| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
178
   |
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:06:32 -
[31] - Quote
xPredat0rz wrote:Seems like a huge nerf to OGBs.
Most fits require at least 2 ECCMs to get where they need to be. With these proposed changes you might have to upgrade to high grade talons to deal with the nerf to Sensor strength.
Since the passive modules have the same boni as the old backuparrays my guess is you still get a +50% base script you can load into your SeBo to get the same benefit as before.
But it really looks like a huge nerf to jammingships as eccm will be way more common. Also kinda nerf to combatscanning since there are still f.e. many guardiansetups that do not run eccm but Sebos. |
Drazer Emolite
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:07:13 -
[32] - Quote
Altrue wrote:Good thing, but shouldn't ECM be tweaked, if not outright buffed due to this change?
Since it would be unreasonable to expect a complete remap of the ECM mecanic right now, even though that's what we really need, couldn't you like make ECM racially scriptables or something?
Why would we buff ECM before you even see what the state of the game will be like with these changes, ECM is broken right now, there is no denying it.
That being said, im not entirely against ECM modules having scripts, but i think they should work like ammo, so you cant LITERALLY perma-jam somebody |
Esnaelc Sin'led
The Unchained Club
61
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:08:49 -
[33] - Quote
@CCP Fozzie : +1 |
thebarry
Calamitous-Intent
Feign Disorder
17
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:19:16 -
[34] - Quote
This sounds like a great idea!
What about rigs that affect sensor strength, e.g. Ionic Field Projector, have you thought about adding eccm to those as well? |
Danetta Valens
Phayder Research
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:25:55 -
[35] - Quote
Ashterothi wrote:Help me understand:
Your problem statement is "One of the worst things about the ECCM, Remote ECCM, and Sensor Backup Array modules is that they feel terrible for the user when nobody tries to jam you (or when you get jammed anyways since there are no guarantees with randomness)."
However your solution is " adding Omni ECCM effects to Sensor Boosters, Remote Sensor Boosters and Signal Amplifier modules, and adding a new ECCM script for the active modules."
While this does decrease the number of modules that is necessary, it doesn't rightly address the issue you stated. It solves a *different* issue, that of needing to collect too many extra modules for your different ships, but it doesn't address the fact that an ECCM module that is fit feels like a waste when you are not under jam pressure, or when the jam still succeeds.
Can you help me understand how this connection was made?
Probably, the better solution is:
Module with charges and comparable long reload time. Once you jammed, you can use an active charge to drop jam from you. It can be a big step from randomness. |
Oddsodz
Rifterlings
Zero.Four Ops
172
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:30:42 -
[36] - Quote
It's like somebody has been listening to what I have been saying about how useless fitting the current ECCM modules.
I like this change |
Anthar Thebess
1452
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:32:01 -
[37] - Quote
I noticed that you are missing pirate lp store version of modules.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Carneros
Ancient Hittite Corporation
The Bastion
24
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:34:55 -
[38] - Quote
Suodemon wrote:Doing the numbers on the T2 SEBO, and the scripted sensor strength comes out at 76.8 assuming 60% like the scan res and targeting range scripts. Current ECCM modules provide 96%. Did I just do the math wrong?
This might be a key point. Can we get this math clarified?
Thanks. |
Arla Sarain
752
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:42:17 -
[39] - Quote
Albrecht Patrouette wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:H
These new modules will give bonuses to all four sensor strengths, as choosing the right ECCM type for your ship is not and interesting choice or valuable gameplay.
Thanks! So . . . does that mean that having to choose the right ECM for the target ship is an "interesting choice or valuable gameplay"? By the way, I really hate having to choose the right hardeners based upon the weapons I think might be used against me. It sucks so much having thermal used when I planned on kinetic. So . . . gonna lump those together now, too?
They have membranes which cover all resists.
T2 ships frequently only need 2 hardeners, because of racial resist profiles.
None of these examples warrant the sarcasm. ECM is a dumb mechanic. It's not a dumb EWAR variant. It's just executed poorly and immaturely (as in archaic game design). |
Mr Rive
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
131
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:57:56 -
[40] - Quote
Noice. |
PotatoOverdose
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
Northern Army
2726
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:07:26 -
[41] - Quote
Ezekiel Marr wrote:So... now there's one module to counter damps and ECM. Meanwhile damps and ECM are represented by two(or five, if you count racial ECM as different) modules.
How is this fair to ewar pilots?
Doesn't really change all that much tbh.
There's basically two cases where people complain about ecm. (1) When a falcon alt uncloaks and turns a 1v1 into a 2v1 and (2) When CFC/Horde/Brave run "**** you fleet" and bring ungodly amounts of damping/jamming/ewar frigates and cruisers.
For (1), nothing really changes. If you bring sebo's to a 1v1, you're either giving up tank (hardeners, shield boosters) or damage application (webs, tracking computers) putting you at a disadvantage. Further, even 3-4 sebos won't stop a falcon with 5-6 jams from keeping you locked out of half of a fight. In the small gang case, people "lose" to falcons because there's another ship in play that they didn't expect - not because ecm is "broken". It doesn't really matter whether that ship is a falcon or something like a pilgrim/curse/rapier/proteus/neutral logi.
For (2), the sheer number of griffins and maulus's in play is what makes ewar difficult to fight. The sebo change is a drop in the bucket.
Basically, nothing really changes for ewar pilots. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2917
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:26:42 -
[42] - Quote
Altrue wrote:Good thing, but shouldn't ECM be tweaked, if not outright buffed due to this change?
Since it would be unreasonable to expect a complete remap of the ECM mecanic right now, even though that's what we really need, couldn't you like make ECM racially scriptables or something?
There's little to no point in making it scriptable or making it separate tbh. It's not like there is an interesting or niche use trade-off for fitting the wrong ECCM. Which starts to add needless complexity to the module. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
1202
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:28:06 -
[43] - Quote
scan res sebos / scan res rigs / sharpshooter t3ds ruin solo pvp so hard. would prefer some kind of scan res dampening resistance, or make it so you can't go above your base scan res or something idk |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2917
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:28:26 -
[44] - Quote
Ezekiel Marr wrote:So... now there's one module to counter damps and ECM. Meanwhile damps and ECM are represented by two(or five, if you count racial ECM as different) modules.
How is this fair to ewar pilots?
No, there was ever only 1 module that your ship could use to counter ECM. Use any other racial ECCM and you received literally no benefit. It has always been one module. Unless you ran into some poor newb who didn't realize he was fitting the wrong module. |
Mr Hyde113
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
278
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:39:05 -
[45] - Quote
"THIS IS HUUUUUUUUUUUUGGEE" - Donald Trump
Mr Hyde - Candidate for CSM XI
Youtube Channel
Twitter
|
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
103
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:55:35 -
[46] - Quote
I suppose this makes ECCM near unprobable a thing of the past? |
FT Cold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
38
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:57:49 -
[47] - Quote
This is a positive change. Good stuff. |
Goldensaver
Lom Corporation
Just let it happen
428
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:03:14 -
[48] - Quote
Suodemon wrote:Doing the numbers on the T2 SEBO, and the scripted sensor strength comes out at 76.8 assuming 60% like the scan res and targeting range scripts. Current ECCM modules provide 96%. Did I just do the math wrong?
Aren't the scan res and targeting range scripts +100% primary stat -100% secondary stats? This means that the sebo should give 48% unscripted, 96% scripted ECCM and 0% scripted range/scan res. IIRC 96% is the same as current modules, but you can get half strength with 30% range and scan res on an unscripted.
xPredat0rz wrote:Seems like a huge nerf to OGBs.
Most fits require at least 2 ECCMs to get where they need to be. With these proposed changes you might have to upgrade to high grade talons to deal with the nerf to Sensor strength.
1: shouldn't change anything if my numbers are right.
2: I don't think they care since they're still trying to get rid of OGBs. |
Keo Makue
Sutoka
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:03:16 -
[49] - Quote
What happens to our current stocks of our modules that are getting eliminated?...well besides being eliminated. Which modules magically turn into what exactly? |
Wayne Caderu
Rifterlings
Zero.Four Ops
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:09:47 -
[50] - Quote
This is cool and all, don't get me wrong, the new stuff looks great. That being said could we address how strong even an off-racial jammer is? like, just damn. |
Avon Salinder
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:26:32 -
[51] - Quote
An excellent change, hitting two things at once. Love it. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
307
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:37:40 -
[52] - Quote
Great stuff. Blends two modules that are rarely useful outside some very specific fits (compared to losing tackle or tank) into something that is really interesting to use. Will be interesting in an Alliance Tournament setting too. |
Captain Campion
Synergy.
