Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
![Serret Serret](/images/people/img7.png)
Serret
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 07:24:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Personally i think maybe target jammers should be limited to dedicated EW ships only. What would be the disadvantages of this approach?
It would make EW awfully predictable. -- <Deathwing> just say Amarr pwn cause DW is Amarr |
![Sarmaul Sarmaul](/images/people/img6.png)
Sarmaul
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 12:46:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Serret
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Personally i think maybe target jammers should be limited to dedicated EW ships only. What would be the disadvantages of this approach?
It would make EW awfully predictable.
As opposed to the "if a ship has more than 2 mids chances are it has ECM" system we have now?
TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS - In Rust We Trust - |
![Serret Serret](/images/people/img2.png)
Serret
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 16:08:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Sarmaul
Originally by: Serret
It would make EW awfully predictable.
As opposed to the "if a ship has more than 2 mids chances are it has ECM" system we have now?
The dedicated ECM ships pretty much get their jams. All the variety right now exists in the ships which 'sometimes' jam.
Not saying that multis should be quite the crapshoot that they are now, but IMHO the option to fit nonstandard modules on the 'wrong' ships should never be taken out of Eve. -- <Deathwing> just say Amarr pwn cause DW is Amarr |
![Xendie Xendie](/images/people/img13.png)
Xendie
|
Posted - 2006.07.01 08:16:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Serret
Originally by: Sarmaul
Originally by: Serret
It would make EW awfully predictable.
As opposed to the "if a ship has more than 2 mids chances are it has ECM" system we have now?
The dedicated ECM ships pretty much get their jams. All the variety right now exists in the ships which 'sometimes' jam.
Not saying that multis should be quite the crapshoot that they are now, but IMHO the option to fit nonstandard modules on the 'wrong' ships should never be taken out of Eve.
no its not "sometimes" jam, its silly jam from anyone that has a midslot free. you used to be forced to have player skill and was forced to use multiple modules to jam a single BS. now anyone with a midslot free and no skill can screw up a party and everyone with a midslot free and no skill can do that.
bring back playerskill is what i say.
Originally by: F'nog This would be great, because lag is not at all a problem currently.
|
![Panta Rei Panta Rei](/images/people/img10.png)
Panta Rei
|
Posted - 2006.07.01 09:42:00 -
[95]
You guys just want to remove ECM completely, which is kinda unfair after letting ppl specialize in it :/
|
![Apollo Balthar Apollo Balthar](/images/people/img7.png)
Apollo Balthar
|
Posted - 2006.07.02 13:20:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Lamb Chop I have spent almost 2 months (more if you consider recon ship skill as well) to max out my ecm skills and now you are boosting ECCM in such a way, if someone has one on, i am useless in my recon.
Ppl whine that it can't be countered, it is supposed to be that way, it is a totaly seperate skill tree that you have to train for not to mention complete lack of defences on any and all ew platforms. Is ther a counter to a tempest sniping you from 200K? no, you just snipe it back, this is the same thing. This change effectively renders Multispectrals totally useless, Racials hardly useful.
If you were going ahead with the change you should have made bloody damn sure it reuires as much skills as EW to fit those. maybe add another skill to use the mods at all and make it a nice comfy lvl10 skill or 8 at least.
Giving into every bunch of loud whining noobs about fix this is really aggrevating the more skilled players like us. If you did something in the past, stick to it...
Lately i have been constantly asking myself why do i even bother with Eve anymore? all it has become is a e-bayer and macro paradise, and we can't even kill those.
Yes, please leave, can I have your stuff? Grow a brain dude, your 2 months (which I call BS if you have decent learning skills) of training counters my 1 year of training in gunnery with one module, rendering my 6 to 8 (way more expensive) modules useless, not to mention the relock time. On smaller ships then a BS you can count on being permajammed. How in the world is that fun or fair. Your argument about snipers is also moot. You can fit a tank and then just warp out, not that hard.
Stacking penalty on ECM please, and a way for smaller ships to break a jam, as atm that's just a joke.
This post represent my own, my Corporation's, my mother's and my father's, my mates' and the royal families'point of view.
Now shut up and be happy!
|
![Imhotep Khem Imhotep Khem](/images/people/img12.png)
Imhotep Khem
|
Posted - 2006.07.02 18:20:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Imhotep Khem on 02/07/2006 18:20:33 I noticed that the signature of the Jaguar is 34. I thought it was 30. Also the Wolf signature is 33 whereas I thought it was 28.
Is this a recent change?
How do I make the text red? ____ "If your not dyin' your not tryin'." "Are you prepared to go all the way, Alexi?" DuGalle |
![Serret Serret](/images/people/img15.png)
Serret
|
Posted - 2006.07.03 06:08:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Xendie
no its not "sometimes" jam, its silly jam from anyone that has a midslot free.
Yes, but it only works sometimes. As opposed to dedicated ECM ships, which only fail sometimes.
Quote:
you used to be forced to have player skill and was forced to use multiple modules to jam a single BS.
I'm not all that sure that keyspamming cycle jamming was 'player skill' but YMMV. -- <Deathwing> just say Amarr pwn cause DW is Amarr |
![Woopie Woopie](/images/people/img9.png)
Woopie
|
Posted - 2006.07.05 00:42:00 -
[99]
Vigilant base armor resist changed from incorrect Caldari to correct Gallente*.
Orginal Thread.
*Caldari Base Resist: 60/10/25/45 Gallente Base Resist: 60/10/35/35
|
![deusine deusine](/images/people/img9.png)
deusine
|
Posted - 2006.07.05 02:44:00 -
[100]
Edited by: deusine on 05/07/2006 02:45:02
Originally by: Imhotep Khem Edited by: Imhotep Khem on 05/07/2006 02:18:15 I noticed that the signature of the Jaguar is 34. I thought it was 30. Also the Wolf signature is 33 whereas I thought it was 28.
Is this a recent change?
Yes and no. It's in the "Build 3900 to 3910 addresses May Patch Notes" (the patch before the current):
"The signature radius of Assault ships have been increased so they are balanced with the TL1 ships they are based on, and not Interceptors."
All the AFs had their signature increased 10~23%. Minmatar the least and Caldari the most I believe.
|
|
![Jim McGregor Jim McGregor](/images/people/img5.png)
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.07.05 07:44:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Serret
Yes, but it only works sometimes. As opposed to dedicated ECM ships, which only fail sometimes.
I think with a 4.8 multispectral and good skills, you will have up to 40% to jam the other ship every 20 seconds, right (depends on ship etc etc)? Then they have to relock, thats another 10 seconds. Personally i think its pretty much the "I Win" button to equip it, if the other guy doesnt have one.
Still think these modules should be worthwhile only on dedicated EW ships. They are just too powerful on normal ships. Everybody with a free med slot will use one, since the advantage is so huge.
Maybe its a good idea to increase their fitting requirements quite alot (combined with ship bonuses to fitting them on EW ships). That would make it possible to fit them on normal ships, but you would perhaps be required to gimp your setup alot to do it.
--- Eve Wiki | Eve Tribune | Eve Pirate |
![Tor Anasa Tor Anasa](/images/people/img1.png)
Tor Anasa
|
Posted - 2006.07.06 12:56:00 -
[102]
ugh for 1 med slot you get a 4.2 jamming strength. That does not give you a 40% chance to jam anythign other then a frig.......
|
![Sir Bart Sir Bart](/images/people/img10.png)
Sir Bart
|
Posted - 2006.07.06 18:19:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Tor Anasa ugh for 1 med slot you get a 4.2 jamming strength. That does not give you a 40% chance to jam anythign other then a frig.......
4.2 is a number before any skills are applied. with level 4 signal dispersion you get +20% to that making strength of about 5.
Armageddon sensor str is 17. So : 5 / 17 = 29.4%
Not 40% but a wee bit high don't you think?
SB
|
![Gwynae Gwynae](/images/people/img16.png)
Gwynae
|
Posted - 2006.07.07 12:35:00 -
[104]
Edited by: Gwynae on 07/07/2006 12:40:44 I would picture EW as an weapon, just like missiles and turrets. the more you train in them, the higher the damage. So, as a start, why not have both ECM/ECCM base module strength purely base dependant on EW skills in a simular way as well? o EW training = 0% base strength, level 5 is 100% EW strength. Something like that.
From here it should be relatively simple to substract those, and roll the dice compared to sensor strength thingy. That is, if CCCP still wants to keep that.. |
![Heloise ChateauBriande Heloise ChateauBriande](/images/people/img4.png)
Heloise ChateauBriande
|
Posted - 2006.07.07 20:08:00 -
[105]
"And please, for the love of all that's holy, think up something like a blind fire mode or such, that works at 25% range and 25% tracking guns value or so... won't do much good in a real fight, but I cannot imagine that when the ship sensors are jammed, my minmatar crew cannot fire the howies manual at pointblank range... rly doesn't make sense roleplaying wise...." - Apollo Balthar
I came to the idea of a "blind-fire mode" independently but I wanted to give credit where it is due... Apollo came up with it first.
I see the idea of a "blind fire mode" as potentially the solution to all of the EWAR problems in game currently. I don't have numbers though... this will take a lot of time on the test server and the participation of lots of "numbers" people. But the kernel of this idea could rebalance all of the EWAR types with respect to one another and solve the problems that the dominant Caldari ECM has caused. What is a "Blind Fire Mode"? First, it is inconceivable that civilizations advanced enough to build interstellar warships would be unable to manage the gunsight and the trigger. If your computer and sensors cannot "lock" onto your targets you should still be able to whip out a joystick and fire away merrilly if less effectively. This is "blind fire mode" (henceforth BFM) and its introduction will make Eve a lot more realistic but also it could also solve the EWAR issues.
In BFM a ship will be much less effective than it normally would be. There are lots of ways to achieve this from a technical standpoint: R.O.F., tracking, signature resultion, and range/falloff manipulations are all possible. Personally, I think that a signature resolution penalty and making all firing as if in "falloff" is probably the way to go. Additionally, I would make it so that normal "targeted" missiles are impossible to fire while in BFM but that "fire and forget" missiles work. BFM balance is going to be very difficult to achieve and will require number crunching and time on the test server. It basically needs to be debilitating enough that victims are willing to consider mods that will help immunize them and also so that EWAR users find a real advantage to it. A tough balance to achieve. Still this is a "vision" statement so necessarily vague.
How does BFM balance all of EWAR??
Okay well it balances sensor dampeners and caldari ECM (IMO) because both of these mods would be able to cripple an opponent by pushing them into BFM. Sensor damps are more useful at range while caldari ECM is chance based. I see this as relatively balanced. What about tracking disruptors? An interesting thing about BFM would be that either you are firing manually or you aren't. So you couldn't "stack" BFM debilitations. The tracking disruptor thus becomes another tool with which you can stick it to your foe... a tool with effects that stack with multiple applications. This makes the tracking disruptor distinctive and gives it a special place. I would probably balance these mods but making BFM more debilitating a state than could be achieved with 1 tracking disruptor but less debilitating than could be achieved with multiple tracking disruptors. Suddenly there are good reasons to use multiple types of EWAR. And what about target painters? Well actually... they have a new role too. A ship that is forced into BFM needs all the help it can get and could probably actually function allright if it were shooting at a ship that has been painted by multiple target painters. Suddenly the target painter is a lot more useful.
Imagine a group of ships with this new Caldari ECM versus a group of ships with target painters. In this new version of EVE those with the caldari ECM debilitate their foes by forcing many of them into BFM. However, these ships can still fight because they are painting their foes. A sort of balance is achieved. Suddenly diverse EWAR strategies are viable.
|
![Heloise ChateauBriande Heloise ChateauBriande](/images/people/img9.png)
Heloise ChateauBriande
|
Posted - 2006.07.07 20:09:00 -
[106]
In conclusion, I think that introducing a "Blind Fire Mode" would bring to Eve a diversity of effective tactics and EWAR strategies utilizing all of the faction's electronic warfare types. I want to see long-unused modules and ships carving out new places for themeselves and much more interesting combat!
What do you think?
- Helo
|
![Jim McGregor Jim McGregor](/images/people/img3.png)
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.07.08 11:35:00 -
[107]
Edited by: Jim McGregor on 08/07/2006 11:38:33
Originally by: Sir Bart
Originally by: Tor Anasa ugh for 1 med slot you get a 4.2 jamming strength. That does not give you a 40% chance to jam anythign other then a frig.......
4.2 is a number before any skills are applied. with level 4 signal dispersion you get +20% to that making strength of about 5.
Armageddon sensor str is 17. So : 5 / 17 = 29.4%
Not 40% but a wee bit high don't you think?
SB
Check the Hypnos multispectrals.. they have a strength of 4.8. Also there are faction ones that have even higher base strength. Using Hypnos below:
So with your example above: 5.76 / 17 = 33.8% for the armageddon with 1 named multispectral.
Vs some cruisers: Maller = 41% Rupture = 48%
Vs some frigates: Tristan, Kestrel etc = 57.6%
Who wouldnt use one of these things if they have a slot free? You basicly have a very good chance to completely shut down the opponent for 30 seconds (20 sec jam, 10 sec relock). That is often equal to winning the fight.
About 33% every 20 seconds of shutting down a battleship? Yes please. About 45% every 20 seconds of shutting down a cruiser? Hell yes.
Its too good in my opinion. But until they change the EW system, people will keep using them in solo pvp. Ive watched alot of pvp videos where 1 battleship takes out 2 battleships in fights because of the target jamming working this way.
--- Eve Wiki | Eve Tribune | Eve Pirate |
![Lienzo Lienzo](/images/people/img8.png)
Lienzo
|
Posted - 2006.07.09 08:49:00 -
[108]
If it's chance based, then make it chance-encounter based. Weaken multifreuqencies, and add midslot racial jam boosters. They'd be similar to shield boost amplifiers, but more obviously necessary to an ECM specialist.
This way it is less common to see ECM on non-EW spec ships except in skirmishes against weaker, or smaller targets. There are a few sticky points, and rather glaring weaknesses to such a ham-fisted approach of course.
A Scorp might fit 4 amps and 4 jammers, and be able to jam battleships consistently and swiftly, as it should, even without its bonus (could get a shield bonus instead or something actually useful - the bonus is fine if you want to keep cruisers chancy in jamming BS). Or it could jam 7 of a specific sensor strength very efficiently. It would work for the cruiser ew ships as well, provided ew specialists are willing to surrender one or more mid.
To be perfectly honest, I find the current situation to be more or less ok in general. If anything, I would to see extending the range of sensor damps increased before nerfing ecm, or jury rigging ECCM lows & mids.
Assault Missile Launcher Improvement
|
![Forsch Forsch](/images/people/img4.png)
Forsch
|
Posted - 2006.07.11 11:09:00 -
[109]
Missing from the patch notes:
Quote: It's summer time, even in Iceland! The whole developer crew (but especially the forum devs) will take an extended vacation starting today until soon(tm). You guys will be fine without us. We'll send a postcard from the beach.
Still waiting for that postcard.. ![Rolling Eyes](/images/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Forsch Defender of the empire
More love for side factions! |
![Jim McGregor Jim McGregor](https://images.evetech.net/characters/786173472/portrait?size=64)
Jim McGregor
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.16 10:03:00 -
[110]
Tuxford, make it a priority to change the EW system please. Nobody is happy with it.. you have countless threads on it.
Either make target jamming possible for only dedicated EW ships, or remove multispectrals from the game. Or boost counter modules with another 100%. Again.
Please, please make this a priority!
--- Eve Wiki | Eve Tribune | Eve Pirate |
|
![Chith Chith](https://images.evetech.net/characters/282567556/portrait?size=64)
Chith
Finite Horizon
|
Posted - 2006.07.17 17:01:00 -
[111]
Is there any chance that the Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity will also be examined as a result of ECCM rebalancing?
"He ne'er is crowned with immortality Who fears to follow where airy voices lead." --Keats |
![Wat0721 Wat0721](https://images.evetech.net/characters/793459474/portrait?size=64)
Wat0721
GalacTECH Unlimited
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 08:44:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Lienzo If it's chance based, then make it chance-encounter based. Weaken multifreuqencies, and add midslot racial jam boosters. They'd be similar to shield boost amplifiers, but more obviously necessary to an ECM specialist.
This way it is less common to see ECM on non-EW spec ships except in skirmishes against weaker, or smaller targets. There are a few sticky points, and rather glaring weaknesses to such a ham-fisted approach of course.
A Scorp might fit 4 amps and 4 jammers, and be able to jam battleships consistently and swiftly, as it should, even without its bonus (could get a shield bonus instead or something actually useful - the bonus is fine if you want to keep cruisers chancy in jamming BS). Or it could jam 7 of a specific sensor strength very efficiently. It would work for the cruiser ew ships as well, provided ew specialists are willing to surrender one or more mid.
To be perfectly honest, I find the current situation to be more or less ok in general. If anything, I would to see extending the range of sensor damps increased before nerfing ecm, or jury rigging ECCM lows & mids.
Don't know if you posted this first, but...
/signed. ---
|
![Lord WarATron Lord WarATron](https://images.evetech.net/characters/659477430/portrait?size=64)
Lord WarATron
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.07.19 13:03:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Bourgeoisvio Again, isn't this how it already works? Why would a ship EVER carry any ECCM except the one that boosts its race specific sensor strength?
Reading this sentence made me finally understand why people were saying that they were getting jammed despite lots of ECCM - The Twits were probebly using the wrong racial! --- Slot 10 Akemons Modified 'Noble'Zet 5000 implant +8% Armour FREE |
![VoxDei VoxDei](https://images.evetech.net/characters/265057348/portrait?size=64)
VoxDei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 11:20:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Heloise ChateauBriande First, it is inconceivable that civilizations advanced enough to build interstellar warships would be unable to manage the gunsight and the trigger. If your computer and sensors cannot "lock" onto your targets you should still be able to whip out a joystick and fire away merrilly if less effectively.
Sorry, with no computer aid or radar return you are able to first see and then hit a Raven (~100m across the widest axis, at an estimate - can't find the size stats offhand, but volume 108000m3 = 100m x 50m x 21m roughly), at a range of say 20km (pretty damn close for a Raven, but still only 0.29 degrees arc - at 80km it'd be 0.07 degrees arc) which is painted black, against the black of interstellar space, when both you and him are moving in all three dimensions?
Wow, you're good at shooting... ![Rolling Eyes](/images/icon_rolleyes.gif)
|
![Heloise ChateauBriande Heloise ChateauBriande](https://images.evetech.net/characters/882080342/portrait?size=64)
Heloise ChateauBriande
|
Posted - 2006.07.23 00:50:00 -
[115]
Originally by: VoxDei
Originally by: Heloise ChateauBriande First, it is inconceivable that civilizations advanced enough to build interstellar warships would be unable to manage the gunsight and the trigger. If your computer and sensors cannot "lock" onto your targets you should still be able to whip out a joystick and fire away merrilly if less effectively.
Sorry, with no computer aid or radar return you are able to first see and then hit a Raven (~100m across the widest axis, at an estimate - can't find the size stats offhand, but volume 108000m3 = 100m x 50m x 21m roughly), at a range of say 20km (pretty damn close for a Raven, but still only 0.29 degrees arc - at 80km it'd be 0.07 degrees arc) which is painted black, against the black of interstellar space, when both you and him are moving in all three dimensions?
Wow, you're good at shooting... ![Rolling Eyes](/images/icon_rolleyes.gif)
That's not the only scenario in the game. Plenty of times you would be right next to a gigantic monster of a ship, bright burnished golden in color, with it's image filling up every window and screen with its enormous size. You telling me I can't point and shoot? *boggle*
- Helo
|
![Nahia Senne Nahia Senne](https://images.evetech.net/characters/871749961/portrait?size=64)
Nahia Senne
Fortunis Novum Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.07.24 13:43:00 -
[116]
this was suggested many times before but..
just make ecm work the same way as burst ecm does. once you break someones lock, you can place dampeners on them to increase their locking time.
ecm is most used form of ewar, and this is a clar sign that it is way overpowered. disabling lock for 20 seconds is just plain nonsense. when you have even odds, just one succesfull hit guarantees you a victory.
|
![Wat0721 Wat0721](https://images.evetech.net/characters/793459474/portrait?size=64)
Wat0721
GalacTECH Unlimited
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 08:58:00 -
[117]
Edited by: Wat0721 on 01/08/2006 08:58:17 Funny thing, I was reading over this page and then I saw...
My...own...response. ![Shocked](/images/icon_eek.gif)
I don't even remember posting here, or signing anything!
I'm gonna say that ECM is pretty broken right now...and I kinda like the response right above mine about working "like ECM bursts." (I'll just assume that they do actually do...something.)
(painful to type, please just ignore any grammatical errors...and...stuff)
Let's say we change things up quite a bit.
First, ECM no longer shuts down a target's ability to relock for x (20) seconds -- it only breaks all locks the target has at-present.
Second, we revert to a non-chance-based system -- points of jamming or points of sensor strength are the only thing that count, period.
Third, "Electronic Warfare" skill's bonus is changed from "5% less cap. need for ECM systems" to "20% increased scan strength for ECM systems" and "Sensor Dispersion" skill's bonus is changed from "5% increased scan strength" to "10% decreased cycle time for ECM systems".
With the changes so far, a pilot with Level 5 Electronic Warfare in a non-ECM boat with a non-named, T1 racial jammer has 12 racial sensor strength -- enough to jam off every non-Caldari, non-EWAR frigate (unfortunately the Minmatar have the Vigil as their EWAR frigate...with only 12 sensor strength. If only it had an extra .1 strength...).
This makes ECM a viable tactic to escape tacklers, even with moderately low skills -- provided that the pilot brings better named mods to compensate for weaker skills. As soon as the jam lands -- which you're more or less sure of, assuming they haven't augmented their sensor strength -- a pilot who has already aligned has just enough time to warp, "just enough time" being the 1 or 2 seconds the tacklers need to retarget & retackle you.
"But that nerfs small ships completely!"
Well...not really. Because the pilot trying to escape hasn't trained in advanced ECM to reduce the cycle time of his own ECM (no Sensor Dispersion trained), he is only able to break locks every 20 seconds with each module -- and frigates (tacklers) won't likely need 20 seconds to relock anything.
Now, things aren't quite perfect yet -- the problem still remains that a well-trained ECM pilot will break locks often enough in a 1v1 (yes, I'm actually going to consider 1v1, unlike many of my other posts...not that it happens that much...) to still incapacitate another ship -- combined with either another mid or a mate with a dedicated sensor damp or two and you've got a serious problem. So, how do we solve this?
Fourth, make ECM fight in falloff; reduce optimal range to point blank (<5km). Make the effect of falloff a reduced scan strength -- meaning that you might have just enough ECM strength to jam a ship at 2km, but at 20km you can't quite get it. This changes ECM into a short-ranged beast.
"But now the sensor strengths are too weak, if all of the fighting is going to be in falloff!"
Fifth, and I'd suggested this above but removed it after much reconsideration (I've been typing this response for like an hour...), increase sensor strength on all racial ECMs by 50%.
And, finally, to make sure the true ECM boats get theirs...
Sixth, change the bonus on ECM boats with an optimal range bonus to a falloff bonus and
Seventh, increase the bonus given to ECM boats' ECM strength to 20%. Because ECM is essentially the primary weapon here, make these ships be annoying to ships that hit hard but have slow lock times.
"But what do ECM boats do about long-range snipers?!?! We can't jam if we have 0 strength at 200km!!!"
Response: USE - ANOTHER - EWAR. Sensor damps would work nicely. 3 of them. If your EWAR is a short-ranged EWAR, and you come up against someone who fights at range, enjoy not being overpowered and broken!
Ugh, my hand...
Please, God (HAMMER!!!), let this post be flawless; I refuse to edit. ---
ECM Fix |
![Wat0721 Wat0721](https://images.evetech.net/characters/793459474/portrait?size=64)
Wat0721
GalacTECH Unlimited
|
Posted - 2006.08.01 09:00:00 -
[118]
Edited by: Wat0721 on 01/08/2006 09:00:35
Originally by: Myself Please, God (HAMMER!!!), let this post be flawless; I refuse to edit.
Originally by: Top of that post Edited by: Wat0721 on 01/08/2006 08:58:17
![Mad](/images/icon_mad.gif) ---
ECM Fix |
![Zakgram Zakgram](https://images.evetech.net/characters/118730428/portrait?size=64)
Zakgram
Apocalyptic Raiders Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 16:22:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Wat0721
Sixth, change the bonus on ECM boats with an optimal range bonus to a falloff bonus and
Now I remember why I'm not wasting the 20-odd days for Recon 5 on my Rook since if changes like this go in it'll be a pretty useless ship. It already tanks like a chocolate fireguard, taking away the only power it has (ewar tank) would be fantastic. Yay! ![Cool](/images/icon_cool.gif)
|
![aldarrin aldarrin](https://images.evetech.net/characters/877797255/portrait?size=64)
aldarrin
|
Posted - 2006.08.26 17:02:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Imode Edited by: Imode on 17/06/2006 02:13:06
Quote: ewar blab blab
I think the problem with an ECCM counter is that its only real use is to counter ECM.
If you look at something like a remote sensor dampener or tracking disruptor; to counter those you fit sensor boosters and tracking computers (and sig amps and track enhancers). What this means is that when you run into someone using those particular forms of ewar, you got them covered, and when you run into people that aren't using those ewar, then you've got an added bonus.
What does ECCM - Gravimetric do for me if my opponent is not using ECM?
Absolutely nothing except waste a mid-slot.
Why not make the ECCM modules reduce signature radius?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |