Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sigras
Conglomo
522
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 21:51:00 -
[31] - Quote
Crellion wrote:I respect you hard work OP, you are certainly doing it better than CCP. However all this is unnecessary.
There is a perfect system in place for EW. It was there before CCP introduced the chance based malarkey into the equation.
You have X jammers with a combined strength of Y and the target ship jas a sensor strangth of Y-1 he is jammed for as long as you can keep all modules active on him, if his strength is Y+1 he is not hammed. As simple as that. The only one who needs to calculate all the boring bits is the EW pilot.
ECM worked like this for years, perfectly allright and perfectly balanced (IMO) and then CCP decided they would fixitTM... a simple rollback would fix ECM.
Alternatively remove it from the game altogether. EW in general is a force multiplier in favor of the side having the numerical advantage and is therefore entirely unnecessary and disadvantageous for combat balance... There I said it... game mechanics that leave a player with nothing to do are bad game mechanics . . . its why the sandman was changed in TF2.
There should never be any instance in any competitive game ever where the player has no options to do or choices to make that will affect the battle.
ECM jamming you, and leaving you nothing to do is a bad game mechanic. |
Sigras
Conglomo
522
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 22:06:00 -
[32] - Quote
Aliventi wrote:Sigras wrote:There are a few problems with your comparisons. Jamming is unlike any other ewar in existence for a few reasons:
- There is nothing I can do to mitigate its effects; with TDs i can determine what script youre using and either close range or modify my flying to reduce transversal. with SDs i can just close range to make them less effective.
- Jamming is much more effective against smaller targets, other forms of ewar are less effective for practical applications. EG TDs only effect small ships against ships their own size, frigates can usually still hit a larger ship despite disruption, also frigates generally have to be close anyway, so range is usually less of an issue.
- The "counter mod" for Jamming has no other application; you would never fit it if you werent expecting jamming, but sensor boosters decrease lock time and tracking computers/enhancers are widely used.
All of these things are not addressed by your fix however I do like the idea of removing the randomness because randomness in a competitive game is universally bad The entire desire to make the cycle time of the ECM mod longer than the time you would be jammed is to give you the opportunity to counter the ship for those seconds you are unjammed. It isn't an unlimited amount of time, but with the right balancing touch I think you will find it effective. First of all, you know if this change went through, people would just go for the perma jam, and in this case, it would be a guaranteed perma jam, so you'd still be left with nothing to do.
Aliventi wrote:The ECM change doesn't penalize frigate more than BS. I know the numbers show that the time jammed is significantly longer for a frigate than a BS. However a BS takes far longer to lock than a frigate. So I think you will find it averages out nicely and may even favor the frigate in certain situations. Again with the knowledge that everyone is just going to go for the perma jam, you need less jammers to perma jam a frigate vs a battleship; also a frigate can do less in the time it is unjammed than a battleship would. IE a single battleship volly or a single battleship sized neut is way more effective than the amount of neuting/damage a frigate gets done in that amount of time.
Aliventi wrote:Why does ECCM need a another effect? There is no mod to counter TPs. There could be no ECCM at all. Also it comes down to choices: if you think an ECCM is worth fitting than fit it. If not then don't. The ECCM mod is fine right now. Many pilot already choose to fit an ECCM which shows that it they clearly don't need another incentive to fit it. That logic is post hoc ergo propter hoc. An alternative explanation is that ECM is perceived as overpowered and therefore people are more likely to employ the one module that at least in some way mitigates the overpowered other module. |
Onslaughtor
Carbon Dateing
57
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 23:06:00 -
[33] - Quote
As a long time sorpion pilot, I find this to be one of the best proposals for changing ECM. While the numbers could be tweeked a little I like it more than most.
If I may make two amendums.
Signal amps should effect all ewar.
Raicals should stay, and add slightly less effective scripts to Multispecs and lower is cap and fitting requierments to make it competitive. |
Aliventi
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
427
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 07:47:00 -
[34] - Quote
You can bring a Falcon with 2 jammers and perma jam a frigate. Be my guest. It is IMO a total waste of a Falcon. If I am going to put the effort in to bringing a Falcon to make a difference in even a small or large gang fight pretty much any other ship is worth more for me to jam than a frigate. If you want to fit 4 jammers to a Falcon to try to perma-jam a single Logi while ignoring every other ship on the field be my guest. You are limiting your potential effect by attempting to do so. With 2 jammers you could prevent 2 BS from putting down DPS for 10 seconds. At 1000+ DPS over the 2 BS for 10 seconds that is 10+k damage you could prevent. Or you could try to jam more than one logi and allow your DPS a chance to push the target beyond the point at which Logi would save them. This kind of creative thinking will make perma-jamming obsolete as a tactic in all but the most unusual circumstances.
You can continue to waste a falcon to perma-jam a frigate. You are still stuck under the assumption that such drastic changes to ECM as an effect and how the module functions/change to single jammer with scripts for racial effects will cause no change in how a Falcon pilot operates. I can tell you right now there will be people that will stick to the old thinking. They will die more often and have limited effect on the battlefield because of their choice. Those that adapt to the changes will reap the rewards as their Falcons can tank and cause broad guaranteed effects across multiple ships. I think you will find that a Falcon is far more devastating in a fight if it disrupts multiple targets over attempting to perma-jam a single target. Get used to the thinking that perma-jamming is no longer the best way to run a Falcon if these changes go through.
"tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me |
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone Caldari State
437
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 08:27:00 -
[35] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Crellion wrote:I respect you hard work OP, you are certainly doing it better than CCP. However all this is unnecessary.
There is a perfect system in place for EW. It was there before CCP introduced the chance based malarkey into the equation.
You have X jammers with a combined strength of Y and the target ship jas a sensor strangth of Y-1 he is jammed for as long as you can keep all modules active on him, if his strength is Y+1 he is not hammed. As simple as that. The only one who needs to calculate all the boring bits is the EW pilot.
ECM worked like this for years, perfectly allright and perfectly balanced (IMO) and then CCP decided they would fixitTM... a simple rollback would fix ECM.
Alternatively remove it from the game altogether. EW in general is a force multiplier in favor of the side having the numerical advantage and is therefore entirely unnecessary and disadvantageous for combat balance... There I said it... game mechanics that leave a player with nothing to do are bad game mechanics . . . its why the sandman was changed in TF2. There should never be any instance in any competitive game ever where the player has no options to do or choices to make that will affect the battle. ECM jamming you, and leaving you nothing to do is a bad game mechanic.
Yes, When i'm bubbled, webbed and alpha'd I too hate that I have no chance. That's EVE though. There are many ways to be left completely powerless and ECM is one of them. Unless of course you defend against it. |
Verity Sovereign
Sovereign Fleet Tax Shelter
516
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 17:37:00 -
[36] - Quote
What if the target loss didn't happen instantly... Under the target icon, you see a bar indicating lock strength that decreases, when it hits 0, the lock breaks. The higher the jam strength/the lower the sensor strength, the faster that bar moves (ie the sooner the lock breaks). Double jam strength, halve the time it takes to break a lock. The more ECMs targeted at you, the faster the lock breaks *and the additional ECMs are stacking penalized - so that 7 ECM modules don't break a lock much faster than 5 ECM modules. Then ECMs might be used in volleys, or dispersed rather than staggered.
Then, allow the player being jammed to do something to re acquire the target lock before it breaks.... Perhaps if you 1) have a free target slot open and 2) are being jammed, you can "double lock" your target. If you can acquire a 2nd lock before the first lock breaks, then no effective jam. - The target would show up twice in your overhead, and its just a matter of making sure that one is selected, and reactivating your modules on that target. A ECM modules starts to removes 1 target lock at a time for each locked ship - so double locked ships will first have one lock broken, then the next lock will start to break.
The bar continues to decrease for the duration of the ECM's cycle, and the 2nd target lock automatically begins degrading after the first one breaks, providing there is still an active ECM targeting the ship.
This "double lock" feature is only available after a jam has started (otherwise, everyone would double lock their targets) ECCM modules would enable double or triple locking before a jam has even started (truly being backup sensor clusters like the name suggests). You can "multiple" lock a ship for as many targeting slots as your ship has available when being sufficiently jammed/fitting sufficient ECCM.
BS's thus may have more target locks to break through, and due to higher sensor strength, the locks break slower, but due to worse scan res, they take longer to establish (keeping in mind that without some form of ECCM, you can't preemptively start multi-locking)
Support units (ie logis) that lock up many friendly fleet members would have few if any target slots open, and would not be able to double lock many of their units before their first set of locks get broken.
Thoughts? |
Sigras
Conglomo
523
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 19:27:00 -
[37] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Sigras wrote:Crellion wrote:I respect you hard work OP, you are certainly doing it better than CCP. However all this is unnecessary.
There is a perfect system in place for EW. It was there before CCP introduced the chance based malarkey into the equation.
You have X jammers with a combined strength of Y and the target ship jas a sensor strangth of Y-1 he is jammed for as long as you can keep all modules active on him, if his strength is Y+1 he is not hammed. As simple as that. The only one who needs to calculate all the boring bits is the EW pilot.
ECM worked like this for years, perfectly allright and perfectly balanced (IMO) and then CCP decided they would fixitTM... a simple rollback would fix ECM.
Alternatively remove it from the game altogether. EW in general is a force multiplier in favor of the side having the numerical advantage and is therefore entirely unnecessary and disadvantageous for combat balance... There I said it... game mechanics that leave a player with nothing to do are bad game mechanics . . . its why the sandman was changed in TF2. There should never be any instance in any competitive game ever where the player has no options to do or choices to make that will affect the battle. ECM jamming you, and leaving you nothing to do is a bad game mechanic. Yes, When i'm bubbled, webbed and alpha'd I too hate that I have no chance. That's EVE though. There are many ways to be left completely powerless and ECM is one of them. Unless of course you defend against it. There is nothing in eve that leaves you without anything to do except ECM. Now there are extremely unfavorable situations, but that isnt the same thing.
My problem with ECM is that when you're jammed you might as well walk away from your computer for the next 20 seconds because thats about how effective you are. That should never be the case.
Extra Credits did an excellent episode explaining this issue. Game mechanics should increase the number of options each player has not eliminate them.
Also, saying "other mechanics leave you helpless too" is like defending a serial killer by saying "other people murder too" |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
2649
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 19:32:00 -
[38] - Quote
What about a disruption field?
An ECM module that effectively made the signature of the ship unlockable, and in turn the ship using it could not lock anything else either.
I would limit this, so that the opponents could use signal boosters to overcome this effect, and lock the target despite this.
I would further twist the effect, and say the ship using this ECM could also use the same signal boosters, so they could also lock other ships over the interference that they generated.
Here is the kicker: as mid slot items, the ECM takes up slots used for shields and other items. As low slot items, the boosters take up slots for armor and other items. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Tribal Band
335
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 19:59:00 -
[39] - Quote
After reading though all this, I am left with one question, and it is the most important one since ECM doesn't look so much at jam success as jam failure.
There are a lot of numbers here regarding jam time. But nothing regarding not-jammed time. How long does the target remain unjammed?
A player's functional combat time (time spent firing weapons or using other target-required modules) is reduced not just by the amount of time locked, but by how long it takes to reacquire a target lock. If the time spent unjammed is insufficient to reacquire locks, then he is effectively perma-jammed even if the ECM module(s) is/are not actively jamming him.
