| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Marlona Sky
Caldari
Astroglide X
   |
Posted - 2009.01.17 07:14:00 -
[61]
Lets keep this constructive guys. How can the ECCM work, script or skill enhancement or whatever, so you stand a chance without nerfing the falcon to hell and back?
|
Stalina
Gallente
Deep Space Exploration Squad
|
Posted - 2009.01.17 11:02:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Stalina on 17/01/2009 11:04:04
well looking at the counter for damps / tracking disruptors, you actually benefit from just fitting those modules. you gain something from it, even if you are not dampened/tracking disrupted.
So while my sensor booster also gives me faster locking or more locking range and my tracking comps / enhancer give me better tracking and range, ECCM gives you a few more % of not being jammed with one racial jammer.
While this sounds good versus only 1 falcon ( or jamming boat ) it actually becomes worthless, looking at the number of falcons around.
ECCM gives you moar sensor strength, meaning the falcon doesn't need 1 racial to jam but 2 or a mix of different racials or a racial and a multi or another of them 20 falcons in your gang.
In the same time there are no "signal-distortion-amplifier-like-modules" for damps, tracking disrupts, whatever ewar, if im not mistaken.
|
Neesa Corrinne
Ore Mongers
|
Posted - 2009.01.17 12:35:00 -
[63]
Several people in this thread have already pointed out that the countermeasures for both dampeners and tracking disruptors are useful all the time while ECCM is merely a paperweight until someone jams you.
I think that two things need to be done to ECCM to make it more useful:
1) Raise the percentage of sensor strength bonus that one ECCM module gives you. The best named and T2 modules should both give somewhere in the neighborhood of 120% boost instead of 96%.
2) ECCM modules should significantly lower your signature radius. It makes complete sense that a module that is distorting your profile on someones sensors would also lower your signature radius by a percentage... say 10%.
With the increased significance of signature radius in modern EVE combat, this would be an all around useful module. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.01.17 17:35:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 17/01/2009 17:36:59
 Originally by: ViolenTUK
Originally by: Motaka
If your trying to tell that 1 falcon pilot perma jammed 6 of you and you were all carrying ECCM,i am going to come out and call you a liar.
Fact mate. I am not lying.
Originally by: Motaka
A dominix carrying 1 ECCM has a magnometric sensor strength of 43,im sorry but a falcon is not going to perma jam anybody using 1 jammer.And you say there were 5 others in your gang all carrying ECCM.
Well they do. Sorry mate.
You do realize you have to put on the right race's ECCM, right? And that "perma" is short for "permanent", not "once every three cycles", right?
Originally by: Neesa Corrinne
2) ECCM modules should significantly lower your signature radius. It makes complete sense that a module that is distorting your profile on someones sensors would also lower your signature radius by a percentage... say 10%.
With the increased significance of signature radius in modern EVE combat, this would be an all around useful module.
Now that is an interesting proposal. Makes sense in terms of flavour, and would make the module better for generic combat.
-----------
Herschel's Cruiser BPC Store |
Cpt Striker
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 11:22:00 -
[65]
how about making all ecm function like an ecm burst, ie. just breaking the lock of the target, or alternatively reducing the length of time that you are jammed whilst keeping the current cycle period of ecm. this way ecm can remain at its current strength whilst allowing those who are effected by it, some opportuinty to counter it.
being able to somewhat counter ecm, even if your not explicitly prepared (who can possibly fit for every eventuality) is not unreasonable imo. after all, you are affored the oportunity against all other ewar to take some action to mitigate it, ie shooting the bugger. |
ViolenTUK
Gallente
Vindicated Exiles
V.I.R.A.L.
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 13:14:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
You do realize you have to put on the right race's ECCM, right? And that "perma" is short for "permanent", not "once every three cycles", right?
Everyone knows that mate. If I say Permanently I mean it. Or "Perma" in this case. 1 Race jammer is quite capable of keeping a sensor fortified Battleship permanently jammed.
|
Yarik Mendel
Privateers
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 15:30:00 -
[67]
In most situations I find the need to have 2 eccm modules which severely gimps most ships.
Please add 100% boost to the module, simple and effective.
|
Omber Zombie
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 16:56:00 -
[68]
 Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 17:34:00 -
[69]
Originally by: ViolenTUK
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
You do realize you have to put on the right race's ECCM, right? And that "perma" is short for "permanent", not "once every three cycles", right?
Everyone knows that mate. If I say Permanently I mean it. Or "Perma" in this case. 1 Race jammer is quite capable of keeping a sensor fortified Battleship permanently jammed.
