECCM give like +6 instead of +3 meaning its alot harder to jam... to make ECCM usefull and if u dont fit one u deserve to die full stop...
Jim Steele	Posted - 2005.02.16 11:42:00 - [25] if its not breaking the lock then it sounds like a bug to me, i have my aprehensions about these changes, as if the combat system isnt buggy enough, but i do think it will be nice to have specialised jamming ships. I doubt ravens will be useing as sensor dampers anymore but with tanks leaving the jamming to ships like the scorp and BB to jam, it will make solo pvp a thing of the past. Death to the Galante
Sassi	Posted - 2005.02.16 11:54:00 - [26] Edited by: Sassi on 16/02/2005 11:54:09 I always thought Jammers are supposed to prevent one from locking, not brake a lock. If so, then WTF are you complaining about Jim Ray, you were just too damn slow to lock the Temp and jam the s++t out of him before he could get a lock on you.
Latex Mistress	Posted - 2005.02.16 12:01:00 - [27] Originally by: Sassi Edited by: Sassi on 16/02/2005 11:54:09 I always thought Jammers are supposed to prevent one from locking, not brake a lock. If so, then WTF are you complaining about Jim Ray, you were just too damn slow to lock the Temp and jam the s++t out of him before he could get a lock on you. So just because you thought something, it invalidates the legitimate experience of an established pilot and his post on public forums? Jamming works both ways (prevents locks and breaks them) - just because you didn't think about that doesn't mean he's wrong, only that you're caustic, arrogant, and haven't put much thought into your posts. If ECM is an act of aggression, why am I not on kill mails?
Dred 'Morte	Posted - 2005.02.16 12:08:00 - [28] I have an idea, why dont we just remove jamming, except warp scrmble/stasis all together from the game? or just leave it as it is? I never saw a problem with it, and im not a scorpion/bb pilot.
Arthur Guinness	Posted - 2005.02.16 12:20:00 - [29] I got me a copy of wow yesterday. Just to get used to dice......
Nafri	Posted - 2005.02.16 12:20:00 - [30] Originally by: Latex Mistress Originally by: Sassi Edited by: Sassi on 16/02/2005 11:54:09 I always thought Jammers are supposed to prevent one from locking, not brake a lock. If so, then WTF are you complaining about Jim Ray, you were just too damn slow to lock the Temp and jam the s++t out of him before he could get a lock on you. So just because you thought something, it invalidates the legitimate experience of an established pilot and his post on public forums? Jamming works both ways (prevents locks and breaks them) - just because you didn't think about that doesn't mean he's wrong, only that you're caustic, arrogant, and haven't put much thought into your posts. one word: hes just clueless about this game Wanna fly with me?
Ardor	Posted - 2005.02.16 12:33:00 - [31] Originally by: Jim Raynor Okay so I'm on the test server trying out the new EW changes. I dust off my trusty Raven and fly into battle with Alowishus' Tempest. Short range fight, me with torpedoes and him with autocannons. His Tempest is not rigged for ECCM at all, standard 800mm autocannon/armor tank setup.. My Raven is packing 2 medium blasters, 6 siege launchers, 5 multispectral ecm, a warp jammer, and ballistics.. max damage + EW. Fight starts, we start ripping each other apart very very quickly obviously, it ends in a near draw (i crashed at the very end). My Raven blows up and he's left with 29 HP of structure. Problem? My multispectrals did NOTHING, they simply didn't work. What am I not understanding here? Five slots dedicated to jamming and nothing to show for it? I didn't jam him once, I didn't break his lock once, they were useless. This is really really stupid. I can not resist: the only problem I see is that a Raven that wasted 5 slots for nothing still can bring down a Tempest to 29HP structure.
Mongo Peck	Posted - 2005.02.16 12:46:00 - [32] Edited by: Mongo Peck on 16/02/2005 12:47:23 I personally think EW needs to be broken down into 2 categories. Within a certain range (call it visual) it should be almost impossisble to break a lock "once gained". Using weapons of today "example only" many can be fitted with a visual targetting system which is "almost" impossible to break. Outside this visual range then jammers should cetainly have a chance in breaking / preventing a lock depending on the strength obtained. As per normal ......... just my view. Mongo speaks !!
