EVE Search - Balance ECM by boosting ECM...

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Balance ECM by boosting ECM...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Grey Area Caldari	Posted - 2007.04.06 10:14:00 - [1] OK, I know it sounds odd, but it struck me that the worst thing about being jammed is the sense of helplessness...once you're jammed, you're stuck doing nothing except watching your shields drop, which takes the control out of combat for that 20 second period...and that is more unsatisfying than if you were beaten "honestly". And then I thought...there ought to be a module that could counter jamming...of course currently there can't be, because modules require you to get a lock, which you have been prevented from doing. So...why not change ECM bursts to NOT require a lock, but to affect ALL targets which have a lock on you? I mean, thinking about it, it makes more sense that way - an ECM burst would NOT selectively affect one target lock but leave all others untouched. It should use the same chance based system as jamming, taking into account the ECM strengths and skills of all your opponents. That might mean that you break the lock of the target that is damaging you, but not the webber/scrambler or the guy ECM jamming you...or you might get lucky and break all three. I don't think it would be overpowered, but at least if you had two sides to the argument, there would be scope for later balancing by changing the relative strengths/base chances of the modules. Comments? --- I don't mind you disagreeing with me. Just don't say I don't have the SKILLS to comment.
Grey Area Caldari	Posted - 2007.04.06 10:14:00 - [2] OK, I know it sounds odd, but it struck me that the worst thing about being jammed is the sense of helplessness...once you're jammed, you're stuck doing nothing except watching your shields drop, which takes the control out of combat for that 20 second period...and that is more unsatisfying than if you were beaten "honestly". And then I thought...there ought to be a module that could counter jamming...of course currently there can't be, because modules require you to get a lock, which you have been prevented from doing. So...why not change ECM bursts to NOT require a lock, but to affect ALL targets which have a lock on you? I mean, thinking about it, it makes more sense that way - an ECM burst would NOT selectively affect one target lock but leave all others untouched. It should use the same chance based system as jamming, taking into account the ECM strengths and skills of all your opponents. That might mean that you break the lock of the target that is damaging you, but not the webber/scrambler or the guy ECM jamming you...or you might get lucky and break all three. I don't think it would be overpowered, but at least if you had two sides to the argument, there would be scope for later balancing by changing the relative strengths/base chances of the modules. Comments? --- I don't mind you disagreeing with me. Just don't say I don't have the SKILLS to comment.
William Hamilton	Posted - 2007.04.06 11:13:00 - [3] But there is a counter for ECM, ECCM and Backup sensor arrays....
William Hamilton Caldari THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.04.06 11:13:00 - [4] But there is a counter for ECM, ECCM and Backup sensor arrays....
Grey Area Caldari	Posted - 2007.04.06 11:27:00 - [5] Originally by: William Hamilton But there is a counter for ECM, ECCM and Backup sensor arrays.... That's not a "counter" it's a defence...it reduces the risk of being jammed, but there is NOTHING you can do ONCE jammed to break that 20 second cycle. --- I don't mind you disagreeing with me. Just don't say I don't have the SKILLS to comment.
Grey Area Caldari	Posted - 2007.04.06 11:27:00 - [6] Originally by: William Hamilton But there is a counter for ECM, ECCM and Backup sensor arrays.... That's not a "counter" it's a defence...it reduces the risk of being jammed, but there is NOTHING you can do ONCE jammed to break that 20 second cycle. --- I don't mind you disagreeing with me. Just don't say I don't have the SKILLS to comment.
Valandril Caldari Resurrection R i s e	Posted - 2007.04.06 11:37:00 - [7] Originally by: Grey Area Originally by: William Hamilton But there is a counter for ECM, ECCM and Backup sensor arrays.... That's not a "counter" it's a defence...it reduces the risk of being jammed, but there is NOTHING you can do ONCE jammed to break that 20 second cycle. Sooo module that double ur ecm resistance is not counter ? /me scratch his head coughmorroncough -------- Mass murderer, pure pvper and starcraft player =D
Valandril Caldari Resurrection R i s e	Posted - 2007.04.06 11:37:00 - [8] Originally by: Grey Area Originally by: William Hamilton But there is a counter for ECM, ECCM and Backup sensor arrays.... That's not a "counter" it's a defence...it reduces the risk of being jammed, but there is NOTHING you can do ONCE jammed to break that 20 second cycle. Sooo module that double ur ecm resistance is not counter ? /me scratch his head Snip -ReverendM --- Battlecarriers !
welsh wizard 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.04.06 11:38:00 - [9] Edited by: welsh wizard on 06/04/2007 11:34:46 I don't disagree with this idea, its a pretty good one but at the same time we don't need any more 'features' reducing the usefullness of ECM ships. They're currently poor and theres too many of them.
welsh wizard Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency	Posted - 2007.04.06 11:38:00 - [10] Edited by: welsh wizard on 06/04/2007 11:34:46 I don't disagree with this idea, its a pretty good one but at the same time we don't need any more 'features' reducing the usefullness of ECM ships. They're currently poor and theres too many of them. [Balance] The Caldari problem.
