Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
142
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 01:10:13 -
[1] - Quote
This is a concept for how I think ECM could work in order to make combat less binary and more interesting when involving ECM. I thought it worth putting here on the F&I forum in case CCP may be interested in ideas on how to go forward with rebalancing ECM in the future.
Proposal - Modulated ECM Effects
As we know ECM currently is a simple dice roll dividing the ships sensor strength by the ECM strength of the ECM ship. If you are successful you get a jam off and the opponent is jammed for the duration of the ECM modules cycle which is 20 seconds. If you fail the target is completely unaffected.
Now my proposal is simple, ECM continues to work in a similar manner to how it does now, but instead of being a binary result of yes you jammed the opponent or no you didn't jam, the effect is instead modulated depending on the result of the dice role.
To keep things as consistent and simple as possible the best variable for the result is to use the duration of the jamming effect. Currently this is set to always be the same length as the ECM modules duration. What I am suggesting is that with a modulated ECM effect this could instead result in any outcome in the range of the target being jammed for 20 seconds, the target not being jammed at all, or anything in between.
The Calculation
So let me give and example of how this could work:
Lets say you have ECM with a strength of 10, and the targets sensor strength is 40. Currently you have a 25% chance to jam the ship out (10 / 40 = 0.25 ) . Let us say we have a dice with 100 sides to it (theoretically of course). Currently if we roll anything below 75 then the jam is unsuccessful, with anything else being the jam is successful for 20 seconds.
With the modulated ECM effect by altering the calculation we could make a full jam more difficult to achieve, but at the same time a partial jam less difficult.
So first lets take the calculation to confer a full 20 second jam effect onto the target. To do this we would simply divide the current formula by 2. So the formula would now be ( ( 10 / 40 = 0.25 ) / 2 = 0.125 ) . Under the modulated system you now need a score of 87.5 and above to get a full 20 second jam as opposed to the 75 currently.
This isn't the end of the calculation though as you may get a partial jam. So next you need to work out what would constitute a failed jam. To do this you would take the result of the old formula again and multiply it by 2 which would give a 50% chance to get a partial jam. ( ( 10 / 40 = 0.25 ) * 2 = 0.5 ) This means you need to roll a value of below 50 to completely fail a jam attempt as opposed to the current value of anything below 75.
The next part of the calculation is the part which modulates the strength of the jam. So in the previous example we had the maximum score required as ( 1 - 0.125 = 0.875 ) and the minimum score required as ( 1 - 0.5 = 0.5 ) . We then take these two value and subtract the minimum from the maximum to get the range. ( 0.875 - 0.5 = 0.375 )
That is the calculation over, now just time for the fun part which is rolling the dice and seeing the effect. So we roll the 100 sided dice again. In the example above anything below 50 and it is an automatic fail, and anything above 87.5 is an automatic 20 second jam cycle. Lets say we roll 70 on the dice which means we get a jam. To work out the duration of a partial jam we take take the score which we rolled and subtract the minimum value ( 70 - 50 = 20 ) . We then take the range and work out what percentage of the range the score which we rolled (as a decimal value ) constitutes. ( 0.20 / 0.375 = 0.533 ( 53% ) )
So now with this in mind, knowing that a full jam cycle is 20 seconds, all we need to do is work out 53% of 20 seconds to calculate the duration the target ship has been jammed for. In this case the jam lasts for 10.7 seconds.
Conclusion
This method of jamming would be a lot more interesting for both the jammer and the target. First of all it won't be a black and white binary result, a jammed ship will still have a chance to fight on after the jamming effect has ended provided its sensor strength gives it a good chance of only receiving a partial jam or no jam at all.
Also the ECM ship would need to play more skilfully, it would be wise to keep a spare ECM module ready to activate if they want to keep a ship fully jammed as in the case above the target would regain its sensors after 10.7 seconds wheras the ECM module will still be cycling for another 9.3 seconds.
In the example I gave above it is actually easier for the ECM ship to jam its target although harder to fully jam it for the full 20 seconds. I believe this would be a balanced approach although the numbers given above are purely for example to illustrate the concept and the actual numbers if this were to be actually implemented would need to be finely rebalanced.
I hope this suggestion may be of some use to CCP as I believe ECM may be in line for a balance pass at some point in the future and so throwing this idea out as it would be something I feel would make combat a lot less binary and more interesting.
Thanks for reading. |
Amarisen Gream
Divine Demise Apocalypse Now.
127
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 06:05:30 -
[2] - Quote
I am glad someone else likes doing math!
As I am starting to get into PVP and learning a little about ewar, this looks like a good idea compared to many I have seen. Unlike many of other post; you at least provide numbers and explain those numbers well.
I was thinking that it would be cool if all ewar did something like this - many of the others work wonders (as far as I know) as long as you within falloff range. I would love to see ewar reworked so that a player gets added bonuses (full-effect) by being within optimal range, and anything beyond optimal up to falloff would get worse.
Example idea - warp distruptors and scram would become one unit. Optimal would be say 7.5 and falloff would be like 12-15 km. So also long as the player stats with in optimal they can scram the player, but if they don't they have to remain within 12-15km to get a warp distruptors on the enemy ship.
xoxo
Amarisen Gream
|
Sigras
Conglomo
1067
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 08:48:10 -
[3] - Quote
The problem is that this synergizes with sensor dampeners too well...
There is a huge difference between breaking a lock and not breaking a lock. Keeping someone jammed out for an extended period of time is really great, but I would trade the ECM we have now for ECM that guarantees a lock break with no jam cycle in a heartbeat.
Consider a falcon jamming a Zealot... my Falcon on racial jammers has a 13.451 strength vs a Zealots 25.2 sensor strength: 13.451 / 25.2 = 0.5337 0.5337 * 2 > 1 this means that my falcon is guaranteed to at least break the lock of the Zealot meaning all I need is 1-2 sensor dampeners on him and he's completely unable to lock anything ever.
This is aside from the fact that jamming someone and taking them out of the fight for a length of time is bad game design which allows for no counterplay. |
Xaros IX
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 09:23:39 -
[4] - Quote
Sigras wrote: This is aside from the fact that jamming someone and taking them out of the fight for a length of time is bad game design which allows for no counterplay.
Very True
Maybe ewar needs to become more personalized. Allow ewar to be corp specific, u apply ewar, then target cannot lock corpies for the duration of the jam / damp etc. rest of players should remain lockable.
Ofc course you can counter ewar by trying to force the falcon / arazu to flee from the scene. Maybe all thats needed is reducing the optimal and falloff of ewar, forcing these ships to be closer to the action. After all a T1 Blackbird can apply jams from 100km away. Dictating range should be a cost function. With links, an arazu can point you from 90km away, but its a razu.
Ewar works as intended, but ECM has always been a bit controversial. |
Arla Sarain
653
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 11:34:47 -
[5] - Quote
Hacking minigame for ECM pls. |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
142
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 20:00:27 -
[6] - Quote
Sigras wrote:The problem is that this synergizes with sensor dampeners too well...
There is a huge difference between breaking a lock and not breaking a lock. Keeping someone jammed out for an extended period of time is really great, but I would trade the ECM we have now for ECM that guarantees a lock break with no jam cycle in a heartbeat.
Consider a falcon jamming a Zealot... my Falcon on racial jammers has a 13.451 strength vs a Zealots 25.2 sensor strength: 13.451 / 25.2 = 0.5337 0.5337 * 2 > 1 this means that my falcon is guaranteed to at least break the lock of the Zealot meaning all I need is 1-2 sensor dampeners on him and he's completely unable to lock anything ever. Not sure I understand your point there. A 20 second jam is far more effective than a lock break. The ECM burst module already gives a lock break but it is regarded as not that great due to the target being able to relock straight after. Yes you can combine it with sensor damps to make it more effective but I wouldn't say that is OP.
Suggestion for a rebalance of ECM - Modulated ECM Effects
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
2546
|
Posted - 2015.09.17 20:30:49 -
[7] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Consider a falcon jamming a Zealot... my Falcon on racial jammers has a 13.451 strength vs a Zealots 25.2 sensor strength: 13.451 / 25.2 = 0.5337 0.5337 * 2 > 1 this means that my falcon is guaranteed to at least break the lock of the Zealot meaning all I need is 1-2 sensor dampeners on him and he's completely unable to lock anything ever. Your math is off as you can never have greater than 100% probability*, but the gist of what you're saying is 100% true. An instant lock break coupled with enough scan-res damping means that the target can never, ever get a lock. If you increase the chances of ECM providing even an instant lock, joint ECM/damp wings would become incredibly powerful.
*Chance of 1 jammer landing: 53.37% Chance of one of two jammers landing = 1-(1-0.5337)^2 = 78.26% Chance of one of three jammers landing = 1-(1-.05337)^3 = 89.86% etc.
To the OP: I like the idea of making ECM not binary, but I don't think this is the right way to do it.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
A brief history of C&P Thunderdome
|
Sigras
Conglomo
1067
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 07:51:31 -
[8] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Sigras wrote:Consider a falcon jamming a Zealot... my Falcon on racial jammers has a 13.451 strength vs a Zealots 25.2 sensor strength: 13.451 / 25.2 = 0.5337 0.5337 * 2 > 1 this means that my falcon is guaranteed to at least break the lock of the Zealot meaning all I need is 1-2 sensor dampeners on him and he's completely unable to lock anything ever. Your math is off as you can never have greater than 100% probability*, but the gist of what you're saying is 100% true. An instant lock break coupled with enough scan-res damping means that the target can never, ever get a lock. If you increase the chances of ECM providing even an instant lock, joint ECM/damp wings would become incredibly powerful. *Chance of 1 jammer landing: 53.37% Chance of one of two jammers landing = 1-(1-0.5337)^2 = 78.26% Chance of one of three jammers landing = 1-(1-.05337)^3 = 89.86% etc. Read the OP again, he said that to get the probability of breaking a lock you would multiply the jam chance percentage by 2. This means that if you have a > 50% chance to jam the target for 20 seconds now, you have a 100% chance to at least break the lock with his suggestion...
Bronson Hughes wrote:To the OP: I like the idea of making ECM not binary, but I don't think this is the right way to do it. exactly... The best suggestion I've seen is to jam each module separately. This would increase the number of rolls and reduce the chance your ship becomes useless if jammed, they may just take out some of your guns.
This would still wreck tackle frigates but ECM already does that so i guess that suggestion isnt any worse than the current situation. |
Sigras
Conglomo
1067
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 08:03:43 -
[9] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Sigras wrote:The problem is that this synergizes with sensor dampeners too well...
There is a huge difference between breaking a lock and not breaking a lock. Keeping someone jammed out for an extended period of time is really great, but I would trade the ECM we have now for ECM that guarantees a lock break with no jam cycle in a heartbeat.
Consider a falcon jamming a Zealot... my Falcon on racial jammers has a 13.451 strength vs a Zealots 25.2 sensor strength: 13.451 / 25.2 = 0.5337 0.5337 * 2 > 1 this means that my falcon is guaranteed to at least break the lock of the Zealot meaning all I need is 1-2 sensor dampeners on him and he's completely unable to lock anything ever. Not sure I understand your point there. A 20 second jam is far more effective than a lock break. The ECM burst module already gives a lock break but it is regarded as not that great due to the target being able to relock straight after. Yes you can combine it with sensor damps to make it more effective but I wouldn't say that is OP. Of course a 20 second jam is better than a lock break, but Ill take a guaranteed lock break over a 30% chance to jam every time because I can bank on that lock breaking when I need it to, and I can guarantee to keep someone perma jammed if we do it right instead of having to pray to RNGesus.
Also, ECM bursts suck because they have crap range and effect your allies; it has little to do with their jam mechanic. |
slumbers
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 08:22:58 -
[10] - Quote
Still ECM is too op.
I d rather have ecm deactivating your point, get enough point jams and u can run away. At least even without a point i can still shoot you, im not sitting in space totally useless |
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
142
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 09:03:32 -
[11] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:Sigras wrote:Consider a falcon jamming a Zealot... my Falcon on racial jammers has a 13.451 strength vs a Zealots 25.2 sensor strength: 13.451 / 25.2 = 0.5337 0.5337 * 2 > 1 this means that my falcon is guaranteed to at least break the lock of the Zealot meaning all I need is 1-2 sensor dampeners on him and he's completely unable to lock anything ever. Your math is off as you can never have greater than 100% probability*, but the gist of what you're saying is 100% true. An instant lock break coupled with enough scan-res damping means that the target can never, ever get a lock. If you increase the chances of ECM providing even an instant lock, joint ECM/damp wings would become incredibly powerful. *Chance of 1 jammer landing: 53.37% Chance of one of two jammers landing = 1-(1-0.5337)^2 = 78.26% Chance of one of three jammers landing = 1-(1-.05337)^3 = 89.86% etc. Read the OP again, he said that to get the probability of breaking a lock is twice the probability of getting a jam. This means that if you have a > 50% chance to jam the target for 20 seconds now, you have a 100% chance to at least break the lock with his suggestion... -
Suggestion for a rebalance of ECM - Modulated ECM Effects
|
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2015.09.22 05:54:51 -
[12] - Quote
Sigras wrote:The problem is that this synergizes with sensor dampeners too well...
There is a huge difference between breaking a lock and not breaking a lock. Keeping someone jammed out for an extended period of time is really great, but I would trade the ECM we have now for ECM that guarantees a lock break with no jam cycle in a heartbeat.
Consider a falcon jamming a Zealot... my Falcon on racial jammers has a 13.451 strength vs a Zealots 25.2 sensor strength: 13.451 / 25.2 = 0.5337 0.5337 * 2 > 1 this means that my falcon is guaranteed to at least break the lock of the Zealot meaning all I need is 1-2 sensor dampeners on him and he's completely unable to lock anything ever.
This is aside from the fact that jamming someone and taking them out of the fight for a length of time is bad game design which allows for no counterplay. ECCM. Just like Sebo's counter Dampners. If you replace ECM it would be with target breakers. which do not work well at all right now. Now if you made target breakers actually break locks on the targeted ship, that could make a fight really interesting. |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
158
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 11:38:12 -
[13] - Quote
Poranius Fisc wrote:ECCM. Just like Sebo's counter Dampners. The problem with ECCM is you are making a large sacrifice in terms of a mid slot or for a lesser effect a low slot, and even then I have seen ships jammed out fairly easily.
Using a modulated effect the ECCM will always be worth fitting against a jamming ship as even if you don't stop the lock break completely you will be reducing the lock break duration.
Suggestion for a rebalance of ECM - Modulated ECM Effects
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1203
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 13:42:57 -
[14] - Quote
perhaps adding a cooldown period between any e-war effects, so if you've been jammed or damped for a cycle then another cycle is disallowed for a short period of time for that particular ship, which would prevent perma jam or being damped into uselessness all the time.
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name, remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
160
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 01:22:45 -
[15] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:perhaps adding a cooldown period between any e-war effects, so if you've been jammed or damped for a cycle then another cycle is disallowed for a short period of time for that particular ship, which would prevent perma jam or being damped into uselessness all the time. It would be nice if the duration of the cooldown was based on the ships sensor strength for example rather than an arbitrary period which is identical for every ship.
In my example one of the results of tying the sensor strength directly to the result of the effect is that it means every unit of sensor strength has a meaningful effect, and so fitting that ECCM will be much more likely to benefit you when against a ECM ship.
Suggestion for a rebalance of ECM - Modulated ECM Effects
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
344
|
Posted - 2015.12.12 10:11:24 -
[16] - Quote
There are a lot of ECM proposals out there, but CCP could act now as this would be relatively simple to implement as it is using existing mechanics. Stop adding superfluous things such as 37km scrams which are actually negative for the game, and fix existing issues such as ECM which people have been pointing out was a problem for years.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1335
|
Posted - 2015.12.12 13:24:59 -
[17] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Sigras wrote:The problem is that this synergizes with sensor dampeners too well...
There is a huge difference between breaking a lock and not breaking a lock. Keeping someone jammed out for an extended period of time is really great, but I would trade the ECM we have now for ECM that guarantees a lock break with no jam cycle in a heartbeat.
Consider a falcon jamming a Zealot... my Falcon on racial jammers has a 13.451 strength vs a Zealots 25.2 sensor strength: 13.451 / 25.2 = 0.5337 0.5337 * 2 > 1 this means that my falcon is guaranteed to at least break the lock of the Zealot meaning all I need is 1-2 sensor dampeners on him and he's completely unable to lock anything ever. Not sure I understand your point there. A 20 second jam is far more effective than a lock break. The ECM burst module already gives a lock break but it is regarded as not that great due to the target being able to relock straight after. Yes you can combine it with sensor damps to make it more effective but I wouldn't say that is OP.
Because currently the 20 second jam is not gerrintied but with your idea mixed in with a few famous a permanent jam is
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1335
|
Posted - 2015.12.12 13:37:02 -
[18] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:There are a lot of ECM proposals out there, but CCP could act now as this would be relatively simple to implement as it is using existing mechanics. Stop adding superfluous things such as 37km scrams which are actually negative for the game, and fix existing issues such as ECM which people have been pointing out was a problem for years.
Except there is no issue with ECM just like the changes to a hic people have been whining about this on the forums for years normally not fully understanding the mechanics
Why do most people complain about jams? It's normally one of two reasons.
It's based on luck and not pilot skill.
Thus is only some what true or does have a lock element however ecm takes more piloting skill than any other firm of e-war the ability to properly pee plan and manipulate RNG is what seperates good ecm pilots from bad
If successful there is nothing the affected pilot can do to counter the ECM effects
True but this is also the case for many other forms of e-war only difference is when title ate damped down to sub 2k you still feel like "if I can just get in range" when in fact the fleet tir chasing is set up to kit and is gong much faster than you.
Only changeshows ecm needs is
1 your should never have a100% chance to jam as you can worth many frigs and destroyers not fit with ECM this goes against the nature of ecm
2 all ecm modules produce a remote eccm bonus based on the level they effect each sensor type. This will introduce a much needed stacking penalty while keeping and building on the current gameplay of ecm (never more then one green per target)
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Somal Thunder
V0LTA WE FORM V0LTA
28
|
Posted - 2015.12.12 23:44:14 -
[19] - Quote
I support this proposed change. This will not only make flying ECM more interesting, but make flying against ECM will actually seem a lot more do-able. This would be a nerf, but a welcome one -- and it could introduce a new skill that grants 1% increase in ECM cycle time.
Furthermore, I think this could be another welcome addition:
Quote:2 all ecm modules produce a remote eccm bonus based on the level they effect each sensor type. This will introduce a much needed stacking penalty while keeping and building on the current gameplay of ecm (never more then one green per target)
(I sometimes fly Rooks so I'm not just hating on ECM) |
Ashtaroth Drakin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.12.13 00:22:59 -
[20] - Quote
This is a crazy thought.
But would ECMs be less "OP" If we could still attack/do things to them without locking
Like I said, this is a crazy offball idea but what if you had the ability to use modules on others without locking but doing so will incur a massive penalty/chance of a very negative backfire?
Like using weapons on unlocked target takes a Acc. tracking debuff. Using warp scrams/distruptors on untargetted targets could have say a 50% chance of overloading and resulting in your own warp drives shutting down for X amount of seconds and so forth.
I know crazy idea. And I won't blame you all if you all said it was bad. |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1352
|
Posted - 2015.12.13 13:05:02 -
[21] - Quote
Ashtaroth Drakin wrote:This is a crazy thought.
But would ECMs be less "OP" If we could still attack/do things to them without locking
Like I said, this is a crazy offball idea but what if you had the ability to use modules on others without locking but doing so will incur a massive penalty/chance of a very negative backfire?
Like using weapons on unlocked target takes a Acc. tracking debuff. Using warp scrams/distruptors on untargetted targets could have say a 50% chance of overloading and resulting in your own warp drives shutting down for X amount of seconds and so forth.
I know crazy idea. And I won't blame you all if you all said it was bad.
Good news we have modules that do just that
No one uses them
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Somal Thunder
V0LTA WE FORM V0LTA
29
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 03:14:06 -
[22] - Quote
Ashtaroth Drakin wrote:This is a crazy thought.
But would ECMs be less "OP" If we could still attack/do things to them without locking
Like I said, this is a crazy offball idea but what if you had the ability to use modules on others without locking but doing so will incur a massive penalty/chance of a very negative backfire?
Like using weapons on unlocked target takes a Acc. tracking debuff. Using warp scrams/distruptors on untargetted targets could have say a 50% chance of overloading and resulting in your own warp drives shutting down for X amount of seconds and so forth.
I know crazy idea. And I won't blame you all if you all said it was bad.
Yeah you might want to look into smartbombs and FOF missiles. Sadly FOF missiles are broken as ****. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
970
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 10:54:09 -
[23] - Quote
slumbers wrote:Still ECM is too op.
I d rather have ecm deactivating your point, get enough point jams and u can run away. At least even without a point i can still shoot you, im not sitting in space totally useless
Oh noes.. Whatever could you do when you don't have a target lock and nobody is pointing or scraming you and you are not sitting still in a bubble. What could that be?
I'll give you the holidays to think that one through.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
971
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 11:10:18 -
[24] - Quote
Now on topic, everyone listen carefully!
I don't like to be jammed but it is what it is and part of what makes Guristas formidable opponents. If I hear the word "nerf" one more time I'll scream.
What tango foxtroxx is wrong with you all?
Is it time to put heavy restrictions on the modules we have so you do not "accidentely" put them where they do not belong already?
I even wrote you a long essay on how to fit ships and you ungrateful kids ask to be spoon-fed over and over again. It has to stop! Start to think for yourselves, only then you'll learn.
ECM is and should always be a 100% chance of losing a target lock unless you have an ECCM mod on or I call for a "random" fail on tracking disruptors, neuts, damps, webs, painters, long points and scrams.
How would that look on a neut? It will offline all your modules and stop your ship for an hour - ooopsie the neut failed to neut and I neutralized myself, it's been an honor!
Yes, let all electronic warfare fail half the time and see what how this might shake things up, now you really have to work to get a scratch on your hull that nobody can see.
And of course this idea comes from a minmatar, noone else in the universe is used to mediocre technology that keeps failing all the time.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Anthar Thebess
1397
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 11:11:03 -
[25] - Quote
So what about dampers? They can remove your lock range that will have similar effect to a jammer , but at 100% chance of working this way?
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium
167
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 22:55:57 -
[26] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Now on topic, everyone listen carefully!
I don't like to be jammed but it is what it is and part of what makes Guristas formidable opponents. If I hear the word "nerf" one more time I'll scream.
What tango foxtroxx is wrong with you all?
Is it time to put heavy restrictions on the modules we have so you do not "accidentely" put them where they do not belong already?
I even wrote you a long essay on how to fit ships and you ungrateful kids ask to be spoon-fed over and over again. It has to stop! Start to think for yourselves, only then you'll learn.
ECM is and should always be a 100% chance of losing a target lock unless you have an ECCM mod on or I call for a "random" fail on tracking disruptors, neuts, damps, webs, painters, long points and scrams.
How would that look on a neut? It will offline all your modules and stop your ship for an hour - ooopsie the neut failed to neut and I neutralized myself, it's been an honor!
Yes, let all electronic warfare fail half the time and see what how this might shake things up, now you really have to work to get a scratch on your hull that nobody can see.
And of course this idea comes from a minmatar, noone else in the universe is used to mediocre technology that keeps failing all the time.
you forget to add that ECM only work well when used on hull that is specialization for ECM.
maybe nerf all EWAR so that they only work good when use with EWAR boat |
Major Trant
CTRL-Q Spaceship Bebop
1327
|
Posted - 2015.12.27 11:48:21 -
[27] - Quote
I can't consider this proposal seriously, because it amounts to a +40% buff to ECM. The OP seems intelligent given the amount of work on the first post, so is this an attempt to overwhelm us with information to slip in a stealth buff?
Let's take the OP's example of a 25% jam chance currently. Assume 100 jam attempts are made over a 2000 second period and also assume you get a perfect spread of numbers from the RNG. Currently 25 jams will be successful and the target will be jammed for 500 seconds (25 x 20s). Under the OP proposed system you will get 13 full jams and 37 partial jams. The partial jams will average out at 10 seconds each, thus the targets ends up being jammed for (37 x 10s) + (13 x 20s) = 630 seconds.
But it is worse than that, it takes time to recover from a jam. First you have to actually see when the jam finished, then react and start locking the target, then once the target is locked apply your modules to the target. But some of these modules take time to become effective. A scram shuts down a MWD but the target takes time to slow down, same with a webifier. Missiles take time to reach their targets, armor reps take a full cycle time to land etc. As an absolute minimum it takes 5 seconds to recover from a jam regardless of whether it is full or partial. Thus by increasing the number of jams from 25 to 50 you double the recovery time from 125 seconds to 250 seconds at 5 seconds per jam.
Adding the recovery time to the jam times makes the comparison 625 seconds (currently) vs 880 seconds (proposal) = 40.8% buff and I'd argue that certain ships would have a far longer recovery time, Armor Logistics for example, especially those that require cap chains.
I haven't even got onto the increased chance of errors when trying to lock targets in a stressed situation with people shooting friendlies and repping enemies. |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
829
|
Posted - 2015.12.27 11:57:16 -
[28] - Quote
ECM is fine, the problem is with ECCMs not properly and reliably countering them, logis should still have that issue but I don't think tackle should.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
992
|
Posted - 2015.12.27 21:29:10 -
[29] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:ECM is fine, the problem is with ECCMs not properly and reliably countering them, logis should still have that issue but I don't think tackle should.
But you can mjd the logi 100km away from the rest of the logi - logi chain broken, even with 82384331490 jams on you.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Jezs
This is not the corporation you are looking for
51
|
Posted - 2015.12.30 00:11:37 -
[30] - Quote
Bumping this since we need an ECM thread on the first page
As a simpler and less disruptive change than the OP's suggestion, a stacking penalty for ECM against a single target (mentioned elsewhere in this thread) with the current system would counteract the permajam problem as well as encourage people to fit something other than a full set of ECM in small gangs |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |