| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tullius Cicero
   |
Posted - 2006.02.13 11:00:00 -
[1]
I really dislike the chance based ECM system.
ECM is powerful tool, and while its random nature certainly cancels out in large fleet engagements, the variance of its outcome is very large when deployed in small skirmishes.
I agree that combat hits and damage also use a chance based system, but the random events of this system usually have a much smaller variance due to a higher frequency (ROF is much shorter than 20 seconds), more nuanced outcomes (wrecking hits - barely scraches), and not an equal distribution (wrecking hits, for example, are much less common than normal ones).
We also do not have these random effects with other combat modules.
I am not asking for ECM to be nerfed, I just want it to produce more consistent outcomes. This could be done by
a) reduce cycle time, e.g. by factor 4, and grant the jammed ship a bonus to lock time equal to this factor. Total lock time will stay the same.
b) make ecm strength conditional on prior successes.
Example old system :
Chance to jam 25%, jamming time 20 seconds
Expected jammed time / minute: 15 seconds
New System: Initial chance to jam: 25%
-> Success in the first 5 seconds: Future jamming chances are decreased to reflect expectation value
-> Failure in the first 5 seconds: Future jamming chances are increased to reflect expectation value
These are just some ideas that point imo in a better direction...
|
Rodj Blake
|
Posted - 2006.02.13 11:08:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Tullius Cicero
We also do not have these random effects with other combat modules.
Yes we do.
My guns often miss the target entirely.
Dolce et decorum est pro imperator mori |
Crom'ar Lev
|
Posted - 2006.02.13 11:17:00 -
[3]
TBH its not really random. although they claim it is.The fact is i have never failed to jam any ship larger than a frigate and I have failed every time I have attempted to jam a frigate.Dont use ECM on frigs is the lesson.Anything larger and u should be successful 99% of the time.
|
Kay Han
|
Posted - 2006.02.13 11:21:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Kay Han on 13/02/2006 11:21:45
/me likes the current jamming system
Before the major ew changes Jamming was pure math.
Fit x Backuparrays / eccm to encounter x Racial / multijammers.
Jammers have had unlimted range As far as i remember.
Now it¦s change based.
[your_jammingstrengh]/[targets_sensorstrengh]*100 = [your_chance_to_jam] when in optimal range.
Dunno the formula for falloff.
i think it¦s the same but -30%.
Sure there is much luck involved. The last times i was able to Jam a apoc with 2 activated eccm¦s with 1 Multijammer.
But who cares?
as compensation of this, the cycletime of Multijammers was increased, so Cyclejamming isn¦t possible anymore.
___________________________________________
A wise man said once:
'Violence is the escape of the mentaly poor guys.'
|
wierchas noobhunter
|
Posted - 2006.02.13 11:31:00 -
[5]
if u dont like it go play wow
join soar angelic
|
Pride NL
|
Posted - 2006.02.13 11:33:00 -
[6]
Well in all fairness, with the EW changes ( a while ago ) they made a scorpion choose a different setup then 8x multispectrals. But it also makes cycle jamming useless. I like the changes, but they best put back the cycle jamming (shorten the activation duration) as that was a very usefull tactic.
|
hired goon
|
Posted - 2006.02.13 11:52:00 -
[7]
Yeah the ECM nerf was pretty bad, and uncalled for. I mean, it's not as though EW users were going around being constantly uber and inducing thread upon thread of victim-based whining.
It was just an out of the blue "oh look there's a village of civilians that the neutron bomb didn't catch, let's crush it now", "We hate caldari, let's nerf ECM now and we'll get missiles later" spiteful attack.
Infact it was ok to bring the range down from infinite to the 160km that a trained-up scorp pilot could deploy. But spending a month to get caldari BS to 5 for the sole reason of a longer range EW attack - just in time for tech 2 ammo to come out and negate any advantage it entails - is not very funny thanks.
RANT COMPLETE. You may now continue with your breakfast.
-omg-
|
Mangold
|
Posted - 2006.02.13 11:59:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Crom'ar Lev
TBH its not really random. although they claim it is.The fact is i have never failed to jam any ship larger than a frigate and I have failed every time I have attempted to jam a frigate.Dont use ECM on frigs is the lesson.Anything larger and u should be successful 99% of the time.
Completely wrong.
|
Paavo Pesusieni
|
Posted - 2006.02.13 12:00:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Kay Han
[your_jammingstrengh]/[targets_sensorstrengh]*100 = [your_chance_to_jam] when in optimal range.
mm, I think you got the 100 too much there. Sounds reasonable otherwise.
|
Jacob Majestic
|
Posted - 2006.02.13 12:07:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Mangold
Originally by: Crom'ar Lev
TBH its not really random. although they claim it is.The fact is i have never failed to jam any ship larger than a frigate and I have failed every time I have attempted to jam a frigate.Dont use ECM on frigs is the lesson.Anything larger and u should be successful 99% of the time.
Completely wrong.
Completely wrong. Go set up a Raven with max sensor strength and remote boost it until it has 500 or so, then try to jam it with a Scorp. You'll be amazed at how often you jam it.
|
Deja Thoris
|
Posted - 2006.02.13 13:05:00 -
[11]
Originally by: wierchas noobhunter
if u dont like it go play wow
No. If you dont like it, post a constructive well thought out comment on a forum in the hope of provoking some debate to find ways of improving it. Thats what the OP did.
I'd prefer to see shortened cycle times. With current combat duration (still short) - one jam can be most of a fights duration.
|
Wild Rho
|
Posted - 2006.02.13 13:07:00 -
[12]
ECM now is better than it used to be in my opinion. While the chance aspect can be annoying the current method allows any ship to have a go at EW with some chance of success where as before it was more or less the sole relm of the black birds and scorps (ravens as well to a lesser degree).
This makes EW alot more versatile than it used to be.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.02.13 13:51:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 13/02/2006 13:54:29
Originally by: hired goon
Infact it was ok to bring the range down from infinite to the 160km that a trained-up scorp pilot could deploy. But spending a month to get caldari BS to 5 for the sole reason of a longer range EW attack - just in time for tech 2 ammo to come out and negate any advantage it entails - is not very funny thanks.
Um. No, infinite range is VERY good - it lets you negate snipers. Negating snipers is GOOD.
PS, I posted a system a while back where you lose locking "channels" as you got jammed - if you could lock 6 targets in a ship ad had 2 jammed, they'd be a 33% chance that you'd lose lock (and be unable to regain it for the cycle) on any ship you had currently locked. You could adjust the attack chances to be reasonable, but utterly jamming a target would take several multispecs.
This is more valuable than you might think, since you'd rarely fail to disrupt even one tracking channel - and if you lose lock on the primary target, you must spread fire. (It's a partial answer to focusing fire, in other words).
Digital Communist> The Jin-Mei are probably more profficient in training for Tofu and Noodles than Spaceship Command |
Tharrn
|
Posted - 2006.02.13 13:59:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Crom'ar Lev
TBH its not really random. although they claim it is.The fact is i have never failed to jam any ship larger than a frigate and I have failed every time I have attempted to jam a frigate.Dont use ECM on frigs is the lesson.Anything larger and u should be successful 99% of the time.
Strange... especially Interceptors can be jammed with a hot potatoe or so it seems here. I get very frequent successes on Assault Frigs, too.
Now recruiting! |
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.02.13 14:09:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 13/02/2006 13:54:29
Originally by: hired goon
Infact it was ok to bring the range down from infinite to the 160km that a trained-up scorp pilot could deploy. But spending a month to get caldari BS to 5 for the sole reason of a longer range EW attack - just in time for tech 2 ammo to come out and negate any advantage it entails - is not very funny thanks.
Um. No, infinite range is VERY good - it lets you negate snipers. Negating snipers is GOOD.
But it also let you snipe with ECM.
A scorp could sit at 250km and as long as it had the lock range it could cyclejam ships from far beyond anyone's range.
