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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page]

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.
lofty29 Tolarri Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.26 20:05:00 - [2] Old system pleaaase --- Praxiteles Inc. is Recruiting!
Deadeye Dave Amarr DIE WITH HONOUR	Posted - 2006.10.26 20:07:00 - [3] Edited by: Deadeye Dave on 26/10/2006 20:07:33 Am I right in thinking the 'ECM Nerf' was just lowering strength yet they are still chance based?
Grimpak Gallente Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.26 20:08:00 - [4] Originally by: Deadeye Dave Edited by: Deadeye Dave on 26/10/2006 20:07:33 Am I right in thinking the 'ECM Nerf' was just lowering strength yet they are still chance based? yep. ....wouldn't mind removing the multispecs altogether tho ------- Originally by: Abdalion Originally by: Jebidus Skari What, in EVE, is a Tyrant? Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.
infraX Caldari Corsets and Carebears Whips and Chains	Posted - 2006.10.26 20:13:00 - [5] Perhaps they can greatly reduce the cycle time on non ecm specific ships aswell? Signautre removed - not suitable for a teen audience - Serathu ([email protected]) Please keep your signature under 24,000 bytes. Thanks -Eldo([email protected])
Ebrenn Kerens Gallente Terror Knights	Posted - 2006.10.26 20:14:00 - [6] Originally by: lofty29 Old system pleaaase What was the old system?
Alexi Borizkova Caldari New Age Solutions	Posted - 2006.10.26 20:15:00 - [7] 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. In Corporate Caldari, taxes pay YOU.
Grimpak Gallente Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.26 20:16:00 - [8] Originally by: Ebrenn Kerens Originally by: lofty29 Old system pleaaase What was the old system? ship has 20 magnetometric sensor str. you need 21 magnetometric jam str to jam it. kinda like "who has more jam str wins" and instead a single scorp has the ability to theoretically jam 8 BS'es, in the old system, you would need almost all the slots to jam 1, maybe 2 BS'es. ------- Originally by: Tiuwaz for caldari perception weapons that hit up to 100km are short range weapons
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.26 20:17:00 - [9] 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
Nebuli Caldari Art of War	Posted - 2006.10.26 20:21:00 - [10] The old system > the new one, always said it, always will. Agreed that the old system was far from perfect, but compared to the current system its FAR better imo. What it meant was that if you wanted to jam people you HAD to dedicate alot of mid slots to ECM to jam anything, a single ECM did nothing, you couldnt jam anything with it. To jam a single target using multis you needed at least 4 ECMs, sometimes 5. This meant that dedicated jamming ships like the scorp and BB were generaly the only ships using ECM, which is how it should be, you never had frigs flying around jamming BSs, and even capital ships now, I jammed a carrier with a single mutli spec on a frigate a few months back lol. CEO - Art of War

LWMaverick Quam Singulari Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.26 20:22:00 - [11] 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! <3
Grimpak Gallente Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.26 20:23:00 - [12] Originally by: Nebuli The old system > the new one, always said it, always will. Agreed that the old system was far from perfect, but compared to the current system its FAR better imo. What it meant was that if you wanted to jam people you HAD to dedicate alot of mid slots to ECM to jam anything, a single ECM did nothing, you couldnt jam anything with it. To jam a single target using multis you needed at least 4 ECMs, sometimes 5. This meant that dedicated jamming ships like the scorp and BB were generaly the only ships using ECM, which is how it should be, you never had frigs flying around jamming BSs, and even capital ships now, I jammed a carrier with a single mutli spec on a frigate a few months back lol. it also was totally 1 sided, since it bogged down to wich scorp had bigger targeting range, since Ewar didn't had range limitations back then. ------- Originally by: Tiuwaz for caldari perception weapons that hit up to 100km are short range weapons
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.26 20:24:00 - [13] 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
Bardi MecAuldnis Amarr Pirates of Destruction Union Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2006.10.26 21:55:00 - [14] I never saw the old system spelled out. I like it. Does it remind you of anything? That's right! Warp scramming!!! Sounds like a good system. If they went back to it, ECCM should have penalties just as WCS do. And sensor strength should be lowered a bit. I'm rambling... --- Hey hey let's go kenka suru! Taisetsuna mono protect my balls! Boku ga warui, so lets fighting! LET'S FIGHTING LOVE!!!
Vladimir Norkoff Crimson Knights Trade Federation Thundering Mantis	Posted - 2006.10.26 22:09:00 - [15] 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. VN: Did you have an ECCM fitted? BD: No. VN: Why not? BD: Because I shouldn't have to! EWar should not be a factor! VN: Err.. What if I said that Explosive damage shouldn't be a factor because I don't want to fit armor hardeners? BD: Then you'd be a noob! EWar sucks! VN: Thankyou for your wise input. BD: STFU!!!1111oneoneone
AsfALT	Posted - 2006.10.26 22:15:00 - [16] Originally by: Butter Dog 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 Why is luck so ridiculous? Imagine 2 guys shooting eachother from a distance with assault rifles (not famous for accuracy so it's generaly aimed at the torso), one is lucky and shoots the other in the head... fight over. Just be glad that wreakings don't have such a drastic effect :)
Altemi Calabre	Posted - 2006.10.26 22:24:00 - [17] 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. :) ~ Why is it those with the greatest responsibility to make good decisions so often seem the least capable or inclined?
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2006.10.26 22:32:00 - [18] Old old ECM system sucked. Seriously. The new one, while needing some tweaking, is a huge improvement. While I hate to see ECM on all ships (as we have now), the old system has ECM on Scorps and BBs. And that's it. Maybe you think that's a good thing, I don't. I like there being some wildcards in combat, something besides raw DPS and tank. ...but yeah, the current system seriously needed a nerf.
AsfALT	Posted - 2006.10.26 22:35:00 - [19] Originally by: Alex Harumichi Old old ECM system sucked. Seriously. The new one, while needing some tweaking, is a huge improvement. While I hate to see ECM on all ships (as we have now), the old system has ECM on Scorps and BBs. And that's it. Maybe you think that's a good thing, I don't. I like there being some wildcards in combat, something besides raw DPS and tank. ...but yeah, the current system seriously needed a nerf. It just got one...
DeadRow True Core	Posted - 2006.10.26 22:37:00 - [20] Originally by: lofty29 Old system pleaaase No way, hated the old system /DeadRow, True Core Sig Wanted.

Blind Man Caldari 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.10.26 22:42:00 - [21] ECM should in NO WAY be better than tracking disrupting, painting, or dampening. it should be just another racial EW and not really enough to make a big difference in a battle It's great flying Amarr, ain't it?
Leshrac Shepherd Amarr Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.26 22:47:00 - [22] Originally by: Ebrenn Kerens Originally by: lofty29 Old system pleaaase What was the old system? Something you don't want to see tbh, people (including me) seem to remember it fondly because only dedicated ecm ships used jammers, but the system was even more **** up than the one we have now, with ** like having lvl1 skill in EW meant you were more effective than if you had lvl 5.
LUKEC Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.26 22:54:00 - [23] nobody want's old systems with no cycle... we just want no random thingie... Basicly if i fit full rack of backups i want to be jam proof from 1 ship(2 or more should still be able to jam).
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.26 22:55:00 - [24] 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.
Davlin Lotze Raging Destruction	Posted - 2006.10.26 23:24:00 - [25] The nublars defending the existing ECM system make me chuckle. Eve is about outguessing your opponent before the battle. Fitting to cover most of the likely situations to occur and then having that result carried forth in your victory if you chose well. And in defeat if you chose poorly. The nublars in this thread want DICE ROLLS to decide. No more strat, just strap on nosses, some ECM, and hell, dont even worry about tackling anymore because inexplicably, WCS are now nerfed and you can't fit to run from an aforementioned "i-win" ecm setup. The result is not only "Easy" pvp...pvp more in the spirit of what BE does, but it's uninteresting and eminently boring. The above constellation is an "eve killer" setup. You cannot take away peoples ability to deal with all the "i-wins" still in the game(ofc here we're talking about ECM), whilst turning around and removing a selective few, ie WCS. Left to me, I would prefer ECM gets completely nerfed and lobotomized beyond belief AND the existing Kali nerf to WCS left right in place. We can have both of the above, but not just one.
Tiuwaz Minmatar Omacron Militia	Posted - 2006.10.26 23:29:00 - [26] the old system sucks, the new system sucks aswell even after the nerf its like debating if you want get shot into your groin or your face Originally by: Oveur This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.
sarabando Caldari Guardians of Hell's Gate Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2006.10.26 23:36:00 - [27] i was thinking keep it the was it is but instead of perma jamming some one it acted like a targeted ecm burst and just broke there lock
Scordite	Posted - 2006.10.26 23:40:00 - [28] Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff VN: Did you have an ECCM fitted? BD: No. VN: Why not? Alternative answer: Because I have 3 midslots, with ECCM I have to drop injector, which is bad since I have very high cap consumption on my guns despite maxed skills, or web, which is bad because you're likely to be faster than me and thus able to dictate range, or scram which makes me only able to fight defensively.. And my ship has the lowest sensor strenght of any of it's size in the game, so I'd need 2, possibly even 3 lowslots filled with backup arrays to make a decent difference, but if I do that, I auto-loose anyways because my tank and/or damage is much more gimped than the guy I'm fighting against is gimping his setup by fitting one ECM. And even if I did fit 3 backup arrays or sacrificed one of my mids, I'd still be jammed eventually, which is likely to make the fight a loss, or at best, a draw. Now compare the effect of tracking disruptor and sensor dampener on ships that have no room to fit counter-mods. Dampened? Fly closer. Tracking disrupted? Web him and stop your own ship, make sure you're a bit above optimal, whatever else you can think of to maximise tracking. Fight will be harder for you, but at least you still have options. ----------------------------------------------- The only legitimate use of the BLINK tag: Schr÷dinger's cat is [BLINK] not [/BLINK] dead.
Risien Drogonne	Posted - 2006.10.26 23:45:00 - [29] 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. He had half the chance he had before. Were you thinking the nerf was supposed to make you immune to ECM or something? You just got unlucky.
Risien Drogonne	Posted - 2006.10.26 23:51:00 - [30] Originally by: LUKEC nobody want's old systems with no cycle... we just want no random thingie... Basicly if i fit full rack of backups i want to be jam proof from 1 ship(2 or more should still be able to jam). If I fit a full rack of hardeners, I want to be immune to the damage from 1 ship. That statement still sound reasonable when applied to other modules?

White Ronin	Posted - 2006.10.26 23:54:00 - [31] I know I am a noob to most who have been here for years but I had a small idea. THere is a thread about changing the Min Ewar that is actually really good. And seeing as how the 'ecm' effect is kinda imbalanced to begin with.... How about designing a new ewar for the cal. I mean really. The gal have sensor damps that can be made useless with a fitting or two. The amarr have t-disrupters that dont effect missiles but are pretty powerful against all turrets. The min have the painter which really needs changed to be on par with the rest (see thread in this forum for a great idea). And the cal have a system that, if it works at all, will disable most, if not all of your combat abilities.... for 20 seconds for one cycle and more for beyond. Maybe the problem is not the 'randomness' but the end result. Maybe it should work like sensor damps or turret disrupters, where there is a way out of it. Cause right now when it is on, you are done. Not just "fit eccm" cause once it does activate, you are done PERIOD. Maybe reducing or changing the effect would work better. Just a stupid idea say that your ecm does work, then the target's sensors read the sig radius as much smaller then it really is. Kinda the reverse of target painters. That way the effect is more a bigger chance to miss or reduced damage, not total lockdown. Anyway, just a thought.
starship enginer	Posted - 2006.10.27 00:00:00 - [32] it has gone from a extreamly overpowered system to a overpowered system On any random non ecm ship [ie a rifter or a tempest or a caracal ect] 2.4[base] * 1.25 [skill] = 3pts average ship in pvp has about 15 strength, BS more, cepters less but average is about 15 3/15 = 20% chance. 3 ecm mods = 48.8 % chance!!!!! and just fyi a domi with 3 multispecs has a 38.6% chance of jamming a BS with 20strength, and it does that every cycle. so if a fight lasts 21seconds, a domi with 3 ecm multis has 62.3% chance to jam you. if a fight lasts 41seconds, a domi has 76.8% chance to jam your average BS with 3x multispec and with hp buff and plates, fights are definitly going to last longer [a buff to ecm :/]
Riddick06	Posted - 2006.10.27 00:08:00 - [33] Reduce the jamming cycles to 10 seconds and 30 seconds to re-jam. Even if the jam cycle stops u still have to compete with dampeners which work so well it gives the jammer enough time for him to jam you again. Jammers are borked the only reason why the devs think jammers on the right ships are ok is because not enough people are complaining about this frickin issue. So you lower the strength of jammers, still anything with enough midslots will still improve chances of jamming the target. And jammers should definitly get a stackin nerf. And there should be more threads sayin nerf the jammers!!
Vladimir Norkoff Crimson Knights Trade Federation Thundering Mantis	Posted - 2006.10.27 00:11:00 - [34] Originally by: Scordite Because I have 3 midslots, with ECCM I have to drop injector, which is bad since I have very high cap consumption on my guns despite maxed skills, or web, which is bad because you're likely to be faster than me and thus able to dictate range, or scram which makes me only able to fight defensively.. Yup.. Fitting is all about making choices - I'm sure you already know that.. Thing is, most people don't want to HAVE to make that choice in regards to ECM.. Unfortunately, they don't have that choice.. If you choose not to fit ECCM, you're going to be more susceptible to jammers.. If you do fit it, then you end up giving up something else.. That's the choice.. Originally by: Scordite And my ship has the lowest sensor strenght of any of it's size in the game... Yes, and other ships have the lowest speed, or the lowest cap, or the lowest shield hp, or lowest whatever.. Mintar ships are victims for EWar in general, that's one of their (many) short-comings.. Strangely though, people still seem to love them for PvP.. Might have something to do with that whole "dictate the range" thing you were talking about.. Originally by: Scordite Now compare the effect of tracking disruptor and sensor dampener on ships that have no room to fit counter-mods. Dampened? Fly closer. Tracking disrupted? Web him and stop your own ship, make sure you're a bit above optimal, whatever else you can think of to maximise tracking. Fight will be harder for you, but at least you still have options. Yep.. Or fit sensor boosters or tracking computers or whatever (every ship has at least one mid-slot, you just have to choose what to put there).. Personally, I prefer damps over jammers.. Damps are 100% effective, there is no "chance" of failure.. Downside as you stated is that people can close range on the damping ship.. The downside of jamming is that it doesn't always work.. There's always a chance it could fail, even with 5 racials against a cruiser (with no-ECCM).. In which case you've wasted about 300 cap, have no tank, and have absolutely nothing to show for it except a killmail from Concord informing you what you've been killed by..
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.27 00:20:00 - [35] @ 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. --------- It's great being a Caldari, ain't it? Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!
Scordite	Posted - 2006.10.27 00:30:00 - [36] Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff Fitting is all about making choices - I'm sure you already know that.. Thing is, most people don't want to HAVE to make that choice in regards to ECM.. Unfortunately, they don't have that choice.. Bingo. Not fitting a sensor booster when the opponent has a dampener makes the fight harder for you, but there are tactical ways to partially overcome the problem. Not fitting a tracking computer when the enemy has a disruptor makes your turrets have trouble tracking, which is a non-issue if you're a missile boat, and even if you're not, there are tactical ways to partially overcome the problem. Not fitting ECCM when the opponent has a jammer makes you loose the fight automatically with no way to prevent it no matter what you do, or makes absolutely no difference.. All decided by a dice roll. You think this is balanced because the diceroll will sometimes cause the one with the jammer to not auto-win, but instead have a totally even fight besides him being down 1 midslot? I'm not talking about dedicated ECM boats. A scorp, a BB, a rook and a falcon SHOULD jam stuff. They sacrifice nearly everything else to do so, especially post-kali. If any other ship fits a full rack of jammers instead of a shield tank, they deserve to blow up. Personally, I think that if they want to keep the current system, they should make racial ECM as powerful on non-ECM boats as multispec is now on test and then make non-ECM boats completely unable to fit multispecs. Then find bonus values that make racials powerful on ECM boats, and multispecs less so, but able to jam all ships. It's still a bad system, but at least it takes the step CCP have started with the kali nerf all the way. ECM will still be a wildcard on non-ECM boats, but only if you know what you're going up against. Not possible to use in all-round/standard/cookie cutter setups, but for situational use only. ----------------------------------------------- The only legitimate use of the BLINK tag: Schr÷dinger's cat is [BLINK] not [/BLINK] dead.
Larkonis Trassler g guild	Posted - 2006.10.27 00:43:00 - [37] I'd personally like to see multispecs taken away from non ECM boats (massive CPU penalty with BB/Rook/Falcon/Scorp getting a bonus) and force people to fit racials instead... With regards to the OP... Bad luck? Really, you can't base an argument on one unlucky fight and be like 'ZOMG ECM NEEDS TEH NERF STILL!!!' A return to the old system means what? Small gank squads all sacrificing one mid slot a piece and permajamming their primary? Please, at least with this system there's a chance you won't spend a whole battle jammed. Just wait until the hullabalu has died down and everyone starts fitting damps. ------------ Crow Squad... An Audio and Visual Joygasm by Larkonis Trassler
murder one Gallente CRICE Corporation Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.27 00:50:00 - [38] Originally by: Risien Drogonne Originally by: Butter Dog 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 No, it wasn't a good system. One backup array meant you were 100% immune to ECM. good. Because I said so...
HankMurphy Pelennor Swarm Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2006.10.27 00:58:00 - [39] Originally by: murder one Originally by: Risien Drogonne No, it wasn't a good system. One backup array meant you were 100% immune to ECM. good. yeah, whats the prob w/ that?? your sacrificing a slot entirely on the chance you may run into ecm. If you waste a slot on a counter, it damn well better be able to counter!
Risien Drogonne	Posted - 2006.10.27 01:10:00 - [40] Originally by: HankMurphy Originally by: murder one Originally by: Risien Drogonne No, it wasn't a good system. One backup array meant you were 100% immune to ECM. good. yeah, whats the prob w/ that?? your sacrificing a slot entirely on the chance you may run into ecm. If you waste a slot on a counter, it damn well better be able to counter! If I waste a slot on a hardender, it damn well better make me immune to that damage type.

Shayla Sh'inlux Gallente	Posted - 2006.10.27 01:11:00 - [41] As I have said many times before adjusting the strengths will change absolutely nothing. Adjusting the strengths can mean 2 things: 1) nothing changes and everyone and their mother will still fit ECM and fit the lowslot improvement mod to somewhat compensate for the loss of strength. Kinda like the non-nerf on stabs. So I lock slower.. ooooh now that's such a great nerf now it takes 4 seconds instead of 2 woopdief-ckingdoo.. 2) ECM becomes completely pointless on non-dedicated ships and remains uber on dedicated ships. While this removes the Dominix/Raven ECM setups somewhat I don't really think it's a desirable sitation especially considering where the rest of the EW is on the powerscale. Then we're back in 2004 where tracking disruptors might as well not have existed. IMO we need a system where it's a viable choice on non-EW ships and a good choice on EW ships. I personally think they were on the right direction with the re-actvation delay (which then got reduced on EW dedicated ships). It can never be hard to code as cloaks already have it as well. Unfortunately that never got proper testing and we're stuck with this crap change along with all the other crap Tuxford keeps throwing at us. Another solution may be partial jamming but as discussed before at great length that would get a total mess on how that's supposed to work. Alternatively we could just make backup arrays an activated module that would ignore the first succesfull jamming attempt and then not work for a set period of time (say, 20 seconds).
Kaell Meynn Divergence	Posted - 2006.10.27 01:17:00 - [42] Hmm, I like a couple of the ideas here. 1) Make ECM jam for 10 secs but take 30 secs before it can be used again, and keep things otherwise the same. 2) Make ECM just break locks like burst does, and not prevent relocking. (Might have to reduce cycle time on ECM if you do this as they'd be underpowered then) Both very good ideas IMO.
HankMurphy Pelennor Swarm Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2006.10.27 01:22:00 - [43] Edited by: HankMurphy on 27/10/2006 01:22:14 Originally by: Risien Drogonne If I waste a slot on a hardender, it damn well better make me immune to that damage type. rofl, nice try. Thats not even comparing apples and oranges. Thats comparing apples and basketballs. edit to add:I can agree w/ a racial jammer getting a role in on a racial backup, but a multispec should never be able to.
Kye Kenshin Gallente	Posted - 2006.10.27 01:26:00 - [44] Old system was lame. I'm not the first to suggest this but the most simple way to fix it is to introduce a cool down period after each succesful jam of about 30 secs or more. That means its very unlikely you'll get permajammed for a whole fight. ----------------------------------------------- Beagle In Hibernation, Beagles Forever!!
Risien Drogonne	Posted - 2006.10.27 01:28:00 - [45] Originally by: HankMurphy Edited by: HankMurphy on 27/10/2006 01:22:14 Originally by: Risien Drogonne If I waste a slot on a hardender, it damn well better make me immune to that damage type. rofl, nice try. Thats not even comparing apples and oranges. Thats comparing apples and basketballs. edit to add:I can agree w/ a racial jammer getting a role in on a racial backup, but a multispec should never be able to. I suppose it's not comparable... simply because you say so? Nice try. I can't get immunity with hardeners and you can't get immunity with eccm or backup arrays. Seems pretty similar to me.
HankMurphy Pelennor Swarm Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2006.10.27 01:34:00 - [46] Originally by: Risien Drogonne I suppose it's not comparable... simply because you say so? ecm isn't damage. thats why its not comparable. lets use a little common sense here (thats not against the forum rules is it? ) if i shoot you for 120 thermal damage you dont loose your lock, have to wait for my gun to get a bad roll, then relock my ship, hardener or not. ECM is not equal to damage. Has nothingn to do w/ my 'say so'
Ruze No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2006.10.27 01:37:00 - [47] Adding a longer cooldown period is viable. However, the old system was too 'cut and dry.' I'm not a huge fan of being locked down either, but I've got enough common sense to know that if I don't have any ECCM equiped, I'm basically leaving the door open. Currently, ECM seems overpowered, both by my personal experiences and from the forum cry-babies. Looking at it from a victims perspective, I feel that NO player should be unable to be warp scrambled, unable to be jammed, unable to be nos'd, or unable to be dampened. From the other end, no player should have an automatic, immediate victory. Everything should have some level of luck involved. In a freak incident, that ship with the full rack of high-slot ECM might NOT get the lock, for no other reason that dumb luck. ECM, however, should be given a hard once-over by the developers. Random thought/suggestion? Only allow a ship to project ECM at a single target, instead of multiple targets at once. Including Nos, Dampners and the like. Just 2 cents from someone who you obviously know more than ... Genesis Project
Risien Drogonne	Posted - 2006.10.27 01:37:00 - [48] Originally by: HankMurphy Originally by: Risien Drogonne I suppose it's not comparable... simply because you say so? ecm isn't damage. thats why its not comparable. lets use a little common sense here (thats not against the forum rules is it? ) if i shoot you for 120 thermal damage you dont loose your lock, have to wait for my gun to get a bad roll, then relock my ship, hardener or not. ECM is not equal to damage. Has nothingn to do w/ my 'say so' ECM is tank. That makes it applicable.
Tasty Burger	Posted - 2006.10.27 01:58:00 - [49] Edited by: Tasty Burger on 27/10/2006 01:58:14 The ECM nerf is RIDICULOUS. It pidgeon holes ships and restricts options. That is not good. All ships should be able to fit effective ECM, caldari shouldnt be the only ones. THAT SAID: - ECM is OVERPOWERED NO MATTER WHAT. The entire system needs to be changed. ECM should only break locks, since relocking times mean even if jammed once you are *****. ECM would break a lock and be used in tandem with sensor dampeners, promoting TEAMWORK. This would also allow ECM to still be effectively used on non-caldari ships as it should be. - If for some reason the above is not done, ECCM should instantly break any jams and let you relock. Jamming at the moment is completely unfair since it prevents the victim from doing ANYTHING to defend himself. You can do stuff when TD'd, sensor damped, nossed, and lol target painted... not jammed. Also multispecs need to be removed. - It's great being Minmatar, ain't it?*
Risien Drogonne	Posted - 2006.10.27 02:01:00 - [50] Originally by: Tasty Burger - If for some reason the above is not done, ECCM should instantly break any jams and let you relock. One warp core stab should nullify all warp scramblers on you. Still sound reasonable when applied to other forms of EW?

Tasty Burger	Posted - 2006.10.27 02:02:00 - [51] Originally by: Risien Drogonne Originally by: Tasty Burger - If for some reason the above is not done, ECCM should instantly break any jams and let you relock. One warp core stab should nullify all warp scramblers on you. Still sound reasonable when applied to other forms of EW? You can fight back when warp scrambled. - It's great being Minmatar, ain't it?
Radcjk	Posted - 2006.10.27 02:17:00 - [52] Edited by: Radcjk on 27/10/2006 02:20:26 Agreed with Larkonis. Reread the posts and saw he had the same idea. ecm on ewar specific ships only. ECM does need fixed but not to the point its worthless at the same time.
Risien Drogonne	Posted - 2006.10.27 02:34:00 - [53] Originally by: Tasty Burger Originally by: Risien Drogonne Originally by: Tasty Burger - If for some reason the above is not done, ECCM should instantly break any jams and let you relock. One warp core stab should nullify all warp scramblers on you. Still sound reasonable when applied to other forms of EW? You can fight back when warp scrambled. You can fight back when jammed. Use drones or FoF missiles. Next point?
Sinnbad Mayhem	Posted - 2006.10.27 02:50:00 - [54] The new system is better but still not perfect. The low slot ECM booster (forget the name) is excellent trade/off. Wondering if anyone tested the Scorpion/Falcon/Rook on Test yet? Are the bonuses + mods crazy?
Siakel	Posted - 2006.10.27 03:00:00 - [55] Originally by: Risien Drogonne Originally by: Tasty Burger Originally by: Risien Drogonne Originally by: Tasty Burger - If for some reason the above is not done, ECCM should instantly break any jams and let you relock. One warp core stab should nullify all warp scramblers on you. Still sound reasonable when applied to other forms of EW? You can fight back when warp scrambled. You can fight back when jammed. Use drones or FoF missiles. Next point? Yeah. Tell that to my Zealot, or Maller, or Punisher, or Retribution, Crusader, etc.
Sinnbad Mayhem	Posted - 2006.10.27 03:06:00 - [56] Originally by: Siakel Originally by: Risien Drogonne Originally by: Tasty Burger Originally by: Risien Drogonne Originally by: Tasty Burger - If for some reason the above is not done, ECCM should instantly break any jams and let you relock. One warp core stab should nullify all warp scramblers on you. Still sound reasonable when applied to other forms of EW? You can fight back when warp scrambled. You can fight back when jammed. Use drones or FoF missiles. Next point? Yeah. Tell that to my Zealot, or Maller, or Punisher, or Retribution, Crusader, etc. Amarr has the best Anti ECM platform: 7 Smart bomb Apoc / Geddon setup.
Sonorra Baki	Posted - 2006.10.27 03:08:00 - [57] Originally by: Risien Drogonne Originally by: Tasty Burger Originally by: Risien Drogonne Originally by: Tasty Burger - If for some reason the above is not done, ECCM should instantly break any jams and let you relock. One warp core stab should nullify all warp scramblers on you. Still sound reasonable when applied to other forms of EW? You can fight back when warp scrambled. You can fight back when jammed. Use drones or FoF missiles. Next point? That might be true if your a mission nub in a nub corp, and never leaves Jita
Risien Drogonne	Posted - 2006.10.27 03:24:00 - [58] Originally by: Sonorra Baki That might be true if your a mission nub in a nub corp, and never leaves Jita What, you're complaining that a module whose job is to hamper your ability to fight back hampers your ability to fight back? The guy said it was impossible to fight back. I proved him wrong.
Enigmier	Posted - 2006.10.27 03:39:00 - [59] give eccm a bit more of a buff maybe? but make the high slot `auto targeter` an anti ecm `get your lock back` module, sure it takes a high slot and means you have to do without a weapon, but i think its a fair trade-off to stop yourself from being jammed. so med and low slot eccm give you a higher chance of not being jammed high slot auto targeter gives you a 100% chance of not being jammed and lets keep the chance based system as the old system sucked ballz
Siakel	Posted - 2006.10.27 03:52:00 - [60] Edited by: Siakel on 27/10/2006 03:53:48 The problem with ECCM isn't really its strength, it's more that the module is absolutely useless if nobody is attempting to jam you. Every other counter-module adds a bonus to your ship or weapons even if you aren't being hit by the EW it counters. TDs vs Tracking Comps, Damps vs Sensor Boosters, etc. Edit: Oh, and thanks for ignoring the ships that ECM completely shuts down, and instead pointing out only the ships that might be able to possibly do something while jammed, if the situation is right.

Risien Drogonne	Posted - 2006.10.27 03:58:00 - [61] Originally by: Siakel Edited by: Siakel on 27/10/2006 03:53:48 The problem with ECCM isn't really its strength, it's more that the module is absolutely useless if nobody is attempting to jam you. Every other counter-module adds a bonus to your ship or weapons even if you aren't being hit by the EW it counters. Warp stabs are completely useless if no one's scrambling you.
Siakel	Posted - 2006.10.27 04:10:00 - [62] Originally by: Risien Drogonne Originally by: Siakel Edited by: Siakel on 27/10/2006 03:53:48 The problem with ECCM isn't really its strength, it's more that the module is absolutely useless if nobody is attempting to jam you. Every other counter-module adds a bonus to your ship or weapons even if you aren't being hit by the EW it counters. Warp stabs are completely useless if no one's scrambling you. Yes, and when someone's scrambling you, you warp out gauranteed unless they have more scrambling strength than you have stabs. If you fit a full rack of ECCM and Backup Arrays, you could still be jammed by a single Multispectral I while being completely useless against everything else. See the difference?
Crewman Jenkins	Posted - 2006.10.27 04:43:00 - [63] I still like the idea of making the use of ECM a ship dedicated action . Meaning that the use of effective ECM should either use most of a ship's resources or slots, or the act of using ECM should keep the player using it busy enough to degrade his combat ability. For a simple example of keeping an ecm user busy: Lets say each player has multiple frequencies they can use for targeting. The ECM player now has to figure out which frequency to jam. After a successful jam, the jammed player can choose a different frequency and immediatley retarget. Make it almost like a sub-game for the ecm player to play. Maybe the 4 racial targeting types could just be a selection for each player to fit onto their ship. Give each sensor type its own attributes? I know thats a bit out there. However, I think it would be great to make ecm, as it is now, harder than just a button push.
Malena Panic Gallente Acme Technologies Incorporated Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2006.10.27 05:00:00 - [64] 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.
Glory Ho	Posted - 2006.10.27 05:17:00 - [65] Like two of the informed members already said, make it role specific to a ship. CPU reduction or the like. Just like many of the other ships in game, esp. Recons. Leave muli-spec, with role specific ships. If someone wants to make their ship less effective, but more versatile, let them. Mind you this is with a return to point based system, but i don't want the rest of the old system to come back with it.
Risien Drogonne	Posted - 2006.10.27 05:26:00 - [66] Edited by: Risien Drogonne on 27/10/2006 05:32:12 Edited by: Risien Drogonne on 27/10/2006 05:31:05 Originally by: Siakel Originally by: Risien Drogonne Originally by: Siakel Edited by: Siakel on 27/10/2006 03:53:48 The problem with ECCM isn't really its strength, it's more that the module is absolutely useless if nobody is attempting to jam you. Every other counter-module adds a bonus to your ship or weapons even if you aren't being hit by the EW it counters. Warp stabs are completely useless if no one's scrambling you. Yes, and when someone's scrambling you, you warp out gauranteed unless they have more scrambling strength than you have stabs. If you fit a full rack of ECCM and Backup Arrays, you could still be jammed by a single Multispectral I while being completely useless against everything else. See the difference? No, I don't, because all of these people expect to made immune to a thousand jamming modules simply by fitting one ECCM module. I'm trying to point out to them that nothing in this entire game works that way. And quite frankly, your chances of being jammed by a non-ECM-specialized ship when you have just 2 backup arrays fitted are so small it's not even worth worrying about unless you're the biggest crybaby in the universe. I mean, we're talking less than 2% here in a battleship. Is 2% really worth all this crying?
Beryllium Royal Crimson Lancers	Posted - 2006.10.27 05:51:00 - [67] My personal concept to change ECM was to compare the jamming strength vs. the sensor strength for a variable amount of time, after the probability of success is done, with the lock not being broken, just interrupted for that period. The example of a frigate with a multispec jamming a carrier would interrupt for maybe .2 of a second, just a little bit of static to the locking computer.
Dark PIne	Posted - 2006.10.27 06:12:00 - [68] Originally by: Davlin Lotze The nublars defending the existing ECM system make me chuckle. Eve is about outguessing your opponent before the battle. Fitting to cover most of the likely situations to occur and then having that result carried forth in your victory if you chose well. And in defeat if you chose poorly. The nublars in this thread want DICE ROLLS to decide. No more strat, just strap on nosses, some ECM, and hell, dont even worry about tackling anymore because inexplicably, WCS are now nerfed and you can't fit to run from an aforementioned "i-win" ecm setup. The result is not only "Easy" pvp...pvp more in the spirit of what BE does, but it's uninteresting and eminently boring. The above constellation is an "eve killer" setup. You cannot take away peoples ability to deal with all the "i-wins" still in the game(ofc here we're talking about ECM), whilst turning around and removing a selective few, ie WCS. Left to me, I would prefer ECM gets completely nerfed and lobotomized beyond belief AND the existing Kali nerf to WCS left right in place. We can have both of the above, but not just one. The Eve you described is like chess in space; you choose your fitting and make your move. After you undock there's not much you can do to affect the outcome of the battle. I don't find that kind of gaming fun. IMO there should always be a random element (=luck) in games. Problem with ECM is that the dice roll has too severe effects on the fight, because it disables the opponent's ability to fight back for a guaranteed period of time. 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)
Demonica II	Posted - 2006.10.27 07:22:00 - [69] Edited by: Demonica II on 27/10/2006 07:22:27 There should be no ability ingame that disables someones ability to lock (dampners dont count, they dont actually remove your ability to lock, just hinder your range). It's the equivalent of making your opponent able to do anything, heal, fight, cause damage etc for the most part in any fantasy style mmorpg. It's overpowered completely. For most people, not being able to lock means not being able to fight back, not being able to fight back and just sitting there and dying is NOT FUN!
AsfALT	Posted - 2006.10.27 07:29:00 - [70] Edited by: AsfALT on 27/10/2006 07:33:17 Edited by: AsfALT on 27/10/2006 07:32:48 Someone says "i was jammed" and all of the sudden the ecm get's nerfed, what ppl fail to understand (or don't want to because it dosen't fit theyre play style) is that a ship that uses ecm sacrifices alot for it. I saw a post about some one who was complining that he has only 3 meds so where should he put his eccm... where do u think the ecm user puts them? In his lows? If someone wants to jam then he will use valuable med slots and capacitor for it. The argument that all the races ew are not balanced i can understand from a matari perspective as TP dosen't really help ur defence (it dose however help ur offecnce). Every ew has it's purpose, if u put 2 traking disrupts on a turret based ship it is screwed, it won't hit many things. Use some rsd on a ship and it will have horrible targeting range and speed . Everey EW type is counterable to a degree with the exception of TP. U think u will get jammed, use eccm and ur chances of getting jammed will decrease. (a point could be made that eccm should also give another bonus) U think u will be traking disrupted or u want better traking, use traking comps. U think u will be sensor dampned or u want better targeting spped and range, use sensor boosters. U think u will be painted, well u will be. That dosen't hinder ur ability to fight, it just helps the other guy to kill u faster.

AsfALT	Posted - 2006.10.27 07:32:00 - [71] 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) Interesting idea.
Loka Gallente adeptus gattacus Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.27 07:53:00 - [72] Originally by: AsfALT 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) Interesting idea. Thats really cool. Nice idear, hope someone point that to the DEV Team. _________________________ Noob In Action - [NIA]**
Illuminaty ISS Logistics Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.27 08:21:00 - [73] TBH, I think ECM is going to be 'broken' until it is a 100% system like the rest of the Ewar types. Stasis webbing, scrambling, painting, tracking disrupting, and damping all work 100% of the time. Someone just need to think up a _really_ good mechanic for messing with the 'targeting' systems on ships that could be applied 100% of the time without being a 100% lockdown or being a giant waste of time.
Heikki Gallente Wreckless Abandon	Posted - 2006.10.27 09:09:00 - [74] Considering the rather huge nerf ECM just got, how about we just live with the new system for few months, and see how things look after that? To me it seems it was nerfed enough to make people seriously consider if it is still worth of wasting those medslot for occasional chance to jam. And yet, if you like to fight with frigate swarm, you all can still fit single ECM and go beat those lone battleships together. -Lasse
Laboratus Gallente BGG Freelancer Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.27 09:16:00 - [75] 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. Yea, it is the randomness of ecm that sucks in 1 vs 1 not the strengths them selves. If you are lucky, you will never be locked. If not, well Mind control and tin hats
Spanker	Posted - 2006.10.27 09:21:00 - [76] This may be a longshot, heh, but are you sure the EW nerf changes are active on sisi yet? - Shpank
Lygos ISS Navy Task Force	Posted - 2006.10.27 09:46:00 - [77] My stance is simple, go with old system, but give every ship 4 targetting stats. Magnetometric for gallente vessels. Gravimetric for targetting caldari vessels, and so on and so forth with ladar and radar. This way, ships have to be jammed in all four stats to make them unable to target any of the four. You have the option of just jamming them in 1-3 instead. Under the old system, multi-specs were inefficient. Nothing would change really, except ECCM would be more tactical. Boost lowslot ECCM btw. --- Private Investment should preceed Public Investment
Litus Arowar Amarr Obsidian Asylum Pure.	Posted - 2006.10.27 10:12:00 - [78] remember when warp scrambling would cycle for what was it, 30 seconds? so inties would warp in, scramble, warp out, and never risk anything at all? how'd they fix that... by reducing the cycle time why not try that with the chance based ECMing... if the cycles were 5 seconds, there'd be a crapload more TIMES you get your lock broken in a fight, but true statistical randomness would be more apparent only problem there is the locking time on big and small ships, where big ships would be permajammed with even a 50% chance, while small ones would be able to acquire lock a second after a jam fails... how would one balance this, I don't know, perhaps re-locking a target that was previously locked could be made quicker or something cytomatrix> Try sitting inside a big frickin ball filled up with glue and tubes stuck up your nose and your arse. Then compare RL and Eve.
Polinus	Posted - 2006.10.27 10:22:00 - [79] Edited by: Polinus on 27/10/2006 10:23:23 Think ECEm should operate much more like in RL sicne RL is more balanced. ECm reduces target range and signature. So for example a single ECM should recuce my enemy range to lock by 25% and my signaature by 25%. Of course staack penalties areneeded so that you neveere ever can reach 100% but at most 80% or so.. Of course eith the effects depending on the difference between jamming and sensor/eccm strenght. This would make ECM perfect against missiles (making you sig smaller than explosiion). A very good non existent as of now, missile counter.
Severa Crest Nomina Sacra Sapientia Freelancer Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.27 10:45:00 - [80] 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. The nerf was not to make ecm useless. A ship with no ew bonuses can still make use of TDs and damps, why not ecm? The fact is you went into the fight knowing he had ecm fitted and had no counter. He used 2 slots to jam you, what would have happened you think if you had used 2 slots to counter?

Madame Savage	Posted - 2006.10.27 10:50:00 - [81] Change ECM that it only break lock. Add a Skill that you can Jam up to 5 sec. Change Shipboni of Scorp and BB so that you can Jam up to 10 sec (with full specced Skill and Ship Boni) Remove ECM drones ! or If you are jammed, jam breaks if you take damage. You can be taken out of the combat for a while but you cant get harmed. It will require teamwork to jam the right targets and maybe dedicated "Antijam" Ships like ceptors which shoot you out of jam.
AsfALT	Posted - 2006.10.27 10:54:00 - [82] Originally by: Madame Savage Change ECM that it only break lock. Add a Skill that you can Jam up to 5 sec. Change Shipboni of Scorp and BB so that you can Jam up to 10 sec (with full specced Skill and Ship Boni) Remove ECM drones ! or If you are jammed, jam breaks if you take damage. You can be taken out of the combat for a while but you cant get harmed. It will require teamwork to jam the right targets and maybe dedicated "Antijam" Ships like ceptors which shoot you out of jam. Bolded part is stupid imho. I get it u like the wow sheep (some skill)?
commander tycho Minmatar Blood Inquisition Sani Khal'Vecna	Posted - 2006.10.27 11:18:00 - [83] Originally by: Risien Drogonne Originally by: Sonorra Baki That might be true if your a mission nub in a nub corp, and never leaves Jita What, you're complaining that a module whose job is to hamper your ability to fight back hampers your ability to fight back? The guy said it was impossible to fight back. I proved him wrong. No, he proved you wrong actually. Some ships dont have missiles or drones, think of that? How about keep ECM the same but make the ECCM module able to break the targetting lockdown. For example, someone jams you, you turn on your eccm mod and breaks the effect. The mod would have a lengthy cooldown of course so that it doesnt completely negate the effect of ecm.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 11:34:00 - [84] 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 - [85] 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.
Bermag Point-Zero Ratel Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.27 11:43:00 - [86] The bad thing with ECM IMO is that it is "all or nothing". I think breaking lock and having a lock delay is one good option, also to have a cool down so you can't be perma jammed. I would like to add one other idea. How about ECM adds an additional "risk to miss factor" which affect both missile and gun ships. With other words, add an extra "dice roll" for chance to hit based on jamming strength vs sensor strength.
Sonorra Baki	Posted - 2006.10.27 11:53:00 - [87] Originally by: Risien Drogonne Originally by: Sonorra Baki That might be true if your a mission nub in a nub corp, and never leaves Jita What, you're complaining that a module whose job is to hamper your ability to fight back hampers your ability to fight back? The guy said it was impossible to fight back. I proved him wrong. Saying "use fof's and drones" is not proving anybody Wrong. Imagine yourself in any amarr ship for example, then try see how good your statement is then.
Lakotnik	Posted - 2006.10.27 11:58:00 - [88] 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.
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2006.10.27 12:01:00 - [89] 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). Even though you might not believe it, turrets are chance based . Even with everything going for you in terms of sig radius, tracking, range, your grandma.. You can still miss. The chance based part of ecm is not really the problem imo... It's the effect when it's succesfull that could be looked at. With the chance to jam halved, I rather think sensor damps and tracking disruptors are going to become better to use(ok tracking disruptors are only usefull vs. turret ships). Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2006.10.27 12:12:00 - [90] 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.

Vathar Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.27 12:13:00 - [91] Honestly, everybody complains that ECCM is useless when nobody tries to jam you and everybody agrees that in most fight, you'll face at least one jamming ship. What's da pwoblem? If you expect to get jammed, fit ECCM, if you think you can do without, don't bother! Regardless of what everybody says, I use ECCM quite often and seldom get jammed! Somebody mentions a Domi fitting 3 Multispecs and having a High chance of Jamming, yeah, fit at least 1 ECCM and suddenly, he wastes 3 slots and his chances aren't that high! He sacrificed 3 slots, drains his cap and still, it doesn't work that well does it? ___________________________________________ Originally by: Stamm Minmatar are kind of like going down a flight of stairs on an office chair firing
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 12:14:00 - [92] 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 - [93] 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.
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2006.10.27 12:20:00 - [94] Originally by: Butter Dog 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! Bah, all warfare is partly based on luck. ECM is based on luck the same way gun hits are based on luck; you can fit modules and skills to improve your chances, but some of your shots will always miss. Sure, the ECM effect is huge, so it needs careful balancing. But I suspect the new nerf is pretty close to the right ballpark. The old deterministic system sucked and was totally boring. Imho, of course. There's nothing more stupid than a ship that can 100% always jam you.
Imhotep Khem Vortex.	Posted - 2006.10.27 12:22:00 - [95] For those who were not around, the old system was not chance based but simply who had the bigger strength. The only chance was if the enemy had backup arrays fitted or not. In the old days, some things that worked on players did not work on NPC. CCP wanted to change this so that all things worked on all ships. ECM did not work on NPC. When CCP made it so ECM did work on NPC, they had to make it chance based else ECM ships can easily just stack on the strength and sleepwalk through all missions and ratting exercises. So do not expect ECM to go away from chance base unless you can propose something that will work well with NPC. ____ "If your not dyin' your not tryin'." "Are you prepared to go all the way, Alexi?" DuGalle
Polinus	Posted - 2006.10.27 12:22:00 - [96] I still dont get why people hate dice roll? there isa lready one in damage. And its not like its rolled once and gone. Its rolled every time so on avarage you have a reasonable prediction of the behavior. If fight was 100% deterministic, why bother to fight it? Eve is already too few skill needed on 1Vs1 (after the engagment get to its apex). A little ranomness just brings up surprise and that is fun!! If I wanted to play something 100% deterministic I would play rock paper and scissor where I see what the enemy do then I choose my option.
Zixxa	Posted - 2006.10.27 12:22:00 - [97] ECM is nerfed totally and will slowly die. For usual ship you need to fit 3 best ECM(20kk) to have 40% jam chance against BC. It is too expensive. One ECCM, one sensor booster and one warpscramler is much more useful replacement for useless ECM multijammers. ECM is fully dead as tanking ability for transport ships too. Dedicated ECM ships at the moment nerfed(and I do not know anything about unnerf). But, imagine and dedicated ECM ships will be unnerfed, but with ECCM fit in the med slot(instead of dropped EC) effectivity of the ECM ships will be effectively halved. Add, that ECM ships are far to be useful in combat, being constructed from the paper , having too little slots and low damage power(Falcon - zero dps, Rook low dps, Scorp low dps). The only positive moment with ECM ships in the fleet is for enemy - easier to call primary. /Me (personally) am switching to dampeners.
Zixxa	Posted - 2006.10.27 12:26:00 - [98] 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.
Polinus	Posted - 2006.10.27 12:26:00 - [99] In a non chance based system. You in 1 vs could have both ships ECM each other and sicne there is no chance, no one would leave the lock and we have an infinte fight with zero shots.. not my idea of fun. Fun is about taking risk, taking risk is about not knowing the outcome.. not knowing the outcome is about taking chances!
Gurii Minmatar	Posted - 2006.10.27 12:27:00 - [100] Perhaps drop ECM Multispectrals? Then you need to think about what the enemy might bring to the battle. And change Racial ECM:s to only affect Racial Sensorsystems. ----- I just love eve-o login errors: The character you've selected does for some reason not belong to you! CONCORD has been notified.

Zixxa	Posted - 2006.10.27 12:31:00 - [101] Originally by: Gurii Perhaps drop ECM Multispectrals? Then you need to think about what the enemy might bring to the battle. And change Racial ECM:s to only affect Racial Sensorsystems. Don't be so ***. Get "racial dampeners" and feel the difference. Or racial warpscramblers. Racial ECM is only good addition(bonus for your intel and pure luck), but workhorse is multi.
Isyel Minmatar Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2006.10.27 12:33:00 - [102] I remember a certain ECM idea that came up once in some chat channel. Basically ECM could still be rather random (but you could influence what it does to a certain degree), but random in the sense of having certain detrimential effects on the targeted ships beyond braking lock. Let me explain. It would break your lock, you could relock just slower than your usual lock time. It would also be chance based on how many of your locks it breaks, so you could for example have 5 ships locked, you loose 2 locks. There you relock, BUT. You, for example, have now trouble hitting the enemies (turret tracking distrupted, missile warheads scrambled) or your sensors are way weaker (like a dampener) or other possible fun effects. When i said you could influence. You could for example increase the cap need of the scrambler and make it to something better (like increasing lock time) or make the cap stay the same but the scrambler will have less chance of doing things other than the one you want it to do. Would even take us to another idea. The ability to, for example, redirect some of the power to sensors (loose cap but make sensors more powerful to reduce those detrimential effects) etc. Sounds a little complicated but it sure would be more fun. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I be needin' some sig love. sigh
Jacob Holland Gallente FIRMA Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.27 12:33:00 - [103] Looking at the EWar systems (and not including Stasis Webs, Warp Scramblers or Nosferatu as they aren't EWar, they target the enemy's engines, warp drive or power systems not electronics (and yes, I realise that the Painter doesn't target the opponent's electronics either, I'll come to that later)) the ECM stands out. It is the only chance based EWar, but it is also the only module which eliminates rather than reduces a function of the enemy vessel. If tracking disruptors had a 30% chance of preventing a turret ship firing entirely you'd see more of them about, if sensor damps had a 30% chance of reducing any ship's lock range to 0 they'd be ECM, if Painters had a 30% chance of increasing a target's sig rad to infinity more Ravens would be loading Rage Torps, a webber and Painter and going interceptor hunting. Every one of those effects would be seen as overpowered. However, in the old system ECM effectively degraded your sensor strength and that didn't work either. So let's take inspiration from the message which flashes up every time you attempt to get a lock while jammed. Quote: You are currently managing 0 targets, as many as your ship's electronics are capable of. Rather than degrading Sensor Strength how about it degrades the number of targets you can lock. ECM Multi knocks off one target, racial ECM vs the wrong race knocks off half and racial ECM vs the right race knocks off two. To compensate you have ECCM modules and Backup Arrays, if these added targetting slots (regardless of skill or ship, so a character without targetting might be able to manage 3 targets with a backup array or 4 with an ECCM (both modules being slightly renamed)). A Scorpion should be able to lock down a couple of Battleships which aren't running defenses (most are Max locked 8 IIRC) or at the least force them to remanage their targets if they're running some form of defence. However a solo Vampadom would no longer fit a single ECM multi "because there's a slot free" (the fact that noone considers fitting ECCM immediately there's a slot free - but instead tries to jam a Multi on there is perhaps telling). Yes you might well find that Every ship in a fleet would fit an ECM to lock down the primary - but they'd be just as likely to fit damps to reduce the primary's lock range to 0 or tracking disruptors to reduce his optimal range and tracking to nothing... Tweak things slightly more by saying that ECM (or Damp, or TD) cycles in place before the activation of ECCM, Sensor Boosters or Tracking computers didn't effect them - your whole fleet may jam the primary, but if he's fitting ECCM he'll have a chance at a couple of shots every now and then with which to fight back, or at least run Nos to fuel his tank. Originally by: cordy Respect to IAC .Your one of the few people who truly deserve to own and live in the space you are in.
Gurii Minmatar	Posted - 2006.10.27 12:34:00 - [104] Originally by: Zixxa Originally by: Gurii Perhaps drop ECM Multispectrals? Then you need to think about what the enemy might bring to the battle. And change Racial ECM:s to only affect Racial Sensorsystems. Don't be so ***. Get "racial dampeners" and feel the difference. Or racial warpscramblers. Racial ECM is only good addition(bonus for your intel and pure luck), but workhorse is multi. It was just a suggestion, chill. ----- I just love eve-o login errors: The character you've selected does for some reason not belong to you! CONCORD has been notified.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 12:51:00 - [105] 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.
Polinus	Posted - 2006.10.27 13:02:00 - [106] No.. anon chance only bennefits those that want fights that are competely resolved before they start.
JoCool Caldari Cataclysm Enterprises	Posted - 2006.10.27 13:15:00 - [107] Add a cool down time of 20 seconds to ECMs, after each cycle, regardless of if the jam worked or not. Give ECM ships a hidden bonus to remove the cool down time to 0. There you have a module, even if chance based, that would be ineffective to use on other than ECM ships. So if a non ECM ship tries to jam you and succeeds, you'll still have 20 seconds after the jam where you can fight back. This nerfs 1 and 2 ECM setups on non-ECM ships. However, if you dedicate 4 or 5 slots to it, you might be able to keep a single ship constantly jammed by applying multiple jammers one by one covering each others downtime. _______________________________________________________________________ Trey Azagthoth > Youre my idol Jocool. I wanna be like Jocool jr. or Jocool the sequel! Oveur > ohnoes jocool
Ranger 1 Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.27 13:20:00 - [108] As has been (correctly) pointed out, normal combat has a fairly large dose of dice rolling as it is now... it just isn't as obvious. If you can't see that when you look at your damage results that pop up on your screen, then you are not really thinking things through. The old system sucked. In many instances there was virtually no reason to even play a fight out... the computer could have determined the winner before the combat actually began. Without a doubt Jammers are the most powerful of the jamming tech, and Multi's the most useful of the Jammers. It would not break my heart to see Jammers in general, and Multi's in particular, have a fairly drastic reduction in effective range. It would keep them out of longer range and fleet battles all together (unless you risk a squadron of jamming ships jumping in close). Then we would be forced to rely on the more specific, less generally crippling, forms of ECM for large engagements.
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2006.10.27 13:23:00 - [109] How about we first test the new ECM system before we suggest too many weird tweaks? As someone noted, the old system isn't coming back, it would make it too easy to zero-risk solo any NPC. I'd venture to bet that the old method of fitting 1-2 ECMs in mids isn't that useful anymore. Fitting 3+ will probably work now and then, but a lot less reliably than before, you'd really need a sensor damp in addition to that -- and at that point we're already talking 4 midslots dedicated to ECM -- that should start to have some effect. 4 sensor damps is equally bad or worse news, if you want to compare. And they work 100%, as long as you can keep range.
Polinus	Posted - 2006.10.27 13:26:00 - [110] In fcat I think the oposite would be nice. To make it like in RL (where jammers are not uber). Jammers only work at longe range (at short range the radar burn throught the jamming signal). This would make jmmaers effective for close range ships be safe until aproach and diminish long range fight. Also like in RL there should be weapons that attack specifically ship emmiting jamming. Usually in RL missiles have Home on Jam capablity.. a mod where its 99.9% sure they will hit the jammer. So a quite powerfull weapon, that can hit only jamming ships would be nice. Or a module that allows you to swith your targeting exclusively to the ship jamming you in a Home on Jam mode). That would allow BS to kill jamming frigs etc... (while still being disrupted from firing at its original targets).

Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 13:27:00 - [111] 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?
Rastam3n	Posted - 2006.10.27 13:27:00 - [112] 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...
Polinus	Posted - 2006.10.27 13:32:00 - [113] 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.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 13:37:00 - [114] 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.
Nahia Senne Fortunis Novum	Posted - 2006.10.27 13:42:00 - [115] Originally by: Butter Dog 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. indeed. failing to nerf ECM, i demand my tracking disruptor's to shut down turrets for 20 seconds. then it will still not be as good as ECM, but it will at least be close.
Lakotnik	Posted - 2006.10.27 13:42:00 - [116] Originally by: Zixxa 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. Heh if a BS manages to lock you u re doing something terribly wrong. Suggestion was about relocking (or autolocking) targets you already had lock on be4 ECM hits you, not instalocking anything after ECM effect wears off. And you need to be in a fleet combat or have a terrible case of lag not to lock and jam a BS be4 it locks you. Anyway, with 2 racial jammers (lets say 10 str, vs 20), BS is still jammed for 10s per jammer, if it doesnt have ECCM. Well i think jammers still have to miss, 2 would manage to permajam a bs with numbers above. 4 with 1 midslot eccm. But still, there wont be so many frigs using 1 multispec - "in case i get lucky". It is just not that useful anymore.
Ranger 1 Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.27 13:48:00 - [117] 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... You mean the one that is being tested and tweaked? One brief combat does not = a good test.
Ranger 1 Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.27 13:57:00 - [118] Originally by: Butter Dog 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. 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.
Bobby Ogata	Posted - 2006.10.27 14:09:00 - [119] The main problems with the new system are the chance of it working are too high and the time it takes to recover (lose lock, jammed, lock) is too long. So... Create small, medium and large ECM modules to counter the frigate jamming the carrier forever. Have ECM modules increase your sig radius when used, reducing the time it takes to lock jammers. Reduce the time you're jammed to 5s.
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2006.10.27 14:18:00 - [120] 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.

Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 14:57:00 - [121] 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.
Rastam3n	Posted - 2006.10.27 14:59:00 - [122] 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. Well, it proves that the chance based system is a flawed system in general. It doesn't matter if a jammer has a strength of 10 or 2.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 15:01:00 - [123] 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.
Metis AT	Posted - 2006.10.27 15:14:00 - [124] 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. very true about the dampers but to be effective you have to fit a few of them. Amarr still getting the short end of the EWAR stick to be honest as they dont have enough mids to damp effectively. On a side note, Gallente should be clamoring for a sensor damping BS instead of another blaster boat.
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2006.10.27 15:17:00 - [125] Originally by: Butter Dog 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. I think you need more then 1 fight to be able to have a 'chance' at judging the changes. Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug
Polinus	Posted - 2006.10.27 15:45:00 - [126] 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"
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 16:05:00 - [127] 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 - [128] 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
Sonho	Posted - 2006.10.27 16:16:00 - [129] 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.
VekkTor Legionari Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.10.27 16:33:00 - [130] the only thing i'd just ask is to leave the jammed ship's targets targeted, but being unable to activate any mods on it. re-targeting is something added to the ECM success imho

Polinus	Posted - 2006.10.27 16:50:00 - [131] Originally by: Butter Dog 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 Disagree.. Once Erich hartman greates fighter pilot of all times (more than 320 kills) was asked (after war) if he considered himself the best pilot of all. He said. "Not at all, there were many piltos that were better than me, I was just the luckiest one. you know, it is always better to be the luckyiest of all incompetents, than being the luck chalanged ace" Tht was a cear reference to Marseiles considered the best pilto of all but who died when ejecting its plane (due to a broken oil pipe on its engine) because his head colided with plane tail. Luck is part of life anc ombat!! That is what makes it fun! A really good pilot is the one that can negate the luck disadvatage and use best the advantage when it arises.
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2006.10.27 16:52:00 - [132] Originally by: Butter Dog Originally by: Polinus ... 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 it's a tactical choice to bring ecm or not, same with most other things in eve, right now on TQ ecm is too powerfull I'll agree with that. But the proposed changes look like they'll bring it in line with other ew, stacking penalty and halved jam chance are a step in the right direction. Maybe it needs more but that can only be judged after extensive testing, not 1 fight. turn your sweeping statement around: people can be "unlucky" and lose a fight despite fitting ecm. Don't whine about something after 1 fight, go on to sisi and test it longer, use it yourself, get skilled in it, breathe it... Crystal-Slave, that way? Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug
Nahia Senne Fortunis Novum	Posted - 2006.10.27 17:08:00 - [133] Originally by: Reatu Krentor it's a tactical choice to bring ecm or not, same with most other things in eve, right now on TQ ecm is too powerfull I'll agree with that. But the proposed changes look like they'll bring it in line with other ew, stacking penalty and halved jam chance are a step in the right direction. Maybe it needs more but that can only be judged after extensive testing, not 1 fight. turn your sweeping statement around: people can be "unlucky" and lose a fight despite fitting ecm. Don't whine about something after 1 fight, go on to sisi and test it longer, use it yourself, get skilled in it, breathe it... slightly less "lucky" ecm is still the old ecm. only difference is, now you might manage to lock me now and then as opposed to being perma jammed 25-30 seconds of lost DPS is hard to catch up to, even with superior SP. in the end, one ECM hit is all i really need for you to lose any engagement. even if no ECM hits, i still have decent chance at winning, simply because ECM does not affect my tanking or my DPS. lucky ECM really only ensures my victory. and yeah, everyone will continue to fit ECM. the nerf is insignificant as it didn't address the actual problem of ECM being so much better than anything else you can fit in your mid. Make ECCM viable!
Polinus	Posted - 2006.10.27 17:10:00 - [134] In fact other stuff as painters should be boosted. If you are fighting something BIG TP help nothing.
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2006.10.27 17:12:00 - [135] Originally by: Nahia Senne and yeah, everyone will continue to fit ECM. the nerf is insignificant as it didn't address the actual problem of ECM being so much better than anything else you can fit in your mid. Oh? I personally am fitting tracking disrupters, sensor damps or painters if I only have 1-2 slots to spare for EW. Much better bang for the buck after the change, imho. Which one(s) to fit depends totally on the ship and tactics. Wish there was a "missile tracking disrupter" module...
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 17:25:00 - [136] 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.
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2006.10.27 17:28:00 - [137] 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.
Nahia Senne Fortunis Novum	Posted - 2006.10.27 17:40:00 - [138] Originally by: Alex Harumichi Precisely the same way the ECM jamming success rate averages out over time. yes, it will perfectly average out few minutes after you're long dead in the mean time, you are fighting someone with equally good tank and with equally good DPS. only difference is, you get to sit still and roll your thumbs for a while. in a blob, sure it might be iffy. in engagements involving just a few people, good luck with your potentially useless mods. Make ECCM viable!
Polinus	Posted - 2006.10.27 17:40:00 - [139] Edited by: Polinus on 27/10/2006 17:53:30 Originally by: Butter Dog 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. aa now you are making yourself clear. This can be solved by adjusting the chance by the amount of exceding ECM force aboce sensor force.
kessah Caldari Veto.	Posted - 2006.10.27 17:44:00 - [140] i agree old system 4tw. -------------------------------------------------------- Forever Pirate 2

Derran Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2006.10.27 17:45:00 - [141] Edited by: Derran on 27/10/2006 17:51:00 Originally by: Butter Dog 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 I HATED the old system because it was crap. You fit multiple jammers and he slaps on just one good ECCM and your 6 med slots are useless so you die and there is nothing you can do about it since ECM fitted ships are made of paper. At least with the way the system is now you can get into a skirmish and be greatly outnumbered and still have some chance of winning or at least getting away because I sure as hell ain't fitting the new WCS on an ECM ship after the patch.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 17:49:00 - [142] 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.
Nahia Senne Fortunis Novum	Posted - 2006.10.27 17:52:00 - [143] Originally by: Derran I HATED the old system. You fit multiple jammers and he slaps on just one good ECCM and your 6 med slots are useless so you die and there is nothing you can do about it. At least with the way the system is now you can get into a skirmish and be greatly outnumbered and still have some chance of winning. what, you think you should be invincible instead? - do you think dampener boats have any better chances at winning solo? - do you think that target painter boats have any better chances at winning solo? - do you think that target disruption boats have any better chances at winning solo? each of these ships will die if they make a single mistake. you have been on the easy street for way too long. Make ECCM viable!
Polinus	Posted - 2006.10.27 17:59:00 - [144] I still think ECM should be a reversed TP. Reduce signature enormously. Just think on the following concept.. in RL a big BS is being attacked by a jet fighter and tries to lock on it to use its AA guns. If the fighter has ECm it will be hard to lock and ECm would be ffective (in fact to be true, no plane ECM is match for a ship radar, but for the sake of example...) now if another BB tries to ECM to protect itself from the other one.. what the first BB captain wil do? He would say. Wtf is that guing trying to do.. My radar can't see him but my art officer eyes are good enough to bring my gus upon that 250 meters ship moving like a crab. So ECM would be useless.
Derran Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2006.10.27 18:04:00 - [145] Edited by: Derran on 27/10/2006 18:06:54 Originally by: Nahia Senne what, you think you should be invincible instead? Who said that? I could have blown up a couple of ECM ships night since they failed a couple of cycles. I fly missile and drone ships because of how they work well against ECM. I wouldn't even be a little concerned about ECM under the old system. Just need my FoF and/or drones and they'd need a whole crapload of ECM ships to even try to take me. Originally by: Nahia Senne - do you think dampener boats have any better chances at winning solo? They often can't anyway. Not against multiple opponents. One sensor booster negates most if not all of the effect and often people use one. So if you are facing 2 opponents, you might be able to remove one of them from the fight but the other one will likely kill you. It doesn't make me like my Lachesis or Arazu any less though. Originally by: Nahia Senne - do you think that target painter boats have any better chances at winning solo? No matter what anyone says, there is NO WAY anyone can convince me target painting is EW. It is utter crap. Minmatar 'ECM' sucks. Originally by: Nahia Senne - do you think that target disruption boats have any better chances at winning solo? This one isn't too bad so they could most likely depending on skills. Curse and Pilgrim and Arbitrator being the ones to use for this because of all the advantages. Caldari missile ships are used, sure, but there are still alot of ships with turrets. Originally by: Nahia Senne each of these ships will die if they make a single mistake. you have been on the easy street for way too long. The same can be said for regular ships if you get stuck at fighting at the wrong range. And I am not on easy street. I just tend to fly everything and tried the ships personally because I have 53M skill points with 17.2M in spaceship command.
Nimwa	Posted - 2006.10.27 18:07:00 - [146] I think ECM should be reworked to work completly different. Instead of affecting the ship's targeting it should affect specific weapon systems. You could create 2 or more categories for that: Weapons that use optical targeting system Weapons that use electronical targeting systems I.e. railguns could be part of the electronical targeting group, while blasters use optical targeting. Torpedots electronical, rockets optical, etc. Then by using an ECM you get the ability to stop weapons in the electronical targeting group from working either completly or place a malus on their accuracy. It might not even have to be larger than targeting disruptor's malus, as it affects other weapon systems that TD does not, i.e. torpedos. You can fit ships not to be dependant on one targeting group type or fit ECCM to get a bit more security. ECM ships have to chose targets more carefully and a successful "roll" doesn't guarantee a helpless target. There are "ECM-Counter-Ship Builds" avaible that are not effected by ECM at all without having to fit ECCM, by only using optical weapons. You could go one step further and change TD to only affect optical systems and create counter-balance that way. Though then we might need a TD-Counter module like ECCM, too.
Dixon Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.27 18:09:00 - [147] Quote: I HATED the old system because it was crap. You fit multiple jammers and he slaps on just one good ECCM and your 6 med slots are useless Well I HATE the current system because it is crap. I fit multiple lasers on my geddon and some asshat fits one good multispec and my 8 high-slots and 3 meds are useless. - - - - - - I have no strong feelings one way or the other...
Nahia Senne Fortunis Novum	Posted - 2006.10.27 18:13:00 - [148] Originally by: Polinus I still think ECM should be a reversed TP. Reduce signature enormously. Just think on the following concept.. in RL a big BS is being attacked by a jet fighter and tries to lock on it to use its AA guns. If the fighter has ECm it will be hard to lock and ECm would be ffective (in fact to be true, no plane ECM is match for a ship radar, but for the sake of example...) now if another BB tries to ECM to protect itself from the other one.. what the first BB captain wil do? He would say. Wtf is that guing trying to do.. My radar can't see him but my art officer eyes are good enough to bring my gus upon that 250 meters ship moving like a crab. So ECM would be useless. awesome idea really. maybe ecm should be changed as projected signature reduction system that affect targeted ship? so if you ecm someone, you reduce the sig radius of his targets. Originally by: Derran ...i sense e-peen0ring... construct an argument. i should add that curse is totally awesome because of ecm, same as nosdomi. once nos is nerfed as well, it wont be so overpowered. Make ECCM viable!
LoKesh Amarr InQuest Ascension Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2006.10.27 18:34:00 - [149] 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?
Friedrick Psitalon The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2006.10.27 18:55:00 - [150] Edited by: Friedrick Psitalon on 27/10/2006 18:58:38 Anyone who thinks luck isn't part of a military engagement has clearly never been in one. There are things you can do: - To lower the likelihood of bad luck (ECCM) - To minimize the effect of that luck (Sensor Booster for relock) - To reduce the effectiveness of bad luck (FoF, Drones) - To partially ignore the effectiveness of bad luck (TEAMMATES?) All of those have a downside; slots used, or less damaging missiles, or relying on something you have low skills in, or splitting the spoils of war. If you choose to lessen the impact of luck (bad luck) on your fights, you choose to accept the downside as well. If you choose to stick solely to your strategy with all guns blazing, you enjoy the benefits of a streamlined attack, and risk having bad luck smack you firmly in the nose. That's what we call balance, and a balanced choice. Combat isn't chess. Luck is real. Allow for disruptions in your own plan, or pay the price. The Dead Parrot Shoppe: always hiring the intelligent/mature, ubernoob or vet. Experience we can give you; brains, we can't.

Aeco Feife	Posted - 2006.10.27 20:51:00 - [151] My take: ECM is overpowered, ECCM is not very useful. Following what has been said, I think a distinction should be made between jamming and lock breaking. Jamming should be total for length on cycle, subject to conditions below. ECM not sufficent to jam should have a chance on breaking a lock (on anything). The chance should depend not only on points, but also on sig radius of target. Jamming is a big deal, taking a ship out of the fight. I think the ability to do that should be a big deal as well. ECM should be high-slot. Cloaks, interdictor sphere launchers, even nosÆes and neutÆs are high slot - so should be something as powerful as jamming. I think breaking locks is a lesser deal, and it makes sense to allow mid slot lock-breakers, along the lines of a burst ECM, but a sustained jam should take high-slot energy and dedication. Jammers should come in sizes as well as flavors, so a frigate jammer cannot do much to a BS. To my mind, a useful change would include the following: Add high-slot jammers that really jam for a cycle, but with tracking. A BS-sized jammer should incap a non-hardened BS or cruiser, but a frig might escape due to speed. Due to tracking, a ship could try to ôshake offö a jam if it was fast enough or jam cycle was long enough. Jamming skills could lengthen the cycle of high-slot jammers and/or reduce cap usage. Longer times make them more effective (since not chance-based any more). ECCM could do pretty much what it does now, but it would be more effective. ECCM use makes target breaks less likely, increases the size or number of high-slot jammers needed for a full jam, speeds re-locking after a break. While youÆre at it, invent other mid-slot answers to high-slot (weapons), like some sort of energy doo-dad that limits Nos drain. Scorps and BBÆs should have fitting bonuses for high-slot jammers. Maybe a BB should be able to fit BS-sized jammers like the Manticore can fit crusie missile launchers. There you go, Aeco
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 20:53:00 - [152] 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.
Derran Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2006.10.27 20:58:00 - [153] 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.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.27 21:02:00 - [154] 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.
Siakel	Posted - 2006.10.27 22:06:00 - [155] I think what Butter Dog is complaining about here is that, all else being equal, all the ECM nerf did was make it so you have a 15% chance of winning the fight per cycle as opposed to a 30% chance of winning the fight per cycle. It's less of a chance, yes. But if it lands, you win. That's why it's such an overpowered module.
Isonkon Serikain Gallente Band of Builders Inc. Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.10.27 22:35:00 - [156] Originally by: Butter Dog 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. Wrong... There is a random element in turret damage, otherwise you would not score well aimeds, excellents, and wrecking shots. You can tarin as much as possible to make it better, just as you can with ecm... I like that there is an element of chance in this game. There ALWAYS is an element of chance in real life, and accounting for it makes it a bit more thrilling, IMO. What, you scared of losing to someone with fewer SP than you do( I don't mean this persoanlly to you, BD, its a rethorical question.)? Pity the fool
Tasty Burger	Posted - 2006.10.27 22:53:00 - [157] 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. It needs to be drastically changed, yes, but not removed, naturally. - It's great being Minmatar, ain't it?
Zissou 5 November	Posted - 2006.10.27 23:33:00 - [158] The ECM multi is the problem. You don't have ammunition that does all damage types so why do we have an offensive electronic warfare module that fits this role? It's logical to assume that Caldari would develop Gallente jammers and Minmatar would develop Amarr jammers. If you want an ECM multi then you should expect to sacrifice 4 mid slots. Thats where the Scorpion (the electronic warfare king!) would come into its own. Get rid of ECM multi's, leave the system as it is and see how things develop.
Hllaxiu Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.27 23:33:00 - [159] Originally by: Isonkon Serikain 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. Theres a large difference between hitting for 80% of "typical" and randomly not dealing any damage at all for 20 seconds. If the chance to jam for ecm was 1/5 and we had some system that reduced your damage by 1/5 over the entire engagement that'd be a lot more "fair" than it is currently. It'd also make your turret analogy a bit more accurate. --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson
xenodia Gallente RONA Corporation	Posted - 2006.10.27 23:53:00 - [160] 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. This signature space for rent

Wat0721 GalacTECH Unlimited	Posted - 2006.10.28 00:12:00 - [161] This is likely way off-topic (I don't want to read another thread like this one), but I want to say something about comparing ECM to turrets. Let's say I just got a weapon. Let's say that this weapon takes up one slot. Let's say that this weapon uses only cap (no ammo), needs minimal skill training to fit and use effectively, and, by the way, can be fit on just about any of the ships I've collected. Let's also say that this weapon has a 25% chance to destroy your ship every 20 seconds, but otherwise has no effect. Now let's say that fitting more of these beauties only needs more slots and incurs no penalties, and let's say that this slot would be, for me, otherwise mostly useless (possibly in lieu of the fact that anything I can encounter may randomly explode before shooting at me). ...Feel lucky? That's why ECM randomness != turrent randomness, dammit. A poster in another thread mentioned the polarizing effect of ECM, but I seem to have lost that one -- and wouldn't be surprised if it's this one, actually. So, yeah. --- ECM Fix <--still stands, post-nerf.
Skeltek Caldari Asgard Schiffswerften Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.10.28 00:51:00 - [162] perhaps we should change turrets to have a chance of locking a target in 20 seconds? that would be most fair if turrets also had the chance to not hit for 20 seconds getting cynical honestly, I think no matter what aspect you look at in EVE... there are always people who want to nerf it and others wanting to boost it. Hell, it is balanced imho. If ECM was opverpowered, why don¦t people use it? Jamming has more to do with playerskill rather than characterskill. Most people I have seen in EVE are not able to jamm efficiently. they have far greater skills than me but do not know how to use, cycle and time them. If jamming was overpowered, more people would be using it!(?) kind regards, Skeltek
Cmdr Sy Appetite 4 Destruction	Posted - 2006.10.28 00:55:00 - [163] OK, how's this for an idea? Introduce to ECM strength a dependency on number of ECM modules fitted to ship. A bit like pirate set implants: x% bonus to all ECM strength per ECM module fitted. This way, a Scorp or Falcon with 5 or 6 ECM modules gets a nice boost. And a random cruiser, BC or BS with 1-2 ECM modules, counting on one successful jam in a 60-second fight, misses out utterly. This would go a long way to fixing the real problem with ECM, which is not its functionality and characteristics when fitted to dedicated fleet support EW platforms, but in its disproportionately disruptive effect in 1v1 combat and small skirmishes. And this is broadly in line with sensor dampener limitations anyway - at the moment, fitting just one is a waste of a mid slot too, but three are perfect.
Yoshimako	Posted - 2006.10.28 04:38:00 - [164] Sorry, i didnt read many of the replies so this may have been posted already.. How about nice and simple. (it has been suggested before) Leave the ecm modules alone or maybe reduce the strength a little. But, only let the ecm ships use them? This would cut out the problem of all the normal ships fitted out with the multi spec luck factor. Ofcourse the ECM ships would still be able to kick some ass 1v1 and help massivly in group situations, but if they get caught short they are fairly easy to kill.
Zixxa	Posted - 2006.10.28 07:28:00 - [165] Whiners do ot understand HOW ECM works and HOW ECM is WEAK in reality. You need LOTS of skill(useless any other way), you need at least 2 slots for std ship or at least 4 med slots for ECM ships, you have no tank and you have no damage.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.28 11:57:00 - [166] 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 - [167] 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
Kar'Dargo Di-Tron Heavy Industries	Posted - 2006.10.28 12:24:00 - [168] Originally by: Blind Man it should be just another racial EW and not really enough to make a big difference in a battle Well, thats just dopey. -----
Kar'Dargo Di-Tron Heavy Industries	Posted - 2006.10.28 13:01:00 - [169] Originally by: Demonica II Edited by: Demonica II on 27/10/2006 07:22:27 There should be no ability ingame that disables someones ability to lock (dampners dont count, they dont actually remove your ability to lock, just hinder your range). It's the equivalent of making your opponent able to do anything, heal, fight, cause damage etc for the most part in any fantasy style mmorpg. It's overpowered completely. For most people, not being able to lock means not being able to fight back, not being able to fight back and just sitting there and dying is NOT FUN! -----
Beastiality	Posted - 2006.10.28 13:28:00 - [170] Edited by: Beastiality on 28/10/2006 13:29:27 Originally by: Kar'Dargo Originally by: Demonica II Edited by: Demonica II on 27/10/2006 07:22:27 There should be no ability ingame that disables someones ability to lock (dampners dont count, they dont actually remove your ability to lock, just hinder your range). It's the equivalent of making your opponent able to do anything, heal, fight, cause damage etc for the most part in any fantasy style mmorpg. It's overpowered completely. For most people, not being able to lock means not being able to fight back, not being able to fight back and just sitting there and dying is NOT FUN! QFT Although most games do have stuns. Anyone interested in game design though can look up quite a few research papers on stun in games, theres a widely accepted figure that 7 seconds is about the longest the average person considers fair/playable for stun duration in games. Of course while jammed you can still move so I'm not sure how good the "fit" is to this situation. ps. Don't even get me started on wcs.

Zhulik	Posted - 2006.10.28 16:32:00 - [171] When you're fitting a support friggie and ask your potential gangmates in corp "well, I have those 2 meds empty, what should I put in there?" and of all the possible choices the whole channel lights up with "ECM", "multispecs", "jammers" and other variations of that same answer there IS something wrong there, I guess.
Skeltek Caldari Asgard Schiffswerften Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.11.02 15:42:00 - [172] Originally by: Zhulik When you're fitting a support friggie and ask your potential gangmates in corp "well, I have those 2 meds empty, what should I put in there?" and of all the possible choices the whole channel lights up with "ECM", "multispecs", "jammers" and other variations of that same answer there IS something wrong there, I guess. yeah, I want to see you running 2 multispectrals on a Frig <.<
Drexciyian Benson and Hedges	Posted - 2006.11.02 16:50:00 - [173] 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? If i remember correctly you need 3 racials or 4 multis to jam a single bs, which ment it wasnt wise to use ecm on anything but a scorp
Zarch AlDain Friends of Everyone	Posted - 2006.11.02 18:06:00 - [174] Originally by: Jacob Holland Looking at the EWar systems (and not including Stasis Webs, Warp Scramblers or Nosferatu as they aren't EWar, they target the enemy's engines, warp drive or power systems not electronics (and yes, I realise that the Painter doesn't target the opponent's electronics either, I'll come to that later)) the ECM stands out. It is the only chance based EWar, but it is also the only module which eliminates rather than reduces a function of the enemy vessel. If tracking disruptors had a 30% chance of preventing a turret ship firing entirely you'd see more of them about, if sensor damps had a 30% chance of reducing any ship's lock range to 0 they'd be ECM, if Painters had a 30% chance of increasing a target's sig rad to infinity more Ravens would be loading Rage Torps, a webber and Painter and going interceptor hunting. Every one of those effects would be seen as overpowered. However, in the old system ECM effectively degraded your sensor strength and that didn't work either. So let's take inspiration from the message which flashes up every time you attempt to get a lock while jammed. Quote: You are currently managing 0 targets, as many as your ship's electronics are capable of. Rather than degrading Sensor Strength how about it degrades the number of targets you can lock. ECM Multi knocks off one target, racial ECM vs the wrong race knocks off half and racial ECM vs the right race knocks off two. To compensate you have ECCM modules and Backup Arrays, if these added targetting slots (regardless of skill or ship, so a character without targetting might be able to manage 3 targets with a backup array or 4 with an ECCM (both modules being slightly renamed)). A Scorpion should be able to lock down a couple of Battleships which aren't running defenses (most are Max locked 8 IIRC) or at the least force them to remanage their targets if they're running some form of defence. However a solo Vampadom would no longer fit a single ECM multi "because there's a slot free" (the fact that noone considers fitting ECCM immediately there's a slot free - but instead tries to jam a Multi on there is perhaps telling). Yes you might well find that Every ship in a fleet would fit an ECM to lock down the primary - but they'd be just as likely to fit damps to reduce the primary's lock range to 0 or tracking disruptors to reduce his optimal range and tracking to nothing... Tweak things slightly more by saying that ECM (or Damp, or TD) cycles in place before the activation of ECCM, Sensor Boosters or Tracking computers didn't effect them - your whole fleet may jam the primary, but if he's fitting ECCM he'll have a chance at a couple of shots every now and then with which to fight back, or at least run Nos to fuel his tank. Actually I think this is a superb idea. Add more targetting with ECCM so its a reason to fit it. Reduce number of locked targets with ECM. Being knocked down to 2 or 1 locked target is already starting to hurt in gang situations, but not really effecting you in 1v1 - while in 1v1 only dedicated ewar ships will get you permajammed. Mid slot eccm could be active and add 1 target to both ship and personal limit, low slot eccm could be passive and add 1 target only to the ships limit but not your personal one. Zarch AlDain
Zixxa	Posted - 2006.11.02 18:29:00 - [175] Originally by: Zarch AlDain Actually I think this is a superb idea. It is stupid idea. Quote: Add more targetting with ECCM so its a reason to fit it. R u dumb? Or r u never undocked? For what hell I need more targeting, dude? To help you fly your 6520462 mission near Jita?
Zixxa	Posted - 2006.11.02 18:29:00 - [176] Originally by: Zarch AlDain Actually I think this is a superb idea. It is stupid idea. Quote: Add more targetting with ECCM so its a reason to fit it. R u dumb? Or r u never undocked? For what hell I need more targeting, dude? To help you fly your 6520462 mission ner Jita?
Christopher Dalran	Posted - 2006.11.02 19:53:00 - [177] WHy does everyone say winning by chance is lame? AFAIK all damage done from turrent hits is based on the roll of a dice (well random number generator which runs off the computers internal clock and is not realy all that random) so are not almoast ALL fights determined alteast in part by luck?
Wilfan Ret'nub Singularity.	Posted - 2006.11.02 20:34:00 - [178] Originally by: Christopher Dalran WHy does everyone say winning by chance is lame? AFAIK all damage done from turrent hits is based on the roll of a dice? No. As was already mentioned, guns converge towards average in many more fights than ECM. Even with OMG alphastrike Tempest you have a cycle time of 10-11 seconds. It's twice as much for jammers. Not to mention that hit probabilities are usually in 80-100% range (you're in your sweet spot) or 0% (such as bloody ceptor orbiting you at 500m). With jammers, you always have a decent chance of making a successfull roll. Another thing is that you can influence gun hit chance with maneuvering (range, transversal) and modules (TP, MWD). On the other hand ECM depends purely on range. Even that doesn't matter much to specialized ECM boats in non-fleet situations. ------ No ISK, no fun
fischsemmel AWE Corporation Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.11.02 23:06:00 - [179] Edited by: fischsemmel on 02/11/2006 23:15:34 Edited by: fischsemmel on 02/11/2006 23:12:19 Edited by: fischsemmel on 02/11/2006 23:06:48 I haven't read all 6 pages, but by combining a few other's ideas I thought of this... New ECM: 1. Breaks a lock, chance based based on ECM str vs. target's sensor strength 2. For 20 seconds, rather than being jammed, the ship whose lock was broken has a penalty to scan resolution, based on the ECM str vs. target's sensor strength 3. Using ECM on someone who doesn't have any locks still proceeds through 1 and 2, though point 2 is the only thing that will have any influence. New numbers for ECM and sensor strengths may need to be refigured, but that's my contribution. Yay. Edit's for clarity's sake.
jamesw Omniscient Order	Posted - 2006.11.03 00:06:00 - [180] Edited by: jamesw on 03/11/2006 00:09:23 Firstly racial jammers are not a problem. Multispecs are the problem. In the old ecm system, they had a cycle time of 4 seconds. It wasnt very long and you needed a lot of them to be effective. With the short cycle time you could actually cycle your jammers between 2 - 3 BS and prevent any of them getting a lock. Racials back then were very similar to now - they had around 30 second cycle time. The problem with multispecs now is that they jam for so bloody long. That "multispec of doom" lasts way too long on a successful jam. What needs to happen is for the duration of multispecs to be changed. No amount of strength adjustments are going to change the fact that the 20 second jam may well win you the fight. This is what causes people to fit these modules so much. I think a lot of the problems that we see currently with multispecs could be avoided if they were re-tuned to last around the 5 - 10 second mark. As was pointed out in this thread, an average fight may last 60 seconds or so (more after the hp change comes in), which means that being jammed may well last for 30% of the fight (NOT fun!). Looking at the proposed changes, we see: strength: 2.4, cycle time: 20 seconds. But what if we tweaked the duration a bit..... maybe we could have half the chance to jam, but half the jam duration too! Remember that each time the duration is decreased, you have more "dicerolls" per fight, and the actual amount of succesful jams will start to approach the jammer strength vs ship strength probability. In short, jamming would not look so wildly random. strength: 1.2, cycle time: 10 seconds. or... our modules may only actually jam the target for half of their cycle... strength: 2.4, jam duration 10 seconds, "cooloff" 10 seconds. anyway. thats my 2c, and it has been for a while... -- NEW Vid: Domi For the Win!

fischsemmel AWE Corporation Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.11.03 04:12:00 - [181] Edited by: fischsemmel on 03/11/2006 04:13:33 Edited by: fischsemmel on 03/11/2006 04:13:13 Originally by: jamesw strength: 1.2, cycle time: 10 seconds. 1.2 strength? Are you kidding? If ECM is broken because it causes the people it is used on to not have fun, the fix is not weakening to the point that it is either not used or that it causes the people who use it to not have fun. If ECM is 4 times as powerful as it needs to be, it should probably be changed completely, not nerfed to all hell. Edit - I can't get the friggin italics to go away
Earthan Gallente GREY COUNCIL	Posted - 2006.11.03 07:09:00 - [182] Edited by: Earthan on 03/11/2006 07:12:38 The chance based system is much much better then the old one. The old one was stupid imho.You knew against scorp from start of you won at once the combat or you lost at once. I actually perfected a setup with megathorn with 2 backup arrays in lows and i was pwning scorpions nobody could jamm me.( cause rarely you fit racial jammers , specially with old system) If they really lowered chances of getting jammed considerably from what it is now, it should just be perfect. - A knight in space,war veteran,Grey Council military officer. Grey Council webpage
aquontium Gallente Fourth Circle	Posted - 2006.11.03 09:54:00 - [183] Originally by: Butter Dog 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. So the whole point you wanted to make is that ECM wasn't nerfed exactly the way you wanted it (back to the old system) but was a nerfed version of the old one. Nerfing something to the way you want it or crying foul is something I though you were too experience/mature to do. You knew how ECM had been nerfed before you got into the fight and wanted an IWIN button. In Eve, there is no IWIN button. Me: Teach. You: Learn.
jamesw Omniscient Order	Posted - 2006.11.03 13:26:00 - [184] Originally by: fischsemmel Edited by: fischsemmel on 03/11/2006 04:13:33 Edited by: fischsemmel on 03/11/2006 04:13:13 Originally by: jamesw strength: 1.2, cycle time: 10 seconds. 1.2 strength? Are you kidding? If ECM is broken because it causes the people it is used on to not have fun, the fix is not weakening to the point that it is either not used or that it causes the people who use it to not have fun. If ECM is 4 times as powerful as it needs to be, it should probably be changed completely, not nerfed to all hell. Edit - I can't get the friggin italics to go away Thats pretty much what I am suggesting. If you had read and comprehended my post, you might have also noticed that along side the 1.2 strength, I had listed 10 second cycle time (the current time is 20). As you so cunningly picked up, 1.2 is half the jamming strength as it is on Kali right now... What seems to have conveniently escaped your attention is that when the cycle time is halved, the jammer gets to fire twice as often!! Wow! If you were to make it twice as fast, with the same strength as before, it would get to jam twice as often! What my suggestion would do, most likely with a little tweaking, is result in this fairly big change to ecm you speak of. That is, when you are jammed, the effect lasts 10 seconds instead of 20 seconds. It remains the useful tool for the user, and it doesnt spoil the fun of the opponent nearly as much. -- NEW Vid: Domi For the Win!
fischsemmel AWE Corporation Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.11.03 15:26:00 - [185] Originally by: jamesw Thats pretty much what I am suggesting. If you had read and comprehended my post, you might have also noticed that along side the 1.2 strength, I had listed 10 second cycle time (the current time is 20). As you so cunningly picked up, 1.2 is half the jamming strength as it is on Kali right now... What seems to have conveniently escaped your attention is that when the cycle time is halved, the jammer gets to fire twice as often!! Wow! If you were to make it twice as fast, with the same strength as before, it would get to jam twice as often! What my suggestion would do, most likely with a little tweaking, is result in this fairly big change to ecm you speak of. That is, when you are jammed, the effect lasts 10 seconds instead of 20 seconds. It remains the useful tool for the user, and it doesnt spoil the fun of the opponent nearly as much. Such scathing replies! You've got me though, I wasn't at my best last night. Anyways, your idea is better than I originally thought; it accomplishes close to what I was shooting for earlier but with a less severe revision of the system as it is right now. I still am getting the feeling (with no proof yet, but I'll work on that) that ecm is going to be weak relative to other options for midslots, though.
fischsemmel AWE Corporation Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.11.03 16:07:00 - [186] Here is an example that I hope will illustrate that using your system, james, weakens ecm too much. Assume two rooks are going against each other 1v1. Their fittings are something typical for low sec pirates, but they have 4 mid-slots that differ. One rook has 4 multispec IIs (1.2 jamming str, 10 second cycle, 3.3 cap per second, each), recon ships 4 and signal dispersion 4. The other rook has 3 invuln field IIs (30% to all resists, 3.2 cap per second, each) and a free midslot. The tanked rook will, thanks to it's higher resists alone, take an average of approximately 29.6% less damage from any attack directed at it. The ecm rook can expect to take about 23% less damage because it has a 23% chance to jam the other rook in any given 10 second period. Now the weakness of a new ecm system like yours are apparent here. A ship designed to excel at ecm will be defeated by the same ship, fitted in a way it is not meant to be used! Over time, it will average out that the tanked rook will defeat the ecm rook more than it will lose. This is besides several other facts that swing more in favor of the tanked rook: 1. Higher resists are a 100% assured thing (barring a nos-heavy opponent, in which case ecm is probably going to be useless as well), not a chance based benefit 2. Higher resists work in favor of a tanked rook even against multiple enemies; ECM will not 3. The higher resists are obtained with only 3 midslots, leaving another free for a SB or something else 4. Should the ecm rook be unable to lock a target (out of range, jammed, dampened and out of range), his 4 mid slots are useless. Higher resists still function. 5. ECM has a counter: ECCM. Higher resists has no counter (except more damage) I can look at a rook vs. other ships if you would like, but it seems that a ship fighting itself should almost always win if it is playing to it's strengths... and the rook will not. Imagine a cerberus using rails beating a cerberus using missiles, or a tempest using drones beating a tempest using projectiles. These examples are extreme, but they are only a small step away from a tanked rook consistently beating an ecm rook... and this is what you would have. If you can show that ecm is not underpowered in your scheme of things, please do.
jamesw Omniscient Order	Posted - 2006.11.05 06:25:00 - [187] Edited by: jamesw on 05/11/2006 06:26:44 Originally by: fischsemmel Here is an example that I hope will illustrate that using your system, james, weakens ecm too much. Assume two rooks are going against each other 1v1. Their fittings are something typical for low sec pirates, but they have 4 mid-slots that differ. One rook has 4 multispec IIs (1.2 jamming str, 10 second cycle, 3.3 cap per second, each), recon ships 4 and signal dispersion 4. The other rook has 3 invuln field IIs (30% to all resists, 3.2 cap per second, each) and a free midslot. The tanked rook will, thanks to it's higher resists alone, take an average of approximately 29.6% less damage from any attack directed at it. The ecm rook can expect to take about 23% less damage because it has a 23% chance to jam the other rook in any given 10 second period. Now the weakness of a new ecm system like yours are apparent here. A ship designed to excel at ecm will be defeated by the same ship, fitted in a way it is not meant to be used! Over time, it will average out that the tanked rook will defeat the ecm rook more than it will lose. This is besides several other facts that swing more in favor of the tanked rook: 1. Higher resists are a 100% assured thing (barring a nos-heavy opponent, in which case ecm is probably going to be useless as well), not a chance based benefit 2. Higher resists work in favor of a tanked rook even against multiple enemies; ECM will not 3. The higher resists are obtained with only 3 midslots, leaving another free for a SB or something else 4. Should the ecm rook be unable to lock a target (out of range, jammed, dampened and out of range), his 4 mid slots are useless. Higher resists still function. 5. ECM has a counter: ECCM. Higher resists has no counter (except more damage) I can look at a rook vs. other ships if you would like, but it seems that a ship fighting itself should almost always win if it is playing to it's strengths... and the rook will not. Imagine a cerberus using rails beating a cerberus using missiles, or a tempest using drones beating a tempest using projectiles. These examples are extreme, but they are only a small step away from a tanked rook consistently beating an ecm rook... and this is what you would have. If you can show that ecm is not underpowered in your scheme of things, please do. I think you need to take into account for ship bonuses in those calcs. The 1.2 base jamming strength is based off the current "nerfed" ecm. And as far as i am aware, the ewar ships have not had their bonuses adjusted to balance it out yet. Even with current bonuses, the rook would get over 2 strength from that module, and if its bonus were to be doubled (20% ecm strength per level, in line with the fact that ecm has been halved), you are looking at going from 1.2 up to 3 strength per module. Maybe re-run your calcs off 4 multispec II @ 3 str / 10 sec and see what you get for % to jam. Also bear in mind that he could still fit racial jammers to really mess the guy up. I would suggest those still jam for 20 seconds. Edit: and what on earth would you use a shield tanked rook for anyway? Thats what a cerb is for -- NEW Vid: Domi For the Win!
Linavin Mercurialis Inc. Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.11.05 08:09:00 - [188] Why not try and make a threshold for jamming? With a minimum stregnth required to jam a ship based on a ships sensor strength. Make the threashold be around 25-35% of a ship's total sensor streghtn. No more single (or even double) multispecs of doom, leaving dedicated jamemrs alone. If you want a really awsome EW ability you should fit your ship around it. You can keep the chanced jamming, but the impact is greatly lessened as there would be a zone 0% jamming possibility. --- Quote: "Seleene is Primary." "She isn't here." "She's still primary."
Zixxa	Posted - 2006.11.05 11:09:00 - [189] 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.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.11.05 12:00:00 - [190] 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.

XGS Crimson	Posted - 2006.11.05 12:07:00 - [191] think about it this way, sumone who plays for 3 years has full t2 full faction modded battleship can lose to 5 month old player with t1 armament and ecm... isnt this a tad wrong? Originally by: Aramendel A harderner also only works against ships firing on you. ECM is effeciently a harderner for your whole gang/fleet.
The Judge The Eternal Knights	Posted - 2006.11.05 12:27:00 - [192] Read most of but not all the posts so forgive me if its already been mentioned. Anyway the old system was alot better, many of the vets i think will agree with this, a ship had to actually dedicate to ew to be able to jam someone as it should be. Instead now all you get is everyone fitting ew (even if it is just 1 multispec) which massively puts the odds in their favour in pvp. ECCM is still a joke and this nerf to ew wasn't enough, agree with the comments that cycle time should be reduced to 10 seconds, heck even 5 which still gives a person the ability to jam someone and their target will still need to waste valuable time relocking. I'm gonna suggest boosting the sensor strength of all ships ingame though by a percentage, 20-25 for example means less chance of being jammed constantly.
Zixxa	Posted - 2006.11.05 12:39:00 - [193] Originally by: XGS Crimson think about it this way, sumone who plays for 3 years has full t2 full faction modded battleship can lose to 5 month old player with t1 armament and ecm... isnt this a tad wrong? a) The player deserves this. b) I saw BS's killed by lone ceptor in few minutes. Nerf ceptor? c) Nerf Arazu, please. Arazu will kill any BS(possibly except Raven with FOF, where we have draw). And, personal advice for you: "Play more, noob".
fischsemmel AWE Corporation Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.11.05 14:45:00 - [194] Edited by: fischsemmel on 05/11/2006 14:47:29 Edited by: fischsemmel on 05/11/2006 14:47:09 Edited by: fischsemmel on 05/11/2006 14:46:39 Originally by: jamesw I think you need to take into account for ship bonuses in those calcs. The 1.2 base jamming strength is based off the current "nerfed" ecm. And as far as i am aware, the ewar ships have not had their bonuses adjusted to balance it out yet. Even with current bonuses, the rook would get over 2 strength from that module, and if its bonus were to be doubled (20% ecm strength per level, in line with the fact that ecm has been halved), you are looking at going from 1.2 up to 3 strength per module. Maybe re-run your calcs off 4 multispec II @ 3 str / 10 sec and see what you get for % to jam. Also bear in mind that he could still fit racial jammers to really mess the guy up. I would suggest those still jam for 20 seconds. Edit: and what on earth would you use a shield tanked rook for anyway? Thats what a cerb is for Sorry for not being clear enough. I didn't calculate the jamming chance with 1.2 as my number. I assumed the ecm rook pilot had recon ships 4 and signal dispersion 4, giving his multispec IIs a 2.016 jamming str. I wasn't aware they were going to up the ship bonuses on ecm ships (are they really? is that just conjecture?), so I didn't include anything of the sort. To counter your "he could just fit racial jammers" argument, the tanked pilot could better fit his resist mods than 3 invuln IIs, also, but I thought multispecs vs. invulns would be nice for comparison. Furthermore, I would never use a tanked rook, and no one ever should. That is why I used this argument... because a strategy that no one should ever use works BETTER than playing to the rook's strengths, if we were to change ECM in the way you suggested. But again, there had been no mention of increasing the str of ecm ship bonuses until now, so I didn't take any of that into account with my reasoning. If that happened with kali, I'd have nothing to argue about, since ecm would still be effective when it SHOULD be (on ecm focused ships), but somewhat ineffective on your run of the mill ships.
jamesw Omniscient Order	Posted - 2006.11.05 22:08:00 - [195] Originally by: fischsemmel But again, there had been no mention of increasing the str of ecm ship bonuses until now, so I didn't take any of that into account with my reasoning. If that happened with kali, I'd have nothing to argue about, since ecm would still be effective when it SHOULD be (on ecm focused ships), but somewhat ineffective on your run of the mill ships. Originally by: Tux's ECM Dev Blog Step 1: Lower the jam strength of all ECM modules, Step 2: Increase the ship bonuses of all dedicated ECM ships, Step 3a: Create a new low slot module that boosts the jam strength of all ECM modules, Step 3b: Stacking nerf the jam strength attribute. -- NEW Vid: Domi For the Win!


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one 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.