Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ElCoCo
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 22:41:00 -
[31]
Well imo, the only thing needed is to nerf the falcon's ECM bonus to 15% and that's about it (because there's absolutely no reason to fly the rook). ECM is a do or die affair, once you fail your jam you're either dead, or out of the picture for at least a minute due to warping off. Boink! |
Endless Subversion
The Accursed
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 22:42:00 -
[32]
Originally by: ElCoCo Well imo, the only thing needed is to nerf the falcon's ECM bonus to 15% and that's about it (because there's absolutely no reason to fly the rook). ECM is a do or die affair, once you fail your jam you're either dead, or out of the picture for at least a minute due to warping off.
Or absolutely safe at ~200km as you count to 20 and do it again?
|
Maverick 52
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 22:43:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Lowering the range of Falcons and other ECM ships while retaining their strength only nerfs pirates, as they won't be able to use them outside of sentry range, while all others will have access to powerful ECM ships to use against them while operating inside sentry range.
No, it doesn't. It forces the falcon to use its ewar at a range where a wider variety of ships are capable of engaging it.
Nerf for falcon pilots regardless of pirate status.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 22:54:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Rivqua Edited by: Rivqua on 25/11/2008 21:51:19 The problem with how ecm is coded, you can't have it both chance based and stacking nerfed. Because, it's only the one that takes effect, there is no stacking to nerf, there is only on and off, you can't lower the propability of the stacking chance on a target.
So its a choice, make it do something that has a lasting effect (like damps) and be stacking nerfed, or have it as a chance based, but not have it stacking nerfed.
I am not saying ecm should stay as it is, I am just pointing out the fact you can't really keep them chance based while wanting to make them stacking nerfed, if ccp is not asked to recode alot of the mechanics around it, and it would take alot of work. Probably way more then anyone realizes.
EDIT(just adding short explanation): To make it stacking nerfed, you would have to do something like, so that every ecm mod that fails its jamming attempt, leaves a token on the target ship, so that the next mod that attempts the jam cycle, knows that there has been an attempt, and abides by the stacking penalty and lowers its chance to succeed appropriately.
/Riv
No, no, no... totally wrong...
Stacking nerf the ECM that are *applied*, not actively working.
This is how it should work:
Multiple ECM are applied to a target, the ECM with the highest total jam strength is allowed 100% effectiveness, the next one that is *applied* in order of jam strength, is stacking nerfed, the next one down the list is stacking nerfed *more*, and so on, until the 4th ECM has about 5-7% of it's original strength when applied to the same target.
This is totally separate from whether or not each ECM actually jams the target.
And to Goum- the above is simple and concise. There won't be any random results as far as weird chance based math happening. There will be a clear degradation of jamming strength for each additional module applied, with the best case module having the best chance to jam.
It will probably work out that two ECM will be fairly effective/efficient for a single target, and after that everything will be fairly redundant, unless you have no other target to jam. This sounds totally reasonable to me, particularly since my Falcon jams everything pretty much solid with a single racial ECM.
Also note that for everyone arguing that ECM is 'balanced', they're pulling numbers with the target's sensor strength equivalent to a Tier3 BS, Recon, or some other ship with way above average sensor strength. Frigs, Cruisers, BCs are all FAR behind in comparison with respect to sensor strength. Even Command Ships (Astarte) have a paltry 18 sensor strength.
Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Death of Virtue is Recruiting
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 22:57:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Maverick 52
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Lowering the range of Falcons and other ECM ships while retaining their strength only nerfs pirates, as they won't be able to use them outside of sentry range, while all others will have access to powerful ECM ships to use against them while operating inside sentry range.
No, it doesn't. It forces the falcon to use its ewar at a range where a wider variety of ships are capable of engaging it.
Nerf for falcon pilots regardless of pirate status.
The best tool for negating a Falcon is another Falcon. Until something else in the game changes, it will always be that way. Allowing full strength ECM ships to be used while only inside sentry range is unbalanced in that pirates can't use Falcons to counter enemy threats the same as their opponents.
Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Death of Virtue is Recruiting
|
Sylia
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 23:18:00 -
[36]
Anyone ever considered changing ECM to knockout a amount of targets locked, so say one ECM cancelled out 2 target locks of a ship, then 3 ecm's would generally stopa ship targeting permanently, eccm would change to counter this.
ECM ships could then also have a +modifier to add more terget locks lost per ECM.
Obviously figures are used to just give a rough guide, but would liek to see it looked into properly.
You praytell are the lamb, and I my friend, I, am the tenderiser. |
Doddy
The Raging Angels
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 23:44:00 -
[37]
Only thing really overpowered about ecm is the range. Being able to sit 200k away and have the effect they do is a bit stupid. It should be brought into line with other ewar and make its range 150k at absolute max (i.e. with implants, rigs etc.). Or they need to introduce scripts or something with the same effect to make the pilot choose between ecm strength and range (possibly cut ecm range drastically but introduce a range mod for it, if you want to ecm snipe you have to fit range mods/rigs instead of ecm strength mods/rigs).
|
Vietone
Gallente Mercury Industries
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 00:21:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Doddy Only thing really overpowered about ecm is the range. Being able to sit 200k away and have the effect they do is a bit stupid. It should be brought into line with other ewar and make its range 150k at absolute max (i.e. with implants, rigs etc.). Or they need to introduce scripts or something with the same effect to make the pilot choose between ecm strength and range (possibly cut ecm range drastically but introduce a range mod for it, if you want to ecm snipe you have to fit range mods/rigs instead of ecm strength mods/rigs).
Than they need to make these ships able to equip a decent tank if your going to put them within attack range of many PvP ships. Falcons are as paper thin as can be to be an effective ECM ship. If your going to force falcons to get within range of damage the moment they warp in or uncloak, then they have to have a tank to last long enough to jam.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 01:41:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus And to Goum- the above is simple and concise. There won't be any random results as far as weird chance based math happening. There will be a clear degradation of jamming strength for each additional module applied, with the best case module having the best chance to jam.
incorrect my math challenged friend.
Lets take a target with a sensor strength of 20 and a jammer with a strength of 15.
Chance to be shooting = 25%
Now lets make that a strength of 15 x .87.
Chance to be shooting = 34%. Almost a 50% decrease in effectiveness...
Now lets make that a strength of 15 x .57
Chance to be shooting = 57.25%, Over a 100% increase in chance to be shooting...
Now, damps and TD's don't work like that, because once you get below the treshold, the other target does zero damage. Such their chance to reduce damage can be clearly and easily maximized.
Quote: Also note that for everyone arguing that ECM is 'balanced', they're pulling numbers with the target's sensor strength equivalent to a Tier3 BS, Recon, or some other ship with way above average sensor strength. Frigs, Cruisers, BCs are all FAR behind in comparison with respect to sensor strength. Even Command Ships (Astarte) have a paltry 18 sensor strength.
BULL****. Not that any of that matters because those targets are going to be perma jammed by the first freaking jammer that lands on them anyway so any more jammers are freaking irrelevant, stacking penalty or no
|
I SoStoned
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 02:29:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Malcanis I can't be arsed arguing this stupid crap any more. Go ahead - ruin another ship/module class. I can fly Curses now, so **** you. Please give me a coupe of weeks notice that you're going to wine for nerfs of those.
God forbid that we should propose sensible considered modifications to countermeasures. No, instead let's just cry that something actually fulfills it's intended function.
What this guy said. The ship does what it's intended to do, and does it well. Leave it well enough alone... it's not like it can scratch the paint on anything, unlike the other covert recons.
Also... you can only jam a target once, so if some other guy has the enemy jammed and they're not communicating I may waste a cycle (at least) or an entire rack trying to jam a ship that's already jammed. Remember, his status is not being communicated to me, I don't know he's jammed. I have to wait until he's no longer jammed to have a hope of successfully jamming him... continuing my wastage, or the wastage of the other guy who doesn't know I've got the same target jammed now.
|
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 03:16:00 -
[41]
I love my dual eccmed tach apoc, gets the falcons to warp off quick. especially since most people will only have 1 amarr racial and the rest will be off race or multispecs. sadly it only makes them run off and not instapop em (3/4 shot) (of course I got jammed 3 times by ecm drones in an snipe apoc vs snipe apoc fight, on the test server so I stayed to see what would happen, I lost)
and when I fly my falcon (alt) I try to spread my jams out as much as possible already. unless there is only like 1-2 targets and then well I try to not decloak. unless a friendly is going to go down.
the stacking nerf would probably help once the falcon has to jam 3 targets. maybe 2 depending on fit and what comes in. at the same time when you are forcing them to use multiple ecm on the same target that is less ecm to throw on your gang. if you are solo well it should pretty much get you anyways.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 04:38:00 -
[42]
The basic problem with introducing stacking penalties with ECM is simply that ECM doesn't actually stack. That being said, if you examine the current system, you'll see that for MOST people, even if stacking were introduced there would not be a substantial change to the actual effect in game.
To illustrate this point, let's say a battleship has a theoritical sensor strength of 20 and is engaged by a poorly skilled falcon pilot using jammers with a jam strength of 10. This gives a 50% chance to jam based on the assumed jamming formula. Currently, adding a second jammer increases the cumulative chance to jam to 75% during any given jam cycle. If the jammers were stacked nerf per the usual CCP route, the second jammer would make it's attempt at a strength of about 8.6, resulting in a jam chance of 50% for the first jammer and 43% for the now stack nerfed jammer for a cumulative chance of 71.5% chance to jam.
In the end, the result would still effectively approach the fabled perma jam once relocking times are accounted for. It's incredibly rare for an ECM pilot to actually have more than two of any given racial jammer anyway, rendering additional examination of the stacking question moot.
Perhaps the BETTER solution is to REMOVE the stacking penalty of ECCM currently. Afterall, if you're willing to give up 3 slots to ECCM you might as well become extremely well insulated to the system you protecting against, right?
|
Murkon Salesgirl
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 05:09:00 -
[43]
How many BC/BS ships should a falcon/rook/bb/scorp be able to reliably perma jam?
If the answer is 1 or less, then those ships become worthless. It's all they do, EWAR. Sacrificing 1 gang member to take out 1 enemy is pointless, and one would achieve better results just bringing an extra buffered dps or logistics.
IMO, they need to be able to perma jam 2 enemy ships (fitted with ECCM) at the least for it to be worthwhile. So that means 3 ECM modules to remove 1 target.
Now if people fit 1 ECCM, and say get their sensor strength to 40+, what are the chances of perma jamming them with 2 and 3 racial ECM? Now add stack nerfing.. and what are the chances?
If it's less than 75% chance to jam said target with 3 racial ecm module after stack nerf, then its too low.
How many ships reliably jammed by 1 falcon before it starts to be OP? 3? 4? What about ships fitted with 2 ECCM.. Several gang BS fit could spare their mids for this. They practically become almost immune to ewar if ECM became stack nerfed.
There's no real consensus on this issue from the player base so its unlikely the dev will do anything about it. There is consensus however, that ECM is the best EWAR currently. This isn't because its vastly OP, its because damps are horrible.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 06:39:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Derek Sigres
Perhaps the BETTER solution is to REMOVE the stacking penalty of ECCM currently. Afterall, if you're willing to give up 3 slots to ECCM you might as well become extremely well insulated to the system you protecting against, right?
Better to make ECCM a flat bonus.
E.G. if ECCM gave you +20 strength for the tech 2 module then that is about the same as using ECCM on a battleship[a bit stronger for some, weaker for others]. But on a smaller ship it would mean you could actually resist being jammed rather than just using an ECCM and still being perma jammed.
Stacking ECCM and ECCM on a carrier would be less strong, but I am less worried about that than having a counter that you could actually fit to a cruiser or frigate.
|
fuxinos
Caldari Guys 0f Sarcasm
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 06:43:00 -
[45]
why not making it like you can only use 1 of your ECM against a ship and not 2-3 or more.
would solve the problem without nerfing ECM at all...
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 07:34:00 -
[46]
Originally by: fuxinos why not making it like you can only use 1 of your ECM against a ship and not 2-3 or more.
would solve the problem without nerfing ECM at all...
because there actually isn't a problem with stacking ECM, players aren't likely to be fitting a full rack of the same racial jammers and such, more than 1 doesn't have much of an effect.
As well, you get the problem of "counter ECM" where one side, uses a single light ECM drone on each of its members to "block" subsequent ECM activation.
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 09:34:00 -
[47]
A ship with a rack of say 5 damps fitted can target and damp with 100% success 5 targets no matter the race of ships if he wants to and effectively reduce those 5 ships to worthlessness if the range of the engagement is favorable, he can also focus 2 or 3 damps on individual ships if required.
A ecm ship to be effective needs firstly to have the correct racial's fitted but also needs to overcome the natural str of the target ship every 20 secs as his effect is chance based, and if he misses a jam he needs to apply another jammer to the target at the same risk of failure, unlike the damp ship.
ECM can be very effective but it can also be very ineffective as it is a roll of the dice every time it is activated. While damps always work as long as you are smart enough to dictate the range of the engagement correctly.
|
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 09:54:00 -
[48]
luck should never win a fight, that is wrong with ECM, especially with those ranges. e.g. a falcon jamming my BS that has 2 eccms (overheated) from more than 200km away (I guess he was at his jammers falloff yeah awesome). woohoo what can my gang and me do now against it? bring in my own falcon and hope for a lucky cycle against the enemy falcon? bring in lots of sniper bs? blob anyone? I could instead dont waste time and bring more close range bs thus when the falcon jams some I still have superior firepower. this feels just wrong.
|
Burn Mac
Minmatar The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 09:59:00 -
[49]
Originally by: prodalt
1. There is not a problem with ECM
/insert picture of iraqi information minister (during 2003)
It is hilariously overpowered esp. ecm drones during 1 vs 1 fights, on cruiser level.
|
Rexthor Hammerfists
Rage of Inferno
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 10:08:00 -
[50]
Kill range bonuses on all the ecm ships but the scorp, make them sit within 60km or so where drones or failed cycles make differences. -
Boosters and PirateProfessions
|
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 10:16:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists Kill range bonuses on all the ecm ships but the scorp, make them sit within 60km or so where drones or failed cycles make differences.
So make them worthless in gang combat as a single unjammed ship can melt them?.
How about ppl bring a few anti-ewar (bombers with damps work great) or even ships with the range to hit them instead of a crappy setup and fitted blob of ships?.
POST NERF PVP SKILLS: "shall we engage?" "hmmm how many ships do they have?" "more than us" "lets not bother then" "WOW great job FC!!!!" "................. |
Dr Fighter
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 10:23:00 -
[52]
The sensor pionts are spread a little thinly for my taste too, a little cepter which has 9 pionts should be nothing compared to a teir 3 BS but in actual fact its 3 times as much. Not really inkeeping with the way the rest of stats add up, cepter has 3 times less HP? lol no.
sensor pionts need to have more pionts inbetween, a frig from 5-10 cruiser from 15-25 BC and BS from 25-50.
Juggling the ecm strength and range is one thing, but the pionts of the target ships have been all but forgottern about.
i still agree with the op however, ecm stacks gets stronger not weaker like every other form of EW (and why ecm drones rawk so hard)
|
Malcanis
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 11:27:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Derek Sigres
Perhaps the BETTER solution is to REMOVE the stacking penalty of ECCM currently. Afterall, if you're willing to give up 3 slots to ECCM you might as well become extremely well insulated to the system you protecting against, right?
Better to make ECCM a flat bonus.
E.G. if ECCM gave you +20 strength for the tech 2 module then that is about the same as using ECCM on a battleship[a bit stronger for some, weaker for others]. But on a smaller ship it would mean you could actually resist being jammed rather than just using an ECCM and still being perma jammed.
Stacking ECCM and ECCM on a carrier would be less strong, but I am less worried about that than having a counter that you could actually fit to a cruiser or frigate.
Actually I quite like that idea.
But even better would be to change the jamming formula. At present it's Jammer Str/Sensor Str and if that >1.0, the target is automatically jammed. If the chance was changed to J/J+S, with an increase in jamming strength stats so that the results were normalised for, say, a tier 1 BS, then smaller ships would then always have a chance of not being jammed. There's your balance right there: with NO gauranteed permajam of tacklers and snipers. And with ECCM changed as Gou suggests, quite a good chance. That would make it quite a lot easier for ECM pilots to jam capital ships (it's not that easy at present) but given the way cap ships infest every system these days I don't see that as a bad thing tbh.
|
Stalina
Gallente Deep Space Exploration Squad
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 11:31:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Stalina on 26/11/2008 11:33:24
Originally by: Vietone
Than they need to make these ships able to equip a decent tank if your going to put them within attack range of many PvP ships. Falcons are as paper thin as can be to be an effective ECM ship. If your going to force falcons to get within range of damage the moment they warp in or uncloak, then they have to have a tank to last long enough to jam.
You do know other recons dont have their med slots filled with their bonused e-war modules? Rapiers fit 1-2 LSE, Curse did too before patch, Pilgrim actually is the one that can fit a little tank, but it operates at point blank range. Arazu and Lachesis...well they are borked no matter what you fit ( besides blaster fits ). And my Falcon actually has like 7k armor hitpoints, because a 1600mm plate fits just nice.
________________
Originally by: Malcanis
Hey I've got an idea: why don't you and your nerf-crying ilk never, ever post again.
See what you've done. Look what you did.
Now shush.
|
Malcanis
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 11:32:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists Kill range bonuses on all the ecm ships but the scorp, make them sit within 60km or so where drones or failed cycles make differences.
Great, strip off the range tank. What's replacing it? Can haz scorp with 12 mids?
|
Stalina
Gallente Deep Space Exploration Squad
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 11:37:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists Kill range bonuses on all the ecm ships but the scorp, make them sit within 60km or so where drones or failed cycles make differences.
Great, strip off the range tank. What's replacing it? Can haz scorp with 12 mids?
Welcome on the same dangerous level the other recons operate? ________________
Originally by: Malcanis
Hey I've got an idea: why don't you and your nerf-crying ilk never, ever post again.
See what you've done. Look what you did.
Now shush.
|
Trigos Trilobi
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 11:41:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Vietone
Than they need to make these ships able to equip a decent tank if your going to put them within attack range of many PvP ships. Falcons are as paper thin as can be to be an effective ECM ship. If your going to force falcons to get within range of damage the moment they warp in or uncloak, then they have to have a tank to last long enough to jam.
Originally by: Murina
So make them worthless in gang combat as a single unjammed ship can melt them?.
It's perfectly possible to fit a 'decent tank' on a falcon as far as recons go anyway, it's just that at the moment fitting all jammers increases your survivability/ew effectiveness more. Falcon does have 1 additional med slot and five-fold engagement range compared to a rapier for example.
So, most of people seem to have it sort of backwards; the fact that all jammers is most effective at the moment, doesn't mean that you'll instantly melt if ECM is nerfed, it just means that it might be over all more effective to fit some buffer instead of the last one or two jammers.
TBH, should I think ECM was overpowered, the most blatantly obvious sign would be the fact that all falcons are fit pretty much the same and fitting all ECM is invariably preferrable to even seriously considering increasing your survivability by some other means. Which also obviously has lead to the abovementioned 'backwards' thinking aswell.
|
cianide pro
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 11:43:00 -
[58]
If I remember correct the ecm worked different in the past, the ecm mod had x strength and when your strength was more then the ship you jammed it, (not chance based like now) then if you wanted to jamm a ship that had more strength you needed to use 2 jammers on it, worked great and would love to see that system come back.
Around this as base there could be scripts for strength and range.
All these treads about nerfing it is nonsense as these ecm ships dont have ew and tank it ew or tank, so they should be good with their ew as when it does not this ship class could be deleted from game.
|
FlameGlow
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 11:53:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Stalina
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists Kill range bonuses on all the ecm ships but the scorp, make them sit within 60km or so where drones or failed cycles make differences.
Great, strip off the range tank. What's replacing it? Can haz scorp with 12 mids?
Welcome on the same dangerous level the other recons operate?
Yes, bring it inline with other recons pls - drop racial ecm and distortion amplifiers, only keep multispecs and boost their strength to get jamming strength to about 12-14 on lvl 5 skills(even lower then now on racials). Then ppl can finally use some of those slots for tank instead of using all of them to be able to jam something with reasonable chance. _____________ I don't care what is nerfed, as long as it's not my "undock" button. |
cianide pro
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 11:57:00 -
[60]
Originally by: FlameGlow
Originally by: Stalina
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists Kill range bonuses on all the ecm ships but the scorp, make them sit within 60km or so where drones or failed cycles make differences.
Great, strip off the range tank. What's replacing it? Can haz scorp with 12 mids?
Welcome on the same dangerous level the other recons operate?
Yes, bring it inline with other recons pls - drop racial ecm and distortion amplifiers, only keep multispecs and boost their strength to get jamming strength to about 12-14 on lvl 5 skills(even lower then now on racials). Then ppl can finally use some of those slots for tank instead of using all of them to be able to jam something with reasonable chance.
Make them all ew ships armor tanks then
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |