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) |
Colonel Xaven
Decadence. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 10:21:00 -
[31]
Let's get rid off whiners.
Proud member of RZR - Decadence. |
TimMc
Gallente Brutal Deliverance OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 10:26:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Abrazzar So let's change ECM to be 100% effective but with a lower overall effect:
Have it reduce the maximum lockable targets by what is currently the jam chance. So instead of a 50% chance to jam as calculated by sensor strength vs jam strength it will reduce the targets that the ship can lock by 50%.
This is per ECM active but stacked (not penalized). So the next ECM active will not reduce the max locked targets by 100% but by 50% of the remaining 50% which is 25% resulting in 75% of max locked targets gone on the victim.
You need full numbers of available locks, so a max locked targets of 0.99 will not allow you to do a lock.
This would be more in line with the other ewar modules, being reliable but not 100% fatal. It'll be still better than the other ewar as it can remove a target from combat with enough jamming or more jam strength than the target's sensor strength.
Numbers might need some rebalancing but that's the best I can come up at this time.
I like this idea aswell.
Would need to make ECCM add 1 extra max target.
How about... caldari second ewar is a remote signal distrotion amp that buffs all ewar?
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 10:36:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Hugh Ruka Now I read your whine, I missed the suggestion for the new Caldari ewar.
The only part I agree with is the Scorpion overhaul ... an ECM battleship was fine in the days before Rook/Falcon, now it is just useless. Let's make it a good tier 1 comabt ship (I want a sentry drone bonused ship :-))
So untill you have a viable suggestion for a replacement ewar, don't bother (and believe me I tried to think of one, but all of them are already taken by the other races and any other ones don't make much sense).
I want to see what other people think before I list my own idea for a replacement.
A scorp with bonus only to sentries could be interesting. It would need a 175m^3 bay though.
I was thinking more 250m3 for 2 waves of Sentries ... I know it's too much for a non-Gallente ship, but both races share hybrids already with damag-range split, so the scorp could be the twin to Dominix as Rokh is to Hyperion ...
You won't see any decent suggestions for the alternate ewar, most people will try to modify ECM, so good luck ... but I will monitor the thread :-) --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed ! |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 10:43:00 -
[34]
Originally by: TimMc
Originally by: Abrazzar So let's change ECM to be 100% effective but with a lower overall effect:
Have it reduce the maximum lockable targets by what is currently the jam chance. So instead of a 50% chance to jam as calculated by sensor strength vs jam strength it will reduce the targets that the ship can lock by 50%.
This is per ECM active but stacked (not penalized). So the next ECM active will not reduce the max locked targets by 100% but by 50% of the remaining 50% which is 25% resulting in 75% of max locked targets gone on the victim.
You need full numbers of available locks, so a max locked targets of 0.99 will not allow you to do a lock.
This would be more in line with the other ewar modules, being reliable but not 100% fatal. It'll be still better than the other ewar as it can remove a target from combat with enough jamming or more jam strength than the target's sensor strength.
Numbers might need some rebalancing but that's the best I can come up at this time.
I like this idea aswell.
Would need to make ECCM add 1 extra max target.
How about... caldari second ewar is a remote signal distrotion amp that buffs all ewar?
now tell me what use this new ECM will have ? you only need 1 lock to kill the ECM ship. all the others somehow reduce your ability to harm them (lowering your operation range with damps/disruptors or removing capacitor or your movement with webs) however this new ECM will suck huge donkey balls ... way to make it worse than target painters ... --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed ! |
Pac SubCom
A.W.M
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 10:44:00 -
[35]
Notify: "Do you want to be jammed now? Be aware it might not be fun! Y/N?
In your posts you say that ECM ships are both overpowered and useless. Which one is it?
So you wait 90% of the time you pvp. Welcome to the ****ing club. --------------- ∞ TQFE
|
Shevar
Minmatar A.W.M Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 10:51:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Malcanis
tl;dr: drop ECM, rework Caldari ECM ships, let's hear your thoughts.
Yes because pure tank/spank would be so much more interesting. --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs |
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 11:01:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Originally by: TimMc I like this idea aswell.
Would need to make ECCM add 1 extra max target.
How about... caldari second ewar is a remote signal distrotion amp that buffs all ewar?
now tell me what use this new ECM will have ? you only need 1 lock to kill the ECM ship. all the others somehow reduce your ability to harm them (lowering your operation range with damps/disruptors or removing capacitor or your movement with webs) however this new ECM will suck huge donkey balls ... way to make it worse than target painters ...
The max locked targets is defined by the ship and can only be increased with a auto targeter, not with skills as those are capped by the ship. You'll need 2-3 ECMs on most ships to drop them out completely, depending on your skills, which is about similar to what is required now, only with added reliability. ECM will be effective in impairing spider tanks as no matter the amount of ECCM, the target will lose some locks. ECCM increases the sensor strength and thus reduces the amount of locks you lose but there will always be some percentage left. Exact balancing will need a lot of number crunching though, that I really can't be bothered to do. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 11:20:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka t1 PvP cruiser ... Caracal is a joke (lacks fitting for HAMs), BB is ECM speced, Moa is a sniper or lacks DPS with blasters, Osprey is a support/mining ship.
all races have at least 2 decent t1 PvP cruisers except Caldari (Vexor, Thorax, Rupture, Stabber, Omen, Arbitrator).
Caracal is an excellent T1 cruiser. But if you're fitting HAMs to it, then, quite simply, you're doing it wrong. You seem to be assuming that T1 cruisers should do one thing - tackle and EFT DPS. Well, other roles exist and, in gang, are more useful than just another close-range brawler. Fit HMLs and ewar/ECCM as a cheap and relatively effective anti-ECM platform, or AMLs to kill frigates.
Like many Caldari ships, it requires the pilot to know what he's doing and to fit for a specific role.
|
Suitonia
Gallente interimo
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 11:27:00 -
[39]
I'd like the idea of making ECM reduce max lockable targets to 1. But always work.
ECM would still be fairly effective at breaking up RR gangs which is the major concern from what I've read of weakening or changing the effect of ECM. That Armageddon you are jamming now has to choose between repping his fleet mate or doing DPS with his guns, his ewar etc, and if you switch primaries he has to unlock and lock your new primary giving you time to work on the new target before it can get rep in on it.
Overall it would change the effect of ECM to more crippling rather than completely overwhelming. Forcing your target to wait the locktime each time he locks onto a new target. It also breathes new life into Remote sensor dampeners, a combination of scan res and ECM would severly cripple a ship, instead of just bringing two Falcons for instance you'll have a much stronger effect with an Arazu/Falcon combination.
It also solves many of the complaints against ECM, about it killing solo PvP and being a get out of jail free card (the target can at least fight back against one target). That Taranis coming towards your Falcon is no longer a "gee.... guess I'll have to lose my gallente racial jammer on the enemy megathron" to forcing you to warp out. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 11:29:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Pac SubCom Notify: "Do you want to be jammed now? Be aware it might not be fun! Y/N?
In your posts you say that ECM ships are both overpowered and useless. Which one is it?
Both. They're either unanswerable or unusable. There's no situation where they're just "good".
|
|
Beverly Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 11:32:00 -
[41]
One idea of a new form of Ewar is something that debuffs a ships ability to fight.
Like a Computer Jammer, maybe when it is applied it randomly knocks some of the other persons modules offline by decreasing their CPU.
Or an alternate effect is to debuff the effectiveness of all the modules on that ship. Increase duration of active modules, debuff percentages of things like hardeners, Cap rechargers, shield rechargers, decrease drone bandwidth, etc etc.
Balance to be acheived later. Removing a person ability to fight is boring. It is a bad idea in any game to have this component.
For example, I played City of Heroes before this. The controller had the ability to "hold" people (like put them in stasis). However, due to public outcry in regards to PvP, they changed it so that after being held once, they were immune to being held for x seconds. I can't remember the exact time. Perhaps this is a good answer. Make ECM autohit, but make it so it can not be used to perma-jam a single target. Perhaps make is so that after jamming a person, that person cannot be jammed again for 2 durations(40 seconds after the start of the original jamming). So the ECM pilot can still disrupt the battle, but cannot remove anyone ship from the entire battle. ECCM could decrease the duration. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 11:33:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Colonel Xaven Let's get rid off whiners.
I think we'll find changing an MMO mechanic easier than changing humanity, but if you disagree, I'll be glad to listen to your ideas. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 11:34:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Beverly Sparks One idea of a new form of Ewar is something that debuffs a ships ability to fight.
Like a Computer Jammer, maybe when it is applied it randomly knocks some of the other persons modules offline by decreasing their CPU.
Or an alternate effect is to debuff the effectiveness of all the modules on that ship. Increase duration of active modules, debuff percentages of things like hardeners, Cap rechargers, shield rechargers, decrease drone bandwidth, etc etc.
That could be very interesting, with the caveat that the modules auto-online themselves after without requiring any cap. I kind of like that idea. |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 11:35:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Abrazzar
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Originally by: TimMc I like this idea aswell.
Would need to make ECCM add 1 extra max target.
How about... caldari second ewar is a remote signal distrotion amp that buffs all ewar?
now tell me what use this new ECM will have ? you only need 1 lock to kill the ECM ship. all the others somehow reduce your ability to harm them (lowering your operation range with damps/disruptors or removing capacitor or your movement with webs) however this new ECM will suck huge donkey balls ... way to make it worse than target painters ...
The max locked targets is defined by the ship and can only be increased with a auto targeter, not with skills as those are capped by the ship. You'll need 2-3 ECMs on most ships to drop them out completely, depending on your skills, which is about similar to what is required now, only with added reliability. ECM will be effective in impairing spider tanks as no matter the amount of ECCM, the target will lose some locks. ECCM increases the sensor strength and thus reduces the amount of locks you lose but there will always be some percentage left. Exact balancing will need a lot of number crunching though, that I really can't be bothered to do.
one sensor damp can keep you out of harm if you keep your range ... similar with tracking disruptor ... the new ECM otoh just requires the ship to relock (or does not even lose the lock) so it can kill you right there ...
there are 3 options you have:
1. total lock amount is reduced per module with empty locks being reduced first - useless ewar unless your target has more than 1 locked target
2. total lock amount is reduced per module with locked targets reduced first - target just needs a relock, similar to a burst ecm in effect - again useless
3. current lock amount is reduced only - again needs a relock only
you see in all 3 scenarios the new ECM does not deliver (except brief lock breaks) |
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 11:39:00 -
[45]
ECM is fine get rid of whining muppets instead.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 11:47:00 -
[46]
Originally by: lebrata ECM is fine get rid of whining muppets instead.
See post .42
|
Quigon Jimm
First Flying Wing Inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 11:51:00 -
[47]
Fail thread of the year
And the year is only 9 days old |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 11:56:00 -
[48]
Yes, remove ecm and make something better instead. I'm a falcon pilot myself, ecm is overpowered. |
Egenli
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 11:59:00 -
[49]
Tracking Disruptors degrade tracking quality. Sensor Damps degrade tracking range. Target painters improve tracking and damage inflicted. ECM turns tracking off.
Yeah, ECM is overpowered in comparison.
I propose that ECM should be the opposite of a target painter, it inflates the victims missile explosion radius or turret resolution. Resistance to the effect can still be the role of ECCM. Range and falloff mechanics can be put on it, like target painters.
If ECM has the role of breaking up remote repping in gang and fleet warfare, then maybe remote repping ought to have sig res and tracking mechanics enforced upon it. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 12:03:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Quigon Jimm Edited by: Quigon Jimm on 09/01/2009 11:56:28 Seriously, for EvE to be any where near true to "SciFi" warfare, ECM has to exist
With no ECM its whoever has the biggest gang with the most DPS will win. Sure, it'd be fun I guess, but very 1-dimensional.
ECM enables a smaller gang to effectively engage a stronger enemy and stand a chance of winning the fight.
I Don't want to call this a whine thread, because you make coherent points and they are valid, but I think removing ECM full stop would not be a wise move for the greater good.
I think you're conflating ECM with Electronic Warfare.
I certainly agree that Caldari should have EW, and I specifically said that they should have the best EW. I just don't think it should be like ECM is now.
What if ECM randomly retargetted active modules? |
|
Wishpool
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 12:09:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Wishpool on 09/01/2009 12:11:11 I agree with the OP that ECM as it stands is a lame mechanic. People log on to actually play, not be placed in spectator status. I was thinking of revising ECM something like this:
Have ECM work 100% of the time, but rather than jamming the entire ship just have it disable a percentage of activatable (I know, not a real word) modules. Say for example 25%. Thus if you'd have a Typhoon with the following modules available for activation:
4 - launchers 4 - autocannons 1 - web 1 - TP 1 - warp disruptor 1 - armor repper (All other slots use non-active modules.)
