|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Galphii
Furnulum pani nolo THE SPACE P0LICE
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 13:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
Just make it so that ECM mods break the target lock. Bam. Done. The hassle of re-targeting is enough. |
Galphii
Furnulum pani nolo THE SPACE P0LICE
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 13:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
Zindale wrote:Do not see the point of this post cause that is what ECM does for the cycle of the module. If the cycle is successful for the second cycle then it prevents the re target.
It prevents you relocking for 20 seconds. I propose that be removed, and possibly reduce the cycle time for ecms.
Robert Caldera wrote:ECM is fine.
Wrong, they need fixing. It's okay to be be wrong, I won't hold it against you. |
Galphii
Furnulum pani nolo THE SPACE P0LICE
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 00:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
Duchess Starbuckington wrote:So how do you propose to buff ECM ships to make up for the fact the one thing they're good at is now borderline useless? Easy: reducing the cycle time on the ecm mods (I've adjusted the OP). So, you've got 7 ECM's on your scorp, each one of them has a chance to break the lock. If you activate them 1 second apart, then every second you have a chance at breaking the lock on your target. The target can re-lock immediately, but they still have the locking time to deal with, and if they get hit again, they have to start from scratch. So instead of sitting there for 20 seconds at least, scratching your arse, you're still in the fight, spamming the lock function hoping to get a lock again. It's not that different from the current system, except the individual isn't shut down for so long, and if jams are failing, there's less time to wait to get another shot. It's elegant and there is precedent within the game (burst ecm).
I've fought with and against ecm ships with allies; this isn't about trying to solo a falcon
This change might mean you need to put a bit of a tank on a ecm ship instead of relying on the ecm itself, which sounds fine to me. I'd fly one. |
Galphii
Furnulum pani nolo THE SPACE P0LICE
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 00:15:00 -
[4] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Duchess Starbuckington wrote:So how do you propose to buff ECM ships to make up for the fact the one thing they're good at is now borderline useless? I propose that in order to balance this change all ECM ships are now capable of fitting doomsday weapons, and utilizing them on sub-capital ships. You're an f-ing tosser mate. |
Galphii
Furnulum pani nolo THE SPACE P0LICE
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 00:38:00 -
[5] - Quote
mxzf wrote:Well, one side effect I could see happening if this was implemented would be that sensor damps would be more useful (break someone's lock and then have a friend damp him so he has issues re-locking). I don't know that it's the right solution to ECM (or even if ECM needs changing at all), but I think that that'd be a side effect. I just came on to post that exact point
Bring a friend along with sensor damps (which are getting buffed soon anyway) and he'll futz the locking time of your enemies, and bam, you've got your permajam back again, just that now you have to like, co-ordinate with you fleet buddies to make it happen. And yeah I'm not 100% sure this is the solution either, but I wanted to put it on the table for CCP. |
Galphii
Furnulum pani nolo THE SPACE P0LICE
17
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 09:26:00 -
[6] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Reducing ECM cycle time would only make them better. In the same 20 seconds with current cycle time, you get one chance per jammer. With a 10 second cycle time you would get 2 chances, that is twice as many opportunities. Now say I'm in my Falcon with a 14 jam strength trying to jam a Drake (19 sensor strength). Currently I have a 26% chance to miss. With your solution, the chance of missing a jam within the same 20 seconds with that same jammer would be 7%.
I wold gladly give up my 20sec jam cycles for this, and then go fit a single remote sensor damp w/scan res script. Or, God forbid, fly with a bro in an Arazu that has lots of damps fit. Even when you finally lock, you can't keep it or more than a few seconds. Hell, this would even make multispecs useful.
For fun, lets try the mathz. 4x multispecs jam str ~9.3, cycle time of 10 seconds. Chance to miss vs Drake per cycle is 1-(9.3/19)=51%. Stagger the jammers so one fires every 2.5 seconds over the course of the previous time of 20 seconds means 8 attempts every 20 seconds (love the new cycle time). 51%^8=.46% chance to miss. Over the course of the 10 seconds required to fire all jammers once the chance to miss would be 6.8%.
OP is now my favorite person in the whole Eve Online universe. Except that you missed the bit where you don't get the 20 second jam time anymore; they'll work more like ecm bursts, so you'll be breaking locks but 'ceptors with sensor boosters will still be hassling you. I love how almost no-one on these forums actually reads posts. Comedy gold! |
Galphii
Furnulum pani nolo THE SPACE P0LICE
19
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 11:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
Math isn't my strong point so I'm not going to get into a nerd pissing-match; I'll take your word on the numbers. My numbers aren't set in stone; they're an example of how the system could work. I've modified my OP to reflect a better way of doing this change. Breaking a lock once every 20 seconds is hardly arguing my point, and as many have pointed out in this thread it's underpowered. In a 20 second time frame, the drake will lose its lock once and then can easily reacquire and fire off more missiles etc.
And yeah the forums eat posts for breakfast |
Galphii
Furnulum pani nolo THE SPACE P0LICE
19
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 11:30:00 -
[8] - Quote
Valei Khurelem wrote:You are so going to get trolled for daring to suggest ECM doesn't work properly and I won't be able to do anything to help, sorry :( ECM needs fixing, but it's the counters that fight against gankers that need fixing the most because things like warp bubbles are just so OP. I was expecting it hehe. I knew CCP were talking about the pros and cons of ecm so I thought I'd put this idea into the mix (it was actually a mate of mine who suggested it, cheers 2myst!) |
|
|
|