Tarron Sarek Gallente Cadien Cybernetics	Posted - 2007.04.06 11:39:00 - [11] Hmm, it's interesting. As for me, I'd be happy with just some small improvements to the current system. Suggestions: - reduce ECM cycle time to 10 sec - make chance to jam dependent on previous success/failure. success->lower chance (target's sensor systems have adapted), failure->higher chance. This should work like a sinus curve, and of course it is simply a balancing measure. - alternatively reduce cycle time a bit and make ECM just break all target locks, but not hold the target down for the whole cycle. Or make the target unable to lock for half the cycle, instead of the whole. The overall idea is to make ECM severely handicap the target without totally disabling it. What makes ECM hard to balance and such a killjoy is the 'sitting duck' thing. _________________________________ - The sky is the sky wherever you go -
Tarron Sarek Gallente Endica Enterprises	Posted - 2007.04.06 11:39:00 - [12] Hmm, it's interesting. As for me, I'd be happy with just some small improvements to the current system. Suggestions: - reduce ECM cycle time to 10 sec - make chance to jam dependent on previous success/failure. success->lower chance (target's sensor systems have adapted), failure->higher chance. This should work like a sinus curve, and of course it is simply a balancing measure. - alternatively reduce cycle time a bit and make ECM just break all target locks, but not hold the target down for the whole cycle. Or make the target unable to lock for half the cycle, instead of the whole. The overall idea is to make ECM severely handicap the target without totally disabling it. What makes ECM hard to balance and such a killjoy is the 'sitting duck' thing. _________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well -
Valandril Caldari Resurrection R i s e	Posted - 2007.04.06 13:13:00 - [13] Originally by: Tarron Sarek Hmm, it's interesting. As for me, I'd be happy with just some small improvements to the current system. Suggestions: - reduce ECM cycle time to 10 sec - make chance to jam dependent on previous success/failure. success->lower chance (target's sensor systems have adapted), failure->higher chance. This should work like a sinus curve, and of course it is simply a balancing measure. - alternatively reduce cycle time a bit and make ECM just break all target locks, but not hold the target down for the whole cycle. Or make the target unable to lock for half the cycle, instead of the whole. The overall idea is to make ECM severely handicap the target without totally disabling it. What makes ECM hard to balance and such a killjoy is the 'sitting duck' thing. Sooooo First halve the cycle to 10secons Thats fine Then sinusoidal +/- change Fine too Then halve cycle again (to5 seconds) Are u retarded ?:P -------- Mass murderer, pure pvper and starcraft player =D
Valandril Caldari Resurrection R i s e	Posted - 2007.04.06 13:13:00 - [14] Originally by: Tarron Sarek Hmm, it's interesting. As for me, I'd be happy with just some small improvements to the current system. Suggestions: - reduce ECM cycle time to 10 sec - make chance to jam dependent on previous success/failure. success->lower chance (target's sensor systems have adapted), failure->higher chance. This should work like a sinus curve, and of course it is simply a balancing measure. - alternatively reduce cycle time a bit and make ECM just break all target locks, but not hold the target down for the whole cycle. Or make the target unable to lock for half the cycle, instead of the whole. The overall idea is to make ECM severely handicap the target without totally disabling it. What makes ECM hard to balance and such a killjoy is the 'sitting duck' thing. Sooooo First halve the cycle to 10secons Thats fine Then sinusoidal +/- change Fine too Then halve cycle again (to5 seconds) Snip -ReverendM --- Battlecarriers !
Randolf Sightblinder Ex Coelis	Posted - 2007.04.06 15:26:00 - [15] Of course jamming could be changed in other ways as well. 1. Make it more like "modern" ecm in that i reduces chance to hit. something like. 50% chance to break all locks. 50% increase to explosion radius of all missles. 50% increase to signature radius of all turrets. ECM as it exists reduces active targets to 0 which does make you feel absolutly helpless even if you have drones out. Obviously those numbers could be adjusted based on skills, module etc... IE the jammed target is not "blinded" after all the overview and other sensors work but its ablity to know precisly where things are would be effected making it harder to hit things. I guess that would make them similar to tracking disrupters except they work on missles as well. Though this would probably massivly boost dampeners, I'd feel just as helpless in a ship with a 5km lock range and lock times measured in minutes. I think dampners on regular ships probably need a much higer chance to fail even in optimal. Randolf
Randolf Sightblinder Ex Coelis	Posted - 2007.04.06 15:26:00 - [16] Of course jamming could be changed in other ways as well. 1. Make it more like "modern" ecm in that i reduces chance to hit. something like. 50% chance to break all locks. 50% increase to explosion radius of all missles. 50% increase to signature radius of all turrets. ECM as it exists reduces active targets to 0 which does make you feel absolutly helpless even if you have drones out. Obviously those numbers could be adjusted based on skills, module etc... IE the jammed target is not "blinded" after all the overview and other sensors work but its ablity to know precisly where things are would be effected making it harder to hit things. I guess that would make them similar to tracking disrupters except they work on missles as well. Though this would probably massivly boost dampeners, I'd feel just as helpless in a ship with a 5km lock range and lock times measured in minutes. I think dampners on regular ships probably need a much higer chance to fail even in optimal. Randolf
Tarron Sarek Gallente Cadien Cybernetics	Posted - 2007.04.06 18:58:00 - [17] Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 06/04/2007 18:54:00 Valandril, may I remind you of the EVE Forum Rules, especially rule # "4. Be respectful of others at all times."? Please play and post by the rules. Thanks. Now, apart from that, does the little word 'alternatively' ring a bell? Gee, try reading a bit more carefully, please. _________________________________ - The sky is the sky wherever you go -
William Hamilton	Posted - 2007.04.06 19:49:00 - [18] Hmmm, at the very least we need to have consistency. Right now jam probability is jam strength/sensor strength A better formula would be jam strength/(jam strength + sensor strength) Then increase all ECM strengths by 1/3 to compensate. This way even a low sensor strength ship has a chance of avoiding a jam.... Furthermore, I do think it would be interesting to have jammers reduce max targets instead of totaly blanking you out. Perhaps once given a jam probability, 'x', the probability is broken down into segments, each making the target loose one of it's precious max targets. ex, if a ship has 1/2 jam cahnce, and 2 max targets, on a random number generation of 1/4 or better it looses one target, on a generation of 1/2 or better it loses both targets.
William Hamilton Caldari THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.04.06 19:49:00 - [19] Hmmm, at the very least we need to have consistency. Right now jam probability is jam strength/sensor strength A better formula would be jam strength/(jam strength + sensor strength) Then increase all ECM strengths by 1/3 to compensate. This way even a low sensor strength ship has a chance of avoiding a jam.... Furthermore, I do think it would be interesting to have jammers reduce max targets instead of totaly blanking you out. Perhaps once given a jam probability, 'x', the probability is broken down into segments, each making the target loose one of it's precious max targets. ex, if a ship has 1/2 jam cahnce, and 2 max targets, on a random number generation of 1/4 or better it looses one target, on a generation of 1/2 or better it loses both targets.
Reggie Stoneloader Teikoku Trade Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.04.07 04:45:00 - [20] What's the counter to a target painter? To a webber? To a sensor dampener?
Reggie Stoneloader Teikoku Trade Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.04.07 04:45:00 - [21] What's the counter to a target painter? To a webber? To a sensor dampener?
Grey Area Caldari	Posted - 2007.04.07 08:13:00 - [22] Originally by: Tarron Sarek The overall idea is to make ECM severely handicap the target without totally disabling it. What makes ECM hard to balance and such a killjoy is the 'sitting duck' thing. QFT. No other module turns off your ship entirely. Turret users complain how overpowered tracking disrupters are...but they only affect your weapons...not your nos, scrambler, webber, target painter...I actually agree that TD's ARE overpowered - so what does that make ECM? Another poster commented that the reduction in number of targets to 0 is the problem...and they are right...maybe it's possible to have a random reduction in number of targets? I actually think a better idea would be to have ECM operation factored in to every individual weapon shot...and add a message like "your (weapon named here) fails to get a target lock and misfires". That message could apply equally to turrets or missiles, and would also alert you to the fact that the target had ECM up and running. Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader What's the counter to a target painter? To a webber? To a sensor dampener? Quite simply - for the first two...to keep shooting the sucker...for the SD - get closer. But of course neither of those work when you are jammed. --- I don't mind you disagreeing with me. Just don't say I don't have the SKILLS to comment.
Grey Area Caldari	Posted - 2007.04.07 08:13:00 - [23] Edited by: Grey Area on 07/04/2007 16:06:17 Originally by: Tarron Sarek The overall idea is to make ECM severely handicap the target without totally disabling it. What makes ECM hard to balance and such a killjoy is the 'sitting duck' thing. QFT. No other module turns off your ship entirely. Turret users complain how overpowered tracking disrupters are...but they only affect your weapons...not your nos, scrambler, webber, target painter...I actually agree that TD's ARE overpowered - so what does that make ECM? Another poster commented that the reduction in number of targets to 0 is the problem...and they are right...maybe it's possible to have a random reduction in number of targets? I actually think a better idea would be to have ECM operation factored in to every individual weapon shot...and add a message like "your (weapon named here) fails to get a target lock and misfires". Some shots would hit, others would miss...the ship is still debilitated, but doesn't have to just sit there twisting in space while having the pooh kicked out of it. That message could apply equally to turrets or missiles, and would also alert you to the fact that the target had ECM up and running. Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader What's the counter to a target painter? To a webber? To a sensor dampener? Quite simply - for the first two...to keep shooting the sucker...for the SD - get closer and THEN shoot the sucker. But of course neither of those work when you are jammed. --- I don't mind you disagreeing with me. Just don't say I don't have the SKILLS to comment.
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.04.07 17:14:00 - [24] Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader What's the counter to a target painter? To a webber? To a sensor dampener? TP - None, but not needed its not generally as powerfull as the other EW. Web - Range and speedmods. SD - Sensor boosters, which is pretty usefull all by itself btw, ECCM is not.
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.04.07 17:14:00 - [25] Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader What's the counter to a target painter? To a webber? To a sensor dampener? TP - None, but not needed its not generally as powerfull as the other EW. Web - Range and speedmods. SD - Sensor boosters, which is pretty usefull all by itself btw, ECCM is not.
Grey Area Caldari	Posted - 2007.04.07 19:57:00 - [26] Originally by: Max Hardcase Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader What's the counter to a target painter? To a webber? To a sensor dampener? TP - None, but not needed its not generally as powerfull as the other EW. Web - Range and speedmods. SD - Sensor boosters, which is pretty usefull all by itself btw, ECCM is not. Quoting Max's answer 'cos it's actually better/more complete than mine. I'm a firm believer that combat should be settled in space, not in the fitting screen. ECM runs against that because once you are successfully jammed, there is no action you can take to influence the outcome...for the next 20 seconds (which is probably 2/3 as long as any EVE combat lasts), combat carries on WITHOUT any influence from the jammed target, and that just feels, at a basic level, WRONG. --- I don't mind you disagreeing with me. Just don't say I don't have the SKILLS to comment.
Grey Area Caldari	Posted - 2007.04.07 19:57:00 - [27] Originally by: Max Hardcase Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader What's the counter to a target painter? To a webber? To a sensor dampener? TP - None, but not needed its not generally as powerfull as the other EW. Web - Range and speedmods. SD - Sensor boosters, which is pretty usefull all by itself btw, ECCM is not. Quoting Max's answer 'cos it's actually better/more complete than mine. I'm a firm believer that combat should be settled in space, not in the fitting screen. ECM runs against that because once you are successfully jammed, there is no action you can take to influence the outcome...for the next 20 seconds (which is probably 2/3 as long as any EVE combat lasts), combat carries on WITHOUT any influence from the jammed target, and that just feels, at a basic level, WRONG. --- I don't mind you disagreeing with me. Just don't say I don't have the SKILLS to comment.
smallgreenblur Minmatar Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.04.07 21:16:00 - [28] It would be nice to have ECM as a module that merely severely reduces your effectiveness, rather than putting you out of the game entirely. sgb
smallgreenblur Minmatar Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.04.07 21:16:00 - [29] It would be nice to have ECM as a module that merely severely reduces your effectiveness, rather than putting you out of the game entirely. sgb
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.04.07 22:31:00 - [30] Edited by: Max Hardcase on 07/04/2007 22:28:11 I could live with ECM reducing the number of max targets per succesfull jam, based on the roll of the dice. Other options I like : a)ECM preventing targetted modules working. ( again a %chance per module being activated ). 15% per racial ECM module as a base figure and then add stacking penalty to it. b)ECM just breaking active/underway target locks. Incase of option b) ECM would need some extra strength. Incase of option a) ECCM would need to be changed to providing a % chance to negate all types of EW attacks.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.