--
Proud member of the [23].
The Tachikomas are DEAD! Click sig for video.
<3 Tachikomas -Eldo
But I'm the cutest of them all, and I'm not even a blue robot - Wrangler
I have seen you. You cannot deny it anymore - Vanamonde
You used to be one of the twenty three, now you are a part of me - Cortes
Immy > You All - Imaran
Tachikomas > All ~kieron
POKEMON -eris
Jacques was 'ere
Capsicum still is |
Tullius Cicero
|
Posted - 2006.02.13 15:19:00 -
[16]
Quote:
I'd prefer to see shortened cycle times. With current combat duration (still short) - one jam can be most of a fights duration.
Yes, reducing jamming time would probably be the key aspect.
However, simply cutting it down to, say, 5 seconds, would have to account for the problem that "time without lock" is not only the jammed time caused by the ecm module, but also the time to re-lock a target.
Example (might write more general case later):
Both the ECM ship and the victim have lock at the beginning of the combat.
33% jamming chance, 20 seconds cycletime, x seconds locktime.
3 cycles would give you on average 1 successful jamming.
The jamming could take place at
0 seconds / 20 seconds / 40 seconds and would jam the ship for 20 + x seconds.
Total average time / minute without lock would thus be
20+x
The point of the changes would now be to cut this 20+x seconds "without lock - blocks" into four smaller chunks
of 5 + x/4 seconds duration.
For this to work, having been jammed needs to give the victim a bonus to scan resolution over the next 15 seconds that should reduce locked time to 25%.
Results: same total time without lock, but lower variance of the total jam effect.
Prior to changes:
On average one long block, sometimes at the beginning of the fight (devastating), sometimes at the end of the fight (which is often decided by then). High probability for no jams at all, or two jams in a row.
Post changes:
On average four shorter blocks, nicely distributed over one minute. Hardly ever no jams or completely jammed.
Total jammed time remains the same.
|
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.02.13 15:21:00 -
[17]
You seem to not know how it was before the nerf 
There were shorter cycle times.
People would sit in sensor-boosted scorps at 200km with 6 multispecs, enough to jam any battleship. They'd activate it on one, then the next, then the next--as it had a 2 second cycle time. The battleships would be rendered useless, as they'd take like 10 seconds to relock. So basically that single scorp, though very fast clicking, would be able to jam an entire enemy squad.
--
Proud member of the [23].
The Tachikomas are DEAD! Click sig for video.
<3 Tachikomas -Eldo
But I'm the cutest of them all, and I'm not even a blue robot - Wrangler
I have seen you. You cannot deny it anymore - Vanamonde
You used to be one of the twenty three, now you are a part of me - Cortes
Immy > You All - Imaran
Tachikomas > All ~kieron
POKEMON -eris
Jacques was 'ere
Capsicum still is |
Tullius Cicero
|
Posted - 2006.02.13 15:34:00 -
[18]
And you seem to not know exactly what I meant  .
Quote:
People would sit in sensor-boosted scorps at 200km with 6 multispecs, enough to jam any battleship.
They'd activate it on one, then the next, then the next--as it had a 2 second cycle time. The battleships would be rendered useless, as they'd take like 10 seconds to relock. So basically that single scorp, though very fast clicking, would be able to jam an entire enemy squad.
Quote:
The point of the changes would now be to cut this 20+x seconds "without lock - blocks" into four smaller chunks
of 5 + x/4 seconds duration.
For this to work, having been jammed needs to give the victim a bonus to scan resolution over the next 15 seconds that should reduce locked time to 25%.
So first of all, range limitations dont really play a role here as with the new changes jamming would not be buffed or nerfed, it would only have more consistency.
Second, two seconds is good from a variance point of view, but might cause overexcessive clicking.
And third I stated that each successfull lock would reduce re-lock time so that we would exactly not have the situation of one scorp giving "no lock time" of 2 seconds + re-lock time. Thus, cycling would not be much of an issue.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |