EVE Search

All Channels

Ships and Modules

EW

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Emsigma	Posted - 2006.03.07 10:19:00 - [1] I still don't see what the problem was with the old EW system. As long as the activation time for multis was changed to 20s it was really good. Then you offered mids or lows to boost to MAKE SURE you wouldn't get jammed and there would be no cycle jamming either. Also, frigates with jammers could jam other frigates and cruisers but not BS (unless very specialized griffins or stilettos), cruisers could jam frigs and cruisers and sometimes BS while BS could jam other BS. I don't want to nag, but seriously. What was wrong with that system? ---------- // emsigma
Emsigma	Posted - 2006.03.07 11:17:00 - [2] Originally by: Auman Originally by: darth solo iv got a crazy, totally mental out of this world idea... make ECM a module that can only be fitted on ECM ships... like gang mods on BC/command ships, like advanced cloakers on coverts., and various others. Im sick of every fight i get into being jammed from ships, that just shouldnt be fitting ecm... we have ECM ravens, ECM doms, Megas fitting 2 ecm mods... u would have to be a mad man to fight a domonix solo now, u just know its gonna be using ecm. ECM is the win button in eve and is far too overpowered, so im glad u are looking into it.... Id like to see it go back to what it once was, where it took 3 modules to jam 1 ship, where u knew if u fitted backups 3 modules wouldnt jam u.. MAKE IT AN EXACT SCIENCE... if u activate ecm on me for -18 sensor strengh, and i have 18 total strengh, i am jammed.. if u activate -18 on me and i have 19 i can target you. making it chance based was a lottery, it was a case of first to jam won, if u missed a few cycles u lost... thats totally unfair and should never have been put into the game. I could go up against a guy with 30mill skillpoints less than me, hes in the same ship, yet he has 1 ecm module fitted that just by luck manages to jam me on all cycles... you have to admit, its pretty poor. or maybe i have the exact same setup, yet my ecm cycles do not work, all of his do, again totally unfair allowing it to chance. Anyways, its no secret that im a big hater of the way ecm has been worked. d solo. Totally agree. Perhaps keep the optimal and fall off values though. Yep, I agree as well. The only thing I don't want is the 4 second cycle on the multis as cycle jamming was to powerful before. ---------- // emsigma
Emsigma	Posted - 2006.03.07 12:11:00 - [3] Originally by: Ante Say you're targeted by an enemy ship. You activate your racial (or multispec) ECM jammer. A roll is done of ECM strength vs hostile sensor strength, if you're successful that ship loses target of you and cannot target for activation time seconds. Why would anyone lock a scorp or a blackbird at all then? :) ---------- // emsigma
Emsigma	Posted - 2006.03.07 12:16:00 - [4] Originally by: Ante Originally by: Emsigma Originally by: Ante Say you're targeted by an enemy ship. You activate your racial (or multispec) ECM jammer. A roll is done of ECM strength vs hostile sensor strength, if you're successful that ship loses target of you and cannot target for activation time seconds. Why would anyone lock a scorp or a blackbird at all then? :) Sorry my bad. Mis-typed the last bit. Editing now. Yes, but why would someone lock a blackbird or scorp then at all? No need to shoot at them since they don't deal any real damange and can't jam anyone activly :) ---------- // emsigma
Emsigma	Posted - 2006.03.07 14:34:00 - [5] Originally by: Bozse Just as an example on how screwd the chanse based system is, i did a test with a megathron that had 28 signal strenght and 5 medium ecm drones, got jammed twice in 90 sec... Only thing imo that can "fix" jamming is going back to static values. Indeed, indeed. The other ideas are creative and "fresh", but not as good and effective... and if not... easy to implement. ---------- // emsigma
Emsigma	Posted - 2006.03.07 15:11:00 - [6] Edited by: Emsigma on 07/03/2006 15:11:06 Originally by: Kay Han Edited by: Kay Han on 07/03/2006 15:07:13 Or do i miss somthing? Yes i missed something Yes, the math :) bonus for sensor booster t2 = 1.6 multiplier bonus for sensor dampener t2 = 0.52 multiplier 1.6*0.52 = 0.832 ---------- // emsigma
Emsigma	Posted - 2006.03.07 15:27:00 - [7] Is there actually anyone that thinks that the new chance based system is better than the old one now after some time? ---------- // emsigma
Emsigma	Posted - 2006.03.07 15:38:00 - [8] Roll a dice for teh lose! ---------- // emsigma
Emsigma	Posted - 2006.03.07 16:03:00 - [9] Originally by: dabster The problem all together with todays EW is the fact that it is CHANCE based, it makes it complete*****. No matter how you nerf it, it will keep sucking if it works on CHANCE like today. Re-do the system completly, please! Word! Let the people chant: "Give us back teh old one, give us back teh old one!" ---------- // emsigma
Emsigma	Posted - 2006.03.20 11:25:00 - [10] ... and remove the chance based system nags

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.