Parallax Error	Posted - 2005.02.16 12:48:00 - [33] Although I somewhat agree with Ardor's statement, thats beside the point. What happened sound svery much like a bug/broken implementation in there. Maybe try again with 5 racials to see whether or not its the multi specs, or EW as a whole that isn't working properly.
Matthew	Posted - 2005.02.16 12:52:00 - [34] Originally by: Mongo Peck Within a certain range (call it visual) it should be almost impossisble to break a lock "once gained". Using weapons of today "example only" many can be fitted with a visual targetting system which is "almost" impossible to break. Yes, because clouds, fog, or smoke grenades are such complicated jamming devices vs visual tracking
Melon Smuggler	Posted - 2005.02.16 12:58:00 - [35] Originally by: Latex Mistress Originally by: Sassi Edited by: Sassi on 16/02/2005 11:54:09 I always thought Jammers are supposed to prevent one from locking, not brake a lock. If so, then WTF are you complaining about Jim Ray, you were just too damn slow to lock the Temp and jam the s++t out of him before he could get a lock on you. So just because you thought something, it invalidates the legitimate experience of an established pilot and his post on public forums? Jamming works both ways (prevents locks and breaks them) - just because you didn't think about that doesn't mean he's wrong, only that you're caustic, arrogant, and haven't put much thought into your posts. lol, you just made it worth reading these forumns. That reply... was a thing of beauty
Mongo Peck	Posted - 2005.02.16 12:59:00 - [36] Quote: Yes, because clouds, fog, or smoke grenades are such complicated jamming devices vs visual tracking Yap Yap Don't see many smoke grenades in space .... but as many weapon systems have a visual option (AGM65 for example) it was only used as an example. If you can see the other person (note the "see" for the forum who-ares)then it should be harder to break anothers lock .... Mongo speaks !!
Germain	Posted - 2005.02.16 13:01:00 - [37] i have just spent ages getting my new atl(paying alt) to run an EW BB. i thought it was ok as it was. what exactly was the problem with a ship which ppl can fly with only a few months skills being able to help in corp battles eg anti-pirate, (when corp is mining in low sec space). i would think it is very fair if ppl do not like it then they should change there stratagies. like min's keep doing to keep up with very poor tracking of thier guns. or the cald's need to do when/if the missiles nerf comes. as far as i can see if amar's dont like the being jammed then they should fit for eccm, and not just pure dmg dealers. every one else has to fit for offence and defence at the same time. FIX BUGS - dont nerf perfectly good systems. yes i am bitter at being killed by gankagedons all the time, that is why i changed stratagies to team EW - now i will have to change again but to what - be a gankagedon? amar's smell funny anyway
Dust Puppy	Posted - 2005.02.16 13:04:00 - [38] Jim that is definitly not how it's supposed to work. It's probably just a bug in the code so you should bug report it spam the irc and do whatever it takes to get it fixed __________ Capacitor research
Matthew	Posted - 2005.02.16 13:29:00 - [39] Originally by: Mongo Peck Quote: Yes, because clouds, fog, or smoke grenades are such complicated jamming devices vs visual tracking Yap Yap Don't see many smoke grenades in space .... but as many weapon systems have a visual option (AGM65 for example) it was only used as an example. If you can see the other person (note the "see" for the forum who-ares)then it should be harder to break anothers lock .... Well, in space, being able to physically see something isn't going to be a great help in hitting it, unless you are using visual-guided missiles (like that AGM65). I would suggest the Eve equivalent of those are FoF missiles. I can see a jet fighter from massive distances, but you wouldn't expect to be able to visually aim an AA cannon at that jet fighter with any sort of accuracy, would you? Sure, if it was perfectly stationary, you could make use of advanced optics etc, but with a fast-moving and unpredictable target, it's just not going to happen. To give an example of the sort of visual accuracy you'd need: Take a square target, 100m across (so eve-frigate size). A "perfect" hit would be right to the centre, but you'll still get a hit even if you clip the edge. Now, with that target 10m away from you, it's fairly easy to hit. Your aim can deviate 79 degrees from the "perfect" hit and still hit the target somewhere. Now, lets take that target to an eve-realistic short-range, say 10km. Your max deviation from perfect aim is now 0.29 degrees. A target that would be equivalently hard to hit at a 10m range would measure only 5cm square. At 1m distance, it would be an equivalent target only 5mm square. That's more than slightly tricky to hit visually at the best of times. The reason visually-guided missiles work is because the point-of-vision rides with the missile, so the closer you get, the more you can visually fine-tune your aim. Firing turrets, you don't get that facility, so you quickly run into the limits of visual accuracy.
TomB	Posted - 2005.02.16 13:42:00 - [40] The whole EW system didn't get ported correctly to SISI, just the values, we will update the server in an hour max with the new system. Sorry about all this. 2004.07.06 19:30:45combatTomB strikes you critically with his Nerf Bat, pwning you for -100% everything.
Verone	Posted - 2005.02.16 14:02:00 - [41] OMG! It's a jovian! Grab him and lets chop him up and sell the body parts on escrow... /emote brings teh big cargo net, and starts whacking TomB with a pointy stick... I never really use Electronic warfare, and have never really bothered to use caldari battleships, so It doesn't really affect me. It will be nice to know that there's a chance of you NOT being jammed, because personally, I think the use of stupid amounts of Jammers/dampners on a ship is pointless. I mean, what's the point in even going into battle if you can't get a round off before you get OMGWTFBBQUBERJAMPWND? In fleet battles, yeah, it's effective and a good tactic... but for small skirmishes, or 1 on 1's i think it's annoying. I don't use them, so I only care about the fact that there may be a chance that I won't get jammed, which is good from my POV. I do have to say though, on the point of the race related warp scramblers/webbers, what are you people thinking? if you wanna go and do that, you may as well give frigs and inties an extra 3 mid slots for them to be of any use. Tackling is going to be rather difficult if this comes about, and it's just gonna end up with, like a few other threads have said, huge uber ganking herds... another thing i dislike... I hate to say it, but it feels more and more like it to me that it's a case of "Carebears 4 teh Win" COME AND SOCIALISE WITH US NASTY SNIGG BASTARDS AT : WWW.SNIGG.CJB.NET
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2005.02.16 14:07:00 - [42] Originally by: Ardor Originally by: Jim Raynor Okay so I'm on the test server trying out the new EW changes. I dust off my trusty Raven and fly into battle with Alowishus' Tempest. Short range fight, me with torpedoes and him with autocannons. His Tempest is not rigged for ECCM at all, standard 800mm autocannon/armor tank setup.. My Raven is packing 2 medium blasters, 6 siege launchers, 5 multispectral ecm, a warp jammer, and ballistics.. max damage + EW. Fight starts, we start ripping each other apart very very quickly obviously, it ends in a near draw (i crashed at the very end). My Raven blows up and he's left with 29 HP of structure. Problem? My multispectrals did NOTHING, they simply didn't work. What am I not understanding here? Five slots dedicated to jamming and nothing to show for it? I didn't jam him once, I didn't break his lock once, they were useless. This is really really stupid. I can not resist: the only problem I see is that a Raven that wasted 5 slots for nothing still can bring down a Tempest to 29HP structure. Because I'm Jim Raynor that's why. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Latex Mistress	Posted - 2005.02.16 14:21:00 - [43] Originally by: Verone OMG! It's a jovian! Grab him and lets chop him up and sell the body parts on escrow... Why do you think they're making it so hard to jam/warp jam/dampen/web ships? Gotta catch em' first! If ECM is an act of aggression, why am I not on kill mails?
TomB	Posted - 2005.02.16 15:32:00 - [44] The E&P W didn't get to the Test Server until 15:30 GMT on the 16th of february + all characters have skills affecting E&P W at level 5 now, you can now test how this will work after maximizing these skills. 2004.07.06 19:30:45combatTomB strikes you critically with his Nerf Bat, pwning you for -100% everything.
Alowishus	Posted - 2005.02.16 16:01:00 - [45] For the record it was not 29HP structure remaining, it was 93% structure remaining. My Armor repairer couldn't keep up with 6x 700+ damage torps hitting me at once. Yes, the ECM was broken. I didn't even know he had ECM, I thought he had a tank and that I was just completely uber in my Tempest. When I found out he had ECM, and no tank, I felt pretty sheepish about the win, almost apologetic. My setup was as follows: 6x 800mm 'Scout' 2x Medium Nos 1x Quad LiF 1x Electrochemical Cap Booster 1x Web 2x 'Optical' Tracking Computer 1x Large 'Acco' 1x Medium T2 Repairer 3x Hardeners (Therm, Kin, Expl) 1x Gyrostabilizer 2 On TQ I would have ditched a Tracking Computer for a Warp Scrambler. I thought it was a good setup but Jim's tankless Raven got me to 93% structure in 3 volleys before he went down. Very sad. Glad the ECM was actually bugged and will be fixed. I just started using it on TQ (built me a Scorp and everything). Raven 4TW! Rank(1) SP: 243745/256000
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2005.02.16 16:11:00 - [46] Edited by: Jim Raynor on 16/02/2005 16:14:23 Originally by: Alowishus For the record it was not 29HP structure remaining, it was 93% structure remaining. My Armor repairer couldn't keep up with 6x 700+ damage torps hitting me at once. Yes, the ECM was broken. I didn't even know he had ECM, I thought he had a tank and that I was just completely uber in my Tempest. When I found out he had ECM, and no tank, I felt pretty sheepish about the win, almost apologetic. My setup was as follows: 6x 800mm 'Scout' 2x Medium Nos 1x Quad LiF 1x Electrochemical Cap Booster 1x Web 2x 'Optical' Tracking Computer 1x Large 'Acco' 1x Medium T2 Repairer 3x Hardeners (Therm, Kin, Expl) 1x Gyrostabilizer 2 On TQ I would have ditched a Tracking Computer for a Warp Scrambler. I thought it was a good setup but Jim's tankless Raven got me to 93% structure in 3 volleys before he went down. Very sad. Glad the ECM was actually bugged and will be fixed. I just started using it on TQ (built me a Scorp and everything). Your haxsploit armor repairer crashed my client towards the end. (file a bug report on that plz modules that crash you are evil) :( ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Alowishus	Posted - 2005.02.16 16:14:00 - [47] I told you it might. Armor Repairer h4x5pl07 ctd 4tw! Raven 4TW! Rank(1) SP: 243745/256000
Zaintiraris	Posted - 2005.02.16 16:54:00 - [48] You really could've tried tracking disruptors. Against a bunch of 800mm autocannons, they would be highly effective I should think. Turn them into wimpy 1400s. --- Originally by: CCP Hammer This game was so much better back before people knew math.
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2005.02.16 16:57:00 - [49] Originally by: Zaintiraris You really could've tried tracking disruptors. Against a bunch of 800mm autocannons, they would be highly effective I should think. Turn them into wimpy 1400s. Jamming is better than tracking disruption. Seems like with the 20 second cycle time on Multispecs you can't really cycle jam anymore though.. (boo..) ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Dust Puppy	Posted - 2005.02.16 17:00:00 - [50] Originally by: Jim Raynor Jamming is better than tracking disruption. Seems like with the 20 second cycle time on Multispecs you can't really cycle jam anymore though.. (boo..) Depends on how you look at it. If you have five multispectrals you can just activate one, see if it jams the target, if not activate the next one until it jams and then try to jam the next one with whichever jammer is free. Of course that would require keeping a pretty tight watch on the jammers and some gui that tells us which jammer is working. __________ Capacitor research
Attrezzo Pox	Posted - 2005.02.16 17:06:00 - [51] I didn't want to read through the whole thread so someone might have said something before me about this.... Personally I support the changes, although they will be a MAJOR nerf and they'll change a lot about piracy dynamics. The changes that occur with warp scrams bothers me because even now it's nearly impossible to catch someone with 8 warp core stabs on. (kinda the way it was supposed to be I know). But perhaps with this new chance deal we could see modules that do -3 or -4 to warp but obvioulsy that'd be on chance and only within a certain range, making it easier, albeit not completely effective all the time, to catch those wusses that pack on the warp core stabs. Anyway, point being that though these changes are a nerf it seems to me they'll add a bunch to dynamics of game play. CCP may find a use for those support ships after all.
Attrezzo Pox	Posted - 2005.02.16 17:14:00 - [52] Originally by: TomB The E&P W didn't get to the Test Server until 15:30 GMT on the 16th of february + all characters have skills affecting E&P W at level 5 now, you can now test how this will work after maximizing these skills. His sig gives me nightmares. I had this one where that freaky ass thing was chasing me around with a nerf bat and those dart guns and bows and arrows. It started out I was abducted in my bedroom by an alien and then I looked at it and it was freakin jove!!!! So when I was on their spaceship it started chasing me around with various nerf stuff. One of those dreams where you wake up when you're right about to die.... My day after that was filled with paranoia and general bad feelings. ------------------------- This is not a good sig.
Diamond Dog	Posted - 2005.02.16 17:22:00 - [53] In theory it should be enough for u to fit just 1 jammer to jam him... ________________________________________
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2005.02.17 17:18:00 - [54] I've done some testing with ECM/ECCM on the test server and this is my simple conclusion thus far: ECM IS NOT RELIABLE. When you fit your ship for electronic warfare at the expense of tanking, you wind up with a paper thin ship which its only defense is jamming enemy vessels. Now you can't do that reliably, thus EW ships go down, fast and hard. It takes only a handful of seconds to bring down a Scorpion. The whole 'roll the dice' method to ECM is really bad, it's not even really effective against ships that use zero ECCM.. This is really a throwback to the EVE circa 2003 when the DMG mod was king and it was nothing but huge gankfests where ships crumbled in seconds. Ships die way to fast to 'roll the dice' and hope a jam lands on them, battleships included.. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.02.17 17:28:00 - [55] ECM is no longer reliable enough to create setups of pure EW & no tank. However, since it's based on chance system now. It may be good to have just 1-2 EW slots, with decent shield tank or other stuff. Try test how well just 2 ECMs work and don't rely on ECM completely.
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2005.02.17 17:30:00 - [56] Originally by: Face Lifter ECM is no longer reliable enough to create setups of pure EW & no tank. However, since it's based on chance system now. It may be good to have just 1-2 EW slots, with decent shield tank or other stuff. Try test how well just 2 ECMs work and don't rely on ECM completely. Without a way to effectively shut down gank ships, flying around with a half assed tank/ew setup means you still are going to die, it will just take a few seconds longer. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Kayosoni	Posted - 2005.02.17 18:04:00 - [57] Edited by: Kayosoni on 17/02/2005 18:05:22 As it is now on sisi, after a long time of testing, it took me an average of 7 tries to jam a battleship (22 ECCM strength) with a racial jammer (7 strength.) They do NOT have enough effectiveneass against BS's. ----------------------------------- Currently Playing Lineage 2 - Erica Server
Hakera	Posted - 2005.02.17 18:08:00 - [58] Originally by: Kayosoni Edited by: Kayosoni on 17/02/2005 18:05:22 As it is now on sisi, after a long time of testing, it took me an average of 7 tries to jam a battleship (22 ECCM strength) with a racial jammer (7 strength.) They do NOT have enough effectiveneass against BS's. a single jammer? try a few more :) If the figures are right, then str 22 would only have something like a ~20% chance of working is 1 in 7 looks about right. Then you have to factor in the decreasing dps they get as a result of loss of lock it shouldmake a difference at some threshold level like 2-3 jammers will dent their dps enough. Dumbledore - Eve-I.com
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.02.17 18:16:00 - [59] a strength 7 jammer against strength 22 bs radar should have success rate of 7/22 = %31.81 That means he should have broke lock about once out of three cycles.. seems right to me. So how come it's only once out of 7 times?
Hakera	Posted - 2005.02.17 18:21:00 - [60] Originally by: Face Lifter a strength 7 jammer against strength 22 bs radar should have success rate of 7/22 = %31.81 That means he should have broke lock about once out of three cycles.. seems right to me. So how come it's only once out of 7 times? it is still a chance roll which is reset with each cycle, so you dont necessarilly ential you wil jam once in every three cycles. You could jam successfully every time if at your optimal and with high skills. Dumbledore - Eve-I.com
Alowishus	Posted - 2005.02.17 18:37:00 - [61] Edited by: Alowishus on 17/02/2005 18:37:19 I like how one jammer has a chance of jamming someone but they need to be made stronger. A single race jammer should jam a ship of that race at least 50% of the time. A single multi-spec should be around 25% of the time. This means that if you have four multispecs the other ship should most likely be jammed 100% of the time because one will always be working. ECM needs to work. That's all there is to it. If you have a Raven with 5 multispecs and you go down in 30 seconds you may as well remove ECM from the game. Raven 4TW! Rank(1) SP: 243745/256000
Rexthor Hammerfists	Posted - 2005.02.17 18:59:00 - [62] Edited by: Rexthor Hammerfists on 17/02/2005 19:00:45 Edited by: Rexthor Hammerfists on 17/02/2005 18:59:31 i can only fly caldari and have bs skill at 5 so i collected some experience :P the point is that the raven is very good in small range to 30km, but has to warp out when dmg maker are farer then that and they are totally useless in fleetbattles (missiles arrive when the target is dead since 1m) The scorpion was the longrange thing, useful in more then 100km above fights, fast dead but still useful. flying scorpions alone is useless, becasue u wont hit cruiser or frigets with the slow lock and missiles before they are gone and u simply dont do enough dmg to kill a properly tanked bs, and 2 dmg ships pwn u easily. im not sure, but the changes seem to reduce the scoprions range(EW), let them die earlier, and take the caldaris only way to do something in 80+km range. i have absolute no clue why ccp spent their time to change a system that worked absolutely perfect - ew wasnt overpowered, u see way more geddons then scorps missiles need a change, megapulses do, logging etc etc. but ew? i hope ccp listen to the player posts over the next days(weeks before they bring the changes to tranq
Alex Harumichi	Posted - 2005.02.17 19:02:00 - [63] Originally by: Alowishus Edited by: Alowishus on 17/02/2005 18:37:19 I like how one jammer has a chance of jamming someone but they need to be made stronger. A single race jammer should jam a ship of that race at least 50% of the time. A single multi-spec should be around 25% of the time. This means that if you have four multispecs the other ship should most likely be jammed 100% of the time because one will always be working. Actually, that's not how the math works. If a single multispec worked 25% of the time: probability of a single multispec not working = 0.75, probability of 4 multispecs not working = 0.75^4 =~ 0.32. So with 4 multispecs you'd have about 68% chance of jamming someone at a given moment. Good, but hardly "jammed 100% of the time" :).
Nafri	Posted - 2005.02.17 19:17:00 - [64] my idea: 1 jammer has about 15% chance of jamming (against 25 sensor strenght) 2 jammer have 50% 3 jammer 80% 4 jammer 90% 5 jammer 99% ships with 2 midslots shouldnt be able to shut down a BS completly, especially not ships with just 1 jammer with increasing jamming chance with more midslots used you still could make a difference sitting in a Scorp Wanna fly with me?
Karoth Tyu	Posted - 2005.02.17 21:28:00 - [65] Guess I'd better train up lasers and Amarr battleships if I want to enjoy this game in a month.

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.