Imperial Republic Of the North
13
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:50:17 -
[53] - Quote
good change, thanks ccp |
Mad Abbat
Talon Swarm
35
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:55:21 -
[54] - Quote
Well done Fozzie! That is a really welcome change. |
Krevnos
Back Door Burglars
The Otherworld
56
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:28:32 -
[55] - Quote
I am happy to see the rather redundant ECCM module being merged into a more useful combined module finally.
Would you be able to confirm whether these new modules will still take scripts and indeed whether there will be a script made available for sensor strength? |
Sturmwolke
680
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:38:25 -
[56] - Quote
Buff one of the signal amplifiers for +3 targets please 
Atm, the only choice is high slot T2 Auto Targeter. |
Alexis Nightwish
406
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 02:10:15 -
[57] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:These changes are pretty huge, and include a complete merger of all ECCM into their respective Sensor Booster modules....
...we are adding Omni ECCM effects to Sensor Boosters, Remote Sensor Boosters and Signal Amplifier modules, and adding a new ECCM script for the active modules. I'd ask for a refund of my ECM skills, but I'm sure you'd just tell me to give you money so I can extract them and re-inject at a significant loss. t( " t)
CCP Fozzie wrote:As for the non-ECCM part of the Sensor Booster tiericide, we are increasing fitting costs a bit A 60% increase is NOT "a bit"!
Also if the "all sensor strength bonus" is a raw number and not a percentage I'm gone as not only will that **** ECM to hell and back, it would have MASSIVE effects in WH space by making a LOT of ships unprobable.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Sven Viko VIkolander
Friends and Feminists
368
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 02:18:03 -
[58] - Quote
Oh yes. Oh hell yes! I and other solo PVPers have made this very suggestion in the past, and let's just say that this will probably be one of my favorite small changes CCP has made in recent years. One of my biggest complaints about ECCM modules is that they provide no real use unless you are facing ECM, and the use they provide when you do face ECM is purely chance based and is not worth the slot for the module. This change also makes signal amps slightly reasonable to fit on certain battleship setups for solo and small gang.
ECM is still terrible game design, there's no gameplay or skill involved in it, and the range at which ships worth less than 1m isk can perma-jam virtually any other ship in the game is absurd, but this is a small step in the right direction.
The only downside to this change is that it is a stealth buff to the arty svipul. Now it gets another buff, an extra resistance to ECM. To be honest, with the added functionality of sensor boosters, their CPU should probably be quite a bit higher. 16 CPU for a Tech 2 sebo is still insanely cheap given the added functionality it will be receiving. I would suggest more like 20 CPU and the other meta versions adjusted from there. |
Zetakya
Echelon Research
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 02:35:43 -
[59] - Quote
The SEBO fitting reqs just doubled for the same effect on a given stat (as mostly a SEBO is fitted for one stat only). Old F90 was 30% boost, to get that now you need a Tech2, which with the increased fitting costs per module has pushed CPU need from 8 to 16. That's going to be a problem for some fits (thankfully, not mine).
I do like the merging of ECCM with these modules, it makes for a good tactical choice on the field of what to script, rather than a strategic choice before you leave dock. |
Cyrek Ohaya
Blazing Sun Group
21
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:54:28 -
[60] - Quote
Fozzie you're basically applying a free ECCM bonus to Sensor Boosters, I can't simply agree to that, on live we will now have a solution to both ECM and Sensor Dampener modules, two birds with one stone, we can't have that.
Let's go over what we have now:
-ECCM (Racial) I - II = Low Slot, Local Active, 96%,Overheats for 30% bonus. The standard for some Logistic cruiser fits.
-ECCM Projector I - II = Medium Slot, Remote Active, 120%, Overheats for 30%. Less Range and Heavier CPU requirement than Sensor Boosters. Niche strongly lies in Logistic chains or for a Marauders immensely irrational weakness to ECM.
Your job should be to make the least interesting choice, the Signal Amplifier more appealing to your players rather than make a streamlined Sensor booster be able to deal with EWAR issues more effectively.
There is some inconsistency with your Remote Sensor Booster proposal is that you're adding the ECCM bonus from a module which takes 55 CPU to one that costs 22, 55 being a cost more suitable for Battleships and some Battlecruisers, 22 something passable for certain frigates and easily fitted on cruisers. Don't take me wrong but I like the remote assistance modules, you are just making them too easily accessible, and in turn splitting the odds against dedicated ECM pilots. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |