EVE Search - ECM Without Randomness

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

ECM Without Randomness

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Soldarius Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore 539	Posted - 2014.02.18 19:20:00 - [31] - Quote Sigras wrote: Ok, so ive been thinking, what if instead of jamming a ship you jammed each individual lock, and instead of a random function if it was based on a known game mechanic: Signature Radius. It never made any sense to me that It is just as difficult to prevent me from locking a frigate as it is to prevent me from locking a titan. My suggestion is to make it so that instead of jamming an entire ship, you jam its locks individually. Each time you lock a ship, that lock would be given a "lock strength" which would be: SignalStrength + (TargetSignatureRadius/10) = "lock strength" Then to jam a target you simply need to put more jam strength on them than they have "lock strength" and they'll lose that lock and not be able to lock anything without enough lock strength. (of course the numbers would have to be rebalanced) This would have a few interesting and emergent side effects: 1. A slight nerf to MWDs 2. A slight buff to target painters 3. Interesting interaction possibilities . . . For instance, you may choose to increase your own signature radius when your logi gets jammed so they can lock you again etc Thoughts? That makes a lot of sense. Larger ships are easier to target due to large sigRad. But nothing takes into account how easy or hard it is to maintain a lock. By reducing the ability to maintain locks on smaller ships this would have a very interesting effect in small-gang pvp. By signal strength I assume you mean sensor strength. So lets say sensor str = 20 ship targeting a HAC with SigRad=100. This would give a lock strength of 20 + (100/10) = 30. A single Falcon using max-skilled racial ECMs (14-15 jam strength) would require about 2 jammers to break those locks. An unlinked Crow with all 5s would have a sensor str of 14.4. Currently the above Falcon would permajam it with a single racial jammer. That inty tackling a 400m target (Battleship of some kind) would have a lock strength of 14.4 + (400/10) = 54.4. You would need 4 racial jammers to break that lock. What about targeting something smaller? Same Crow targeting another frigate with SigRad 40m? 14.4 + (14.4/10) = 15.84. Falcon would require 2 jammers to do the job. I think your formula need some tweaking. But the basic concept seems sound, and I like it better than max locked targets. We just need to decide at what point is 1 jammer sufficient, and what role should multispectral jammers play? I considered considering Scan Resolution in the formula. But that would intrude upon the territory of remote sensor damps, possibly making the combination of ECM+damps excessively OP. Of course, we could always just make ECM check to break locks every cycle and call it good. Free Ripley Weaver!
Steph Livingston Neko's Blanket 19	Posted - 2014.02.18 21:00:00 - [32] - Quote I'm normally a in game math person, but I wanted to add a thought to Soldarius's idea. What if ECM was also affected by the number of locked targets? The idea being, the more targets you have locked, the more work your sensor system has to work, the easier it is for ECM to disrupt it. Something like: [SignalStrength + (TargetSignatureRadius/10)] * [ 1- ( locked targets / total possible locks)] = "lock strength" The first part of the equation stays the same, but now the ECM target has options besides stacking ECCM. Using the previous examples, if the crow was targeting a frigate he could be fairly safe locking one, he'd have a slightly lower lock strength at around 14.85 (crow has max 4 locked targets). An additional locked target would drop this down to 11.88 lock strength, making a single ECM jam possible. Locking targets then becomes a question of risk/reward in engagements. Do you lock multiple targets all at once so you can switch instantly, but risk loosing your lock due to low lock strength, or do you concentrate on a few targets and make it harder for you to get jammed?
Sigras Conglomo 685	Posted - 2014.02.21 06:25:00 - [33] - Quote Steph Livingston wrote: I'm normally a in game math person, but I wanted to add a thought to Soldarius's idea. What if ECM was also affected by the number of locked targets? The idea being, the more targets you have locked, the more work your sensor system has to work, the easier it is for ECM to disrupt it. Something like: [SignalStrength + (TargetSignatureRadius/10)] * [ 1- ( locked targets / total possible locks)] = "lock strength" The first part of the equation stays the same, but now the ECM target has options besides stacking ECCM. Using the previous examples, if the crow was targeting a frigate he could be fairly safe locking one, he'd have a slightly lower lock strength at around 14.85 (crow has max 4 locked targets). An additional locked target would drop this down to 11.88 lock strength, making a single ECM jam possible. Locking targets then becomes a question of risk/reward in engagements. Do you lock multiple targets all at once so you can switch instantly, but risk loosing your lock due to low lock strength, or do you concentrate on a few targets and make it harder for you to get jammed? This is brilliant! I was trying to think of a way to get player interaction in there, and how to incorporate number of locks; you just did both in one elegant solution. I would maybe modify the formula a bit though because it seems that locking anything past 2 ships would be really really difficult., so my formula would be something like: [SignalStrength + (TargetSignatureRadius/10)] / (1.3^LockedTargets) = "lock strength" Now of course the sensor strength numbers for each ship and the ECM numbers would have to be tweaked a bit, but I think this would really be an improvement over the current RNG ECM we have today.
Carmizan 30plus Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere 22	Posted - 2014.02.21 10:21:00 - [34] - Quote the real problem to ECM is that there is no real effective counter to ECCM is there yes but from personal experience this module is not effective. Now i know that we hate using rl situation in eve but in this case i feel there may be an answer, so let me put this forward and see what you lot think. In previous wars air force have developed missile system that actual track the enemies radar emissions and use them against themselves, so here my idea Have CCP create a weapon system that can be fitted to another ship so that when one or more of your fleet members are jammed this system will track the ecm back to the ship and target locks and fires. in simple terms a specialize FoF missile. now this module could be a simple launcher that can be fitted by all ships and either disrupts the ecm or causes damage. Personally i would prefer the disrupt as that give the ecm boat a chance, as we all know the most ecm boats have no tank and it would leave the rest of the fleet to shoot Now this could be fitted on the ship being ECM'ed or make it so it can only be used by a ship that has not been jammed. This i have no real concerns with, but the overall effect is that it give the pilots a weapon if they choose to fit it that does give them a fighting chance. ok time for guys to say your piece on this
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 1293	Posted - 2014.02.21 10:27:00 - [35] - Quote Sigras wrote: A long time ago ECM was not a random system, the server simply looked to see if you were being jammed by more than your sensor strength and if so you could not lock targets. This was a horrible system and incredibly overpowered, so they changed it and we were left with the random mechanic that we have now. Of course I am not suggesting that we go back to that system, but I think it would be interesting to remove the random function and make it more of a battle of wits between the jammer and the person being jammed. The problem is, I have no idea what that mechanic would look like and all of my ideas end up being insanely complicated, so im looking for suggestions. How would you remove the RNG function from ECM? The current ECM effect is the issue. Not being able to Lock is a too pwoerful effect. It cannot be implemented in ANY way without a random factor or it will be isntantly overpowered or completely useless. Change the effect and then think on the rest. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!"
Lephia DeGrande The Scope Gallente Federation 247	Posted - 2014.02.21 10:34:00 - [36] - Quote Dorian Wylde wrote: Dolorous Tremmens wrote: Take the RNG's out of eve If you don't like RNG, I suggest games like Street Fighter where the person who hits the right buttons the fastest wins. Sry, this statement only Applies on Button smashing noobs, good Fighting Gamers dont smack them.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 934	Posted - 2014.02.21 10:54:00 - [37] - Quote Howabout instead of it being based on jamming targeting outright, it could instead have a variety of target-affecting mechanics: 1.) chance to break currently existing target locks 2.) decreases scan resolution in a chance-based fashion, so each cycle it's a different value 3.) decreases targeting range in a chance-based fashion, so each cycle it's a different value 4.) chance to reduce max number of targets, sometimes even reducing them to none If it took a very powerful ECM to reliably jam out a ship completely for an extended period of time, but much less ECM strength to screw up someone's targeting a bit, then ECM would be much more scalable. Say your ECM strength matches your target's sensor strength. You have: 50% chance for each currently targeted unit to break target (separate chance for each) Scan resolution and targeting range decreased by 0% to 50% Max number of targets: each treated seperately with 50% chance to break, so you average out being reduced to half max targets If your ECM strength were half of the target's, you'd have 33% target breaking, because the equation works as A/A+B where A is ECM strength and B is sensor strength. You would have -17% to 33% scan res/targeting range reduction, and any negative value is just set to zero. If your ECM strength were double you target's sensor strength, you'd have 67% values. 67% chance to break targets, 67% less max targets (average), and 33% to 67% reduced scan res/targeting range. This also means that if you have more jam strength than the target's sensor strength, you are guaranteed to reduce their scan res and targeting range somewhat. If you have less, you mightnot reduce those but yoou can still break locks and reduce max locks. Low ECM strength will have the most impressive effect in breaking currently existing locks--not much else will be of use but breaking the target's locks every once in a while forces them to re-target and buys precious seconds. High ECM strength is more likely to make a target useless if they are depending on their range or scan res, or if they have a low number of max targets or need to keep multiple units targeted at once. Assault ships probably won't be very strongly affected by this type of ECM. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!!
Lephia DeGrande The Scope Gallente Federation 248	Posted - 2014.02.21 11:01:00 - [38] - Quote One thing that suprised me since i Start eve is, why 20 seconds penalty on relocking targets? Why this static amount? Why not decrease the time you unable to lock with higher Sensor strength?
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 934	Posted - 2014.02.21 12:35:00 - [39] - Quote Here is an example, using a Guardian with sensor strength 22.8 and we'll fly a Blackbird with jam strength 10.0. The Blackbird is in a POS defense fleet and the Guardian is on the aggressor side, so the Guardian never gets a rest from repairing ships. Our job is to reduce the amount of reps going out from the Guardian so the attacking fleet falls faster. The jamming effectiveness value is 10/(10+22.8) = 30.49%. The Guardian can lock 10 targets at a time and is trying to maintain at least 3 target locks at any given moment--2 for cap chain and 1 for rep target. It has a targeting range of 81.25km and is positioned about 50km from the attack fleet, so it has about 40-60km to the average rep target, or 5-10km to other logistics ships. Its scan resolution is 481.3mm, so it can lock: 1.) Guardian - 3.4s 2.) Oracle - 2.3s 3.) Abaddon - 1.8s Lets start by applying one jammer to the Guardian. We'll do this for 1 minute (3 cycles) and review the effects: (I'm using a random number generator selecting values from 1 to 10,000 to determine successes/failures.) Cycle 1: No primary target locks broken Max targets reduced to 7 Targeting Range reduced by 15.52% (to 68.64km) - no locks broken Scan resolution reduced by 11.77% (to 424.7mm) - irrelevant Cycle 2: No primary target locks broken Max targets reduced to 7 Targeting Range reduced by 9.81% (to 73.28km) - no locks broken Scan resolution reduced by 30.26% (to 335.7mm) - irrelevant Cycle 3: No primary target locks broken Max targets reduced to 8 Targeting Range reduced by 1.64% (to 79.92km) - no locks broken Scan resolution reduced by 28.67% (to 343.3mm) - irrelevant =========================================================== WE MUST STEP UP OUR EFFORTS IF WE ARE GOING TO GET ANYWHERE =========================================================== Let's apply two jammers at once this time. We will do this for one minute (3 cycles) and review: Cycle 1: Guardian loses targeting with both cap chain buddies but not rep target. Other Guardians may run short on capacitor if it cannot get them locked soon enough! Max targets reduced to 8 Targeting Range reduced by 33.16% (to 54.31km) - cannot target most distant fleet members Scan resolution reduced by 23.62% (to 367.6mm) - 4.5s to re-lock other Guardians, plus a second or more in human response time plus server lag. 6 seconds of cap lost isn't too bad for them and the cap chain remains unbroken. Cycle 2: Guardian loses targeting with up chain buddy and rep target. Success! Max targets reduced to 4. Now the Guardian cannot maintain more than 1 extra target, and thus will have to target fleet members in response to incoming damage rather than having several already targeted. Targeting Range reduced by 20.54% (to 64.56km) - Guardian can once again target the most distant fleet members Scan resolution reduced by 46.92% (to 255.5mm) - 6.4s time to re-lock the up-chain buddy! But the Guardian pilot must untarget something before being able to re-target that other Guardian, so that wastes even more time. For now, he focuses on repping and will re-target the cap buddy in a short while (he is temporarily overwhelmed). The rep target was an Oracle, which takes 4.3s to retarget - probably 6.5-7s when you count the time it takes for the pilot to react and untarget something to make room. Then there is another 4.5s while the remote armor repairer cycles before any repair is delivered. The Oracle dies. Too late! The Guardian pilot scrambles to target a dying Abaddon (3.3s) and catch up with the repairs! He decides to get the cap chain buddy targeted again as well, but time wears thin and cycle 3 is coming up: Cycle 3: Guardian loses targeting with down chain buddy but not rep target. Up chain buddy had lost a significant amount of cap and had to quit repairing briefly, maybe the same will happen to down chain buddy! Max targets reduced to 5. Still unable to maintain a lot of target locks! Targeting Range reduced by 15.27% (to 68.84km) - no locks broken from range reduction Scan resolution reduced by 41.72% (to 280.5mm) - 5.8s to re-lock cap chain buddy--maybe 7s including lag and reaction time. Not too much this time and the Guardian pilot recovers and goes back to work. So what I showed here with the numbers is about how effective a single jammer or two jammers would be against a Guardian. 10 ECM jammer strength is approximate for a Blackbird using racial jammer with skill 5 and a lot of ECM strength boosts. The Guardian pilot had max skills but no ECCM or other sensory equipment. In practice, almost every Guardian will have both an ECCM and a sensor booster or signal amplifier. But then again, we got pretty unlucky with the targeting range jammming. If we had cut it by over 40% like with the scan res jamming, the Guardian's targeting range would have been reduced far enough to be unable to target most fleet members. But if we focused 3 or 4 jammers on the Guardian, we could sieze it down real tight, and it would be almost completely ineffective. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!!
Lephia DeGrande The Scope Gallente Federation 249	Posted - 2014.02.21 12:39:00 - [40] - Quote But where do fit dampers in your example?

Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 934	Posted - 2014.02.21 19:17:00 - [41] - Quote Lephia DeGrande wrote: But where do fit dampers in your example? Dampers aren't chance based and are generally much more effective than my ECM proposal at least as far as their individual jamming goes. Also, ECCM resists my ECM proposal very effectively, but doesn't resist damps. I thought it was obvious and was hoping I wouldn't have to point it out. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!!
Lephia DeGrande The Scope Gallente Federation 250	Posted - 2014.02.21 19:58:00 - [42] - Quote Sry no, reducing lock range and speed is for remote damper, i do not like anykind of cross side effects only for the sake of balance. They would simply replace damper because the acutal ranges where PvP fights usualy takes place is so close together every KM would make a difference and then ECM could fill 2 EWar typs in one Slot.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 934	Posted - 2014.02.22 02:51:00 - [43] - Quote Lephia DeGrande wrote: Sry no, reducing lock range and speed is for remote damper, i do not like anykind of cross side effects only for the sake of balance. At current functionality, ECM jammers reduce lock range and speed by 100%. I'm calling for a reduction in that, to give remote damps more ground. If you want to eliminate that effect completely from ECM, perhaps you should propose something unique to replace it. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!!
Sigras Conglomo 686	Posted - 2014.02.22 07:03:00 - [44] - Quote Im proposing something without randomness, and yes im proposing an alternative to your idea to have jammers also effect lock range and speed. Im proposing that jammers make it more difficult/impossible to lock smaller ships, so in the end you have this: Dampeners make it so you cant target stuff that is far away Jammers make it so you cant target small stuff no matter where it is.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 938	Posted - 2014.02.22 07:57:00 - [45] - Quote Do you have a plan for balancing the Griffin and Kitsune? If their jams are too effective, they may become overly difficult to kill in small gangs. If their jams are not effective enough, they may be overlooked while the other electronic attack frigates are flown instead. The problem I have with jammers making it difficult to target small things is that it puts the bonus all on one size. A large fleet can use the tactic to benefit everyone in teamwork, but many small gangs just wont have a use for that. What if the ECM jammers were just more size-oriented? Say there were small, medium, and large jammers which would be most effective on ships of their respective sizes. If your jammer is too small for your target, the low sensor strength means you're unlikely to have success. If your jammer is too big, you may jam them easily but they will recover quickly while your jammer is still on cooldown. That's still random-based but only because for the example I wanted to demonstrate size-based effects, so I left the mechanic basically the same. A non-random mechanic could still be used while making the impact size-oriented. The advantage of size-oriented jammers is that it allows for planning ahead to maximize ECM power by bringing the best size to counter the expected types of ships. The counter to the ECM is to use ships of a different size against those ECM ships. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!!
Sigras Conglomo 687	Posted - 2014.02.22 08:11:00 - [46] - Quote I had thought of the griffin and kitsune as potential problems to the design as they are themselves small ships and thus a large enough group of them could be invulnerable. My thought was to balance them by making them lack capacitor to maintain a steady jam IE they wouldnt get a cap bonus to ECM or a cap capacity bonus and their current cap recharge rate would be effected negatively even more than it is now. This would make it nearly impossible to perma run their ECM making them hit and run machines. They would be incredibly annoying, but not altogether deadly, and certainly no worse than they are right now.
Sigras Conglomo 687	Posted - 2014.02.22 18:55:00 - [47] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Sigras wrote: A long time ago ECM was not a random system, the server simply looked to see if you were being jammed by more than your sensor strength and if so you could not lock targets. This was a horrible system and incredibly overpowered, so they changed it and we were left with the random mechanic that we have now. Of course I am not suggesting that we go back to that system, but I think it would be interesting to remove the random function and make it more of a battle of wits between the jammer and the person being jammed. The problem is, I have no idea what that mechanic would look like and all of my ideas end up being insanely complicated, so im looking for suggestions. How would you remove the RNG function from ECM? The current ECM effect is the issue. Not being able to Lock is a too pwoerful effect. It cannot be implemented in ANY way without a random factor or it will be isntantly overpowered or completely useless. Change the effect and then think on the rest. im assuming you mean the inability to lock anyone at all because sensor dampeners which prevent you from locking things far away are ok. what if ECM simply made it so you couldnt lock small things?
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 942	Posted - 2014.02.23 02:22:00 - [48] - Quote Sigras wrote: My thought was to balance them by making them lack capacitor to maintain a steady jam IE they wouldnt get a cap bonus to ECM or a cap capacity bonus and their current cap recharge rate would be effected negatively even more than it is now. How about a role bonus which increases their max capacitor and decreases their capacitor regen? Say, double and half. They will be able to maintain jams for a while but not indefinitely without a capacitor booster (takes a mid slot) or NOS/cap logi support. One could be built to run a significant amount of jammers permanently without support but it would need so many cap modules/rigs that it would be basically naked--no defense or agility modules. edit: I just realized that tracking disruptors make it difficult to hit small targets already. Don't we need some kind of EWAR that is beneficial to larger ships? Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) And bring back the missile Inquisitor!!
Sigras Conglomo 688	Posted - 2014.03.01 07:49:00 - [49] - Quote Target Painters and Webifiers are already beneficial to large ships; also larger ships naturally have more EHP and more damage than smaller ships, so they have natural benefits. Its the small ships that need help to stay relevant. Anyway, I think that's a good balance, so they have really terrible cap regen but a fairly good sized cap battery so they cant sustain their jams but they are good at hit and run tactics.
Kel hound Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking 94	Posted - 2014.03.01 11:29:00 - [50] - Quote Sigras wrote: A long time ago ECM was not a random system, the server simply looked to see if you were being jammed by more than your sensor strength and if so you could not lock targets. This was a horrible system and incredibly overpowered, so they changed it and we were left with the random mechanic that we have now. Of course I am not suggesting that we go back to that system, but I think it would be interesting to remove the random function and make it more of a battle of wits between the jammer and the person being jammed. The problem is, I have no idea what that mechanic would look like and all of my ideas end up being insanely complicated, so im looking for suggestions. How would you remove the RNG function from ECM? To start with, I would drastically lower the ECM strength of all jammers. Next, I would also lower the duration of the jammers Probably to around 10 seconds. Then I would change it so that you build ECM strength on a target over time. Each time the ECM cycles you gain ECM strength on that target equal to the strength of the ECM jammer that has just finished its cycle. When the ECM strength is equal to, or greater than, the sensor strength of the ship, you successfully jam that ships sensors and force it to drop all target locks while preventing it from acquiring any additional target locks for the duration of the ECM module. Once a target has been jammed all ECM points are reset, and the cycle begins again. So for example: We have a test Griffin fitted with 4 multi-spectral ECM units. Our Griffin is attempting to jam out an Omen with a sensor strength of 15. Our Griffin's multi-spectrals have an ECM strength of lets say 2. Our Griffin really wants to jam out this Omen so he uses all 4 jammers on him. Each time his ECM cycles he gains 8 ECM strength against the Omens 15 radar sensor strength. This means on his jammers first cycle he only has 8 ECM strength, not enough to jam the Omen, but on his second attempt he will gain another 8, putting his total up to 16, beating the Omens sensor strength, and jamming him for 10 seconds, every other cycle. Second example. Our little Griffin is in a small frigate gang now and they find and engage a small group of Rifters. Our Griffin now has a choice. Remembering that our Griffin has multi-spectrals with a hypothetical strength of 2, a Rifter has a base sensor strength of 8, so our Griffin could jam 4 rifters for 10 seconds, every 4 cycles. Lets say for whatever reason he does this. One of the Rifters burns off from the fight to try and tackle our Griffin. /o\ Ohnohs! Not to worry, our Griffin already has 2 ECM points on this Rifter so all they need to do is put another 2 of their jammers onto the offending Rifter. Bam, next cycle he has 8 ECM strength on the Rifter. But wait, the Rifter still has target lock? Turns out this pilot trained their sensor compensation skills and has 9.5 sensor strength, not 8. Our Griffin is caught without any tank and destroyed. Those are just some hypothetical numbers of course. But I think that the principle is sound. There could even be rigs and mods added to reduce the cycle time of jammers. This would mean a faster build up of ECM strength, but shorter jamming duration. Personally, ECM could be removed from the game and I don't see myself shedding many tears over its loss. But if we're brainstorming here for ways to remove the RNG from it, this is how I think I would do it.

Jacid Aliastra Gallente Federation 52	Posted - 2014.03.02 03:25:00 - [51] - Quote Their are some interseting ideas in this thread. I'm not sure if ECM is broken with the new skills and nerfs if it even needs to be changed. If I were going to change ECM I think i would make them the opposite of damps in the following way.: Boost ECM strengh Reduce range to 20k with 1k falloff Remove all ship based range bonuses Why: Still keeps ECM effective but leaves a specific weakness long range weapon systems Fits with lore and caldari's preference to long range weapons Fits with lore and caldari's need to counter short range weapons (gallente). Not overly complicated My 2 Cents
masternerdguy State Protectorate Caldari State 1397	Posted - 2014.03.02 04:29:00 - [52] - Quote I personally loved ECM back when it wasn't chance based, the original ECM mechanics and original Falcon added a flavor to EVE that CCP unfortunately removed. I advocate a compromise solution: Bring back the original ECM mechanic, but add anti-radiation missiles. In the real world there are classes of missiles that do not lock a specific target but just home in on activate radio sources, such as the jamming station (any jamming system is going to put out a lot of noise and be very, very, very easy to lock onto even if you can't lock onto anything else) and fly to it and blow it up. We could add a class of missile that doesn't need a lock and just homes in on the strongest radiation source on the field, which 9/10 times is going to be the ECM ship jamming everyone. It would be like FoF missiles except useful. Things are only impossible until they are not.
Sigras Conglomo 690	Posted - 2014.03.02 22:19:00 - [53] - Quote The problem I see with that solution is that now we have 2 sets of E-war that make turrets useless and nothing against missiles... this seems wrong to me. Also, the old ECM was hilariously overpowered. It was literally a get out of 1v1 free card because you could to guarantee breaking your opponents lock.
masternerdguy State Protectorate Caldari State 1405	Posted - 2014.03.03 00:51:00 - [54] - Quote Sigras wrote: The problem I see with that solution is that now we have 2 sets of E-war that make turrets useless and nothing against missiles... this seems wrong to me. Also, the old ECM was hilariously overpowered. It was literally a get out of 1v1 free card because you could to guarantee breaking your opponents lock. It would be realistic though. Besides missiles are already underpowered compared to turrets ever since they added that whole signature radius thing, back in the day before the nano nerfs a raven with torps could 1 shot any frigate. Things are only impossible until they are not.


Pages: 1 [2] :: 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.