Free Ripley Weaver! |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Tribal Band
335
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 20:04:00 -
[40] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:What about a disruption field?
An ECM module that effectively made the signature of the ship unlockable, and in turn the ship using it could not lock anything else either.
I would limit this, so that the opponents could use signal boosters to overcome this effect, and lock the target despite this.
I would further twist the effect, and say the ship using this ECM could also use the same signal boosters, so they could also lock other ships over the interference that they generated.
Here is the kicker: as mid slot items, the ECM takes up slots used for shields and other items. As low slot items, the boosters take up slots for armor and other items.
We already have these. They call this sensor boosters, remote sensor boosters, skirmish links, information warfare links, and x-instinct combat boosters. All of these either reduce your sig rad thus making you harder to lock/hit, or increase scan res thus allowing you to lock faster.
And that is the domain of sensor boosters and sensor damps. Not ECM.
Free Ripley Weaver! |
|
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
2649
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 20:16:00 -
[41] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:What about a disruption field?
An ECM module that effectively made the signature of the ship unlockable, and in turn the ship using it could not lock anything else either.
I would limit this, so that the opponents could use signal boosters to overcome this effect, and lock the target despite this.
I would further twist the effect, and say the ship using this ECM could also use the same signal boosters, so they could also lock other ships over the interference that they generated.
Here is the kicker: as mid slot items, the ECM takes up slots used for shields and other items. As low slot items, the boosters take up slots for armor and other items. We already have these. They call this sensor boosters, remote sensor boosters, skirmish links, information warfare links, and x-instinct combat boosters. All of these either reduce your sig rad thus making you harder to lock/hit, or increase scan res thus allowing you to lock faster. And that is the domain of sensor boosters and sensor damps. Not ECM. Yeah, I am talking more extreme / absolute effects.
Without a booster, or a ship whose sensor strength is effectively boosted already, you cannot be locked at all. The ship using this also suffers the effects, but towards absolutely everything else in the game. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone Caldari State
437
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 20:35:00 -
[42] - Quote
I don't really have to defend the mechanics. Caldari and missiles along with ewar tie in. Not liking the mechanic isn't proof of it being out of line in EVE. ECM "resistance" skills are trainable and modules exist as well to boost that resistance even further. While I do engage in these threads often out of boredom I really don't worry about ECMs future at all.
Deal with it. |
Aliventi
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
427
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 20:47:00 -
[43] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:After reading though all this, I am left with one question, and it is the most important one since ECM doesn't look so much at jam success as jam failure.
There are a lot of numbers here regarding jam time. But nothing regarding not-jammed time. How long does the target remain unjammed?
A player's functional combat time (time spent firing weapons or using other target-required modules) is reduced not just by the amount of time locked, but by how long it takes to reacquire a target lock. If the time spent unjammed is insufficient to reacquire locks, then he is effectively perma-jammed even if the ECM module(s) is/are not actively jamming him.
If you can get me a lock time equation I would be glad to do some more math in the GoogleDoc.
The unjammed time = 25 seconds - jam time. So technically the "total jam time" is jam time + relock time. Since BS take longer to lock and they are jammed for less time the idea is it averages out closely to a frigate which is jammed for longer but locks far quicker. It won't be perfect across the board, but it should be closer than 20 seconds + lock time that ECM does now. For a BS currently it could be upwards of 30-40 seconds. Whereas a frigate currently would be 23-25 seconds. If the math works right you could hit 15-20 seconds for both frigate and BS. Which would leave a few seconds to counter ECM ship before it jams you again. "tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me |
Darirol
Origin. Black Legion.
8
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 21:02:00 -
[44] - Quote
one problem with this change would be the combination of guaranteed lock break for every single modul and the fact that capitals in lowsec can only tackled with target points.
2 examples:
1.) 2 nyx grind a random structure in lowsec. some dudes find them and send in hics and tackle them. both nyx fit med slots with 5 ecm modules, everyone locks up to 5 different hics and then they hit F1-F5 together and jump out. i mean its hard enough to tackle supers in lowsec, but with your change you need almost a complete squad of hics for each super you want to tackle.
2.) a normal capital fleet gets caught in lowsec. its not possible to jam 200 different ships at the same time, but iam sure if every capital refits to ecm modules, it would be hard to kill more then a few.
i would say guaranteed jams even for 0,1 sec is a no go solution
|
Aliventi
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
427
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 21:09:00 -
[45] - Quote
Darirol wrote:one problem with this change would be the combination of guaranteed lock break for every single modul and the fact that capitals in lowsec can only tackled with target points. while being able to refit and instantly jumping away if there is no point for a half second
2 examples:
1.) 2 nyx grind a random structure in lowsec. some dudes find them and send in hics and tackle them. both nyx fit med slots with 5 ecm modules, everyone locks up to 5 different hics and then they hit F1-F5 together and jump out. i mean its hard enough to tackle supers in lowsec, but with your change you need almost a complete squad of hics for each super you want to tackle.
2.) a normal capital fleet gets caught in lowsec. its not possible to jam 200 different ships at the same time, but iam sure if every capital refits to ecm modules, it would be hard to kill more then a few.
i would say guaranteed jams even for 0,1 sec is a no go solution There was discussion about a residual point. The objective would be that the residual point would keep the unbonused ECM using ship pointed until the target ship could relock and reestablish point. While I don't think it is the best possible solution, it happens to be the best solution proposed so far. This would negate the ability for Supers or caps to escape a point through ECM jams. "tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me |
Sigras
Conglomo
523
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 08:01:00 -
[46] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:I don't really have to defend the mechanics. Caldari and missiles along with ECM tie in. Not liking the mechanic isn't proof of it being out of line in EVE. ECM "resistance" skills are trainable and modules exist as well to boost that resistance even further. While I do engage in these threads often out of boredom I really don't worry about ECMs future at all. We could spend a lot of time listing mechanics that we don't like, force projection, local chat, gate camps etc. Deal with it. That is a fantastic attitude to never get anything changed or fixed in this game.
I bet you like games from EA which are totally unbalanced and terrible at launch and never get fixed because you "deal with it"
Just because there are other bad mechanics in the game does not mean that you shouldnt at least try to fix some of them; you have to start somewhere.
I mean by that logic we shouldnt arrest murderers because we cant ever catch them all . . . |
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone Caldari State
438
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 09:04:00 -
[47] - Quote
Yes my attitude is snarky after training ECM taking for granted it would be effective to have and then ever more often watching the skills go from effective to less effective to now often requested removed. You'll forgive me if I choose to defend the choices I was offered in game and committed to achieving. I'm now forced to endure mountains of cry from people who can't be bothered to even equip 1 mod to defend against it.
I do not want more TANK. I do not want more DPS. I want to JAM your ships. Simple..
Just as advertised when it was month after month accepting my currency for the ability to train it.
You'll have to excuse me while I laugh out loud at your notion players "balance" the game. Players run games in to the ground. |
Sigras
Conglomo
523
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 15:40:00 -
[48] - Quote
youre talking to someone with 4 characters who have each put more than 4 million SP into jamming, its just that some of us are able to put the good of the game ahead of our own wants and desires.
You have yet to "elaborately detail" why jamming does not need a change after having been explained to several times why it is a bad game mechanic . . . I tried to have a discussion with you; you told me to "deal with it" |
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone Caldari State
459
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 00:48:00 -
[49] - Quote
Sigras wrote:youre talking to someone with 4 characters who have each put more than 4 million SP into jamming, its just that some of us are able to put the good of the game ahead of our own wants and desires.
You have yet to "elaborately detail" why jamming does not need a change after having been explained to several times why it is a bad game mechanic . . . I tried to have a discussion with you; you told me to "deal with it"
I haven't seen evidence it's bad game mechanics. I have seen people demonstrate its effective when they refuse to defend against it. ECM has been changed from consistent to random to less effective. Its time for the playerbase to HTFU. |
Sigras
Conglomo
524
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 06:41:00 -
[50] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Sigras wrote:youre talking to someone with 4 characters who have each put more than 4 million SP into jamming, its just that some of us are able to put the good of the game ahead of our own wants and desires.
You have yet to "elaborately detail" why jamming does not need a change after having been explained to several times why it is a bad game mechanic . . . I tried to have a discussion with you; you told me to "deal with it" I haven't seen evidence it's bad game mechanics. I have seen people demonstrate its effective when they refuse to defend against it. ECM has been changed from consistent to random to less effective. Its time for the playerbase to HTFU. im assuming you're just choosing to ignore the well respected source I linked earlier that you in fact quoted . . . and the general consensus that randomness is bad for competitive gameplay.
Seriously, just think about it logically, name one way in which a totally random roll of the dice determines who wins and who loses an engagement makes the game in any way more skillful, more deep or in any way better.
The fact that you can fit modules to defend against it does not make the game more skillful, it just makes it a guessing game, as an uninformed decision isnt a decision at all.
What would make it better is for there be some way to play around it like with all other forms of E-war like flying closer to your opponent (sensor dampeners) adjusting your flight pattern for better tracking (tracking disruptors) etc. |
|
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone Caldari State
460
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 06:54:00 -
[51] - Quote
There is counter play. You equip eccm and I go down in flames. You don't equp eccm you go down in flames. Just because a mini game doesn't pop up mid fight for us to spar it out with doesn't mean there aren't counters available.
LOL at well respected source. |
Aliventi
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
427
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 08:06:00 -
[52] - Quote
Come on. take your pissing contest to PMs and get back on evaluation the merits of this suggestions. "tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
357
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 09:07:00 -
[53] - Quote
There could be a significant psychological improvement to ECM if they removed the relock requirement and simultaneously dropped the cycle/effect time.
Minor side effects would be easier to shift tackle, but other than that....no net change except in people's minds which is where the problem mainly resides. |
Kidsrule
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 09:34:00 -
[54] - Quote
I believe that ECM needs a rework, as a logi pilot I am well aware of the power and strength of ECM jamming. Over the last 2 weeks half of the fleets i have been in have been hit by 80km orbiting griffins in fights where there was unbelievable amounts of EWAR being used. While i can close distance to the fleet to counter damps, the proposed ECM change would make even easier to disable logi in fleet fights. Just the simple act of having your entire DPS section fit a ECM mod and just having then fire randomly at hostile logi would kill the effectiveness of the reps without there being a quick way to remove said hostile EWAR. My favorite ships the Basilisk and Guardian and their T1 variants would become absolutely useless. For example if we were by some miracle winning a fight but losing a ship every now and then, a single scorpion (or any range bonused ewar ship) could warp in at 100+km and simply fire ECM randomly into the cap chain. The problem is that not only would we have to relock cap chain partners but we would also have to relock the rep target, while possibly under sustained jam attempts (ECM bursting is a comparsion) Worse off if the hostile fleet simply had 3-4 cheap as nails griffins you could cause a an entire guardian/basi group to go down in about 25secs regardless of their fitted ECCM.
TLDR, lock breaking would end guardians and basilisks due to role bonus forcing a cap chain. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
2663
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 13:04:00 -
[55] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:There could be a significant psychological improvement to ECM if they removed the relock requirement and simultaneously dropped the cycle/effect time.
Minor side effects would be easier to shift tackle, but other than that....no net change except in people's minds which is where the problem mainly resides. Actually, this makes sense.
Needing to manually retarget a hostile, despite the fact that you had them previously targeted, seems a bit over stated.
Your ship's computer should at least allow a checkbox option to auto-retarget in the event of jamming, and pop up a fail message saying target no longer present, or out of range, if it can't re-establish a lock.
The automatic aspect should at least shave off a second or two for targeting here.
(Optionally, you can have greyed out targeting windows showing who you were targeting, which you could manually drop if you decided not to worry about them after the fact.) Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
358
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 13:59:00 -
[56] - Quote
I meant going a bit further, that locks automatically and instantly re-establish. i.e. no re-lock time. It feels unnecessarily punitive given the current ECM duration to lump relock time on after that.
So, you have stuff locked. Get jammed. Jam ends. Targets (those still on grid/range) are instantly (or almost if too hard to code) reacquired. Explainable by the sensors overcompensating for the jamming and giving a temporary boost to resolution for a few seconds.
It'd be needed if the cycle time is dropped, otherwise low scan res ships would NEVER get a lock, ever, |
Sigras
Conglomo
524
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 15:32:00 -
[57] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:There is counter play. You equip eccm/backup sensor arrays/ecm and I go down in flames. You don't equp eccm/backup sensor arrays/ecm you go down in flames. Just because a mini game doesn't pop up mid fight for us to spar it out with doesn't mean there aren't counters available. EVE fights are won or lost, usually, before the first shot is fired. ECM also has an effective range, so you can "play" around it. Clearly you misunderstand the idea of counterplay . . . Counterplay is a way to play around the ability once you find out they have it, EG they start using scouts to spot for their snipers and you start driving away their scouts. Note they did not say "get in your time machine and warn your earlier self to fit a counter module" counterplay and counters are different . . . but im going to assume you didnt even watch the video
Caliph Muhammed wrote:How many losses do you have in 1v1s versus ECM ships? Who said anything about a 1v1? a 4v4 where one ship is ECM which lands several jam cycles will cause you to lose and it wouldnt even be your fault, you just got unlucky.
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Also, LOL at well respected source. Well respected in what? Well respected in game design which is, you know, what we've been talking about this whole time.
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Also, LOL at "skillful". At one time ECM was if jam strength equals sensor strength target is jammed. Then it was changed to if jam strength equals sensor strength target has a good probability to be jammed. Then everyone was given magically delicious resistance skills. Which further lowers the chance to be jammed. All of which comes into play before you even equip one module to defend against ECM. And yet not one of the things you mentioned has anything to do with skill; perhaps you need an English lesson. What people mean when they say skillful is the ability to apply player skill to a situation in order to overcome it, such as spiraling in to a target to avoid 0 transversal, or properly lining up a bombing run, on the other hand, FITTING a bomb launcher is not skillful. |
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone Caldari State
461
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 15:53:00 -
[58] - Quote
Nothing in this thread has merit. Its yet another idea to change a mechanic because people don't want to be jammed. Well guess what . TFB. Its working just fine as is. It doesn't need changing. They aren't going to remove it. They aren't going to make it disable high slots and its just about as weak as it could go before it becomes a waste of time to bring. |
Aliventi
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
427
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 16:43:00 -
[59] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:I meant going a bit further, that locks automatically and instantly re-establish. i.e. no re-lock time. It feels unnecessarily punitive given the current ECM duration to lump relock time on after that.
So, you have stuff locked. Get jammed. Jam ends. Targets (those still on grid/range) are instantly (or almost if too hard to code) reacquired. Explainable by the sensors overcompensating for the jamming and giving a temporary boost to resolution for a few seconds.
It'd be needed if the cycle time is dropped, otherwise low scan res ships would NEVER get a lock, ever, I understand what you are saying. This design is supposed to help counter that low scan res ships lock slower by using their typically higher sensor strength to make the jam time shorter. So jam time + lock time for a BS is approximately the same as jam time + lock time of a frigate. That design is supposed to not favor BS or frigates. The 25 or maybe even 30 second cycle time for the ECM mod should guarantee that even a single falcon would have difficulty perma-jamming a target without a lot of jammers.
While I agree that instantly relocking would be a potentially useful mechanic, I don't think it would be the right decision in this design. The main issue is unbonused jammers only jam for 1-2 seconds. Instantly relocking after that would make an unbonused jammer nearly useless. The only way around this would be to buff the base jam strength of the ECM mod to the point an unbonused jammer was viable. Then you have the nightmare of trying to balance bonused hulls using this super-strength jammer. It would get ugly very quickly IMO.
Edit: It you were to rework the proposal to factor in an instant relock that would be balanced I would love to see it.
As far as a bunch of griffins jamming out a Basi or Guardian chain: It would take 4 jammers on a falcon to jam out a single scimi. It would end up being 2 girffins to the logi if they wanted a perma jam. That is a huge sacrifice considering that could be 2X logi in potential DPS ships. There is nothing that says you can't bring your own falcons and jam out all the griffins. Guaranteed jams work both ways. In other words I think this change is more balanced than it would appear in the case of jamming logi, but I can't really hand you proof that it is in all "what if..." situations.
I really wish we could test server this and have two 30 man gangs fight each other a few times with logi, ECM and the whole 9 yards to see how effective this is. It is such a drastic change that I would be very interested to see exactly how the tactics change. It is kind of hard to predict how these changes would effect things and how balance/unbalanced these changes are from a forum. "tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
2665
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 16:48:00 -
[60] - Quote
Aliventi wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:I meant going a bit further, that locks automatically and instantly re-establish. i.e. no re-lock time. It feels unnecessarily punitive given the current ECM duration to lump relock time on after that.
So, you have stuff locked. Get jammed. Jam ends. Targets (those still on grid/range) are instantly (or almost if too hard to code) reacquired. Explainable by the sensors overcompensating for the jamming and giving a temporary boost to resolution for a few seconds.
It'd be needed if the cycle time is dropped, otherwise low scan res ships would NEVER get a lock, ever, I understand what you are saying. This design is supposed to help counter that low scan res ships lock slower by using their typically higher sensor strength to make the jam time shorter. So jam time + lock time for a BS is approximately the same as jam time + lock time of a frigate. That design is supposed to not favor BS or frigates. The 25 or maybe even 30 second cycle time for the ECM mod should guarantee that even a single falcon would have difficulty perma-jamming a target without a lot of jammers. While I agree that instantly relocking would be a potentially useful mechanic, I don't think it would be the right decision in this design. The main issue is unbonused jammers only jam for 1-2 seconds. Instantly relocking after that would make an unbonused jammer nearly useless. The only way around this would be to buff the base jam strength of the ECM mod to the point an unbonused jammer was viable. Then you have the nightmare of trying to balance bonused hulls using this super-strength jammer. It would get ugly very quickly IMO. Edit: It you were to rework the proposal to factor in an instant relock that would be balanced I would love to see it. As far as a bunch of griffins jamming out a Basi or Guardian chain: It would take 4 jammers on a falcon to jam out a single scimi. It would end up being 2 girffins to the logi if they wanted a perma jam. That is a huge sacrifice considering that could be 2X logi in potential DPS ships. There is nothing that says you can't bring your own falcons and jam out all the griffins. Guaranteed jams work both ways. In other words I think this change is more balanced than it would appear in the case of jamming logi, but I can't really hand you proof that it is in all "what if..." situations. I really wish we could test server this and have two 30 man gangs fight each other a few times with logi, ECM and the whole 9 yards to see how effective this is. It is such a drastic change that I would be very interested to see exactly how the tactics change. It is kind of hard to predict how these changes would effect things and how balance/unbalanced these changes are from a forum. If we are not expected to be twitch gaming, then needing us to manually relock multiple targets diverts us from actually playing the real game, in exchange for the click fest mini game needed to restore locks you may need in a fight. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |