|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Leandro Salazar
   |
Posted - 2006.07.15 22:35:00 -
[1]
I thought just the same when watching that tournament. And bigger gang pnwing smaller gang is actually emphasized by ECM because more ships = more ECM to put on fewer enemies, and more ECM targets for fewer enemy ECM modules, so that is really not that good an excuse to keep it.
Alas, while I would not mind a total removal, there are a bunch of good suggestions on how to fix it in the ECM sticky (among a bunch of not so good ones), and I am sure the devs will make something of it. SoonÖ.
---------
ZOMG my sig was concordokkened!
Link removed due to bad language on remote site. -wystler
|
Leandro Salazar
|
Posted - 2006.07.16 19:52:00 -
[2]
I believe that ECM should be defensive and ECCM offensive, not the other way round as it is now. So ECM makes it hard for all others to lock you, rather than to prevent one enemy ship from locking anything.
To keep Scorps etc. useful, change projected ECCM into projected ECM and give it useful stats as well as extending scorp bonueses onto projected ECM so one Scorpion can cover itself and/or a small gang with its ECMs.
And ECCM can be activated to help burn through ECM on one target in a way similar to the use of passive targeters (kinda like what is suggested in the OP).
This would solve a whole lot of the problems with ECM, mainly the one where the best counter to ECM is faster locking and your own ECM rather than ECCM, and also the one where a ship gets taken out of the fight completely by just one module.
---------
ZOMG my sig was concordokkened!
Link removed due to bad language on remote site. -wystler
|
Leandro Salazar
|
Posted - 2006.07.17 12:09:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Testicular Testes
Lets generalize a bit, and say there are two generic types of engagements involving electronic warfare - outnumbered ones and approximately even ones.
1. Role of EWar in an outnumbered engagement
When you're not needing it to win the fight purely on a firepower basis, electronic warfares main role is to make tacklers invincible. The target simply gets jammed and is unable to retaliate in any way, shape or form to being tackled - no nossing, shooting, webbing, jamming or droning the tacklers whatsoever. This is aggrevated by most solo ships being bad or mediocre at ewar and hopelessly outclassed by gang support electronic warfare.
Disabling a gank target to this degree goes alot further and impacts group composition away from large ships towards medium/smalls with oversized firepower, because retaliation is somewhat rare and can be avoided by simply warping off. This means inty/hac/recon ganks, period.
In short, if ships had to worry about tanking and people untackling themselves, ganking would be more difficult due to their now being a pressure on every member of the gang to be able to stay alive while doing their job - and if they fail, the victim fights off the tacklers and leaves the rest in the dust.
Addendum : Perfect example is todays standard interdictor camp. EWar sits aligned at 120, interdictor and a few tacklers with webbers on the gate and snipers at 200k. Add some carrier drones and you've got the holy trinity of broken-ness.
2. Electronic warfare in an even fight
This one is more straightforward to describe. Assuming both sides bring somewhat comparable ships, it's going to be an electronic warfare quickdraw contest. Whoever lands the first jam (particularly on the opposing ewar) now just needs to capitalize on these 20 seconds to take out the opposing ewar and it's all over, within seconds it's an electronic warfare vs no electronic warfare fight.
That means, no matter how you twist and turn it, pit two identical groups at eachother and EWar luck/fastlocking is going to win it. All it takes is a small slip, like who has to warp out a Rook/Falcon/Scorpion first, and the rest will just cascade right into a massive jamming advantage for one side. Specialization ships are the worst offenders for this slippery slope behaviour, due to packing the largest amount of ewar in the tightest package possible.
Making ECM defensive and ECCM offensive like suggested in post #34 would fix both those situations.
In [1], even if the whole gang has ECM fitted and and maybe an ECM-bird projecting ECM onto the members as well, the single target would still most likely get one or two locks through and could do something even without ECCM, and have a decent chance of doing something with ECCM.
In [2], it would again be a battle between ECM, sensor strenghts and ECCM, with noone being categorically excluded from the fight. Yes, the EWar bird might become even more primary than usual (if that is even possible), but due to its bonuses it will also be the hardest to lock most likely so gang leaders would have to balance the advantage of taking out the enemy EW against the disadvantage of most likely not much focused fire on it because of people often being unable to lock it and having to shoot something else instead.
Actually this defensive ECM idea might even help alleviate the problem of focused fire in fleets too.
Thoughts from others on this?
---------
ZOMG my sig was concordokkened!
Link removed due to bad language on remote site. -wystler
|
Leandro Salazar
|
Posted - 2006.07.17 13:33:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Kery Nysell
I agree that the Devs can't change the players, but making a game more simplist with less options is a bad thing ... WoW anyone ?
Did you even read any of the change proposals? Some of them would make ECM more complex. Imho it couldn't be any more simple and dumb than it is now.
---------
ZOMG my sig was concordokkened!
Link removed due to bad language on remote site. -wystler
|
Leandro Salazar
|
Posted - 2006.07.17 14:07:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Noriath
Originally by: Kery Nysell
PvP is a war.
A war is not supposed to be fair, nor fun.
Eve is a game
A game is supposed to be fair and fun.
EVE is a special game. Imho it is NOT supposed to be fair, but it is indeed supposed to be fun.
And that is exactly what the current ECM system goes 100% against.
By invoking too much randomness, it makes the game more 'fair' (as in luck deciding rather than factors manipulated by the players to give them an edge) and less fun (obviously it is less fun to not be able to do anything when hit by ECM, but at least to me it is also less fun to win against an enemy that is completely disabled).
The one thing ECM does is make people win, at the cost of gameplay. I know there are people for whom winning is the only fun that exists, but I would hope that most take the greatest fun in games out of PLAYING, and winning is just the icing on the cake, but not mandatory.
My recent winning fights were less fun than my early losing fights where ECM was not a factor...
---------
ZOMG my sig was concordokkened!
Link removed due to bad language on remote site. -wystler
|
Leandro Salazar
Aeon Industries
|
Posted - 2006.07.17 22:44:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 17/07/2006 22:44:23
Originally by: Octavio Santillian
Point 1:
Unlike traditional primary defensive systems [...]
Your finger got quite close to the crux of the problem there. ECM is in essence a defensive system designed to protect the user from being ill affected by enemy electronics.
But in EVE it is an OFFENSIVE system disabling all systems of one opponent.
Reversing that would be the perfect fix imho.
---------
ZOMG my sig was concordokkened!
Link removed due to bad language on remote site. -wystler
|
Leandro Salazar
Aeon Industries
|
Posted - 2006.07.17 23:36:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Crellion
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 17/07/2006 22:44:23
Originally by: Octavio Santillian
Point 1:
Unlike traditional primary defensive systems [...]
Your finger got quite close to the crux of the problem there. ECM is in essence a defensive system designed to protect the user from being ill affected by enemy electronics.
But in EVE it is an OFFENSIVE system disabling all systems of one opponent.
Reversing that would be the perfect fix imho.
There is an idea... what if ECM worked as it does but also cancelled the jammers ability to use any high slot mods against the jammed opponent!
I smell tactical variety here! If he has a better tank than you jamming him is suicide. If you are in 1v2 Jamming the one and shooting it out with the other very effective. If 2v2 you will have to cross jam and cross fire at targets.
A specialised ECM will be the only one who is able to use highslots against a jammed opponent...
Frig cant run guns if its jamming you but it can run EW and a tackling mod (at least for a few seconds :P)
Or dissallow the use of any offensive mods by whoever is jamming if not a dedicated jammer....
Hum hum... perhaps there IS something here...
That would not change a thing in gang or fleet warfare. ECM would still be offensive, still prevent one enemy from doing anything. And you always shoot up the non-jammed guy(s) first anyway.
Making it so that ECM makes your own ship and (with projected ECM) friendlies harder to lock rather than disabling enemies would open much better tactical possibilities imho. One of your gangmember is hit ver hard, the friendly scorp shifts more of its projected ECM onto him in an attempt to break some locks. Enemy then has to decide whether to wait for a new lock on him or to shift fire... And how this might break up focused fire in fleets!
---------
ZOMG my sig was concordokkened!
Link removed due to bad language on remote site. -wystler
|
Leandro Salazar
Aeon Industries
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 10:03:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Octavio Santillian
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 17/07/2006 22:44:23
Originally by: Octavio Santillian
Point 1:
Unlike traditional primary defensive systems [...]
Your finger got quite close to the crux of the problem there. ECM is in essence a defensive system designed to protect the user from being ill affected by enemy electronics.
But in EVE it is an OFFENSIVE system disabling all systems of one opponent.
Reversing that would be the perfect fix imho.
I can kind of see your point: since ECM is directed onto the enemy it can be considered offensive. I, however, still consider ECM defensive. It is defensive because a) it protects you from damage and other harmful effects; it is not offensive because b) it dose not directly deal damage or directly increase the amount of damage inflected.
In any case, whether one wants to call ECM offense or defensive is semantics, and I really like your idea. I still lean toward the lock breaking but not jamming approach because your idea does not address the issues faced in 1on1 combat. Yes, yes, I know Eve is more about gang and fleet war than 1on1, but there is 1on1 and many people like 1on1 combat. As such a fix to ECM or any other imbalance needs to consider and address as many scenarios as possible.
I would not mind ECM just breaking locks, as long as it breaks the locks that are on you (like a long range ECM burst) rather than breaking all the locks on anyone that one enemy has, though even that would be an improvement over the current situation.
---------
ZOMG my sig was concordokkened!
Link removed due to bad language on remote site. -wystler
|
Leandro Salazar
Aeon Industries
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 12:16:00 -
[9]
Nerf trolls too please!
---------
ZOMG my sig was concordokkened!
Link removed due to bad language on remote site. -wystler
|
Leandro Salazar
Aeon Industries
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 13:45:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
The problem with ECM is it stops you shooting at ANYONE. Hence...partial jamming. You'll FAR more likely be able to shoot at someone. Just...perhaps not the primary.
Wow, Maya and me share a view on something. That in itself shows how very broken ECM is :D
---------
ZOMG my sig was concordokkened!
Link removed due to bad language on remote site. -wystler
|
|
|
Leandro Salazar
Aeon Industries
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 15:35:00 -
[11]
I am pretty carebearish and want ECM in its current form gone most desperately. The only people I can envision actually liking the current system are those with no interest in PvP whatsoever, and those who only get their kick from winning, regardless of the means to that end.
Anyone with an honest interest in PvP should abhor the current ECM, and from reading the many complaints (they are not whines by a long shot as ECM is indeed a problem even recognized by CCP) that seems to be the case.
---------
ZOMG my sig was concordokkened!
Link removed due to bad language on remote site. -wystler
|
Leandro Salazar
Aeon Industries
|
Posted - 2006.07.19 13:27:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Master OlavPancrazio
Regardless of how to fix this, there are dozens of ways, CCP needs to get off their asses and support their game. All we are fiddling with is numbers. They need to start trying more constant updates until we get some semblance of balance then retarded annual updates that break things and aren't fixed for another year.
ECM has been "overpowered" since its change, and people have noted this. Why can't CCP just nerf it a little. Wait a few weeks, nerf it some more until its just right.
THe point is to keep progressing towards balance even if you won't ever be perfect.
Well I hope CCP realizes that ECM needs surgery not a bandaid. It needs to be a viable option in combat without totally stealing the other peoples fun. Just nerfing the current system is likely to either make it underpowered, or to not change much at all I fear.
---------
ZOMG my sig was concordokkened!
Link removed due to bad language on remote site. -wystler
|
Leandro Salazar
Aeon Industries
|
Posted - 2006.07.19 16:48:00 -
[13]
Balancing a module off 1v1 is totally wrong. Non-consensual 1v1 is almost nonexistant in EVE (at least from what I have experienced so far) and if it is consensual, the parties can just agree to not use ECM.
---------
ZOMG my sig was concordokkened!
Link removed due to bad language on remote site. -wystler
|
|
|
| |
|