EVE Search - Let's get rid of ECM

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Let's get rid of ECM

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Balendin	Posted - 2009.01.15 12:50:00 - [361] wwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, MOMMY its no fair that this guy used an ecm ship, and trained his skills for several months, then bought and used a nearly no damage ship to jam me, ITS NO FAIR CCP, I SUCK and I want you to NERF ecm BECAUSE IM A Peice of **** and wont learna counter.
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.15 12:54:00 - [362] Quote: wwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, MOMMY its no fair that this guy used an ecm ship, and trained his skills for several months, then bought and used a nearly no damage ship to jam me, ITS NO FAIR CCP, I SUCK and I want you to NERF ecm BECAUSE IM A Peice of **** and wont learna counter. I'd really see a doctor: That sand's gotten to you bad... - ECM Balancing Proposal - 50% increase in effectiveness!
Sambo Stone	Posted - 2009.01.15 15:58:00 - [363] So, what do you think about this idea. Very simple. ECM disables High slot modules. Person being jammed can still tackle or use EW of his own. Being perma jammed would not render someone useless in a fight as there would still be options, plus ECM would no longer be a get out of jail free card that allows a jammer to disengage at will. Just throwing this out there.
Spartan dax Perkone	Posted - 2009.01.15 17:19:00 - [364] Originally by: Sambo Stone Just throwing this out there. Keep throwing.... What would Caldari recons have as secondary ewar after this significant nerf?
Dasalt Istgut	Posted - 2009.01.15 17:30:00 - [365] Originally by: Sambo Stone So, what do you think about this idea. Very simple. ECM disables High slot modules. Person being jammed can still tackle or use EW of his own. Being perma jammed would not render someone useless in a fight as there would still be options, plus ECM would no longer be a get out of jail free card that allows a jammer to disengage at will. Just throwing this out there. Then the logical thing would be to bring as many jammers as you could, since they themselves couldn't be jammed and combat would boil down to two groups sitting there with no one able to do damage to anyone else. My gang would wind up being 50% disco phoon and 50% falcons.
Spartan dax Perkone	Posted - 2009.01.15 18:20:00 - [366] Well one way of doing it could be a module that instead of offlining/disabling highslots diminished their effectiveness. (Not guns and missiles) If we don't have ewar that can break up RR gangs that will be all we would see in the future. KK, lets say we have a high slot module as primary ewar for the caldari that disrupts "energy emissions" from target ships such as remotereppers, shieldtransfers, energytransfers, neuts, NOS and (lol) smartbombs by......55% A usefull powerfull gang oriented module and very situational.... The Caldari way in other words. The problem with a module such as this is that it is reactive where as all other Ewar is proactive and doesn't rely on target ships to take a certain action. The recons still need a usefull secondary Ewar though. (And yes, putting that module in the higslot is a shameless attempt at getting a decent droneboat for Caldari ships.)
Spartan dax Perkone	Posted - 2009.01.15 18:43:00 - [367] *Spartan Dax is having fun An "Entropy accellerator" Ha, how's that for secondary Ewar! A midslot module that increases cap use of modules due to lesser energy quality in the ships capacitor by...... 200%. Maybe a tad close to Amarr territory but I don't care. Geez, you guys suck at brainstorming! All of you!
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 20:15:00 - [368] Originally by: Malcanis That's correct, but on the other hand, a target isn't "more jammed" if multiple jamming attempts succeed either. Whereas if you put 3 damps or TDs or TPs, the target is much more damped, tracking-disrupted or painted. Yes but the target also is not "more damped" after the 3rd or 4th damp. Its not like damps dont have that issue. Thing is though that you can fit 3 SBs and be sure you will not get damped to crap no matter how many damps are targeted on your ship. Why? Because damps get stacking nerfed against eachother and have a maximum "damage". Just like Sensor boosting has a maximum "boost". The max boost is equal to max damage. So you can be sure to be protected. Problem with eccm is that 3xeccm does not protect you because ECM is not stacking nerfed. You will get jammed if enough ecm is put on you even if you have 3x eccm fitted. Do you get it? Do I need to explain this a 1000th time?
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N.	Posted - 2009.01.15 20:49:00 - [369] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Malcanis That's correct, but on the other hand, a target isn't "more jammed" if multiple jamming attempts succeed either. Whereas if you put 3 damps or TDs or TPs, the target is much more damped, tracking-disrupted or painted. Yes but the target also is not "more damped" after the 3rd or 4th damp. Its not like damps dont have that issue. Thing is though that you can fit 3 SBs and be sure you will not get damped to crap no matter how many damps are targeted on your ship. Why? Because damps get stacking nerfed against eachother and have a maximum "damage". Just like Sensor boosting has a maximum "boost". The max boost is equal to max damage. So you can be sure to be protected. Problem with eccm is that 3xeccm does not protect you because ECM is not stacking nerfed. You will get jammed if enough ecm is put on you even if you have 3x eccm fitted. Do you get it? Do I need to explain this a 1000th time? You need to explain why you say "You will get jammed if enough ecm is put on you even if you have 3x eccm fitted." when it should be "You may get jammed if enough ecm is put on you even if you have 3x eccm fitted." I suspect that it's because you're using dishonest debate techniques, but it may be that you simply don't know any better than to believe the forum hyperbole about ECM. Yeah so anyway, this thread wasn't supposed to be about whether ECM is overpowered. Candidly, I don't give a tinkers cuss whether you or anyone else thinks it's overpowered. This thread was supposed to be about making ECM - and ECM ships - more fun. There are roughly 9000+ Falcon/ECM whine threads for you to go whine about ECM/Falcons in. This thread is for making useful suggestions about alternative electronic warfare concepts for Caldari ships. Not nerfing ECM. Not whining about ECM. Not crying about how fitting ECCM is a kind of suffering worse than Auschwitz. But for rethinking the whole Caldari EW/EW ships from scratch.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 20:56:00 - [370] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Malcanis That's correct, but on the other hand, a target isn't "more jammed" if multiple jamming attempts succeed either. Whereas if you put 3 damps or TDs or TPs, the target is much more damped, tracking-disrupted or painted. Yes but the target also is not "more damped" after the 3rd or 4th damp. Its not like damps dont have that issue. Thing is though that you can fit 3 SBs and be sure you will not get damped to crap no matter how many damps are targeted on your ship. Why? Because damps get stacking nerfed against eachother and have a maximum "damage". Just like Sensor boosting has a maximum "boost". The max boost is equal to max damage. So you can be sure to be protected. Problem with eccm is that 3xeccm does not protect you because ECM is not stacking nerfed. You will get jammed if enough ecm is put on you even if you have 3x eccm fitted. Do you get it? Do I need to explain this a 1000th time? You need to explain why you say "You will get jammed if enough ecm is put on you even if you have 3x eccm fitted." when it should be "You may get jammed if enough ecm is put on you even if you have 3x eccm fitted." I suspect that it's because you're using dishonest debate techniques, but it may be that you simply don't know any better than to believe the forum hyperbole about ECM. Yeah so anyway, this thread wasn't supposed to be about whether ECM is overpowered. Candidly, I don't give a tinkers cuss whether you or anyone else thinks it's overpowered. This thread was supposed to be about making ECM - and ECM ships - more fun. There are roughly 9000+ Falcon/ECM whine threads for you to go whine about ECM/Falcons in. This thread is for making useful suggestions about alternative electronic warfare concepts for Caldari ships. Not nerfing ECM. Not whining about ECM. Not crying about how fitting ECCM is a kind of suffering worse than Auschwitz. But for rethinking the whole Caldari EW/EW ships from scratch. Omg. How many times do I need to explain: ECM IS NOT STACKING NERFED. 3 SBs will protect you from ANY number of damps. 3 ECCM will NOT protect you from any number of ECM, you will get jammed by a handful of ECM. THE MECHANIC THAT EXPLAINS THAT DIFFERENCE IS CALLED STACKING NERF. ECM IS NOT STACKING NERFED. D O Y O U U N D E R S T A N D O R N O T?
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:01:00 - [371] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong THE MECHANIC THAT EXPLAINS THAT DIFFERENCE IS CALLED STACKING NERF. ECM IS NOT STACKING NERFED. D O Y O U U N D E R S T A N D O R N O T? oh oh emo rage alert. Any way 3 SB will not allow a sniper to hit at snipe range if he is damped, so they are not that effective.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:04:00 - [372] Originally by: Murina Originally by: Amira Shadowsong THE MECHANIC THAT EXPLAINS THAT DIFFERENCE IS CALLED STACKING NERF. ECM IS NOT STACKING NERFED. D O Y O U U N D E R S T A N D O R N O T? oh oh emo rage alert. Any way 3 SB will not allow a sniper to hit at snipe range if he is damped, so they are not that effective. "stacking nerf" is not appliable to a binary mechanic as ecm. The whole discussion you peeps are having around it is useless.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:04:00 - [373] Originally by: Murina Originally by: Amira Shadowsong THE MECHANIC THAT EXPLAINS THAT DIFFERENCE IS CALLED STACKING NERF. ECM IS NOT STACKING NERFED. D O Y O U U N D E R S T A N D O R N O T? oh oh emo rage alert. Any way 3 SB will not allow a sniper to hit at snipe range if he is damped, so they are not that effective. They are and your point is moot. 3 SBs can protect any sized ship from getting damped into uselessness. I'm not sure how many times more I can explain what stacking penalty is and that ecm does not have it compared to damps, one has to be pretty dense to not get it at this point.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:08:00 - [374] Originally by: chrisss0r "stacking nerf" is not appliable to a binary mechanic as ecm. The whole discussion you peeps are having around it is useless. Uhm. Stacking penalty is when the effect of your weapon is penaltized because some other dude (or you) is putting the same weapon on the target. Your disruption of the target ship does not become weaker because someone else is trying to jam your target ship aswell. This is the case for stacking penaltized weapons like damps. ECM IS NOT STACKING NERFED. END OF STORY.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N.	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:08:00 - [375] I'm starting to wonder if you actually know how ECM works. If not, you're merely making yourself look silly. If so, please go troll any of the other falcon whine threads which abound.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:09:00 - [376] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Murina Originally by: Amira Shadowsong THE MECHANIC THAT EXPLAINS THAT DIFFERENCE IS CALLED STACKING NERF. ECM IS NOT STACKING NERFED. D O Y O U U N D E R S T A N D O R N O T? oh oh emo rage alert. Any way 3 SB will not allow a sniper to hit at snipe range if he is damped, so they are not that effective. 3 SBs can protect any sized ship from getting damped into uselessness. Unless it needs to snipe......
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:12:00 - [377] Edited by: Amira Shadowsong on 15/01/2009 21:12:47 Originally by: Malcanis I'm starting to wonder if you actually know how ECM works. If not, you're merely making yourself look silly. If so, please go troll any of the other falcon whine threads which abound. Does your chance of jamming a ship go down if someone else is trying to jam that ship? NO. Why? BECAUSE ECM IS NOT STACKING NERFED. DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET? Quite funny how you try to make fun of me when you are the one that does not understand such a basic mechanic like stacking means in eve.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N.	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:12:00 - [378] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong number of damps. 3 ECCM will NOT protect you from any number of ECM, you will get jammed by a handful of ECM. This is provably false. Now calm down.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:14:00 - [379] Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 21:15:38 Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: chrisss0r "stacking nerf" is not appliable to a binary mechanic as ecm. The whole discussion you peeps are having around it is useless. Uhm. Stacking penalty is when the effect of your weapon is penaltized because some other dude (or you) is putting the same weapon on the target. Your disruption of the target ship does not become weaker because someone else is trying to jam your target ship aswell. This is the case for stacking penaltized weapons like damps. ECM IS NOT STACKING NERFED. END OF STORY. That concept is just useless for binary decisions. What determines how strong ecm is is not the fact that you are jammed or not but the probability behind it. i hate falcons and i already punched the bayesian calculus in the face of the falcon-poolboys. Still talking about "stacking" is leading the whole discussion into a dead end. Ecm is neither stacking nerfed nor is it not. That system simply does not apply to it
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N.	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:14:00 - [380] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Malcanis I'm starting to wonder if you actually know how ECM works. If not, you're merely making yourself look silly. If so, please go troll any of the other falcon whine threads which abound. Does your chance of jamming a ship go down if someone else is trying to jam that ship? NO. Why? BECAUSE ECM IS NOT STACKING NERFED. DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET? Perhaps you can quote the post where I said ECM was stacking nerfed? I, on the other hand, can quote one where I said that it wasn't, but that it is not relevant. I also recommend that you walk away from the keyboard for a bit.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:15:00 - [381] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Amira Shadowsong number of damps. 3 ECCM will NOT protect you from any number of ECM, you will get jammed by a handful of ECM. This is provably false. Now calm down. Uhm, no. 10 racials will easily jam a cruiser with 3xeccm. 10000000 damps cant damp a Frig with 3xSBs below 10km. Do you know why? BECAUSE ECM IS NOT STACKING NERFED. DO YOU UNDERSTAND.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:16:00 - [382] Originally by: Malcanis I, on the other hand, can quote one where I said that it wasn't, but that it is not relevant. Good, can you then help me explain that to murina and her squad of special people?
daisy dook	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:22:00 - [383] ECM ships might not be fun to fly but this bun fight is amusing
Major Celine	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:22:00 - [384] Amira, when do you play EVE? You seem to be very active in every anti ECM thread? Or are you just "perma-jammed" all the time?
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:24:00 - [385] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Malcanis I, on the other hand, can quote one where I said that it wasn't, but that it is not relevant. Good, can you then help me explain that to murina and her squad of special people? I never said ECM was stacking nerfed either, i pointed out it was chance based while the others work 100% perfectly in their ranges, so long range is a must for it. Although 3 x jammers with 50% chance to jam does not = 150% chance to jam a single ship.......hardly a traditional stacking penalty but still worth mentioning.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:25:00 - [386] Originally by: Major Celine Amira, when do you play EVE? You seem to be very active in every anti ECM thread? Or are you just "perma-jammed" all the time? I'm a falcon, I'm only needed when fights go down. You know eve is the mmo with most do-nothing time. Besides, your pro falcon squad is posting quite frequently aswell.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:27:00 - [387] Originally by: Murina hardly a traditional stacking penalty but still worth mentioning. Finally you admit it. Thing is that it is not worth mentioning because the ineffectiveness of overjamming is a problem of the ECM user. The issue at hand is that ECCM is not a good enough counter BECAUSE ECM is not stacking nerfed on the target. If 50 falcons are jamming one single target it does not matter because each module will still have the same chance to jam the target eventhough there are 300 modules activated on one single target ship. It is not stacking nerfed and that is one of the problems of why ECCM is crap.
Sambo Stone	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:31:00 - [388] Originally by: Dasalt Istgut Originally by: Sambo Stone So, what do you think about this idea. Very simple. ECM disables High slot modules. Person being jammed can still tackle or use EW of his own. Being perma jammed would not render someone useless in a fight as there would still be options, plus ECM would no longer be a get out of jail free card that allows a jammer to disengage at will. Just throwing this out there. Then the logical thing would be to bring as many jammers as you could, since they themselves couldn't be jammed and combat would boil down to two groups sitting there with no one able to do damage to anyone else. My gang would wind up being 50% disco phoon and 50% falcons. The logical thing is already to bring as many jammers as possible so everyone is perma-jammed and no one can do anything, but it's not what's happening. And since the target is still active, drones can be ordered to take it out. Yeah, it's a silly idea. Yeah, it won't happen. But still, it would remove the whole "I couldnt do jack-squat" argument
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:34:00 - [389] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Murina I never said ECM was stacking nerfed either, i pointed out it was chance based while the others work 100% perfectly in their ranges, so long range is a must for it. Although 3 x jammers with 50% chance to jam does not = 150% chance to jam a single ship.......hardly a traditional stacking penalty but still worth mentioning. Finally you admit it. I am not admitting anything i am telling the truth, its you who lies and manipulates facts mr perma jam 3 BS.... Oh and if 50 falcons are focused on the same target then its a waste of ships and resources and utterly impractical.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:35:00 - [390] Edited by: Amira Shadowsong on 15/01/2009 21:36:11 Edited by: Amira Shadowsong on 15/01/2009 21:35:41 Originally by: Murina Oh and if 50 falcons are focused on the same target then its a waste of ships and resources and utterly impractical. That is not the point. The point is ECCM sucks. Three reasons are that it is too weak, ship size dependent and that ECM is not stacking nerfed.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 .. 16 :: 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.