EVE Search - Let's get rid of ECM

Check My IP Information

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)
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:40:00 - [391] Edited by: Murina on 15/01/2009 21:40:51 Originally by: Amira Shadowsong 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. The point that your scenario is totally bogus and utterly unrealistic in actual combat in eve is the entire problem and it shows in your naive posting about combat. ECM is chance based instead of stacking nerfed.
SirMoric Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:48:00 - [392] Counters to ECM: Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: ECCM Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Projected ECCM Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Sensor Backup Arrays rgds
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:50:00 - [393] Originally by: Murina The point that your scenario is totally bogus and utterly unrealistic in actual combat in eve is the entire problem and it shows in your naive posting about combat. ECM is chance based instead of stacking nerfed. It does not matter that it is chance based. A chance based strong ew that is not stacking penaltized is better then non chance based ew that is stacking penaltized. Why? Because you can always dent the target ship with more power, there is no limit. Current one single ecm ship has too much jamming power for eccm to be even considered. It also is ship size dependent wich the other ewar protective modules are not. ECCM sucks ECM needs a nerf.
Major Celine	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:52:00 - [394] Edited by: Major Celine on 15/01/2009 21:53:11 Originally by: Amira Shadowsong It does not matter that it is chance based. A chance based strong ew that is not stacking penaltized is better then non chance based ew that is stacking penaltized. Why? Because you can always dent the target ship with more power, there is no limit. Current one single ecm ship has too much jamming power for eccm to be even considered. It also is ship size dependent wich the other ewar protective modules are not. ECCM sucks ECM needs a nerf. Your opinion. And I think now veryone of the 1% of eve players reading this got it.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:59:00 - [395] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Murina The point that your scenario is totally bogus and utterly unrealistic in actual combat in eve is the entire problem and it shows in your naive posting about combat. ECM is chance based instead of stacking nerfed. It does not matter that it is chance based. A chance based strong ew that is not stacking penaltized is better then non chance based ew that is stacking penaltized. Why? Because you can always dent the target ship with more power, there is no limit. So bring moar shipz!!!!! is a invalid argument for fighting against falcons, but apparently bringing a blob of falcons is fine to use as a valid reason for nerfing them????...
Syn G Gallente Interstellar eXodus	Posted - 2009.01.15 22:00:00 - [396] 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. except discophoons still use their high slots to boogie, amirite? this adapt or die bull**** is ridiculous. the only ships that have any chance to make it to a falcon before it warps are the ships that no one fits ECCM on. even then, ECCM only improves your chances, marginally against a falcon. 1 SB effectively cancels out 1 RSD. boost ECCM i think. make it an activated module, and when activated, it runs the countdown to 0. voila. balance. and ecm still doesnt have those ridiculous scripts that damps have.
Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers	Posted - 2009.01.15 22:07:00 - [397] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Murina The point that your scenario is totally bogus and utterly unrealistic in actual combat in eve is the entire problem and it shows in your naive posting about combat. ECM is chance based instead of stacking nerfed. It does not matter that it is chance based. A chance based strong ew that is not stacking penaltized is better then non chance based ew that is stacking penaltized. Why? Because you can always dent the target ship with more power, there is no limit. Current one single ecm ship has too much jamming power for eccm to be even considered. It also is ship size dependent wich the other ewar protective modules are not. ECCM sucks ECM needs a nerf. Just wanted to point out that the most resistant sub-capital to ECM is a Recon. So it's not "size" dependant Ms. Skydancer. I've stated this to you several times, and you still roll it out as the truth. You clearly do not understand HOW ECM WORKS because eBay buys you a character NOT experience.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N.	Posted - 2009.01.15 22:18:00 - [398] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong 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. 10 racials may jam a cruiser with 3 ECCM. There is a real chance that they may not. If ECM strength was additive, you would be correct. But each ECM module has it's chance to jam calculated independently of any others. Therefore there is a small but definitely non-zero chance that 3 or 6 or even 10 racials may fail to jam a cruiser. Therefore an ECCM will improve the chance of not being jammed since ECCM will always raise a cruiser's sensor strength to greater than that of any possible jamming strength. Therefore an ECCM may protect against any number of jammers; and multiple ECCMs will protect even better. Q.E.D.: Your statement is provably false.
Kurt Ambrose Caldari coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.01.15 22:21:00 - [399] Originally by: Etho Demerzel Then it is great it was there, isn't it? I mean if you had a ship that could disengage at will it would be blatantly overpowered. You mean like a falcon?
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N.	Posted - 2009.01.15 22:24:00 - [400] Originally by: Kurt Ambrose Originally by: Etho Demerzel Then it is great it was there, isn't it? I mean if you had a ship that could disengage at will it would be blatantly overpowered. You mean like a falcon? Falcons are pretty much ****ed if they're tackled. Any ship can "disengage at will" at long range. It's not like falcons have any monopoly on being aligned. So yeah Kurt: you got any ideas about something more fun than ECM for Caldari EW?

Jonas Barcal Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 22:29:00 - [401] Originally by: Malcanis So yeah Kurt: you got any ideas about something more fun than ECM for Caldari EW? I've always wanted heat cannons since they introduced the mechanic. Scale the damage correctly so heat cannons damage modules at the same rate guns generally wear out shields/armour and they'd be pretty interesting. People wouldn't be so quick to overheat their weapons / tank modules anywhere near such a weapon.
Kurt Ambrose Caldari coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.01.15 22:30:00 - [402] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Kurt Ambrose Originally by: Etho Demerzel Then it is great it was there, isn't it? I mean if you had a ship that could disengage at will it would be blatantly overpowered. You mean like a falcon? Falcons are pretty much ****ed if they're tackled. Any ship can "disengage at will" at long range. It's not like falcons have any monopoly on being aligned. So yeah Kurt: you got any ideas about something more fun than ECM for Caldari EW? Tackled = jam and warp out and no i dont :)
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.01.15 22:35:00 - [403] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong 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. Time to show your unsurpassing ignorance A maller with 3 ECCM has an overload strength of 112 A Falcon with Amarr racials has a strength of 15.12 for each, with 2 rigs and 3 distortion amplifiers II So supposing many falcons with similar setups used the right racial jammers on you to a total of 10, your chances of being jammed would be: (1-((0.865)^10)) = 76.54% Meaning that the TEN RACIALS applied over you have a 23.46% chance of NOT JAMMING YOU! Now about sensor boosters, a 10 KM frig is pretty much useless, THAT USING 2 SB, which make it impossible for ALMOST ALL FRIGS. A malediction with 3 sensor boosters has NO MWD and no disruptor, for example... ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 22:36:00 - [404] Originally by: Kurt Ambrose Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Kurt Ambrose Originally by: Etho Demerzel Then it is great it was there, isn't it? I mean if you had a ship that could disengage at will it would be blatantly overpowered. You mean like a falcon? Falcons are pretty much ****ed if they're tackled. Any ship can "disengage at will" at long range. It's not like falcons have any monopoly on being aligned. So yeah Kurt: you got any ideas about something more fun than ECM for Caldari EW? Tackled = jam and warp out Miss jam or get hit by a couple of volleys while waiting for an jammer to cycle = dead, and of course the tacklers buddies would also be in warp to him as well.....
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.01.15 22:37:00 - [405] Originally by: Kurt Ambrose Tackled = jam and warp out and no i dont :) More accurately, Tackled = pray to jam before you are dead. ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N.	Posted - 2009.01.15 22:49:00 - [406] Originally by: Jonas Barcal Originally by: Malcanis So yeah Kurt: you got any ideas about something more fun than ECM for Caldari EW? I've always wanted heat cannons since they introduced the mechanic. Scale the damage correctly so heat cannons damage modules at the same rate guns generally wear out shields/armour and they'd be pretty interesting. People wouldn't be so quick to overheat their weapons / tank modules anywhere near such a weapon. ooh that would be nice but maybe a teeny bit OP... unless it didn't affect all modules.
Jonas Barcal Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 22:56:00 - [407] Originally by: Malcanis ooh that would be nice but maybe a teeny bit OP... unless it didn't affect all modules. I wouldn't do all modules effected via one cannon I'd do different types of heat cannons that effect different types of modules so you'd decide before leaving station what you're targetting. Sure you could mix to attack weapons/tank at the same time but you'll be half as effective against both and your enemy would be killing your tank quicker the numbers details would need a ton of work and it would add another dimension to combat.
JZIM	Posted - 2009.01.15 23:25:00 - [408] Edited by: JZIM on 15/01/2009 23:33:41 Edited by: JZIM on 15/01/2009 23:28:58 Originally by: Malcanis you got any ideas about something more fun than ECM for Caldari EW? For fun? Allow jammed ships to immediately initiate lock again during the jam cycle BUT make it so the lock has a percentage chance of 'failing' and locking an incorrect target at random. The outcome would depend mainly on the intended targets attributes - (similar signature radius/sensor strength etc) and maybe the current number of active target locks on the ship ('Primary' targets have greater chance of being incorrectly locked by accident ) targets. The result? In solo/small gang situations the falcon would stop being quite so overwhelming (fewer ships with greater variety = far less chance of error) but it would keep 99%+ of its effectiveness in fleet combat. Might also help if a 'max locked targets' script was introduced for sensor boosters/damps. And if the ECM Optimal/Falloff ratio was adjusted so that falcon pilots had to think about range more (ie there was some trade-off between max jam strength and safety). Give the Scorp 6 turret points and a 5% hybrid damage bonus
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 23:37:00 - [409] Originally by: Etho Demerzel Originally by: Amira Shadowsong 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. Time to show your unsurpassing ignorance A maller with 3 ECCM has an overload strength of 112 A Falcon with Amarr racials has a strength of 15.12 for each, with 2 rigs and 3 distortion amplifiers II So supposing many falcons with similar setups used the right racial jammers on you to a total of 10, your chances of being jammed would be: (1-((0.865)^10)) = 76.54% Meaning that the TEN RACIALS applied over you have a 23.46% chance of NOT JAMMING YOU! Now about sensor boosters, a 10 KM frig is pretty much useless, THAT USING 2 SB, which make it impossible for ALMOST ALL FRIGS. A malediction with 3 sensor boosters has NO MWD and no disruptor, for example... 1. This has nothing to do with stacking penalty. 2. The 3xSBs is just an example, dont be so anal. 3. 10km frigs are not useless. Did you get that memo about QR and web nerfs? You fail. Just admit that you were wrong. ECM DOES NOT HAVE A STACKING PENALTY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND OR DO I NEED TO SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU ONE MORE TIME?
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 23:42:00 - [410] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong 2. The 3xSBs is just an example, dont be so anal. God forbid you use realistic scenarios.....

Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 23:44:00 - [411] Originally by: Murina God forbid you use realistic scenarios..... I know solo warfare is not realistic in your world.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 23:46:00 - [412] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Murina God forbid you use realistic scenarios..... I know solo warfare is not realistic in your world. Solo pvp is simple math that is decided before the fight eve starts simply by ship + fitting knowledge not skill.
JZIM	Posted - 2009.01.15 23:50:00 - [413] This forum needs an 'ignore' function
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 23:51:00 - [414] Originally by: Murina Solo pvp is simple math that is decided before the fight eve starts simply by ship + fitting knowledge not skill or in combat adaptability. Actually it's not. Pure fitting wise there can be a world of difference in small head on encounters. In fleets it's basically who has more numbers x mass of ships. Yeah you are so gooood at this game murina, such skill.
SirMoric Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2009.01.15 23:52:00 - [415] Counters to ECM: Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: ECCM Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Projected ECCM Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Sensor Backup Arrays rgds
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 23:52:00 - [416] Originally by: JZIM This forum needs an 'ignore' function Forum needs a "One forum account per game account" function + "One character per game account". Yup, that's what we actually need...
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.15 23:54:00 - [417] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: JZIM This forum needs an 'ignore' function Forum needs a "One forum account per game account" function + "One character per game account". Yup, that's what we actually need... You realize you'd need to post on Lyria then?
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 23:54:00 - [418] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Murina Solo pvp is simple math that is decided before the fight eve starts simply by ship + fitting knowledge not skill or in combat adaptability. Actually it's not. Pure fitting wise there can be a world of difference in small head on encounters. That is why solo pvpers lose ships occasionally, they cannot adapt if the target ship is not setup with the standard "i can beat it solo" fit... You do not pvp you just scout for available targets you know you can proly beat.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 23:56:00 - [419] Originally by: Murina That is why solo pvpers lose ships occasionally, they cannot adapt if the target ship is not setup with the standard "i can beat it solo" fit... You do not pvp you just scout for available targets you know you can proly beat. What do you mean they cannot adapt if the target ship is not setup with the standard? You want to switch fittings in mid fight?
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 23:57:00 - [420] Originally by: Lilith Velkor You realize you'd need to post on Lyria then? Wth are you on about? What does posting have to do with bringing up data from battleclinic?



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.