EVE Search - So much for the ECM nerf...

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

So much for the ECM nerf...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.26 20:01:00 - [1] Well, I just had a Myrm V Myrm fight on the test server. He had two T1 multispec ECM's fitted. I lol'd to myself, thinking this was a nub who clearly forgot about the nerf. Oh, how wrong I was. I spent 50% of the fight jammed. He won easily. The nerf does NOT work. The fact its still chance based means the multispec of doom is still very much alive and kicking.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.26 20:17:00 - [2] Originally by: Alexi Borizkova Originally by: Ebrenn Kerens Originally by: lofty29 Old system pleaaase What was the old system? A ship has X sensor strength. If you apply X or great jam strength to it, it is locked down, period, no ifs ands or buts. this was actually a really good system... it mean no ridiculous 'multispecs of doom', and winning fights by nothing more than the role of a dice
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.26 20:24:00 - [3] Originally by: LWMaverick The ecm "nerf" is more than enough, no need to change it again tbh. Its pretty unlucky that he jammed you like that, since the ecm got an overall 40% reduction compared to what it is atm on tq.(afaik) and no, the old system is defiantly not any better! winning a fight by chance, a roll of the dice, is ridiculous. Always has been and always will be they could change the strength to 0.5 and it would still be a crappy system
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.26 22:55:00 - [4] Originally by: Altemi Calabre Luck is ridiculous you say? Intriguing. Considering that turret damage is random as affected by other variables. One ship getting lucky in a flat standoff could decide the entire fight. Some form of random element is decidedly more sensible than the 'all or nothing' you describe that encourages nothing more than pack ganks of ECM to ensure one person can do absolutely nothing while they just sit there and die. Oh yes, that's fun. :) Well, turret damage is certianly NOT luck based. Tracking, range, sig radius, transversal etc can all be directly influenced by the player. A skilled turret user who knows what they are doing, with the right fitting, will inflict more damage, and thats down to skill NOT luck. The two are not comparable at all. ECM turns all your weapons off at the roll of a dice. You might get jammed, you might not. Its an extremely primitive system.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 11:34:00 - [5] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire @ Butter Dog. Bad luck? It is hard to cry foul when you have a stroke of bad luck. If the jammer did not work, you would have killed him in seconds and not posted about it. ECM abuse will be over and the next flavour will be dampeners. But thats the WHOLE POINT. It should NOT be about luck. Thats is the point I am making. Basing fights on random rolls of the dice is nothing short of a pathetic excuse for a combat system.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 11:38:00 - [6] Edited by: Butter Dog on 27/10/2006 11:38:34 Originally by: Malena Panic If I were the boss of Eve, I'd change the effect of three modules: 1. ECM break locks, but do not prevent relocking. They have a 10 second cool down. 2. Sensor Boosters increase range, but do not decrease lock time. 3. ECCM add sensor strength and decrease lock time. I think that would create the same kind of 'tank vs. gank' fitting dilemma in the ECM realm. These are actually pretty good suggestions, but it still doesnt remove the 'dice roll' element. AFAIK ECM is the only module to be based purely on luck.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 12:14:00 - [7] Originally by: Alex Harumichi Originally by: Reatu Krentor in 1v1 current ecm system(on TQ) is quite powerfull, but the old system was even worse. In the old system once you were jammed you would only get unjammed if the jamming ship died. But how are you going to manage that in a 1v1 if you're jammed? New system there is a chance that the jamming will fail(jamming chance right now is pretty high on TQ, on sisi it's approx. half of that atm). Exactly. It's easy to forget that chance also works in your favor, at times. There's a huge difference between 5% chance of jam failing and zero chance of jam failing, on both sides. Its still luck based. No combat system should be based on luck. LEAST OF ALL a system which entirely shuts down your weapons for 20 seconds plus relock time! ECM needs to be brought into line with the other EWAR modules, none of which are luck based. The question is, how.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 12:16:00 - [8] Originally by: Lakotnik Originally by: Dark PIne This effect could be reduced if the length of jamming was based on the same formula as the success of jamming: Time of jamming = (Jammer's cycle time) * (Jamming strength) / (Target ship's sensor strength) What if we take this system and make ECM hit every single time? But after that time of jamming is gone, ship relocks instantly (or takes the same time for locking it was jammed without requiring to press anything). Or we can take current chance based system with or without instant - or auto - relock ... Anyway, i like your idea. One ECM wont be the I-win button, but if you fit some on any ships with several mids to spare, it is quite effective. This is a good idea, definately would be a step in the right direction as it removes the 'dice roll' element.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 12:51:00 - [9] Originally by: Zixxa Originally by: Lakotnik What if we take this system and make ECM hit every single time? But after that time of jamming is gone, ship relocks instantly (or takes the same time for locking it was jammed without requiring to press anything). Or we can take current chance based system with or without instant - or auto - relock ... Anyway, i like your idea. One ECM wont be the I-win button, but if you fit some on any ships with several mids to spare, it is quite effective. Imagine you are sitting in built from toilet paper Falcon, jamming juicy BS. Jamming is gone BS relocks you instantly. Your stupid idea removes ECM recon ships from the game. Any except BBirds and Scorpions. Due to such ideas our game is becoming as stupid and straightforward as WoW or LA2. No, because you could cycle your jammers on one target. What you could not do, is stick all 6 jammers on different targets and hope your dice roll is a lucky one. Equally, I could ask you, what good is a toilet paper falcon when the jam fails completely on a BS? A non-chance based system benefits everyone, including ECM ships, because they know what their capabilities are.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 13:27:00 - [10] Originally by: Polinus No.. anon chance only bennefits those that want fights that are competely resolved before they start. i'm failing to see a problem here No other combat EWAR module is chance based, why should ECM be exactly?

Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 13:37:00 - [11] Originally by: Polinus Originally by: Butter Dog Originally by: Polinus No.. anon chance only bennefits those that want fights that are competely resolved before they start. i'm failing to see a problem here No other combat EWAR module is chance based, why should ECM be exactly? Because the other systema effect are not binary ON OFF. They are percentage and reductions... not simply DENY. ECM could be non chance based if it was not simply your lock works or does not work. This makes it EVEN WORSE though, as its the most powerful EW system (no weapons for 20 seconds plus relock time). No other EWAR is chance based. What if, for example, tracking disrupting had a chance to cut your tracking to ZERO for 25 seconds? At the moment its way out of line with other EWAR modules. The chance-based nature of it is what makes ECM so ridiculous in its current form. What we need to do is think of some ideas which improve this situation. There are some gerat suggestions already in this thread.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 14:57:00 - [12] Originally by: Alex Harumichi Originally by: Rastam3n Originally by: Alex Harumichi How about we first test the new ECM system before we suggest too many weird tweaks? Did you actualy read the OP? This WAS with the new system... I'm quite aware of that. I mean "properly test". One isolated case does not prove much. Actually it does. It proves that a chance-based system is every bit as broken as it was before.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 15:01:00 - [13] Edited by: Butter Dog on 27/10/2006 15:02:28 Originally by: Ranger 1 Your arguement contradicts itself. And you need to get over your hang up with "chance based". Skills and equipment affect your chances just like with everything else in EVE. Key word being chances. Damage is chance based, including the possibility of doing zero damage. You've been playing a "chance based" game all along, but evidently did not comprehend this fact. Absolute certanty (if you have enough jammers) of absolute jamming is bad, mmmkay. Just like if getting a hit with any of your weapons always meant ship destruction of your target. Bad, boring, and the death of a great game. While there are ELEMENTS of chance in weapon systems, DPS will average out over time. Skills, circumstances, experience, and the decisions a pilot makes all effect this. This is true for every combat module EXCEPT for ECM. ECM is purely chance based, and either works 100% or 0%. Not only that, but its a ridiculously powerful module in itself. I'm not saying 'go back to the old system', I'm saying that ECM needs to change, and that the change implemented in the Kali test build has not worked. Non-ECM ships can still fit a multispec or two, get 'lucky', and win fights based on pure dice rolls, and nothing more.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 16:05:00 - [14] Originally by: Reatu Krentor I think you need more then 1 fight to be able to have a 'chance' at judging the changes. no, I don't, because what I dislike is the very fact is IS chance based waiting to 'get lucky' does not change this fact
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 16:07:00 - [15] Originally by: Polinus Also chance is not somethignas simpleas most think. Pura X percent change only work in an uniform distribution. If you dice result for example is the summ of N dices you have a fat bell distribution where teh final behavior will be far different, even with same average chance, since the normal deviation will be far different. So most probably a tweak in the chance calculation is the issue. Chance stuff is soemthng great to be in an MMO since it adds expecation on the result, not "bahh I already know who is gonna win" thats all very well, but with a module as powerful as ECM it just doesnt work anyone with spare mids would be stupid not to fit them, now or post-Kali The point here is that ECM was nerfed to stop non-ECM ships fitting them all the time as an 'i-win button'... but the very fact it is based on the roll of a dice means the change is ineffective people can still 'get lucky' and win a fight because of that Fights should be won based on tactics, decisions, experience and skills - NOT the roll of a dice
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 17:25:00 - [16] Edited by: Butter Dog on 27/10/2006 17:25:48 Originally by: Sonho Originally by: Butter Dog Originally by: Reatu Krentor I think you need more then 1 fight to be able to have a 'chance' at judging the changes. no, I don't, because what I dislike is the very fact is IS chance based waiting to 'get lucky' does not change this fact Guns are chanced based too.... And this systeam really is balanced more cap use and lower ECM streangth. And the old systema was POS a scorp was able to lock down 5 BS ,that is why they changed it. Guns are NOT soley chance based. Tracking, transversal, distance, damage mods, ship type etc ALL effect guns, and are ALL controllable by pilots. DPS averages out over time. ECM is the ONLY 100% chance based module used in PVP.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 17:49:00 - [17] Originally by: Alex Harumichi Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 27/10/2006 17:31:14 Originally by: Butter Dog DPS averages out over time. Precisely the same way the ECM jamming success rate averages out over time. Look, this discussion is going round and round: you don't like the fact that there's a random element. Fine. Many others like that fact. Arguing about it degrades into an "is good" / "no, is bad" thing. The random nature of ECM isn't going away. The important question here is: does the ECM nerf do enough to stop people automatically filling up their mids with ECM? The jury is still out on that one. No, it doesnt. Don't you get it? ECM is the ONLY combat module which works based purely on luck. Its 20 second cycle time makes sure that when it works, its the 'i-win' button as few fights last longer than a minute or two. Guns etc are NOT based on luck. They will always, given the same circumstances, hit harder if you have damage mods, better transversal, optimal range etc. Other EWAR mods have clearly defined effects which are not based on luck.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 20:53:00 - [18] Originally by: LoKesh Originally by: Butter Dog Edited by: Butter Dog on 27/10/2006 15:02:28 While there are ELEMENTS of chance in weapon systems, DPS will average out over time. Skills, circumstances, experience, and the decisions a pilot makes all effect this. This is true for every combat module EXCEPT for ECM. ECM is purely chance based, and either works 100% or 0%. Not only that, but its a ridiculously powerful module in itself. I'm not saying 'go back to the old system', I'm saying that ECM needs to change, and that the change implemented in the Kali test build has not worked. Non-ECM ships can still fit a multispec or two, get 'lucky', and win fights based on pure dice rolls, and nothing more. You said it exactly - the chance evens out over time. Weapon DPS averages over time. So does ECM. If you have a chance of jamming 25% of the time - over large data sets (ie time and encounters) you will jam people 25% of the time. Luck comes into other bits of Eve as well - were you blinking when that covert ops ship decloaked? did the server lag as your pod came out of your crumbling ship? Did your six 1400mm artillery cannons land four wrecking shots and demolish your opponent before he could warp? Did you jump into the system and land on the far side of the gate from the interceptor, or right on top of him? Did rats spawn on the gate and distract you or your opponent from changing the outcome of the fight? What modules get destroyed with your ship? When do you get given a storyline mission that gives you a huge payoff? That might be true if ECM didnt have a 20 second cycle time with the average fight lasting a minute or less. As it stands, ECM is a comedy module which either needs drastic changes or removal from the game.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 21:02:00 - [19] Originally by: Derran Originally by: Butter Dog As it stands, ECM is a comedy module which either needs drastic changes or removal from the game. Fat chance of getting it removed. You might as well ask them to get rid of mining. That would be good too :p No, I dont want it removed really. I just want the chance based element removed, and it brought into line with other forms of EWAR.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.28 11:57:00 - [20] Originally by: xenodia Originally by: Butter Dog Well, I just had a Myrm V Myrm fight on the test server. He had two T1 multispec ECM's fitted. I lol'd to myself, thinking this was a nub who clearly forgot about the nerf. Oh, how wrong I was. I spent 50% of the fight jammed. He won easily. The nerf does NOT work. The fact its still chance based means the multispec of doom is still very much alive and kicking. Since its chance based, you cant base a judgement around 1 fight. I mean if you repeated the fight 9 more times, he might not jam you at all in half of them. Of course I can, my problem with the system is that is IS 100% chance based, unlike any other form of EWAR.

Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.28 11:59:00 - [21] Originally by: Skeltek If ECM was opverpowered, why don¦t people use it? If jamming was overpowered, more people would be using it!(?) kind regards, Skeltek what the hell are you talking about? Anyone with a spare mids shoves in an ECM Its the most widely used EWAR module by a huge margin... even ships like the Curse and Pilgrim with bonuses to tracking disrupting often choose to fit ECM instead
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.11.05 12:00:00 - [22] Originally by: Zixxa 4 ECM multi t2 on Scorpion(ecm is almost maxed) not enough to effectively jam Domi. It's about how "overpowered" ECM. It is UNRELIABLE TOOL against one target, and crap against many targets. You and I have the same problem with ECM - its purely chance based. You might win, you might lose... its all down to the roll of the dice. That is what needs to change.

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.