The opposing ship activates ECM and the following gets disabled (random picked):
1 - warp disruptor 1 - launchers 1 - armor repper
The ship is crippled, mission accomplished. Just lost his point, ability to repair, and some dps. But he can still fight in a limited capacity. This is what I'd like regular ECM to be.
The specialized ships like the Falcon/Rook can keep their awesome bonuses. Maybe slightly modified for balance or ECM stacking penalized. (Haven't worked the exact numbers.) But I'd like the end effect for a Falcon placing all it's ECM modules on the Phoon in the example above to disable all activatable modules save 1 or 2. Then the BS is pretty much taken out of the fight, but who knows? maybe he can still repair himself long enough to outlive the ECM cycle, or fire a single launcher in hopes to chase the Falcon away.
Regardless, the victim of ECM can still feel like he's playing the game. And Caldari still has by far the best EW in-game. |
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 12:11:00 -
[52]
Edited by: lebrata on 09/01/2009 12:12:15
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: lebrata ECM is fine get rid of whining muppets instead.
See post .42
See post .31
Anyway ECM is great it forces gangs to be more mobile as well as versatile instead of just relying on tank/gank slug fests. |
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 12:11:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Cohkka on 09/01/2009 12:13:01 Bravo OP. It was about time a thread like this one to come up. In fact ECM reduces the fun in EvE, we don't need more fun killing stuff we need more dynamic combat scenarios.
Originally by: Suitonia I'd like the idea of making ECM reduce max lockable targets to 1. But always work.
ECM would still be fairly effective at breaking up RR gangs which is the major concern from what I've read of weakening or changing the effect of ECM. That Armageddon you are jamming now has to choose between repping his fleet mate or doing DPS with his guns, his ewar etc, and if you switch primaries he has to unlock and lock your new primary giving you time to work on the new target before it can get rep in on it.
Overall it would change the effect of ECM to more crippling rather than completely overwhelming. Forcing your target to wait the locktime each time he locks onto a new target. It also breathes new life into Remote sensor dampeners, a combination of scan res and ECM would severly cripple a ship, instead of just bringing two Falcons for instance you'll have a much stronger effect with an Arazu/Falcon combination.
It also solves many of the complaints against ECM, about it killing solo PvP and being a get out of jail free card (the target can at least fight back against one target). That Taranis coming towards your Falcon is no longer a "gee.... guess I'll have to lose my gallente racial jammer on the enemy megathron" to forcing you to warp out.
This really is a good idea. It dosn't cripple small gangs/solo where ECM is just the win card. But I would go even thurther. There needs to be a better reason to lock more than one target in larger gangs. Maybe buff remote modules, let there be a good reason to fit them in a gang. Whishpools idea isn't bad either, don't let the thread get buried under the whines. |
Sedious Bloke
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 12:15:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Sedious Bloke on 09/01/2009 12:16:49 "Thank you for not reading my post."
You are very welcomed. Thank you for wasting my internets
The best part(before i could divert my eyes) was where you said it was worthless and overpowered within 3 sentences of each other. |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 12:21:00 -
[55]
Originally by: lebrata
Anyway ECM is great it forces gangs to be more mobile as well as versatile instead of just relying on tank/gank slug fests.
No it doesn't.
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 12:35:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: lebrata
Anyway ECM is great it forces gangs to be more mobile as well as versatile instead of just relying on tank/gank slug fests.
No it doesn't.
Yes it does.
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 12:36:00 -
[57]
Originally by: lebrata
Yes it does.
No, not really.
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 12:40:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: lebrata
Yes it does.
No, not really.
Yes it really does.
|
Naomi Knight
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 12:43:00 -
[59]
Originally by: lebrata
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: lebrata
Yes it does.
No, not really.
Yes it really does.
Ah kindergartens with net accessability ,whos idea was this? :(
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 12:44:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Naomi Knight
Originally by: lebrata
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: lebrata
Yes it does.
No, not really.
Yes it really does.
Ah kindergartens with net accessability ,whos idea was this? :(
/points
HE started it...
|
|
|
|
|
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 |