EVE Search - Electronic Warfare (scramblers & stasis not included)

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Electronic Warfare (scramblers & stasis not included)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Wahad Bredkebir	Posted - 2005.03.21 11:09:00 - [91] Well i looked forward the scrambler change as a way to balance the poor minmatar ship tankablity as minmatar were the hardest to scramble ... it would suit perfectly the minnie philosophy. I guess i will have to live without http://minmatars.are.free.fr
Goberth Ludwig	Posted - 2005.03.21 12:30:00 - [92] Is it me or is scorp totally gimped now? Considering a fight with a damage dealer, no matter how many ECM u fit, the first time all of them fails (and it WILL happen soon or later, since its about sheer statistics) u have 20 second of total vulnerability in which the other guy pounds the **** out of your untanked soon-to-be space wreck... Also considering the missile speed bonus is no more, killing ppl will take much longer and that means more chances for ur ship to be faced with 20 seconds of unjammed love. On the other hand ecm seems to become a nice "bonus" on other ships, wer u can fit like just 1 or 2 and still have a valuable change to lock (if I am correct, a single racial will give about 50% chance to jam an arma for full 20 seconds right? if that is correct its pretty uber for a single mid slot o_O) TomB please keep to cycle time low - wud at least avoid some of the gimpage
Ithildin	Posted - 2005.03.21 12:50:00 - [93] Originally by: Goberth Ludwig TomB please keep to cycle time low - wud at least avoid some of the gimpage One module right now is too effective, 6 modules right now is too ineffective. Isn't it better to heal that? Keep in mind that a low cycle time will mean battleships with their long lock time will be at distinct disadvantages against smaller ships such as the Griffin. TomB: how about a scramble part and a "damage" part of the ECM modules? This is introducing a stacking "benefit" for ECM, meaning that the more ECM on a target the more effective each jamming module will be. This will also remove, I believe, the one-jammer-jams-battleship problem that WILL arise. Not all BShips have possibility for 3+ Sensor Boosters... -- If TC causes you discomfort that you feel is unwarranted or may be outside TC's current contract - contact me, please.
Majaraw Awalabas	Posted - 2005.03.21 15:34:00 - [94] I still don't see any explanation on the reduced active time that a warp scrambler or webifier will now suffer. It is not only missiles but also Nosferatus and Drones and Smartbombs which require interception (interceptor or frigate) pilots to making strafing runs. With this change, a ship with a nosferatu and any one of smartbomb/drone/missile is pretty much invulnerable to being tackled for more than 5-10 seconds while the tackler is eaten or escapes. I thoroughly dislike this change and see no bonus in it except for ability to get pods faster, which is in itself a deterrent for many pilots to enter combat, and also ignores a vital point. To be able to kill a pod, you first have to kill the ship. Which is going to be much harder for interceptor pilots to contribute to, if you look at my point above.
Damocles Ician	Posted - 2005.03.21 16:08:00 - [95] Reading over on to Eve-I, I notice the active stealth systems and target painters are both mid slot items. I think it would be better if the target painters were highslot items. We need more utility slot mods :) I imagine the stats of the above two mods are still under testing. The target painters don't seem to have a big enough effect, but I'm naff at maths and the minor increase in sig radius might be worth it. -------------
Vasq	Posted - 2005.03.21 18:29:00 - [96] Originally by: Ithildin One module right now is too effective, 6 modules right now is too ineffective. Isn't it better to heal that? Keep in mind that a low cycle time will mean battleships with their long lock time will be at distinct disadvantages against smaller ships such as the Griffin. Yep .. while testing on the test server yesterday i was in my scorp against another scorp.. i had 4 multies and 1 caldari racial jammer (old std set up) while most times i did jam him while using all 5 some times i didn't ( about twice out of 10 attemps) i also tried to jam with one multi and did so 2 out of 5 attemps!!! one is too powerfull and 5-6 is too week. maybe the fault is that we compare it to the old system, but why not ? it worked, everybody understood it, nobody complained about it or asked for it to be changed. never b4 has the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it " been more appropriate Smoke me a kipper, i'll be back for breakfast!
Destroyer Draxx	Posted - 2005.03.21 19:53:00 - [97] Edited by: Destroyer Draxx on 21/03/2005 19:56:56 Edited by: Destroyer Draxx on 21/03/2005 19:54:28 Ok the way I c it is /me throws a dice n get 69% chance of jamming the enemy my tank is not good enough to stand against a geddeon for more than 20 secs (assuming i have 1 Em 1 Therm hards on) 69% i jam the geddeon the first time n have 4 torps flying toward him, I jam him a second time n a third n a fourth n have taken down his shields (or maybe not), I fail on the fifth time n Im toast. Either way I wont be able to kill him in time. 31% I fail the first time n Im toast Result = YTF Im flying a scorp solo? Fleet Battle cant cycle jam = YTF Im Flying a scorp in fleet battle? +Bonus YTF train 3-4 new skills to max when I still be as good as I used to be. Pls correct me if Im wrong. EW ppl get less kill mails than rest of pvpers, r always the first target to go down, but this is not enough...nop they have to be lucky as well to be of any use now :/ N the best think that has just occured to me. Imagine flying a scorp in battle with new rules n u get jammed by a frig, a cruiser or another BS using a single ECM.That will give a new meaning in the word "Irony" I think most ppl would take that as a sign from the gods of EVE usniverse. To sum things up we had the T2 BPO lottery (and u all know ppl loved that ), but it was ok cause CCP should control the flow of BPOs in order to maintain game balance. Now we have the ECM lottery. So any pilot going against a scorp or bb in battle should type in local chat : "*U feeling lucky Punk ?* " Btw go ahead make all the changes u want too much effort to convince to do otherwise. Just out of curiosity could someone point me to a link with info bout Y EW is changing? Is there some reason in particular? Question 1 : ECM multies have 25% of jamming at optimal, how rapidly is that reduced with range? Question 2 : How will back up arrays and ECCMs work? (I have a feeling they will become completly obsolete) So Far So Good....So What
Goberth Ludwig	Posted - 2005.03.21 21:16:00 - [98] Well I guess the only solution is: WTS Scorpion
Felsin	Posted - 2005.03.21 22:29:00 - [99] excellent changes. This is exactly what you had to do, take out the changes to scrambling and webs and make the skill for them still be usefull. These are excellent changes and now I welcome this patch with no complains. Good work listening to your fanbase and players http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Dillinger4/Felsin.jpg
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.21 22:52:00 - [100] Multiple jammers should be very strong.. if the target does not use any ECCM I really hope that during decision making process, the devs consider ECCM. Jammers shouldn't be balanced against unprotected ships. Unprotected ships should be naturally vulnerable. It's like trying to balance a gankeddon against ships that doesn't tank at all. Problem with gankeddon is when it's too good against ships that are setup with good tank. Same principle should be applied to ECM and ECCM
Ithildin	Posted - 2005.03.21 23:23:00 - [101] Originally by: Face Lifter Multiple jammers should be very strong.. if the target does not use any ECCM I really hope that during decision making process, the devs consider ECCM. Jammers shouldn't be balanced against unprotected ships. Unprotected ships should be naturally vulnerable. It's like trying to balance a gankeddon against ships that doesn't tank at all. Problem with gankeddon is when it's too good against ships that are setup with good tank. Same principle should be applied to ECM and ECCM You do know that there's changes to ECCM, too, don't you? As in them giving more boost than before? (I think, but not sure, that Tech 1 Backup Arrays give +4) -- If TC causes you discomfort that you feel is unwarranted or may be outside TC's current contract - contact me, please.
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.21 23:55:00 - [102] My point is that current jammers seem to be too weak, and that's without any ECCM on targets. Tho, it's interesting how 1 module is more practical than 4, as far as slot usage goes. We could see almost-every bs using 1 multi spec.
Goberth Ludwig	Posted - 2005.03.22 00:18:00 - [103] This sucks... I cud just get in any BS and fit like a pair of racials and be a lot more effective than a EW focused scorpion... I wonder if this is how its meant to be... pff...
ErrorS	Posted - 2005.03.22 01:49:00 - [104] Wow, this is awesome! I think I'll start using my Scorp if these changes come into effect. I love the chance based jamming so I'm not forced to outfit multiple jammers. Now I can carry different kinds without having to worry about not being able to jam a ship. is this different or something? i thought the modules were suppose to be stupid short range mods. Now we see 100km racial jammer with the scorp? Holy crap! I'm excited This is good! ... no, this is great! I love it. ________ I'm strict Caldari "The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think? -ErrorS
SkyLander	Posted - 2005.03.22 06:07:00 - [105] Edited by: SkyLander on 22/03/2005 06:07:54 Edited by: SkyLander on 22/03/2005 06:07:37 What Aylaa said, if anything I'm going to try to sell off my scorp before the patch comes out cause it'll be next to useless....40billion ton paper weight. __________________________________________________
Altaireus	Posted - 2005.03.22 08:36:00 - [106] Edited by: Altaireus on 22/03/2005 08:36:44 If Covert Ops ships are getting a bonus to scan probes, wouldnt it also make sense to give some of the covert ops ships a bit more cpu, or at least a probe launcher cpu bonus? The Cheetah needs to have 3 Co-processor II's (all lowslots) to have both covert cloak and probe launcher online at the same time, unless the pilot have Covert Ops lvl5 trained. And then it will still only have like 10cpu left to distribute among 4 midslots and 1 high slot. I think the Amarr covert ops ship is pretty bad off too.. Right now the only ship that can have both modules online without training covert ops 5 or fill the lowslots with co-processors, is the Buzzard. The Cheetah doesnt even come close to the base cpu of the Buzzard even with all lowslots filled with Co-processor II's.
ErrorS	Posted - 2005.03.22 08:37:00 - [107] Edited by: ErrorS on 22/03/2005 08:39:23 Originally by: Aylaa Originally by: ErrorS Wow, this is awesome! I think I'll start using my Scorp if these changes come into effect. I love the chance based jamming so I'm not forced to outfit multiple jammers. Now I can carry different kinds without having to worry about not being able to jam a ship. is this different or something? i thought the modules were suppose to be stupid short range mods. Now we see 100km racial jammer with the scorp? Holy crap! I'm excited This is good! ... no, this is great! I love it. Go easy on the drugs, you CCP alt.... why do people say this every single time someone says something positive about a change? 1 ECM can jam any ship in the game with this change. Jam a battleship 1/2 the time in a 1v1 and that's like adding double the HP, or twice the firepower.. however you would like to see it. Fit 2 and increase your chances. Or fit 2, a damper, a warp disruptor.. you can fit a whole group-load of different EW modules and each can have a chance of kicking your opponent's ass in a different way. you can still have room left over for tanking. I'm excited.. I just hope they make it so NPCs can be jammed one day so the EW ships aren't completely useless for PvE ________ I'm strict Caldari "The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think? -ErrorS
Goberth Ludwig	Posted - 2005.03.22 12:46:00 - [108] ErrorS ... dont u think other will abuse single EWs aswell? Theres nothing to be excited at dude, small skill PvP will be nothing but people staring at each other while their jammers randomly kick in in turn... I can see the chat smacktalk allready... "OMG LUCKOR" "Double jam FFS!!!" "WTF lucky indy jammed meh arma :((" Yeah real excitement w0000000t !!!
Grut	Posted - 2005.03.22 17:19:00 - [109] Originally by: Goberth Ludwig ErrorS ... dont u think other will abuse single EWs aswell? Theres nothing to be excited at dude, small skill PvP will be nothing but people staring at each other while their jammers randomly kick in in turn... I can see the chat smacktalk allready... "OMG LUCKOR" "Double jam FFS!!!" "WTF lucky indy jammed meh arma :((" Yeah real excitement w0000000t !!! yus 2 gankageddons in a 1v1 each fitting 1 multi.... oh what fun Mostly harmless
Nafri	Posted - 2005.03.22 20:05:00 - [110] Originally by: Grut Originally by: Goberth Ludwig ErrorS ... dont u think other will abuse single EWs aswell? Theres nothing to be excited at dude, small skill PvP will be nothing but people staring at each other while their jammers randomly kick in in turn... I can see the chat smacktalk allready... "OMG LUCKOR" "Double jam FFS!!!" "WTF lucky indy jammed meh arma :((" Yeah real excitement w0000000t !!! yus 2 gankageddons in a 1v1 each fitting 1 multi.... oh what fun yep, and thats the point where multiple jammers should work like 1 jammer gives strength 1 2 jammers gives strength 2 3 jammers gives strength 4 4 jammers gives strength 16 5 jammers gives strength 32 6 jammers gives strength 64 7 jammers gives strenght 92 8 jammers gives strength 124 same with backups 1 gives you 1 backup 2 gives you 2 backup 3 gives you 4 backup and so on so using onle 1 or 2 of this modules is not so really good, stops ganking ships to abuse the new system, and dedicated EW ships could still fullfile their job Wanna fly with me?
Deep Throat	Posted - 2005.03.22 20:19:00 - [111] Edited by: Deep Throat on 22/03/2005 21:04:55 Edited by: Deep Throat on 22/03/2005 20:21:00 To change ew system as it is is dangerous the proposals as i see them are hilariously stupid. 1. It is clear by looking at activation time on multispecs that they are TOTALLY NERFING CYCLE JAMMING, this fact alone nerfs the most common ew warfare totally out of the game and renders both the bb and the scorpion uterly useless. In fact if they do this thing labelled now in my mind "the most stupid development design since 1765" the scorpion will be nothing but a cruiser 2. individual chance based wth per module, can someone just explain wth that is? if im on a frig with one multispec/race specific jammer and i see a lets say apoc with 2 backups(hence 22 in sensor strenght) i actually can target jam the bs???!! this is my understanding, and if it is so this is not just stupid its gonna ruin this game, in fact if this is so, i lack words to decribe how totally crappy this design is.... just what is wrong with these ppl that come up with this stuff? and likewise i show up in scorpion with anything from 1 -8 ew modules and individual based chance wth makes it impossible for me to jam a ship with no ew backup and even just 1 frig? this is how i see this( a total chaos no rules system which no one can figure out and some stupifying role of dice decides what happens) i would like someone to correct me if i am wrong Moreover, what is the point of having ships with #sensor strength and #strenght per module, when its all chance based? the contradiction is devestatingly clear and really sums the lack of logic and common sense in this new "system", i can have 20 sensor strength yet get jammed by a module that has only 4 My proposal is this; 1. since u are nerfing ew(much skill requirements, nerfing the cyclejamming) why not just take it totally out of the game? i think that is better than actually going through with some design like this that makes no sense whatsoever 2. make the scorpion a cruiser and make a new caldari battleship that has some purpose in this game(does more dmg for example than a cruiser) 3. make the bb a frig and make another caldari cruiser that has some purpose in this game Lastly i would like to congratulate the development team on figuring out that they shouldnt change the scrambling system and totally ruin this game. I would actually like to ask a question now, what is the purpose of all this? Where are u taking this game? As i see it now u are nerfing everything and its mother, ppl that use tech2 guns kill bs in 1 min(edit, lets make that 30 secs), u nerf the most common defence which is the ew, what conclusions can one make from that? with all this i see nothing but more blobs and more blobs, and is that a smart thing with a server that cant handle more than 30 ppl in one system at a time?
Deep Throat	Posted - 2005.03.22 20:24:00 - [112] Originally by: Face Lifter I'd agree that multispec cycle should be shorter than 20 seconds. Considering the low chances of successful jamming and fast paced nature of combat, I'd say that multispec cycle shouldn't be more than 10 seconds. Seriously, think about it. Currently a stack of 4 multispecs may be considered a bit overpowered. Okay, so you increase requirements (nerf #1), add range limit (nerf #2), remove stacking (nerf #3), introduce chance based system with low success probability (nerf #4).. I think this would do it, no need to change cycle duration, at least not so radically. CCP frequently goes too far with nerfs, when overpowered things needed just a small adjustment. Don't make the same mistake all the time. If after those initial nerfs things still look overpowered (which I highly doubt), then you can always nerf it some more later. Small predictable steps over time are better than one giant leap into uncertainty btw, I'm glad the propulsion modules were left alone. sums it up very nicely
Deep Throat	Posted - 2005.03.22 20:27:00 - [113] Originally by: Dianabolic I'm aware of that, it is that ability I want to protect. New ECM Multispecs have: LESS range than specifics MORE cap useage LESS points on sensor. Multispectrals are FINE at 5 seconds. You have absolutely ZERO defence when setup to do this role, you make a massive sacrifice to do this force multiplier role and, imo, it should be kept. exactly
Deep Throat	Posted - 2005.03.22 20:32:00 - [114] Originally by: Hakera Originally by: Joshua Calvert Scorpion is now just a ruined ship compared to what it used to be. disagree with that one, but it depends what angle your coming from - small fleet actions, its fine, large fleets it has the range bonus so can still sit at the back as now and jam. Hell it can even still cycle jam, 7 jammers on one target even at 16-20% is a pretty high success rate. Aside form needing more skills to train, it looks almost better than before. Even if by chance all 7 jammers fail, you only have a matter of seconds before the next cycle. hmm, u cant be serious or u dont pvp often if all your jamming fails or not, if it has 20 sec duration u will have to wait 20 secs. and by then my friend u will most likely be dead, since this is your defence
Deep Throat	Posted - 2005.03.22 20:36:00 - [115] Originally by: StoreSlem TomB: Please do not make pvp random and luck based; this is a step in a blatently wrong direction. Randomness, probability, luck, they are all a menace to pvp and any form of display of skill. Please do not inflict more on us than there already is. signed, back and forth i thought this was supposed to be a smart little game forged in realism where u train your character for extended period of time to properly use stuff
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.22 23:16:00 - [116] Definitely.. lets not repeat the Blue Print Lottery Horror.. random chance stuff is not what people want to depend heavily on. We need more things that involve actual player skill. I don't mind some randomness, as long as it doesn't take a big chunk out of decision making and player skill
H0ot	Posted - 2005.03.23 00:47:00 - [117] Its looking a lot better now that web& scramble changes have been scrapped. 2 Points however - pokes TomB Quote: ECM Burst Target Jamming: Use the same method as the targeted ECM Jammers, but only brakes the lock instead of keeping the target jammed for a set period. Other: Capacitor Need has been increased a lot, some ships might not have enough capacitor to activate this module. WHY??? Why take a module that has several uses for Frigates (drone defense) and turn it into a Battleship module that most Battleship pilots weren't waiting for in the first place? I have never seen one "OMIGODZ NERF ECM BURTS LIEK NOW PLZ" post on the forums, ever. Was it really that overpowered? With the changes you get to break someone's lock every 60 seconds if it lands and if he is within close range, all for the cost of 480 cap. A total waste of a midslot, and situational at best. Downright useless at worst. Change ECM burst to the hit and miss "Roll a ten sided dice to see if you strike the sinister monkey with your Wooden Hammer of Monkeyslaying" Dungeons&Dragons-type gameplay like all the other EW modules if you want. But at least keep it a frigate mod, with its pre-patch cap cost and cycle duration. Also, under the "Ship modifications & addons" section practically every single EW-related ship gets mentioned. Apart from the Stiletto. It was obviously designed with a light Support/EW role in mind, with 4 mid slots and above average CPU it is more EW-related than ships like Crucifier or Celestis ever were. (\_/) (O.o) (> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
Selim	Posted - 2005.03.23 03:32:00 - [118] Lowering multispec cycle time means an absolute nerf of everything that needs midslots for something else.
Scorpyn	Posted - 2005.03.23 10:24:00 - [119] Edited by: Scorpyn on 23/03/2005 10:27:12 A point that I don't think has been highlighted enough : Turrets can miss. Or they can hit and make wrecking damage. And they have a wide scale inbetween. And they fire relatively frequently. EW will be able to hit or miss, nothing inbetween. If you miss you're basically screwed because of the time it takes to try again, but if a turret misses it won't really matter that much because it gets a new chance very soon. So, in my opinion partial jamming should be made possible. Partial jamming could be implemented by having a bad lock that you can only use every now and then because it's flickering on and off - more off than on depending on how badly jammed you are, and if it's off for too long you'd have to relock. This would basically be a way to reduce the ROF.
L'Kor	Posted - 2005.03.23 11:22:00 - [120] Sounds like good way to bring some unpredicability in small battles. Already fun to play with on the test server, so I'm eager to try it on tq :).

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: 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.