A T2 racial jammer on a max-skill Falcon with 2 rigs and 2 distortion amps has 13.77 points of jam of its good type. A Dominix with one ECCM has 43.1 points of sensor strength. Thus, a single jammer will succeed 32% of the time. I wasn't kidding when I said "once every three cycles". Bad luck and targeting time make that more annoying, but if you say a single Falcon permajammed six fortified battleships, you're simply a liar. Even if it's fitting seven racial jammers, and the races line up, it has a 0.47% chance to jam all six of you per cycle. Even if the fight only lasted two cycles, the odds of you all being jammed on both of those cycles are less than one in 44,000. |
Pattern Clarc
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 17:55:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 18/01/2009 17:57:53
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
A T2 racial jammer on a max-skill Falcon with 2 rigs and 2 distortion amps has 13.77 points of jam of its good type. A Dominix with one ECCM has 43.1 points of sensor strength. Thus, a single jammer will succeed 32% of the time. I wasn't kidding when I said "once every three cycles".
Factor in locking time for that battle ship and you have a pretty serious problem, a Faclon with racials is likely to Jam 3 battleships for 30 out of 90 seconds, adding an extra 10-30 seconds of locking time rarely gets considered.
And this is with ECCM.
Either way, people defending falcons are just failing to acknowledge that is poor game design, all binary mechanics which form the back bone of most ewar (including neuts) are.
Beyond this, having a strong specific counter to something powerfull has the effect of creating an equalibrum in which either can be considered typical in all situations as opposed to this. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 20:28:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Pattern Clarc
Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 18/01/2009 17:57:53
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
A T2 racial jammer on a max-skill Falcon with 2 rigs and 2 distortion amps has 13.77 points of jam of its good type. A Dominix with one ECCM has 43.1 points of sensor strength. Thus, a single jammer will succeed 32% of the time. I wasn't kidding when I said "once every three cycles".
Factor in locking time for that battle ship and you have a pretty serious problem, a Faclon with racials is likely to Jam 3 battleships for 30 out of 90 seconds, adding an extra 10-30 seconds of locking time rarely gets considered.
And this is with ECCM.
Either way, people defending falcons are just failing to acknowledge that is poor game design, all binary mechanics which form the back bone of most ewar (including neuts) are.
Beyond this, having a strong specific counter to something powerfull has the effect of creating an equalibrum in which either can be considered typical in all situations as opposed to this.
Okay, so in 3 20-second jam cycles, you spend one jammed, and 9.8 seconds relocking the Falcon, or 6.1 with a sensor booster. Even if you don't use that, though, you have a lock on him about half the time(or a bit more often if it's random when jams are instead of every third). And remember, this falcon has a paper-thin tank - even if you use two LSEs and a DCU(which is a huge tank for a Falcon), it still only has 20k EHP, which means it can go down fairly quickly. Thing about that killboard screenshot, everything on it is dead.
Also, it should be noted that I'm not trying to defend the Falcon here. It's a bit OP, and there are some solutions I'd like to see implemented(say, swapping jam ranges with damp ranges and making remote ECCM better), but the standard onboard ECCM modules buff sensor strength enough. A secondary boost to make them better in non-jam fights, like the one proposed above, would be fine, but they're good enough at their primary role. I don't think it's as ludicrous as everyone claims, but a few tweaks would be appropriate. The problem isn't on the ECCM side, though.
-----------
Herschel's Cruiser BPC Store |
Pattern Clarc
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 21:05:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
...but they're good enough at their primary role. I don't think it's as ludicrous as everyone claims, but a few tweaks would be appropriate.
I believe the proof is in the pudding.
Considering that ecm now appears to scale quite happily in fleet fights, I think it¦s time for a either a boost to there effect counters, or a redesign of the effect of jamming.
____
My Blog Is Awesome
|
Zenethalos
Infinity Killers
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 23:47:00 -
[73]
I support some form of change to the ECM/ECCM issue. One logical fix is impliment a skill to increase sensor strength. The abundance of falcons in a small fleet fight is astounding. I leave with a 10 man hac/recon gang that has two falcons and hit a 6-7 man gang with 3-4 falcons and 2 dps ships. We have tried fitting eccm and sacrificing mid slots and still get almost perma jammed every time and our Falc's are usually rendered useless after one cycle. I think a skill to increase your ships sensor strength is in order, that or give ECCM moduals a secondary boost so they are not usless. |
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 00:21:00 -
[74]
On related note: we need faction and officer versions of active ECCM
There's no reason why that shouldn't be in game right now |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 06:07:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 19/01/2009 06:07:46
Originally by: Ephemeron
On related note: we need faction and officer versions of active ECCM
There's no reason why that shouldn't be in game right now
That's a boost I can support. For that matter, I'm fine with sensor strength skills too.
-----------
Herschel's Cruiser BPC Store |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |